FILM: Red State

I'm more than a little uncomfortable with the premise of this new Kevin Smith film -- it seems to lazily put into a single video every deep, nascent fear of the "Red States." The title, Red State, refers to politics, not to religious conviction or necessarily extremism. Although the victims seem to me drawn in three dimensions, at least in the trailer it looks like the cult at the center of it is reduced to one dimension: crazy.

That being said, I've also found it strange that so little film response has been made of right-wing extremism -- not from a "we need to speak out on this political issue!" angle, but from a "we need to digest history" perspective. Things like the Waco Texas shooting, or the Oklahoma City bombing, haven't really been investigated in a three-dimensional, "who are these people and how does it happen?" way. It's easy to deal with history through simple documentary (say, how WTC deals with 9/11) or through exploitive action (say, how 24 deals with torture); it's hard to hit the nail on the head with an act of balanced inspection (say, the way Munich deals with counter-terrorism).

It's hard to tell from the trailer how Kevin Smith (who, by the way -- what a sudden and sharp change in tone!) is going to handle it. I worry that it's going to be an inaccurate set of cheap fearmongering with an unrealistic set of "crazy" characters, but -- it's a trailer. I wish I could find the This American Life where they interviewed a polygamist member of a San Diego church reacting to the news that his church founder had brutally murdered one of the women he was living with, but the way in which they strove to really get inside and three-dimensionalize the object of fear is what made it interesting.

(UPDATE: If I've missed some films that take a look at right-wing extremism in a complex way, please please please hook me up! That'd be worth queueing on Netflix!)

RESPONSE: Associate Artist Schemes

I was very interested to read this article about associate artist schemes, because I'm writing a large article (possibly for HowlRound) about our company's recent big changes regarding how we relate to artists we want to work with -- also an Associated Artist scheme. Suffice it to say that I will be weighing in soon, but in the mean time, I think that article raises all the right questions... questions which I hope to answer!

RHETORIC: Nothing At All

Senator John Pastore: “Is there anything connected with the hopes of this accelerator that in any way involves the security of the country?”

Physicist Robert Rathburn Wilson: “No sir, I don’t believe so.”

Pastore: “Nothing at all?”

Wilson: “Nothing at all.”

Pastore: “It has no value in that respect?”

Wilson: “It has only to do with the respect with which we regard one another, the dignity of man, our love of culture. It has to do with: Are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things we really venerate in our country and are patriotic about. It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending.”

Testimony from US Senate Hearings regarding the funding of Fermilab's construction.

The quote is making the rounds amongst those in the science community upset about the cancellation of the James Webb Space Telescope (which was planned to replace the Hubble) and the end of our shuttle program.

But Wilson's argument is about culture; not just scientific culture but culture as large. I'd love to see that quote in the arsenal of arts advocates as well.

Figuring out how to make an effective argument for the arts is crucial. So is figuring out how to communicate the goals and hopes of government. That's why Elizabeth Warren is also making the rounds right now.

RHETORIC: Chamberlain at Gettysburg

I'm a sucker for a pretty speech. And God damn if I didn't get sucked into this when I saw it in the "Related Videos" on YouTube:

He's the reason I bought a hat like that when I was a kid.

PLUG: James Monaco

It turns out, that if you missed There They Were, you have another chance -- the solo performance show Going Stag on October 3rd at the Connelly Theater!

REVIEW: There They Were

James Monaco's

THERE THEY WERE

This is my fourth time seeing some iteration of James Monaco's work, and I feel absolutely no guilt in calling him one of the greatest storytellers in the world alive today, whose work you should track down. I don't know if I could be any more unequivocal than that.

(I know, I'm using up my superlatives this evening. I'm just excited by work I'm seeing!)

STORYTELLING

This is going to be a very simple review, because the work James Monaco does is incredibly simple. There They Were is a story told by a man in a chair (James Monaco) about a wedding in Long Island.

Right before the show, one of the audience members said of this work, "It's like a young Spalding Gray." I can't say I've had the honor of seeing Spalding Gray in the flesh -- something I've missed forever -- but I think it could be fairly apt.

THE BODY

It's seriously just James Monaco in a chair, and you will be sitting at the front of your seat the entire time. Each word is finely chosen, each gesture with his hand is finely choreographed. When he uses the palm of his hand to indicate one character, and a finger to indicate another, those body parts take on a life of their own. Each movement has an emotional depth and evocative-ness that makes even the simplest, most banal moment in the story take on a weight without James Monaco needing any amateur theatrics.

His tone is matter of fact, but the motions give the weight that lets you know that what you're listening to indicates a deep well of submerged emotion. In this sense, the setting is perfect -- the massive emotional tides that are stirred by a wedding that are shoe-horned into our most banal of rituals are perfectly encapsulated in this story.

THE VOICE

It's music. Not metaphorically, literally. The voice is so finely choreographed, and he creates rhythm with the parts of his body -- sometimes incredibly energetic, sometimes subtly crafted. Sometimes it takes its inspiration from the music of life -- an incredible instructions dance called "Topple the Czar" -- and sometimes it takes its inspirations from the sounds that fill life -- a lonely woman's shuffling feet through an empty house.

RITUAL

What rituals do for us is they ground the mundane in a sense of eternity and weight. That's why we hold weddings: to remind us that this love is not just some squishy, temporary emotions: it's a moment being stretched out into eternity. So too does this story-telling: it powerfully evokes oral histories, a story that has been passed along so many times that it has become a structured, stratified ritual, that can be perfectly preserved... except that it can't.

THE MICROSCOPE

The specificity also gives us the comfort and ability to look at the minute details. When James creates the slow sad shuffle of the woman through her house, or the sigh of men with cigars on a balcony looking up at the stars, we can believe so strongly in that moment that we can investigate each tiny detail. And yet, because it's not happening "for real" in front of us, we are really examining the details in our own imagination. How often do we get to put our own imagination up for such scrutiny?

Also, "Topple the Czar" is hysterical. Can't get enough.

I doubt that I've been able to do justice to the strength of the piece. If I could, I'd have James Monaco sharpen these words up for me.

UPDATE:

PERSPECTIVE

Sorry, one thing else that I really love about James' work is the shift in protagonists. See, James Monaco creates an entire family line in this work, but amazingly he gives each of them equal space. Those characters who, at first, we only see as a joke or a background character (e.g. Gary, who had something terrible happen to him that nobody could quite remember) will, at some point, be given center stage, and suddenly those activities that we saw through mundate eyes before will be given the full emotional weight and complexity that was previously the purview of everyone else.

It's a method of story-telling that is warm with compassion, and creates a universe dense with emotions and weight.

(Dear FCC: got free tickets to this too. Thanks for asking.)

REVIEW: Queen of the May

Evan Watkins' and Andrew Farmer's

QUEEN OF THE MAY

It's already closed -- twice now -- but because it was an excellent piece of work, I feel it's necessary to write my thoughts upon it, because it was a hysterical and well crafted piece of comedy.

EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN

Much like Felix + the Diligence (even though this play came first), The Queen of the May and Her Harvest Kings trades on a nostalgia for a time we don't really know. In this case, it's 1929, and the daughter of the Cole Family (famous for Cole Family Slaw...) is the Queen of the May (Valerie Graham), and she is choosing her Harvest King from between two identical twins (Andrew Farmer and Evan Watkins).

It's a simpler time, where two men got dressed up nice and put on a delightful show to woo a gentle lady. There's just one problem: it turns out that the 1920s were full of loathsome, terrible racism, sexism, and generally backwards thinking. As playwrights, Evan and Andrew don't write in a plot about race, or try to demonstrate how terrible the plight of Catholics was, they just make fun.

A lot of fun. A lot of terrible, cruel, heartless fun. It's all jokes and smarmy gags, but every other joke is a cruel knife. Of course the 1920s seemed fun -- nobody at the time had to pay attention to the implications of horrifying jokes. So when Andrew rattles of a witticism about the racial profile of Jazz musicians -- "It's not just the notes that are black" -- the jokes may be landing in the audience but the vicious cruelty behind every smile is on display.

Eventually, the jokes fall away and we realize that this terrible cruelty -- which "society" has on display -- is perfectly encapsulated by the foul, greedy hearts of the two Harvest Kings. They've done foul, terrible deeds to fit into this perfect picture they want to put on display, and it tears everything apart.

FUN, FUN, FUN

Of course, from the description apart, you're probably imagining some hybrid of a family-falling-apart story (a la August Osage County) and a Broadway musical. Nothing can be further from the truth. The entire play is just a series of gags and bits, sketches as these boys try -- through force -- to earn your love.

It's fun. It's hysterical. The entire play is tightly crafted with the kind of slapstick enthusiasm that most comedy performers could dream of. The first time I saw this play, I fell into a paroxysm of laughter that caused me actual physical pain and lasted fifteen minutes. And it was all because I had been attacked as being an incompetent Hebrew.

HOW HIGH IS YOUR BROW?

It's not surprising to me that, in talking with audience members after the show, I heard repeatedly that this play is "a really dumb play in a good way," and "a really smart play." The stupidity -- the bloody-minded, offensive, hilarity and the dumb punnery -- is so well crafted that it seems to turn Dumb Comedy into a Ph.D. It moves fast and furious, so all you're aware of is being very much entertained, but on looking back -- my god it's a fun ride.

Before I leave you, you should check out the audience response. I'm currently editing another round of audience response.

(Dear FCC: they gave me a ticket, twice.)