Well, I think all of Ibsen's main characters are Ibsen -- he seemed to use his plays to work out his own struggles. But wait until the end -- the end is the part that turns everything upside down.

Scott

I'm in the third act - maybe Brand is Ibsen?

Jess

Kate and Jess -- Have either of you had a chance to read Brand yet? I finished over the weekend. Still trying to figure out just what Ibsen is trying to get at...

Scott

Kate wrote: " Ibsen's always fun."

This is a sentence that has never before been written in the history of the last century. Kate is breaking new ground as always! Congrats!

Scott

Sure - I'm up for it. Can you get me a copy of the script?

Jess

I am a bit wary about giving reading "assignments" (not just because DDSers tend to be resistent, but also because I never know when I will have time to do it myself), but does anybody have any interest in discussing a play? I have been doing some preparatory reading about Ibsen, and my curiosity has been piqued by one of his early plays: Brand. Any takers?

Scott

I think you are right on, Scott. It is just as important to talk about the work as it is to do it. Theatre cannot reach the same mass audience as film or TV, its strength (live art) is also its weakness in this respect. Thus, Gutenberg is my new nomination for sainthood in the theatre. It is of great, even exponential, importance that we develop a clear vision for theatre into this next century. The first half of the 21st century is ours to shape as we will. We must have vision and the strength of our convictions--and be able to express these to the public.

Jess

The Group Theatre, the Royal Court, the Royal Shakespeare Co -- these all made important contributions to the history of theatre and contributed great actors to the world's stages. But keep in mind: these were only a small part of the picture. The "theatre scene" that surrounded the Group was just as ignoble as our own, and during its own time the Group Theatre was not honored any more than anyone else producing plays on Broadway. It seems to me that history is made by a few artists with vision who have long and productive careers, and who write about what they did. Clurman, Hagen, Brook, Hall, St. Denis -- and long before them, Stanislavski, Meyerhold, Craig, Copeau, Shaw, Granville-Barker... If you want inspiration, read "The Fervent Years" AND one of the books written about the Royal Court. Then if you want encouragement for new beginnings, read "Stages in the Revolution," which is about all the small, politically-oriented theatres of the 1960s and 1970s in England who contributed most of the major talents of those decades. Then start working AND start writing!

Scott

Is acting still the noble calling it was as of, say, fifty years ago? Where are the groups embracing, enhancing and utilizing the best new talent? Where are the Ben Kingsleys, the Judi Denches and the Uta Hagens of the 21st century? Is it worth studying their rises, or is it essentially a different paradigm in this day and age?

Jess

That would change the alignment of the planets or something.

seas boiling, pillars of fire, students that read the texts and turn in assignments on time...

JW

I knew I couldn't have been agreeing with Jess... --Scott

Damn - I was hoping to take credit for that piece of brilliance. I curse you, Mr Jacobs, and all of your ilk...

Jess

Okay - that's probably best.

Anyone else going to be able to meet on Mondays?

Jess

That's right! I did talk to Mary from "The Music Lesson," and she was thrilled. I'll have to email her. Malcolm is a freshman, but I think is older than freshman age. He was in my Theatre History class, and bought the LeSabre. I think he has all the DDS traits: really smart, opinionated, and a little scary at first. Has a wicked wit. He's attending part-time, I think. Maybe that is enough -- we'll hold off on Julia Cunningham for the time being.

Scott

Howzabout that one girl from "The Music Lesson"? What's her name?

I can ask Julia as I have a rehearsal with her on Wed....

Who is Malcolm Knighten? Me no listen good.

Also, I can do Mon after 11:00.

Jess

Folks -- The only lunch I have available is Monday. Who's free?
I asked Malcolm Knighten, who seemed interested. Kate has given the nod to Julia Cunningham, although the subject hasn't been broached to Julia. We shold check with Ryan again.

Scott

When can we meet this semester? Who is going to join our group?

Jess

"People say that what we are all seeking is a meaning for life," Campbell observed. "I don’t think that’s what we are really seeking... I think what we are seeking is an experience of being alive."
-- Jospeh Campbell

Is this a way of thinking about drama, too?

Scott

Jess --
That is exactly what I am trying to say -- you hit it square on the head. It is not either/or but both/and. This is where I find myself in disagreement with David Mamet. Like Strasberg before him, Mamet wants to focus on only half of the equation -- opposite halves, but a half nonetheless. As a corrective, Mamet's ideas are necessary. But I think the true answer is to synthesize the two -- as a director, the insist on both aspects.

Your analysis of "Rocky" is a good one, Brian. The external battle is the physicalization of an internal need. In many respects, the external battle is a metaphor for the internal need. And maybe that is another way to think about it. Maybe what I am interested in at the moment are works that create an external metaphor for an internal process, rather than addressing the internal process directly. A character looking inwardly is moved to action that puts his spiritual/emotional state out there in some way.

Does that make any sense?

Scott

OK, I'm going to say something that initially may sound a bit nuts, but maybe I can explain it in such a way that is seems worthwhile...And with that low-status disclaimer, here I go:

I don't think there is such a thing as "internal conflict." What passes for internal conflict, if I'm not mistaken, is when a character struggles within himself over something. But he is struggling over some action. "Should I do X or not." But it seems to me that there is still an external obstacle -- the thing that should be done -- that is what the character is struggling against.

At the same time, what passes for "external conflict" also is a misnomer. X wants something, and Y tries to prevent him from getting it -- but there is still a psychological aspect to the struggle. The protagonist struggles against the opposing force body and mind. So Jess' observation about a triangle holds true. But I think that actors need to find both the external and the internal conflict, because each supports and strengthens the other.

What makes a conflict interesting or not are the stakes. The ramifications of making a wrong choice. Epic myths deal with enormous stakes: the fate of humanity, the lives of an army and society. Even with a seeming small myth like, say, Abraham and Isaac, the stakes are not only the life of a son, or the faith of a father, but also the fate of the Jews -- if Abraham makes the wrong choice, the pact with God will not be.

Now I am trying to think of films that I appreciate -- does this hold? I don't know. Is The Shawshank Redemption simply about an innocent man convicted of a crime he didn't commit? Or is it the struggle of an individual against a dehumanizing system that attempts to rob him of all hope?

Or is it both?

Scott

Actually, Orson Scott Card is not that small a name in SciFi circles, and with his book "Rebekkah", he is starting to make a national name for himself (he has a brand new one out too, but the title escapes me...) His "Ender's Game" is on my "all-time must read" list. Also, he's an NC native, so it's good to see him participating.

Do you know the specific dates in April?

Jess

This entire week at Warren Wilson College the MFA creative writing candidates are delivering their thesiseses (?) This morning I heard a great talk on the conection between Eros and Elegy in 19th century American poetry - with exemplary focus on Emily Dickenson's #712 and Whitman's "When Last the Lilacs in the Doorway Bloomed" - his Elegy for Abraham Lincoln.

In the speech, the presenter made an interesting comment about the structure of love. He said in any in any piece "where Eros is lack, an infussion of three structural elements is necessary. One, the Lover. Two, the Beloved. Three, that which comes between them."

In a sense I see how this ties into the conflict discussion. Good conflict forms a triangle. There is the protagonist, the goal, and the opposing force(s). In internal conflict it is easy to lose sight of any of these three. Often, the internal opposing force is overwhelming to the protagonist, or the goal is not clear, or the ego is not apparent in the struggle. It is a fine line to walk. For actors, it is impossible to play, as it forestalls the necessary action--which is what the audience is paying to see.

just thinking out loud.

Jess

oh yeah - why are 12 Monkeys and Amelie bad movies?

I also respect it for that attempt. I don't like it, because I think it is weak in portrayal of characters and story and I am disinterested in the protagonist.

I think I've had about my fill of LotR debate, so I will move on.

Honestly, I prefer external conflict to internal. As a director, I am constantly harping on actors to find the conflict that is outside themselves - that it is uninteresting (and rather masturbatory) to watch actors play against themselves. The bad Hamlets I have seen are guilty of this.

(going back on my word - I think Frodo's conflict is reduced to an essentially internal conflict, and it doesn't interest me. The fight to save Middle Earth does...)

more in a minute. Jeremy needs my help...

Jess

"So, extraordinary circumstances doesn't include confronting self?"

Brian, I am not making universal statements, nor am I discounting internal conflicts as being somehow not worthwhile. What I said was that I am tired of them, because that seems to be all that we can do these days. Serious films all tend to be stories about small things. Yes, I like "Bagger Vance," and its message is about spirit -- and I like it for that reason. But what is at stake in the film is personal. If Junuh loses the tournament, he will suffer --but nobody else will be much affected. Sure, the kid will lose a hero, but aside from that... The action is about self-redemption, not heroism. And the key word there is "self."

This isn't to minimize, but rather to say that serious film and theatre has become "like an underdone egg, all on one side." Yes, Long Day's Journey Into Night is great, but it is different than King Lear. It is a scale thing. We have lots of huge action flicks, but that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about serious film. Our serious films tend to be introspective pieces that explore personal pain quite effectively. Now we need a balance. I think LotR is an attempt to go beyond the action film to the epic (in the Homerian sense), and I respect it and like it for that attempt.

Scott

Brian: "I've always thought that the most interesting characters were not simply good/bad. Rather, characters that observe, struggle, and slowly transform. Characters that are capable of evil and good...that hurt and heal."

Jeez, isn't this a description of Frodo? He struggles with his responsibility, is capable of evil and good (for instance, his brutal dismissal of Sam), he is gradually undermined by the power of the ring (anybody care to discuss the corrupting influence of ultimate power?), and nearly loses the battle against the ring's power. He is so wounded by his experience that he can't go on with his life, and must leave his beloved Shire. Give the guy a few Shakespearean soliloquies and we have a major tragic figure. But unlike, say, Hamlet, who spends all his time mulling over every breath, Frodo's tragedy is expressed through action -- through his dogged attempt to dispose of the ring, despite the pain it causes him both physically and spiritually.

And I agree with Kate, and disagree with Jess's statement that all great drama is about psychology, sociology, and politics. Great drama used to be about the actions of people when they faced extraordinary circumstances. Now they are about little hurts and slights. More importantly, there is no sense of majesty to the language or, for that matter, the emotions. This sense of shameless majesty is what I found refreshing about LotR.

And with John, I incredulously bellow: Twelve Monkeys??? And even more incredulously: Amelie????????

Scott

"I'll gladly take LotR over most works of the past decade seven days a week."

In the sense that the majority of what comes out of Hollywood is tripe, yes I will agree with this -- but better than (from the past ten years): Schindler's List? In the Name of the Father? Il Postino? Shine? Eat Drink Man Woman? Fargo? Saving Private Ryan? Life is Beautiful? The Pianist? Chicago? Traffic? Chocolat? The Hours? Belle Epoque? Being John Malkovich? Mulholland Drive? Shakespeare in Love? Elizabeth? Red? Sling Blade? Boys Don't Cry? 12 Monkeys? The Usual Suspects? Amelie?

No way.

Jess

Why does Frodo accept the charge to carry the ring? In the movie this is a fuzzy point--there are hints toward possible motivation, but nothing that plays out in his actions.

With what characters does Frodo have a strong affinity, and how is this portrayed in the movie? There is plenty of concern for Frodo from everyone, but I don't see it reciprocated on his part, except in the case of his actions towards Gollum.

I also see a lack of complexity in Frodo's character as he draws ever nearer to Mt. Doom. he goes from weak to weaker to weakest. He is prodded and shoved along his path, which he doesn't ever seem to embrace, except in the sense that he is affected by Mordor's greed for the ring. I see no desire in Wood's character to struggle for strength, and the cinematography plays this out in the last hour of RotK by showing Elijah Wood on his backside for the majority of shots with a "lost" look on his face.

It is interesting that most people I talk to about this movie admit to an uncomfortability with what Kate termed the "hobbit orgy" at the end. IMO, this scene rings false and is uncomfortable not for any overt homosexual overtones, but rather because I care more about Sam and Aragorn and Gandalf at the end of the film than I do about our protagonist. I should be longing for this moment of union between wayward compatriots, and instead, it feels more like walking in on your Mom and Dad having sex.

"We do not care about any character in the film..."

I believe what you meant to say was: I do not care about any character in the film..."

Scott

hmmm. a sweeping and epic war film. I'll buy that--but then I definitely don't think it needs to be 11 hours long. I also belive that Jackson was reaching for more than this, but perhaps I believe that because it is what I would do given the same artistic charge.

Jess

Isn't Hamlet about psychology, politics and sociology? Equus? Life is a Dream? I think these are the best plays around...

Jess

But the difference for me is that while watching LotR I was numb from the overexposure. I can't relate to the characters - they are distanced from me by being two-dimensional. I prefer characters that jump off the page (or screen) and live in my life. This is what makes that Englishman the greatest writer of all time (James Joyce's label, not mine). Hamlet, Iago, Lear -they all cross over into the reality in which I exist. Harold Bloom refers to an "empty sensation" that one encounters when one realizes that there are only names on a page - and no persons. LotR is ultimately guilty of this by not giving us a single 3D character. Wait, check that - Gollum is well actualized--while our protagonist isn't. Doesn't this bother anyone?

On the other hand, Ben Kingsley, in "The House of Sand and Fog" portrays a character, Col. Behrani, that makes the leap into my reality. Andre Dubus III, who wrote the novel accomplishes this with his written character, as does Tolkein with his portrait of Frodo. I am gripped by the emotional circumstances and depth of feeling in Vadim Perelman's movie, by Kingsley's performance, by the classic, Greek-style tragedy wrought through inaction on the part of Jennifer Connelly's character--and the manner with which she has to deal with the consequences. Peter Jackson intentionally distances me from the characters in LotR through the use of every hollywood production trick in the book - in fact, some tricks are even invented to drive a stake between us and increase the distance of the rift. Is this what he was trying to do? In the sense that he wanted to make a picture larger than life, I would say, yes. How well does he do it? Extremely well -- my ass, brain and emotional state was numb by the end of simply the last third. Imagine sitting through the whole 11+ hours - Mahabharata, The Ring Cycle, Tantalus; these are true epics, not just long-ass productions. Was it worth doing? Well, it's not my 400 million dollars...

Jess

Brian and Jess --

Films of this size and scope don't need to have every character fully fleshed out in 3 dimensions. Good lord! How many 3-dimensional characters are there in Marlowe's Doctor Faustus or even Goethe's Faust? Do we really get a great deal of insight into emotional intricacies of Scarlett O'Hara's maid, or the one of Lawrence's foot soldiers? Is there a whole of lot psychological depth to C3P0 or R2D2? And somewhere, Brian, you said you were watching the Indiana Jones films -- excuse me? The focus is on a few well-rounded characters on an epic quest. It is a hero's journey.

I also suspect that, in each episode that seems "repetitious," whatever character is central to that scene learns something from what has happened -- perhaps actualizes some new skill or increases in strength in some way.

As far as the battle scenes and the use of CGI -- again, it is an epic. What would Saving Private Ryan be without the battles? For crying out loud, it is a story about a battle for Middle Earth, not some sort of whiny emotional skirmish.

You don't have to like LoTR, but don't dislike it for things that it isn't trying to do -- or because it beat out The Hours for an Oscar. Questions a critic should ask: 1) What is the piece trying to do? 2) How well does it do what it is trying to do? 3) Was it worth doing? Getting grumpy over two-dimensional characters in a cast of thousands seems a little misguided to me.

Personal preference: I am so damned sick of films that focus on psychology, politics, and sociology I could puke. Right now, if I never see another film about "a power struggle over a piece of land b/n a recovering alcoholic and an Iranian immigrant" it will be too soon.

Which pretty much eliminates most plays of the last 150 years or so... *sigh*

Scott

A good example of what Brian is talking about is manifested in the character of Denethor, steward of Gondor. This is an extremely shallow charicature that we see in the film. He has surrendered Gondor to the will of Mordor, given up on the Fellowship of Men, and why? No explanation is forthcoming from Mr. Jackson. Denethor is a foil, simply a reason for a cool "let's pull Faramir out of the burning pyre" scene -- not a rounded character with motivations and needs. Even if we accept that he is heartbroken over the death of Boromir, there is an incredible (non-credible?) leap from grief to anti-Gondor actions. As an actor, one would have to undergo total method immersion just to find cause and impetus--it sure ain't in the script.

Jess

Happy New Year! I wish for you all a happy and fulfilling 2004.

Re: LoTR. I think I have an advantage over most (all?) of you: I have not read the trilogy. It seems to me that those who have done so spend the films mourning what is missing, rather than seeing the film as a separate work. I also am not going to get too het up about LoTR getting Academy Award nominations, since I find the Academy Awards process extremely bizarre and largely irrelevant -- sort of like the Pulitzer Prize for Drama, which makes some of the most bizarre choices ever (like, say, "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying").

I do think that you have to view the film, like the book, not as 3 separate parts, but as a whole. Indeed, Tolkien himself was most unhappy with the fact that they were split up. Viewed thusly, I don't think the end of RotK is out of proportion, given that the trilogy is over 11 hours long. From a play analysis viewpoint, the climax comes when Frodo (our protagonist) throws the ring into the volcano. The film has been building toward that moment from the beginning of the journey. The remaining half hour is, of course, denoument -- which by definition has no conflict, but rather establishes the new status quo and lets us know what happens to the characters. Given the huge number of characters, I don't think it is surprising that it should take some time to accomplish this.

I must say that I find all three films inspiring because of their mythic scope, their expression of large emotions, and their unapologetic (and extremely anti-postmodern) sense of heroism, duty, and danger. There is something tragic about Frodo's journey -- a little man asked to take on an extraordinary responsibility, who ends up so wounded that he cannot go back to his life. The acting has Shakespearean size (McKellan's "You shall not pass!" was the high point of part one for me), and so does everything about the film. It was a real release from all the sneering, smug, cyncial contemporary films that are supposed to be "important."

My two cents!

Scott