We are pleased to announce that we will soon be featuring an interview with José Angel Santana, Ph.D on the podcast!  (Seen at right with Kevin Spacey  in Trevor Griffiths (Reds) at the Williamstown Theater Festival, 1984.)

Why, you ask? Well, it just so happnes that a younger Dr. Santana was one of the featured students on the Sanford Meisner Master Class DVD. We will be talking with him about that very experience and the projects he’s been working on in the interim.

What? You haven’t seen the DVD? Why don’t you buy it from Amazon?

Anyway, be on the lookout for it of at the Dumb Show. In the meantime, check out Dr. Santana’s website and tell him you got there from here!

Speaking of the Sanford Meisner DVD, you also need to be listening to the podcast for your chance to win a copy of the DVD thanks to Open Road Films! Information on that will be coming soon!

Take a look at this.

Now read this.

Here’s my question: Has Hollywood really lost touch?

Let me preface this by saying that I have not seen MI3 yet. I have a life that involves my wife and kids. We haven’t actually been out to see a movie (you know, like a date?) in a long time and our times are so rare that we are very choosy consumers when we are presented with the opportunity. MI3 is not even on the list at all, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with Tom Cruise.

I do, however, think Tom Cruise is a freak, but not to the point of stopping me from seeing one of his movies. Do I think that he needs to keep his mouth shut and just make movies? Yes. Am I offended to the point where I won’t go see his movies? No.

No, my decision not to see MI3 is based on one unmistakable fact: MI2 was a complete wreck. It was a horrible movie. I agree, for the most part, with my buddy Widgett over at NeedCoffee.com. MI1 was great, and rather than trusting that same reliable feel for its sequel, they decided to make a huge departure (even to the point of making some devastaing changes to some key characters) and it backfired.

Here’s where I think Hollywood has really lost touch. Stardom is not forever…at least not for most people. It is certainly not guaranteed (Steve Guttenberg, anyone?). At some point, it is possible that your star will dim. There are a number of reasons why which really don’t matter. So, some poll says that a majority of Americans don’t like Tom’s personal life as much anymore. Couple that with lower than expected box office receipts for the first weekend of his new movie and you’ve got the makings of a Cause in Hollywood.

A group of “stars” who are rallying behind Tom and his sagging box office numbers and approval; providing him with “support.” If these stars were really smart, they would keep their mouths shut about everything except for their work. What is it that makes them so outspoken about these issues? They are in the entertainment industry, not positions of political power. The stars that I have the most respect for are the ones that have managed to keep their personal lives and political views out of the tabloids and the front pages of more respectable rags.

Yet the fault is not all theirs. We, as consumers of the entertainment industry’s “product,” bear an equal amount of responsibility. If, after all of these stars rally to Tom’s side during this “troubling time,” do manage to bring his popularity back and help the box office receipts of this movie, then we have been duped and are therefore have no right to complain about the poor quality of the movies that ooze out of Hollywood in the future.

If, however, some of these stars feel themselves under the pinch for having aligned themselves with Tom, we can hope that at some point down the line, people in Hollywood will remember that they are not immortal and are subject to the laws of the market. If we can help them to remember that, the quality of the work–as a whole–will improve. Who knows? That might bring back some of the credibility of the Academy Awards.

My question is this: Why can’t the receipts for Tom’s latest movie simply reflect the fact that the movie is just not good? Is it not possible for Tom to put out a bad movie? If not, who granted him that status, the Hollywood elite themselves or we the consumers?

If you put out a product of lesser quality, why are people still expected to just accept it and pay through the nose for it?

Anyone want to make a donation to my “I’ve Got To Get To London” fund?

Link.

I was catching up on my theatre blogosphere search (of which I have been most delinquent) tonight and I came across Scott’s post at Theatre Ideas and I felt compelled to add my two cents in. I didn’t feel like merely commenting on his site (after all, that’s what my blog is for, right?).

Scott, I agree with you, but I think there’s one aspect that you’re missing. I’m going to state right off the bat that this is completely extemporaneous. I haven’t done, nor am I going to at this hour, any research or cite other people about this. There are just my thoughts.

I, too, enjoy the Annie Get Your Gun type theatre. I do believe there is a place for it. But, I will not sit through a production of Annie Get Your Gun as a piece of anti-second amendment propaganda.

That having been said, there are many more types of theatre to enjoy. I don’t like being lectured to when I go to the theatre. A thinly veiled political statement–or even one right out in the open–doesn’t appeal to my aesthetic. Does that mean there’s not a place for it? Not at all. It just means that those types of theatre won’t be getting my money at their box office…at least not directly.
I now tip my hat to the great Widgett at Needcoffee.com who has been a dear friend for life since high school. He and I literally share a brain. He is my mentor, friend and guide. He also slices, dices and makes julienne fries in minutes.

The most effective way to get a point across is to not lose sight of the story. If the political message outweighs the story, then the theatricality of the event is shot. I’m not there to listen to an essay and I don’t need someone else in my life trying to make me feel guilty all of the time. I get enough people trying to do that whenever I turn on the TV (it doesn’t always work, by the way). All things must serve the story. Without the story, nothing else matters. The characters don’t have a world to live in, ergo, they don’t live. A character that has no life has no buisiness trying to tell me how to run mine.

The same thing can be said of playwrights and directors. If you are so caught up in making a political statement, go out and make a speech or run for office or something. Don’t expect me to shower you with praise for a shitty piece of theatre just because I’m supposed to think your message is important!

The most effective way to make people think about a political statement is to present them with a story that allows them to connect with it more closely with the characters and their situation. The message of the story might not hit them until hours, days, or even weeks later, but it’s still there. You can’t write and produce good theatre merely on a theme, there has to be a story that holds everything together. The deeper and more truthful the story, the stronger the affect the theme will have on its audience.

Does that mean that I think all theatre has to be of the Leave It To Beaver or Norman Rockwell type? Not at all. Theatre can, and should, be edgy. To me, the phrase in-your-face has lost its meaning. I prefer to think of the smaller black box theatres where literally, the actors are in the audience’s face; but not yelling at the audience. Edgy and provocative theatre still has to follow the same rule: it must be about the story! You can write stories about characters who are on the fringe of society as long as the story provides them with a world where they can truly live. By the way, the fringe of society doesn’t always have to be a current political hot-button, either. You can write stories about characters who find themselves slipping or being drawn into the fringe by some inner or outer force, but it has to be about the character’s journey to the fringe that keeps us wanting more. We’ll get the message without having it stamped on our foreheads as we make our way to our seats–or worse yet, written on our face in the spittle shooting from the actors’ mouths.

Okay. I feel better now. I’ll now return the soapbox to its usual hidey hole.

MTSU has an ongoing partnership/internship program with the Flying Fig Theatre in NYC. This article appeared in the Times over the weekend. Li’l ole MTSU was referenced in the opening paragraph.

Special kudos to Scott Boyd, Associate Professor of Theatre at MTSU, who designed the set and lighting for the production.

I’m not sure what this is really about, but it can’t be what I think it is.  If it is, it just means that the complete takeover of our attention spans and ability to totally emerse ourselves in a work of theatre has been successfully perpetrated by the producers of network television.  What do you think?

Link.

Link.

Thanks to my buddy widgett over at Needcoffee.com for the headsup!

It’s very to-the-point. Since I’m beginning to dabble with my own writings nowadays (both short stories and scripts), it really brought things into a clear focus. Give it a read and let’s talk about it.
Not only that, but I just got through teaching Ira Levin’s Deathtrap to my Theatre Appreciation classes!!! I don’t think the circumstances of that play warrant one of his top reasons!