I’ve been thinking a lot about a good friend of mine the past few weeks. It’s been a long time since we’ve spoken, and worlds (both of ours) have changed in that time. For awhile, we were very close. It’s rare for me to find someone that I feel like I don’t have to explain myself to, but that they “get” me. When I was having a down day, I never had to explain what was going on, or why I wasn’t able to be in a good mood etc. This friend and I had that kind of friendship, and it was awfully nice. We'd go to see a lot of movies, then go out for a beer and dissect them ad nauseum. We'd talk comic books, regular fiction, and trade dating stories. While we were friends, we were both in (and out) of relationships with other people, and it never really complicated our friendship, even though he and I were close. But, as happens, things changed, and it’s been two years since we’ve really spoken. I’ve been wanting a chat with him, mostly as I’m doing so much creative writing right now, which touches on his preferred creative outlet. I could use some advice, and just a little experienced encouragement, I guess. But, he’s married now, and my spidey senses tell me that’s probably why we’ve lost touch; he doesn’t need a friend like me anymore, I suppose.
I have to admit though, that sometimes, even though it’s been awhile (and months will pass when I don’t think of it), sometimes I really miss our friendship. We used to bounce ideas off of each other, in our different creative pursuits, and I wish, now that I’m working so hard to find my artistic voice, sometimes that I could call him or send him an email to throw some ideas at him. I suppose it makes me think a lot about trust and about the need to maintain friendships (especially those with people of the opposite sex) when one gets into a romantic relationship.
I just got off the phone with The Donald because, as I’ve been thinking about his friend of mine, I’ve been wondering if I make it hard for Donald to stay in touch with his female friends (some of whom are exes). I’m not a particularly jealous person, and do try really hard to let him know that not only do I not mind his girl-friends, but that I like the fact that he has them. I am human however, and sometimes feel a little competiveness (internal, not coming from him). I want him to have those friendships though, as they’re important for him, and ultimately, good for our relationship too. I wouldn’t want to put him in a situation where he felt like he couldn’t talk to them. Fortunately, he concurred – I don’t make that hard for him, and he certainly doesn’t for me either.
I suppose there’s really no point to all of this. I ‘m just missing a particular friendly voice in my life, and really don’t have much confidence that we’ll be friends anytime again, certainly not in the near future. It does however make me much more aware of my own behaviour, and a real need to help both the Donald and I to be sure that we can maintain our friendships and our relationship simultaneously. While I do miss this friend of mine, I suppose that, if nothing less, this is an important lesson to learn, and a crucial commitment that I can make to myself and the Donald. So that’s something.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Saturday, March 12, 2011
"That Girl" is Sickened!
To those of you who are currently stateside, these articles are probably old news. But as I get a bit behind on my depressing American news these days, I've only recently stumbled across them. And I think they bear mentioning in conjunction with one another, as a pretty grotesque example of the war on women currently being waged in the United States. The first article is a New York Times piece (!!!) that deals horribly with a case in Texas of an 11 year old girl who was gang-raped by 18 men. That explanation alone repulses me, but, believe me, the article compounds my disgust. The article can be found here for those who haven't seen it.
In this piece, reporter James C. McKinley, Jr. has managed to craft a piece in which blame for the attack goes to the "provocatively dressed" child victim, and asks for sympathy for the gang of men who thought it was all right to rape a child. According to the residents of the town that McKinley interviewed, much concern goes to the perpetrators who, although innocent until proven guility, will "have to live with this for the rest of their lives." Yes, they will. But I don't think that makes them the victims here. The outrage is incorrectly placed in this matter. Let's forget for a moment that the victim here is a child. That in and of itself should be a compelling reason why she should NOT have been a victim of a vicious assault. One person quoted in the article says the victim dressed more like a woman in her 20s than a child. So, the obvious question for me then is, what if she were a woman in her 20s? Would this be ok, as she was clearly 'asking for it?' No person ASKS to be the victim of sexual violence. As a woman, I should not have to live in fear because I wore a skirt and some heels out of my house one night. As a human being, I should be able to walk down the street naked without worrying about what some jerk thinks that entitles him (or her) to do to me. As a reporter, McKinley does have a duty to report on what public opinion is in his stories - but as a thinking human being, he could also have sought out some balance in his story, so as to not blame an elementary school-aged child for the hellish ordeal some adults decided to put her through.
And then we move to a charming email sent out by a fraternity brother at USC, in which women are not even considered people anymore, but "targets." The entire piece is fairly offensive, but do have a look if you are of strong stomach. Jezebel.com has printed the entire here. (At this point, I will mention that there is a suspicion that these could be a potential intra-fraternal prank. That however does not excuse its light-dealing with sexual assault and misogyny.)
While I could fill volumes with the reasons why this philosophy is heinous, I will instead focus on the one line that nearly made me vomit. According to our intrepid emailer, "non-consent and rape are two different things. There's a fine line so make sure not to cross it." No, sir, there isn't. Non-consent is what qualifies a sex act as rape. This is where the handy phrase "no means no" comes into play. By replacing 'woman' with 'target,' our writer justifies treating her as an inconsequential piece of the pie (pardon the terrible pun). We make less than men when we're employed full-time, we're treated as second-class citizens from time to time by our goverments, but goddamit, we have the right to determine our sexual limits. According to our writer, I, a strawberry pie, am just out there for the picking. To that, I say fuck off.
To me, taken in tandem, these two situations are a clear indicator that women are in danger in our country. Either we're overtly asking for it, by the way we behave and dress and act, or, even if we're not, it's okay to treat us like we are, as we don't count for much anyway. It's a classic case of "damned if we, damned if we don't." It would be easier to brush these two articles off, were it not for mainstream American political issues of late that seem to reinforce these damaging ideas. Recent legislation proposed in the form of HR3, superficially an anti-abortion law, would have sought to change the definition of rape, making a distinction between forceful an non-forceful sexual assault. Under this definition, spouse rape, date rape and all sorts of other types of sexual violence would be considered lesser form of assault, as opposed to those rapes which resulted in broken bones and bruises. A black eye is not what defines rape - non-consensual sexual acts are. Period. And then, in addition, when you consider the current fight in the US Congress to defund Planned Parenthood, the battle gets even hotter. Without Planned Parenthood, low-income women (and men, and children!) will not have access to affordable medical care. So, women are in effect targets: targets for sexual violence and then targets for subsequent abuse by our own government.
Perhaps this all sounds a bit reactionary and overblown to you. If it does, I must say that I envy you, because that must mean that you have been blessed to never know a person who has been a victim of rape. You could not feel that way, I'm sure, if you'd been woken up in the middle of the night by a freshman student who was your responsibility in college, who had just been raped by her then-boyfriend. I am positive that, as an empathetic human being, if you had seen first-hand the sadness, anger and confusion on her face, you would not in any way believe that there was any grey area when it comes to legislating against sexual assault. As you've clearly not had to look face-to-face with a woman like her, you wouldn't understand. Sadly, that's not my only brush with sexual violence. It happens more than most people want to believe. And I envy your disbelief - frankly, I'm a little jealous of you. To me, these are crucial issues because they're part of my life. And because of that, I ask you to consider very seriously the way that we treat women (and men and children) who are plunged into this ordeal. They didn't ask for it, but they are asking for our help. Please, if you are a woman, love a woman, or are raising a woman, take a stand against misogyny, and start making other do the same.
TGI
In this piece, reporter James C. McKinley, Jr. has managed to craft a piece in which blame for the attack goes to the "provocatively dressed" child victim, and asks for sympathy for the gang of men who thought it was all right to rape a child. According to the residents of the town that McKinley interviewed, much concern goes to the perpetrators who, although innocent until proven guility, will "have to live with this for the rest of their lives." Yes, they will. But I don't think that makes them the victims here. The outrage is incorrectly placed in this matter. Let's forget for a moment that the victim here is a child. That in and of itself should be a compelling reason why she should NOT have been a victim of a vicious assault. One person quoted in the article says the victim dressed more like a woman in her 20s than a child. So, the obvious question for me then is, what if she were a woman in her 20s? Would this be ok, as she was clearly 'asking for it?' No person ASKS to be the victim of sexual violence. As a woman, I should not have to live in fear because I wore a skirt and some heels out of my house one night. As a human being, I should be able to walk down the street naked without worrying about what some jerk thinks that entitles him (or her) to do to me. As a reporter, McKinley does have a duty to report on what public opinion is in his stories - but as a thinking human being, he could also have sought out some balance in his story, so as to not blame an elementary school-aged child for the hellish ordeal some adults decided to put her through.
And then we move to a charming email sent out by a fraternity brother at USC, in which women are not even considered people anymore, but "targets." The entire piece is fairly offensive, but do have a look if you are of strong stomach. Jezebel.com has printed the entire here. (At this point, I will mention that there is a suspicion that these could be a potential intra-fraternal prank. That however does not excuse its light-dealing with sexual assault and misogyny.)
While I could fill volumes with the reasons why this philosophy is heinous, I will instead focus on the one line that nearly made me vomit. According to our intrepid emailer, "non-consent and rape are two different things. There's a fine line so make sure not to cross it." No, sir, there isn't. Non-consent is what qualifies a sex act as rape. This is where the handy phrase "no means no" comes into play. By replacing 'woman' with 'target,' our writer justifies treating her as an inconsequential piece of the pie (pardon the terrible pun). We make less than men when we're employed full-time, we're treated as second-class citizens from time to time by our goverments, but goddamit, we have the right to determine our sexual limits. According to our writer, I, a strawberry pie, am just out there for the picking. To that, I say fuck off.
To me, taken in tandem, these two situations are a clear indicator that women are in danger in our country. Either we're overtly asking for it, by the way we behave and dress and act, or, even if we're not, it's okay to treat us like we are, as we don't count for much anyway. It's a classic case of "damned if we, damned if we don't." It would be easier to brush these two articles off, were it not for mainstream American political issues of late that seem to reinforce these damaging ideas. Recent legislation proposed in the form of HR3, superficially an anti-abortion law, would have sought to change the definition of rape, making a distinction between forceful an non-forceful sexual assault. Under this definition, spouse rape, date rape and all sorts of other types of sexual violence would be considered lesser form of assault, as opposed to those rapes which resulted in broken bones and bruises. A black eye is not what defines rape - non-consensual sexual acts are. Period. And then, in addition, when you consider the current fight in the US Congress to defund Planned Parenthood, the battle gets even hotter. Without Planned Parenthood, low-income women (and men, and children!) will not have access to affordable medical care. So, women are in effect targets: targets for sexual violence and then targets for subsequent abuse by our own government.
Perhaps this all sounds a bit reactionary and overblown to you. If it does, I must say that I envy you, because that must mean that you have been blessed to never know a person who has been a victim of rape. You could not feel that way, I'm sure, if you'd been woken up in the middle of the night by a freshman student who was your responsibility in college, who had just been raped by her then-boyfriend. I am positive that, as an empathetic human being, if you had seen first-hand the sadness, anger and confusion on her face, you would not in any way believe that there was any grey area when it comes to legislating against sexual assault. As you've clearly not had to look face-to-face with a woman like her, you wouldn't understand. Sadly, that's not my only brush with sexual violence. It happens more than most people want to believe. And I envy your disbelief - frankly, I'm a little jealous of you. To me, these are crucial issues because they're part of my life. And because of that, I ask you to consider very seriously the way that we treat women (and men and children) who are plunged into this ordeal. They didn't ask for it, but they are asking for our help. Please, if you are a woman, love a woman, or are raising a woman, take a stand against misogyny, and start making other do the same.
TGI
Friday, March 4, 2011
"That Girl" Has Creature Envy!
Have you ever been in the audience for a show and, throughout the whole thing, you find yourself wishing and dreaming that you had thought of it all first? That, somehow, you'd magically be sitting and watching your own terrific ideas unfold in front of your eyes? Yeah, me too. Especially last night, at the National Theatre's new envisioning of Frankenstein, scripted by Nick Dear and directed by Danny Boyle. While having some marked shortcomings, the overall vision of the production is a fusion of intelligent staging, executed with a daring commitment to the power of engaged physical theatre. If you are planning to see the show, please, do yourself a favor and stop reading this blog right now. Give yourself the rare pleasure of being surprised by a theatrical production - Frankenstein may not be a perfect play, but it is a damn good night at the theatre, particularly if you let yourself get carried away by it.
Last night's cast featured Jonny Lee Miller as the Creature, and saw understudy Daniel Ings stepping nervously (at first) but well-deservedly into the shoes of Victor Frankenstein. Miller is exquisite in tracing the arc of the Creature from inarticulate birth to thinking, rationale man, and finally to calculated "villain." I couldn't tear my eyes away during the first fifteen minutes, in which the Creature grapples with his unfamiliar body, and finally, beautifully, discovers how to master it. The movement vocabulary here, meant to evoke the process of learning to walk, is unpredictable and fresh, and feels like it's discovered on the spot, quite a feat in a well-rehearsed and choreographed production. Immediately, I became invested in the Creature, because I was drawn into a relationship of physical empathy with him. We see the bruised, scarred body, hear the mangled voice, and then get to watch this newborn thing learn something, before our very eyes. Through the workings of this human body, I came to "know" the Creature, without text, without narrative, and immediately put my "knowing" into the frame of relation to my own humanness. It's a risky choice, I think, to begin a 120 minute performance (with no interval) with a speechless quarter-hour, but one that, for me, paid off in spades. It's also a brilliant example of the strange power of simple physical theatre on a modern techno-saturated audience.
The performance does feel quite filmic at times, switching locations even faster than the Creature learns passages from Paradise Lost. These scenic changes are eye-popping, inovative, and really draw on the craft of scenic designers and artists, led by designer Mark Tildesley. On the Creature's first foray into town, he is met by the arrival of a steampunk train, a rain shower, and two glorious flocks of birds in the sunset - I am not ashamed to admit that the sheer simplicity of that final image moved me to tears in my seat in the Olivier Circle. Overall for me, the lasting success of this production is in those moments of utter simplicity, as when the Creature, drawn towards an orange and red-lit sun on the back wall of the stage, is gleefully shocked by paper birds that are pulled from a barrel and flock up towards the rafters. Those cinematic moments captured by the magic (and innovation) of live theatre, paired with a commitment to solid physical acting are really quite arresting, and my lingering impressions of Frankenstein.
For the clarity of those moments, and the strength of the performances of Miller, Ings and the elderly benefactor De Lacey, rendered compassionately by Karl Johnson, I'm willing to forgive the falterings of the script and the timid acting by some of the supporting cast. Because the script spans years in a matter of hours, traversing a wide landscape, there are moments where Dear gives way to pastiche of Shelley's novel, instead of the caring adaptation found throughout the rest. The scenes with the Creature sparkle, and fly along at a healthy clip, but some others get bogged down by sentimentality, and, sometimes, a rush to get to the next 'good' scene. In contending with these rough patches, some of the actors like George Harris and Naomie Harris (as Frankenstein's father and fiancee respectively) can't seem to get a handle on their characters. Although likeable, the wind up being unremarkable in the midst of the duet between Frankenstein and his creation.
At this moment, I will again repeat my request that, if you haven't seen this production yet, but plan to, to please stop reading. I'm going to spill my favorite moment, but don't want to deprive you the pleasure of your own shock... So go away.
For those of you still reading, I'm interested in talking about the climactic scene near the frenzied finish, as the Creature first lures in Victor's now-wife Elizabeth to trust him, and then repays Victor's broken promise in-kind, by both raping and murdering her. I call attention to this moment because it reminded me veyr viscerally how magical live theatre is. You see, as I study this year, I'm surrounded by people who say that they don't go to see plays because "it's just a bunch of actors pretending" etc. While I don't agree with them, it does sort of get into my head from time. But then, every once awhile, one has the distinct pleasure to be reminded how powerful watching live acting really is. In this production, the moment I refer to is quite simple; it's a visual and aural trick that most actors have been a part of at some point in time. But it works on the audience every time. The Creature, having finished with Elizabeth, straddles her, takes her head in his head, utters a meant "I'm Sorry" and then, without hesitation, snaps her neck. A simple, quiet cracking sound effect accompanies the action. And three-quarters of the audience growns, grimaces, growls or otherwise (audibly and physically) reacts. Yes. It's a moment of pretending. If it weren't Elizabeth would have a very valid posthumous lawsuit to press against the NT. But the pretending is so invested, so committed to by the actors, portraying characters that we've, in this production, happily accpeted our invitation to relate to, that we CARE. Wr're affected. And we allow ourselves to "believe" what we've seen. That's where live theatre gets me every time. It is a distinct pleasure, in a sick sort of way, to be fooled like this.
Frankenstein is not by any means a perfect play - Dear would perhaps have been better to focus on his two main characters whom he gives the most care to, and leave out the supporting ones, who don't seem to captivate his creativity. But, under the eye of Danny Boyle, the National Theatre's production sings, showing us just what can be accomplished with an exquisite design in harmony with well-explored acting. As an example of what solid actors can do with sensitive direction, Frankenstein comes to life in the best possible way.
Last night's cast featured Jonny Lee Miller as the Creature, and saw understudy Daniel Ings stepping nervously (at first) but well-deservedly into the shoes of Victor Frankenstein. Miller is exquisite in tracing the arc of the Creature from inarticulate birth to thinking, rationale man, and finally to calculated "villain." I couldn't tear my eyes away during the first fifteen minutes, in which the Creature grapples with his unfamiliar body, and finally, beautifully, discovers how to master it. The movement vocabulary here, meant to evoke the process of learning to walk, is unpredictable and fresh, and feels like it's discovered on the spot, quite a feat in a well-rehearsed and choreographed production. Immediately, I became invested in the Creature, because I was drawn into a relationship of physical empathy with him. We see the bruised, scarred body, hear the mangled voice, and then get to watch this newborn thing learn something, before our very eyes. Through the workings of this human body, I came to "know" the Creature, without text, without narrative, and immediately put my "knowing" into the frame of relation to my own humanness. It's a risky choice, I think, to begin a 120 minute performance (with no interval) with a speechless quarter-hour, but one that, for me, paid off in spades. It's also a brilliant example of the strange power of simple physical theatre on a modern techno-saturated audience.
The performance does feel quite filmic at times, switching locations even faster than the Creature learns passages from Paradise Lost. These scenic changes are eye-popping, inovative, and really draw on the craft of scenic designers and artists, led by designer Mark Tildesley. On the Creature's first foray into town, he is met by the arrival of a steampunk train, a rain shower, and two glorious flocks of birds in the sunset - I am not ashamed to admit that the sheer simplicity of that final image moved me to tears in my seat in the Olivier Circle. Overall for me, the lasting success of this production is in those moments of utter simplicity, as when the Creature, drawn towards an orange and red-lit sun on the back wall of the stage, is gleefully shocked by paper birds that are pulled from a barrel and flock up towards the rafters. Those cinematic moments captured by the magic (and innovation) of live theatre, paired with a commitment to solid physical acting are really quite arresting, and my lingering impressions of Frankenstein.
For the clarity of those moments, and the strength of the performances of Miller, Ings and the elderly benefactor De Lacey, rendered compassionately by Karl Johnson, I'm willing to forgive the falterings of the script and the timid acting by some of the supporting cast. Because the script spans years in a matter of hours, traversing a wide landscape, there are moments where Dear gives way to pastiche of Shelley's novel, instead of the caring adaptation found throughout the rest. The scenes with the Creature sparkle, and fly along at a healthy clip, but some others get bogged down by sentimentality, and, sometimes, a rush to get to the next 'good' scene. In contending with these rough patches, some of the actors like George Harris and Naomie Harris (as Frankenstein's father and fiancee respectively) can't seem to get a handle on their characters. Although likeable, the wind up being unremarkable in the midst of the duet between Frankenstein and his creation.
At this moment, I will again repeat my request that, if you haven't seen this production yet, but plan to, to please stop reading. I'm going to spill my favorite moment, but don't want to deprive you the pleasure of your own shock... So go away.
For those of you still reading, I'm interested in talking about the climactic scene near the frenzied finish, as the Creature first lures in Victor's now-wife Elizabeth to trust him, and then repays Victor's broken promise in-kind, by both raping and murdering her. I call attention to this moment because it reminded me veyr viscerally how magical live theatre is. You see, as I study this year, I'm surrounded by people who say that they don't go to see plays because "it's just a bunch of actors pretending" etc. While I don't agree with them, it does sort of get into my head from time. But then, every once awhile, one has the distinct pleasure to be reminded how powerful watching live acting really is. In this production, the moment I refer to is quite simple; it's a visual and aural trick that most actors have been a part of at some point in time. But it works on the audience every time. The Creature, having finished with Elizabeth, straddles her, takes her head in his head, utters a meant "I'm Sorry" and then, without hesitation, snaps her neck. A simple, quiet cracking sound effect accompanies the action. And three-quarters of the audience growns, grimaces, growls or otherwise (audibly and physically) reacts. Yes. It's a moment of pretending. If it weren't Elizabeth would have a very valid posthumous lawsuit to press against the NT. But the pretending is so invested, so committed to by the actors, portraying characters that we've, in this production, happily accpeted our invitation to relate to, that we CARE. Wr're affected. And we allow ourselves to "believe" what we've seen. That's where live theatre gets me every time. It is a distinct pleasure, in a sick sort of way, to be fooled like this.
Frankenstein is not by any means a perfect play - Dear would perhaps have been better to focus on his two main characters whom he gives the most care to, and leave out the supporting ones, who don't seem to captivate his creativity. But, under the eye of Danny Boyle, the National Theatre's production sings, showing us just what can be accomplished with an exquisite design in harmony with well-explored acting. As an example of what solid actors can do with sensitive direction, Frankenstein comes to life in the best possible way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)