From Sister to Murderer and Other Tales of Love (Adapting Kafka's Metamorphosis)

Today, let us discuss The Metamorphosis.

Mine!

He looks like he's excited.

So this ties in to my work on adaptations.

To give a brief idea:
I think adaptations are usually terrible.
I have an old article kicking around somewhere:

Adapting Dracula (Why Epistolary is a Four Letter Word) (Boucher 2015).

In it, I outline a lot of my concerns when it comes to adaptations.
Namely:

• The story works in whatever medium it originates (unless you are in a living medium like theatre, in which case you might be screwed)
• The story may work (better) in another medium
• Changes to the story are necessary to make it work in the new medium (books to film)
• "faithful adaptation" is a meaningless phrase

I had a wonderful discussion with Bailey Boudreau, Artistic Director of Slipstream Theatre Initiative about adaptations the other day. 

It boiled down to figuring out what made the theatre, at the time, immediate/important, what was the author attempting to do at the time of writing and attempt to do that in the time in which we currently live. 

Now, I believe this has some thorny problems:

1. You cannot argue objectively about history and therefore anything that occurred surrounding a theatrical piece has to be considered correlative, not causative
2. And it is almost impossible to determine  what the author intended
3. Therefore, any and all choices are still based in our own personal artistry. 

I wrote an article consumed with the problem of author's intent:

Plague Alert: Author's Intent (Why I Blame Toni Morrison for Helping me Think) (Boucher 2015)

It boils down to: 

• The author intended something while writing
• The art stands separate from the author (if it is good)
• The art cannot stand separate from the audience's interpretation
• Therefore, what is our interpretation?

At the time I was working on Turn of the Screw by Henry James, which, unfortunately, never materialized.
Maybe a work for a later time.

But, I was later approached by Slipstream Theatre Initiative to help assist to direct, write, and produce their Penny Dreadfuls.
We had some brainstorming meetings and I threw in my hat hoping to direct and ended up writing for it instead.
I had no idea what I was doing, but was excited for the project.

The Penny Dreadfuls

In years past, the Penny Dreadfuls had been adapted from older sources (like much of Slipstream's season). 

Last year they had a carnivale feel where the production company (in the scenario) was performing in order to lure everyone into the back room so they could unleash a monster upon them. Much like Pippin!

Source

This year, the talk was more of madness, transformation, and subtler things. 

Immediately Metamorphosis jumped out at me, but I couldn't say why. 

It was always something that I wanted to work on, so I suggested it. 

Luna, the lovely director said that she was excited and off we were to the races. 

The Process

I feel I should be pretty explicit here: 

I had no idea what I was doing. 

I felt really awful for everyone around me. Much of my life I feel like I am bouncing off of walls people already told me were there. So there is that.

Anywho, a few weeks out from opening, I had neither solidified a script, nor cast, nor rehearsal, nor tech, nor anything. I was pretty boned. So I settled down to read the text. 

The reading.

Anyone read Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis? 

If no, here is a really great Blog featuring synopsis and one of the best comic summaries EVER: 

A Great Book Study: The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka

In it, Gregor awakes one morning to discover himself transformed into a giant vermin. That's pretty much it. He wakes up and he is relatively okay with it.  His family kills him.

A lot of metaphors happen here about isolation, depression, anxiety, and dehumanization, but really that is it. He feels like a bug or some sort of monster and everyone treats him like one. His family still feeds him sure, but they are no longer sure it is him. 

Eventually, through neglect and downright abuse, Gregor lies down one day and dies, leaving his family a little bit wealthier and a little bit happier. 

The Realization

That is it! I really did not feel comfortable with it. 

To be honest, I get really uneasy every time that I read the text. 

I couldn't say why when I was in high school, but something profoundly disturbs me about the family's response to Gregor. He seems like such a nice bug. He loves and cares for his family. Why can they not recognize him? Why can they not see him for the the caring creature that he is? 

And that is when it hit me: 

The story is not Gregor's...

The moment that I hit that realization I knew I had something.

Tadashi Suzuki writes beautifully in his The Way of Acting and other collected texts that in order to do justice to a production he tries to:

Tell the story from the most compelling perspective

OR: to put it another way:

Ask the question, "From whose perspective should this story be told?"  

He did this very famously in his Women of Troy, a play about the women mourning the sacking of Troy and the horror that they endure after its fall. 

Now, remember the Trojan War lasted for ten years...

For ten years these women had already witnessed war literally at their gates.

Now, it was inside, running rampant and destroying their homes, their families....their babies.

Tadashi Suzuki, a masterful director, set the Trojan Women in the mouths of Japanese women in Japan...after the Holocaust. 

Source

Those women needed to tell this story in this way at this time. 

I was so moved when I read what he did. 

I cried. 

On a New York City subway, I cried while reading a theatre book.

I was the crazy person that day. 

(The photo isn't from his acclaimed work, but it gets the sensation and it was directed by him La Dame aux Camelias)

So that question has stuck with me for years now. 

• "Whose story is it?"
• "From whose perspective should this story be told?"

I had a clue from the final paragraph of the translation: 

All the time, Grete was becoming livelier. With all the worry they had been having of late her cheeks had become pale, but, while they were talking, Mr. and Mrs. Samsa were struck, almost simultaneously, with the thought of how their daughter was blossoming into a well built and beautiful young lady. They became quieter. Just from each other's glance and almost without knowing it they agreed that it would soon be time to find a good man for her. And, as if in confirmation of their new dreams and good intentions, as soon as they reached their destination Grete was the first to get up and stretch out her young body  (Kafka). 

*shivers*

The argument could be made that it is the parents' who are the aggressors in Gregor's torment and the objectification of Grete at the end.

I think the case could be made and I know I certainly made it in high school.

However, upon further reflection, the setup between the two siblings could not be clearer in Kafka's prose:

1. Gregor: the lowly, virulent vermin, crawling across the floor, sticking to walls, hanging from the ceiling, feasting on refuse, collecting no income, sitting idle, or otherwise playing and becoming an unnecessary burden for the entire family
2. Grete: the exact opposite, young, vibrant, musical, industrious, hard-working, jovial, and pleasant to see. 

So that was the basis of my thought. 

We have the one (did you know that the original title Die Verwandlung translates more literally to "transformation) transformation into beauty and the other into beast. 

However, what to do with it now that I had my cornerstone. 

The Concept

Considering the story from Grete's perspective opened up a whole new avenue of ideas.

Of course she told Kafka's Metamorphosis. She had spent the better part of a year, isolated in her own home, chained to caring for a beast that had almost certainly devoured her brother. 

No wonder she had insisted on calling it "Gregor". No wonder she wrote the whole story making "Gregor" as kind-hearted and well-meaning as humanly possible.

He is the closest thing we have to an existential saint. 

It's all a lie. 

Grete told a lie to save her brother's memory and very selfishly explain away the last year of her life. 

With those ideas in mind, I started crafting a piece that was in that vein. 

The Script

So the script was designed with Grete as the protagonist.

She would be the lens through which the audience would grasp the narrative. 

She needed an adversary, Gregor would do. 

Her parents proved too irresistible not to write into the narrative. 

But, where/when would I set the action? 

Dramatis Personae

GRETE: A youthful, vibrant young woman. She has been kept like a china doll by her mother, her father, and her brother. She is strong and curved like a violin.

GREGOR: He is dead. An enormous and virulent vermin. He begins transformed. There is no way to know what he was before.

FATHER: He is dead. A man lost and losing more of himself each and every day, but with a core of iron somewhere under his flabby exterior.

MOTHER: She is dead. There is not much to say of her. She loves her children. She is sad when they are gone.

The answer occurred to me after I wrote the character introductions: after the event. 

Gregor is already dead.

So are her parents.

Everyone is dead save Grete, but the story still carries on. 

It provided too many interesting things to play with. 

• Who was telling the story? 
• Only Grete? 
• How? 
• Who would play with her? 
• How would she get them to play? 

All sorts of possibilities.

And we explored a few of them during rehearsal. 

The production was really remarkable, but I have no artifacts to present here. 

Only my words. 

However, I was fortunate enough to be able to present my rough draft as a workshop performance last week at Young Fenix Fellowship. 

I plan to host more, but the central question was: 

Does the play work as a standalone piece and should it be expanded? 

Overall, audience response was largely positive. I think there was some serious confusion based on the reading of the stage directions. I write lengthy stage directions that are meant to help more than they hinder. I don't think I always succeed.

Take a look:

Excerpt from After the Transformation by Miles Boucher

There are hundreds of newspapers. All carefully arranged. They are in piles, in stacks by date and time and organized by geography. There is a system to this. It is a very complex, but comprehensive system to the person who made it, but to no one else. 


The newspapers wait. 

Enter Grete

She leaves

Enter Grete

She leaves

Enter Grete

She feels it. That was it.

She paces out the room. She takes its measure. This takes time. 

It is an (un)satisfactory room (depending on the day).  She works with it. She places herself in the ideal spot. She places the audience in the ideal spot. This takes time. 

She lays herself down for bed. This takes time. Perhaps she starts with a newspaper. Perhaps she doesn’t. She makes for herself a pillow, a bed, a sheet, etc.

When everything is perfect she begins:

GRETE: One morning,

She pauses to fix a corner.

One morning, when Gregor…

Did it move? No? Again.

One morning, when Gregor Samsa woke from troubled dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a horrible vermin.

Vermin.

Vermin.

Vermin.

Vermin.

That was it.

Moving Forward

I think that I would like to rewrite it, cutting much of the superfluous stage directions while keeping the bare bones and see what is left.

Afterwards, there are at least a few moments that were and are definitely rushed as far as action goes.

Some of the scenes where Gregor kills his parents are really solid and tight, but I think there are moments to explore between the siblings.

How do you communicate with a wild animal and how long does it take?

Stuff like that.

So that is about where I am at with the piece. I am excited to keep workshopping it and continue to present it at YFF and elsewhere.

Anyway, that is my critique of my own work and an explanation of what I have been doing with my fall.

I hope you all enjoyed it!

Auf Wiedersehen!

Bibliography 

Kafka, Franz. "Metamorphosis." Project Gutenberg. Project Gutenberg, 13 May 2002. Web. 3 Dec. 2016.

Patreon Pals!

Please, join my pals on Patreon!

Here is my Patreon.

If you like my work here or elsewhere, consider clicking on the link above and supporting me there.

For those who don't know, Patreon is a community funded artistic community.
Think a lot like Kickstarter, but where artists can actually make a living as opposed to going from project to project.
There are all sorts of reward tiers including:

• $1/month where you get access to all of my artistic work and patreon only blog posts
• novels
• short stories
• plays
• scripts
• $2/month: early access to my poetry and artistic blogs
• Artistic (W)Hole
• Princess Wishes
• The Wayward Alchemist
• $3/month: access to all of my scripts and novel drafts 

There are higher ones than that, but seriously anything that you can afford is greatly appreciated.

I am posting this here today because this is the first day of my new campaign, which means...that's right...
PATRONS GET EARLY ACCESS
So no new posts today.
I know.
SO sad.

But, today is just as good a day as any to get started and support me on Patreon!

Thank you and have the best day!

It's Not the Role, mate, It's How You Use It (OR Small Actors and Where to Find Them)

Today we discuss small roles.
What do I mean by that?

Small Roles

What makes a small role? 

Leading Role

A leading role is clear. 

They are the protagonist/antagonist/main motivator of plot and action.

They get top billing: 

King Lear:

 Macbeth:

 Romeo & Juliet

Then, there are supporting roles.

Supporting Role

(These are the Oscar nominations.)
People who support the leading characters in what they do (usually sacrificing health and happiness in the process)

Edgar/Kent: King Lear

Bottom and Top Left

 The Witches: Macbeth

 Eponine: Les Mis

Oops...

Surely these aren't small roles.
These are the roles everybody wants to play.
Like Hotspur and Lady Percy (who literally have two monologues each).
These are the roles people salivate over, sometimes more than the leading roles.
So these cannot be small.

Extras

Now, we come to extras:

Star Trek (the other red shirts)

Batman (The other authority figures getting hit in the face)

 Harry Potter (The other people wishing their children farewell)

These are arguably the smallest thing you can be on a project.
These are the Lords Attendant in Shakespeare.
They are there to fill up a bare stage/frame.
Therefore, some do not consider them roles.
For the sake of this article, we won't either because they technically don't make the cast of characters.

So where are the small roles?
Well, there is another class called bit roles.
These are roles that are (usually) under five to six lines in length.

The Apothecary: Romeo & Juliet

Remember him?

He is the one who gives Romeo the poison?

Remember?

Yeah.

"That Old Guy"

Yes. 

"With the Beard."

Yep.

Him.

He is one of the most significant people in the play because without him, Romeo doesn't kill himself in Juliet's tomb. 

Juliet doesn't awake to find him poisoned.

We don't get a farewell kiss: 

"I will kiss thy lips/Haply some poison yet doth hang on them."

None of it.

But, that is his function: to move the plot along. 

There are others in the Shakespeare canon.

None of which you remember:

Seyton: Macbeth

You know...the one who dresses Macbeth and says, "The Queen, my lord, is dead."

 Fortinbras: Hamlet

You know...the one who takes over Denmarke after Hamlet has already killed everyone?

No? 

No one else does either. 

So these are small, small roles: 

BIT ROLES

• Often involving a total of one scene 
• a bare fistful of lines
• and small actors

Small Actors

HOWEVER!

From our Lord and Savior Stanislavski:

"There are no small parts, only small actors. "

-Konstantin Stanislavski

Mr. Stanislavski began his theatrical career in Russia, where the predominant form of art (in much of the world at that period) was melodrama.
Some hallmarks of melodrama:

• larger than life characters
• titanic/mythic struggles set in a familiar/domestic atmosphere 
• far and away places/exotic specimens (Native Americans)
• enormous spectacle

In the midst of shows like: 

The Octoroon

 Uncle Tom's Cabin

(Yes. These are real advertisements. And yes. These plays actually happened...for decades in The United States)

Melodramas are comparable to films or television today: 

Hundreds of extras:

 A diverse, well-written ensemble: 

 All surrounding a powerful leading player:

It was easy in melodrama (and film/TV today) to feel lost in the crowd and the shuffle. 

However, that simply isn't the case and worse it is untrue.
Look at Michael Shurtleff describing Dustin Hoffman:

"After weeks of persuasion, the unknown Dustin Hoffman did come in to audition. He was right: he couldn't sing. However, he gave a marvelous reading of such imagination, intelligence, and humor that Mike Nichols never forgot it. The producer of THE GRADUATE later told me he nearly went into a state of catatonic shock because he couldn't believe Dustin Hoffman was Mr. Nichol's choice for the Ivy Leaguer. It made a star out of Dustin Hoffman," (Shurtleff 10).

Now, Shurtleff is referring to Hoffman's innate talent and skill.
The lesson he concludes is: audition for everything.
I cannot speak for Mr. Shurtleff or Mr. Hoffman (I wouldn't dream to do it), but the lesson I conclude is:

Treat everything like a lead role (even auditions) 

You never know how/when something will be your most important performance.
Mr. Hoffman may not even remember the instance in question, but Mr. Shurtleff draws a direct line of causation to Mr. Hoffman's success with that particular audition.

What does this have to do with bit roles?
Well, treating them like any other is the key to success.
You have an actor with innate talents and skills; they use them accordingly and they can shine in any role.
Louis Zorich recounts his time in London, seeing The Cherry Orchard at Haymarket in the Actor's Chekhov: 

I think it was Joan Plowright doing Ravenskaya and Frank Finnley doing Lopahkin and I forget who else. And believe it or not, the guy who stole the show, according to the critics was Pishchik! Pishchik? (59)

Let me tell you what this Pishchik did. It's the scene where Charlotta enters with the the dog. They're all crossing the stage to go to the next room. And when she comes with the dog he sort of looked at the audience and winked - he was commenting to the audience about the play. This is the guy who walked away with all the reviews for the show! I said to myself, "What is wrong with these people, they don't have a clue!" (Ibid.)

Mr. Zorich concludes that the British have no idea what to do with Chekhov.
Everyone from top down (including very talented leading players) had no idea what they were doing and shouldn't be performing Chekhov at all!
That is a pretty remarkable claim, particularly with some of the characters they had named.
Later on, regarding another production Zorich says:

"Years ago, Olympia saw the Moscow Art Theater do The Cherry Orchard, and she said Pishchik did something she'll never forget. He comes in with the rug and all that and finally he says, 'Give me water, water, water!' And Pishchik goes - [He drink s a glass of water with both hands, gulping it, spilling it all over his face.] He played the longing, he WANTED water. How badly did he want water? It was like life and death! He wasn't just - [sipping.] But he, he - WANTED water, he wanted fucking water! And some of these things, when yous see actors really connected, you never, ever forget. A glass of water? A glass of water? His whole life was in that glass of water! It's incredible" (65). 

The same role was given radiant reception, both by Ms. Dukakis and Mr. Zorich because of its treatment.
Therefore, the character or the role does not determine its size, but its treatment on the part of the actor.
However, I would amend the phrase and say:

There are no small parts, only small directors. 

However, that will be the subject of a different post on how to rectify this state of small-acting.
Tune in next week.

Work Cited:

Hackett, Jean, and Nikos Psacharopoulos. The Actor's Chekhov: Nikos Psacharopoulos and the Company of Williamstown Theatre Festival, on the Plays of Anton Chekhov. Newbury, VT: Smith an Kraus, 1993. Print.

Shurtleff, Michael. Audition: Everything an Actor Needs to Know to Get the Part. New York: Walker, 1978. Print.

The Seed to the Craft of Art is The Art of Going Insane (And Other Acting Tips)

Today we discuss madness.

Nope, not that.

Yep.

Yep. That.
There, that is better.
Or worse.
I can never tell.
And that is really the subject of this post.

"There are no sane characters. "
-Miles Boucher

What do I mean by that?
WHAT I SAID!
(hint: that was for dramatic effect)

But, seriously, there are no sane characters.
Rather:
There are no reasonable people in drama.
Don't believe me?
Look at Oedipus:

Cast Study: OEDIPUS

That right there is a King of Thebes...

Oedipus meets his father Laius on the side of the road and what happens?

1. Oedipus's father Laius tries to murder Oedipus
2. Oedipus murders his father
3. Oedipus marries his mother and becomes king of Thebes
4. His mother has four of Oedipus's children
5. Thebes suffers plague
6. Oedipus curses himself (unknowingly)
7. Oedipus banishes his brother Creon and the prophet Tireisias
8. His mother Jocasta finds out he is her son and hangs herself
9. Oedipus gouges out his own eyes AND is banished

Why?

Why does this happen?

Because Oedipus's father Laius is told by a prophet that someday his son will murder him.

So what does he do?

• Laius sends his son away to die on the mountainside.

I would call that an unreasonable response.

Just the all of it.

Because really what it came down to was the fact that a blind hermaphrodite tells a king that someday his newborn son will kill him and that is all it takes for him to order his son to die.

Everything that follows stems from that moment.

Arguably Oedipus is a complete innocent.

But, the Greeks really don't seem to care about secular morality.

Okay. 

That is an extreme case.

But, that was the Greeks.

They worshiped dirt. 

That couldn't happen in a reasonable society.

Like the Elizabethans in England?

Case Study: HAMLET

This may seem like easy picking.
Hamlet and Horatio certainly talk about death and madness a lot.

Hamlet: Does this seem healthy to you?
Horatio: No.
Gravedigger: No.
Hamlet: I was talking to the skull.

Ophelia does literally go insane:

The King is like get this crazed bitch out of here!

Hamlet certainly feigns madness in the play scene where he woos the spurned Ophelia discussing lying between her legs and then does it!

And then of course, Hamlet speaks to a ghostly vision that no one else can see save Hamlet and the audience....scholars still debate that one.

Seriously, look at that shadow. That is my Father!

So some would say the play is filled with madness.
I would argue that they are right.
Yet again the:

1. Hamlet spurning Ophelia
2. Hamlet murdering Polonius
3. Claudius's banishment of Hamlet
4. Claudius's orders to execute Hamlet
5. Laertes's rebellion
6. Ophelia's insanity
7. Ophelia's apparent suicide
8. Hamlet's return and subsequent jumping into Ophelia's grave and fighting Laertes in it
9. Their duel
10. The accidental poisoning of the Queen
11. The accidental poisoning of Laertes
12. The deliberate poisoning of Hamlet
13. The deliberate poisoning and the subsequent stabbing of Claudius 

All of this, all of this, all of this stems from:

• Hamlet believing the Ghost who said:
• I am thy Father's Spirit AND
• Your Uncle killed me

That is it.

That is all it took to convince Hamlet that it was all his Uncle and everything that followed stems from it.

Who does that?!

Crazy people do that. 

But, those were from the Renaissance.
They did more drugs than the Flower Children.
They drank ale instead of water.
Shakespeare probably smoked cannabis.
Of course their characters were crazy.
We couldn't have that today...
(it's a leading line of thought, but still)

Case Study: HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER (or any sitcom...Scrubs/Friends/New Girl/Cheers)

*SPOILERS*
Meet Ted:

Aww early Ted is the best Ted!

Ted is a psychopath.

Crazy eyes! Crazy eyes!

Ted meets a girl named Robin:

Her name is literally Smulders...

The entire first season is about them getting together.
Second season is about them falling apart.
Third season is about them working on being together (Friends w/Benefits)
Fourth season they break up; Ted gets desperate.
Fifth season is art.
Everything after is just a sorry excuse.
And then Ted finally meets up to his promise and meets the Mother of his kids:

Sup!

And it was good.
Until she dies.

WHY?!

So sad.
And in the end, we find out that all of this is just an excuse to chase Robin.
AGAIN!
He literally asks his kids if it would be okay to date Robin after the death of his wife.


Now, here is the sanity:
It is very healthy to talk to your kids about dating again.
They are a part of the relationship and can and probably should be consulted.

But, Ted literally tells them everything about his sexual history, his conquests, his travails, his foibles.
They know Ted & Robin have the unhealthiest relationship.

That is not the action of a sane and healthy individual.
Ted is the most obtuse individual when it comes to self-awareness and self-control.

And here is the thing...
It's what we love about him.
NOT ALL THE TIME!

Oh shut up!

She is engaged bro!

To name a few.

But, there are so many precious, beautiful moments that we love.

His apparent disassociated moments with his students:

The fact that Ted made it rain for Robin:

The fact that he would have stolen an entire blue orchestra:

These are still the acts of a crazy person.
But, we can and do find them endearing.
There are reasons explored actually within the series, but are not the subect of this article:

The point is:

All drama is filled with crazy and that is what we love.

Case Study: YOUR FAVORITE STORY

Think of your favorite story.
Okay?
You have a story?
You got it in your head?
Know all the back story?
The ups? The downs? The surprises?
Good.

Now, really examine those characters.
Examine their behavior.
Examine their responses.
Are they responding reasonably?
Dare I say sanely?
I'd argue probably not.

Now, here is the thing.

EVERYONE WANTS TO BE SANE.

So far as I have been able to gather.
However, I would contend:

Art is Insane

End stop.
Art is Insane.
It is what we love about art.
People do things we would never do.

• Ted Mosby loves in spite of love kicking his ass.
• Hamlet goes off the word of a spectre and his whole family ends up murdered and his kingdom overthrown.
• Oedipus ends up blind, childless, and cursed.

We like watching these stories.
We like watching characters get kicked and getting back up again
And why?
Because it is crazy to do so!
So why is the first critical response I hear always, always, always:

• It was so real!
• That is exactly how I would respond!

Really?
Really?!
Would you really?
Would you really kill your father, mother, nieces, nephews, and children?
If so, I may want to have you committed.

Now, to be fair, it may say something about the human condition.
Namely: we are all insane.
But, that is the subject of another post.
Here is my point:

Artists are trying to make their characters sane

It is the biggest tragedy to art I see right now.

People are trying to make their characters 'real'. 

And that means by toning down their responses.

That means that instead of tearing up the contract, characters are politely saying, "No, thank you."

Instead of throwing pies in each other's faces, we see them tersely eat dinner for a half hour scene.

This is not an overall trend.

In fact, many modern comedies embrace the insane quite well: 

• Death at a Funeral
• Hot Fuzz
• Shaun of the Dead
• At World's End
• Ted
• Rush Hour
• Tommy Boy

To name but a few. 

But, if you are stuck, if you can't quite figure out why a scene isn't working, consider that maybe you or your partner or the situation isn't quite crazy enough.

Questions to Consider

• Who is right in this situation?
• Who is wrong in this situation?
• Can I make them wrong?
• How?
• Am I acting unreasonably?
• Can I act more unreasonably?
• How?
• What would an insane response be?
• Why am I not doing that?
• Is the reason: to be liked?
• Is it because I would "never" do that?
• What is wrong with doing it?
• What is the most I can get away with?
• What are the consequences for my current action?
• Is it imprisonment?
• Why not?
• Is it lower than imprisonment?
• Why?

I'm not saying everyone needs to go to prison or murder someone.

That would be formulaic.

But, the number of comedies that have a prison sequence is as high as the wedding:

National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation

Bridesmaids

So if you aren't risking something in the scene.
If you aren't gambling on going to prison in your play or screenplay or novel at some point.
Then, I don't think you are writing drama.
Because your characters aren't insane.
And that really makes all the difference.

Why Advertising is Killing my Soul (How Wells Fargo dropped the Ball and so did You)

Today we discuss Wells Fargo:

Or more specifically this:

Can you feel where I may not like this?

The lack of respect for artists is deplorable.

"A ballerina yesterday.
An engineer today."

"An actor yesterday.
A botanist today."

I don't know that I have to explain ads to any generation at this point.
They have been a popular form of consumer culture since they were invented.
But, why don't we go down that rabbit hole?

Merriam Webster defines an advertisement as: 

• something that is shown or presented to the public to help sell a product or make an announcement
• a person or thing that shows how good or effective something is
• the act or process of advertising

Now, advertisements have been around since...awhile.
We are familiar with the often ridiculous ads from the 50s, 60s, & 70s.
Things like a baby wrapped in cellophane to help sell cellophane (pictured above)
Or a doctor recommending a certain type of cigarette:

Because he is a dentist

 Or the infamous "If your husband ever finds out..." ad:

Where a woman is held over the knee of her husband because...she isn't store testing for fresher coffee.
Chase & Sanborn ladies and gents.
But, for sheer longevity:

Lecture on Egypt from the New York Historical Society in 1864.
A lecture by Professor Henry J Anderson, LL.D.
It tells you the time, the place.
All the information you need know.
Also!
To be followed by the Unrolling of the Mummy.
TICKETS are 50 CENTS

For those who don't know, often mummies were unrolled when they were discovered.
Everyone got a turn unwrapping a little bit of it.
What a remarkably unwholesome affair.
But, it only cost 50 cents to get in.
Which, if we access the inflation calculator (which only goes back to 1913) we get:

$12.15
It would have cost less than a movie to attend and unwrap an historical monarch of Egypt.
Talk about cultural sensitivity.

Point Being:
Advertisements have been around.
We know good ones and bad ones.
They have become a huge part of our culture.
They have permeated almost every single medium.

So we know what we are getting with each new batch.
So now, let us take a look at the Wells Fargo ad one more time:

"An actor yesterday.
A botanist today."

What could they possibly be selling?
Are they selling botany? Engineering?
Specifically? No.
Wells Fargo is selling a career. A dream. Somewhere to go.
They are selling the future.
How do you attain that future?
By investing in them and their education programs today.
So we have the three act structure:

Act I: The arts are yesterday

The arts lie in the past in this ad. Dancing, acting, other forms, are for the past. The implication being that they are hobbies, the stuff of children, of youth. 

Act II: The education starts today

You need what we are selling. Education. Why? Because you were an artist. You have no skill set. You need to be trained. And why do you need to be trained? 

Act III: The future is coming

Their byline is literally:

"Let's get them ready for tomorrow."

Why would you need to get them ready? Because these children are ill-prepared.

Why are they ill-prepared? Because they don't know nothing.

Why don't they know nothing? Because they were artists.

Logically, I follow the ad campaign.

It seems to flow. 

You start out as a child, naive, innocent.

They have to prepare you for the daunting future.

So you buy an education in order to live the dream and overcome adversity.

It's a lovely campaign.

Big problem:

They disparage an entire community of professionals by linking artistry and the craft thereof with youthful innocence and ineptitude. 

Already I have a problem. 

Above is my link to one of my first articles: 

Learning & Creativity: How babies rule the world.

In it I maintain that: 

• Learning
• Creativity
• Science
• Research

These are not things that are taught, these are natural processes that we learn or have ingrained within us from a very young age.

Not from professors or learned persons, but from our own observations about things.

But, the purpose of an ad campaign is to create a need where there may not be one. 

So, we as youths are convinced we are ignorant and therefore require more training, more understanding. 

Doesn't that just sound like parents, friends, and teachers: 

"Oh you don't know enough yet. You should go to school/university/graduate school in order to get more training!"

This is the worst lie, particularly for artists.
Because we already are artists.
We already have the power to create from a very young age.
Anybody can put crayon to paper.
Most do at some point.
Or stick to dirt.
Or build in the sand.
Or out of garbage.
We are naturally creative people.
So why don't we?
Why don't we create?
Because we believe the lie that we are not 'ready'.
That we do not have 'marketable skills'.

None of that is true.
As artists we create
That is the most marketable thing in the world
Employers want people who:

• can learn quickly
• are highly adaptable
• work well alone or in groups
• can memorize things verbatim
• can create a pleasant atmosphere in which to work
• are friendly, open, inviting personalities
• can speak in front of a group
• communicate clearly and effectively
• create opportunities rather than problems

Every single one of these describes an artist or a creative.

All of us are capable of being fantastic employees. 

Now, this is not to suggest that an artist could easily step into a specialized school or advanced career like engineering or law or doctoring.

These are noble professions that require years of study.

So too does artistry.

All of them require years of craft.

Each of them can and should be respected as said craft.

• Doctor
• Lawyer
• Artist

I would dare to put them on a level playing field.

Because this ad goes deeper than just Wells Fargo.

Despite the fact that they recanted after an outpouring of reader comments showed their distaste.

Wells Fargo responded that they wished to be inclusive to all careers with their advertisement and they fell short. 

But, why did they fall short?

I contend because nobody at the institution recognized artistry as a professional career path.

And that scares me more than anything.

The fact that we have built a culture that celebrates the careers in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics over and above artistry to the point where we are no longer recognized as career professionals scares me.

We need to right this.

How?

• By working as a community.
• By embracing our artist friends.
• By paying for art.
• By teaching art as a career 
• By encouraging community involvement with the artist
• By never accepting, nor offering an opportunity as a "resume builder"
• By never under-bidding ourselves
• By creating work relevant to the community
• By taking commissions
• By cultivating a sense of patronage
• 
  

This list is not exhaustive.

In fact, if others have more ideas, please share them.

If this is ever going to change, we need help.

Help as artists.

Help as a community.

Because the apologies aren't enough anymore.

We need action to follow.

I don't expect MIT to suddenly become an artist's haven, but we need something when I hear fellow artists say: 

"Well, we aren't firemen."

A fellow artist said that to me and it broke my heart.
We can do better.

Sleep No More Changed Theatre (And You can too)

Today we discuss a spirit jam:

"How do you see 'the theatre of the future'"

The idea of a "theatre of the future" is a tricky one.
What would it look like?
Would it have cooler designs?
Better interfaces?

More impressive/realistic projections?

Be terminally consumed with comfort?

In order to engage with this idea, I would contend we need to think less about a "theatre of the future"
Because I believe theatre is of the now. This. The present this.
There can be no future for theatre; it is dying even as it lives, much like all of us.
So there is no future theatre to which we can speak.
Instead, I would suggest that we discuss "the future of theatre."
That can be guessed at, hinted at in our present time.

With that in mind:
I believe the future of theatre is moving further away from the idea of comfort, emulating cinema and their palaces of comfort.
We cannot compete

Cinema

Cinema has supplanted theatre as a means of entertainment:

• The seats are luxuriously comfortable
• The ticket is always a fair price point (usually under $10)
• The food is convenient and allowed into the theatre proper

Theatre has very little of that these days.

• The seats are usually fold out or worse.
• They are often cramped being a hundred years old.
• The tickets sky rocket to $25-250.
• Food and drink are highly discouraged.

In almost every respect theatre loses to the cinema when it comes to convenience, price point, and quite honestly, quality of content.

However, not all is lost, not all is bleak.

Theatre has some remarkable experiences going for it. 

Theatre is becoming what the critics call "immersive" and that I believe is the future of theatre.

Immersion

To define immersion:
Merriam Webster defines "immersion" as:
the act of immersing or the state of being immersed, as:

• baptism by complete submersion of the person in water
• absorbing/complete involvement
• instruction based on extensive exposure to surroundings or conditions that are native or pertinent to the object of study

The idea is that it can be

1. a physical act of immersing the senses in something
2. a mental act of engagement with their surroundings
3. a learning process through the first two definitions in order to learn something that otherwise they wouldn't be able

This can be applied to the type of theatre that is growing more and more popular.

I will use Sleep No More as a case study.

Sleep No More

Sleep No More is a dance piece that takes place inside of a six floor hotel.

First floor is tickets, coats, merchandise, pick up, and drop off. 

Second floor is a flow blown bar and jazz lounge.

Floors three through six are the play.

What play?

Macbeth and Hitchcock's films (Rebecca and Vertigo) in a kind of weird synthesis that (in my humble opinion) doesn't really make much sense, but lends to the creepy hotel vibe.

Why is Sleep No More so successful?

I maintain because the audience engagement is so fierce right from the start.

When you enter the second floor, through a dizzying labyrinth of ill-lit corridors, you find the jazz lounge.

And it is breath taking.

Filled with a complete bar, you can find your seat, order food, live up the high life in wonderful turn of the century fashion. 

It is a dizzying spectacle right from the get go.

Entertainment plays all night, the bar never closes, and the food is fair.

You could literally spend the whole night enjoying a jazz experience with friendly faces, a live band, a bar, and catered restaurant.

And some people do.

And that is okay.

Then, there are the other floors.
They are filled with unbelievable artistry and attention to detail.
This is the apothecary, filled with drying/dried herbs and flowers.
Dead things are preserved in jars along the walls...snake skeletons and things like that.
And this is just one room over many many floors.
You can spend literally the entire night exploring rooms filled with stuff you can lift and touch and play with.
And some people do.
And that is okay.

Then, there is the performance, which is so difficult to describe in words.

Everyone is granted a mask before entering the playing space.

Each mask provides a sense of anonymity.

They encourage exploration and interaction, but are very cognizant of safety.

The actors physically stop audience members from getting too close or interfering with the action of the drama.

You could literally follow one person, one character through the entire hotel up and down four flights and into countless changes/scenarios, into secret areas/wings.

And some people do.

And that is okay.

The reason that I think Sleep No More and shows like it are the future of theatre is because they immerse their audience wholly in the experience.

• They encourage free exploration.
• They create a dynamic, free-flowing atmosphere where audience can seamlessly go from one stage to another in an instant. 

I remember crawling down after the second repetition too tired to stand and in sore need of a piss, wandering into the rest room as a guy with a drink was coming out.

He appraised me, and with a shrug of his shoulders that said, "Once more?" he downed his drink, put his mask back on and headed for the portal I had just vacated. 

There was a sense of camaraderie with that audience that I have almost never felt with another before or since.

And I think it came from that sense of play.

There was a freedom to the experience; the creators had designed a beautiful playground in which we could lose ourselves in almost any of it.

Now, I say seamless. 

There were clear holes in the work:

• A drawer full of lost rings that were all the same size bands of brass
• Plastic plants that were meant to be exotic fixtures
• Sterilized patches of art

I didn't begrudge the experience for the gaps in the design like so many other productions that I see.

Because in other productions those things are glaring.

It is clear and immediate what is wrong with the whole.

In Sleep No More, I had to literally search for those types of things. 

And why?

Because the rest of it was so compelling, so nuanced, so interesting.

So that is the trend that I am noticing in contemporary theatre that I wish to be built upon and be the foundation of future endeavors: 

The future of theatre will be built on the experiences that are only possible in the immediate present with bodies sharing space and breath within a singular theatrical design.

And you can see the trend developing with theatre companies like:
Slipstream Theatre Initiative:

 Or Nerve: 

Or The Hinterlands: 

 

Where immersion, where experience is the name of the game.

Where audiences are not told what to feel or how to interact, instead they are given ever more carte blanche to write or even change the experience because they are willing participants in the action. 

It is daring, new, exciting, and dare I say, slightly medieval.

The practice of throwing rotten vegetables is an age old way for the audience to show appreciation for the action they are experiencing and to interrupt it, if they so desire.

So maybe the future of theatre lies in its origins.

But, that is another tale.