Blog Archives

#20 Weather forecasting, criticism & grading

1/31/2015

I was struck the other day by the fact that the National Weather Service felt the need to issue an apology for not being “correct” when predicting the impact of the winter storm in the northeastern United States about a week ago. I confess that, while I’m glad that they got it a bit wrong, I don’t think that it’s a good idea that we should expect these folks to get the forecast 100% correct every time and that we should say they were “wrong” when things don’t work out the way they thought it might.

Here in Omaha, the weather forecast a few days ago was suggesting that we might have an inch or two of snow this weekend, but they are now saying that we could get four to seven. So, one could say that they were “wrong” a couple of days ago. So, should we expect them to apologize for the fact that the forecast has changed? I don’t think so.

While it would be nice if such things were always 100% accurate at all times, the fact is that this sort of thing is, always, at best a guess. Yes, it is supposed to be based on the best information available (which I think it tends to be) but the fact is that we are not dealing with an unchanging situation means that all we can really require is that the forecasters give us their best guess based on the information they have at the time they make the forecast. It may be true that they could do a little better about giving us a better sense of the certainty (or Uncertainty) of their forecasts, but we should also be more aware of the fact that such things are always subject to change and recognize that it’s impossible to make such a guess with a really high degree of certainty until it’s actually too late to provide much advance warning. And, I think I’d rather have them give us a fairly cautious prediction and err, if err they must, on the side of a worst case scenario than look through glasses which are too “rosy.” It’s a lot easier to prepare for conditions which are worse than actually develop than to have to deal with an extreme situation which wasn’t anticipated suddenly.

As a theatre person, I think much the same can be said of criticism, both of plays and of productions. I know how easy it is (especially with unfavorable criticism) to write it off as “only the opinion” of a person who (we want to think) isn’t really qualified to make judgments about our work. I’d suggest that, while this CAN be true at times, it’s an unproductive attitude.

Sure, it’s nice when folks say nice things about our work and it’s less pleasant when they suggest that we could do better. Still, theatre is an art, but it’s also a business. It’s our job to “put butts in seats” and that means that we have to accept the fact that it’s not likely that everyone is always going to like everything that we do. It also means that we should accept their right to express their opinions, whatever they are.

Now, as with predicting the weather, good (valid) criticism is an opinion expressed by someone who has demonstrated that they have the knowledge and experience to offer judgments which we can believe are based on a reasonable attempt to respond to what I believe were Goethe’s three ideas about criticism. As I remember it, it was Goethe who suggested that criticism should attempt to answer three questions: 1) what was being attempted; 2) how well was that accomplished; and 3) was the attempt worthwhile. To me, that suggests that we should not only attempt to make our ideas clear in our advertising and promotional materials, but that we should also seek out reactions from folks who have enough background to be able to make a reasonable guess as to what we are trying to do; how well (in the grand scheme of things) we have done it; and whether what we are attempting makes sense in terms of the material we have chosen. (Anybody wonder why I think a background in dramatic literature and theatre history is of some importance?)

That suggests that the best criticism, like the best weather forecasts, don’t just appear from out of the blue, they come from folks with, hopefully, some experience and training related to what they are talking about. That doesn’t require a lot of advanced degrees and many years of practical experience (although that MIGHT help), but it does suggest that it comes from: people with enough background to have some idea as to how the theatre works; how it HAS worked; what sort of thing has been attempted before; and a sense as to whether what is being done seems to be making a worthwhile contribution to reasonable thinking about the work being presented. (In terms of weather, that translates to some knowledge as to which model(s) seems to best fit the current conditions and the willingness to “look out the window” to see which model(s) seem to best predict what is most likely to happen.

I think that means that criticism, like weather forecasting, is an opinion (a guess) and is really only as “valid” as the knowledge and experience of the person making it (and their willingness to at least attempt to present their thinking in a way which is not overly influenced by their own personal prejudices). I think that the same is true of grading, especially at the university level.

I know I have been criticized a times for being a “hard” grader, especially when, as in my Lit/Crit classes, I have suggested that “There are no ‘correct’ answers.” As I have tried to explain, that doesn’t mean that ALL answers are equally valid. Just as is true with criticism, there may be (usually are for good plays) many successful ways to “solve the problems of a given play.” I think that’s why a good play is capable of being interpreted in many ways and, hence, can be worth seeing in multiple productions.

In my own library, I have eight different video productions of Hamlet. (Okay, I’m a bit of a nut about that play.) I’ve been involved with two productions at WCU and seen it done in a couple of professional productions. One of the frequently discussed “problems” of this play is whether or not Hamlet is “mad.” Some suggest he is, some that he isn’t, some say that he crosses the line at times, but isn’t always. Personally, I don’t think he is ever truly mad, although he does get a bit carried away at a couple of moments. I think my opinion is reasonable based on evidence in the script and I would be happy to explain what that evidence is sometime (although this probably isn’t the moment).

However, I have respect for at least some of the critics who disagree with my interpretation based on their reading of the play. That’s what I mean (and meant) by the statement that there aren’t “correct” answers. There IS evidence to support multiple interpretations. The fact that I have arrived at one conclusion is NOT an assertion that this is the only acceptable one; just that it’s how I respond to the evidence at the moment. (NOTE: that doesn’t mean that even my opinion couldn’t change.)

So, how does that relate to grading? I think it means that I always believed that it was my job to make my best assessment of my student’s work and assign a grade (which was an opinion, at least when we weren’t dealing with just factual material) based on how well I felt that the student had responded to the specific prompt using materials and ideas which seemed relevant to the class. That is, was I presented with a reasonable (and reasonably factual) discussion which took a position and offered reasonable support for it?

An assertion that, “I just feel that way.” was unlikely to achieve much success in terms of a high grade. Clear, well-written, evidence-based argument was likely to receive a strong grade. Personally, I don’t apologize for being fairly demanding in my expectations. I did always try to stay aware of the fact that in these subjective situations the grade was my opinion. I also tried to be as fair as I could be to every student and to give the benefit of the doubt wherever possible. However, it was the case that the university had hired me because I was supposed to have the expertise to make these sorts of judgments and that I was expected to make them, not just “give” a student a grade.

So, how does this all fit together? I think that it all makes some sense for us to remember that not everything, perhaps not many things, have simple “right-wrong,” “yes-no,” “black-white” solutions. There are many things for which we would be wise to accept the idea that what we have to deal with is, basically, opinion. And among the things fitting this category are weather forecasting, criticism (probably of most things, but certainly in theatre and drama) and a lot of grading.

What I think this all adds up to is that all of us, including the Weather Service, should acknowledge that much of what we deal with IS opinion, and that it is our obligation to seek out those opinions which seem to be based on the best combination of experience and evidence. That doesn’t mean we are always going to agree with those opinions, but they should challenge us to consider whether we have considered the best evidence and constructed sound arguments to support the position we choose to take. In the long run, I think this would help us all be happier.

0 Comments

#19 "Glorifying Murderers"

1/24/2015

0 Comments

I saw something on the news recently which amused/dismayed/annoyed me a good deal, so I figured that I should blog about it just to get my thoughts organized and off of my chest. The story I refer to was one talking about the protests over the movie American Sniper. Now, I haven’t seen the movie (and I’ll confess that I think it’s unlikely that I will), but I’m having trouble with the idea that some folks want to argue that the movie should be protested because it “glorifies” war and presents “murderers” as heroes, etc., etc., etc. The implication seems to be that the fact that since this is a story about an American sniper (“sniper /ˈsnaɪpə/ noun 1. a rifleman who fires from a concealed place, esp a military marksman who fires from cover usually at long ranges at individual enemy soldiers”) means that: 1) the movie probably shouldn’t have been made in the first place; 2) that people shouldn’t pay money to see it because of the subject matter, and, 3) it certainly can’t be worthy of being nominated for an award, let alone winning one, or (possibly) several. I confess that I don’t understand.

The fact is, whether we like it or not, we have been making heroes of military figures for MUCH longer than movies have been around. Has no one ever heard of “the Minutemen,” Nathan Hale, U. S. Grant, Alvin York, Audi Murphy, etc? The list could go on…. These characters are considered to be heroes, although it’s worth remembering that our noble “Founding Fathers” were, in fact, traitors to the British crown, which was, in fact, the legitimate government at the time. That means that American General Benedict Arnold could be considered a hero for turning against Washington and those other rebels and trying to return the country to its rightful king. John Mosby “The Grey Ghost” was, a hero of the Confederacy, but he was a traitor to the United States, as was, say, J.E.B. Stuart. Alvin York and Audi Murphy were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor so there seems to be little doubt that many consider them heroes, as I do, although I’m rather less sure that they would be thought so by those against whom they fought.

On the other hand, these folks are not remembered for being nice, peaceful citizens. They are, remembered, mostly, for their actions which resulted in the death of other human beings. Heroes in time of war usually are such and they are heroes primarily because they were on OUR side. That’s the nature of being a soldier and how military heroes are defined.

Now, I confess that I’m not really very fond of the idea of war. In addition to being very expensive in far too many ways, it seems like quite a poor way to try to achieve Peace (which is almost always the stated intent). Somehow, killing people seems an unlikely way to make things more peaceful. It does eliminate those with whom one disagrees, although that seems like the sort of tactics we normally disapprove of.

Still, wars have been around as an instrument of foreign policy for a very long time and people have been making heroes out of warriors for about the same length of time. That doesn’t change the fact that we have always “glorified” “murderers.” After all, David was a hero for killing Goliath. I think that this means that, once we accept the idea that a warrior is a legitimate subject for a book, movie, TV show, etc., we have to accept the idea that that work is going to discuss/present his/her actions, including the death of others. In fact, these characters are often of interest mostly because of those actions. I don’t think that I see this as any more, or less, appropriate than any other sort of subject matter.

As I said earlier, I’m really not very fond of the idea of war, but I have to acknowledge that it does, has and probably will continue to exist and I’m damn glad that there are people willing to engage in doing what needs to be done when we, the people, decide that war provides an acceptable solution for a problem in the world. Soldiers are, after all, not acting as individuals, but as agents of a government. They act under orders and are subject to certain restrictions (rules of engagement). They can be punished for exceeding or violating those orders and restrictions.

I lost friends in the Vietnam conflict, which I thought we probably shouldn’t have been involved in from the beginning. That doesn’t mean that I don’t honor those who served (and especially those who died) in that conflict. They were only doing what was required of them (and I remember that we still had a draft in those days). I have known people who have served in more recent wars. I confess to grave questions about how and why we got into those wars, what possible good could come out of them and how anyone could possibly think a “victory” is possible. But, some citizens have volunteered to engage in these activities (including killing people) because we, as a society, have asked them to do so. They deserve our respect for that.

My point here is, essentially, that all “war” movies, books, etc., can be argued to “glorify murderers.” Anyone arguing that that shouldn’t be the case is simply ignoring a defining characteristic of the genre. So, does the question come down to whether, or not, such things should be created?

I find that an absurd question. The simple fact that such works have been able to make money for centuries suggests that people are likely to continue to exploit the theme of the warrior as hero. Even Shakespeare wrote a rather popular play about a guy named Henry the Fifth. That play rather “glorifies” a warrior king as something of an ideal ruler, although Will doesn’t seem to have his facts completely straight. That seems to occur in more than a few of these stories, especially when the facts don’t always support the “heroic” nature of the central figure.

The fact is that war stories sell; they put “butts in seats” and until that changes people are going to continue to make them. I have read that American Sniper has sold a lot of tickets. I may well not go to see it, but a lot of people have and, probably, will continue to do so. Therefore, it seems likely that the genre will continue. Some might call this cynical, but it is a reality. The decision to write a book or make a movie is a business decision and such will be produced, or not, primarily for business reasons.

Moving along, I have always taken awards to be mostly of value as marketing tools, so I refuse to take them very seriously. I think it IS an honor to be recognized for your work in your profession. The fact is, however, that awards can, and have, hurt some careers as the assumption is made that the winner will now be “too expensive” for the budget of some new project.

There is also the extremely subjective basis of awards in the arts. There’s a quote from a Time magazine interview with Paul Newman of which I am rather fond:

I don't understand why competition has to exist between actors. Some guy starts
with a marvelous character, and the script is all there. All he has to do is show up.
Another guy digs it out by the goddamn roots with a terrible director and turns in
this incredible performance. And someone says one is better than the other. That's
what's nice about car racing. It's right to a thousandth of a second. Your bumper is
here. That guy's bumper is there. You win.

Newman was, specifically, speaking about awards for actors, but I think the same thing can be said for almost any specialty in motion pictures, theatre or television. If, as is commonly claimed, the award is being given for the quality of work demonstrated, the subject matter is clearly not a relevant consideration: the only thing which is supposed to be being considered is the quality of the work. Can someone do an outstanding job on a movie or play which is, otherwise, not very good? Of course they can! In fact, I have long had the suspicion that awards are often made in “clumps” because it’s much harder to single out the “one good thing” about a not very great entry, but a project which is highly regarded MUST be so because of the superior work of many. I think that’s probably why a limited number of projects are often nominated for several awards. Still, it’s possible that better work in some area was actually unnoticed because it was on a not very highly regarded project.

What all this boils down to, I think, is that we have the option to support movies, plays, books, etc., which deal with any sort of subject matter or not to do so. If we don’t like something or someone, we can simply not buy copies, tickets, etc. That is a form of censorship, I suppose, but the fact is that if a product doesn’t sell, it won’t be produced. That notion has been around as long as the idea of heroes. And, it’s not trying to take legal action against something, just making it unprofitable.

If we wish to believe that there is a value in recognizing outstanding achievement in something, then we should accept the idea that an award for that is supposed to be made based on the quality of the work, not the popularity of the subject matter. Editing, screenwriting, directing, even acting, aren’t really about subject matter. I think it’s also more than slightly helpful to remember that this sort of thing is, as Newman points out, highly subjective; it’s not an objective win-loose situation like a race. It’s also true that awards become major marketing tools of considerable importance to the bottom line. In fact, that may be their greatest importance.

As we get further into “awards season” perhaps these are points we should consider. That’s what I think. What are your thoughts?

0 Comments

#18 Rose smelling and other relaxations

1/21/2015

0 Comments

At the risk of confusing anyone who follows this blog with any regularity, I’m going to change direction a bit with this post. I’m not going to discuss anything which particularly relates to current events, although that could be argued, I suppose. I just want to take a few minutes to talk about something I’ve become much more attuned to in the last couple of years and especially since I’ve retired. That’s the importance of, as they say, stopping to “smell the roses.”

I guess this notion was brought to my consciousness when I visited England with my daughter briefly in May of 2009. We weren’t there very long and we tried to cram as much in as possible, so we kept moving a lot. We spent six nights in London and four in Birmingham (as a home base for “touristy” trips). We did a lot of the usual “tourist” stuff, which I won’t go into today, but one thing I noticed was that almost everywhere we went there were really pretty gardens. Now I had spent some time in the gardens at the Biltmore Estate in Asheville, but I hadn’t really noticed them to the extent that I did in England. For whatever reasons, the English seem to be quite avid gardeners, but that’s not my point; I’m really not a gardener, myself.

My point is that I kept noticing these gardens and taking pictures of them because they stuck me as being quite pretty, but I also started to notice that I was simply enjoying the sense of relaxation and pleasure I was getting from just wandering around looking at flowers and landscapes which somebody had clearly crafted for pleasure. Yes, I WAS on vacation, but I think I enjoyed just wandering around those gardens as much as seeing the Tower of London (which also has some really pretty gardens), Stonehenge (which is in something of a garden-like setting), the West End (full of interesting theatres, but with a few gardens [parks] about), shops, museums, churches, etc. The Shakespeare sites in Stratford-Upon-Avon all include lovely gardens, as well, and the RSC theatre stands in a garden-like park setting near the river, as does Holy Trinity Church. Of course, many churches have rather garden-like settings.

In any event, it struck me that I had spent far too many years rushing from place to place and not really enjoying any of the places I had been. To borrow an idea from Yoda, I wasn’t really paying attention to where I was. The point of this post is to try to encourage others to avoid what I now see was a mistake by suggesting a means of grounding yourself and focusing on “where you are.” I speak, specifically, of gardens.

I don’t remember exactly when Bonnie and I first became “Passholders” at the Biltmore Estate, but I know it took me a good while to learn how to take advantage of this status. This is a sort of “membership” which allowed us to be admitted at any time and (by the time we made more than two visits, it was cheaper to have an annual pass than to pay regular admission). I think what finally made sense to me was that if you just bought a one day ticket, you felt that you had to do EVERYTHING in order to get your money’s worth (a not unreasonable notion). What we decided was, since we lived within an hour of the estate, as passholders, we didn’t have to do it all each time! We could combine a brief trip to just a part of the estate (just the house, just the gardens, just lunch at Cedric’s or the Stables, or the like) with other shopping in Asheville, or something else. It didn’t HAVE to be an all day commitment just to Biltmore. Once we reached this conclusion, the sense of freedom and pleasure it gave us allowed us to appreciate Biltmore in a way we really hadn’t done before. We even made some trips just to visit, say, the main floor of the house, because we wanted to just focus on the lavish floral displays on that floor and didn’t feel the need to see the whole house on every visit.

Gradually, this notion has spread to other places for us. Since we have settled in Omaha, we have become members of: the local zoo (one of the tops zoos in the world and far too big to thoroughly enjoy in a single trip); a local museum (the Durham) which is set up in what was originally the major train station in Omaha (a lot to take in here in relation to local history and visiting exhibits from the Smithsonian and other major museums) and the local botanical garden (the outdoor gardens aren’t a lot in the winter, but the conservatory [new] is worth an occasional visit and there are changing exhibits in the Visitor Center). We anticipate that the gardens will be really pretty once we get through the winter and they weren’t bad looking in the late fall when we joined.

In about three months (we’ve only lived here about five), we’ve made two visits to the zoo (a lot of which is outdoors and it’s been cold a good deal), four to the gardens (once to take the tour and get the lay of the land and three times for exhibits) and twice to the museum (once just to see the place [and the Xmas decorations] and once for a special exhibit of costume designs by the designer for the Omaha Community Playhouse.

Okay, so I’m retired and have a lot of time, etc. That’s true. It’s also true that I now live in an urban area where there are, almost certainly, more opportunities than is true in many, more rural places. On the other hand, the Biltmore Estate was a good hour away from Cullowhee and we were able to get there at least five or six times a year (probably more) and it was worth it because, like many of the places I’ve referred to, it was constantly changing, but you had to go with some frequency to appreciate that.

Almost everywhere is within reach of some sort of garden, zoo, museum or park (think in terms of a big national or state park – Great Smoky Mountains National Park anyone?), which could become YOUR place, or one of them. Some don’t even cost anything to visit except some time and some gas.

Personally, I’ve become very fond of roses and rose gardens, so I’ve spent a fair amount of time pleasantly wandering the Biltmore Rose Garden in the past. I’ve discovered that I like a lot of gardens, however, especially structured gardens like the Walled Garden at Biltmore, so I’m especially looking forward to some of the more structured gardens (the Rose Garden, the Victorian Garden and the English Perennial Border at the Lauritzen Gardens here in Omaha.

There’s an exhibit of costumes worn by Katherine Hepburn coming to the Durham Museum in a few weeks, which, I expect, I’ll find of some real interest to my theatrical side. I’ve always enjoyed zoos, so the Doorly Zoo (especially the big cat exhibit) is something I could visit quite often, although there are a lot of the animals I enjoy visiting and just walking around the zoo grounds is a lot like visiting a garden.

What I’d like to leave you with, however, is not a catalog of what I’m looking forward to, but my encouragement to take a look around you and see what’s available to you at a reasonable cost. Yes, “membership” can cost a fair amount, so I don’t wish to encourage you to throw your money away on just anything. However, I’ll bet that you have at least one option available wherever you live and state and national parks tend to be very low cost. It does mean making a commitment of some time. I know that’s hard, but it’s worth it.

Learn something from an “old guy.” Life’s too short and changes too rapidly not to occasionally turn off the cell phone and spend a little time just looking at the flowers, trees, animals, architecture or something not directly related to your work. It doesn’t have to take a long time or be terribly expensive. You may well even be able to combine it with other stuff which feels more “necessary” (as we often did). I think you’ll find, as I have much too late in my life, that you return to the “important” stuff a little bit more refreshed and relaxed and much better able to concentrate on whatever really needs to be done. You may even discover that some of what seemed so important really isn’t. Just that could be worth the time spent….

0 Comments

#17 Freedom of Speech, "Political Correctness" & Terrorism

1/15/2015

0 Comments

In the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo incident in Paris about a week ago, I am saddened by the fact that so many people seem to misunderstand the entire point of freedom of speech/expression. Yes, I understand that the actions of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists in creating cartoons which appear to depict Muhammad may be considered offensive to some, maybe all, of his followers. However, I am given to believe that this publication has (as have many others) created satiric views of major figures from many religions in the past (to say nothing of political, social and entertainment figures), but death threats haven’t been a very common response to this.

Certainly the civilized world has a considerable history of making fun of well-known figures, be they prominent socially, politically, governmentally, economically, or through some other means. The rise of “talk” radio and television seems largely based on the idea that being outrageous by attacking, defending, misquoting, misconstruing, making fun of or treating any sort of “public” figure as if they spoke with divine authority attracts an audience and sells advertising (which is, of course, what broadcasting is truly all about).

And no one really expects the person doing the discussing, OR the person under discussion, necessarily to have much real knowledge of the topic at hand. That doesn’t mean that they don’t have some knowledge, at least on occasion, but that it doesn’t seem to be required.

Yes, I’ll confess that a lot of this annoys me considerably, especially (of course) when I disagree with what is being said. But I was taught, as have we all, that there are some ideas (most specifically some words), which are not “correct” to use in public. We can’t talk about “American Indians,” we have to call those people “Native Americans” (in spite of the fact that one can make a case that they are no more truly “native” to America than any other persons born here [which IS the most common definition]), we can’t use the “N” word because it’s offensive to African Americans (although THEY can [and some do] use it about themselves). That particular word has been pushed so far beyond the pale that we have real problems even allowing a major literary classic like Huckleberry Finn to be available in a public library, let alone studied in a class, because “that” word is used so much in it.

I’ve noticed that Jewish people often tell the most outrageously stereotypical “Jewish” jokes and the same seems true of Irish, Polish, Italian, Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, and many other ethnic/religious/social groups. Of course, “outsiders” are offensive when they repeat such jokes, just as men are offensive when they tell jokes at the expense of women, although women seem to be allowed to tell jokes about their husbands/boyfriends, even in TV commercials.

Perhaps it’s time that we all just took a “chill pill” about this. No, I’m not saying that we should all go out of our way to be offensive to as many people/groups as possible. In fact, I think that at least trying to be a bit kinder to others wouldn’t be a bad idea for any of us. A certain amount of “live and let live” would probably make this a better place for all of us. If that means giving the other person the benefit of the doubt for something they say, maybe it’s worth considering the context and what was the intent.

You see; I believe that there is a difference between “free speech” and unrestrained action. The misunderstanding can come when these two concepts intersect. The classic example of a legitimate restriction on freedom of speech is that “You can’t yell ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theatre.” The unstated assumption, of course, is that there really isn’t a fire; so yelling that is likely (and seems intended) to produce a panic situation and endanger others. (As a theatre historian I’ve read about all too many fires in crowded theatres, so I’m well aware of how dangerous that sort of thing can be.) Still, if there really WAS a fire, I’m not sure that I would be too upset about someone spreading that news, even if yelling might not be the best way of dealing with it.

Questions regarding abortion and the right to choose have been around for quite a while and are still a topic for sermons, debates, pickets, protests, etc. Personally, I tend to favor the idea that you should be free to believe (and advocate) whichever side of this issue you believe in. What you do NOT have, however, is the right not to grant those on the other side their ability to make up their own mind and to express THEIR opinions. Even more importantly, you don’t have the right to engage in acts of violence to prevent people you may disagree with from acting on their own beliefs in their own lives. In other words, acting to have abortion heavily restricted by unreasonable laws in your community is one thing, no matter how wrong headed I may believe that position is. Fire bombing a clinic where abortions are performed, or shooting those who engage in this medical procedure is not free speech, it’s terrorism.

I saw on the news earlier today that a preacher in a Lakewood church in Colorado refused to allow a funeral from his church because the deceased was gay. I won’t quibble with the idea that this preacher has the right to believe that homosexuality is a sin, but to stop a funeral with the open casket already in the chapel, the mourners in place, etc., doesn’t seem to represent this preacher’s religion very well. He seems to be saying that because he disapproves of this individual’s “lifestyle,” she does not deserve to be tolerated within the religious community. Now, to have refused to schedule the funeral before the fact, I don’t see as a major problem, although I don’t think it’s in good taste. However, what was done seems hard to accept as the sort of action which the Jesus I have read about would suggest is appropriate behavior to be taken in his name. After all, he is reputed to have hung around with tax collectors, prostitutes and other “undesirables,” but I won’t get into that. Still, I look at this sort of thing as a form of terrorism, as is abortion clinic bombing. It isn’t commonly referred to as that in the press, because it’s not “Islamic,” (which seems to be the “flavor of the moment” for defining terrorism) but the fact is that terrorism is terrorism, just as religious fundamentalist intolerance is religious fundamentalist intolerance, no matter what the “flavor.”

The point here is that it’s one thing to engage in intellectual discussion on questions of religious, social or political differences. It’s another thing entirely to ACT on those differences, especially with violence. I see that Western Carolina University, where I taught in the theatre program for many years, is doing The Rocky Horror Show again this spring. I say again, because in 2001 I directed and designed the set for WCU’s first production of that script, which most people only know from its film version The Rocky Horror Picture Show. At that time, I was also serving (at the request of the Dean and the Department Head) as “Acting Director of Theatre” (an impressive title which mostly meant I also did a lot of work on Box Office, programs, publicity, season ticket sales, etc., with little real authority to do anything much).

In that capacity, I was requested to meet with the Dean one day during the summer of 2000 and he indicated that someone in the university administration (I’ve always believed that I knew who, but I don’t KNOW.) thought this was a very unwise choice because the script is “touchy” (Okay, it’s raunchy and outrageous.) and, since the UNC System was in the process of seeking a bond referendum that fall, we shouldn’t do anything “controversial.”

I allowed as how I was talking to my Dean and I worked for him, so I would withdraw the play from the season if he ordered me to do so. However, he should understand that I would not hesitate to explain that the script was withdrawn for political reasons if I was questioned about it (which seemed likely as the season had already been announced) and that he (and the rest of the Administration) should be aware that the same script was being produced that fall by one of our sister institutions in a much more heavily populated and much more urban part of the state about two weeks before the date of the referendum voting, whereas the WCU production was scheduled for February after a November vote.

I suggested that I felt that the University having to face the possibility of charges of political censorship was potentially worse publicity than just ignoring the production choice. I think I was right, the bond referendum passed, and the production was fairly non-controversial. Did some folks stay away? Almost certainly! Did we sell a lot of tickets and have a fair amount of fun with this raunchy satire of 50’s & 60’s Sci-Fi? Yes to that, too. And, I think that’s how it should be. We made no effort to make a “statement” with the production. We just thought it was fun and that our audience would, for the most part, enjoy it. Did we offend some people with the choice of this material? Probably. Although, I refuse to accept that the possibility of offending some should be an important consideration. That gets us back to “political correctness.”

I think that “political correctness” is a dangerous notion because it encourages us to place some kinds of ideas, questions, etc., outside of the realm of consideration. We are saying to ourselves, “Don’t go there, that might be offensive to some.” On the other hand, if we DON’T go there: One; how do we truly KNOW that it’s offensive, and, Two; aren’t we just accepting the idea that we shouldn’t think?

One of my favorite quotes in the whole world is in the lines of the character Stephen Hopkins in Peter Stone’s 1776 “ . . . in all my years I never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn’t be talked about.” Talking, discussing, debating, arguing about issues is what freedom of speech is all about. THAT isn’t dangerous! What’s dangerous is not allowing people to DISCUSS ideas and making them feel forced to take direct action because they don’t feel their opinions are being given a place at the table.

Personally, I think that’s part of what the arts, especially theatre are all about. I think it’s the job of theatres, especially on college campuses, at least occasionally, to do something “touchy,” to get people talking (and thinking) about something. Isn’t that what education is all about? If you can’t talk about ideas on a university campus, it’s not doing its job. No, I never set out to consciously offend people, but I never felt that a good play shouldn’t be done because somebody might object to something in it.

That’s my main reason for supporting Charlie Hebdo. It’s not because I agree with whatever positions it has advocated. I’ll be honest: I know nothing about this publication’s positions. That’s not the point! The point is, I agree with a quote often attributed to Voltaire: “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” I think that’s a good idea and projects an attitude I wish there was more of in the world: we don’t have to agree with something to allow it to be expressed peacefully. When we cross the line into direct, physical action to try to suppress differing ideas is when we get into real difficulties.

0 Comments

#16 Je Suis Charlie

1/7/2015

0 Comments

I can not ignore the implications of attempts to stifle free speech such as those occurring in Paris today. As Aaron Sorkin had Andrew Shepherd say in The American President:

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad,
cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say ‘You want free speech? Let's see you
acknowledge a man who's words make your blood boil, and who's standing center
stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime
opposing at the top of yours.’

It isn't the speech which everyone agrees with that needs to be protected, it's that which is controversial, offensive and likely to be raise people's hackles. Why should we go out of our way to protect this sort of speech? Because that's how progress is made, how we force ourselves to consider the fact that none of us know all the answers, that any idea worth having is worth questioning. That's what the First Amendment is really all about. It's what protects us by guaranteeing the Right to challenge ideas of others and offer up our own for consideration. It does NOT give us the right to censor ideas we don't agree with, but it guarantees us the right to have a chance to be heard.

Actions like those in France today (January 7, 2015) are unfortunate as they are intended to shut off debate, differing opinions and thought. We can NOT let them succeed! I hope that, as a group, we will all acknowledge and support the idea that we are all "CHARLIE." It is with pride that I say:

Je Suis Charlie

0 Comments

#15 The End of One Year, the Beginning of Another

1/3/2015

0 Comments

Well, the year 2014 is now over and with it ends the 450th anniversary of Shakespeare’s birth. (Yes, I know he was born in April [the 23rd, we think,] but it IS the end of the 450th anniversary of his birth year.) I confess that I have been disappointed in that I have not been aware of much in the way of celebrations in honor of this occasion. I remember that there seemed to be a large number of theatres (professional, educational, community and more) which made at least some recognition of the 400th anniversary of his birth in 1964. As I remember it, the entire spring semester’s theatre season at Indiana was devoted to Shakespeare that year. But I’m not aware of much of any such acknowledgement in the past year. I think that’s too bad.

Now I’m not going to get into the whole so-called “authorship question” right now. I may take a look at that at some later date, but I don’t want to get into that at the moment. Perhaps I’m just completely out of touch in thinking that these 400 year-old plays still have some relevance and deserve at least occasional productions, but I don’t seem to be alone in that belief, if one looks around a bit. There are many full-time, professional theatre companies (some with major international reputations) devoted largely to the works of Shakespeare. There are many Shakespeare festivals, I think at least one in every US state, which are devoted to these plays during at least part of the year. There are several important libraries and research centers devoted to scholarship related to these plays, their author and those times. The plays are studied regularly in literature classes and performed regularly in acting classes. Yet Shakespeare’s 450th birthday seems to have been, largely, ignored. That bothers me….

My suspicion is that at least a part of this may be an outgrowth of the contemporary trend to insist that “Shakespeare is HARD!” The language is hard to follow (it’s archaic AND poetic), the action is obscure, only English teachers (and a few other nuts like Yours Truly) can even begin to understand them, so how can the average person be expected to care about them? Part of this has been bred by teachers (not just English teachers) who have succumbed, in some cases forcibly, to the notion that everything of any importance can be learned (by which they mean memorized) as multiple-choice, “true-false,” “right-wrong,” “black-white” sorts of responses for standardized tests which will prepare the student for his/her “education,” which actually means “job training.” Lip service is constantly paid to the importance of learning how to think creatively, gather data and arrive at reasonable conclusions based on that data, etc., but the reality is that that really doesn’t seem to be what is rewarded (which means that it isn’t really valued). Even in higher education, a great deal of “research” seems to be based on assembling, critiquing and quoting what other “researchers” have said, rather than engaging with original information and trying to find a way of better understanding/explaining it.

This kind of thinking has also led to the proliferation of “… for Dummies,” “Idiot’s Guides…,” and so forth. Yes, there are a lot of these, covering many subjects but Shakespeare’s plays are pretty easy to find. What I find insidious about these is that they play to (and add to) the perception that “Shakespeare is ‘high’ art, capable of being understood by only those of the “intellectual elite.”

That belief is, of course, absolute “bull.” While it is certainly true that at least many of these plays were performed at court for the aristocracy, it also is rather obvious that it would not have been possible for a permanent company to have survived solely on what they were paid for court performances and that there would have been no reason for them to have performed the same plays in theatres for the general public if that same public wouldn’t pay to see them. In fact, we know that the public DID attend plays (not just Shakespeare’s) and that a number of people apparently made a pretty good living from the theatre of the time, so the plays MUST have attracted popular audiences. By the way, for any of you who weren’t listening in my classes, Shakespeare (who did get to be fairly wealthy) didn’t do so by writing plays, but by being an actor and part owner of a theatre and a theatre company (and by investing his money pretty carefully).

Yes, the plays (like most in the period) were frequently written in poetry and the language usage was rather careful and sophisticated, at least in the modern days of “textese,” but the plays could, obviously, be followed, and enjoyed, by not very sophisticated or well educated people. Why? I’d suggest because most of the time they just plain tell a good story, most often “borrowed” from popular, or known, sources. Most of the time those stories have both serious and comic elements, and there is often a degree of subtlety even within these categories so that there is often some just plain clowning as well as rather witty use of language, so that the comedy can appeal to audiences of multiple levels of education.

By the way, it should be pointed out that the language used is often rather bawdy. I‘ll even go further: sometimes it’s just dirty. A different appeal, but an appeal, nonetheless. Of course, that tends to be suppressed in modern editions either by cutting it altogether, or by simply ignoring it in the notes. It is true, therefore, that a fuller understanding of the language can be gained through some study (although some folks claim that as much as 90+% of Shakespeare’s language usage is identical to ours). Still, I do recommend Shakespeare’s Bawdy by Eric Partridge and Filthy Shakespeare by Pauline Kiernan as worth reading as bawdry IS likely to have changed over the years.

A single example might be worth including: in Hamlet II, ii, there is a line where Hamlet calls Polonius a “fishmonger.” I think that most editions of the play (if they note this at all) says that Hamlet is calling Polonius a seller of fish. Well, of course, that is the most obvious meaning. However, when you consider that (in the day) a reference to a fish was frequently a reference to female genitals or one who made a living using them, there is the strong likelihood that Hamlet is implying the Polonius is a “flesh-monger” or (to be more modern) a pimp. That opens up a whole new level of meaning in that scene, I think, and many of the plays are shot through with this sort of thing which many editions simply ignore.

Still, I think that actors and directors need to be aware of this sort of bowdlerizing, because an UN-expurgated reading just might help us to understand the play more fully and so, to arrive at a better PRODUCTION, even if we choose not to emphasize the use of such “politically incorrect” references. The entire point of writing a PLAY, after all is to have it seen/heard in a theatre. If one wanted it read, they’d write a novel. The idea of one’s primary exposure to a play being from reading it silently to one’s self and (perhaps) discussing its literary merits in a classroom was NOT the reason for its being written. Folks like one of my English professors who didn’t like to see Shakespeare’s plays in the theatre “… because you can get so much more out of them by reading” simply don’t get it. I’d suggest that if it can’t be communicated to an audience or it doesn’t advance the plot, it probably isn’t present. Of course, that means that those of us in the theatre may have to work a bit harder to fully understand this material than for something written last week: there MAY be more there than is readily obvious. Still, one can learn a lot by simply reading the play as if you were seeing it performed, at least for the initial reading.

So, read the plays aloud, if you have to read them. Better yet, read them aloud in groups with your friends. Yes, it can help to research some things about any of the plays, but if you pay attention to what the characters say, it’s rarely all that hard to at least get the gist of what’s going on. At the risk of rousing the wrath of publishers: DON’T read those “translated into modern English” on the facing page editions. While they CAN help, they do so at the cost of telling you ONE way of thinking about the play, one interpretation, if you will. We theatre folks shouldn’t accept that. We should want to make up our own minds. To go back to my example from Hamlet: the wish that Polonius was as honest a man as a seller of fish does work on one level, but the implication that he is a pimp to the king (Claudius; the King; murderer of Old Hamlet, his brother; Hamlet’s father) seems worth considering, if one were playing, or directing, that play.

I think it’s too easy to assume that the editors who did the “translation” (which I think is mostly a ploy to sell books) are providing you with complete information, when, in fact, they aren’t. What they are mostly doing is trying to make this “hard” stuff easy. And, in the process, telling you that you are too stupid to understand the original without their “help.” (Rather like misguided English teachers.) We ought to want to make up our own mind (especially for a production) AND IT’S NOT ALL THAT HARD! Remember, these are PLAYS, written by an ACTOR for actors. They weren’t written to be great art, that’s what the Sonnets and other poems are all about. The plays were written to put “butts in seats” and make money. The fact that they ended up being (in many cases) pretty well crafted works of literature is rather beside the point. Although it does seem true that well crafted plays make up a lot of what is remembered in the history of dramatic lit.

Anyway, I’ve rambled on too long about this. I do hope that at least some folks outside of “Shakespeare companies” do something to mark the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death in 2016 (also in April). As is probably obvious, I think it’s worthy of marking in some way. Probably the most appropriate form for such recognition would be through production. I hope others will agree with me and that we’ll see an increased number of Shakespearean productions at least during that year.

0 Comments

#20 Weather forecasting, criticism & grading

#19 "Glorifying Murderers"

#18 Rose smelling and other relaxations

#17 Freedom of Speech, "Political Correctness" & Terrorism

#16 Je Suis Charlie

#15 The End of One Year, the Beginning of Another

Archives

Categories