I have seen many different approaches to theater in my limited time spent working in the Milwaukee “scene” (as it were). The (probably obvious) conclusion to which I have some is that taste in theater is highly subjective; that is, just like in any art, aesthetic sometimes wins out over art, whatever that is.

I recognize that I am not saying anything of great novelty and perhaps adding nothing to the argument of “what is art?” But, I would like to answer the question for myself here in some rambling thoughts, in the spirit of my new “things I thought of” journaling.

I have been in two productions of Shakespeare at the same theater spaced about a year apart. Not surprisingly, they each had strong points and weak ones, but in my opinion, they both ended up lacking in some way. Theatrically speaking, one was heavy on visual, and the other heavy on “acting.” Again, I have to use quotes here, because what acting is varies from person to person and place to place. I use the quotes to indicate that I am using my personal definition. And neither do I think either of these productions excels the other, only that my critical brain always wants to find ways to do things better, which tends to mean I find weaknesses more easily than strengths.

Please, dear reader, place that grain of salt squarely on your tongue and simply read for the opinion of one person making only educated observations and not attempting to pass judgment. I am proud of both productions, but as a burgeoning theater professional, it is my duty to assert what in theater appeals to me most.

All provisos now accounted for, Shakespeare is of particular interest to me. Having a strong background in literature, it comes as no surprise that I can be highly critical of productions of his work and the language to me is the pinnacle of that work. So, when I say that one production focused on the visual and one on the acting, I mean that neither focused enough on the language. Many actors I have met, including me, must make extensive study of their lines in order to fully understand their character’s speeches, and then must adapt those speeches to their own tongues in order to make it plain for the audience. I think all of them know this is true. This does not stop them, however, from forgetting to make this study a priority; whether through preoccupation (understandably, all of us have to work some other job as well), through laziness, through embarrassment, or through ego (“I get it well enough and I can cover with acting tricks”), the actor makes some sort of excuse against doing their homework.

Again, no judgment. Not yet. I was greeted on my exit from one of these productions with this enthusiastic, yet unenviable praise from a patron: “That was incredible! The acting was outstanding! I did not follow any of it.” I graciously accepted this with some small commiseration and large words of thanks, but internally I lamented that we as a troupe had failed to do our jobs. Some actors, particularly when tackling Shakespeare, complain that the audiences simply should study more, that their ignorance prevents their understanding. What rot! If an actor mumbled his or her lines, or failed to convey proper emotion in a show with more accessible language, it would never occur to an audience member that he or she was to blame for not understanding. It is our job as theater artists to create something that moves people to catharsis, and language is the key tool for that.

Recently, I explored the idea that theater encompasses all of the other major art forms (visual art, literature, music, performance art, etc.) and that this macrocosmic view accounts for my enthrallment. I stand by this assertion, but have realized my distaste for productions that skimp on any one part of them. A conscious decision to create a void in one area can provoke that aesthetic response that I crave, but to leave something out due to laziness (because a lack of creative solutions stems most often from this) signals to me either incompetence or ambivalence, which robs a production of its soul.

While fight directing for my most recent show, I commented that a solid knap, the sound used in stage combat to simulate real contact, can cover all manner of flaws in technique. Much like the distracting hands of an illusionist, the audience’s attention focuses on the diversion and momentarily finds themselves unable to see the trick. Most theater falls under this heading. But, just as a wonderful magician can create a sense of wonder, a bad one makes us cringe and can ruin future illusions for some time.

Like most things in life, success lies in the balance. Too far in any one direction makes the whole experiment fall apart. In my case, both productions received praise, which means the audience was indeed “fooled,” but I think even moderately good theater should do more than “fool”; it should enchant.

The more visual production stood out in people’s minds for making beautiful, memorable stage pictures, but failed to communicate the greater meaning of the adaptation. The experiment in revision sparked my imagination to explore the play in a new way, but the impression I got from audiences spoke more of spectacle than of catharsis. Rather than showing the potential of the adaptation, it distracted further from the already difficult language and failed to reach the audience at the literary level, though it succeeded at the aesthetic.

Contrarily, the more “acted” production left too much in the hands of the actors and audience to generate on their own. Its sparse setting and stagecraft — though the audience remained subconsciously aware of this at best — forced its viewers to fill in too many of their own details and the actors to create a visual experience which drained some of the life and impact from the language.

I step back from calling these productions failures, as audiences still enjoyed them, no doubt conversed about them, and took at least something home with them for the price of admission. What grives me is the lost potential. Like a jigsaw puzzle missing pieces, the human mind reconstructs those parts it lacks and perhaps does not want for more. A good production, however, should more resemble a good novel: it is complete, and the questions it asks one are not of what is missing, but what impressions remain in the mind left to explore and expand upon.

Actually, surfeit is the opposite of what I have here. I never blog anymore, but that doesn’t mean I can’t keep a semi-public journal here. Too many of the things I would write would be too private, so I won’t; however, in the vein of many of my heroes, mostly Ze Frank, I’m just going to start writing things here that I thought of. That’s it. Just things I thought of. No deep imaginings or million dollar ideas, or at least, I won’t self-edit until I feel that is all I’m allowed to post.

The first of these things is my last name. It’s rare. Not many people share it, and most who do are linked to my immediate family. It is rare enough that people who share my name, but whom I have never met, will request to become my friend on Facebook. I’ve stopped answering the requests, since Facebook is better when well-pruned, but I still have some leftovers there to whom I have no relation other than my name.

When my dad adopted me and I took his name, I did not really think much of it. But ever since, it has become a large part of my identity. Names are more important than I can truly understand. It means something to me to have the last name I do, and yet, I can barely connect to most of my family members, and fewer still who have that name, yet I would be proud to be the first of the name to be famous in the arts. Perhaps that’s just selfishness. I am often guilty of selfishness.

That’s something I thought of.

I wrote this for my new media class over this summer semester.

—

While I am certainly not on the cutting edge of technology — and perhaps have never been — my position in the hierarchy of technological adaptation is closer to early adopter than it is to mainstream user. As such, I found myself one of the first users in the second wave of the popularity of Netflix. I was a pirate in my younger years, downloading huge amounts of free media from Napster and Limewire, soldering illegal hardward into my Playstation to allow it play burned copies of games that I would pay only rental fees to acquire, and burning DVD copies long before my father even knew what they were. Netflix’s service was outstanding. For a monthly fee of $25, I was burning or archiving almost a dozen movies a week.

Now, in my years as a more responsible consumer, I understand the value that Netflix brings. I am willing to pay for their service because their streaming technology is better than their competitors and, while their selection leaves something to be desired, it is still a pittance to have such a large media library on demand. The recent backlash against Netflix having to raise their rates due to the increasing awareness of the value of streaming on the part of the major networks and studios is more a question of entitlement than outrage. To pay $15 a month to have access to their DVDs with free shipping AND their streaming capabilities across any of the devices in your household (in high definition, no less) is not a matter of greed on the part of a corporation. The company needs to be profitable in order to be viable and a short-sighted leasing policy on certain titles means that huge investments need be made to maintain that profitability.

I could not be said to be a fan of corporations, but Netflix is a progressive service dedicated to improving its users’ experiences. Its recent competitor, Hulu (and its premium service Huluplus), offers a similar service but maintains an ad presence and a limited release date to appease the studios and to keep costs to the consumer low. Were a consumer to subscribe to both services, they would pay about $25 a month to have access to all that content on demand, a far cry from a cable bill (which I last paid in 2002) which comes closer to $80, including internet access.

Internet access should only count for a portion of this service as it also provides access to media in such myriad multitudes as to boggle the mind; however, most internet providers oppose a concept called net neutrality. The idea is complicated in the legislature by required legalese, but the basics are these: internet services providers like Comcast and AT&T would like to be able to charge for free access to the internet, to charge for premium bandwidths (already in place), or to advertise on a customer’s computer even outside of their email application or their browser. Understandably, these companies would like to profit on the huge networks they have created, but with a lack of net neutrality comes a limited, class-based access to information that could too easily be abused; that is, a provider could restrict access to sites run by competitors or to news sites that include disparaging information about their company.

Why is this important to new media? The internet is hardly regulated currently, and regulation could lead to higher standards of information. Content creators would need to conform to certain standards which might increase the intellectual baseline of the content available. After all, radio, television, movies and even video games have oversight. In these times of security breaches and hackers and privacy-defying paparazzi images of dead celebrities, shouldn’t the government or some other agency, perhaps the internet service providers, get involved?

The answer is not simple but one thing should be clear. The internet is clearly not analogous to those other old media concepts, even video games. It encompasses all of those ideas and adds near-incomprehensible complexity to them all while existing and expanding in its own supermodern paradigm. Perhaps the best prognosticator of the internet’s future is William Gibson, the proclaimed inventor of the cyberpunk genre of science fiction, but if science fiction is the only place we can turn for reflections of our reality, then I doubt legislation is capable of mandating how it should be treated.

Yes, indeed.

Frightened Rabbit – “I Feel Better” from This is What We Imagine on Vimeo.

More on this in the NPR article that referenced the video.

Not much of a post, but right now I just have no idea where to go. I’m doing so much, trying so hard, and all in no particular direction.

Come see me kick ass in Macbeth, then tell me I’m wasting my life in web development. Just one person do that and mean it.

Some truly amazing animation and imagination here:

Had an idea today for a Shadowrun one-shot involving a corp trying to steal cap and trade certificates due to overloading emissions. 3 stage, steal, cover trace, and kill those in the know. Eco-terrorists take the building while the group is inside. Could be fun. No time now to write it up.

—

Great night at rehearsal last night. Seems MacDuff will be quite the action star in this production. I get to practice falling and tumbling reminiscent of parkour. But, I need to start looking into primer-only loads for a snubnose revolver, in case the space is too small for a half-load shootout. I think when we did the Dead Guy, we used half-loads, but I can’t remember. Got to put my two cents in for fight choreography, though. And I do feel like kind of a bad-ass. My skills serve me well in this.

—

Essentially acting as assistant casting agent for the stuntpeople in this film is a little tough. The director and I have not really clicked; we just have different tastes, I think. But, since I don’t know what he would like, I can’t just cast people. Plus, I want to work more with him, since he has opened some doors professionally for me, so I can’t just cast any old muppets. Luckily, I have some pretty cool people who are thinking about doing it.

—

Need to write choreography for this workshop this weekend. Luckily, a friend just messaged me asking for assistance with a high school production of Oklahoma, so I got to clarify my own thoughts, while hearing from her other advisors. Cool beans. Now to just motivate myself to get to work.

—

My new class has an intimidating reading schedule and the professor’s criteria for getting an A is a little daunting. Then again, what he expects from freshman in a 200-level course can’t be too taxing on my experienced and wizened intellect. Can it?

—

Haven’t had a decent workout since La Cage started. I feel like my body is beginning to decay from all the sitting around. But I can’t seem to find the time… My schedule is my own fault. I need to make some space. I have not seen some of my friends in what seems like ages.

While I guess I see this as technological progress, releasing a tablet computer which does not have simple support for stylus writing is inane.

Have you ever wanted an underpowered laptop with no keyboard? Or an iPod that would never fit in your pocket? Then, have we got a money-sink for you!

Jeers.