Wednesday, July 09, 2003

 

Briefing You As Information Comes In

(Lights up on a podium, which bears a large, official-looking fictional seal. A microphone rests on it, also a glass of water. ANDRE, a man in a grey suit, enters. He carries a folder bearing the same seal. He steps to the podium, opens his folder. He takes his time, and periodically takes sips of water during his speech. He smiles perfunctorily.)

ANDRE
Good morning.

There’s a man who has decided he wants you dead. He owns a gun. Smith & Wesson 40 millimeter. Lightweight. Easy to hide. He’s going to use it to kill you. I know this because he’s a talker. You should hear him go on about how he’s planning to soak your living room carpet with your blood. He’s a delight at parties. You can’t find him, because he lives in another part of the country. Don’t give your ego a fluff, thinking you can take him. He’s a skilled assassin. Cut his teeth with the CIA. Take up Lotto, you’ve got a better chance against that than this man.

There’s only one organization that can take him on, and that’s the one I speak for. So I put a question to you: do you want our organization to eliminate this man?

Of course, I could be lying. This man could be just some schlub. Some schlub who happens to own a rare Tiffany lamp that my group covets. Greed is a powerful motive behind many organizations, why not mine? It makes more sense that we should covet a rare Tiffany lamp, than a man from distant parts should be interested in shuffling you off the mortal coil.

But this man with the lamp, you should know that he mistreats his wife and son. He shoves large metal bolts through their feet, and binds the bolts together with thick leather cord. They can’t escape. The cops won’t do anything about it, either. He’s money man, a big shot. He owns a Tiffany lamp. The cops are in his pocket. So he just merrily rolls along.

MORE...

New York Times, July 8, 2003: Bush Claim on Iraq Had Flawed Origin, White House Says (registration req'd)

UPDATE: A source supporting the above-mentioned article has been discredited (via Instapundit.) I think that this development emphasizes the theme (dread word) of the monologue, but I wanted to make sure the record was straight. Not that this is a site where you should get your news from.

Next up: I expose a toxic waste dump on Long Island Sound -- in iambic pentameter!

posted by Dan 6:18 PM
|

Monday, July 07, 2003

 

The Friend Doing Theatre

I’ve been reading The Structuralist, playwright Jeffrey Cranor’s thoughtful blog. There’s a post describing an exchange between actor David Schwimmer and some graduating students at Northwestern University. They key moment comes after Schwimmer discusses a dilemma of identity to his audience. Seemingly unable to relate to what he was saying, some twit in the audience followed up his confession with the question, "Did you ever have a crush on Jennifer Aniston?"

Jeffrey uses this exchange to discuss television’s corrosive effect on the actor/audience relationship. I hear him. Still, I believe that the relationship has changed not only because of television, but also because of the altered role of theatre in our society.

Time was, if you wanted to see a story acted out, you either went to the theater, or sat by yourself with some hand-puppets (a noble hobby). It didn’t matter how challenging or diverting the event was, it had to be done on the boards. Looking to give your intellect a workout? Or are you in the mood for mindless entertainment? How about just staring at the hookers working the balcony? The entire range of cultural impulse was contained in one of those beautiful, highly combustible theaters. Theatre was the ideal high school senior -- academically gifted, physically attractive, and so very popular.

Then the media of film and television came along, and siphoned off most of the customers who preferred the “mindless entertainment” portions of theatre. Film and TV could do that song and dance better. From the end of the nineteenth century to about the middle of the twentieth (a relatively short period of time), theatre was stripped (or freed) of the requirements dictated by its role as purveyor of popular culture. It wasn’t popular anymore. No one was taking it to the prom.

In this environment, theaters no longer had to retain those audience members who just wanted a little fun; they were long out the door. New ideas and approaches could blossom. Never before was it possible for a playwright to deliberately and openly alienate the audience without committing career suicide. Artists like Jerzy Grotowski could declare that they only wanted an audience that came to be challenged and changed by the performance. Many of today’s theatre artists come to the form for reasons like these. Because theatre isn’t necessarily easy. It might demand a pound of your flesh.

Most people aren’t interested in that. I’m often not interested in that. I love theatre in a way that’s sick and sad, but sometimes I get home from work, and all I want to do is giggle at shiny things. Maybe people prefer easy fun because living is hard, or because we’re all deeply flawed. Maybe the human taste for crap is the real engine behind Gresham’s Law. But for whatever reason, the things that theatre does best (and by theatre I don’t just mean plays, but most live performance) are not the things that most people go looking for on a Friday night.

Which brings me to Schwimmer. I don’t know much about him, as an actor or as a celebrity, but if he’s anything like what Jeffrey describes, he’s playing two games at once. He plays the theater game to nourish his soul. He plays the TV game to pay for the theatre game, and probably a nice sports car and college educations for the Schwimmer progeny. Because the latter pursuit appeals to a wider range of the population than the former, plop him in this room of graduating students, and you’re more likely to hear questions about “Friends” than about Mary Zimmerman’s production of "The Secret in the Wings". Most of the room knows Schwimmer as the funny guy from "Friends." They assume that the show is his whole life, since it occupies their total mindshare devoted to him.

This seems to reveal a society mired in devotion to the facile. But I believe that, at any point in history, a majority of the audience didn’t want to confront the complexities of another human being when they went to the Big Show. They wanted fun, thrills, diversion. It's only recently that the notion of theatre exisiting purely as an "artistic experience" came to be. Anything that is primarily devoted to a real confrontation or relationship between actor and audience requires intimacy and vulnerability from both. It’s hard enough to get that out of actors. Who would actually pay for a ticket just to have such demands made of them?

UPDATE: Mmm, upon second helping, the taste of soapbox marinade suffusing the meat really comes through...One thing I want to clarify: I don't mean to say that film and TV can't be challenging to the viewer. They're just better at immersing the audience in another reality. That's what escapist entertainment is all about.

posted by Dan 4:47 PM
|

 

I've made a format change to the site. The new look should make it easier to browse the scenes on the blog. It should also take care of Blogger's complaints about my long posts.

When I was in school, my friends would joke about the length of my plays. "Going to see Dan's play? Pack a lunch." "I used the script to brain a rhino!" Et Cetera. I suspect that Blogger is making the same jokes, in its own way.

posted by Dan 12:32 PM
|