Last year at this time I was in Auburn Hills, Michigan, or, as I like to refer to it, the Frozen Tundra, directing my play KONG'S NIGHT OUT at the Meadow Brook Theatre. (Actually, it wasn't that cold. Unless you consider 6 below cold.)
I was invited out there to direct the play and I was very excited because the great folks at Meadow Brook had arranged for TV's Cindy Williams--Shirley of LAVERNE AND SHIRLEY--to star in the show. And, what's more, Cindy talked her old friend and former TV co-star, Eddie Mekka ("The Big Ragu" on L&S) to perform in the show as well. It would be my first time directing TV stars, and I was a little anxious about it. Excited, but anxious.
Plus, Christos Savalas, son of TV's KOJAK, Telly Savalas, was going to play the gangster "Little Willie" in the show, and Kady Zadora, daughter of Pia Zadora, was going to play "Daisy," the innocent from Buffalo who gets mixed up in all kinds of jams.
KONG'S NIGHT OUT is a showbiz comedy about what I thought might have happened in the room NEXT TO the room where King Kong whisks Faye Wray out of the bedroom in the classic 1933 film. Folks have described it as a farce, and, yes, there are many doors slamming often in the play, but I think of it more as a screwball comedy. In any case, it requires comedians who know what they're doing out there. Cindy and Eddie certainly filled that bill, as did the rest of the cast.
Christos, however, had never set foot onstage in a play before. And he was acting in a very important part. He turned out to be the nicest young man in the history of show business and worked mightily to learn the set-ups and deliveries of all the jokes, and the dialect of the character, and he was terrific. Kady had had some experience and her "Daisy" was funny and charming.
Cindy and Eddie were a revelation.
First of all, Cindy is very reserved and quiet offstage. She shows up at rehearsal and finds her little corner and opens her script and goes to work. Eddie's a little more gregarious, but no less diligent about getting the job done. Time and again, as I'd be working with some of the other actors in the rehearsal room, I'd see Cindy and Eddie off on their own in another part of the room, going over and over a piece of business or dialogue to make sure it was honed to perfection. What a pleasure to watch professionals taking their artistic responsibility so seriously. And the work paid off.
When it came time to stage Cindy's entrance, I managed to set it up so that she would enter alone and have a moment to be seen by the audience. I assumed there'd be entrance applause. And there would have been. Except Cindy, very rightly, determined that it was not appropriate at that moment in the play for it to stop cold. So we worked the scene without a pause and, though the audience always tried to start applauding when she entered, it was never a full reaction, because Cindy just kept going!
Eddie Mekka is a dancer and a gymnast, and his producer character, Sig Higginbottom, in this production, ended up doing all kinds of stage flips and dives and pratfalls. I never anticipated that for the character, but all the bits worked beautifully.
When it came time to stage the curtain call, I had Cindy bowing last. She demurred, letting me know that the final bow should be taken by the actor playing her son, and she was right--but we ended up with Cindy bowing last anyway. Sometimes you just have to go with tradition and with what the audience expects.
The show ran for four weeks. I had to leave after the first weekend, but I continued to get reports that all was well. I'm still in touch with Cindy and Eddie and, in fact, I've just written a play I hope they'll do some day.
Just wanted to let you know what Shirley and The Big Ragu have been up to.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Shards II
I heard a news report today that production of the Fox Network's 24 has come to a halt because star Keifer Sutherland was injured on the set.
Shut down???
Would Jack Bauer SHUT DOWN CTU?
I don't think so.
24 will not abandon any episodes planned, they tell us, but...boy, you like to think the guy playing Jack Bauer wouldn't be responsible for something like this.
---
I'm probably shooting myself in the foot by saying this but...those of you left out there who still go to live theatre, would you do me a favor? Would you participate in a standing ovation ONLY if you felt the production you just saw was...and I hate to use this word, but I'm going to use it here...AWESOME? Standing ovations should be reserved for only the most astonishing performances in theatre. That's why God invented standing ovations. When I go to the theatre now, I think perhaps 60 per cent of the time the audience is standing applauding at the end of the show. This percentage is far too high. I'm thinking...what? One percent? Two, maybe, it should be? I mean, you're standing up, telling the cast that they blew your mind! Mind blowing is something that happens very, very rarely. Or, at least, it should happen very, very rarely. Otherwise, there'd be way too many people walking around with blown minds. I mean, if standing ovations have become de rigueur; if we stand for even the most ordinary of performances, then how can we tell an actor, or actors, that we have been genuinely moved beyond comprehension? Standing? Big deal! Happens all the time. What do you have to do? Stand up on your seat? A Seat Standing Ovation? And if that becomes de rigueur, what next? Taking off your clothes? A Stripping Ovation? I know. I have too much time on my hands. But I'd like, somehow, for standing ovations to go back to meaning something in the theatre.
---
I had a play of mine rejected by a local theatre today. No big deal. The Artistic Director explained that the play, THE PORCH, does not feature the kind of writing he likes to bring to his theatre. I understand. Artistic Directors have their tastes and they have the right to accept or reject any script that comes over their desks. The play has done well elsewhere and will do well again in other theatres. But it's a constant battle--finding artistic directors and literary managers who embrace...what can I call it?...the traditional form of theatre comedy that I write. I admit it. I learned what I know about writing from Ring Lardner, Neil Simon, Mel Brooks and Woody Allen. These gentlemen, for the most part, wrote and write comedies. They also wrote and write plays and movies about real people who happen to say funny things. Real people who deal with real situations that sometimes make the comedy hard to take. Real people dealing with...life. This is a hard sell these days, because when artistic directors and literary managers read my stuff, they see the jokes, and they don't often embrace the possibility that the characters are real. They think that, because the characters say funny things, they can't have authentic emotion and manage the challenge of living. It's the Curse of Sitcom. There have been so many bad sitcoms on television over the years, that when a theatre script shows up on an artistic director's desk, and it has that "sitcom" feel, it is, more often than not, doomed. It's a very distinct style, it's my style, and, as I say, it's a very tough sell.
I've reached the point where I know that if I can get my stuff to the audience, I'll be fine. I know them. And I have complete confidence that when a play of mine begins, they are going to know my characters. They're going to laugh a lot; and they are gonna get whacked with a hard life situation that they will understand, relate to, and embrace.
But getting there is a journey. Bless the artistic directors who embrace the style. They are few and far between.
Shut down???
Would Jack Bauer SHUT DOWN CTU?
I don't think so.
24 will not abandon any episodes planned, they tell us, but...boy, you like to think the guy playing Jack Bauer wouldn't be responsible for something like this.
---
I'm probably shooting myself in the foot by saying this but...those of you left out there who still go to live theatre, would you do me a favor? Would you participate in a standing ovation ONLY if you felt the production you just saw was...and I hate to use this word, but I'm going to use it here...AWESOME? Standing ovations should be reserved for only the most astonishing performances in theatre. That's why God invented standing ovations. When I go to the theatre now, I think perhaps 60 per cent of the time the audience is standing applauding at the end of the show. This percentage is far too high. I'm thinking...what? One percent? Two, maybe, it should be? I mean, you're standing up, telling the cast that they blew your mind! Mind blowing is something that happens very, very rarely. Or, at least, it should happen very, very rarely. Otherwise, there'd be way too many people walking around with blown minds. I mean, if standing ovations have become de rigueur; if we stand for even the most ordinary of performances, then how can we tell an actor, or actors, that we have been genuinely moved beyond comprehension? Standing? Big deal! Happens all the time. What do you have to do? Stand up on your seat? A Seat Standing Ovation? And if that becomes de rigueur, what next? Taking off your clothes? A Stripping Ovation? I know. I have too much time on my hands. But I'd like, somehow, for standing ovations to go back to meaning something in the theatre.
---
I had a play of mine rejected by a local theatre today. No big deal. The Artistic Director explained that the play, THE PORCH, does not feature the kind of writing he likes to bring to his theatre. I understand. Artistic Directors have their tastes and they have the right to accept or reject any script that comes over their desks. The play has done well elsewhere and will do well again in other theatres. But it's a constant battle--finding artistic directors and literary managers who embrace...what can I call it?...the traditional form of theatre comedy that I write. I admit it. I learned what I know about writing from Ring Lardner, Neil Simon, Mel Brooks and Woody Allen. These gentlemen, for the most part, wrote and write comedies. They also wrote and write plays and movies about real people who happen to say funny things. Real people who deal with real situations that sometimes make the comedy hard to take. Real people dealing with...life. This is a hard sell these days, because when artistic directors and literary managers read my stuff, they see the jokes, and they don't often embrace the possibility that the characters are real. They think that, because the characters say funny things, they can't have authentic emotion and manage the challenge of living. It's the Curse of Sitcom. There have been so many bad sitcoms on television over the years, that when a theatre script shows up on an artistic director's desk, and it has that "sitcom" feel, it is, more often than not, doomed. It's a very distinct style, it's my style, and, as I say, it's a very tough sell.
I've reached the point where I know that if I can get my stuff to the audience, I'll be fine. I know them. And I have complete confidence that when a play of mine begins, they are going to know my characters. They're going to laugh a lot; and they are gonna get whacked with a hard life situation that they will understand, relate to, and embrace.
But getting there is a journey. Bless the artistic directors who embrace the style. They are few and far between.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
I See Blue People
Well, I saw AVATAR yesterday. For six bucks. And that included the glasses. Tuesdays at Showcase in Lowell is the day when the price is cut in the afternoon. Maybe all day, for all I know. Anyway, as I mentioned about 36 words ago, I saw AVATAR.
Well, I saw most of AVATAR. I kinda nodded off about sixteen times in the first hour and twenty minutes. I mean, the most exciting thing that happened in the first hour and twenty minutes was when I read on the plastic package that the glasses came in that it was not a good idea to use the glasses as sun glasses. That shook me up a bit, but I managed to hang in there.
Before the first hour and twenty minutes, though, the big screen kept telling me to put on my glasses and take off my glasses. Too friggin' much work for just going to the movies. But, dutifully, I did what they told me so that when Johnny Depp lunged at me in the trailer for DISNEY'S ALICE IN WONDERLAND I was taken slightly aback, which was Johnny's intention, I am sure. Then they had other trailers that were not in 3-D so the big screen told me to take my glasses off (being certain to not use them as sun glasses). I did. Then after a couple more trailers, the big screen told me to put my glasses back on, dammit, because SHREK 3-D, the Final...Whatever...was being trailered.
Thereafter, I was no longer asked to do anything with my glasses, though I was tempted to suggest to the big screen what it might do with them but I kept my mouth shut.
Anyway, first hour-twenty. Yawn. Sure, absolutely, it was visually stunning. Well, not stunning. Visually...cool. Cute. Different.
But dark.
Those glasses make everything dark.
I guess that's why they tell you not to use them in the sun. Because the temptation is so great, because the glasses are DARK.
And they make everything on the big screen dark.
And when it's dark, what are you tempted to do?
Nod off! Correct!
Okay, I can't fool around with this anymore.
AVATAR is about these really, really bad Us People (meaning you and me) who are hell-bent on DESTROYING a very leafy planet because we (Us People) have already destroyed ours. Sigourney Weaver, who is director James Cameron's go-to guy now that Arnold is trying to stop the mud slides in California, has come up with this scientific hoohah thing in which human people roost and then cryo-boogly turn into the people of the planet the Us People are about to destroy. We are destroying it because...oh, I don't know. It just has to be done. Maybe it's oil. Or water. Or Count Chocula. Who cares? Us People want it. So Sigourney and the Lead Guy (no, I don't know who he is and I'm not gonna look him up), who is in a wheel chair, go into the googly box and turn into Blue People. (When he is a Blue Person, he no longer needs the wheel chair.) Once among the Blue People, and now that they are Blue People themselves, Sigourney and Lead Guy discover that the Blue People are very, very, very nice people. (Except the warriors, but they just get huffy every once and while and we know they're good people at heart, too.) And they realize that the Blue People are connected to their Leafy Green Planet in a Very Special Way. Like when they touch trees, they become part of the tree. Sigourney and Lead Guy realize that what Us People are doing is BAD. Very BAAAAD.
Plus, Lead Guy has fallen head over heels for the hottest Blue Girl on the Leafy Green Planet, and, dammit, if she believes she is part of a tree, she is part of a tree! He realizes this when he is enveloped by a floating snow flake, or something that looks like a floating snow flake, millions of which seem to float all over the place on the Leafy Green Planet and make the place a better place. It also fixed a boo boo he had on his arm or something. Us People would never, EVER, understand the floating snowflakes. Never!
Okay, I've gone on way too long with this. After about an hour and twenty-minutes, I woke up because the movie got louder. The music was telling me the movie was getting exciting. Thank God. I wouldn't have known.
And then it occurred to me that this movie was just like every other movie JC has ever made. Us People are Bad. Blue People Are Good. The Us People, led, of course, by a screaming lunatic of a Military Guy, are gonna bulldoze the Blue People to oblivion. The Blue People, see, know how to take care of their Leafy Green Planet. We blew our chance at taking care of our own planet, now we want to ruin theirs. So we bulldoze them and bomb them and shoot them while Lead Guy and Sigourney do their damnedest to fight back against Us People, to whom they used to belong. Eventually, Lead Guy figures out a way to get big scary birds to fly above the tanks and helicopters of the Us People and obliterate them with bows and arrows and lots of yelling. And Big Scary Lizards and Stuff.
So, what have we learned?
Us People are Bad. Blue People are Good. And if you want to save the planet, you have to bulldoze and bow and arrow the shit out of each other.
If this thing wins Best Picture, I'm going back to reading books.
Well, I saw most of AVATAR. I kinda nodded off about sixteen times in the first hour and twenty minutes. I mean, the most exciting thing that happened in the first hour and twenty minutes was when I read on the plastic package that the glasses came in that it was not a good idea to use the glasses as sun glasses. That shook me up a bit, but I managed to hang in there.
Before the first hour and twenty minutes, though, the big screen kept telling me to put on my glasses and take off my glasses. Too friggin' much work for just going to the movies. But, dutifully, I did what they told me so that when Johnny Depp lunged at me in the trailer for DISNEY'S ALICE IN WONDERLAND I was taken slightly aback, which was Johnny's intention, I am sure. Then they had other trailers that were not in 3-D so the big screen told me to take my glasses off (being certain to not use them as sun glasses). I did. Then after a couple more trailers, the big screen told me to put my glasses back on, dammit, because SHREK 3-D, the Final...Whatever...was being trailered.
Thereafter, I was no longer asked to do anything with my glasses, though I was tempted to suggest to the big screen what it might do with them but I kept my mouth shut.
Anyway, first hour-twenty. Yawn. Sure, absolutely, it was visually stunning. Well, not stunning. Visually...cool. Cute. Different.
But dark.
Those glasses make everything dark.
I guess that's why they tell you not to use them in the sun. Because the temptation is so great, because the glasses are DARK.
And they make everything on the big screen dark.
And when it's dark, what are you tempted to do?
Nod off! Correct!
Okay, I can't fool around with this anymore.
AVATAR is about these really, really bad Us People (meaning you and me) who are hell-bent on DESTROYING a very leafy planet because we (Us People) have already destroyed ours. Sigourney Weaver, who is director James Cameron's go-to guy now that Arnold is trying to stop the mud slides in California, has come up with this scientific hoohah thing in which human people roost and then cryo-boogly turn into the people of the planet the Us People are about to destroy. We are destroying it because...oh, I don't know. It just has to be done. Maybe it's oil. Or water. Or Count Chocula. Who cares? Us People want it. So Sigourney and the Lead Guy (no, I don't know who he is and I'm not gonna look him up), who is in a wheel chair, go into the googly box and turn into Blue People. (When he is a Blue Person, he no longer needs the wheel chair.) Once among the Blue People, and now that they are Blue People themselves, Sigourney and Lead Guy discover that the Blue People are very, very, very nice people. (Except the warriors, but they just get huffy every once and while and we know they're good people at heart, too.) And they realize that the Blue People are connected to their Leafy Green Planet in a Very Special Way. Like when they touch trees, they become part of the tree. Sigourney and Lead Guy realize that what Us People are doing is BAD. Very BAAAAD.
Plus, Lead Guy has fallen head over heels for the hottest Blue Girl on the Leafy Green Planet, and, dammit, if she believes she is part of a tree, she is part of a tree! He realizes this when he is enveloped by a floating snow flake, or something that looks like a floating snow flake, millions of which seem to float all over the place on the Leafy Green Planet and make the place a better place. It also fixed a boo boo he had on his arm or something. Us People would never, EVER, understand the floating snowflakes. Never!
Okay, I've gone on way too long with this. After about an hour and twenty-minutes, I woke up because the movie got louder. The music was telling me the movie was getting exciting. Thank God. I wouldn't have known.
And then it occurred to me that this movie was just like every other movie JC has ever made. Us People are Bad. Blue People Are Good. The Us People, led, of course, by a screaming lunatic of a Military Guy, are gonna bulldoze the Blue People to oblivion. The Blue People, see, know how to take care of their Leafy Green Planet. We blew our chance at taking care of our own planet, now we want to ruin theirs. So we bulldoze them and bomb them and shoot them while Lead Guy and Sigourney do their damnedest to fight back against Us People, to whom they used to belong. Eventually, Lead Guy figures out a way to get big scary birds to fly above the tanks and helicopters of the Us People and obliterate them with bows and arrows and lots of yelling. And Big Scary Lizards and Stuff.
So, what have we learned?
Us People are Bad. Blue People are Good. And if you want to save the planet, you have to bulldoze and bow and arrow the shit out of each other.
If this thing wins Best Picture, I'm going back to reading books.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Shards
Michael Jackson's personal physician was charged today with involuntary manslaughter in the singer's death. Over the years, I have not spent a lot of time considering Michael Jackson's work. I remember being astonished at the stunning performance of "Billy Jean," on Motown 25. And I have, of course, enjoyed a lot of his music. But as he burrowed himself into the consciousness of the supermarket news rack brain trust, I just didn't waste a lot of time thinking about him.
Then I watched THIS IS IT the other day.
Man. That would have been one hell of a show.
And man, that was a guy who has no business being dead.
The drug administered by the recently-hired private physician is dubbed "milk of amnesia."
Enough said.
--------------
Saw Jeff Bridges in CRAZY HEART yesterday. Yeah. He's damn good. The movie, not so much. And, truth be told, Jeff's work, while terrific, is not all that astounding, mainly because the character doesn't have a lot of depth or dimension, and where he goes in the movie is on a journey that has been filmed time and time and time again. Particularly, it was filmed in the eighties as TENDER MERCIES and it featured the brilliant performance of Robert Duvall, who is also in CRAZY HEART, and is also one of CRAZY HEART's producers. Duvall's story in TM is far more complicated, and Duvall's performance is memorable. This is not to take anything away from Bridges, who is pretty much always watchable anytime he's on screen in anything he does. I'm just sayin'. I'm just sayin' this movie didn't seem to be much of a challenge. And, I'm sorry, the pretty, plucky, young, intelligent Maggie Gyllenhaal character would never fall so quickly for the aging, boozed up singer Jeff brings to the screen. I mean, his cigarette breath alone would scare her away.
So, for my money, at least at this point, I opt for George Clooney in UP IN THE AIR as my Oscar pick for Best Actor. He won't win, but I think Clooney risked more, and found more in his character than was written for Bridges.
-------
I want to see AVATAR, but I just don't know if I can deal with the glasses. However, I don't want to see it 2D. What a dilemma. And there's no way I luck into one of my famous 4:30 pm private viewings with this one.
-------
I have a female friend who doesn't understand what all the hoopla is about Rose Byrne, who stars with Glenn Close on TV's DAMAGES. She doesn't see what I see in the actress. I chalk this up to the fact that my friend is, as noted, a female friend.
-------
I watched Elia Kazan's PANIC IN THE STREETS the other night, streamed in on my Netflix account through the new HD DVR. Here is a movie about the possibility of the plague sweeping into 1950's New Orleans, directed by the man who brought ON THE WATERFRONT to the screen. Sheesh. Rarely have I seen such a ham-handed film in my life, with poor Richard Widmark, as the doctor nobody will listen to, screaming his medical head off from frame to frame, scaring his poor (probably now deaf) wife Barbara Bel Geddes in the process. WATERFRONT came after PANIC. Guess Elia learned something about the movies. Like they have microphones and cameras. Sheesh again.
-------
Now that I'm totally enamored of stadium seating at the movies, any time I have to look upwards at a screen it just feels so wrong.
-------
This is one of those days, clearly, when I am forcing myself to write a blog entry. Thank you for your patience.
Whoever you are.
Then I watched THIS IS IT the other day.
Man. That would have been one hell of a show.
And man, that was a guy who has no business being dead.
The drug administered by the recently-hired private physician is dubbed "milk of amnesia."
Enough said.
--------------
Saw Jeff Bridges in CRAZY HEART yesterday. Yeah. He's damn good. The movie, not so much. And, truth be told, Jeff's work, while terrific, is not all that astounding, mainly because the character doesn't have a lot of depth or dimension, and where he goes in the movie is on a journey that has been filmed time and time and time again. Particularly, it was filmed in the eighties as TENDER MERCIES and it featured the brilliant performance of Robert Duvall, who is also in CRAZY HEART, and is also one of CRAZY HEART's producers. Duvall's story in TM is far more complicated, and Duvall's performance is memorable. This is not to take anything away from Bridges, who is pretty much always watchable anytime he's on screen in anything he does. I'm just sayin'. I'm just sayin' this movie didn't seem to be much of a challenge. And, I'm sorry, the pretty, plucky, young, intelligent Maggie Gyllenhaal character would never fall so quickly for the aging, boozed up singer Jeff brings to the screen. I mean, his cigarette breath alone would scare her away.
So, for my money, at least at this point, I opt for George Clooney in UP IN THE AIR as my Oscar pick for Best Actor. He won't win, but I think Clooney risked more, and found more in his character than was written for Bridges.
-------
I want to see AVATAR, but I just don't know if I can deal with the glasses. However, I don't want to see it 2D. What a dilemma. And there's no way I luck into one of my famous 4:30 pm private viewings with this one.
-------
I have a female friend who doesn't understand what all the hoopla is about Rose Byrne, who stars with Glenn Close on TV's DAMAGES. She doesn't see what I see in the actress. I chalk this up to the fact that my friend is, as noted, a female friend.
-------
I watched Elia Kazan's PANIC IN THE STREETS the other night, streamed in on my Netflix account through the new HD DVR. Here is a movie about the possibility of the plague sweeping into 1950's New Orleans, directed by the man who brought ON THE WATERFRONT to the screen. Sheesh. Rarely have I seen such a ham-handed film in my life, with poor Richard Widmark, as the doctor nobody will listen to, screaming his medical head off from frame to frame, scaring his poor (probably now deaf) wife Barbara Bel Geddes in the process. WATERFRONT came after PANIC. Guess Elia learned something about the movies. Like they have microphones and cameras. Sheesh again.
-------
Now that I'm totally enamored of stadium seating at the movies, any time I have to look upwards at a screen it just feels so wrong.
-------
This is one of those days, clearly, when I am forcing myself to write a blog entry. Thank you for your patience.
Whoever you are.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
His Outside Voice
So here I am again, at Barnes and Noble, in Peabody, on a Saturday afternoon, trying to write a ten-minute play for this year's Boston Theatre Marathon. Ten-minute plays usually run about ten pages. I'm on page six. But I have to stop.
(Okay, you're right, if I want quiet I should stay at home. No argument. But there's quiet and there's quiet, and home quiet, for me, is too quiet. I like the murmur/mumble quiet of Barnes and Noble. I like being able to take my face out of my computer, look up, and see human beings, some of them attractive women, milling about, enjoying the ambiance of literature and glossy magazines. Most of the time, I'm able to concentrate.)
But right now, the cafe is crowded, I'm near an electrical outlet and my computer is plugged in, and can't really move anywhere, and at the table next to me...
...is this guy.
He's one of these guys who can't just talk. He has to proclaim. He has to announce. He has to bullhorn everything he says. He walked up to this table, where another guy was waiting, and the first thing he starts to do is talk about somebody--I'm assuming it was his father or his uncle or some older relative--who is newly in a nursing home. Today, I--and everybody east of Wilmington--has learned that Nursing Home Guy is comfortable today, relaxing reading a magazine. Glad to hear it. And, boy, did I hear it. But not only that--Nursing Home Guy has a doctor appointment this week. He can't close one of his eyes. His eye just stays open all the time and he has to have some kind of procedure to remedy this situation. I'm hoping Talking Guy goes along with Nursing Home Guy to the appointment and gets the same procedure done on his own MOUTH.
Anyway, usually at B&N, folks sit down for, maybe, fifteen or twenty minutes, shoot the breeze, finish their latte, and go away. This is what I was hoping for with this guy.
However, after he completed his now world renowned report on Nursing Home Guy, he pulled out a deck of cards, and began teaching the other guy at the table, WHO HAS NOT SAID A WORD SINCE TALKING GUY SAT DOWN--how to play some kind of card game. It is "Card School at Barnes and Noble Day," and this human sound system is the instructor.
So, I guess I'll just have to wait until Quiet Guy learns how to play the game and they go home. I suppose I can walk around the store and not spend money, but that's such a waste of time.
Speaking of waste, I can't believe I'm wasting this electrical outlet. Electrical outlets, in these days of Wi-Fi, are so hard to find. And I found one. And I can't work.
Because this guy WON'T SHUT UP.
This post, perhaps, will not make it to the Bloggers Hall of Fame in Radford, Virginia, but I needed to get this off my chest.
And, yes, I made up the Bloggers Hall of Fame.
I did not make up Radford, Virginia.
(Okay, you're right, if I want quiet I should stay at home. No argument. But there's quiet and there's quiet, and home quiet, for me, is too quiet. I like the murmur/mumble quiet of Barnes and Noble. I like being able to take my face out of my computer, look up, and see human beings, some of them attractive women, milling about, enjoying the ambiance of literature and glossy magazines. Most of the time, I'm able to concentrate.)
But right now, the cafe is crowded, I'm near an electrical outlet and my computer is plugged in, and can't really move anywhere, and at the table next to me...
...is this guy.
He's one of these guys who can't just talk. He has to proclaim. He has to announce. He has to bullhorn everything he says. He walked up to this table, where another guy was waiting, and the first thing he starts to do is talk about somebody--I'm assuming it was his father or his uncle or some older relative--who is newly in a nursing home. Today, I--and everybody east of Wilmington--has learned that Nursing Home Guy is comfortable today, relaxing reading a magazine. Glad to hear it. And, boy, did I hear it. But not only that--Nursing Home Guy has a doctor appointment this week. He can't close one of his eyes. His eye just stays open all the time and he has to have some kind of procedure to remedy this situation. I'm hoping Talking Guy goes along with Nursing Home Guy to the appointment and gets the same procedure done on his own MOUTH.
Anyway, usually at B&N, folks sit down for, maybe, fifteen or twenty minutes, shoot the breeze, finish their latte, and go away. This is what I was hoping for with this guy.
However, after he completed his now world renowned report on Nursing Home Guy, he pulled out a deck of cards, and began teaching the other guy at the table, WHO HAS NOT SAID A WORD SINCE TALKING GUY SAT DOWN--how to play some kind of card game. It is "Card School at Barnes and Noble Day," and this human sound system is the instructor.
So, I guess I'll just have to wait until Quiet Guy learns how to play the game and they go home. I suppose I can walk around the store and not spend money, but that's such a waste of time.
Speaking of waste, I can't believe I'm wasting this electrical outlet. Electrical outlets, in these days of Wi-Fi, are so hard to find. And I found one. And I can't work.
Because this guy WON'T SHUT UP.
This post, perhaps, will not make it to the Bloggers Hall of Fame in Radford, Virginia, but I needed to get this off my chest.
And, yes, I made up the Bloggers Hall of Fame.
I did not make up Radford, Virginia.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Bully!
No, this is not a blog entry extolling the life and times of Teddy Roosevelt.
I just felt like chiming in with my two cents regarding the sad story last week out of South Hadley, Massachusetts, where high school student Phoebe Prince committed suicide, allegedly as a result of bullying from her schoolmates.
Okay, sure...Phoebe may have, could have had, probably did have, ...emotional issues unrelated to bullying that contributed to her state of mind as she contemplated being no more. That's not the point.
The point is, bullies, and you know who you are, need to be identified and stopped. I wanted to say bullies need to stop but...I just don't think bullies are smart enough to understand that they are who they are and therefore they are not smart enough to know to stop. In fact, a bully, by nature, outrageous as it may seem, might even increase his or her bullying energies in the wake of something like Phoebe's death, to prove to others (really, to prove to themselves) that what they do is harmless, that what they do is not responsible for the failure to continue to live of the people they target, that what they do is...really nothing. If it's anything, it's entertainment.
Entertainment never moved anybody to suicide.
And what is a bully, really, in his or her own eyes, but an entertainer?
I'm not sure about this, but does a bully bully in a vacuum? Does a bully bully for his or her own gratification? Or must there be a middle-man, or -men, or-women? Must there be an audience? There must be, right? The bully must have a way to take a curtain call for the relentless humiliation he or she imposes on the target. There has to be people laughing; there has to be people patting the bully's back, reporting the bully's achievement to the world, usually the middle- or high school world at large. Otherwise, what's the point? Where else is the bully going to be embraced as a success? In the classroom? No. On the athletic field? Maybe, but not likely. In the debating society? Please.
The word is a problem. Bully. It's become a buzzword. A lightning rod. In a way, it's losing its potency. Bullying. Bullyism. It's a thing that happens. Not a big thing. A thing that happens in schools. Just the kids being kids, most of the time. Plus, it doesn't SOUND like a word that describes a crime. Bullyism. It sounds like what Bluto did to Popeye. And Popeye always, always ended up beating the bejesus out of Bluto.
I found myself in trouble a year or so ago because of the word. I had written an article for a Catholic magazine, the St. Anthony Messenger, detailing my high school friendship with John Ogonowski, Captain of the first plane to fly into the WTC on September 11, 2001. The point of the article was that I was a shy, quiet kid as a freshman in high school, and, as a shy and quiet kid, I was the target of a few geniuses who took it upon themselves to entertain their entourages by making the first few months of my high school career a living hell. Not that big a deal, in the grand scheme of things. I would have survived on my own. But John, a great kid who became a great man, took me under his wing, and the idiots went on to bother someone else. The word "bully" appeared in the article, though bullyism was not the article's focus. When the Lowell Sun interviewed me about the article, bullyism again was mentioned, but, again, my friendship with John is what gave birth to the interview.
Still, for a month or so after the newspaper article appeared, I heard from friends that a few of my high school classmates were upset about my implication that there was bullying when I was there. One brave individual cornered me at a neighborhood party and identified me to his friends as the guy who "bloviated" in the Sun about bullying at my (and his) high school. None of these people, to my knowledge, ever read the original St. Anthony's article.
So I'm wondering...just wondering...if the guys who were upset about the article, might just have been...
Never mind.
My point is, the callous, careless, relentless psychological abuse of the quieter, the smaller, the less popular of kids in schools is a real thing. And the perpetrators of the abuse are just not intelligent enough to realize the harm they are doing.
Sure, it's been going on forever. Sure, it's just kids being kids.
But it's really all about arrogance. Arrogance born of stupidity and insecurity. And arrogance very often sticks to a person's character into adulthood. I hate arrogance.
I don't know what schools should do to the offenders, if and when they might be discovered. Suspend 'em? Expel 'em? I pretty much don't think that will do anything but provide them with impetus to become even worse human beings than they already are.
I say confront 'em, tell them what they are doing, show them how it hurts, and why it hurts, and then watch them to see if they change. If they don't, then confront 'em again. Give them the opportunity to show they have a brain. It's a longshot, but it's worth a try.
What they need to learn is that they are in no way entertaining.
Lower the curtain.
I just felt like chiming in with my two cents regarding the sad story last week out of South Hadley, Massachusetts, where high school student Phoebe Prince committed suicide, allegedly as a result of bullying from her schoolmates.
Okay, sure...Phoebe may have, could have had, probably did have, ...emotional issues unrelated to bullying that contributed to her state of mind as she contemplated being no more. That's not the point.
The point is, bullies, and you know who you are, need to be identified and stopped. I wanted to say bullies need to stop but...I just don't think bullies are smart enough to understand that they are who they are and therefore they are not smart enough to know to stop. In fact, a bully, by nature, outrageous as it may seem, might even increase his or her bullying energies in the wake of something like Phoebe's death, to prove to others (really, to prove to themselves) that what they do is harmless, that what they do is not responsible for the failure to continue to live of the people they target, that what they do is...really nothing. If it's anything, it's entertainment.
Entertainment never moved anybody to suicide.
And what is a bully, really, in his or her own eyes, but an entertainer?
I'm not sure about this, but does a bully bully in a vacuum? Does a bully bully for his or her own gratification? Or must there be a middle-man, or -men, or-women? Must there be an audience? There must be, right? The bully must have a way to take a curtain call for the relentless humiliation he or she imposes on the target. There has to be people laughing; there has to be people patting the bully's back, reporting the bully's achievement to the world, usually the middle- or high school world at large. Otherwise, what's the point? Where else is the bully going to be embraced as a success? In the classroom? No. On the athletic field? Maybe, but not likely. In the debating society? Please.
The word is a problem. Bully. It's become a buzzword. A lightning rod. In a way, it's losing its potency. Bullying. Bullyism. It's a thing that happens. Not a big thing. A thing that happens in schools. Just the kids being kids, most of the time. Plus, it doesn't SOUND like a word that describes a crime. Bullyism. It sounds like what Bluto did to Popeye. And Popeye always, always ended up beating the bejesus out of Bluto.
I found myself in trouble a year or so ago because of the word. I had written an article for a Catholic magazine, the St. Anthony Messenger, detailing my high school friendship with John Ogonowski, Captain of the first plane to fly into the WTC on September 11, 2001. The point of the article was that I was a shy, quiet kid as a freshman in high school, and, as a shy and quiet kid, I was the target of a few geniuses who took it upon themselves to entertain their entourages by making the first few months of my high school career a living hell. Not that big a deal, in the grand scheme of things. I would have survived on my own. But John, a great kid who became a great man, took me under his wing, and the idiots went on to bother someone else. The word "bully" appeared in the article, though bullyism was not the article's focus. When the Lowell Sun interviewed me about the article, bullyism again was mentioned, but, again, my friendship with John is what gave birth to the interview.
Still, for a month or so after the newspaper article appeared, I heard from friends that a few of my high school classmates were upset about my implication that there was bullying when I was there. One brave individual cornered me at a neighborhood party and identified me to his friends as the guy who "bloviated" in the Sun about bullying at my (and his) high school. None of these people, to my knowledge, ever read the original St. Anthony's article.
So I'm wondering...just wondering...if the guys who were upset about the article, might just have been...
Never mind.
My point is, the callous, careless, relentless psychological abuse of the quieter, the smaller, the less popular of kids in schools is a real thing. And the perpetrators of the abuse are just not intelligent enough to realize the harm they are doing.
Sure, it's been going on forever. Sure, it's just kids being kids.
But it's really all about arrogance. Arrogance born of stupidity and insecurity. And arrogance very often sticks to a person's character into adulthood. I hate arrogance.
I don't know what schools should do to the offenders, if and when they might be discovered. Suspend 'em? Expel 'em? I pretty much don't think that will do anything but provide them with impetus to become even worse human beings than they already are.
I say confront 'em, tell them what they are doing, show them how it hurts, and why it hurts, and then watch them to see if they change. If they don't, then confront 'em again. Give them the opportunity to show they have a brain. It's a longshot, but it's worth a try.
What they need to learn is that they are in no way entertaining.
Lower the curtain.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Kindle-ing
I've had my Amazon Kindle for about six months now. Purchased it about six minutes before they lowered the price from $350 to $250. With timing onstage as an actor and director, I'm pretty good. With timing when it comes to buying new gadgets--not so good. I'm the guy who buys things first, tells other people about the things, and then watches as the other people buy the things at vastly reduced prices.
You're welcome. All of you.
Immediately after I bought the Kindle, I did what the Amazon people expected I would do. I bought a large number of books for the little device. I loved the damn thing. I still do. But for the first few weeks, I LOVED IT. Seemed to me there was no more economical way to purchase recently-published books, no quicker way to get them into my hot little hands, no easier way to sit and read them. Prop it up in front of your face, place the thumbs where they can most efficiently "turn" the "pages," and you're off to the races.
All of that is true.
Now, however, six months into my Kindlelife, I realize that there is definitely a place on my bookshelf for...yes, I'll admit it...books.
So, for those of you who have eschewed Kindleism because you cannot imagine yourself curled up beside the fire with an electronic doohickey whose textured pages you can neither riffle nor smell, I'm here to tell you that you can be both a Kindle owner and a real book reader.
It just takes about six months for the Kindle (or Nook or Sony Reader) newness to wear off.
I am now reading real books from my bookshelf, and electronic books on my Kindle, and enjoying all the reading. My Kindle no longer lifts its cybernose to the books, the books no longer turn envious leafs to the Kindle. We're all living in peaceful harmony.
It's just that, instead of walking through Barnes and Noble and looking at all those brand new, exciting best sellers and checking the calendar to anticipate when they'll be out in paperback, now I can zip them onto my Kindle for ten bucks in a matter of about sixty seconds. This is the major Kindle advantage. That, and if you play your cards right, you can actually find many classics for virtually no cost at all. All you sacrifice is the (admittedly important) self- promotional aspect of displaying the classics on your bookshelf. So, instead of displaying books so that your friends THINK you read them, you'll actually have to READ THEM in order to discuss them with your friends. It's a small (but time-consuming) price to pay for paying such a small price.
So, those of you on the Kindle/Nook/Sony Reader diving board, dipping your toe in the pool, trying to decide whether or not to do it, DO IT! Dive in!
Someday when you're sitting in an airport and your flight's delayed by three hours, you will thank me.
You're welcome.
You're welcome. All of you.
Immediately after I bought the Kindle, I did what the Amazon people expected I would do. I bought a large number of books for the little device. I loved the damn thing. I still do. But for the first few weeks, I LOVED IT. Seemed to me there was no more economical way to purchase recently-published books, no quicker way to get them into my hot little hands, no easier way to sit and read them. Prop it up in front of your face, place the thumbs where they can most efficiently "turn" the "pages," and you're off to the races.
All of that is true.
Now, however, six months into my Kindlelife, I realize that there is definitely a place on my bookshelf for...yes, I'll admit it...books.
So, for those of you who have eschewed Kindleism because you cannot imagine yourself curled up beside the fire with an electronic doohickey whose textured pages you can neither riffle nor smell, I'm here to tell you that you can be both a Kindle owner and a real book reader.
It just takes about six months for the Kindle (or Nook or Sony Reader) newness to wear off.
I am now reading real books from my bookshelf, and electronic books on my Kindle, and enjoying all the reading. My Kindle no longer lifts its cybernose to the books, the books no longer turn envious leafs to the Kindle. We're all living in peaceful harmony.
It's just that, instead of walking through Barnes and Noble and looking at all those brand new, exciting best sellers and checking the calendar to anticipate when they'll be out in paperback, now I can zip them onto my Kindle for ten bucks in a matter of about sixty seconds. This is the major Kindle advantage. That, and if you play your cards right, you can actually find many classics for virtually no cost at all. All you sacrifice is the (admittedly important) self- promotional aspect of displaying the classics on your bookshelf. So, instead of displaying books so that your friends THINK you read them, you'll actually have to READ THEM in order to discuss them with your friends. It's a small (but time-consuming) price to pay for paying such a small price.
So, those of you on the Kindle/Nook/Sony Reader diving board, dipping your toe in the pool, trying to decide whether or not to do it, DO IT! Dive in!
Someday when you're sitting in an airport and your flight's delayed by three hours, you will thank me.
You're welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)