Israel's Arts Boycott

Playgoer spots this important news story:

Dozens of Israeli actors, playwrights and directors have signed a letter refusing to take part in productions by leading theatre companies at a new cultural centre in a West Bank settlement, prompting renewed debate over the legitimacy of artistic boycott.

More than 60 have joined the protest over plans by Israel's national theatre, the Habima, and other leading companies to stage performances in Ariel, a settlement 12 miles inside the West Bank. The letter, to Israel's culture minister, Limor Livnat, says the new centre for performing arts in Ariel, which is due to open in November after 20 years in construction, would "strengthen the settlement enterprise".

This strikes me as important for two reasons:

1. Habima is the largest theater in Israel, so it would be rather like having a protest of artists boycotting the Lincoln Center. (More on this thought a little bit later in the post)
   
   
2. This is an incredible amount of spine from the shrinking left-wing of Israel.

THERE'S A LEFT WING! OMG!

My despair over my home nation has been over the fact that what used to be considered "right-wing" ideas (such as the idea that settlements were an uncontested fact of Israel) have moved to the center, largely over the fact that there has been no leadership on the issue.

When Sharon created the centrist Kadima party, he took the spine out of the Labour party; those left-leaning members who joined Kadima quickly found themselves too entangled with the military hawks and the conservative religious settlers to be a viable opposition to the right-wing. Barak further wrecked the left by splitting Labour over the decision to join Netenyahu's government.

So in this atmosphere of a disorganized, demoralized, shrinking left, Netenyahu has managed to get the Obama Administration to agree that freezing settlements are not a pre-condition for direct talks; instead, it will be the subject to direct talks. That's moving the goal-posts from a year ago.

So in this atmosphere leading up to talks directly relating to settlements, it's encouraging to see the people take leadership to say, "You know what? We're not going to participate in this way." And, surprisingly, it appears to be getting traction; it seems like a consensus is emerging in the arts community that this is the way to go.

And as we've seen with this Ground Zero "mosque" debacle, when one group of people have a strong consensus, they can start to influence others who are passive on the issue.

HABIMA IS BIG - HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?

I mentioned before that Habima is a big theater, and I related it to the Lincoln Center. I didn't choose that one arbitrarily.

Playgoer also had a very good read about the Lincoln Center's relationship with Tea Party Billionare David Koch, who apparently backs both unseating Obama and effete New York artists (who knew?). I have heard much gnashing of teeth and consternation over it.

Playgoer proposes boycotting the Lincoln Center as consumers. But what if our anger at the Lincoln-Koch relationship was a boycott of artists?

The quick answer is that a few artists would try, would starve, would need jobs, would worry about stability, and would quickly pretend that they hadn't tried. Enough people are desperate for the opportunity to perform at the Lincoln Center that there will always be artists to work there.

Mission Paradox admonished me once for conflating the health of artists and the health of the arts -- which was, of course, a valid point. But I would point out that the desperation of artists may weaken their ability to create independent arts.

Of course, much of that is perceptual. But I wonder if an artist's boycott could really happen, except under the auspices of SAG or Actor's Equity.

Review: Shakespeare the Dead

Pipeline Theatre Company

In association with Theater for the New City and Dream Up Festival

SHAKESPEARE THE DEAD

upcoming performances:

Thursday - September 2 @ 9:00pm

Friday - September 3 @ 9:00pm

Saturday - September 4 @ 7:00pm

tickets available here

As a pragmatist, I try to look for a moment in a work of theater where a goal is articulated or at least is palpable. When Alex Mills (the playwright, performing in the role of The Stranger) declared, "Let's all stop worshipping the corpse of a dead man--let's start make a new classic!" I knew I was hearing not only the desire of a filmmaker in the world of the play, I was hearing his desire clearly stated.

WHAT A CRACKING GOOD MYSTERY

Firstly, the play itself. The original work, crafted by Alex Mills, tells the story of a film crew gathered to a remote location to film an adaptation of Macbeth. Or so they think. Pretty much from the get-go, a mystery sets in as The Producer (Gil Zabarsky) is swept aside by The Stranger (Alex Mills), and the entire project is swiftly morphed into an homage to a man who died in shocking -- and mysterious -- circumstances.

Mills understands that the secret to a good mystery is not to be mysterious -- it's to present a few compelling facts and hide the rest of the information. At first, it doesn't even feel like you're watching a mystery -- you are watching a comedy, but you're sitting there wondering, "What the fuck is going on?"

HOW TO KEEP US ALONG

In this atmosphere of secrets and confusion, the compelling rope that pulls us along are the vividly drawn, tenderly crafted characters. Willy Appelman as The Intern, in particular, paints a character who is largely incidental to the plot, but as a touchingly sympathetic character, we wind up following him along.

We watch repeatedly as characters dare to hope, and get their dreams torn apart by vicious, sharp cynicism -- The Intern is constantly mocked for thinking that an unpaid, full-time internship is somehow worth something, The Writer (Jessica Frey) is mocked for thinking that Shakespeare has some sort of relevance in this world.

The sharpness of the cynicism is actually sharp: when The Stranger gives a cruel, biting rant tearing into The Writer, the little sadist in us grins. But quickly, it becomes apparent that the world of cruel tearing anger and the world of innocent hopefulness are really the same world, are motivated by the same things -- and watching that emotional realization onstage is what draws the audience along, even as they try to untangle a dense knot of confusion.

WHO ARE THESE GUYS?

For me, though, the production gave me a chance to ruminate on who exactly Pipeline Theatre Company is. They're a company I like, and I've seen plenty of their works before: their hysterical Psycho Beach Party, and their evening of short works Brave New Works, which I think is not only a good night of theater but a service to the community.

Who are these people, though? Their mission statement doesn't fulfill me: "Pipeline's mission is to simply tell excellent, entertaining, thoughtful stories that explore the many facets of humanity from our unique perspective." It's one of those mission statements that says, "We put on good theater." And, to be fair, it's one that they take seriously and do well.

But I've been watching them and I feel like there's more to what they're up to. There's something crafty in the broad, character-driven humor they're putting in front of the audience that's hiding a very intellectual and subtle aim. I haven't divined it exactly, but I hope their theater comes to more critical scrutiny in the future -- because I feel like they are almost done a disservice for being seen as just a funny evening. What I said above about the viciousness and the hope coming from the same place is a message that many may just walk on by, beguiled by the slapstick, the broad (if touching and sympathetic) characters.

WHAT NEXT?

I very much want this play to be put back into the cycle and put on again. There are a lot of chewy, engaging ideas that could be developed further -- in the design elements of the space, particularly the ritualistic chalk that divides up the space. The sense of ritual could heighten the world of mystery and suspense, laying the clues for the incredible ending (which I would feel criminal revealing here).

Furthermore, that fantastic ending could be sanded down a little, flowed more; it's incredibly ambitious in the way it destroys everything you were thinking about the show up to that point, but there are some moments towards the end where things have changed so fast that it feels like hitting a speed-bump; other transitions, however, are silky smooth and quite entrancing.

This, however, is nit-picking. Alex Mills' beguiling presence onstage and mental presence in the writing is a world that you could live in forever.

FINAL WORDS

Go see it. Really, Alex Mills is one of the playwrights that you'll hear from again, a young Pinter with a broader sense of humor. You'll be rewarded for your time.

(Disclaimer: The FCC requires that I disclose that I was given a free ticket in return for my agreement to review this production.

The FCC doesn't require that I disclose that many of the people who are in the company are my personal friends, I have a crush on more than two of them, I consider Alex Mills to be a personal hero, my theater company has partnered with them before and will in fact be partnering with them in September on a short works festival (Brave New Works) and on a full-production that we're partnering with them with regards to space to get.

The FCC furthermore doesn't require that I disclose that people shared classes with many of these people, and have been given a bruise by one of the members of the cast -- she knows who she is.

The FCC is not interested in the fact that we all hold degrees from the same university, nor to the fact that I probably couldn't live without a hug from one of these fine folks. Or the fact that my theater company is jealous of their theater company.

I'm saying all this because I find it rather odd that the FCC doesn't require me disclose all of that, seeing as all of those things seem rather more important than the $10 that they waived me to see the show.)

(UPDATE: For some reason, I have repeatedly made the claim that Colby Day Productions' Ghost of Dracula was, in fact, a Pipeline Theatre venture. There is overlap in the two groups -- Daniel Johnson was involved, I believe, and played The Director in this production, as well as Alex Mills. However, I mistakenly conflated the two groups, and I have made the correction seamlessly in-line. My apologies to my former roommate Colby.)

My Mind 8/30 - 9/4 - "I'm On Vacation" Edition

How I was keeping my mind clean this week:

• More Military-Industrial-Powerpoint Complex.
• Jeff Greene got so few votes in his home district that we can deduce only he voted for himself. His wife wasn't registered.
• Sex advice from young Republicans.
• Danish Rabbit Hopping Championships.

Things I disagree with:

• Criticism from ignorance.

Things I agree with:

• Don't kill fans with too much information.
• Atheists: "Don't be a dick."
• It should be enough to do a good job.
• The internet as a centrifuge where discussions spin out of control and opinions become extreme.
• A Jew rebels against against Jewish racism in wine selection.

How I was keeping my mind fit this week:

• "Jesus was HIV positive."
• This breakdown of the mathematical quandry at the center of Futurama. Or of the initial velocity of one of Verona Flowers' exes?
• Wired's headline is right on key: "String Theory Does Something Useful." Although as always with String Theory, that's debatable.

Important facts:

• Muslims working in casinos in Las Vegas live in a world of sin so that their children won't have to.
• There's an Office of Catechesis through Art in the Vatican.
• Yiddish isn't dead, the n-word isn't new, language doesn't necessarily create thought.
• General Eric Schinseki, Secretary for Veterans Affairs, is putting into place rules that will allow claims for health problems related to Agent Orange to go forward, after 40 years of wait. Shinseki is someone I enormously respect, who demonstrates Colin Powell's failure.

ChartPorn:

• Here's an economic indicator: we're experiencing a bubble. Of indicators.
• Sesame street producers made Mr. Snuffaluffagus real because they were worried children wouldn't inform adults about rape; and other facts. (h/t Don Hall)
• Ways to get high you've never heard of.

Things to watch in the future:

• Urban Art Foundation, a legal defense organization for graf artists.
• Obama Administrator wants letter grades for vehicle efficiency.
• My favorite wonk, former CBO/OMB head Peter Orszag will now write for the New York Times op-ed pages.
• There may be no paper dictionary next time around.

That's Right. I Ate A Double-Down

WHY?

I was walking home tonight and I passed the KFC on 14th St, just as I was thinking to myself, "I should get something cheap and quick to eat, since my apartment is in boxes and everything is chaos, so cooking at home seems like an impossible hassle."

That's when it hit me: curiosity.

What is the Double Down like?

EATING THE DOUBLE DOWN

The first thing I noticed about the Double Down is that, despite its horrific reputation, it is not really the most terrible thing on the menu. Thanks to New York City's calorie intake law, I knew that it was 1090 calories. Which, you know, is pretty bad -- it's half of your daily value -- but it's not at the top end of the KFC menu.

Once I had the sandwich (if you can all it that) in hand, it was easily apparent why. It is no larger than your average KFC entree, about ten bites worth of meat. The two pieces of chicken are about the same size as the normal in-sandwich meat. It's just two layers -- like a Whopper or some such. And yeah, it has cheese, mayo, and bacon, but so does like everything else.

I ate it pretty quickly, feeling pretty disappointed. I feel as though the cruel reputation of the Double Down as being "the worst thing" or being "basically suicide" had created a certain set of expectations that it didn't fill.

POST-SANDWICH EXPERIENCE

When I finished, I was still hungry. I have a theory that the body knows empty calories and doesn't accept them, and it certainly was true about this double-down. I felt as though I hadn't eaten anything.

After about three or four minutes, my stomach started to react to the sandwich. I imagine this is what the now-discredited boiling frog from Al Gore's metaphor feels like. I was still hungry, mind you -- my stomach didn't seem to note that I had eaten anything, it just noted that I was feeling terrible. Although, I feel about this bad when I eat greasy food like this normally.

Pretty soon, I broke down and had to go somewhere else to get some actual sustenance, hoping for something else to quiet it down.

TAKE AWAY

If you were curious what the Double Down is like, know what I should have known: it's basically just a shitty KFC sandwich that gets your hands greasy because there's no bread.

Quote of the Day

""I guess you could call it 'experimental geriatric theater,' "

- Broadway insider at the world's strangest musical theater workshop. (h/t Isaac-at-Parabasis)

Severely Artistic

From the inimitable Rob and Elliot:

I'm sure Val Kilmer agrees.

An interview with Val Kilmer on Method Acting

From Esquire:

Me: You mean you think you literally had the same experience as Doc Holliday?

Kilmer: Oh, sure. It's not like I believed that I shot somebody, but I absolutely know what it feels like to pull the trigger and take someone's life.

You understand how it feels to shoot someone as much as a person who has actually committed a murder?

I understand it more. It's an actor's job. A guy who's lived through the horror of Vietnam has not spent his life preparing his mind for it. He's some punk. Most guys were borderline criminal or poor, and that's why they got sent to Vietnam. It was all the poor, wretched kids who got beat up by their dads, guys who didn't get on the football team, couldn't finagle a scholarship. They didn't have the emotional equipment to handle that experience. But this is what an actor trains to do. I can more effectively represent that kid in Vietnam than a guy who was there.

I don't question that you can more effectively represent it, but that's not the same thing. If you were talking to someone who's in prison for murder and the guy said, "Man, it really fucks you up to kill another person," do you think you could reasonably say, "I completely know what you're talking about"?

Oh yeah. I'd know what he's talking about.

Let's say someone made a movie about you--Val Kilmer--and they cast Jude Law in the lead role. By your logic, wouldn't this mean that Jude Law--if he succeeded in the role--would therefore understand what it means to be Val Kilmer more than you do?

No, because I'm an actor. The people in those other circumstances don't have the self-knowledge.

Well, what if it were a movie about your young life, before you became an actor?

I guess I'd have to say yes.

Okay, so let's assume you had been given the lead role in The Passion of the Christ. Would you understand the feeling of being crucified as much as Jesus?

Well, I just played Moses [in a theatrical version of The Ten Commandments]. Of course.

So you understand the experience of being Moses? Maybe I'm just taking your words too literally.

No, I don't think so. That's what acting is.

I keep asking Kilmer if he is joking, and he swears he is not. However, claiming that he's not joking might be part of the joke. A few weeks later, I paraphrased the preceding conversation to Academy Award--winning conspiracy theorist Oliver Stone, the man who directed Kilmer in 1991's The Doors and 2004's Alexander. He did not find our exchange surprising. "This has always been the issue with Val," Stone said via cell phone as his son drove him around Los Angeles. "He speaks in a way that is propelled from deep inside, and he doesn't always realize how the things he says will sound to other people. But there is a carryover effect from acting. You can never really separate yourself from what you do, and Val is ultrasensitive to that process."