Editing is a frightening topic for me. I don't like unedited things. They're sloppy. They're misspelled. They're offensive to the sensibilities, whether grammatical, political or personal.
The one that drives me the craziest, though, is the grammar. When my grammar sensibilities are offended, it's practically sensory. A malfunctioning sentence tastes bad to me. I'm typing slowly right now, because I really want to commit to a straight-on, unedited blog. They take too damn long the other way, and sooner or later I just say "fuck it" and it never sees the light of the internet. Even now I'm thinking "Wait, I was doing something else! I don't have time for a blog!"
I was, in fact, about to light the menorah, ten hours late, and considering the concept of ritual. And wondering what it would be like to commit to the rituals of Judaism for a time, without altering my beliefs and non-beliefs, or even feeling that I'd need to alter them. Then wondering whether such a drastic change, such a clockwork lifestyle, could alter my neural patterns, and I'd become someone who'd want it all to be true, someone prone to belief. It's a bit of an odd feeling; I'll let you know when I sort it out.
So, we'll pause from typing...
Lit the menorah, all nine candles for the last night, as well as the miniature one from Grandma Sophie's house, with little white birthday candles. But I put up the mini Christmas tree first - Hans will be happy to see that in the morning. I'm saving the decorating for both of us. Anyway, I turned the tree lights on before lighting the menorah, so I'd have both of them going at the same time.
Then I looked on Youtube for a Chanukah song. Tonight at the Imp, after the shows, there was a brief discussion about the existence of Chanukah songs other than the one about a clay dreidel. I had forgotten this one:
I always thought it had a beautiful melody, though I never learned it in Hebrew. I love the PS22 Choir, too.
The other thing about unedited things is that trains of thought are left unfinished. I've completely lost my point from where I started. I had several points about the editing, in fact. The hell with it, I'm tired. I'm sure I'll get back to it soon enough.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Back to the Tech Booth
You know, after Anomaly Orange's show tonight (last night, if you want precision, as it's early Sunday morning), I feel even better about my decision to tech instead of play onstage. The four players - Jessica, Tom, Zak, and Joe - did a phenomenal job, utterly rocking a new longform. The dynamic was strong and clean. Nothing was lacking. No sense of anyone missing - and no sense within me that I should have been anywhere other than where I was. A good show like that deserves a good techie, and I enjoyed what I got to do.
I had a mic in the booth, which is new territory for me in anything without a script, and I had an interactive role in two of the shorter pieces in the first half. I called the directions in Pan Left Pan Right, and in Bad Doctor (guessing game) I was the voice of the receptionist when needed for extra clues. I might have tried sound effects in the longform (I gave the players a heads-up), but the scene never called for them. We're going to play with that in rehearsal soon.
Back when I ran tech for Hype 7, I wasn't interactive. I didn't even take the edits, because I hadn't improvised myself. I took the blackouts when Matthew Reiss called "scene." I may have gained a good reputation as a techie, but when I saw what improvisers like Clay, Dennis, Guy, and Jared could do from the booth - well, it didn't seem that special to turn lights off and on!
Now I've been part of Anomaly Orange, played with them, built a rapport. Even if I haven't felt that I fit the playing style, we still get each other. I feel like if I start taking some risks in the booth, it'll work out for everyone. I'll have a new set of tools to support the scene, and if I'm the one who falls, I know I'll be caught. Nobody grows without taking risks - and I really, really want to hit that next level as a technical improviser.
I'm still going after my next level as an onstage improviser, I'm not dropping that track. It's a different learning curve for me. Sometimes you have to move around to figure out who you are. I was a little - okay, way up in my head for Coma Chameleon on Friday, but it was a good show (nothing against anyone else, but Justin Eifert was on fire!) and I did some good things, and it's going to get better and better.
I had a mic in the booth, which is new territory for me in anything without a script, and I had an interactive role in two of the shorter pieces in the first half. I called the directions in Pan Left Pan Right, and in Bad Doctor (guessing game) I was the voice of the receptionist when needed for extra clues. I might have tried sound effects in the longform (I gave the players a heads-up), but the scene never called for them. We're going to play with that in rehearsal soon.
Back when I ran tech for Hype 7, I wasn't interactive. I didn't even take the edits, because I hadn't improvised myself. I took the blackouts when Matthew Reiss called "scene." I may have gained a good reputation as a techie, but when I saw what improvisers like Clay, Dennis, Guy, and Jared could do from the booth - well, it didn't seem that special to turn lights off and on!
Now I've been part of Anomaly Orange, played with them, built a rapport. Even if I haven't felt that I fit the playing style, we still get each other. I feel like if I start taking some risks in the booth, it'll work out for everyone. I'll have a new set of tools to support the scene, and if I'm the one who falls, I know I'll be caught. Nobody grows without taking risks - and I really, really want to hit that next level as a technical improviser.
I'm still going after my next level as an onstage improviser, I'm not dropping that track. It's a different learning curve for me. Sometimes you have to move around to figure out who you are. I was a little - okay, way up in my head for Coma Chameleon on Friday, but it was a good show (nothing against anyone else, but Justin Eifert was on fire!) and I did some good things, and it's going to get better and better.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
The Girlfriend Experience
Let's take a break from my personal life. I need to bitch about a movie. I really tried to enjoy The Girlfriend Experience. I think it had a sympathetic director (Stephen Soderbergh) behind the lens, who gave it a human quality that isn't always applied to stories about escorts. Almost nobody was presented from a judgmental position. The characters seemed to be real people, not caricatures.
It was flat, though. The characters were real flat people. It seems like that shouldn't be possible. Sure, there are boring people in real life, but they don't get movies made about them. 95% of the film was spoken in a monotone. I like a quiet scene, but for the love of Frank Capra, display a little passion now and then! Show the audience that you care - about your scene partner, your situation, yourself. Tension and distress were implied through dialogue, but they didn't come through in tone or action. Not even during a lovers' quarrel.
I became interested in the film when I read an interview in Backstage magazine with Sasha Grey, who plays Chelsea, an upscale call girl in New York. Grey is primarily an adult film actress, crossing over into some mainstream (Backstage is geared to professional performers in the non-adult media). She was articulate and analytical about her career, so I expected greater depth than what she gave The Girlfriend Experience.
On an inappropriate note, I wouldn't be opposed to checking out her earlier work. She's likeable. Maybe she's just not cut out for drama.
The dialogue, I learned in that same article, was mostly improvised. Dammit... live improv is a wonderful art form, but when a work is made for permanence, like a film or a play, there's a lot to be said for the scriptwriting process. Especially the editing phase. Soooo many throwaway words and inane phrases.
I think the non-linear storytelling also had a lot to do with the way the movie didn't engage me. It's overused. It's one thing to tell large arcs out of their chronological relationship to each other, à la Pulp Fiction. This was just choppy, mixing all Chelsea's concerns as well as those of her live-in boyfriend like diced vegetables. I didn't know when anything was happening (and I even had trouble distinguishing the boyfriend from one of the clients). The synopsis on imdb.com says it occurs on "five non-consecutive days" in Chelsea's life. It all could have been the same day, or weeks apart, or months. Of course, more of the plot was backward than forward... it was a chronological mess.
There's a dig at critics, through a self-styled "escort connoisseur" who gives Chelsea a bad review. I liked how the scenario was treated (and wished I could have seen something bad happen to the douchebag), but I also feel a little stupid for writing this piece, like I'm saying the same things about the film that he did about Chelsea. And a bit like I've already been told to fuck off for having an opinion. Soderbergh has made a lot more movies (20) than I have (0). He can tell me to fuck off. It doesn't make the movie any better.
The tag line is "See It With Someone You ****." (That's not my editing. You know I'd say fuck.) Um... no, don't do that. It's peripherally sexual in topic, but Chelsea's marketing strategy is more important to the plot than any real sensuality. It's alienating - not in an "I hate it!" way, it just induces apathy. The person I "****" went to work on some AI code halfway through.
It was flat, though. The characters were real flat people. It seems like that shouldn't be possible. Sure, there are boring people in real life, but they don't get movies made about them. 95% of the film was spoken in a monotone. I like a quiet scene, but for the love of Frank Capra, display a little passion now and then! Show the audience that you care - about your scene partner, your situation, yourself. Tension and distress were implied through dialogue, but they didn't come through in tone or action. Not even during a lovers' quarrel.
I became interested in the film when I read an interview in Backstage magazine with Sasha Grey, who plays Chelsea, an upscale call girl in New York. Grey is primarily an adult film actress, crossing over into some mainstream (Backstage is geared to professional performers in the non-adult media). She was articulate and analytical about her career, so I expected greater depth than what she gave The Girlfriend Experience.
On an inappropriate note, I wouldn't be opposed to checking out her earlier work. She's likeable. Maybe she's just not cut out for drama.
The dialogue, I learned in that same article, was mostly improvised. Dammit... live improv is a wonderful art form, but when a work is made for permanence, like a film or a play, there's a lot to be said for the scriptwriting process. Especially the editing phase. Soooo many throwaway words and inane phrases.
I think the non-linear storytelling also had a lot to do with the way the movie didn't engage me. It's overused. It's one thing to tell large arcs out of their chronological relationship to each other, à la Pulp Fiction. This was just choppy, mixing all Chelsea's concerns as well as those of her live-in boyfriend like diced vegetables. I didn't know when anything was happening (and I even had trouble distinguishing the boyfriend from one of the clients). The synopsis on imdb.com says it occurs on "five non-consecutive days" in Chelsea's life. It all could have been the same day, or weeks apart, or months. Of course, more of the plot was backward than forward... it was a chronological mess.
There's a dig at critics, through a self-styled "escort connoisseur" who gives Chelsea a bad review. I liked how the scenario was treated (and wished I could have seen something bad happen to the douchebag), but I also feel a little stupid for writing this piece, like I'm saying the same things about the film that he did about Chelsea. And a bit like I've already been told to fuck off for having an opinion. Soderbergh has made a lot more movies (20) than I have (0). He can tell me to fuck off. It doesn't make the movie any better.
The tag line is "See It With Someone You ****." (That's not my editing. You know I'd say fuck.) Um... no, don't do that. It's peripherally sexual in topic, but Chelsea's marketing strategy is more important to the plot than any real sensuality. It's alienating - not in an "I hate it!" way, it just induces apathy. The person I "****" went to work on some AI code halfway through.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Lightbulb
What's with all these epiphanies lately? I hope this increased rate of important-thing-realizing doesn't mean that untimely death is around the corner... and I'm just neurotic enough (and can't get rid of this cough) that I'm not entirely joking.
Anyway, I've been troubled by my apparent dichotomy of enjoying the practice of a performance-oriented art form, without really enjoying performing for an audience. That hasn't always been the case with me, though. I was happy to perform in dance, and I enjoy my Audio-Reader assignments (which range from obituaries to erotica). I still wouldn't call myself an attention whore - truthfully, I try not to call myself a whore of any kind, it's an ugly word - but playing for an audience isn't as unnatural to me as I was starting to think.
So, what's my hangup with improv? I love doing it, and it's supposed to eventually be done in front of an audience. Why wouldn't I want people to see me in a show? Is it the art snob in me? Is it my perfectionist nature, and the feeling that I'm still not good enough (after all, she said, tongue in cheek, if improv is to overcome its amateur, acting-exercise stigma, it should be done in public by the people most skilled at it)?
More the first than the second, I think, because I'm really not half bad onstage. I just haven't done much that makes me feel personally connected. These look-how-fun-and-energetic-we-are comedies... I'm a placeholder in those, a warm body onstage. I like finding important truths about the world. I like discovering beauty, revealing the poetry and music in the scene. I like making people think, maybe even cry, and if they laugh along the way, it's the spoonful of sugar that accompanies the medicine.
The logical extension of the feeling that I don't belong in the pieces I've played - nor would I fit in many other works around the community - can't help leading me to some uncomfortable implications, as well as certain actions that must be taken. Because the only time I think it would be appropriate to call myself a whore is when I'm doing something that deep inside I don't like.
~~~~~~
After all that, I hope you'll believe me when I tell you that I'm excited about playing in Coma Chameleon at the Imp! It's a bizarre, arty format that truly delights me. My first full show is next Friday, December 11 at 7:00 PM. I get a couple comps to the show, too, so let me know if I can hook you up.
I'm also thrilled to get back in the booth for Anomaly Orange, and I hope you'll make it out to see the show at the Imp on Saturday, December 12, also at 7:00 PM. The kids are playing a new format, "The Office," with special guest Jenna Fischer! Oh. Maybe not that part. But it's a solid, funny piece that I'm looking forward to watching.
Anyway, I've been troubled by my apparent dichotomy of enjoying the practice of a performance-oriented art form, without really enjoying performing for an audience. That hasn't always been the case with me, though. I was happy to perform in dance, and I enjoy my Audio-Reader assignments (which range from obituaries to erotica). I still wouldn't call myself an attention whore - truthfully, I try not to call myself a whore of any kind, it's an ugly word - but playing for an audience isn't as unnatural to me as I was starting to think.
So, what's my hangup with improv? I love doing it, and it's supposed to eventually be done in front of an audience. Why wouldn't I want people to see me in a show? Is it the art snob in me? Is it my perfectionist nature, and the feeling that I'm still not good enough (after all, she said, tongue in cheek, if improv is to overcome its amateur, acting-exercise stigma, it should be done in public by the people most skilled at it)?
More the first than the second, I think, because I'm really not half bad onstage. I just haven't done much that makes me feel personally connected. These look-how-fun-and-energetic-we-are comedies... I'm a placeholder in those, a warm body onstage. I like finding important truths about the world. I like discovering beauty, revealing the poetry and music in the scene. I like making people think, maybe even cry, and if they laugh along the way, it's the spoonful of sugar that accompanies the medicine.
The logical extension of the feeling that I don't belong in the pieces I've played - nor would I fit in many other works around the community - can't help leading me to some uncomfortable implications, as well as certain actions that must be taken. Because the only time I think it would be appropriate to call myself a whore is when I'm doing something that deep inside I don't like.
~~~~~~
After all that, I hope you'll believe me when I tell you that I'm excited about playing in Coma Chameleon at the Imp! It's a bizarre, arty format that truly delights me. My first full show is next Friday, December 11 at 7:00 PM. I get a couple comps to the show, too, so let me know if I can hook you up.
I'm also thrilled to get back in the booth for Anomaly Orange, and I hope you'll make it out to see the show at the Imp on Saturday, December 12, also at 7:00 PM. The kids are playing a new format, "The Office," with special guest Jenna Fischer! Oh. Maybe not that part. But it's a solid, funny piece that I'm looking forward to watching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
