Friday, February 26, 2010

thanks for nothing, Gipper

Looks like we lost the Cold War, after all. From within. Via one of the NYTimes's innumerable blogs, according to Pew Research Center, Americans born after 1980 believe in big government, market intervention, and that we will revel in the blood of society's bourgeois parasites. Okay, just the first two.
The Pew Research Center today released a giant report on the Millennial generation, a.k.a. Generation Y, a.k.a Americans born after 1980.

The report has many interesting factoids (including the percentage of members of each generation who say they sleep with their cellphone next to their heads). But one of the more provocative sections has to do with attitudes toward government.

Based on the 2009 survey data in this report, Millennials appear to be more pro-government, pro-regulation and pro-market-intervention than older generations...
...by a whopping 53 to 42 percent. People over sixty-five are opposed, 47 to 39 percent.

Repeat: a majority of people over 65 believe in less government intervention in the market. One would think a significant number of these people lived through The Depression -- or heard about it from those who did right before these jerks were born.

So, two take aways here: apparently, we're Millennials, the most apocalyptic nickname for a generation ever. Also: old people are dumb.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

what mickey wants...

Well, it seems that our condemnation of Odeon was a bit hasty. They threw their tantrum, and now will give the Mouse what it wants:
In a statement following talks with Disney, Odeon said: The Odeon and UCI Cinema Group is pleased to announce that, following detailed negotiations with the Walt Disney Company Ltd, an enduring agreement has been reached encompassing all the different aspects of both companies' commercial relationship.

"As a result of this agreement, Odeon is pleased to confirm that it will be able to continue with its plans for significant investment in new cinemas, in digital technology in 3D capability and the other exciting developments designed for the increased enjoyment of all its customers."
So that's that, I guess. No one learned anything. Sounds like another glorious day in the entertainment industry.

protecting the status quo

Honestly, how much can a company not get it? Listen, businesspeople: if you try to keep business models static, not only do you sacrifice future profits, you will hurt current profits.

Autodesk, the makers of AutoCAD, want to prevent people from re-selling fully licensed copies of their software on sites like eBay. Seems like a straightforward endeavor -- until you realize they're trying to invoke DMCA in such a way that it will undermine the legality of minor things like video rentals and libraries.
When Mr. Vernor tried to auction four authentic, packaged copies of AutoCAD software, Autodesk sent DMCA takedown notices to block his auctions and threatened to sue him for copyright infringement. Mr. Vernor, assisted by the lawyers at Public Citizen, took Autodesk to court and won.

Autodesk has appealed, arguing that so long as its license agreements recite the right magic words, it can strip purchasers of any ownership in the CD-ROMs on which software is delivered. If that's right, then not only don't you own the software you buy, but any copyright owner can simply recite the magic words and effectively outlaw libraries, used bookstores, and DVD rentals, among other things (eBay also filed an amicus brief on behalf of Mr. Vernor). That would be bad news not just for consumers looking to save a few dollars, but also for our ability to access older, out-of-print materials. For these materials, often libraries and second-hand sellers are the only hope for continued public access.
Public interest aside, I'm sure Netflix might be a little miffed should their entire business be deemed illegal.

It's becoming apparent that existing copyright legislation is quite simply outmoded. We need Congress to take the lead and establish firm yet workable guidelines in the digital age.

In other words: we're completely screwed.

[Hat tip to the eff blog, via the bookmooch blog]

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Sausage Gets Made, continued [All's Fair (Six Western)]

Part of COItc's pipeline for 2010-2011 includes development of the new play All's Fair (Six Western), the recipient of a performance residency at Centrum (Port Townsend WA). Throughout the year, we hope to post the thoughts of various members of the development team and track its progress.

Below, the playwright continues to recall some of the thought process behind the work. (Part One is here.)

I'm not quite sure how Neil Patterson came into being. He's not based on any one person. As depressing as it is to think that we've not been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan long enough to subdivide it into eras, there was a time in the first stages after the fall of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban when the overwhelming narrative was that of soldiers and contractors kidnapped and executed by insurgents. (It's still happening, but we don't pay much attention anymore.)

The story then was that of the armed forces of a helpless giant besieged on all sides by hostile Lilliputians who would be our undoing through many isolated--albeit barbaric--fatalities. Vietnam redux.

What struck me was how quickly those hostages disappeared from our collective view after their deaths or repatriations. Their only value was when they were in the most distress; we considered very little for them or their families after the crisis was over, one way or another. This is to be expected in our celebrity-addled times, but it seemed particularly psychotic when it came to things like war. Trapped coal miners and babies dropped down wells might be satisfied, even eager, to return to obscurity after their rescue. If the traumas of returning soldiers were anything to go on (another largely ignored narrative, because untidy), those held hostage by Islamic extremists and lucky enough to escape might have a bit more difficulty readjusting.

And while there were events in the news that no doubt inspired the plot, but the real backbone of the play, the real thrust behind the writing, were the characters around Neil, and my experience bringing them to life made me throw this script in a drawer for two years.

Some of the dialogue for my scripts starts as disembodied voices arguing in my head. My favorite parts of All's Fair (Six Western) were born when I started hearing Emily, Jane, and Cherien sparring in the back of my head beyond my control. So, like I always do, I just started transcribing their argument and tried to drape a story around them.

There was something different this time in their voices, though: I was hearing the distinct characteristics of specific actors I'd worked with -- this was something new.

I got into playwriting, if it can be believed, for more egotistical and self-serving reasons than the ones I have for pursuing it: I begin writing lines for my own voice, trying to give myself the parts I wasn't finding in auditions. (The Third Seat was assembled from the zombified remains of my first ever attempt at playwriting in 2003; the first draft was truly cringe-worthy.)

For the first time, the characters I started developing for AF(SW) weren't abstract -- they were based on performers I truly enjoyed working with; sentence cadences were starting to mold to their habits -- for more practiced playwrights I know that this is not an epiphany, but I felt like a painter discovering a whole new kind of brush; it was exhilarating.

I hastily slapped together a draft and dragged some actors into a studio. From 2003 to 2007 I had used the page as my primary laboratory, but after Danish I couldn't even get a full picture of the piece without hearing it out loud. And in the writing for this one, I had literally composed it for specific performers. It was inconceivable that the process could go one more step without their input. These were characters for them; was like a tailor assembling the materials for a custom-made suit: I needed measurements, color swatches, allergies.

So it was a special thud in the pit of my stomach when one of the performers for whom I'd written a role flipped the last page over and said, I don't really get it.
Laurel Lockhart and Roy Clary at the Third Seat first read. This is after I started photographing the carnage.

The first problem was probably that I had tried to drape the script over the episodic roll-out I'd conceived as a way to enhance an audience's engagement with the production. Trying to make a story that ostensibly would unfold over the course of two hours sustain itself for four weeks is a challenge in and of itself, compounded by the fact that my writing style in the best of times tends to be rather condensed. A frequent complaint from actors is that I often don't provide enough of a justification in text for the leaps of faith and about-faces my characters make.

Since my instinct was to be the anti-soap opera (half-submerged objectives, quick changes, non sequiturs), how could I have plausibly created a script that was, for all intents and purposes, a live soap opera?

The short answer is that I hadn't. But I thought I did. There, on the second page, was a pretentiously worded breakdown of pages, purposely indecipherable because even I didn't know that it meant:
But it sure looked like I knew what I was doing. Until we were done reading and people started asking questions.

So -- the first week -- people just leave after page 67? And then they come back and don't have any idea what's going on?

This character doesn't do anything. There's no justification for her making this choice.

I don't get it.

This was my first experience with developing a piece with other people; up until now I had worked in seclusion, not showing drafts to anyone else, and in my one single experience of producing, had held all the purse strings, and thus had final say. I had never opened my scripts up for scrutiny before we had a chance to rehearse and refine. And yet I had thought in my arrogance that these performers would be so flattered by my writing for them that they would not see this first draft for the flawed text that it was.

I had a lot to learn. A lot to process and refine. A lot of ways to get better. So, I did what any mature and self-possessed artist would do.

I threw the script in a drawer and left it there for two years.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

news that is not news

To begin with, all the items in Patrick Healy's gays are just like us theater trend piece in the NYT are positive ones.
A new breed of plays and musicals this season is presenting gay characters in love stories, replacing the direct political messages of 1980s and ‘90s shows like “The Normal Heart” and “Angels in America” with more personal appeals for social progress.
These productions about gay life make little or no mention of H.I.V. or AIDS and keep direct activism at arm’s length, with militant crusading portrayed with ambivalence more than ardor. The politics of these shows — there are seven of them opening in New York in the next several weeks — are subtler, more nuanced: they place the everyday concerns of Americans in a gay context, thereby pressing the case that gay love and gay marriage, gay parenthood and gay adoption are no different from their straight variations.
All well and good, but not only are these points blindingly obvious (the Times is rather good at catching on late and pimping illegal wars, after all), Healy neglects two key changes over time:
  1. the increasing maturity of audiences to deal with gay characters being more than people who sleep with the same sex; and
  2. the slowly dawning realization on the part of theatrical producers that they can fund works that portray gay characters with simple humanity and still make money (see point number 1).
It seems to me Duncan Pflaster's pithy post here provides a far subtler and perceptive analysis in a tenth of the space. But his argument assumes a continuum between audience and playwright, and a market to be supplied -- rather than the received aesthetic of whatever theaters the Times deigns to populate.

What is disheartening is Healy's unstated assumption that gay characters in theater must be placed there for exclusively political reasons. It's particularly galling to this playwright because the portrayal of brown-skinned characters has gone through this same evolution (or, I should say, audiences and producers have evolved along similar lines vis รก vis brown-skinned people onstage) and the same assumption prevails: if a character treads the boards who happens to be gay / brown / lack a penis but possesses any crumb of agency, they must have been placed there because the playwright has a point to make.

Why can't a playwright simply want to tell a story using people who exist in the real world?

Overall the piece has this tone (like so much of the Times) well-suited to quietly assure the elite that change wont essentially threaten their privilege. Honestly, is there a better article to send your great-aunt Edna out on Long Island -- you know, the one who hasn't been to New York since 1974 when that black guy looked at her funny on the street and scared her half to death -- to convince her to come see a show?

Credit where credit is due, however: Healy does briefly note that despite the more even-handed portrayal of gay people onstage, those characters are still overwhelmingly male. There are hierarchies, even amongst society's untouchables...

eating your own hand


Yet more evidence that the entertainment industry can't stop panicking about the new digital landscape.

We'll call this the digital butterfly effect. Disney, which seems more willing than most to toy with the DVD sales model to maximize profits (Disney Vault, anyone?), is now toying on the other end: by narrowing the window for its new Tim Burton-helmed Alice in Wonderland re-boot to be in theaters.

While direct-to-video and simultaneous release are not necessarily new, the idea that a producer would take the central event of a theatrically released film (that is the, er, theatrical release itself) and try to use it to jump-start DVD sales is ... interesting. Mostly because they are taking the central strength of film, its longevity, and bringing it closer to live theater by limiting its run.

(The key difference being that Disney's marketing budget and built-in platform makes such a ploy a cagey gamble -- everyone, after all, knows where they can buy one your items -- whereas for any theatrical production that isn't Phantom of the Opera, a limited run is a sad concession to reality.)

But as the mouse flaps its ears in Anaheim, some corporate conglomerate in London craps its pants. To wit:
Tim Burton's new film version of Alice in Wonderland will not be screened at Odeon cinemas in the UK, Irish Republic and Italy, the cinema chain says.
The move is in response to the Disney studio's plan to reduce the period in which it can be shown only in cinemas from the standard 17 weeks.
The plan would allow Disney to release the film on DVD at the end of May.
Odeon said it would "set a new benchmark, leading to a 12-week window becoming rapidly standard".
There are always unintended consequences to any move, and in an industry with as many moving parts as the international film market, of course someone's gamble is someone else's guaranteed loss.

Although, on the face of it, the complaint that the 12-week window could become the industry standard seems a bit random. It's not as though theaters are at a loss of material to screen. And had it come from their end, couldn't theaters use the limited time only banner to fill every seat during a shorter run, like every other business does?

Instead of a rational reaction to shift in business practice (and not even a permanent one, might I add), we have the usual panic-in-the-face-of-any-change-whatsoever. Charming.

[Image via Waylou]