hearthebill.org

www.hearthebill.org is a magnificant non-partisan project and I'm proud to be a participant. The latest fruit of our collective labor is now online. I've included the full press release below.

***

Voice Actors Record Senate Online Version of Health Care Reform

Unique, Non-Partisan Reading of Health Care Bills Brings Critical Issue Directly into American Homes

A group of volunteer voice actors from across the country and around the world has now recorded the Senate version of health care reform legislation making its way through Congress. The recording, available at www.hearthebill.org, follows a successful recording of the House version that is fast approaching a million hits online.

The recordings are keeping pace with changes in Congress, and have now made it possible for voters to hear the Senate bill proposed by U.S. Senator Baucus (D-Montana). All modifications to the bill, including those adopted in the September 22 hearing by the Finance Committee, are updated on the site, as will subsequent changes in both the Senate and House versions.

The audio is free online at the site created last month as a public service for the visually impaired and those who prefer audio to text, such as the tens of millions of people who listen to audio books. Since its launch September 3 with the audio book version of HR3200, the House health care reform bill, the site has had nearly 1 million hits.

“We have made a firm commitment to track any health care reform legislation proposals and get them out there on audio as quickly as possible," said Keesling. "It’s important that as the country debates this issue that everyone – from those who are visually impaired to those who want to learn more while driving in their cars or folding their laundry – have the option to learn what’s in these bills."

The site is a nonpartisan, educational project. The 84 volunteer voice actors come from all across the country, and some from Canada, the UK and Australia. They come with diverse political viewpoints – but also with a commitment not to share those viewpoints on the site.

"There has been a lot of back-and-forth on this issue. While each of the voice actors who have participated have their own opinion, our goal is to provide information so people can make up their own minds based on what’s actually in the legislation,” Havens said. “We want to provide a starting point for a truly informed discourse on one of the most important issues of our time."

HearTheBill.org
We Read...You Listen...We ALL DecideDiane Havens and Kathleen "Kat" Keesling, co-founders
Volunteer Questions? Write to us at: volunteer@hearthebill.org

how to help us

Conflict of Interest theater company is a sponsored project of Fractured Atlas, a non-profit arts service organization. Contributions in behalf of Conflict of Interest theater company may be made payable to Fractured Atlas and are tax-deductible to the extent permitted by law.

Go here to donate.

forest and trees, part 1

Are we missing a larger point here?

Exhibit A: in its post-mortem on the summer season, the NYT outlined how the top earners have lost their luster at the box office.

A-list movie stars have long been measured by their ability to fill theaters on opening weekend. But never have so many failed to deliver, resulting in some rare soul-searching by motion picture studios about why the old formula isn’t working — and a great deal of anxiety among stars (and agents) about the potential vaporization of their $20 million paychecks.

Exhibit B: A few weeks later, the Times recounted how Hollywood studios are mounting a legal battle against Redbox, a kiosk DVD rental service:

Redbox’s growth — it started with 12 kiosks in 2004 and now processes about 80 transactions a second on Friday nights — has Hollywood’s blood boiling. Furious about a potential cannibalization of DVD sales and a broader price devaluation of their product, three studios (20th Century Fox, Warner Brothers and Universal) are refusing to sell DVDs to Redbox until at least 28 days after they arrive in stores.

Redbox is suing them on antitrust grounds. Leery of waging their own battles, two other studios, Sony Pictures and Paramount Pictures, have signed distribution deals with the vending company. Walt Disney permits third-party distributors to sell to Redbox but has so far shunned a direct relationship.

This confused reaction on part of movie studios -- blaming the old models for not working anymore, and seeking to swash anything new and unknown -- indicate more clearly than ever that they have no idea what to do. Moreover, rather than learn from the still-dying recording industry's mistakes, they're intent to follow in their disastrous footsteps.

“These machines are to the video industry what the Internet was to the music business — disaster,” said Ted Engen, president of the Video Buyers Group, a trade organization for 1,700 local rental stores.

People sitting atop the tottering business models of entertainment distribution still don't get that The Internet Is Not The Enemy: it is merely emblematic of a huge shift in the distribution of information. It is no more or less threatening than the shift from vinyl to tape, or tape to CD.

The task at hand is not to put the business model in stasis, it's a matter of figuring out how to monetize the new technology. But as soon as new profits don't fit into the existing model (or at the existing levels), those with the most to lose from the demise of the outdated model scream that it's the end of civilization as they know it.

Their half-assed compromise is as sad as it is fruitless:

Analysts also see a threat to studios in Redbox’s practice of selling about half of its DVDs into the used market (after renting them about 15 times at an average of $2 a transaction). By signing deals with Redbox, Paramount and Sony got the kiosk operator to agree to destroy their discs rather than resell them.

With no better strategy, studios are paying to burn their crops, which is simply insane -- unless you're a three-year-old, breaking your toy because the other kids won't obey your rules for playing with it.

As always, there is a webcomic that explains it better than I have.

Even though the television and film industries share the same distribution channels (and same technological crisis) as the recording industry, the reaction of the former has been to go all-in with big bets, while shutting down its lower-overhead but lower return "indie" shingles; for their part, the major labels have watched as act after act has let their contracts expire, only to continue to release over the internet, or strike new types of distribution deals with touring companies.

For performers and writers, is there something we're missing? Are we racing for position on the the deck of the Titanic? Perhaps television and movies aren't in quite as dire straits as recording labels --at least not yet; but then again, we just got five hours a week of Jay Leno because it's cheaper than scripted television.

Why haven't we learned anything from indie bands using the internet to build a following? Hell, as painful as it is to write this, why haven't we learned anything from Dane Cook?

Where is the serious outlet for dramatic work online -- outside of yesterdays distribution channels masquerading as something new?

wrestling the fog

[The faculty of using my resources well diminishes when their number grows. --Robert Bresson]

Isaac Butler over at Parabasis had a wide-ranging analysis of the ever-present problems of what he's calling "indie theater." That's thing to define in the first place -- after all, what is "indie"? As he points out along the way, "there is very little institutional memory as there are, essentially, no institutions." Folks aren't going to adhere to a seating chart at the anarchists' convention; nor should we be imposing a collective strategy on no-budget New-York-City-based live theater: it's the chaos that creates its best products.

At the same time, there's no reason why we can't take stock of what's around. The piece can only be appreciated as a whole in its entirety, but some highlights:

Let’s just admit it: Supply vastly outweighs demand. This is why festival glut is a really serious problem. Individual shows have a very difficult time getting attention even when festival season isn’t happening. Now that festivals happen year round, getting visibility is even more difficult. The stereotype of indie theatre is that artists either (a) guilt-trip their non-theatre friends into seeing work they’re not really going to like and subsidizing it with the ticket prices or (b) that theatre artists make up the bulk of the audiences at indie theatre shows. While both stereotypes are based in some kind of reality (people who do theatre care about theatre and want to see theatre etc.), these both arise out of the same supply-demand issue.

Recently, the Collective Arts Think Tank has put some thought into this issue and recommends that we, essentially, cut down on supply. While I agree, the question automatically begged is who is meant to be cutting down on supply? Now, the Collective Arts Think Tank is largely centered around performance companies doing generative work, but it’s still worth asking. Vallejo Gantner is a co-signatory. Is PS122 going to reduce its programming by 50% while still seeking the same level of funding from donors and foundations? My guess is no (nor would I were I he). Who, then, is supposed to take the hit and reduce their supply? Who puts down their gun first in the Mexican Stand-Off of Off-Off Broadway?

This gets to the heart of the matter: Managing Director Leah Bonvissuto and I went to the NYIT awards last week to celebrate Roy Clary's nomination, and time and time again presenters referred to the indie theater "community." Butler's characterization is far more accurate: we're not in an artistic commune: we're direct competitors.

The truth of the matter is that as long as work is largely funded by the artists themselves with a few outside donations and the occasional foundation kicking in some grant money every now and then, there’s no incentive to reduce supply (unless the producers get laid off from the day job funding their theatre company). The market does not in any way influence what gets put on (this is a good and bad thing). What determines it is simply staying power. Who will stick it out the longest, go the extra mile, dump more of their own money into their shows, and who will go with them. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing, but it’s one of the reasons why supply is so high.

I might be accused of missing the forest for the trees, but I will happily mis-read him because I think it's an important point: one of the contradictions theater practitioners continue to wrestle with is the thin line between competition and collaboration. Performers do this all the time, and so do producers, directors, and the rest. Teams and alliances are fleeting and temporary: we are all independent contractors who use each other only in the short term.

This is related to another issue (Which is interrelated with the next point). Success is poorly defined. A show that sells badly can still be an artistic success. A show that no one liked can still be beloved by its creators. If success is poorly defined, failure is also poorly defined, and thus a company ceasing production is largely based on factors that have little to do with the actual work.

Success is poorly defined because everyone is carrying their own yardstick for success.

it’s very difficult to convince first-time audience members to take a risk on indie theatre (Despite the excellent price point) because of their worries about the quality of what they’re about to see.

I think he misses the boat here entirely, though: you don't need to sell good theater to first-time audiences -- you need to sell the act of viewing theater itself.

There's also the point made in rebuttal to this post over at 99seats:

We work in lightning, in alchemy. You put together a group of passionate, energized people of varying levels of talent, organization and sanity, shake vigorously and sometimes, you get brilliance. Sometimes you get a big, fat turd. And that's the life we've chosen. But because of that, you know what: no one with money is going to give it to us, willy-nilly. Whenever I talk to someone on the "inside" about the crappy funding practices and wack funding priorities, pretty soon we get to the real crux of the problem: no one wants to give money to something that sucks. That's why basically every theatre in town, at every level, is exactly one bad show away from failure. Once you stink, it's hard to get that stench out of the seats. We're all dependent on hand-outs to survive, whether they're handouts from rich people or rich foundations or handouts from the government. And none of them want to piss money away.

So why be in a hurry to chase the money? Bresson was on to something.

friday night theater

I'm curating a reading for the folks at our sibling company Oracle Theatre Inc.; if you're in the mood to hear excerpts of new plays and down a glass of wine or two (and happen to be in New York City), you should check it out:

Oracle Theatre Inc Presents:
Join us for a night of new works, as Oracle Theatre Inc presents scenes by NYC playwrights:

Kathy Curtiss, Timothy Errickson, Felipe Ossa, Jessie Rosen, and Ella Veras.

September 25th at 7:30pm
Penthouse 1
Shetler Studios
244 West 54th Street (between 8th and Broadway)
12th Floor & then ask for the Penthouse
Tix at the door are $5. A small reception will follow the performance.

"Truth Be Told" is our longest running program, that promotes collaboration and the development of new projects by a variety of different artists. If you are interested in presenting at a future event, please let us know! Join us and continue to support the arts.

oh my

Sometimes performance art appears in a place you least expect.

Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Libyan leader, took the lectern at the United Nations on Wednesday morning for his first address at the General Assembly and delivered a long and rambling diatribe — far exceeding the 15-minute limit on speeches — against the Security Council and a host of other perceived enemies, while urging the world to welcome President Obama, referring to him as “our son.”

In the first third of a speech that lasted more than 90 minutes, Colonel Qaddafi focused on what he called the inherent unfairness of the United Nations, which gives the five permanent members of the Security Council far more authority than the nations only in the General Assembly. This, Mr. Qaddafi said, was dictatorship, not democracy and, as such, “was terrorism itself.”

Ninety freaking minutes?! In a 15-minute slot? (I'm curating a reading on Friday for Oracle Theatre Inc. If a playwright exceeded their time limit by that much, I think there'd be a riot.)

But check out the series of images over at the New York Times. This isn't just the bad behavior of a bully (although he is). Nor is it only the empty posturing of a tyrant (but he is that, too). This is clearly a tour de force performance. With annotated crazy note paper and everything. Makes you wonder if Andy Kaufman didn't die; maybe he just moved to Libya.

This kind of crazy needs to be studied. If someone doesn't post this entire speech in nine parts on YouTube by tomorrow, I don't know what I'll do.

By the way, aren't we glad he renounced nuclear weapons in 2001? Or do we think his "nuclear weapons" program was really just a big ball of tinfoil and rubber bands?

you said it

Everyone is losing their minds because the President turned his back on photographers on the tarmac in Albany while he shook the Governor of New York's hand. It's essential that they know just what was whispered.

Apparently, the fact that it's been repeatedly reported that the White House political staff was all like don't run, David, you're just awful, and the Governor was all like hells yeah I'm running kiss my grits isn't the actual story here. Because we're in all elementary school.

Now the Governor has had a press conference since the man-hug-that-shook-the-world. He didn't want to, of course: would you want to talk about it if the Big Man on Campus -- the most popular guy in school who always manages to shrug off bigger idiots than you -- publicly declares you over?

I've already said my piece on why this Governor is a tightly coiled pile of fail. The White House doesn't even care about that -- they care that a hypothetical Governor Giuliani could become Republican Presidential Nominee Giuliani (dibs on the "Giuliani for what?" bumper stickers, by the way. Did I already call dibs on that here? I can't remember).

And then Governor Paterson -- trying, mind you, to tamp down all this stepping-aside talk -- says this:

"I have had conversations with the White House,” Mr. Paterson said. “I am concerned about the Democratic Party. But I am also concerned about my ability to govern.”

So are we, David. So are we.