We watched Samuel Beckett's "Krapp's Last Tape" in light design class today. It was "Beckett Directs Beckett" with Rick Churley(?) as Krapp for some San Quentin theatre group. I don't think they're affiliated with the maximum security prison.

- I fail to see the attraction of putting such performances on video. I like how Beckett's work involves a nearer totality of my senses when I am watching it -- in a theatre, live and in person. The rhythms of the play created through sound (the tape-- breathing-- walking-- those heavy steel tape cases that get thrown all over the set-- the manipulation of the tape's playback speed........sorry, you get my point) ...... were horrifically filtered through the tiny speaker in the television. The medium seemed almost self-mocking given the specific actions of Krapp in this play. I guess that could be what Beckett is aiming at, but I think this play works best on the stage.

- I am developing a dearer appreciation of this genre we call "absurdism". It makes me think about so many things when I am watching it. In Krapp I love the time distortion that Beckett imposes on the pace. The swinging light, the bright yellow tag sticking up from the reels that revolves SO slowly, the rate of the actor's delivery and movements...

- Krapp makes me think about my own mortality. I recognize his need to hold on dearly to the sum of his existence -- I also recognize the nonsensical yet deeply emotional manner in which he recalls and views his life.

- By manifesting a living breathing metaphor on the stage I think Beckett actually draws me in deeper to the world of his play. I become aware of the conventions of the theatre. Then I am invited to let those conventions inform my senses and my thoughts at a higher level. I witness an actor portraying a man who is representative of an idea. I acknowledge that I, too, am flesh and blood like the actor and the man he portrays. I am touched by the representative idea and its significance to my tangible existence, my prescient, thinking self. Like Krapp, I want there to be a happy ending. I am craving a tidy ending that will let me know that, in the end, all is indeed well.

???

Under the "short notice" category:

I am going to NCTC in Raleigh on Saturday to recruit. I am leaving around 4:00 on Friday afternoon, and returning probably early Sunday morning. Pat Snoyer was originally slated to go with me, but is unable to do so. While I can staff a booth, I wouldn't be able to attend the auditions (which in many ways wouldn't be a loss). Anyway, Rob asked if I wanted to take any of the DDS with me. You would probably need to be at the table most of the day chatting up anybody who came by looking for info, as well as the auditionees I called back. Brian, this doesn't leave you out, since I'll be in Raleigh -- if you would like to hang at the table, that would be cool. Anyway, let me know if you want to go. The department would pay for your motel room.

Scott

Brian wrote: When I want to cheer up I watch "Miracle on 34th Street"- one of my favorite films OR even "It's a Wonderful Life." Both films concern the importance of friendship, community, and hope. It's amazing that these themes are so devoid in much of the art today.

It is amazing. But I also think that some of the despair I see in young people comes from some of the "positive" films and TV shows as well. One of two things happen: either we see a hero who fights valiantly for a cause, but then is defeated (say, "Braveheart"), or (worse, in my opinion) we see TV shows and films where difficult problems are overcome easily and fully. The former makes people think that only martyrs can change anything, and the latter makes people frustrated if a problem can't be solved immediately, or if only a partial solution is possible. "Miracle on 34th St" and "It's a Wonderful Life" have a lot of ambiguity and complexity, which contributes to their healing effects. Nothing in George's life changes except his understanding the impact he has had through doing small things. This is why I like Our Town: the message is that we need to learn to see the miracles of small, everyday things. Once you have made the leap to belief, then you can face other challenges. Without faith in humanity's goodness, you are paralyzed.

Scott

Tonight was a movie night in my freshman seminar Hero's Journey class. We were watching "Michael," the John Travolta movie in which Travolta plays an angel sent down to give William Hurt back his heart. It was a good movie for me to see today, given my dispiritedness, since it is a movie about the joy of life. At one point, William Hurt demands of Travolta why angels don't solve more big problems. Travolta gestures for them to put their heads close to his, and says, "You can't change the nature of the world." "What can you change?," he's asked. His reply: "Small miracles. Only a few of them." It was a line I had heard before (I've watched this movie every time I teach the class), but it hadn't really had an impact. Today, it occurred to me that perhaps it is the answer to the despair I've noticed. If what Brian says is right, that teachers present the massive problems of the world as insurmountable, perhaps students need to be told that they can't (and aren't expected to) change the nature of the world, but perhaps they could undertake small miracles, a few of them. Perhaps this is an easy way out, but it eased my soul a little tonight.

Scott

I have been very dispirited of late as a result of talking to the young people in my classes. Not for the usual reasons -- not because they're not really devoting intellectual energy to their assignments, not because they aren't deep thinkers (one doesn't expect great wisdom for 22-year-olds -- if something wise comes out, it is sort of like watching a dog walk on its hind legs: (as Samuel Johnson once said) they don't do it well, but the fact that they do it at all is amazing) -- no, it is the level of cynicism and despair that is getting me down.

It's not that my students are moping around whining -- they're not at all. They are all mostly cheerful, upbeat, and charming. But scratch below the surface, and darkness gapes open. When confronted with anything that calls for altruism or innocence, the anger that comes out is frightening. Iguess it is "cool" to be cynical now. To have hope, to believe that things can get better, to see oneself (or anyone) as capable of making things better in our world -- well, not only is that belief almost non-existent, but there is actually an eye-rolling disgust about the whole thing.

This comes out most violently when religion is discussed. The level of anger exhibited by those who oppose religion is truly astonishing. It rivals the level of anger exhibited by divorced people toward their former spouses -- and perhaps that is an apt analogy. One almost gets a sense of personal betrayal. The idea that the universe could be benevolent -- a thought sometimes expressed by traditionally-religious people as "God will provide" -- is rejected out of hand. Nothing good will happen unless you go out and wrest it from the world. The world is seen as a deeply hostile place where one must focus on protecting oneself and getting your own. The world of full of Shui Tas, and the Shen Tes are objects of ridicule.

You all are probably aware that I don't subscribe to any formal religion, but I am very spiritual. It seems to me that the type of nihilism I am seeing is created by, and fully supports, the post-industrial capitalist society we live in. Without a spiritual base, without a sense of purpose that goes beyond self-protection and self-aggrandizement, without a value system that recognizes the positive force of sacrifice, without a belief in the perfectability of humanity, all that is left is the mind-numbing consumerism that is destroying our souls and our world.

It seems to me that Big Business, through the media particularly, has successfully brainwashed us to think that nihilism is sophisticated, hopelessness is intellectual, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a wide-eyed Pollyanna who doesn't know how the world works. One of the reasons that I had a hard time making a list of plays I wanted to do is because there were very few I could think of that had any hope. Seen through this lens, the election of George W is fully understandable, and the citizenry's support of him despite revelation after revelation of lying, cheating, cronyism, manipulation, and sheer stupidity and venality makes total sense. We have no belief in the eternal verities: truth, justice, virtue, benevolence, altruism.

I am certain that there are many who can show how nihilism is the only philosophy a thinking person can hold. But I think without a firm faith in the traditional virtues -- without a belief that there is right and wrong morally and ethically -- the possibility of bettering the world is well-nigh impossible. And into the vacuum where this belief used to be will, I guarantee you, rush more venal, brutal, self-serving, destructive villains.

This is not a matter of politics -- it is bigger than that. It is a matter of spirit, of courage, of faith. It is a matter of a worldview. And while a cynical opting-out in disgust may seem like the intelligent course, it simply gives the field over to those who would exploit the world for their own gain. We are fiddling with our intellectual superiority while Rome burns.

I only have the vaguest idea of how to counteract this slide toward nihilism. I suspect it can only happen by setting an example, and by affecting one mind at a time. It almost feels like a religious quest, attempting to restore faith in a world that lacks it. Perhaps a door-to-door campaign distributing an intellectual "Watchtower" is in order. Or perhaps we need to be seeking out, in the nooks and crannies of America, those people who live a life of hope -- the people who are not being shown in the mass media, but who still believe in the good, the right, and the virtuous.

I don't know what I want from you. I just needed to express my sadness, my fears, and my frustrations.

Scott

Brian -- Don't drop everything you're doing, but I would love to have a copy of "Our Town." I don't watch TV enough to know when things are coming on, so I missed it.

Laura F passed "Spinning Into Butter" to me last year, and I only read the first half hour of so of it. It seemed sort of...simple-minded. Does it get better as the show goes on?

Scott

Goodnight Desdemona, Good Morning Juliet - author?
Spinning Into Butter - Rebecca Gilman
Sexual Perversity in Chicago - Mamet w/ companion piece (Maybe Baraka's Dutchman?)
Fen - Caryl Churchill

This was difficult for me. Here are some -- I may change tomorrow:

Oresteia
Good Woman of Setzuan
Life Is a Dream
A Touch of the Poet
Our Town
Cloud Nine
A Lie of the Mind
The Tempest
Pericles
Anna of the Tropics

The Homecoming - Harold Pinter
Marisol - Jose Rivera
The Tempest - William Shakespeare
King Lear - William Shakespeare
Richard III - William Shakespeare
The Bacchae - Euripedes
Phaedra - Racine
The Ring Cycle - Richard Wagner
Big Love - Charles L Mee
Ubu Roi - Alfred Jarry
Happy Days - Samuel Beckett
Marat/Sade - Peter Weiss

that's all I can think of right now...notice any similarities? everytime I finish a show I get this burning desire to do a show on some gargantuan majestic scale...

The review is online at www.main.nc.us/theater

I don't care. I refuse to be embarrassed by your praise. In fact, I'll cry if I want to--it's my party.

Thanks, Scott. That means a lot to me.

Jess

DDS had a good meeting at lunch discussing Jess's productions. Given that most of the time was spent on elements that were considered problematic, I just want to go on record in writing as saying that I thought Jess did an excellent job directing both plays. He took extremely challenging, ambiguous scripts and created productions that had a clear vision shaping them. He helped actors to create excellent performances that fit together to for m a cohesive whole. Did I differ on a few of his choices? Sure. But when I am arguing about the choices, it is a sign that the production has had the benefit of a sure hand at the helm. Instead of talking about being bored, or frustrated because the play's intricacies weren't being explored, I could focus on a few details. In short, it was a pleasure to sit in the audience and sense from early on that I was going to see a sure-handed production. Craft. A sense of detail. A sense of choices being made for a reason, and to make a particular point. I applaud Jess's work, and his devotion to putting the show into an off-campus space and seeing all of the details through himself, and with great competence. I think he represented UNCA well, and I was impressed by his development as a director and an artist.

Scott

DDS -- I spoke to Nate as I left the theatre last night, and he is intending to come to a DDS lunch, but not tomorrow. I guess following in the recent DDS tradition...

Jess, I think you need to take a step back and think about WHY the attendance "stinks." First of all, I don't think it DOES stink. I think you are doing pretty well for a new venture without advertisement or newspaper coverage in a theatre space that is hard to find doing work that is not exactly a Big Name. We have a built-in audience on campus (something we sometimes don't appreciate), and you benefitted from it with "My Thing of Love." It doesn't transfer. But think of how many people "Loot" was playing to -- was it that much more than what you are?

You must do the work for the work. This is a very Kantian idea that I think is the cornerstone of maintaining sanity in the theatre. While your goal is to communicate, and to make people want to see your show, you must do the work for the work. The work must be an end in itself. You did a very good job directing the shows, and that doesn't change no matter whether 1 person sees it or a million. That ought to be enough. It isn't right now, but if you are going to maintain your sanity, that is the attitude that will most help you.

I'll see you Monday. 11:30. Urban Burrito.

Scott

I think that any artist worth a damn needs to realize that it is exactly that "fear" that pushes them to greatness. It is foolish to think one can embrace any new situation, artistically, personally, or otherwise without it. You must know how much you do not know in order to learn what you need to learn.

Rob Bowen has said to me that before he starts any project he always has a moment where he thinks, "Is this the show where everyone finally finds out that I really don't know what I'm doing?"

I have the same feeling everytime I walk into a meeting, a rehearsal room, everytime an actor asks me a question for which I have no answer...

Sometimes it makes me cry, sometimes it makes me ashamed, sometimes it makes me scared...

It ALWAYS makes me want to work harder.

Let me extend my apologies as well. I am taking the poor attendance at these shows pretty hard, And, finding out within hours of the show that neither Kate nor Brian would be attending drove me further into dispair. I spent the day moping and would have been poor company.

These are not excuses - at least not good ones. I feel shitty about bowing out of our plans. Please accept my apology, everyone.

While this experience is serving to restrengthen my dedication to theatre (I know I said I was discouraged, but that is only helping to recharge my burning desire to make theatre...) I DO feel that DDS is suffering from a kind of group irrelevancy.

I will continue to carry on the theatrical discussion with whomever wishes to do so on Mondays at 11:30 am at our favorite burrito joint. In addition, I pledge to persist in producing, directing, acting, designing and discussing theatre. I hope that some of you will feel inspired to join me.

I understand we have a guest speaker tomorrow at DDS. Nate Jurashek has some questions for us -- I expect to see everyone there!

(how's that for a typical Jess Wells-180-degree-spin in word and deed?)

Well, great. Brian isn't coming, Jess "bows out" (without apology or explanation, which I think is pretty crappy), and Jess is Kate's ride so who knows if she'll be there. I assume Jennifer isn't coming. since she's in the show. Who does that leave? Me, John and Lachlan, neither of whom have confirmed that they're coming (although John told me he was planning on it a day or two ago). Well, Laura, Chuck and I will be at the original place, the Mellow Mushroom, at 6:30. We'll have fun together if nobody else shows up. Perhaps DDS is becoming irrelevant...

Grumpily,
Scott

what's a "transgressive signifier"?

I'll see you all at the show tonight (I hope)

I'm bowing out of our dinner plans.

No - let's make it five - and I would suggest Barley's instead of the Mushroom - the sevice is MUCH faster and the pizza is better.

If we meet at six thirty, that only gives us one hour until the house opens, and I need to be there before that for photo call.

Five? Yay or Nay...

Brian - are you planning on coming in?

Does anyone else have plans to come? Can someone pick up Kate? Kate - what's your phone#?

Turn out for the plays has been SHITTY. 12 the first night and 10 tonight. It's too bad - it's a good show. There is a review on line at www.main.nc.us/theater if you all are interested in reading an unbiased opinion of our work.

And hey, at least no one fell off our stage! That means I'm one up on Dracula!

FYI - I was just offered a role tonight in one of NC Stage's shows this spring that Pat Snoyer is directing-- "MVP: The Jackie Robinson Story". No, I'm not playing Jackie.

What time shall we meet at the Mellow Mushroom? 6:30?

Scott

Brian -

I didn't mean to sound so laissez-faire about you coming this weekend. I really want you to be here for these shows. If it makes it easier, I can give you directions to my house so's you can go straight there friday pm and work on your paper. You're welcome to use my computer and any other resources I have available.

Talk to you soon!
Jess

Brian -- An interesting quotation about Kazan. Nice explanation of some of the resentment.

Scott

OK, I remember there was talk of a DDS night of Pinter. Was it Friday or Saturday? Were we getting together before or after? Since we have such lousy planning skills, this ought to take up about a week...

A proposal: we all go to the show on Saturday and have a pre-show meal together somewhere downtown -- say, the Mellow Mushroom. After the show is optional. How does this sound?

Scott

Curtain is 8 pm on Fri. Certainly hope you can make it up - but we all understand having too much work to do...

I'll be at NC Stage at that point Fri. You're welcome to come down and see it then as well as Sat with DDS. Otherwise I'll see you after the show - (about 10:30).

Jess

Absolutely. My phone # is 298-9484, although I am rarely there, I do check my messages. This board is probably the best way for us to make arrangements. Just so you know - I live in Swannanoa, across the street from Warren Wilson College (18 minutes from UNCA).

Look forward to seeing you - let me know what time I should expect you. We can probably meet at school, or at least in town, as that is where I spend most of my time...

Jamie Jambon works for Poetry Alive! and is doing a six month stint on a Grand Jury in Asheville. She was in Jeremy's sitcom for five weeks.

Jeremy works at the Cyber Cafe during the day. He is still pumping out a new Manor Daze script each week. The are on episode 14, I believe. For episode twenty, he and Tommy Calloway are writing an hour long X-mas musical, which I will be directing and producing. I'm hoping to stage it at the NC Stage Co, but that's still up in the air. Our default is the Artist's Resource Center -- where he's been working for the past 14 weeks. Turn out is steadily growing for each weekly episode - he's hasn't had less than a full house in weeks, and is looking to do a second twenty-episode season this spring in a larger space.

His writing is getting much stronger (and funnier) - he is experimenting with breaking normal theatrical conventions and embracing social satire as well. I think this is important theatre in that it is new and engaging. Go Jeremy! who'd a thunk it, huh?

[Ignoring Jess's last post.]

You all may not realize it, but the things you have written are wonderful. I think I can say, without exaggeration, that they are the culmination of a year and a half of discussions. They are not "simplistic and generic," they are direct, simple, and very powerful. An ideal personal artistic ststement should be able to fit on the back of a business card, so that you can carry it in your wallet and refer to it every once in a while to keep you on track.

Brian, your search is very, very important. Keep it in your wallet until you feel you have found a starting point -- not the final answer, but one that you can subscribe to now until things change. Remember Emerson -- say what you believe today in words as hard as cannonballs, and say what you believe tomorrow equally strongly, regardless of whether you contradict what you said previously. It is ijmpossible to be a great artist unless you know who you are.

Jess, quit feeling your ideas are generic and simplistic unless they are said in high-flown or "passionate" language. The most profound line that Peter Brook wrote is the first line of The Empty Space (look it up): it is simple, direct, and important. For yourself: keep it simple, so you can remember it.

Excellent work, everybody.

Scott

I want to do plays --- instead of NOT doing plays.

I want to do plays that people will recognize as containing a part of their own personal truth.

I want to do plays that :

allow me to sleep in at least once a week (from Jennifer)

start conversations, not plays that end them.

that folks come to see

that challenge me as an artist

----

the problem with baby steps is that after I type the one line I find everything to be simplistic and generic. I do mean these things, though.

Hey, that was my next baby step! Brian, you are so mean. --Scott

Now, now, now -- no actual personal artistic statements, just one-sentence baby steps.

Here's a start for you, Brian: I want to be like my idols, Orson Welles and Elia Kazan -- a talented, abusive, and cowardly genius that nobody likes... [I'm kidding! I'm kidding!]

Scott

A baby step toward a personal artistic statement:

I don't want to do plays about hurt feelings.

Your turn. Take a baby step toward a personal artistic statement. Write one sentence that begins: I want to do plays... or I don't want to do plays...

Scott

I'm wondering... is there any interest in focusing our discussion on the latest issue of American Theatre? It has some interesting things in it that might be intriguing to discuss. I know it is very teacherly of me to suggest a reading assignment, and I'm not saying we should focus on anything specific, but rather that we post about things in the magazine that catch our mind and imagination...

Scott

I wish I thought the basis for this policy was religion, because at least then it would be based on some sort of morality, however intolerant. It seems to me that everything about the Bush administration is about money: making it, protecting it, and using it to silence those who don't have any. And we've gotten to a point where Joe American thinks only in those terms as well, but just isn't educated enough in independent, critical thinking to realize that he's getting screwed.

Theatre, it seems to me, is based on morality: How shall we live, as Aristotle asks. Almost every play is about this issue. And it is a question that is becoming increasingly irrelevant, and consequently so it theatre becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Cause for despair? No, I think it is a cause for some clear thinking, powerful insights, complex emotions, and generous intellect. I think it means that, when we are among our theatre buddies, we talk about these issues, and about our role in the national conversation. I think it means that, when we are around our families and friends, we try to inject some critical thinking into the conversation, some morality, some values, some sense that somebody believes something and is willing to stand up for those beliefs. It can be done with humor, but firm humor. It's difficult -- I don't do it most of the time. It wears me out. And I feel ashamed because of that. It is easy to know what we should do, harder to live it.

Can patriotism ever threaten our liberties?

Walter Cronkite
nationally syndicated columnist


President Bush's televised answer to the growing concerns of many -
including some Republicans - about the powers granted to him in the USA
Patriot Act was to ask for even stronger measures, particularly the
expanded use of "nonjudicial subpoenas." That means a federal agency such
as the FBI can write its own subpoenas to conduct a search - no judges
needed.

Security and liberty, unfortunately, involve an inevitable trade-off: To
increase security is to decrease liberty and vice versa. In the past, such
trade-offs have been temporary - for the duration of the crisis of the
moment. But today, we cannot see an end to the war on terrorism, and that
forces us to decide how secure we have to be and how free we want to be.

By delivering the speech last week himself, Bush added presidential heft to
the issue and took some of the heat off of his attorney general, who is
seen by many as the heedless champion of security at any price.

In his two and a half years in office, Attorney General John Ashcroft has
earned himself a remarkable distinction as the Torquemada of American law.
Tom?s de Torquemada, you might recall, was the 15th-century Dominican friar
who became the grand inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition. He was largely
responsible for its methods, including torture and the burning of heretics
- Muslims in particular.

Now, of course, I am not accusing the attorney general of pulling out
anyone's fingernails or burning people at the stake (at least I don't know
of any such cases). But one does get the sense these days that the old
Spaniard's spirit is comfortably at home in Ashcroft's Department of
Justice.

There was something almost medieval in the treatment of Muslim suspects in
the aftermath of 9-11. Many were held incommunicado, without effective
counsel and without ever being charged, not for days or weeks, but for
months or longer, some under harsh conditions designed for the most
dangerous criminals.

It was in the spirit of the Inquisition that the Justice Department
announced recently that it would begin gathering data on judges who give
sentences lighter than called for by legislative guidelines. Nothing so
clearly evokes Torquemada's spirit as Ashcroft's penchant for overruling
U.S. attorneys who have sought lesser penalties in capital cases. The
attorney general has done this at least 30 times in the two and a half
years he has been in office. So says the Federal Death Penalty Resource
Counsel. In several cases, Ashcroft actually has overturned plea bargains
negotiated by those government prosecutors.

The New York Times editorialized that the attorney general seems to want
the death penalty used more often.

Ashcroft is not alone in this. His boss, while governor of Texas, seemed
never to have met a death sentence he didn't like. The two of them
represent a subdivision of the Republican Party known as the "social
conservatives," who often have favored the use of government power to
police moral issues they view as modern heresies, such as abortion,
homosexuality and obscenity. They contrast with those Republicans who tend
to resist such uses of federal power and can generally be counted on to
defend individual rights.

What makes this administration's legal bloodthirstiness particularly
alarming is the almost religious zeal that seems to drive it. So, what we
are seeing now is a confluence of two streams of American thought. One of
those streams represents those who believe security must have priority over
civil rights. The other stream represents those who believe that civil
rights must be preserved even as we prosecute to the hilt the war on
terrorism.

Our liberty could drown in the turbulence of these colliding currents.

[Jess -- I suggest you send this article to your parents...]

I concur: nice post, Kate.

Concerning the lack of press coverage: Kazan was an important artist in a minority art form (theatre) a long time ago, and he did a few important films. He also wrote a few best selling novels that were eminently forgettable. He gave up the theatre nearly a half century ago, and directing films decades ago. He has had no public identity for a long time. I am sure he will get his due in the next issue of "American Theatre," but for mainstream America, he's nobody anybody knows. Getting a few paragraphs in a newspaper, and 5 minutes on NPR is about right. Edward Said died last week, too -- an important intellectual in many areas. How much coverage did he get?

I think the issue that is being explored here, once it is separated from Kazan, is this: in the face of injustice and tyranny, how much are you willing to sacrifice? It is a question that ought to make us all uncomfortable. Joseph McCarthy was the John Ashcroft of the 1950s. The Red Scare of the 50s is strikingly similar to the Terrorist Scare happening now. Like then, Americans were willing to give up a lot of their liberties (or at least, the liberties of other people) in order to feel more "secure." Walter Cronkite wrote an article on this question, which I will paste above. This is a scary time to be an American. We may soon be asked to make similar decisions to Kazan's in the 50s. What will we do? How much will we sacrifice for a vision of an America that is free, just, and fair? I think it is fitting that Kazan should die now, as a reminder of another time that bears a frightening resemblance to today. And so the passion of my response reflects the fear I am feeling today for America. This is more than just Republican vs Democrat. This is about whether America will be a democracy or a tyranny, a positive force in the world or an evil empire. This is about whether intelligent, educated people will stand up and demand that our leaders do what is right, or whether we will simply protect our personal interests. Prime Minister Chamberlain thought that he was doing the right thing in mollifying Hitler; Kazan thought he was doing the right thing in his response to HUAC; now we have the Department of Homeland Security and John Ashcroft as Attorney General. Who will be a hero in the face of this new evil?

Scott