• Home Page
  • About this website
  • Biography
  • Dr. B's Notes
  • Contact
Richard S. Beam

147     Standing Ovations: Do/Should They Mean Something?

4/28/2019

0 Comments

 
(Note: This post is a couple of days later than I intended because I was out of town for a few days and it fouled up my schedule.  I’ll try to get back to a more normal schedule beginning with the next one.)
 
Not long ago, Bonnie and I went to see a concert by the Omaha Symphony.  I didn’t think it was a bad concert, in fact, I thought it was quite good.  But, I have to admit that my knowledge of “serious” music (and the performance thereof) is pretty limited.  Anyway, at the end of the concert, most of the audience leapt to its feet to give the performance a standing ovation.  
 
Now, I suppose that it is possible that the vast majority of the audience was more knowledgeable than I about things musical, but I tend to doubt it.  My reasoning is that a sizeable number of those audience members felt the need/desire to provide a round of applause between movements of a piano concerto which was played early in this presentation.  
 
Since I was taught that this was not proper, and, in fact, it was suggested in the program that the usual practice was not to applaud between movements of a piece, but to save it until the end.  Thus, I came away with the idea that a good many audience members were probably no better educated in the traditions of serious music than I.  And some, perhaps, were even less familiar with them.  
 
That made me suspect that a good many of the people present probably weren’t really any more capable than I of judging the actual quality of the performance.  It MAY have been brilliant!  They may have just “…gotten through it somehow.”  I’m not sure that I could tell and I’m even less sure that all of the others in attendance could, either.
 
Anyway, this got me to thinking about past performances of all sorts which I have attended, both of concerts and of plays and musicals.  I ultimately reached the conclusion that a standing ovation has, essentially, become the standard (and therefore expected) response to live performance, at least in many places.  If that is the case, I think it’s too bad.  
 
Now Wikipedia (Okay, it may not be the most authoritative source, but it is available and the dictionaries I looked at seem to agree.) suggests; “A standing ovation is a form of applause where members of a seated audience stand up while applauding after extraordinary performances of particularly high acclaim.”  It also suggests that “Standing ovations are considered to be a special honor.”  
 
This conforms with the way I learned about them.  That is, a standing ovation, at least following a performance, is a special honor given for an unusually high-quality performance, either by the entire ensemble or by an individual, usually the leading performer(s).
 
It is true that the President is traditionally greeted with a standing ovation at the beginning of, for example, the State of the Union Address, but in this instance that ovation is defined as being given to the office, rather than the office-holder. Note: in this case the President is NOT introduced by name.  There are other, formal uses, I suspect, which should probably be viewed in much the same way.  An example might be the tradition of standing for the entrance of the prospective graduates, the faculty and the platform party for a commencement ceremony or the entrance of the clergy and choir for a church service.  Those don’t include applause, but they are formal recognitions of the status of these individuals, not a reward for an unusually good performance. I only wish to address the idea of a standing ovation following a performance situation.
 
My suspicion is that sometime (during the 80’s?) when our society was starting its “we have to reward everyone for everything they do” kick, was when standing ovations started to lose much of their previous meaning.  After all, if no one can be permitted to be “special,” because it might hurt the feelings of someone who was not singled out for a special reward, then the reward for excellence has been replaced with a participation “award.”
 
Now, I think I understand the desire not to make children feel inferior, however I have seen and/or heard of too many cases where parents were allowed to provide flowers (for example) to be presented to their child (almost always a daughter, of course) during the curtain call for the local dance class recital (what Steve Ayers used to refer to as “Miss Suzy’s School of Toe, Tap and Fire Baton”).  I have watched the face of those kids whose parents may have struggled to provide such classes and costumes for their child and either didn’t get the memo or couldn’t afford a dozen roses.  Don’t you think those children might feel singled out as somehow lesser than the others who were so rewarded?  Judging from their reactions, I suspect so,
 
There is also the fact that I firmly believe that we are not fooling our children by insisting that, “You were the best one there.”  I’m not too old to remember the fact that fairly early on in elementary school I was aware that some of my peers had strengths in various things which I didn’t have.  Yes, other children were “better” at some things than I was.  I suppose that I should have felt traumatized because Jimmie was a better ball player than I was, but I don’t think I was.  I was aware that there were things I did to reasonably high standard and I didn’t feel “put down” because I wasn’t the “best” at everything.  Do we honestly think that our children aren’t aware of these facts?  I really doubt it.  Yes, we should support our children, students, etc., and assist them to improve in those skills which are important to them, but to teach them that they have to “be best” in everything seems silly, superficial and counter-productive. And that’s not saying anything about the fact that we would be lying.
 
When I worked for the Children’s Theatre of Evanston, IL, I know that there was a Creative Drama professor at Northwestern (which had co-founded the Children’s Theatre with the local school system) who believed that the theatre should be abolished because not every child (We used school kids as talent in many roles.) could be the in the cast, so the kid who wasn’t cast would be emotionally traumatized. Somehow, though, when I took a class from her (I was slowly working towards getting a permanent certification in Creative Drama, while working at the theatre.), she had no problem with assigning grades for her students.  Is there really all that much difference?
 
Having had to assign grades (which I never liked very much, but which I accepted as a job requirement), I felt it was my obligation to myself and my students to try to establish a standard of expectation and then evaluate each student’s work as fairly as possible against that standard.  I did try to provide encouragement where I felt it was needed, but I expected high quality work and I wasn’t going to just give someone a more desirable grade when I felt they had turned in shoddy work. I didn’t believe that that was going to work in life, and I was pretty sure it wasn’t likely to work too well in the theatre.  I was always sorry to assign a less desirable grade, but I felt that it was important to recognize really good work as being of greater value than just “I turned something in!”
 
The idea that “All men are created equal” refers to the idea that all people are (can/should be) of value to the society at large and should be treated equally (fairly) by society in the legal system, etc.  It does NOT mean that we are all carbon copy, cookie cutter shapes which are identical in every way and, hence, must have absolute equality in everything.  And I am glad it’s that way.  Life is MUCH more interesting because we are not all just alike.  Just think, if we were all just alike, NOTHING would be special and we would probably never have any of the arts, or the sciences, or much of anything else.  
 
It’s of real value that some people are good at one thing, while others are good at something else. Just in the “legitimate” theatre (my major field of interest) we need people who are good at playwriting; people who are good at performing; people who can guide the creation of a production, people who can conceive of scenery, lighting, costumes, sound, etc., people who can execute those designs in shops and in performance, people who can deal with the many, complicated business aspects of assembling, promoting and marketing a production and the people who can/will deal with all of the complicated problems of live performance including heating, cooling, seeing to the necessary plumbing, providing whatever seating arrangements are desired (which includes creating the chairs, etc.), and on, and on.  Musicals, of course, are even more complicated.
 
Now I know (because I’ve studied theatre history) that Edward Gordon Craig came up with the idea of establishing a form of theatre which was solely under the control of a “Master-Artist” who would be in complete control of all aspects of the performance from its conception through its execution.  This required the creation of Craig’s infamous “Uber-Marionette” which would replace the living actor with an ego-less creation capable of accomplishing whatever the Master-Artist required in performance.  However, even Craig couldn’t (to the best of my knowledge) eliminate the need for a janitor to keep the facility fit for human habitation, or someone to sell tickets.
 
I’ve strayed a bit from standing ovations, but I think my point may still be valid.  It’s often considered an honor for the designers when a round of enthusiastic applause greets the revelation of the setting as the curtain rises at the beginning of the performance.  Personally, I always found it annoying, as it broke into the timing of the opening which the scenic, lighting, sound and costume designers had worked on with the director to get the performance underway.  I always considered that a good, strong, positive response at the conclusion included at least a small portion of consideration for my tech work, and that a standing ovation was, generally, for the production, because we, generally, didn’t emphasize the idea of “stars” in the university theatre.
 
The devaluation of the standing ovation, I suspect, ultimately comes from the elementary school performance where parents feel some obligation to physically show their “support” for their child’s performance.  Of course, since grade school (and many high school) performance audiences are dominated by parents and family, that means that parents, by standing for their own child, are standing for ANY performance (as long as it’s by their child), regardless of whether, or not, it was really deserving by any sort of objective standard.  I understand the desire to be proud of your child, but it’s only in Lake Wobegon that “… all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.”
 
Now, I did very much enjoy the tour of Wicked when I saw it (on two different tours).  And, I think The Play That Goes Wrong was marvelous.  And, I certainly have seen other shows which I felt strongly deserved a standing ovation. Among them was the production of Waiting for Godot which I saw in London in 2009 with Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen (which, as I remember it, didn’t get one).  I guess that London audiences just aren’t as easily impressed as they are some other places.
 
To wrap this up, I think it’s sad that we, as a society, have devalued the standing ovation and other traditional means of demonstrating our thanks for unusually fine work.  I don’t think I’m alone in this emotion, but people seem reluctant to defy the expectation even when they don’t really think high accolades are deserved.  That’s too bad, as it suggests a “we really don’t expect much and that’s okay” sort of attitude.  I only wish to see what I think I have a right to expect; the best work capable of being produced by these people in that time and place.  This is true in sports, why shouldn’t it be the same for the arts?  I also think I have the right to evaluate the work as to whether I think the performance was successful, or not.
 
And, I refuse to base my judgement on some so-called “expert critic” telling me that I am unqualified to have an opinion.  If I’m qualified to pay for my ticket, I’m qualified to decide whether, or not, the experience was worth my money and time.  We don’t have to agree on the value of everything, but I refuse to check my judgement at the door.
 
LLAP
0 Comments

146   When in doubt...

4/11/2019

0 Comments

 
Not long ago, while poking around on the Internet, I ran across an ad for a tee shirt which had the saying printed on it, “When in doubt, go to the library.”  This was credited to Hermione Grainger, the character in the Harry Potter books/movies.  Now, I knew that something about that simply didn’t seem right, although I knew I had heard the phrase before, and it certainly did sound like something Hermione might say, but it bothered me.  So, I made my late mother, the librarian, happy and looked it up.  The actual quote is from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and goes: “Because that's what Hermione does,' said Ron, shrugging. 'When in doubt, go to the library.”
 
Feeling rather happy with myself for solving this totally unimportant mystery, I got to thinking about the notion of doubt and wondering what others might have said about how to respond to it.  Another trip out into the nether reaches of the internet produced a wide variety of responses, many of which I found interesting.  So, I thought I’d do a post about dealing with doubt; whether or not it’s such a bad thing or whether one should worry about having doubts.  Here’s some of what I found:
 
The Buddha suggests that one should “Doubt everything. Find your own light.” This doesn’t seem like a really bad idea to me, certainly some healthy skepticism of most things isn’t completely unwise.  Of course, as one who was trained in scholarly technique, I do believe that the “light” might be found through a close look at the ideas expressed by others, and I think that the Buddha was more concerned with the value of questioning, rather than just relying on blind acceptance.  Then, again, I could be wrong(?).
 
On the other hand, Isaac Bashevis Singeris quoted as having said, “Doubt is part of all religion. All the religious thinkers were doubters.”  That means, I think, that he was suggesting that doubt is a good thing and that one can achieve a sense of the spiritual (whatever that means) only by seeking, questioning, doubting.  As one who believes in the spiritual but has never been able to convince himself of the “absolute truth” of any particular belief system, this makes a good deal of sense to me.
 
I suspect that most theatre people, especially performers, would understand the wisdom of this quote by Julie Andrews: “When in doubt, stand still.”  It seems, too, that Ms. Andrews’ quote has a corollary, perhaps best expressed by the author, Caroline B. Cooney: “When in doubt, shut up.”  Of course, that might not work terribly well in the theatre, but it does seem to be a rather good idea, especially when in doubt. Of course, on the stage it’s also likely to make the awkwardness of the situation look like it’s the other actors’ fault, which has its own charm.
 
Short of that advice, which isn’t always really possible, perhaps the best idea comes from Garrison Keillor, the creator and star of The Prairie Home Companion: “When in doubt, look intelligent..”  While that may not always be an available option (we’ve all looked foolish at least once or twice in our lives) that doesn’t seem like a bad plan almost anytime. It does, naturally, mean one has to know how “intelligence” looks, which could be a bit of a problem.
 
Some of the quotes about doubt which I find the most interesting may be the shortest ones, the ones like Ben Franklin’s: “When in doubt, don't.”  I find them both the most puzzling and the clearest, both at the same time.  To me, what Ben is saying here is that when one has doubts, he/she shouldn’t take any sort of action until the situation changes and the doubt is reduced.  Which is probably not a bad idea.  After all, perhaps the best answer is that which will be revealed when the time is right.
 
The all too common standard “good” advice about doubt is often expressed by sayings such as: James H. Boren’s “When in doubt, mumble; when in trouble, delegate; when in charge, ponder.”; or George S. Patton’s “When in doubt, observe and ask questions. When certain, observe at length and ask many more questions.”  Those aren’t bad advice, but I’m not sure they really address the question of dealing with doubt.
 
There are attempts at truly practical advice relating to doubt, such as Mark Twain’s: “When in doubt tell the truth.  It will confound your enemies and astound your friends.” Or, one might consider Cervantes statement: “When in doubt, lean to the side of mercy.”  I also rather like Carolyn Hax’s: ”When in doubt, respond to what you witness, not what you hear secondhand.”, which seems like a reasonable approach for many occasions.
 
So, far, I’ve stuck exclusively to statements beginning with “When in doubt….”  There are a good many doubt-related quotes which do NOT begin with this phase, however, and some of them also seem of interest.
 
I’ve become rather fond of this quote from Margaret Mead suggesting that not all things appear to be subject to doubt: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.”
 
Perhaps it’s the fact that I tend to favor what are considered more “progressive” ideas, but I do think that Woodrow Wilson might have been on to something when he said that: "A conservative is someone who makes no changes and consults his grandmother when in doubt.”
 
Doubt, of course, often has to do with serious questions of philosophy, religion, science, etc.  To me, this quote from Benjamin Jowett summarizes the entirety of the idea of education in a single sentence.  “Doubt comes in at the window when inquiry is denied at the door.”
 
I know that I’ve already quoted Mark Twain once regarding the phenomenal power of truth, but I just couldn’t NOT include this: “Truth is more of a stranger than fiction. When in doubt, tell the truth. If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything. Most writers regard the truth as their most valuable possession, and therefore are economical in its use.”
 
I have some reason to believe that I’ve enough of the Irish in me, to enjoy poking fun at the English, although I believe that I’ve got a fair amount of DNA from Great Britain in me, as well.  Still, I like Craig Ferguson's comment that: "When in doubt about who's to blame.  Blame the English.”
 
“When in trouble or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.”  I ran across this in my casual research into quotes related to “doubt,” as being credited to the author, Herman Wouk.  This statement sounded to me like something which might have been said by Lt. Tom Keefer in Wouk’s The Caine Mutiny as a comment about Captain Queeg, but I didn’t actually check that out and I couldn’t find a reference to a definitive source on the web in a quick check.  So, I don’t know where it came from, but it still sounds like it might have been used in The Caine Mutiny to me.  Of course, it IS an all too common response to trouble and/or doubt, so the saying could date way back, and Wouk still could have used it.
 
However, perhaps the best way to wrap this up is with this quote from Napoleon Hill: “Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.” Having enough ego to wish to be thought reasonably wise, I’ll be quiet now.
 
LLAP
0 Comments

    Just personal comments about things which interest me (and might interest others).

    Archives

    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly