An Amuse Bouche for the Weekend

Have a great weekend!

"King Lear" Post Mortem

"The King is dead; long live the King."

A three-week, nine-show run is hardly enough time to adequately explore the vast yet intimate universe that "King Lear" inhabits. I'm not sure that I'm qualified to make such an exploration. All I can do, with your indulgence, is to offer a few insights into what made my journey through this play one of the more challenging experiences in my theatrical career.

First, a few observations about the production itself. Like most community theater, the technical production was hit-or-miss. The lighting was effective, the sound design engaging and evocative, the costuming adequate. (We all made jokes about the "smocks" all the men were wearing; it was like we were back in pre-school on the way to finger painting.) The group, Cedar Lane Stage, is affiliated with the Cedar Lane Unitarian Universalist Church. That means we performed in the main sanctuary of the church: a large box with two of its walls composed of glass panels, some of them tinted. As a result, we never fully went to blackout, which made scene changes difficult. The space also has poor acoustical traits; it's very difficult to find your voice in there. I didn't even bother warming up in the space because it sounded different when the space was empty than it did with audience present.

The direction and cast were very strong. But I wasn't very worried about that going into rehearsals: Shakespeare tends to bring out very talented people. I happened into this show in an unusual way: by email. The director sent me a message 4 days after I finished "An Experiment With an Air Pump" and offered me the role of Gloucester. I took a day and a half to think about it, and when I learned that a few of my friends were in the cast (all of them very talented folk) so that sealed my decision to join the cast.

At the outset, I was a bit concerned that I wasn't old enough to play Gloucester. Being 40 is one thing, but when one of the actors playing your son is four months older than you, steps must be taken. So the director encouraged me to grow a beard. It helped a bit, a bit more when it was whitened, but I never got the sense that my "look" was convincing. As a friend who came to see the show said: "You're too young to play Gloucester; the good news is you get to try again!" Maybe in a decade or so...

Of course the divorce hung over me in this production. There were too many parallels between Gloucester's journey through the play and my own journey at the moment. The only difference between G and me is that his abuse is mainly physical while mine is mainly mental. But, surprisingly I found, they were both rooted in the same emotion: shame. Gloucester's shame is three-fold: he's failed his king/country by not preventing Lear from falling into the arrogant trap he sets for himself, he's failed his legitimate son by sending him fleeing into the wilderness for his life, and he's failed his bastard son by treating him so terribly that his son betrays him. All of these failures become tangled in Gloucester's mind and vex him terribly; his torture at the end of Act 3 seems almost trivial were it not for the blood. Strangely, when I played the subsequent scenes I didn't feel that Gloucester hated Edmund; he failed him. If Gloucester had only shown him a bit more attention and a bit more love, perhaps all of this could have been avoided.

I don't think I need to tell you how many nights I have had those same thoughts about the breakup of my marriage. Hey, at least I didn't get my eyes removed!

There's really only one thing left to discuss and that is Act 4, scene 6, when Gloucester and Lear are reunited. It was an emotionally draining scene, one that was difficult to get into until we stumbled upon something remarkable during rehearsal. Lou Pangaro, the actor playing Lear and a dear friend, decided to wear a pair of boots to rehearsal one night for this scene. During the scene, Lear and Gloucester joke around with each other, allowing the audience to glimpse what their relationship must have been like long ago. And then the madness takes hold of Lear again:

KING LEAR

... Get thee glass eyes;
And like a scurvy politician, seem
To see the things thou dost not. Now, now, now, now:
Pull off my boots: harder, harder: so.

EDGAR

O, matter and impertinency mix'd! Reason in madness!

KING LEAR

If thou wilt weep my fortunes, take my eyes.
I know thee well enough; thy name is Gloucester:
Thou must be patient; we came crying hither:
Thou know'st, the first time that we smell the air,
We wawl and cry.

During one rehearsal, Lou pulled me down to the ground on his line "Now, now, now, now: Pull off my boots: harder, harder: so." He caught me completely by surprise, but I got down on my knees and groped around for his feet. I caught one of the boots and pulled -- and it came off in my hands, empty. That simple act triggered such a physical and emotional response that I bawled for twenty minutes. There, in Gloucester's hands, was the perfect metaphor for all that he had gone through. And when Lear said "Thou must be patient", I cried even harder. Because Gloucester has had enough of patience! He's spent this act trying to kill himself and he can't even do that right! At the end of this scene he wishes to be insane just like his master:

GLOUCESTER

The king is mad: how stiff is my vile sense,
That I stand up, and have ingenious feeling
Of my huge sorrows! Better I were distract:
So should my thoughts be sever'd from my griefs,
And woes by wrong imaginations lose
The knowledge of themselves.

But his lot is that he gets to feel everything that happens to him, and understand it all. Lear, by comparison, almost gets off Scot free. Lear's choices lead him to insanity, while Gloucester's lead to clarity.

The show ended last Sunday, and it took me until Thursday to get back to any semblance of normal. I'm taking some time off theater for a while, I think I've given my all for the moment. ;-)

For a more prosaic account of the show, I refer to you David Gorsline's excellent post here.

Six Degrees

I blame Alison for this. And, by extension, Swankette. Very cunning, those two. They remind me of a couple of daughters in a certain play...

1. I do get stage fright. Very intense stage fright just as the lights go down and I get ready to enter. Once I cross the threshold, I'm fine. Very akin to the feeling of jumping out of perfectly good airplanes.
   
2. I have an intense phobia of anything cold-blooded. How intense? I almost killed a friend's gecko that was left in the care of one of my college suite mates without my knowledge. Keep in mind that this poor little thing was safely ensconced in a container.
   
3. Barry Manilow is the reason I started singing.
   
4. I have not visited my Mom's grave.
   
5. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, I'll pick the cover over the original.
   
6. I almost always think I can do a better job at directing the show I'm in than the Director. That's the hardest thing for me about being an actor: knowing my place.
   

Bloody, Exhausted, Bitter, and Elated

Been a while. (I keep saying that.)

Tech week for "King Lear" is here. I've had my eyes yanked out three or four times. Walking around backstage with a stage blood-smeared face is an interesting experience.

We have signed our divorce agreement. I'll get a summons and then go to court. And then all the waiting will be over.

Dad continues to mend. He attended a Yale class luncheon and reconnected with people he hasn't seen in a long time. He is responding well to Spring and so am I. My allergies aren't nearly the bother they have been in the past.

We're still in Iraq. That makes me bitter. But I'm glad that one of my fave singer/songwriters, Mike Doughty, knows what to do with this bitterness: write a little ditty called "Fort Hood". It's off his latest album, Golden Delicious, and here's a little video he shot for it. Please enjoy it. Its infectious spirit has elated me.

Been a While... Here's a Meme Entry!

See here for more information.

The New Hotness

I"m slowly getting used to all the iMac hotness... behold my first post using the Blogger widget!

Now I can post more easily... if I can get used to this tiny wireless keyboard!

I've Joined a Cult

The cult of Jobs....



My the Gods have mercy on the Apple support line... because I'm going to use my AppleCare for all it's worth!

Second Night: Recap

My apologies for the tardiness of this update. Not much to report on the second night. We finished reading the play and it didn't strike me as long as I remembered. Lear's long-winded-ness doesn't kick in until Act 4 or so, and my wanderings on the heath are as interesting than the King's. I haven't reviewed the text to bear this out, but I'm not sure what happens to Gloucester. Edgar leaves him under a tree and then takes him away to safety somewhere else. It's hard to imagine what safety he could offer Gloucester while the army of France is being routed by the English forces.

Two thoughts scribbled in my notes from the second night:

• "Edg can take care of himself?"
• "Edm needed protection... but at a distance"

There's the rub, I think. Despite all his pretences to the contrary, I believe that Gloucester treats his sons very differently, and the mistakes he made with Edmund go back for years. Edgar was always the capable one, or so Gloucester thought. Edmund was the "son" that needed looking after. What if the reverse is true? It's quite clear that Edmund knows how to handle himself both with word and with sword. Edgar is completely taken in by his brother's ruse. How capable is he, really?

And what mistakes did Gloucester make with Edgar?

First Night: Recap

Tonight began like any other show I've ever done: introductions, administrivia, scheduling (lots and lots of scheduling -- and it still isn't done yet!) and then a bit of reading. A few observations:

• Short rehearsals: our evenings will be relatively short, beginning at 7:15 and ending two to two and a half hours later. The Director said that his page limit on Shakespeare is about 10 pages. I'm of mixed mind about this: on the one hand I won't be as exhausted on a day-in day-out basis, but I really like to work in larger blocks of text. Then again, I'm not directing this production, so I guess I should just be grateful, eh?
  
• Thrust staging: the fact that I have directed in this space should serve me well. Our playing space will be bounded on three sides by audience and we'll have six entrances. Six! I'm going to make sure I have a map with me at all times so I can keep my comings and goings straight.
• Aging: the Director asked me how I wanted to handle Gloucester's age. I asked him how he'd like me to handle it. He suggested a beard. I've never had a beard before. The last time I grew facial hair of any sort it came in on the reddish-brown side. That was over ten years ago, so I'm willing to give it another try. Any suggestions from the hirsute among you (ahem, Joe) will be greatly appreciated.
• Blood: and yes, there will be lots of it!
  

I've Been Cast! Now What?

OK, so I've been cast in this great show. The first rehearsal is about 18 hours from now. So what am I doing to prepare?

Nothing.

That's right, nothing. There's no point in reading the text (and besides, it seems to be packed away somewhere and I can't locate it!) because the Director has probably made a few cuts and changes. It wouldn't resemble the original text. Now I did skim it online during lunch on Thursday, mainly to see how many scenes Gloucester has and where they are positioned in the play. Shakespeare has front-loaded this role in the first three acts. After he is blinded, he appears in a few really choice scenes but he's not onstage all the time. Which is a relief, actually. I can plan how to husband my physical resources during the performance with some actual breaks.

So now I wait to see what the Director has in store for the production.

I can't wait!

A Rededication

I've spent the last six months feeling sorry for myself. It cost me, that feeling. It cost me the trust of my boss. It cost me some sobriety. It cost me some anger, rage and fear. Lots and lots of fear. Fear of never being good enough for anyone ever again. Fear of losing my Voice. Fear of pushing my friends away.

So. This feeling, then. It sucks.

I'm sick of it.

(Notice I didn't say I'm through with it. I'm not. But at last I see a glimmer of light at the end of this tunnel.)

I'm slowly making some changes. I've said that before, yes. But this time I think if I don't change my life I may end up being afraid all the time. I can't abide that.

So. Changes, then. What sort?

Starting here, I'm going to shift the focus of this space. The subtitle mentions politics and theater. I've written much on the former and precious little about the latter. I'm going to execute a flip-flop and devote this space to my experiences with my next show, "King Lear". I'm playing the part of Gloucester, and I'm going to use this space to let you inside my process. What goes on in my head and my body as I prepare to play this great part. It's long been one of my favorites and I only hope that I can do it justice. Some of my dearest friends are in this production, so I will be working in a comfortable place. It is my hope that I can stretch myself within this "comfort zone". I hope you will find it entertaining.

As for the other changes, well, they're mine for now. I may inform you of them later. I may not. Time will tell.

As dire as the opening of this post sounds, please don't worry about me. I'm feeling better than I have in months. For the first time in my life I am anxiously awaiting the return of Spring. I used to hide from it, trapped in a fog of antihistamines and flop sweat. I'm tired of hiding from my life.

Time to make an entrance!

Saint John McCain

TRP has an excellent post explaining why he may support John McCain if he earns the GOP nomination. Allow me to present a counterpoint: why I used to support McCain and why I can no longer do so.

Let me take you back to 2000 and allow me to make a confession: I wasn't all that thrilled with Al Gore. I thought that his rejection of Clinton's offer to campaign for him was a petty move (not to mention tactically stupid). And, let's face it, this was the Al Gore before "An Inconvenient Truth": kinda bland, kinda nerdy (and not in a good way), and kinda entitled. He seemed to me to be approaching the campaign as if he had earned the presidency because he put up with Bill Clinton's shenanigans for 8 years. Perhaps my malaise was caused by other life events (my Mom dying of cancer, me engaged and undergoing a major career change), perhaps not. I was still prepared to vote for Al Gore come November (and did end up doing so) but I was keeping my eyes open for another option.

So along comes Senator John McCain. I had never heard of him before and was intrigued by this former Naval Aviator and POW. "Straight Talk Express"? Calling out the fundie freaks as "agents of intolerance"? Talking economic populism? And a Republican to boot? Wow, I was impressed. I disagreed with him a more than a few things, but I learned a long time ago that you are never going to find a candidate that matches you perfectly. I monitored his progress with great interest.

And then came the South Carolina push polling: "... the "pollsters" asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black." (McCain adopted a child from Indonesia.) I was incensed. I understood (and still understand) that politics can be a blood sport, but going after a candidate's family is really beyond the pale. I was anticipating a heavy response from McCain; I even had one crafted in my head:

"The people who are responsible for these phone calls are cowards. They are too scared to come after me so they come after my family instead. I am calling them out for the sniveling cowards that they are; I am asking the good people of the Palmetto State to prove these cowards wrong. The United States of America is not a country of cowards -- it is a country of heroes! Heroes like the people of the great state of South Carolina!"

But that stirring response never came. Bush won South Carolina and went on to secure the nomination and the election (with a dubious assist from the Supreme Court).

Over four years later, I saw this picture:



This was taken at a Bush campaign rally. McCain hugging Bush. Disgusting.

I apologize for the language I'm about to use but I can find no other words that adequately express how I feel: John McCain is a pussy.

Anyone who embraces someone whose agents have attacked their family is not much of a man, in my opinion. Gone was the "Straight Talk Express" and in its place was "Politics as Usual". To me, McCain can no longer claim the "Straight Talk" mandate ever again.

My Christian friends will remind me that it is better to turn the other cheek. And while I agree with that sentiment, there are limits to any virtue and attacking you through your family is one of those limits for me.

I'm also certain that there is much more to the story than what I have observed. But I don't care. McCain has proven himself to be nothing more than an average conservative politician. He'll probably get the nomination this time because the other GOP candidates are too freaky for a mass audience. John McCain is just another man who wants to be president, and a lesser man at that.

Religion and Politics

My friend TRP has an interesting post up about playing campaign manager for Obama. As a political junkie, I think his idea is brilliant and should be implemented immediately.

As a non-religious American I only have one thought: "Ewwwww. Gross."

Seriously, can we just cut this crap? Let me put this as plainly as I can: I don't give a Flying Spaghetti Monster about your religious preferences. I think it's rude to parade your religion in public like that.

Think I'm a bit hyper-sensitive? OK, imagine if TRP's fictional statement reads like this:

"We have a long, spirited campaign ahead of us. I'd like to lead it off by inviting Governor Huckabee to join me [in a 3-way with my Wife]. He can ["cum" up here and do it] in Chicago, or else I'd be honored to [do him and his Wife in] Arkansas if he'd like. No cameras, no press there...just my family and his [getting it on all night long with various toys, lubes, and restraints -- if that's what he prefers], starting off the campaign by thinking about one thing we share in spite of all our differences: our [strap-ons]."

See? Icky, right? That's what I hear whenever I hear any candidate speak about their religion. I feel uncomfortable, like I've been invited into their living room to hear them discuss how they had sex with their partner last night and oh by the way wouldn't you like to join us?

Just please stop it, OK? I'm not interested in your sex life -- I mean religion. Seriously.

Should auld acquaintance be forgot

Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
and never brought to mind ?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And days o' auld lang syne

For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we’ll tak a cup o’ kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.

-- Bobby Burns

I wish you and yours the happiest 2008. I'll be working on it, I assure you.

Edwards is My Guy

And this quote is why:

And I think the notion that you can sit at the table and negotiate and compromise, and these powerful interests will give away their power, I think is a fantasy. If it were true, it would have been working over the last few decades. And it does not.

-- "This Week", 12/16/07

Things that Make Me Happy: a Series

Clinton Portis' characters!

Checking In

Listening to U2 (not that album, the next one), thinking about life, TRP's dilemma, the recent 'Skins loss, the disappointingly short World Series, missing my Mom, feeling a tad lonely, happy that my work headaches are coming to an end, looking forward to tomorrow's company Halloween Party (love those little kids in costume!), and feeling pretty stable about life in general.

How's things by you?

Week 5 Update

Ok, so how are tommyspoon's Fantasy Football teams doing?

J Street Invisibles
2-3-0

tommyspoon's tea cozies
First Place

Underdog Pool
Tied for Sixth Place

All in all, not bad. Just don't bring up tommyspoon's Fantasy Baseball team, The New Homestead Grays.

A Dangerous Idea that Almost Makes Sense

I made the mistake of listening to "Achtung Baby" on the way home yesterday. This is one of my all time fave albums; listening to it got me through grad school. But listening to "One" and "Love is Blindness" was a bit painful. So I may have to delve into new music for a while and leave some of my favorites behind.

So, anybody got any suggestions for me?

A Response for TRP

TRP and I have been engaging in a dialogue about civility and politics. And before I get into my reply I want all readers to know a few things:

• I share TRP's desire for a more civil, thoughtful political discourse.
  
  
• Not only do we disagree on how to get there, but I am afraid that his approach is dangerous not only for the Democratic party, but for all of us who believe in social justice and other progressive ideas.
  
  
• I consider both of our majority parties to be pretty much one and the same. They are both heavily funded by big business and, as such, are not generally beholden to the people of this country. So this is not a Blue/Red, Dem/Rep, Liberal/Conservative issue for me.
  
  
• It is, however, about winning. Because only by winning can you change the rules of the game and change the cultural climate. This isn't NCAA Division I College Football where the champion is determined by some sophisticated algorithm. This isn't baseball, where the rules are elegant and can be interpreted many different ways and there is poetry and grace in every pitch, swing, hit and catch. This is old school smash mouth football. You must advance the ball to score points. Quoth Herman Edwards: "We play to win the game."
  
  
• TRP and I are very close friends. This response may raise the color in his cheeks, but we'd probably go out and have a beer anyway. (Probably a Mudslide for him and a single-malt for me, but to each his own.)

"Just win, baby."

(Point of order: I hate Al Davis. I love that quote. Kinda sums me up in a nutshell.)

Our mutual friend Joe made the comment that groups of people cannot have "morals". I'll go one step further: politics isn't about morals. Politics has to do with winning and losing to see who gets to make the laws. Now, those laws can have a particular "moral" bent one way or the other. And certainly those who participate in the political process can hold a particular moral point of view. I don't find the "moral" issue particularly helpful when it comes to discussing politics; thus I was tempted to reject TRP's argument en mass. I was going to say that we were talking past each other speaking different languages and that the whole debate is rendered pointless as a result. Besides, I'm not a very good debater; TRP coaches debate. This is the equivalent of me stepping into the ring with Mike Tyson, for goodness sakes!

But the more I thought about his argument, the more I agreed with it. I just vehemently disagree on his approach. As I said in my opening, I think it's dangerous to the causes of social justice that we both care so much about. So this is why I'm responding to TRP. I don't suspect I'll change his mind, but I hope to make him see why I disagree with him.

TRP wants to raise the level of political discourse. But his way to get there is fraught with disappointment and defeat. He wants Charlie Brown to reason with Lucy and ask her to hold the football so he can kick it. And the fact that she takes it away time after time doesn't seem to trouble him. Well, it pisses me off. I'm tired of playing politics like it was the 1970s. It is now 2007: times have changed. They call for different strategies. This "suffering in silence" routine is getting old and getting us nowhere.

I sent this cartoon to TRP last week to preface this response. While I think it's funny, it also happens to be the best summation of the current political climate. Reasoning with the current GOP is like trying to reason with a drug addict: it's impossible. The only thing to do with an addict is to inform her that if she does not clean up her act then there will be consequences. The only thing that the current GOP will respect is their own downfall. They must know that their tactics will not work anymore. I believe the only way to do that is to give back to them in full measure. If we can beat them at their own game then they may think twice about playing it in the future.

I once had a Republican strategist tell me that the only way that the American people will rally around the Democratic party is if they won something. "It took us over 20 years of winning to pull the country our way," he said, "it will take the same kind of effort to pull the country back your way."

As I see it, the only way to raise the discourse is to win. Win back the Congress so we can tone down the rhetoric and restore some sense of balance, comity and cooperation. Because make no mistake, all of that has disappeared from the Capitol building. The GOP is mainly to blame, but Democrats such as Joe Lieberman and others have played the role of enabler. The time for hand-wringing and nuanced debate is over. The Democrats must play to win so we can bring an end to our role in Iraq, so we can expand SCHIP, so we can bring about civil rights to everyone in this country. There are so many reasons to "get up" for this game. It's time we got up, got out and won something!

TRPs Questions

Q: In Congress, would you rather have a thinking person who sometimes disagree with you? Or a non-thinking me-too party lackey who usually agrees with you?

A (TRP): My answer is found in my priorities: Conscience first, country second, party not even in the top ten.

A (tommyspoon): Depends. Right now I want a Congress who is completely committed to getting us out of Iraq. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that's what Mr. Baird's constituents want as well. I consider nuance and intellectual parsing of the Iraq issue to be a complete waste of time. The only questions worth asking are:

1. What is the timetable for withdrawal of US forces from Iraq?
   
   
2. What kind of help do the Iraqis want from us and how can we best provide that assistance?
   
   
3. What is our long-term foreign policy in the Middle East? More of the same? Or something different?

I believe that we can only answer questions 2 and 3 after we answer question 1. Questions 2 and 3 require nuance and thought and rumination. Question number 1 requires committed, resolute action. After the Democrats have veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate, then we can bring nuance and intellectual rigor back to the floors of the House and Senate.

Q: ... why crucify Rep. Baird for what is clearly a thought-out stand? We both disagree with him, but does that make him a bad guy or even a bad Democrat?

A (tommyspoon): I believe that Rep. Baird got played like a piano. Read this statement from Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and ask yourself why there is such a disconnect between Baird's positive outlook and Schakowsky's observations. While I don't approve of Baird's constituents calling him names, I share their frustration. I'll give him props for holding the forum and explaining himself, but he's not doing what his constituents want him to do. That's not the kind of representation I want, TRP.

Shouldn't the Congressman represent the views of his constituents as well as his own? I admit that this is a hard line to straddle, but in the case of Iraq both you and I think the answer is pretty clear. So do Rep. Baird's constituents. We get it. I don't think he does. While I don't want a lapdog, I also don't want someone who disregards my wishes. That's not the kind of representation I want in Congress.

A Conclusion?

If I don't think that my reasoning will change TRP's mind, then why did I take the time to write it all down? Because I believe in the conversation. Despite all that I've said in this post, I believe that all conversations are valuable and necessary to our intellectual health. Conversations don't have to have winners and losers. TRP and I are (hopefully) big enough to know that there is room for all kinds of points of view int his world. TRP always gives me something to think about; I just hope I returned the favor.

A Postscript

One of the points that TRP made in his subsequent post was a comparison of MoveOn.org to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: "...and I'd argue that, unless and until the candidates disavow their tactics, MoveOn represents the Democrats in the same way that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth represented the Republicans..."

This may be nit-picking on both of our parts, but I don't think that this is a fair comparison. I offer into evidence these summations of both MoveOn.org and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

TRP may still disagree with me, but he has challenged me on my assertions before so I thought it only fair to challenge him on one of his.