Tracking Righteousness

Copyright conundrum

2010-03-19T16:32:00.002-04:00

Info and Contest

It's a pickle, but eventually our Federal government is going to have figure out how to update Canadian copyright laws for the 21st century.

Right now, there's a private member's bill put forth by NDP MP Charlie Angus. In essence it's a small consumer tax on MP3 players. For that reason alone, it will probably die. But it's a really good attempt to try to deal fairly with the issue.

To wit:

"Artists have a right to get paid and consumers have a right to access works. Digital locks and suing fans are not going to prevent people from copying music from one format to another. By updating, we will ensure that artists are getting paid for their work, and that consumers aren't criminalized for moving their legally-obtained music from one format to another."

The Edmonton Journal editorial staff is for it. Check out why. And (even) the National Post agrees.

Do you?

If you do or don't but have a strong opinion either way, here's a great way to make some quick cash on the issue: check out thereelchallenge.ca.

It's a film contest. 3 minutes could win you $10,000.

From the Contest Rules:

Prizes will be awarded by the adjudicating committee to the Content Providers whose submissions promote creators’ rights and address the importance of content protection, from a creator’s perspective, in the most compelling way, provoke the most thought and feeling in the viewer, and are considered the most engaging, imaginative and the most innovative in content and delivery.

Deadline is April 26th kids. Good luck!!!

File this under "Oh, come on"

2010-01-26T15:00:00.005-05:00

R&J protested in Tennessee

No, I'm not talking about Colarco's adapatation with prep school boys playacting as the two lovers.

Not even talking about the Zeffirelli film with a nude scene with a 15-year-old actress.

No, rather The Star is reporting that a Toronto school-touring production of Romeo and Juliet was almost cancelled due to a group of parents who disapproved of the show's sexuality.

From the article:

... a woman who identified herself as Val, a home-school teacher from Hermitage, "struggled being here with my son. The sexuality was too much. Our children need to be more pure."

And, I guess, "several other teachers echoed her opinion."

Now, I haven't seen the production but I'm reasonably assured that all the actors keep their clothes on.

So, does that mean these folks are objecting to the script? That was written in 1595 (give or take)?

If so, kudos to the ensemble for an obviously vivid and faithful interpretation of the Bard's text.

To those teachers and parents of those oh-so-pure children... You do know that this is what your kids are listening to, don't you:

German Musical Obama... what???

2010-01-14T14:58:00.007-05:00

Hope! - A new musical about Barack Obama's ascent to the US Presidency opens in Frankfurt

I still don't know what to make of this one.

Yes, Barack Obama has world wide appeal. Yes, he even has a special connection to Germany. But a German musical about him?

I just don't know.

From the description:

"I had the initial idea right at the start of Obama's electoral campaign," American writer and composer Randall Hutchins told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "I found the atmosphere exciting and that was my inspiration. People hoped change would result in a better life. It was a beautiful, very social time."

Okay. Sure. That sounds like something to write about. And, checking out the photo gallery... yeah. Maybe that could be kind of fun.

But, wait. Just wait. What am I going to be looking at again?

Wearing a knitted cardigan and crooning into his microphone, Barack Obama paces around the stage, wooing Michelle with a love song. In another number, now clad in a suit, Jimmie Wilson who plays Obama, struts up and down, clasping his mike and leading a euphoric gospel chorus of "Yes We Can."

Ew - Eww - Eeeewwwww...

I don't like it.

Do I have a problem with musicals? Not with this one. Nor this one.

I just don't like wasting my time. This musical sounds like a waste of my time.

Maybe it bugs me that this is a German creation. I just got back from Berlin last week. (PS -- Berlin is awesome!) I stopped by the Deutsches Theater to check out what was going on. I picked up a program. On the front cover was a promo shot from its production of Othello.

Check it out:
Yeah. That's a German interpretation of Othello.

I don't know if the show was any good (I missed it), or if the photo is just a publicity shot designed to create a stir (and probably offence at the same time).

But it's exciting. It's risky.

It's dangerous.

That's what I like about theatre. Musical or not.

Congrats Michael Healey

2010-01-12T16:15:00.008-05:00

The Drawer Boy 4th most produced play in the US during the Naughties

Top ten lists are always in vogue around the new year, especially at the dawn of a new decade (or century, or millennium, or what have you).

You can usually find Top 10 productions of the year for theatre as well but, due to the nature of the beast, they're so localized, that these lists don't "mean" as much as some others.

However, over at Nestruck on Theatre there is a report that Michael Healey's The Drawer Boy was the fourth most produced play in the U.S. during the last decade.

Local boy does good!

Of course, I can't help but grit my teeth a little to report that somehow this list should mean more to me than others.

It is an unfortunate symptom of Canada's national character that we judge our successes based on how well we do south of the border.

That being said, Mr. Healey's work is among a list of some really seminal pieces, and the fact that his play has been produced 36 times in a country not of his origin is, to put it mildly, impressive.

Congratulations are indeed in order. Well done!

Accomplish much?

2010-01-07T05:08:00.004-05:00

Those who doubt seem really, really angry about it

As of this writing, the Facebook group Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament has grown to 80,235 people.

That's nearly equivalent to the population of Sarnia, Ontario, or Nanaimo, British Columbia (according to tageo.com).

Media responses to the group however, have been mostly negative. They range from dismissive, to cynical to actually-kind-of-insulting.

If you are easily discouraged, I recommend not clicking the above links.

But I have to wonder: if this FB group is just BS, then why do you continue to write about it? If you take a look at the National Post's Full Comment section online, I see 8 different opinion pieces about the group published since January 5th (not including Chris Selley's Full Pundit).

I'm a member of the group, and in the same time frame, I've only written about it once.

Like the Bard said: "Methinks thou doth protest too much..."

Perhaps, all we've accomplished is eighty thousand people clicking a button. But for me, that's a damn good start.

So... what shall we accomplish next?

---

And, for those of you who are gluttons for punishment, here are the aforementioned NP articles:
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
Eight

Have you joined?

2010-01-05T06:03:00.006-05:00

A Grassroots movement against a cynical government

What a difference 5 days make!

My last post, on the last day of 2009, was quite pessimistic, I'll admit. However, despite the government's move to hide its 2nd annual prorogation of Parliament behind the blur of thousands of New Year's Eve parties and the announcement of the Canadian Men's Olympic Hockey Team roster, something quite different happened.

People got pissed off.

A number of Facebook groups that opposed the government's move were set up. One of them caught fire: Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament. As of this writing, its membership has grown to about the size of the population of Lloydminster, Alberta.

Yesterday morning, the group was noted in the Globe and Mail's Ottawa Notebook political blog. Later that day, the group's founder Christopher White, was interviewed on CBC News. This morning, it was featured in an article for the Toronto Star.

Polls still show that more Canadians are indifferent to prorogation than are against it. But not as many as you might think: while 45% are indifferent, 35% are unhappy about it, and only 15% are for it. The causality of the majority's indifference could be based in any number of reasons, but people's opinions can change on a dime. Especially if they feel that they are being taken advantage of.

Well, we are. Democracy may be our right, but it is a fragile one and it needs to be protected. It needs to engaged by its citizens.

It needs us to stand up and be counted.

Join us.

Everything old is new again?

2009-12-31T06:07:00.011-05:00

Shades of December 2008 - Harper prorogues Parliament again!

Conventional wisdom today is that PM Harper has prorogued Parliament for the second time since the 2008 Federal election because he's worried that the committee investigating the Afghan detainee/torture issue is costing the Conservatives too much political capital. That the issue will disappear once the afterglow of the Vancouver Olympics erases it from our collective consciousness like a MiB Neuralyzer.

However, Dimitri Soudas, the PMO's press secretary, doesn't think so. It's "old news" he noted in a conference call to reporters, according to the G&M's John Ibbitson. And, I tend to believe him.

Not with Soudas' statement, but rather that this is an accurate reflection of the government's attitude towards the detainee issue: they don't think they'll lose an election over it, and, as uncomfortable as the issue has become, it will eventually go away.

Besides, defence has never been this government's preference for action. They like aggressiveness. They like to squash the enemy.

They like to consolidate power.

The second piece of conventional wisdom circulating among the pundits is that prorogation is doubly advantageous to the Conservatives because it allows Harper to further stack Senate vacancies with partisan loyalists, effectively giving him a governing minority in the Upper House. This seems to be a little bit more in character...

But then, Harper didn't need to lock up the HoC and kill 37 pieces of legislation just to fill Senate vacancies. He could fill them while the House sits. Yes, prorogation effectively resets the make-up of Senate committees: without it, the Liberals could keep a majority in each committee until each one had finished its business, regardless of the overall make up of the Senate. But, again, going through with prorogation just to obtain a "governing minority" in a legislative wing of government that the Conservatives are (supposedly) ideologically opposed seems like overkill for much too little in return. Even for this government.

Last year at this time (more or less a couple of weeks), Harper was forced to prorogue Parliament to save his government's skin. As you may recall, the government had just won another minority in a Federal election that broke the government's own law regarding fixed election dates, on a platform of economic stability and no deficits. It's first act of business: to introduce a fiercely partisan economic update that virtually ignored the world-wide economic crisis in favour of financially crippling the opposition parties. The opposition parties reacted, and Harper found himself in a long discussion with the Governor General over the merits of using an obscure parliamentary procedure to avoid losing the confidence of the House.

Fast forward to now, after the largest deficit in Canadian history (by far), a couple of lily-livered attempts by the Opposition to knock the Conservatives out of power, and a relatively stable year of polling showing that Canadians are not comfortable with anything more than a minority of blue on the government's side of the aisle, and Mr. Harper decides to give the GG a ring. "One more time," he asks, "after all, everything worked out for the best last time round, eh?"

This is a strategic move, yes, but I believe it's only the first step and not the endgame.

See, if the government learned anything from its last year in power, it understands that it does indeed have a lot of power. None more than when the House isn't sitting. Mr. Harper is never so popular than when he's not defending his government and its policies (or lack thereof) in the House. Rather, he looks better when he's on trade missions, or announcing money for projects via stimulus funds, or even (strangely enough) singing.

Through prorogation, the government effectively buys 2 months of time in which they can set the publicity agenda through vehicles like "Canada's Economic Action Plan" in which taxpayer's money is used to promote the government, while the opposition parties must use their own money to get any airtime. And if (and when) they do, this conveniently allows for the PMO to send out one if its infamous "Alerte-Info-Alert" emails to Tory MPs and supporters which outlines talking points to defend/dismiss any criticism. And, of course, to fundraise for more money into the Conservative's election war chest.

Ibbitson, in the article linked to above, refers to a statement made by an anonymous government official, who notes:

"... the government wanted to give itself time and breathing room to think through how to manage the economy as it emerges from recession and to put in place a long-term strategy for balancing the budget."

I believe him/her.

But only because I've seen this before. In essence, s/he is saying:

"The government has learned its lesson from last year: the 2008 economic update was much too hasty a policy-cum-political document to be (at all) effective. We had just barely recovered from fighting an election campaign and we didn't realize how seriously the economic crisis was going to affect Canada. We were rash; we didn't think things through.

This time will be different.

This time we can design a budget that much more discretely aligns our political motives with one more year of stimulus spending, while beginning to cut programs under a facade of fiscal responsibility. This time we can create a document that much more effectively traps the opposition parties into either supporting us or being woefully embarrassed. This time, if they don't support us, it will be they who loses the public support, they who cause a $300 million election, and ultimately they who provide us with the means to finally win a majority government. And they won't have that pesky coalition option to fall back on.

This time, we can take the time to get it right."

Whoa. Cynical much?

Maybe. But yet I keep seeing in the media that the government intends to continue spending stimulus funds through 2011, and yet introduce a leaner budget in 2010. That the government has no intention of increasing taxes but rather intends to freeze or cut spending in order to get the deficit under control.

Something has got to give.

Equity weighs in on BC

2009-09-23T10:42:00.004-04:00

Ms. Ryshpan penned a letter

CAEA Executive Director Arden R. Ryshpan wrote a letter to BC's Premier Gordon Campbell about those stinking cuts to Arts & Culture. She writes:

"The budget update delivered by Minister Colin Hansenearlier this month makes no particular reference to arts and culture and certainly doesn’t explain why you see the need to cut funding by over 90%. This is a completely disproportionate share of the burden. When times are tough, we all recognize the need for restraint, but the cuts you propose are far more severe than mere fiscal prudence. Furthermore, Minister Hansen suggests that while it is expected that the B.C. economy will shrink by 2.9% in 2009, he is anticipating 1.9% growth in the next year (...) so it is unclear to us why such draconian cuts are necessary in our sector."

Indeed. Although I didn't realize that the government had acutally forcast growth in 2010. Brutal.

Now, even if the government's economic prediction pans out (which is not certain), it doesn't necessarily follow that the government's revenues will increase along with the economy. This is because corporations can wait up to five years to write off losses in their tax returns. This is why governments still must budget deficits even after the economy grows after a recession.

Nevertheless, the point is moot because these cuts were not about the money. The relatively small amount of money the government saves by virtually eliminating its Arts & Culture budget barely makes a dent in its projected deficits. It's just too little money to make a difference.

And, Ms. Ryshpan recognizes this:

"Every other government in Canada is looking at the Creative Economy as a way to revive dying industrial and resource-based economies, and the arts are a driving force in that new landscape. At a time when your government is investing tens of millions of dollars in other industries, the cuts in arts funding represents a tiny percentage of your overall expenditures and yet means so very much to our industry. (emphasis mine) I would ask that your government explain to the thousands and thousands of artists in the province why their jobs are not important but other people’s are."

More to the point: how can the BC government justify gutting an entire industry for the sake of political image?

You can read Ms. Ryshpan's letter in full here.

Impact and Change

2009-09-14T16:37:00.020-04:00

What's the best way to get the public on your side?

Over at the Next Stage, there's a video link to a news item on Global BC about the recent cuts to funding for Arts & Culture in BC's provincial budget. Check it out.

Three questions should immediately pop up for all artists concerned about BC after viewing this item:

Why did this story air?
How effective was it?
How do we get more stories like this on air?

After watching the story, you realize that the reason why Global took an interest is because Kim Catrall got on board and criticized the BC government for its excessive cuts to Arts & Culture.

Some would be annoyed that the only reason that this issue has made it to air on a major network was because a celebrity mentioned it. Not me. I think this is great news.

If you recall during the last Federal election, Arts & Culture became an issue (and made it to the national debates for the first time in history) only after prominient Québec artists criticized the PM for $45M in funding cuts, made months earlier. The PM responded, and the rest is history.

What local arts groups need to do now is try to figure out how to get more celebrities on board. With the 2010 Olympics only months away, and Vancouver (and BC) becoming increasingly in the spotlight, this may be just the opportunity we've been waiting for... I'll get back to this in a minute.

The other detail about the story that I noticed is that Global also spent extra time, energy and money to profile how local groups (like Carousel Theatre) will be impacted by the funding cuts. This is significant when you consider how much easier it would have been to broadcast a 15-second bit featuring Catrall's comments and then move on. The question is: why did they bother? Was it just good reporting? Does Global have a proclivity for focusing on the "human" angle? Or, is it something else entirely...

Well, maybe. Global TV (along with fellow broadcasters CBC, CTV and A-Channel) is embroiled in a major public relations battle with cable providers Rogers, Bell and Telus. At issue is whether the broadcasters should be able to charge the cable providers for access to their programming. You may have seen 'Save Local TV' commercials or clicked on their website. What's important to note about this conflict is that the broadcasters (especially Global, which needs the extra income most desperately) are furiously branding themselves as the champions of local television, and by extension, local communities.

I see the possibility for a mutually beneficial relationship...

What's happening in BC right now is an underground movement to build momentum and help get the public on the side of artists and cultural workers. As more events are planned and executed in support of culture -- like last week's Art Strike -- two publicity objectives need to pursued and met.

First, there needs to be celebrity voices, or the voices of prominent members of the community, on side and (if possible) on sight. This makes the event sexy to the broadcasters.

Second, any and all press releases, backgrounders, etc., need to start angling the story so that it's not just about the government cutting funding.
Our story needs to be about protecting local culture and local communities. Our story needs to mirror the messaging and the language that the broadcasters themselves are using to demonize the cable providers. Our story needs to give the broadcasters a reason to move the story up to near the top of the news, or a reason to do an "in-depth" feature.

See... whether we artists realize this or not, this issue is more important than just the state of culture in BC. This is about how important culture is to Canadian politicians. If this issue gets legs -- if national outrage can start to mimic the same momentum that was seen in the 2007 Federal election -- then maybe we can stop this brutal political habit of unfair cuts to the Arts to sustain an image of fiscal responsibility. I've written before that the only reason why Arts & Culture suffer the deepest budget cuts is because it appeals to a certain constituency. It only serves to create an image of "toughness" and "hard choices" but it really doesn't affect the bottom line.

The situation in BC is dire, but there is real opportunity to get some traction and support for this issue. There are the Olympics in only a few short months, and the eyes of the world will be upon us. There are major broadcasters that could could be sympathetic to our cause. There are prominent (read: famous) voices that could sing out on our behalf.

If politicians lose more capital by cutting the arts instead of defending them, then there's no further reason to see those cuts happen in the future. Simple as that.

Now go make some noise.

The War on Culture

2009-09-08T13:13:00.009-04:00

Artists must find a way to avoid being collateral damage of deficit budgets

Praxis Theatre's recent post concerning the insane funding cuts to BC's Arts Sector got me thinking about the newest fad in Canadian politics: the war on culture.

Was it only last year that arts funding actually became an issue in a national election? And didn't the artists all rally together (under the lead of Québec) to make enough noise so that the Conservatives were once again hamstrung with another minority government? Did we not see the birth of the Department of Culture and the phoenix-like resurgence of The Wrecking Ball onto the national scene?

And yet, here we are again, not even a year later and arts funding has become a major casualty in a political marketing campaign.

Er... you mean "casualty due to a recession budget," don't you Aaron?

No, I don't. Look at the numbers. At the very worst (and there always are, and will continue to be, many different and contradictory numbers tossed around where arts funding is concerned), there will $17.25 million cut in core arts funding this year. In the face of $2.8 billion projected deficit, what's $17M?

It's nothing. It's a drop in the bucket. It doesn't make any financial sense. In other words, it's political.

Where other industries in BC are looking at an average of 7% cuts in funding, the arts sector is looking at reductions of 80-90%. And this is an industry that continually makes the most with the least in terms of dollars. Why are we always the punching bag?

Charles Campbell, of The Tyee, makes a compelling argument for fighting back. But, other than a couple of posts, all is quiet on the Western (blog) Front. Why are we content to continue to be the punching bag?

... Mind you, I don't follow a lot of BC based theatre blogs, so please point me in the right direction if you know of some hot-headed responses to BC's September Budget update. Thx.

The point is, however, until we can figure out why politicians find it more expedient to obliterate arts funding rather than defend it, we're going to continue to be casualties on this new war on culture.

UPDATE
Answering my own question, the Alliance for Arts and Culture seems pretty righteous to me.

Oh, office FWD'd email... you make my day

2009-09-04T16:04:00.003-04:00

Some lighter fare for the Labour Day long weekend

This email, subject name "Brilliant" is pretty self-explanatory. I hope this makes your long weekend folks. Happy BBQ'ing!

I was going to share this with a line like, "It's crazy how many of these thoughts I've had." But after doing a Google search to find out who wrote it, it's evident that hundreds of bloggers have already shared it and said the exact same thing and that perhaps it's universality is what makes it brilliant.

Anyway, it's funny. Enjoy.
...

Random thoughts from 25-35 year olds:

- I wish Google Maps had an "Avoid Ghetto" routing option.

-More often than not, when someone is telling me a story all I can think about is that I can't wait for them to finish so that I can tell my own story that's not only better, but also more directly involves me.

-Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.

-I don't understand the purpose of the line, "I don't need to drink to have fun." Great, no one does. But why start a fire with flint and sticks when they've invented the lighter?

-Have you ever been walking down the street and realized that you're going in the complete opposite direction of where you are supposed to be going? But instead of just turning a 180 and walking back in the direction from which you came, you have to first do something like check your watch or phone or make a grand arm gesture and mutter to yourself to ensure that no one in the surrounding area thinks you're crazy by randomly switching directions on the sidewalk.

-That's enough, Nickelback.

-I totally take back all those times I didn't want to nap when I was younger.

-Is it just me, or are 80% of the people in the "people you may know"
feature on Facebook people that I do know, but I deliberately choose not to be friends with?

-Do you remember when you were a kid, playing Nintendo and it wouldn't work? You take the cartridge out, blow in it and that would magically fix the problem. Every kid in America did that, but how did we all know how to fix the problem? There was no internet or message boards or FAQ's. We just figured it out. Today's kids are soft.

-There is a great need for sarcasm font.

-Sometimes, I'll watch a movie that I watched when I was younger and suddenly realize I had no idea what the f was going on when I first saw it.

-I think everyone has a movie that they love so much, it actually becomes stressful to watch it with other people. I'll end up wasting 90 minutes shiftily glancing around to confirm that everyone's laughing at the right parts, then making sure I laugh just a little bit harder (and a millisecond earlier) to prove that I'm still the only one who really, really gets it.

-How the hell are you supposed to fold a fitted sheet?

-I would rather try to carry 10 plastic grocery bags in each hand than take 2 trips to bring my groceries in.

- I think part of a best friend's job should be to immediately clear your computer history if you die.

-The only time I look forward to a red light is when I’m trying to finish a text.

- A recent study has shown that playing beer pong contributes to the spread of mono and the flu. Yeah, if you suck at it.

- LOL has gone from meaning, "laugh out loud" to "I have nothing else to say".

- I have a hard time deciphering the fine line between boredom and hunger.

- Answering the same letter three times or more in a row on a Scantron test is absolutely petrifying.

- Whenever someone says "I'm not book smart, but I'm street smart", all I hear is "I'm not real smart, but I'm imaginary smart".

- How many times is it appropriate to say "What?" before you just nod and smile because you still didn't hear what they said?

- I love the sense of camaraderie when an entire line of cars teams up to prevent a dick from cutting in at the front. Stay strong, brothers!

- Every time I have to spell a word over the phone using 'as in'
examples, I will undoubtedly draw a blank and sound like a complete idiot. Today I had to spell my boss's last name to an attorney and said "Yes that's G as in...(10 second lapse)..ummm...Goonies"

-What would happen if I hired two private investigators to follow each other?

- While driving yesterday I saw a banana peel in the road and i instinctively swerved to avoid it...thanks Mario Kart.

- MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.

- Obituaries would be a lot more interesting if they told you how the person died.

- I find it hard to believe there are actually people who get in the shower first and THEN turn on the water.

-Shirts get dirty. Underwear gets dirty. Pants? Pants never get dirty, and you can wear them forever.

-I can't remember the last time I wasn't at least kind of tired.

- Bad decisions make good stories

-Whenever I'm Facebook stalking someone and I find out that their profile is public I feel like a kid on Christmas morning who just got the Red Ryder BB gun that I always wanted. 546 pictures? Don't mind if I do!

- Is it just me or do high school girls get sluttier & sluttier every year?

-If Carmen San Diego and Waldo ever got together, their offspring would probably just be completely invisible.

-Why is it that during an ice-breaker, when the whole room has to go around and say their name and where they are from, I get so incredibly nervous? Like I know my name, I know where I'm from, this shouldn't be a problem....

-You never know when it will strike, but there comes a moment at work when you've made up your mind that you just aren't doing anything productive for the rest of the day.

-Can we all just agree to ignore whatever comes after DVDs? I don't want to have to restart my collection.

-There's no worse feeling than that millisecond you're sure you are going to die after leaning your chair back a little too far.

-I'm always slightly terrified when I exit out of Word and it asks me if I want to save any changes to my ten page research paper that I swear I did not make any changes to.

- "Do not machine wash or tumble dry" means I will never wash this ever.

-I hate being the one with the remote in a room full of people watching TV. There's so much pressure. 'I love this show, but will they judge me if I keep it on? I bet everyone is wishing we weren't watching this. It's only a matter of time before they all get up and leave the room. Will we still be friends after this?'

-I hate when I just miss a call by the last ring (Hello? Hello?
Dammit!), but when I immediately call back, it rings nine times and goes to voicemail. What'd you do after I didn't answer? Drop the phone and run away?

- I hate leaving my house confident and looking good and then not seeing anyone of importance the entire day. What a waste.

-When I meet a new girl, I'm terrified of mentioning something she hasn't already told me but that I have learned from some light internet stalking.

-I like all of the music in my iTunes, except when it's on shuffle, then I like about one in every fifteen songs in my iTunes.

-Why is a school zone 20 mph? That seems like the optimal cruising speed for pedophiles...

- As a driver I hate pedestrians, and as a pedestrian I hate drivers, but no matter what the mode of transportation, I always hate cyclists.

-Sometimes I'll look down at my watch 3 consecutive times and still not know what time it is.

-It should probably be called Unplanned Parenthood.

-I keep some people's phone numbers in my phone just so I know not to answer when they call.

-Even if I knew your social security number, I wouldn't know what do to with it.

-Even under ideal conditions people have trouble locating their car keys in a pocket, hitting the G-spot, and Pinning the Tail on the Donkey - but I’d bet my ass everyone can find and push the Snooze button from 3 feet away, in about 1.7 seconds, eyes closed, first time every time...

-My 4-year old son asked me in the car the other day "Dad what would happen if you ran over a ninja?" How the hell do I respond to that?

-It really pisses me off when I want to read a story on CNN.com and the link takes me to a video instead of text.

-I wonder if cops ever get pissed off at the fact that everyone they drive behind obeys the speed limit.

-I think the freezer deserves a light as well.

-I disagree with Kay Jewelers. I would bet on any given Friday or Saturday night more kisses begin with Miller Lites than Kay

Did I call it?... Maybe not

2009-09-02T16:06:00.009-04:00

Spider-Man musical to resume production

According to MTV's Splash Page, Spider-Man will be hitting the Great White Way after all. From the report:

According to Variety, production on "Turn Off The Dark" could resume as early as this week or as late as next week.

No official comments have been made by the show's producers, who suspended the musical due to "a cash-flow problem" in August, but Variety's report cites rumors around the theater industry that "Spider-Man" will swing back into action shortly.

However, despite what I predicted in Monday's post, MTV goes on to say:

As for who saved "Spider-Man," the obvious guess is the Walt Disney Company, who recently acquired Marvel Entertainment in a $4 billion deal. But the musically-minded entity is apparently not responsible for "Turn off the Dark's" salvation, according to the report.

Then... who is responsible? According to a snarky report from the NY Post's Michael Reidl:

Bono's too smart to put his own money in the show, but word on the street is that he's tapped into his vast network of rich friends and business associates to restart production.

Hm...

On the lighter side, here's some video from the musical's open casting auditions (courtesy MTV):

MTV Shows

And here's G4 Tech TV's analysis of what Disney ownership might mean for Marvel:

Video Games - E3 2009 - Attack of the Show

More responses can be found on Hero Complex.

Disney owns Marvel Comics

2009-08-31T10:08:00.002-04:00

Mickey just bought Spiderman for $4B

From today's Globe and Mail:

The Walt Disney Co. (DIS-N) said Monday it is buying Marvel Entertainment Inc. (MVL-N) for $4-billion (U.S.) in cash and stock, bringing characters like Iron Man and Spider-Man into the family of Mickey Mouse and WALL-E.

Not sure what to make of this yet...

I'm thinking The Incredibles crossover with the Fantastic Four maybe?

Maybe not, but Broadway Spider-Man's cash-flow troubles may just have been solved.

I have great friends

2009-08-28T13:09:00.005-04:00

All of a sudden my email was filled with Facebook notifications

I import this blog to my Facebook profile automatically. Generally, if I do an interesting post, I'll get more comments on FB than on my blog. But, in most cases, there's not too much activity on either format.

That is, until Wednesday's post was imported to my profile.

Below are some of the responses to that post. I feel like I need to share them with the wider blogosphere because 1) they reminded me that I'm not alone with these feelings, and 2) other artists feeling the same shit can benefit from my friends' wisdom.

I just wanted to thank you all for reading and responding, and how much it meant to me.

Cheers!

might need a good vacation somewhere new and something that will inspire - India maybe... become a yogi..:)

Dig a new well my friend.

Can I just say I relate? You're right, getting stuck in the past is not a good place to be. But recognizing how where you are is different than where you want to be is a good thing.

In my experience it all comes and goes in waves. Much like life. No sense stressing when the tide is going out, just trust that it will come in again.

I totally relate too... But one thing I've found helpful is to not give myself the option of waiting for creative inspiration (which frankly, for me, rarely comes) and to treat my passions like a job. I try to write something. Every day. Whether I want to or not.

check out http://www.dailyom.com/ You can subscribe and get a "daily om" emailed to you each day. They're freaky with their timing, things I'm feeling or thinking about (or stressing about) seem to be the next day's topic.

I can relate too... What I found familiar - besides being discontented with joe-jobs, that's what I always call them too! :) - was how I compare the present self/situation with past triumphs/failures - for me, it is not very helpful as it results in alot of "I should's", and takes me away from what is happening in the present.

There is a serious tendency in this profession to forget that we are humans first and performers second. It is impossible to give anything to your art or your job if you haven't anything left in you to give. ...It's hard to be a professional story teller if you don't take some time to generate a few stories of your own. Live your life. See other peoples' work from time to time to remind your self what you enjoy about theatre and what you'd like to change. But live your life. How else are you going learn what it is you have to say?

This one takes the cake:

I think you need one of these.

The well is dry

2009-08-26T12:39:00.004-04:00

What the hell is up with me, lately?

I'm trying to own my current bout of creative malaise. I'm trying to investigate why I feel so tired and uninspired lately. Why I've stopped writing. Why I feel like I have nothing to offer.

It's weird. I don't know how to answer these questions.

I'm not depressed or sad or anything. In fact, outside of my creative life, things have been better than ever. I love my wife, our house, my family and, well, I've had worse joe-jobs.

I'm a little frustrated about my lack of progress in my creative/producing endeavors as of late. And more than a little nostalgic for days of yore. By end of August in 2006, I had completed 2 acting gigs, 2 directing gigs, received 2 grants, a reading for my play and had the rest of the year and my next season already mapped out. In 2009, I've done one acting gig and received one grant... and very little sits on the horizon.

Eeyuck. I don't want to be that guy. I don't want to be stuck in the past. I hate thinking about that shit, and I'm sorry that I wrote it down.

But I'm trying to own it. So there it sits in my post.

My biggest concern right now is that I feel locked in by a number of factors. Yes, my joe-job is not terrible--but it's not good either. It pays well, it's stupid easy, but it has nothing to do with what I want to be doing with my life and will not lead me there. At the same time, I have more responsibilities than I did in my twenties (family, mortgage, etc.), and I can't just quit and hope that something better comes along. I'm not sure if there is something better: we all know that artists need supplementary income. Do I want to go back to waiting tables? Hell no. Do I want to teach? No -- that's not a secondary job, that's another career entirely. I don't know what I want to do.

I also feel locked in by my artistic choices. I feel like whenever things get rocky, I drop everything and move on to something new. Which is irresponsible and wasteful. I want to follow through. But at the same time, I'm spinning my wheels on this current thing. WTF am I supposed to do? I'm afraid if I try break my bad habit, I'm going stay stuck in the same creative void for even longer. Another year? Two?

Sigh.

Before starting this post, I checked out my very first post on this blog, and two things caught my eye. I wrote,

Another word about this blog. About 2 or 3 years ago, my good buddy Shaun told me that all he wants to do is wander the earth and spread righteousness. I'm gonna try to emulate that here.

And then I quoted from my superhero play:

"There are two kinds of people in this world: those who might imagine a whole other, fantastic reality from the world we know… and those who participate in that reality."
-- Shady Character (Episode 2)

What happened to that guy?

In defence of Canadian Heathcare

2009-08-24T14:53:00.007-04:00

Interesting math concerning our socialist... I mean, 'single-payer' system...

Please forgive this post, for I make a lot of big assumptions and generalizations below.

If you're like me, you might feel somewhat divided about President Obama's efforts to reform the American Healthcare system. Yes... you want him to succeed, you believe that he's doing the right thing... for Americans. But at the same time, what he's really advocating is a two-tiered system, something that I'm profoundly against, here in Canada.

But I think that a person can be both pro-AmericanHealthCareReform and pro-CanadianUniversalHealthCare at the same time, because their system is so much shittier than ours.

Forget the GDP arguement. It's often repeated that Americans spend a higher percentage of their country's GDP on healthcare than any other industrialized nation. But that doesn't really mean anything to anyone. The real questions are how much do I spend on healthcare, am I getting value for my money, and are others getting better value for less?

It's suprisingly complicated to try to get answers for any of these questions. Trying to figure out how much an average Canadian spends on healthcare is difficult because spending is based on taxation, and taxation in Canada is progressive (meaning that your income tax percentages differ based on how much you make -- American taxation is also progressive BTW.) We also have sales taxes and corporate taxes, which means that there are pools of money going towards healthcare that aren't coming directly from your wages (some may argue this point, though). Finally, because healthcare is administered provincially rather than federally, there's no real national percentage of how much of a Canadian taxpayer's dollar is invested into health.

As such, if you're not a professional statistician and you're only armed with Google and some basic math skills, any answers you'll find will be way over-simplified. I'm not a professional statistician, and my math skills are a little suspect, but apparently I had some time on my hands, so I did a little digging.

Wikipedia has nice little compartive chart in its Taxation in Canada page that lists average Income Tax rates in different countries. The below info is from that chart --

In 2005, a Canadian who was:
Single with no children, paid 31.6%
Married with 2 children, paid 21.5%

In 2005, an American who was:
Single with no children, paid 29.1%
Married with 2 children, paid 11.9% (wow, no wonder they have deficit problems)

Now, this doesn't mean much unless you know how much income you're paying tax on. According to Statistics Canada, the average household income in Canada in 2006 was $53,634. Meanwhile, the median US household income in 2005 was approximately $46,000, at least according to WikiAnswers.

Okay... some of these sources are legit, and some are less so. I reference two different years when comparing annual household incomes. There's no accounting for the difference in currencies. But, for brevity's sake, let's call it even.

Using the above numbers, simple math tells me that --

In 2005, a Canadian who was:
Single with no children, paid about $16,948 in personal income taxes
Married with 2 children, paid about $11,531 in personal income taxes

Now... how much of that went towards healthcare? Because I live in Ontario, I'm going to use this jurisdiction as a base. In 2009, Ontario is projected to spend 43 cents of every tax dollar on healthcare. In 2008, it was 46 cents.

If we round this to about 45% of the provincial budget, and we pretend that sales/corporate/miscellaneous taxes don't exist, we can see that this equals about:
$7,627 for single persons, spent on healthcare annually
$5,189 for families with 2 kids, spent on healthcare annually

How does this compare to America?

Well, I found this tidbit on About.com:

The federal government tracks average spending on health insurance for people with job-based coverage. The most recent figures are from 2005, and indicate that the average individual's job-based premiums were $3,991 that year, while families spent an average of $10,728.

Something's off here... the American tax system seems to be geared towards giving families a break on taxes. But, compared to my numbers above, American families pay way more on health care coverage than do Canadians.

Futhermore, as far as I'm concerned, if you're paying job-based premiums, that's really no different from a payroll tax. It's a benefit, sure, but if that money wasn't going towards health insurance, then it would be going into that employee's wallet. Thus, I think it's only fair to add this to the Americans' average income taxes... how much was that again?

According to our numbers, in 2005, an American who was:
Single with no children, paid about $13,386 in personal income taxes, for a total of $17,377 with healthcare costs added in.
Married with 2 children, paid about $5,474 in personal income taxes, for a total of $16,202 with healthcare costs added in.

And these people are considered lucky because they have insurance through their employers.

However, these numbers (inaccurate as they are) are even more damning when you consider:
-How much I inflated the Canadian costs by not including sales or corporate tax revenue in my equations... I just assumed that healthcare is paid for entirely by Income Tax, and that's not the case at all.
-That the Canadian's tax dollars cover everyone, not just those who can afford premiums, and even those who fall upon hard times and are in most need of healthcare will still be covered.
-That the Canadian system cannot disqualify a taxpayer for "pre-existing conditions" or any other kind of nonsense.
-That all of the revenue generated for healthcare goes towards healthcare, rather than lining the pockets of insurance company execs or stockholders.

Our system is not perfect. But it's a helluva lot better than theirs.

I know this is supposed to be an arts blog. But, what more can I say when this post on Parabasis sums up this issue so much better than I ever will.

Wow, did you see that storm last night???

2009-08-21T09:58:00.004-04:00

Toronado hits GTA

Check out crazy pics and vids over at Blog TO

The next step...

2009-08-19T14:20:00.006-04:00

Interesting first release choice for MarvelMotionComics.com

This is pretty cool.

If I'm not able to get a proper staged version of my Superhero LIVE! play produced, pursuing something like this might be my next option.

Or... maybe pursuing something like this might lead to a proper staged version of SHL!...

hmmm..............

A little something cool; a little something inspiring...

2009-08-17T14:20:00.009-04:00

Back from vacation, here are some neat links

Hey kids;
Sorry I haven't blogged in a while: was on a little vacation and just got back. I never know what the protocol is for vacation non-blogging ...

... erm... that's not entirely true. This is the appropriate post while on vacation. But I worry about announcing to the world that my pad is empty whenever I take off for a few days.

But maybe that's a pre-historic attitude for a blogger in this here 21st century, digital/information age. After all when you look at somebody like Jeff Jarvis, a news-media critic and social media analyst who recently decided to blog to the world about his prostate cancer, you kind of feel like a luddite when refusing to share about your little trip to NYC. (We had a great time BTW.)

I'm totally inspired by Jeff's transparency, moreover because I don't think I could do it if I were in his shoes. I hope he has a speedy recovery... and since he lives in America, I hope like hell he's got good insurance.

On to something a little lighter...

There's quite a bit of interest bubbling about James Cameron's newest movie since Titanic: Avatar. I hadn't heard very much about it, until my film buddy started excitingly telling me about over sushi last week. Then I come across a cool interview on the L.A. Times' Hero Complex blog. Here's part 1 and here's part 2.

My favourite portion of the whole interview is right off the top when it notes that Mr. Cameron is indeed a "Canadian" filmmaker.

... Except, when's the last time he did a Canadian film?

Big Buzz about Apple's new iTouch Tablet

2009-07-28T16:38:00.000-04:00

Apparently Apps will eventually replace websites

Before now, I had never heard of Apple's iTouch Tablet, but Jason Schwartz has. He's an investment strategist with a pretty good record on predicting trends in the tech world.

According to Jason, the soon-to-be-released iTouch Tablet -- basically an iPhone that has devoured an Amazon Kindle -- is going to start (yet) another revolution in how we utitilize the World Wide Web.

To wit:

The iTouch Tablet is about to change society as we know it. The demand for this product is going to overwhelm Apple.

(Sigh... and I haven't even started a Twitter account yet...)

Jason provides 4 reasons for his hyperbolic conclusion. The one that interested me most was his prediction that people will start to prefer Web Apps over websites to access the Internet. He says:

We are witnessing a transition in the way the Internet is used. Mobile content requires a tailor made user experience that is not efficiently delivered by the traditional website model. Although we have grown accustomed to navigating the Web by browsing websites on our PC, consumers are showing an affinity for the App Store model...

The trend is in place that shows consumers will desire an app rather than visit a website. Perhaps we will one day see that apps are more popular than actual websites.

You can read Jason's full blog post here.

I have no idea whether he's right or wrong... I can't afford an iPhone, and I'm pretty sure the iTouch Tablet will be waaaayyy out of my league.

Before Apple ignites the Web 3.0 revolution, maybe it can start by addressing issues of affordability first.

In a totally unrelated story, a big congratulations over to Jay Bardyla and Happy Harbour Comics in Edmonton for being nominated for the 2009 Will Eisner Spirit of Comics Retailer Award at the San Diego Comic Con. This is a world wide competition, and Happy Harbour has been nominated for this prestigious award twice!

Happy Harbour produced the 2007 production of Superhero LIVE! at the Edmonton Fringe festival, and is a huge community organizer. It's not question of why such a fantastic company has been nominated, but rather of when they're finally going to bring the hardware home.

Congrats guys!

Even though we've seen this before... WTF!!!

2009-07-23T12:12:00.009-04:00

So blatant, so appalling, so... typical

I haven't really been inspired with righteous political anger on this blog since parliament was prorogued last winter. Time to fire it up again.

Montreal's Divers/Cité festival was denied a $155,000 grant from the federal government's Marquee Tourism Events Program (MTEP), part of the economic stimulus plan.

Divers/Cité features international performers that are homosexual. This year, the festival is scheduled to run July 26 - August 2. Festival organizers found out about losing out on the stimulus money on Tuesday. Yeah... this Tuesday.

This, after festival organizers were assured by federal civil servants at Industry Canada that the Divers/Cité application had met all the MTEP criteria, and was only waiting for final approval from Industry Minister Tony Clement's office.

Clement, who just recently took over the reigns of this program from Tourism Minister Diane Ablonczy, claims that issues of "regional fairness" were the reason why the festival lost out. Since approximately $42M has already been awarded to festivals based in Quebec, he felt he needed to spread the money around.

Couple of things:

1) MTEP is a $100 Million program. The 150K that Divers/Cité requested was just a drop in the bucket. Even if nearly half of the kitty had already been spent in Quebec (about the same amount that has been allocated in Ontario, BTW), would funding Divers/Cité really have made all that much of a difference? But, like I've written before, insignificant amounts of money seem to make no difference to this government when comes to matters of ideology.

2) Clement took over the MTEP file in a flurry of controversy when it was suggested by a Conservative backbencher that the PMO wanted to punish Ablonczy for allocating $400K to Toronto's Pride Week. Conservative MPs vehemently denied it. Even Suzanne Girard, director of Divers/Cité, sprung to the defense of the PMO, saying that right wing elements of the Conservative Party were trying to undermine the government. She said, “It could do exactly what the right wing does, which is block the whole thing and it stops.” Then, Clement confirms everyone's worst fears by yanking funding 4 days before the festival is set to begin.

3) Regional allocation for funding is nowhere to be found in the eligibility criteria for the MTEP. Criteria outlines that only events or festivals that can prove that they attract large numbers of tourists could apply for funding. By the government's own regulations, most of that funding would be streamlined to Ontario and Quebec... which shouldn't be an issue since the demise of these provinces' manufacturing sectors are at the core of the recession, they need the most help.

To me, Clement's claims for trying to check stimulus funds earmarked for Quebec under the guise of "regional fairness" reads like CPC code for "we're just trying to avoid another sponsorship scandal." Which is a sad cover for a blatant appeasement of the Conservative base. Not only does it financially slewfoot an openly homosexual festival, it also addresses other key CPC base points: less public funds for the arts and less money for Quebec.

But really, $150K is nothing. It's really hardly anything to the government's stimulus budget. The stimulus program for infrastructure alone is $12 Billion. GM's Canadian division got a $10.5 Billion bailout.

To me, this is just another sad attempt to appease those in the CPC who have been alienated by the government's... well, governance. But pulling $150K away from one gay festival, when a much larger, more prolific gay festival in Toronto got nearly triple that amount just a few weeks before... seems to me a pretty weak gesture.

That... and a totally disgusting and shameful way to conduct business.

Great Expectations

2009-07-21T17:02:00.004-04:00

What does Josh Bell on a street corner teach us?

Recently I got a chain email about taking the time to appreciate art. The email referred to a social experiment that the Washington Post conducted in 2007.

In a nutshell, the Post commissioned violinist Josh Bell to play classical classics on his $3.5 million Stradivarius in the middle of a subway station for change. The question was: would anybody notice?

You can read about how the experiment played out here.

The email got me thinking about theatre producers and our choices of venues when we want to make new work. It made wonder about taking audience types into account.

For example, whenever the Fringe comes into town, I invariably see a Chekov or a Moliere in the program. But is this the right venue for this kind of show? A typical Fringe audience is looking for a specific type of experience. But the same goes for a Soulpepper audience, or a Stratford audience, or a Tarragon audience. Each is particular, and each is looking for something different.

(The wonderful thing about the Fringe is that you can produce anything you want -- I get that. I'm only using it as an example because it's current.)

In Washington, no one stopped to appreciate Bell's music precisely because of the choice of venue. That doesn't make his playing any less brilliant, but I believe the experience of the art is an integral part of the art itself. The audience's expectations are a huge part of that equation.

It's the paradox of community or "amatuer" theatre. Some of the most wonderful theatre can be created in this setting because both the company AND the audience wills it to be brilliant.

Choose your venue; choose your tribe. Knowing your audience means knowing what its expectations are predisposed to be.

If you can connect with your audience, you can both mould those expections and you can exceed them.

Update on "throttling" hearings

2009-07-15T17:10:00.005-04:00

Key points of the CRTC Hearings thus far

Check out this great summary on Michael Geist's blog about six key revelations to come out of the CRTC hearings that I mentioned in my last post.

This one surprised me:

The rate of network traffic growth is slowing.

This one enraged me:

Each day brought new and surprising revelations about how little ISPs tell their customers about their traffic management practices. By far the most egregious was Rogers, which admitted that it charges tiered pricing for faster upload speeds but that all tiers were throttled to the same speed when using P2P. In other words, the Extreme subscriber who pays $59.99 per month and is promised fast upload speeds (1 Mbps) actually gets the same upload speed as the Express subscriber who pays $46.99 per month and is promised upload speeds of 512 kbps.

And this one made me laugh:

The ISPs seemed surprised that the Commission regularly asked about the privacy impact of throttling and deep-packet inspection.

Making Money on the Web

2009-07-13T16:33:00.008-04:00

Indie artists, new-media journalism and DPI

Yes, the Internet is changing everything.

Following up on last week's post, my buddy Adrian emailed me to discuss some of the ideas in the post in more depth. He writes:

I think things are also in transition, and the piece speaks to that in a way - the 'answers' have not yet come out... the problems and opportunities in the democratization of the arts via the web. It's kind of exciting to be working at such a turning point; it's tough, but exciting to see the conversations happening, people inventing and creating ... like that indie singer/songwriter who managed to make 19k in 11 hours using Twitter, and basically just being creative. But she ended up making the money on merchandise - shirts mostly. Not selling her music. This seems to be the bottom line - the art is a promotional tool - you have to sell something which is not in endless supply (ie: an mp3). But, these can still be creative products which are an extension of your art.

Is this new arts business model? Selling items that are associated with your art while giving your art away for free? Then, magically, Trent Reznor weighed in on the same topic, in entirely different conversation elsewhere in the blogosphere:

The point is this: music IS free whether you want to believe that or not. Every piece of music you can think of is available free right now a click away. This is a fact - it sucks as the musician BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT IS (for now). So... have the public get what they want FROM YOU instead of a torrent site and garner good will in the process...

What's interesting to me is how everyone is trying to rethink traditional models of monetizing their practice in the age of the Internet... and I'm not just talking about the culture sector.

Case in point: journalism. Rebecca over at The Art of the Business points out an insightful article about the future of arts journalism today by András Szántó. He notes:

Amid the doom and gloom about arts journalism [...] innovations offer a glimmer of hope. There is no going back to the cultural and advertising dominance that newspapers once enjoyed. We should be mindful that the emerging landscape offers asymmetrical odds for art criticism (which can survive by the labour of individual writers) and arts reporting (which requires institutional firepower and protections). Writers will struggle to reclaim the access and influence they achieved with the backing of prestigious journalism brands. Even so, the faint outlines of a new system are starting to emerge.

This is a great article about the future of one sector of journalism. Everyone knows that this industry is under tremendous pressure, and a "new model" needs to be created. Although, nobody is quite sure what that model needs to be. There are various theories -- Jeff Jarvis recently wrote a book about basing all new economic models on Google's business model. In short: focus on networks rather than traditional distribution models and shift to an economy of abundance rather than one of scarcity.

An economy of abundance assumes that you can charge the least amount for a product or service by making it available to a nearly unlimited source of buyers (or users) via the World Wide Web. Very interesting theory. But... what if the access to the Web itself becomes limited?

This brings me to Deep Packet Inspection or DPI, an Internet issue garnering so much attention that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has dedicated an entire website to it.

What is it? Essentially it's technology that allows Internet Service Providers' (ISPs), or anyone else I suppose, to examine web transmissions to figure out what kind of content is being sent. Today the Big 3 Canadian ISPs (Bell, Rogers & Telus) are defending their positions to the CRTC to use DPI technology. From what I understand, they want to disuade peer-to-peer file sharing. Their arguement is that it allows a small share of users to eat up a disproportionate amount of bandwidth.

Now, privacy issues aside, why would this affect artists', or anybody else's, attempts to monetize their practice on the Web? Well, DPI technology basically allows ISPs to "throttle" users at their own discretion. In other words, if your ISP believes you are using too much Internet, they can and will slow down your connection. And, apparently they can do this even if you bought a package marketed as "unlimited" or if you are using a small indie ISP, like TekSavvy or Execulink. If you want to know more about why and other politics surrounding this issue, check out this cool, informative post on Technology, Thoughts and Trinkets.

And, if you were planning on producing a play that, say, required you to upload a large amount of data to the Web in order for a variety of users to stream the production live... well, you'd be concerned about ISPs limiting users' access to the Internet too.

On the other hand, there are ways around everything, it seems. For you hackers out there, this is a link you might find interesting...

Looking for a designer

2009-06-23T14:45:00.005-04:00

Plus a couple of other cool things to check out

Hey kids;
If you're a cool designer and looking for something challenging and new to work on, contact me.

Seriously: I'm shifting into heavy grant writing mode, and am hoping to produce a workshop of my play REALITY. I'm looking for someone who likes to play with lights, set, and costumes (all at the same time, please) and is based in Toronto. I've always had heavy design elements in my previous work, and I like to give designers lots of creative freedom. Plus, I really like meeting and working with new people.

That being said, I'm already working with a web designer and a video content designer, so as we develop our design concept, we all need to work together. Oh, and remember, all my big plans are contingent on funding etc. etc. (you know the drill).

Speaking of my web guy, he just updated his website: new design, new sections, new extention demos, and an interactive "style chooser". Check it out.

On the other side of the country, one of my favourite bloggers has just released a new e-book on social marketing for arts. Less than 20 bones, and worth every penny. But don't take my word for it: check out this glowing endorsement from Simon over at the Next Stage.

Back here in TO, the Fringe is almost here. You can find all of the play listings on their website, and other info (like getting tix, etc.) However, if you're looking for a extensive list of previews, check out Mooney on Theatre's ever-growing Coming to Fringe 2009 section on her blog.

Oh, and yes this maybe old news but... have y'all checked out The Room yet?

Later!

Is there any comparison? Part II

2009-06-19T14:46:00.007-04:00

Mr. Ellis weighs in

A little background: Adrian Ellis and I go way back to High School, but have only reconnected in the past couple of years when I moved out to T.O. He's a wicked cool artist that composes for film but also composes and does sound design for theatre, most recently Staged & Confused's successful production of The Crackwalker.

Those of you that are interested in the nitty-gritty of the film composer's creative process should definitely check out his blog The Music Creative. I think its fascinating, and I totally dug his latest post on Music for Theatre. Oh, and you can also follow him on Twitter, you know, if you're into that sort of thing.

Aside from the fact that I think he's a righteous dude (and that we're planning to do some collaboration on the next incarnation of Superhero Live! as soon as I get this REALITY itch out of my system), I bring all this up because he wrote me an email the other day about my recent post that I wanted to share with y'all.

Check it out:

Hey Aaron,

You should open up your blog for non-Blogger users to comment!! ;)

(Aaron says: this is now fixed, by the by. Anybody who wants to post comments is now free to do so. Thx for the heads up, dude.)

I actually think this is a fascinating topic. Here are my thoughts:

Slimy producers vs. greedy wanna-be's

'If you build it, they will come'.

The producers see a need, and a cheap way to create programming that the public consumes like fresh baked double chocolate frosted cupcakes. As with most things that people lament about our consumerist, hyper-capitalist world, it is the public's acceptance, nay, requirement and hunger for entertainment in the form of sadism. They love to see people persevere and overcome, but even more, they love to see someone fail. This is what I find truly disturbing, not one opportunistic producer or fame-hungry stars in waiting, but the fact that people desire this highly negative, judgmental form of entertainment.

Why do they do it

Very very very very few artists have even the faintest clue about the music or film industry. There is an incredible deficit of proper and realistic education about the ins and outs, pitfalls of 'The Biz', and resources and strategies for success. Instead, people are transfixed by the myths and false promises of the industry - the big bucks and fame, that somehow, magically and by their (supposed) talent, they will be found, recognized, and in every way shepherded (bum patted) to success. Beyond this, even if an artist is somewhat educated about these things, they are not in any way prepared for what to do when 'it' does happen (you've won the lottery, now what?). A career is an incredibly difficult thing to manage, and even if you 'make it' a lot can happen. To make it you have to have a plan, and a sustained career has to have a plan.

So to answer your questions:

I'm trying to figure out what drives people to Reality-TV, despite the overwhelming odds and risks associated with it. Is it the money? Is it the lure of fame? Is it something else?

What drive artists into our profession, despite the overwhelming odds and risks associated with it? Is just passion? Is it the lure of fame? Or is it something else...

I think it's ignorance of the realities of the industry, and moreover, of the nature of reality tv. Recently, filmmaker friends of mine wanted to join the 'On The Lot' program, where filmmakers 'compete' against one another in order to have a film produced by Spielberg (or something, can't remember). I said, forget it guys. They really thought it was a shot at fame.
1. It's a lottery,
2. The best do not always win
3. The producers aren't interested in making stars, they are interested in making dramatic television that retains a high viewership. They will put you in positions that will make you look terrible (by design or post-production), and at worst will cost you your integrity and any real credibility you might have. Do you think the 'winner' of this show will have real clout in Hollywood? Never. It's a joke. They really had no clue what it was really about.

People have stars in their eyes. Everyone believes they have a special talent that is unique and will be recognized. The truth is, no one cares. You have to fight tooth and nail (just like any other entreprenuer!!!) to make your art heard/seen/cared about. Go online and check out some unknown indie-bands on myspace or whatever. There are tens of THOUSANDS - and many are good, if not great! Why are they not famous? Well, they can't ALL be famous, even though they 'deserve' it.

As far as the non-reality star chasing artists are concerned? Man, it takes all types. Let's assume they know the odds of the industry. Well, you gotta still somehow believe that you are going to have a go at it and make it because of god knows what reason. Faith, I guess? Yea, some are in it for the money, some the fame... more are starting to get it that those days are probably over, but there are real ways (hello, Internet distribution/marketing) to make a living - but it's hard and will take tons of work. Me? I do it because I absolutely LOVE what I do, and I want to spend as much time as possible being creative with the BEST creative people - and that means, doing it professionally. I no longer chase fame/fortune - I know the chances are miniscule, and mostly dependent on luck. But, I do know if I bust my ass and do the best work I can, I have an ok chance of at least making a decent living doing what I love.

CHEERS!

Adrian

Cool debate

2009-06-18T09:53:00.006-04:00

On the merits of a "Luminato Fringe"

Me and MK are chatting about the pros and cons (and the likelihood) of Luminato starting up a 'Fringe' festival.

I'm pretty sure I'm talking about issues that are way above my head, but it's still been a cool chat thus far. Anybondy else that has an opinion on the matter should weigh in. I'm a little tired of my own opinions and would love to read what other people think...

Check it out.

Is there any comparison?

2009-06-16T16:34:00.005-04:00

Is it wrong to feel kinship with Reality stars?

While surfing, I stumbled upon this article on Yahoo! about the darker side of Reality TV.

The second line is what caught my attention:

But who is to blame when an everyday person becomes an overnight TV sensation and can't cope -- when Susan Boyle falls ill after failing to win "Britain's Got Talent" or when "American Idol" fan Paula Goodspeed, who was teased after a poor tryout, commits suicide outside the home of a judge?

It's a good question. Since most of the Reality-TV analysis I've come across in recent weeks has been framed negatively, I'll pose it this way...

Do you blame the heartless and slimy networks/producers that create the shows or do you blame those attention-starved celebrity wannabes that audition for them?

Alot of people will answer, who cares?

But when I thought about it, I couldn't help but compare these folks to regular artists - like you and me. Not in terms of talent, but rather in terms of the disdain a good portion of our society has for us (while, at the same time, they keep sampling our wares).

I mean, when you publish a report that highlights a 37% wage gap between artists and the average Canadian worker, and that nearly half of us make less that $10K per year, the ensuing public response can range from apathy to outright hostility.

I'm trying to figure out what drives people to Reality-TV, despite the overwhelming odds and risks associated with it. Is it the money? Is it the lure of fame? Is it something else?

What drive artists into our profession, despite the overwhelming odds and risks associated with it? Is just passion? Is it the lure of fame? Or is it something else...

And are the two urges related?

Back from the dead?

2009-06-12T12:48:00.003-04:00

Hey kids;

Been a while since my last post.

Why?

I've been writing. Lots.
... and I'm kinda superstitious, and somehow got it into my head that blogging would somehow stem my creative flow.

But a couple of things that I wanted to let you know about:

1) I'm participating in a workshop this afternoon at CanStage, part of their Festival of Ideas and Creation. It's a Master Class called Projection Design, Language and Collaboration with Ben Chaisson and Beth Kates. Pretty friggin cool. Should be very useful.

2) Check out this show about Reality TV that's premiering at the Toronto Fringe this year. I'm going to check it out... I sure hope it's good.

Later!

Twitter's Rotten Day

2009-05-14T16:17:00.007-04:00

Facebook-esque problems plagues social network

No, I'm not tweeting yet. But I know that many other bloggers do... so I thought you'd all be interested in reading about this.

Did any of you notice the problem? What did you think?

Is Twitter getting too big or "corporate" now? Is going to start to decline in popularity like Facebook?

Gig for Christie Digital Inc.

2009-05-08T16:27:00.005-04:00

Wanna come check it out?

So this weekend I'm doing a few days of rehearsals and a video shoot for that gig I told you about a while back.

I could tell you more details about the new technology that Christie is developing... but then I'd have to kill you.

Well, actually, I don't know much about it yet (I find out more tomorrow). Basically it's a new video display technology, and the piece involves combining canned video and live performance. I will have to sign a "non-disclosure" agreement tomorrow morning to protect Christie's product until they start showing it off in July. But I can tell you a bit more about who's involved in the project:

The show will be directed by George Brown, Head of the Theatre Arts Department at Bradley University, Peoria, IL., and the video assets used in the show will be shot by James Ferolo, Head of the Multimedia Department at Bradley University. We have two producers from the University of Waterloo: Professor Jill Tomasson-Goodwin is the Principal Investigator (research team leader)and Gerd Hauck, who I believe is the liason between the University and Christie. It stars me and Stephanie Breton (who I will meet tomorrow).

Assuming all goes well over the next four days, there will be 1 day of 4-6 fifteen-minute performances on July 6 at the Lower Ossington Theatre. The initial set of performances on July 6 will be presented to groups of invited theatre entrepreneurs, technicians, and investors. (Christie has expressed an interest in hiring the actors on an ongoing basis for 6-8 trade shows across North America starting September 2009, for dates yet to be determined.)

When I first mentioned this gig, MK left a comment about how to get in on checking out the performance. I asked Gerd about it, and he said: "I suggest you just invite your theatre artist friends to show up at the Lower Ossington on July 6th. I’ll make sure they get in."

So, if you're interested, send me an e-mail and I'll let Gerd know.

Cheers

PS. The photo above is from one of Christie's more recent projects: Unsilent Night.

Thank you Praxis Theatre!

2009-05-06T13:12:00.003-04:00

Several days ago, I saw this post over at Praxis' blog.

As a result, this afternoon I'll be playing with some really cool Brits and some likeminded TO artists.

I've said before, and I'll say it again: Gawd, I love the webbernet.

Thanks again guys.

What to look at?

2009-05-04T12:37:00.009-04:00

An example of video projection in a theatrical setting

Well, in a dance setting, to be more specific.

Over the weekend, my wife and I went to check out Danceworks at Harbourfront, to see a double bill: Accidents for Every Occasion and Mischance and Fair Fortune, choreographed by Jenn Goodwin and Susie Burpee (respectively).

It was a lovely evening, and we both really enjoyed two very strong pieces of indie dance.

What was particularly interesting to me was the contrast between the two works: Accidents was a multimedia piece that incorporated projections of pre-recorded video content, while Mischance incorporated more "back-to-basics" theatrical elements (like scrims and fake blood).

Accidents used different techniques to unify the film elements with the rest of the piece: abstract images, slow motion, projections of text that timed perfectly with moments of dialogue, etc. I felt that Goodwin was successful in marrying the different elements in the production. That being said, the video in Accidents still generated the same kind of anxiety that I've felt in every other multimedia theatre piece I've seen: that I'm going to miss something cool.

It's the anxiety of "where to look" that only video-in-theatre can produce. I believe that this is due to a combination of two elements: 1) the projections are usually placed above the performers so that they don't block the pictures, and 2) video/film projections capture your attention more easily than live performance.

This second element can be problematic in a forum where the live performances should be the audience's primary focus. Well... maybe "problematic" isn't quite the right word, but it definately has an alienation effect on the audience. It's hard to get lost in the action when you're constantly wondering where you should look.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing. It's a choice. And that choice was really highlighted for me when watching two different shows that explore similar themes, but use vastly different staging techniques.

And, of course, it brought be back to my project in which I've been planning to incorporate live-feed video projections... but now I'm wondering whether it's necessary.

See, I know I want to broadcast the performance on the internet (via streaming), and I want to have cameras incorporated into each and every scene - as part of the whole spectacle of "lives lived on Reality TV." But... I wonder: if that is the primary spectacle, then does having the added element of video projections add or detract from the experience?

Just because I can let the audience see the cameras' POVs, would they want to? What is the stronger choice?

I realize I'm jumping ahead of myself on this (thinking as a director/producer instead of a writer), but this does have an effect on the writing. If I want to leave myself the choice of whether or not to keep the projections, then I have to make sure that they are not integrated into the story. That the piece could be performed without projections and keep its integrity...

If anyone has any thoughts on this, I'd love to read them.

Day 5

2009-04-29T22:22:00.003-04:00

Less creative, more administrative

And... good evening,

I would have blogged earlier, but I got caught up in the big press conference.

Today was about setting a schedule. Planning for the next stage of this bad boy. Grant deadlines and resources. And a chat with my web-dude. We had a chat about whether my idea was feasible (it is!), whether it would cost an arm and a leg (it won't... at least on the web side - the video side is another story), and whether it's really "interactive" (jury's still out on that one).

So on the last day before I go back to my joe-job, I feel good. Prez. Obama had it exactly right: "I'm happy with the progress so far, but I am not content."

More needs to be done. And it's up to me to keep working, evenings and weekends, until my next week off. End of May.

I'll keep you updated, but more on big ticket items rather than day-to-day stuff, as i go.

Good night!

Day 4

2009-04-29T10:04:00.003-04:00

Good morning;

Sorry this post is late. I had a little back spasm last night and had to lay off of the computer for a bit. (My desk at home is NOT ergonomically sound.)

Had a pretty good day of working on my scaffold yesterday, although at about 2pm I went through a crushing wave of doubt and self-defeatism. The technical requirements of this project all of sudden felt overwhelming, and I lost my confidence.

And then my back spasmed out.

However, I chilled out for a little bit and then came back at it later in the evening, and got some good work done. My focus right now is character and story. Tech headaches can come later.

Tonight, actually. I'm meeting with my web guy tonight (postponed from last night cause of my back - thx 4 yer patience, dude), and we're going to get into it.

But not painful, woe-is-me-this-is-too-fuckin-hard details. More of an exploration of possibilities. And it's going to be fun.

I mean, seriously: if it's not fun, it's not worth doing. This is theatre for god's sake. I can be miserable at my joe-job.

More later...

Day 3

2009-04-27T17:01:00.009-04:00

Two different stories for two different audiences

No, I didn't work on my REALITY project over the weekend. Why not? Well, 5 of the 6 boys from my BFA class were in town for a wedding. So we had a mini-reunion, some good food, and way too much to drink.

Plus, my wife and I had to finish our taxes. (We did - YAY!)

Plus, I went to go see the Subway Series, presented by Ghost Jail Theatre and The Sketchersons. And it was fucking awesome.

I realized this weekend, however, that I'm not going to be finished the next draft of my script by the time the first week of my creation process is done. There's just too much that needs to be done. However, I believe that the work that I'm doing now is accomplishing three very important things:

1) I'm creating a detailed enough scaffold to be able to finish a really strong draft in the next couple of weeks.
2) I'm writing with production in mind, so that I can bring my collaborators some really solid material to work with.
3) I'm building momentum which will push me to continue the work when I go back to my 9-5 gig.

The third thing is the most important because, to tell you the honest truth, I've been creatively dry for months now. As tough as the process is, I'm relieved.

Er, yes, "scaffold". It's a term my former AD used to use, for our ETC creative process. Here is a quote:

"Sometimes the work begins from nothing more than an idea, sometimes a rough script (or as we call it, a scaffold) is brought into rehearsals, or existing material is sometimes adapted. From there, exploration, de-construction and general mayhem ensues."
Barbra French – ETC Artistic Director

I guess, in my personal process, it's more of an outline. This is what I'm using for each scene:

Location: I describe the setting here
Date: The year the scene takes place
Media: My ideas for camera feed, projection and online streaming
Description: Plot description
Background: What happens before and after

At this point, I've cut about 1/3 of my existing material, have re-ordered my scenes and am using the above format to help me figure out how much I want to keep and how much needs to be re-written in the next draft.

I'm also considering having two versions of the play for an online audience and an in-person audience. The idea is currently this: the online audience sees what the camera sees via a live-feed stream. The in-person audience can also see the camera feed via projections. However, there are three scenes that take place off-camera. I was thinking before of just videoing the action offstage and nixing the projections. Now I'm wondering if I should shoot some pre-recorded content, and stream alternate scenes for the online audience while the in-person audience watches entirely different material.

Ignoring the technical headaches that this entails, the play is all about perception vs. identity, so I like the idea of having different versions of the story that exist. Especially if the "real" version is more difficult to access - you have go in-person to see the show to access it. Although "real" is not the right word: both versions are "real". Just one reality would be more packaged than the other. (Which imitates the subject matter quite nicely.)

But maybe people would be turned off if they felt like they were missing out on something. I don't know, what do you think?

Day 2

2009-04-24T16:35:00.005-04:00

Hey there;
Totally bagged so this'll be short and sweet.

My new fun word for writing is "plausibility." As in, is it plausible that this would be happening at this time with these characters?

The answer seems to always come up as "Not in a million fucking years."

So, yeah. It's a slog right now.
But it's still good.

Freedom!

2009-04-23T09:51:00.004-04:00

... to get some work done!

I'm off work: from my job-job at least.

So, where to start?

Am starting by reviewing my previously written material. Then character development. I found this set of questions online months and months ago (sorry, can't remember where, so no link). This seems as good as place as any to begin.

(yeah, yeah, character analysis 101, but what the hell.)

Essential Questions about a Character:
(Always answer each question in the first person)

1. Describe yourself in three sentences.
2. How did you get your name? Do you like your name?
3. How old are you? Do you like your age?
4. Who is your best friend? Who are your enemies? What makes an enemy and what makes a friend for you?
5. Do people generally like you? How much money do you have? Are you happy with that?
6. Describe something significant that happened to you yesterday.
7. Describe something significant that happened to you in your past.
8. What do you want? What do you need? What is stopping you from getting what you want?
9. What do you like about yourself? What do you dislike?
10. Any religion?
11. If you could be someone else, who would you be?
12. Who is your hero? Who is your role model?
13. What is your favorite fairy tale?
14. What do you hope for in the future?
15. What is your greatest fear?
16. What is your greatest dream?
17. What makes you angry?
18. What do you worry about?
19. What is your ideal death?
20. What’s your worst death?
21. I am obsessed with…
22. I can still hear my mother saying…
23. I can still hear my father saying…
24. I am like …
25. My motto in life is …
26. I never have …
27. I always …
28. Describe your living environment…
29. What’s the first thing you do in the morning?
30. What do you see in the mirror? Do you like what you see?
31. How do you get ready to go out?
32. Are you loved?
33. Who do you love?
34. Are you happy with your life? Do you have the ability to change it?
35. What animal are you most like?

Update: 4pm.

Okay, so I didn't use the above list at all.

Those questions are more general fine-tuning questions. My script problems are a little more broad than that. I might come back to these sometime later, but today I needed a more focused strategy.

I've started placing my script in real time, as in a start date and an end date for the story. Earlier drafts play with time, i.e. scenes are not ordered chronologically from first to last. Which I like and am planning to keep. However I need to have a really firm idea of what is actually happening in order to make sure everything makes sense.

Furthermore, my general wishy-washy attitude about time has resulted in wishy-washy characters. By firming up exactly what happens when will help me clarify each character's objectives for each scene. You can only know what you want if you understand where you're coming from...

I'm also discovering weaknesses in the plot. "Discover" is not really the right word, as I already knew that there were weaknesses in there... this is more like pinpointing them, I guess. It's a kind of unraveling effect -- just pulling on a string and the whole outfit is coming apart.

Now, this post may sound negative, but I'm actually relieved as I write this. Don't worry, I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water. I feel like I'm making progress, and although I have a lot of work ahead of me, I feel like I can solve the problems that are unfolding in front of me. It's been a good day so far.

And I'm having fun, to boot.

Update City #2

2009-04-18T10:53:00.009-04:00

Vacations, reunions, and gigs, oh my!

Just got back from a little trip back home to Alberta, mostly to see family. First to Calgary to see my in-laws, then to Edmonton to see my immediate family. I'd be lying to you if I told you I wasn't intensely homesick when we arrived in Edmonton... but then it snowed 15cm on the day we flew out, so I felt better.

This was a family trip, so I totally apologize to all my friends back home who are reading this, saying 'what the hell, why didn't you say you were back in town???' We were only in each city for 3 days, and had 2 Passover seders and an Easter dinner to attend. The rest of the time we spent digesting...

However, by pure serendipity, the core members of my (now-disbanded) Edmonton theatre troupe, the Etcetera Theatre Collective were all in town at the same time: me, Artistic Director Barbra French, and Company Dramaturge Heather Fitzsimmons Frey. We met for coffee at Heather's (the only one still in E-town), partly to catch up but also so I could return archival videos of our shows back to Barbra. She's getting a website done up, and is hoping to digitize and upload all our shows online. Once it's live, I'll be sure to post a link.

It was sure nice to see them again -- really, it's the first time we've been in the same space in two years -- and shoot the shit about life and, well, theatre. Both Barbra and Heather have been mentors to me, and it was really nice to chat with them about our craft. Especially now that I'm about to go into an intense writing period.

Speaking of which, I've booked two weeks off of my joe-job to focus on my REALITY play. Starting on Thursday of next week, I'm taking a week off, and then taking another week off at the end of May. The first week I'm going to be focusing on story and character development -- mostly on character development actually. (I'm very excited to leave the drudgery of "real life" for a bit and let my imagination play for a bit... er, right after we do our taxes this weekend.) Then, with a couple of weeks in between writing periods, I can get some distance on the script, re-focus and involve my collaborators in designing the play for both physical and virtual space.

Speaking of virtual space, does anyone remember this notice that the CAEA e-newsletter sent out a few weeks back?

Audition call for one female and one male performer for a 15-20 minute co-production between the Drama Department of the University of Waterloo and Christie Digital Inc., a Waterloo-based company involved in the research and manufacture of innovative data projection systems. Most recently Christie Digital demonstrated their projection capabilities during the Opening Ceremony of the Beijing Olympics and for Robert Lepage's Le Moulin à Images on the occasion of Quebec City's 400th anniversary. The production will be presented (a) at a showcase for theatre entrepreneurs to be held in Toronto in early July (exact date TBA) and (b) 6-8 trades shows during the subsequent year. Performers will be asked to sign a retainer for the subsequent trade shows.

I've been offered this gig, so it looks like I'll be doing a little more hands-on research in the coming weeks on incorporating multimedia into performance. I'm hoping to share the experience with all of you while I'm at it, but I'm not exactly sure how much I'll be allowed to talk about because of this:

Since the co-production involves a new video display technology, performers must be willing to sign a binding Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).

What does this mean? I'm not exactly sure since I'm still waiting to see a contract. Who knows, this all might just end up being pie-in-the-sky in the long run... (keep your fingers crossed for me that it's not, k?)

Assuming that it all works out, and even though it's not a full-on actual production, I'm still looking forward to dusting off my performance skills and getting in front of an audience. And since it's technically a tour, I'll be sure to let you know where I'm going to end up. If I'm in a city near you, let's grab a beer or two, eh?

In the land of the blind...

2009-03-30T18:44:00.000-04:00

...the one-eyed man is King

My wife said this to me a couple of weeks ago as we walked by a little food shop advertising the “Best Seafood Schwarma in Toronto.”

(Blek!)

Good laugh, but it also got me thinking about my REALITY project, and my penchant for ‘innovation’ in theatre, in general.

In other words, I got a little scared.

My little bone-chilling thought went like this: what’s the point of experimenting with new technologies in theatre if nobody cares?

I’ve written in past blog posts about the dangers of marketing experimental theatre. And yet, I keep coming back to it. The basic experimental premise of REALITY is how to use multimedia to present the work in two spaces: a physical space and a virtual space. This essentially means that the production requires two designs, and the challenge is ensure that the designs compliment each other, rather than distract from one another.

However, a larger concern should be: “Is there even an audience for that kind of work?”

I’m convinced that digital technology and the web is going to become more and more integrated into theatrical work. Many of the theatre blogs that I follow focus on incorporating social media into marketing plans for productions. A smaller number of them focus on using digital technology to enhance design elements, like lights and sound.

I’ve read very little about integrating the web into actual production… but I think that’s going to change.

Consider the success the New York Metropolitan Opera has had in screening its productions in HD in movie theatres. Canada’s Stratford Festival has also tried doing this with last year’s Caesar and Cleopatra.

Stratford has actually jumped on the internet train by broadcasting web interviews with creators and stars of its productions. (I also heard a rumor that they’re planning to broadcast a couple of rehearsals too, but I can’t confirm if that’s true or not…) Both of these initiatives are remarkably brave considering how terribly theatre can translate onto video or film… (And, moving forward with my project, this is a challenge that is particularly daunting.)

You can call this marketing, or you can call it “alternative revenue streams,” but I’d like to think that it’s also a design trend.

The internet is changing how people work, relax and relate to one another. There’s a lot of fear out there that this is negatively affecting theatre: that the web encourages people to stay at home rather than assemble to witness a live event.

(Well… so does TV.)

The thing is, I don’t think that combining the two platforms is going to give me any kind of competitive edge. A theatre audience will come out to a show – if it’s exciting, fresh, marketed-well, and ultimately good – regardless.

If I’m going to have a second, digital-based platform to share my work, it should be designed specifically for the intended audience: web-heads.

It should be designed for an audience who may not be interested in going out to watch a show, but rather enjoys surfing, watching new You-Tube vids, Facebooking, blogging, downloading, connecting with friends on social media sites, etc.

I don’t necessarily want to broaden the appeal to an existing audience (although, that would be nice, if it happens). I want to expand my work so that it appeals to entirely different audiences.

Consider this: I currently live in Toronto. The bulk of my career was spent in Edmonton. I also lived in Germany for two years, and have friends and family there too. Not to mention, this blog has had comments from people who live all the way on the west coast.

If I get REALITY produced, I could conceivably share my work with all these people who would have no chance of getting to T.O. to check it out. They could share the live experience, and the communal experience, in a virtual way. Online. On a platform designed specifically for them.

That excites me. And so we move forward… shivering with fear, or not.

Update City

2009-03-24T19:01:00.003-04:00

Or, “Where the hell have you been, Talbot?!?”

In a word, busy.

No, unfortunately, not in a good "creating/writing/birthing-process" kind of way, but rather in a "my joe-job is consuming my life" kind of way. I had to cover for a gaggle of different people who were either sick or on vacation during the past month, and I’ve been totally exhausted to do much creatively, nevermind blogging about it.

It’s funny how life works out. Like many artists, I’ve been subjected to the: "When are you going to get a real job?" stigma… I’ve been asked that directly and, of course, indirectly through our politicians and our media. Without disclosing my employer, do you want to know what my main responsibility for my "real" job is???

First, I print the emails off of the computer.

Then, I scan the emails back into the computer.

This is my "real" job. Society’s messed up, kids.

However, I will give my employer due credit: my job's allowing me to take two weeks off to work on my show (…unpaid, of course, but that’s where my grant comes in). I plan to split up my leave into two one-week segments in April and May. This will allow me to get some distance from the piece in between drafts.

As mindless as my job is, I’m very grateful to how supportive they are. And, I guess it beats waiting tables. Or working at Timmy’s. (I’ve done both.)

I haven’t just been sitting on my thumbs, however. While I haven’t been working on the script proper, I’ve been revising my approach to the work. Specifically, I’ve been revising my process as I had outlined in my OAC grant proposal, based partly on the amount of money I actually received.

Anyone who has received an artist’s grant before knows about the difference between the amount of money you’ve asked for versus the amount of money you actually receive. For project grants, having a shortfall in funding from one granting source may not be such a big deal, if you have multiple sources of revenue.

In the past, I've just generally made-do with the money I got. But I don't think I ever delivered value-for-money when I've done that. More importantly I don't think I got true value for my time invested... not that each experience wasn't valuable, but rather, I question whether I could have made each project pay dividends if I had taken the time to plan according to my budget realities. In other words, if I had looked for opportunities to enhance the project for the future, or for other parties to collaborate with, or for different venue options to present it... well, who knows what might be.

So that's what I'm doing with this one. I'm working with an eye to the future. I'm designing my process so that I'm not just looking at what this grant offers me and my collaborators right now, but a few months and a few years down the road...

Maybe everybody already does that. If so, I'm crashing the party!

Creation Design for Virtual Space

2009-02-17T20:38:00.009-05:00

Applying a physical background to a multimedia event

A life in the theatre can seem pretty random. Or... it does until you look back on your body of work and see how mechanically every little career choice has led you up to here.

I was recently awarded a little funding from the Ontario Arts Council Theatre Creators' Reserve grant program, selected through Theatre Gargantua. This is my first arts grant from the Ontario gov't., and my first government funding since I moved to Toronto from Edmonton in mid-2007. I won't lie to you, it's been a quiet few months for me.

However, I've been cooking up a concept for a new show in the mean time. My new project is called REALITY. It's about reality TV. I've already been doing some research (... more about that in a later post...).

My show will be a multi-media production. Believe me, I'm not saying that to try to piggyback on any kind of caché that the label "multi-media production" might have. Like I've said before, I instead worry about the baggage that it carries.

But that doesn't mean I'm not interested in the form.

See, to me, theatre is designing a live event for a specific space and a limited audience during a block of time. Words are spoken, actions are taken, the audience absorbs the whole experience. Which is why I've always been fascinated with physical theatre: because the event is designed for a greater portion of the live space. And you need to begin designing that live space from the moment the creative process begins. It's like shaping a play more than writing it.

But when I did my superhero show back in '07, and we broadcast it over the radio at the same time as we performed it, I realized that "designing for a specific space" and "designing for a limited audience" can have a larger and broader meaning than I originally thought.

Designing a live event for virtual space is a very compelling idea to me. So is designing for a virtual audience.

Designing a live event both virtually and physically simultaneously is... just stupidly cool.

So that's where I'm starting. I'm incorporating the form in the early stages of my creation design. I'm going to talk about the process in this blog as I go along. Not only because I want to share, but also because if you have an opinion or a thought about what I'm doing, I'd love to hear it.

I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention that I wrote the first draft in a 24-hr playwriting contest sponsored by Alberta Playwrights Network and the University of Alberta Bookstore in 2006. (Thank you alma-matter -- I'm totally grateful for my education.)

Reading this on Facebook? Leave a comment here.

The Hero Factory

2009-02-16T10:55:00.005-05:00

I love this...

I know, I know, I said I was gonna move on to "dramatic theory" and details about what I'm working on now, etc. ... but this is WAY TOO MUCH FUN not to share.

Thanks Mike for pointing it out.

Enjoy!

Answering my own question

2009-02-10T21:48:00.006-05:00

Before I move on from politics...

This will be my last political-based post for a little while as I'm going to start to focus more on artistic process and theory now that I finally got my first grant since moving to Ontario in mid-2007. (Yay!)

But before I do, I thought I'd answer my own question about arts funding in Budget '09.

Did we get what we wanted?

Well, no... but I don't really think it has much to do with how much money was earmarked for culture, nor do I think it has much to do with how the money was distributed (although this is a side effect of what's really ailing us).

What I think we really wanted was a government that recognizes the value of arts and culture in Canada. We still don't have it and, as long as the Harper Conservatives retain power, I don't think we will.

With the 2009 Budget, the sudden appointment of 18 senators immediately preceding it, and the establishment of a firm end-date for the Afghanistan mission during last year's election, the Conservative government basically stopped being... conservative. Or, at least it abandoned the lion's share of policies that it used to stand for.

(Don't take my word for it though. Here's a pundit that knows more about it than I do. Here's another. And another.)

But I don't think this represents a seismic shift in where the party's long-term goals are. Rather, I think that it's a natural consequence of a government whose immediate focus is survival at all costs: compromise.

But that doesn't mean Mr. Harper, his party, or his base now values culture any more than it did when they used arts funding as a wedge issue in the 2008 Federal election. In fact, I've written earlier that the new arts funding in Budget '09 is less a policy than a temper tantrum.

What bugs me, and I think most artists, is that Mr. Harper painted us as leeches in order to win a few votes, and the budget does nothing to salvage our reputation. And we can see that he still thinks we're leeches because no new money is going to arm's length organizations (i.e. Canada Council) that fund us.

What we wanted, what we still want, is a little respect. We want recognition that we do provide an important service to our country, that we are a boon both in raw financial numbers as well as in quality of life.

We want a partnership with our government that is both respectful and responsible. (We don't want to waste taxpayer's dollars anymore than the taxpayers want us to.)

We recognize that not all of our art is going to be brilliant... in fact very little of it will be. In fact, a large portion of it will be shit. That's a fact of life. Art is like science: you must fail, fail, and fail again before you finally discover another secret of the universe.

I think each new secret is worth it. I just wish more people agreed with me.

Bob Rae Strikes Back!

2009-02-03T12:58:00.005-05:00

An Open Letter to the PM

If you haven't read this yet, prepare to feel very self-satisfied.

Enjoy!

Budget Hangover

2009-02-02T15:13:00.007-05:00

Why has the furor over arts funding fizzled?

It's been about a week since Budget ’09, and all is quiet on the Culture front. At least… it’s been quiet online.

There’s a smattering of righteous anger about the $25M set aside for Luminato’s Canada Prizes for the Arts and Creativity over at Praxis. But, mind you, at the time of this writing, only 9 comments have been posted. And The Art of the Business’s round-up of the budget’s art funding hasn’t generated a lot of discussion either.

In fact, comments have been down across the board. In the G&M’s story about arts funding, only 49 people have voiced their opinions. Which could be construed as a good number, but it’s nothing compared to the hundreds of comments the G&M was generating when the Liberal/NDP coalition was a near reality.

Blogs that I expected to hear from – Department of Culture, One Big Umbrella, The Wrecking Ball – have been mum on the Budget. And yes, I realize that I’m a big ol’ Mr. Pot pointing fingers at a bunch of Mr. Kettles: the first time this blog actually started to get some attention was when I was all about political activism.

So, what gives? What happened to our united front? Why are have we retreated into the dark corner like a pimply tween that snuck into a high school dance?

Did we get what we wanted after all?

Update: Oops, didn't mean to leave you out Starving Artist. Nice read and responses.

Art for Business…Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Michael Cowie

2009-01-29T19:39:00.005-05:00

Big sale on now for artists who want to get on the web

I’m kinda excited for today’s blog post because I’m finally able to offer something useful to readers, rather than my own silly opinions.

I’d like to introduce you to Michael Cowie, a friend and colleague of mine who I’ve worked with extensively. Among other things, he’s a web designer (that’s how he eats) and, get this, he specializes in websites for theatre companies and artists.

Which companies? Well, there’s the internationally acclaimed (and soon to be featured at Toronto’s Luminato festival) Catalyst Theatre. There’s also Worshop West Theatre which, if you’re an aspiring Canadian playwright, you should become familiar with right quick. And for you West Coasters, there’s also young Jon Lachlan Stewart.

So why would you want to work with Mike? Well, he’s talented, design-savvy (most of the pics on my blog were taken and/or manipulated by him) and has a tonne of tricks up his sleeve. He can do regular HTML sites, and is also proficient with the new Joomla content management system, which is all the rage right now. Why? Because it allows you to update your website yourself without having to pay a designer to do it for you (like Facebook).

Most of all, he respects artists. Check out the opening paragraph from his Art for Business page:

“Every artist is a good businessperson. They have to be – they get their business done on a shoestring budget, and sometimes have to work miracles just to stay afloat. Any small business knows the game of juggling customer relations, business-to-business collaborations and marketing costs, customer development and financial gymnastics. Business and art go hand in hand – and nowhere more than on the web.”

Whether or not you agree, it’s a refreshing attitude to start a business relationship with, don’t you think? And if you’re not ready to bite, he has useful advice on his “I need a website” page. Check it out:

“You don't necessarily need something shiny or fancy to make an impact or to get a lot of functionality – and functionality is key, now that the web is a means of production and not just a means of communication. If you take time to plan a web-design project properly, you can have both - and get a work of genius on a low-fi budget - but you need to make sure it's a foundation you can build-on when your resources and budget increase, and that it's a tool that you can use to its maximum potential.”

Last but not least, he’s having a “recession busting” sale right now, and knocking off a large chunk of dough (up to 500 bucks!) off the price, if you throw down a deposit in advance. But don’t take my word for it. He’s got testimonials peppered around his site, or you can check out his portfolio and see for yourself. (Yes, there are a lot of pictures of me up there; I’m not totally selfless when marketing my friends…).

Those of you a little more technically inclined, take a look at his Hack Notes for useful tips on pimping out your Mac.

Contact him. He’s really cool.

(You’re welcome, Mike.)

Spite seems to work for the Arts

2009-01-27T11:11:00.009-05:00

Budget Day 2009

So, on top of the $160 million in new Arts & Culture funding already announced, there might be additional funds hidden in the rest of Budget 2009, to be read later today.

Pretty amazing turnaround from a few months ago, hey? Maybe you're like me and you're asking, "What gives?".

This might help. I was digging around the webbernet and found this little tidbit buried in the G&M's "Spector-Vision" blog:

Today, on the front page of La Presse, the newly-minted minister of cultural heritage, James Moore, is promising $160 million for culture. Recall, that it was a $45 million reduction in funding that many observers believe was the reason the Conservatives were denied a majority in October. Asked what he had to say to the Bloc which has been demanding the restoration of those funds, Mr. Moore lets the cat out of the bag:

"They've been demanding $45 million? We're talking $160 million. If the Bloc Québécois, the Liberals and the NDP vote against the budget, they'll prove they're liars about being the great defenders of artists."

Kinda sounds like the new Conservative Culture policy basically amounts to: "So THERE!"

In any case... works for me!

Let's see what other tidbits they announce later this afternoon...

An(other) interview w/ Matej Andraž Vogrinčič

2009-01-25T09:50:00.008-05:00

PART TWO

This is the second half of my interview with Matej Andraž Vogrinčič, a cool, international visual artist originally from Slovenia. You can check out Part ONE here.

Aaron ~ So, Matej, the reason why we're chatting right now is because of a blog post I wrote last year about Run For Love, a cool multimedia/theatrical piece at the 2008 Aurillac International Street Theatre Festival. I was inspired by seeing that production and would love to get some insight on the process.

MAV ~ Okay.

Aaron ~ How did you get involved with Run For Love?

MAV ~ Ja, I first worked with Matjaz Pograjc 17 years ago. We have the same producers in Ljubljana.they've continued to work with Matjaz for all that time and then they also worked with me on my Liverpool biennial boats project in 2006. So they suggested, "how about you two working together again?" So, we had couple of brainstorms.

Aaron ~ How about Ez3kiel? I mean, the music was such a huge part of the project... Was there any prior working relationships there?

MAV ~ I had never heard of Ez3kiel before. But the project was done as a collaboration with a cultural program called Tandem. It's a French project that invites artists from France and another European country to collaborate. So we started to listen to some French bands and this one seemed to fit.

Aaron ~ International cultural collaboration... believe me, we're all very envious back here in Canada! So, did you all collaborate together? Was it one person's vision or did everyone come up with the idea together?

MAV ~ It was more one person's vision of how to put separate works together into a single theatre piece. How to bring a contemporary art piece, a concert and a story all together into a theatre piece. Or an "urban spectacle" as some critics used to call it.

Aaron ~ And, how do you personally communicate your ideas to others?

MAV ~ In most of the cases I just talk about them. Sometimes I do some drawings, but drawings are normally totally different from the end project, so I do not use them as much.

Aaron ~ Does the way you communicate change depending on the country you're working in? I don't mean just language barriers: I mean different cultural histories and attitudes towards art.

MAV ~ The way I communicate has not changed so far. My approach, especially using public space, is really basic. And, at this basic level cultural histories and attitudes in my opinion are not so very different.

Aaron ~ I guess you would know: you've travelled around the world to create site-specific art. BTW, is Ljubljana still home for you?

MAV ~ Hm, I have to think about it. Yes, I guess it is still my home. But I know it is not my only home. Home for me is where my love is. And also where the stove is burning and people are gathered around a freshly cooked meal. Well. I guess those two are connected somehow.

Aaron ~ After working on Run For Love, what would you say the main difference is between an public space installation piece and a public space performance piece (like street theatre)?

MAV ~ Well, in my case, the main difference was the site specific element. The majority of my projects are done just for a single space. Especially for that space and so the piece can not travel. Also, the majority of installations are there for longer. They do not have the same "performance magic" of just couple of hours and then everything is back to normal. But. if I start to think about it, the boundaries become more vague. Depends also on how we define street theatre and installation

Aaron ~ That's probably a can of worms we don't need to open right now. Moving on! Digital media is becoming more accessible (and affordable!) for many artists, and was a big part of Run For Love. Do you plan to use more digital media in your work?

MAV ~ Yes, I do. It is very important for me because it is a document. After a month, an installation is gone and the images are the only remaining document. I must say, for me, they are not just documents - they are pieces of art themselves. I prepare my installations knowing that the main product is not only this installation but also the photography. So far I have not had enough money to make movies about the whole process. but hopefully for my next project, a video or a movie about the installation with all the close ups and beautiful details will be another work of art here to stay longer than just a month.

Aaron ~ Speaking of which, do you have future collaborations coming up?

MAV ~ No, unfortunately not at the moment. I might work with Matjaz on some set designs for his new piece, but no future collaborations with somebody else at the moment.

Aaron ~ Hear that Canada? Opportunity is knocking.Okay, last question - and it's a goofy one, but totally fitting within the context of this blog. Do you read comic books? If so, do you have a favourite?

MAV ~ Uh. I am bad when it comes to comic books. But please tell me which one is your favourite one? I am in London at the moment so I hope they sell it here!

If anyone has a comic recommendation for Matej (or has any questions for him that I didn't ask), please let him know by commenting on this post. I know he's watching.

Thank you so much to Matej for taking the time to chat with me and providing the cool pics. I wish him all the best, and look forward to being able to see his next project! (Hopefully in person!)

Dark disappointment?

2009-01-22T15:26:00.008-05:00

No "Best Picture" for Dark Knight
not necessarily a bad thing

Listen, I can't complain about DK being beaten out by lesser films for the Best Picture nod, because I didn't see the other contenders. Mind you, A LOT of people missed out on the other contenders. This seems to follow the Oscar's latest trend of lauding films that nobody goes to.

Personally, I think this is probably the way to go: Point out the diamonds in the rough -- give the little guys a chance! (But then, I come from an independent/experimental theatre background... I know all about being the little guy in the big bad arts world.)

However, some people are REALLY disappointed by DK missing out on BP honours. I'm not. Why? Cause I think it'll be better for comic-inspired movies in the long run.

DK is the second highest grossing movie of all time. The only other movie to beat it was Titanic, which won the Oscar for Best Picture in 1997. (Whether or not it was deserved is another story altogether.) Thus, movie producers can conclude three things:

1) High quality comic book movies will make a helluva lotta money
2) Dark Knight could have made more money than it did (or will)
3) Simply copying Dark Knight is not the way to make the most money

Movie producers tend to take a good idea/concept and carbon copy it until it dies a horrible, horrible death. Look no further than the Batman movies of the 90's.

Maybe, however, just maybe, movie producers might realize that a blockbuster comic book movie that is capable of getting an Oscar nod is the way to go. The Dark Knight was the closest that they've ever got. But it was missing something... and, maybe, some more thought needs to be put into it before blindly copying and mass producing the shit out of the formula.

... Or maybe I'm giving Hollywood too much credit.

Anyway, let's keep it in perspective. I think The Dark Knight was a great movie, and the main reason for it's critical success lies in Heath Ledger's exceptional performance as Joker. He has been given Oscar recognition for that role (though whether he'll actually win is still very much in the air).

His recognition stands alone, as I think it should. His performance lifted the movie up. It's only right that the movie's accolades should not overshadow the performer.

Attention Writers!

2009-01-20T12:51:00.003-05:00

Full text of Barack Obama's Inaugural Address:

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations."

An interview w/ Matej Andraž Vogrinčič

2009-01-17T11:48:00.010-05:00

Part ONE

Last year, I blogged about a cool multimedia/theatrical piece at the Aurillac International Street Theatre Festival called Run For Love.

Not sure if you noticed in the comments section, but Matej Andraž Vogrinčič found my blog through that post. He's the visual artist who was responsible for the set design of Run For Love... including 7,000 Slinkys walking down a two-storey plynth.
("Slinkys?" you say... Check out this video.) And, he offered advice, inspiration and answers for anyone who might have questions about the project.

Gawd, I love the webbernet.

See, Matej Andraž Vogrinčič is an internationally renowned artist who specializes in the creation and design of site specific work for public spaces. His notoriety began in the early nineties when he "dressed" an entire house in his hometown (Ljubljana, Slovenia) with used and donated clothing. He was invited to do a similar project for the Venice Biennale in 1999: Casa Vestita. After that, his career skyrocketed and he has been invited to produce new work around in the world. Places like:
New Haven, Connecticut (US);
Liverpool, England;
Melbourne, Australia;
Christchurch, New Zealand;
And, of course, Aurillac, France.

Check out his bio over at the website for the SCCA - Ljubljana Center for Contemporary Arts. Scroll down for photos and links.

Naturally, I had a few questions for this very cool artist. Check it out...

Aaron ~ Thanks for finding me Matej! I've written about your past work above, but is there anything new that you're working on that'd you'd like to share?

MAV ~ Right now I am still working on Slinkys. I took like a million photos so now I have to choose the right ones to make a small series.

At the same time I am also working on a video. Short, not longer than couple of minutes, about Slinkys going down and what is happening to them while they're marching down the slope. It reflects life in a way.

Aaron ~ How do you mean?

MAV ~ Some Slinkys look like they are in love, walking down very close together. and then somebody - a third Slinky - comes and destroys this harmony of two. Some of them look like they are completely drunk. Some are going down on their own way...

And I also want to make a smaller kind of perpetual mobile slope, escalator and ramp for Slinkys so I would be able to put it in a gallery like an installation art piece. which it was anyway, from the start. Or it can also work on a street, but as a street art piece in its own right.

Aaron ~ How about new art projects beyond the wild world of Slinkys?

MAV ~ I am working on dealing with the ski jump. I think we should use it for something else than just for ski jumpers. So I want to do a project using a ski jump. Hey. maybe I should do it in Canada.

Aaron ~ We have a brilliant contemporary art festival in Toronto called Nuit Blanche. Would you ever be interested in participating in something like that?

MAV ~ I would love to come to Canada. Just invite me and I will be on the first plane! I already am interested in participating in something like that! Lectures, exhibitions, contemporary art festivals...I would be very happy to come and participate.

Aaron ~ Wicked. Mind you, I don't think we have any ski jumps here in the T-dot. You'd probably have to come up with something different. Do you have any ideas for an art piece that would work for Bay Street?

MAV ~ I'm also working on how to use a catapult for art purposes.

Aaron ~ Oh yeah, that would work! But, I've read that you do a lot of research about a space - the history and the sociology of a site - for inspiration when you're creating a new work.

MAV ~ Well, it is really very different with every project. But normally, if possible, I want to see the space first. That would mean walking around the city or the area and trying to find some space that I like. something that grabs my attention. In most cases I come up with a concept in couple of days.

Aaron ~ That's pretty quick. How does it come to you?

MAV ~ The idea is developed according to the site. Like in Adelaide, I saw "Small Car Members Only" written on a wall. So I just read it literally and put 15,000 toy cars on the wall...

MAV ~ In the desert, I was dealing with the light and the fact of lacking water.

Aaron ~ And so you covered an area the size of a football field with watering cans.

MAV~ Yes. And in Ljubljana and Venice, I was working on old abandoned houses. which brought me to the idea of dressing them.

Aaron ~ So then, what's your dream project? Imagine you have unlimited funds and unlimited time. What would you do?

MAV ~ Well, I do not know. Never thought of it that way. Most of the time I work with almost no budget or very little...

Aaron ~ Tell me about it brother.

MAV ~ ...so everything I have goes to the material costs anyway. But at the moment, I guess it would be connected with ski jumps. Something kinetic. with objects in the air, using everything from artificial wind to helium to lots of beautiful lights to create some kind of visual experience we would never forget.

Stay tuned to Tracking Righteousness to catch Part 2 of this interview, where me and Matej chat about Run For Love, digital media, and staying connected to home.

On Theatre and Politics - Matthew Freeman: On "Meaning"

2009-01-06T16:46:00.002-05:00

Reading to fill your heart with inspiration

I hope everyone had a happy and restful holiday season.

Here's a brilliant post from On Theatre and Politics - Matthew Freeman: On "Meaning"

I found it inspiring. Hope you do too

Holiday updates and gifts

2008-12-24T06:15:00.009-05:00

Introducing Adrian Ellis -- new composer for SuperHeroLive.com

I blogged several days ago about having a new development grant in for Superhero Live! Well, as you may imagine, developing SHL! while me and Mike are in Toronto and Shaun and John are still in Edmonton would be a bit tough. So, after much discussion, Shaunny and Johnny have released their music to be adapted into a new iteration (dependent on funding). Our new composer: the brilliant and multi-faceted Adrian Ellis.

A new iteration you say? Well, yes. We're adding singing. We're going into a full on Rock Opera, instead of "spoken-word-rock-opera." After the holidays, I'll go into more detail about the reasoning for our new direction for the show... but for now, I'd like to share a gift from Adrian to all of you.

Adrian has recorded a number of alternative Xmas songs everyone to listen. Click here to download or stream 5 excellent tunes that will put a smile on your face during the season. My personal favourite is "It's Christmas and I'm drunk."

Happy fourth day of Channukah and Merry Xmas Eve!

Canadian BeeGee

2008-12-18T17:11:00.001-05:00

Courtesy the G&M:

Bob Martin, the Canadian actor-writer who won a Tony Award for co-creating The Drowsy Chaperone on Broadway, has been hired by the Las Vegas billionaire Steve Wynn to write the treatment for a stage musical biography of the Bee Gees.

To project or not to project

2008-12-17T16:27:00.014-05:00

More random thoughts on multimedia theatre…

Starting with, “What the hell does multimedia theatre mean anyway???”

It’s one of those lovely bits of language that gets used all the time but nobody really has a handle on its actual definition… just more of a sense of the kind of reaction it’ll produce. Like “physical theatre” or “new media.” Or, “group think.”

Let’s do a quick Google search, shall we? According to Whatis.com, when multimedia is used in live situations it can be “the use of a speaker or actors and ‘props’ together with sound, images, and motion video.” Or, if you check out Scala.com, “The term multimedia describes a number of diverse technologies that allow visual and audio media to be combined in new ways for the purpose of communicating.”

A slide show? A film strip? With (gasp!) sound design??? … yah ok. But nowadays, more likely than not, we’re talking computers. The last few shows I’ve been involved in, a good portion of the production was run off of a Mac laptop. Most young indie producers and designers I’ve recently met own a Mac laptop. Which means more and more shows will continue to incorporate multimedia elements, whether they are designed to fall under the umbrella of “multimedia theatre” or not.

Accessibility is wonderful. But just because my sound design is collection of mp3 tracks played during blackouts, I’m not going to label my show a multimedia production. In fact, few artists would describe a piece as multimedia… even if they’ve included digital projections or other elements... because there is a negative perception that persists.

Why?

Maybe we should look at artists who would rather describe their productions as multimedia than not (… and I’m going to grossly over-generalize here, so please bear with me). I’m going to wager that any theatre artist that labels his/her work as “a multimedia production” has either made a huge error in marketing the piece, or is generally much more concerned with form rather than content. Or, (if I’m more charitable) said artist is more willing to experiment with form… but still at the expense of its substance.

This is a problematic approach. I mean, yes, there is a market for experimentation. But it’s a small one. If you’re okay with that, then go hard. But don’t expect the general public to swarm to your show. An audience’s greatest fear in checking out new works of art is to be made to feel stupid. Experimental theatre usually makes a lot of smart people feel stupid.

I believe in experimentation in theatre. However, I don’t believe in experimentation for the sake of experimentation… unless you’re in school or (maybe) if you’re workshopping a piece. The difference lies in approach. Are you asking, “How can I incorporate multimedia into this work?” You should rather be asking, “What do I need to tell this story?”

A cynic would answer, “You don’t need anything except an audience.” Which I suppose is true, in a kind of fundamentalist point of view. But the key to the question lies within the artist who’s asking, “What do I need?” Because any story will speak to each artist differently, and each artist’s approach to communicating an impression to an audience will be just as unique. S/he is only limited by what tools are available for use.

… Am I then saying that some artists are more predisposed than others to incorporate multimedia elements into their productions? Of course I am. Just as some dancers are more predisposed towards contact improv rather than ballet. And some directors are more predisposed to Shakespeare rather than collective creation. And so on.

As much as my career thus far has generally played out on the sunnier side of experimental theatre, I may be more conservative in my approach than one might guess. While performing in Edmonton, I labeled myself as an actor specializing in physical theatre and collective creation. This didn’t necessarily mean I was always looking for a way to incorporate those elements into my work. It was more of a call to likeminded souls who saw the world in similar ways. It meant that the questions were larger than "How do we incorporate physicality into the work?"; rather, the questions revolved around “What do we want to talk about/ what do we want to create?” Content was key. Form -- experimental/ physical/ collective/ whatever -- was intrinsic.

Now, again, our mistake was less about approach (in my humble opinion) but rather in marketing. (… And, to some extent, execution, but that’s another issue altogether…). We advertised under those labels: ‘collective creation,’ ‘physical theatre’ and even ‘experimental’. And, somehow we were shocked when throngs of people weren’t lining up to buy tickets. Go figure.

Anyway, enough about me: I was talking about incorporating multimedia into theatre, and ended up somewhere along the lines of audience stigma and perception. And marketing. Why on earth does every blog entry always end up about getting bums in seats???

My point is this: multimedia will be used in theatre more frequently because it’s easy to use and increasingly accessible. Does it signify a grand shift in theatrical style? Maybe. Will it lead to larger audiences coming to check out theatre? Probably not – but, as with anything else, it depends on the specific production.

… Is it necessary?

It depends. Start here instead: Who are you?

Wolverine preview

2008-12-16T13:11:00.001-05:00

I'm sure those of you who've been waiting for this movie have already seen this trailer. Those of you who haven't, enjoy!

X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE HD

The Force is strong with me

2008-12-15T15:05:00.001-05:00

Or
"You WILL give me funding for my multimedia production"

I wasn't planning on writing about multimedia in theatre until much later... when my thoughts had coalesced and formulated a thoughful thesis on the subject. But the world has conspired to get me typing sooner than I anticipated. (Which is fine, as I'm a terrible procrastinator and usually need a good kick in the pants to get moving.)

Namely, the recent announcement of STAR WARS: A Musical Journey, aka. the musical-but-not-really-a-musical stage show. From the PR:

The show features an extensive selection of Oscar-winning composer John Williams' unforgettable scores from all six STAR WARS movies into an extraordinary two-hour musical event that features scenes from the movies, live narration and, at The O2, the 86-piece Royal Philharmonic Orchestra and choir.

Lucas' foray to the stage didn't really get me thinking about theatrical form because of its "innovative" structure. Personally, I think that Lucas is banking on the success of Video Games Live, to build a pre-existing market for his musical journey.

Er... other than the legions of STAR WARS fans that will throw down cold hard cash at whatever scheme Lucas concocts to further milk his signature franchise. (Myself included.)

Rather, I got thinking about form because what Lucas is doing is similar to what I want to do with my own pet project Superhero LIVE! (A little background about SHL! can be found on this blog here, and here.) I even have a couple of grants submitted for development.

Now, I don't pretend to imagine that I can amass the same kind of budget for my piece like Lucas can. And, after the '07 Edmonton Fringe run of SHL!, I had pretty much given up on any further evolutions of the play as "too damned expensive." Until I went to the Aurillac International Street Theatre Festival earlier this year and saw a piece called Run For Love (clik link and scroll down for You-Tube links and pics from the show). It was an outdoor concert/multimedia performance co-created and produced by the Betontanc dance-theatre company and Matej Andraž Vogrinčič, with live music by EZ3kiel. It was inspired by that scene in The Battleship Potemkin (S. Eisenstein) and featured live-feed video of dancers filmed in front of a blue screen with their images imposed against prerecorded film, projected onto 2 large screens.

Oh yah... it also had 7,000 slinkies crawling down a 2-story raked plynth.

Cool...

What inspired me was less the content of the piece but rather its spectacle, its popularity at the festival, and the fact that they actually got it done. I'm sure that they spent at least a third of their budget on the slinkies, and yet, the idea of producing something in a similar format... well... it just doesn't seem as impossible anymore.

So this post is less about multimedia theatre theory, but rather about possibility. It is possible. And, judging by shifts in the theatrical world around us... hell, it may be more and more probable.

As long as Lucas doesn't f@#k it up for the rest of us.

Really???

2008-12-12T13:43:00.001-05:00

Star Wars: The Musical.

Hm. I'm guessing it'd cost double Teymour's Spiderman musical (... if it was true, that is).

Thanks to Daniel Martin for pointing it out.

OYR in TO

2008-12-10T16:40:00.001-05:00

I just stumbled upon a nice little profile at the G&M of One Yellow Rabbit's Denise Clarke.

Even though we come from nearby stomping grounds, I’m not as familiar with OYR’s work as I am with their enviable reputation. Namely, how they’ve taken a mandate to create and produce experimental theatre and, somehow, made it sexy. Not just among fellow artists (although OYR is adored for their artist outreach and training initiatives, like their annual Summer Lab Intensive.) They’ve been around for over 25 years, and their annual High Performance Rodeo is one of Calgary’s signature festivals. People flock to OYR’s weird little shows, and I’m envious and grateful for this all at the same time.

Sexiness is a state of being. For theatre, it’s not just the responsibility of a single performer, although a performer’s state of mind, confidence and physicality can definitely help. But it’s more than just the performers. It’s an entire image – it’s a brand. OYR is one of the few theatre companies that actively court sex appeal as a part of their overall raison d’être (maybe not in it’s official mandate, but…). As such, it also courts an audience that sees itself as ‘sexy’ by association. Which is really cool.

… And smart as hell.

In January 2006, I was especially lucky enough to participate in the first ever Interrium project, offered by Springboard Dance, listed as an “adjacent festival” to the HPR. (I say “especially lucky” as it was the one and only year that it paid artists to participate rather than the other way around.) During week 2 of the project, we got to work with Denise. I don’t know about the other artists, but I was very intimidated to meet her. OYR’s sexy brand can also be intimidating – we associate “sexiness” with “hardness”. The moment I did though, any apprehension I had just melted away. She’s an incredibly warm and giving person beyond just being a talented artist. I learned a tonne from her. I hope to work with her again someday.

If you’re in Toronto and you have a chance, check out some OYR shows at the Young Centre for Performing Arts.

Et tu, Ignatieff?

2008-12-08T10:55:00.002-05:00

It’s the fashion these days for directors to set a new production of Shakespeare in an alternate historical timeline. I’m sure I’m not the only one who is a little tired of these productions, especially as each new interpretation seems to be more and more of a stretch. So please don’t read the rest of this post as a ringing endorsement of the style (…er, fad).

However, for argument’s sake… and because my little art blog seems to be all wrapped up in politics right now, anyway… if you were to apply Shakespeare’s political tragedy to our own Canadian one, who would you cast in the titular role: Stephen Harper or Stephane Dion?

The answer, of course, depends on your point of view – pro-coalition or not. I imagine if you are a Conservative supporter, then your pick would be Harper. The idea of the greatest leader of the Roman Empire assassinated by his own government via multiple stab wounds to the back is probably more than fitting to your view of Canada’s current political crisis. This would probably also serve to keep your blood boiling hot.

However, considering the Conservative party’s current stance on culture, I’m tempted to assume that an ardent Harper supporter has neither read nor seen Julius Caesar. As such, s/he wouldn’t know how minor a role Caesar actually has in the play. (I do: I’ve played him.)

Stephane Dion is a more apt choice – especially if you replace the Roman Empire with the Liberal Party of Canada. (Considering how many years the Liberals have governed the country since confederation, this is actually not that much of a stretch.)

The real question then becomes how to cast the true main characters in the piece: Brutus and Marc Antony? Does Michael Ignatieff become Brutus – the man who ended up leading the assassination plot (albeit reluctantly) for the good of the Empire, and takes power? And does Bob Rae become Antony – the well spoken orator who rallies against Brutus, and ends up defeating him by setting up a triumvirate government with Octavius and Lepidus (read coalition government with Layton and Duceppe).

Hm. This is kinda fun. I can see why directors can be lured to this approach… However, my focus is not in producing Shakespeare, so I won’t be looking to produce this any time soon. Feel free to use, if you like.

I’d buy a ticket.

Prorogation official

2008-12-04T12:07:00.001-05:00

Harper gets his wish.

On the National Post's live blog of the event, this comment basically sums it up:

12:02 Kenny Yum: In the House, Speaker has adjourned the sitting. Some cheers, some jeeers. CPAC goes blank.

"They blew it"

2008-12-04T09:48:00.003-05:00

... is what my wife said to me as the grainy, Youtube quality video of Stephane Dion was broadcast over some national stations. I sighed, and then agreed.

Hard to disagree. While this whole battle for hearts and minds of the Canadian public may not make a whole hooey of difference to what's happening now over at Rideau Hall, but if the GG does grant prorogation to Harper, then this video will haunt the coalition's quest for legitimacy.

Harper's an idiot. While he stokes the fires of his man-made political crisis into a national unity crisis, he would have a helluva an easier time convincing the nation that the coalition is unstable due to incompetence more than anything else.

Mr. Dion, if you want to quell fears that you're not staging a coup d'etat, then it might help if you avoided making your video look like it was filmed by Al Qaida. For goodness sake: you have the ENTIRE CULTURAL COMMUNITY BACKING THIS COALITION... you could've probably gotten one of us to help you.

Well... I should probably calm myself down. All is not lost, of course. As an artist, I know what's like to occasionally fail miserably (scroll down, you'll find me). However, like Andy Field sez, "don't fear failure."

Here's an excerpt:

So what do you do when the dust settles on a show like that? After the polite and slightly pained smiles and thank-yous? What did (Orson)Welles think, standing there in the darkened theatre, after the acrobats and the stagehands and the chorus line had gone home? Did he agonise over what could have worked better, what he could have changed, how he might have worked harder? More likely, he was already charging blindly on to the next project; the songs and the dances and the collapsing scenery already a forgotten memory.

Onward friends. Onward.

Dark Oscar

2008-12-03T15:39:00.001-05:00

Okay... enough with the political theatre. Let's get back to some geekdom here.

Check out this unofficial campaign to get The Dark Knight nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture.

Nice. It has my vote.

Executive Power

2008-12-03T09:49:00.001-05:00

In one of my previous blog post, It's in the Governor General's hands now..., I wrote that the GG has to act in the best interests of Canadians.

Whoops! Scratch that, I'm totally wrong.

The GG is not (supposed to be) a political office, just an exectutive one, and a highly symbolic one at that. She's supposed to act on the advice of the Prime Minister, except in only very very very VERY rare circumstances.

However, now that Harper will ask the GG to prorogue Parliament (as early as this afternoon), he has basically brought politics to the office, where none should exist. He is asking her to make a political decision -- either prorogue Parliament, which favours the Conservative agenda, or let the vote of confidence proceed, which favours the Coalition.

Under the guise of democracy, he's basically giving the British Crown a legitimate hand in governing our nation again.

This is a lose-lose situation for the GG. She cannot help but take sides in this mess.

She has a third option: to prorogue Parliament but restrict the powers of government to the most mundane daily operations. By doing this, she still follows the advice the of the first minister, who still hasn't officially lost the confidence of the House, but refuses Harper's governence until he actually earns that confidence. She also manages to keep the powers of her own office -- an unelected position -- at minimum.

While this would probably be a wiser move on the GG's part to retain some semblance of sanity within our constitutional monarchy governance system, it will also be the absolute WORST decision for the country because it handcuffs the government from taking any action on the economic crisis until the House resumes.

So, while politics are not supposed to be a part of her decision, nor are the interests of the nation (beyond those that apply to constitutional law) supposed to be part of her decision... how can they not be? She's only human.

I don't envy her decision at all. But I will be watching...

Nice little Q&A over at the G&M about the GG and constitutional procedure.

Here's an interesting and intriguing tidbit:

David Mordecai from Toronto Canada writes: Given the editorial in The Globe and Mail yesterday, I was wondering if the Governor-General can suggest to the Prime Minister that he step down in favour of a different leader of the Conservative Party?

Bob Beal: Hi David: You asked a question that I have not seen raised in the miles of copy on this story, and it is a good question.

The answer is most definitely yes. The Governor-General has a right, and a duty, to advise her prime ministers. I don't know how often it happens today in Canada, but something the public is not aware of is that prime ministers usually meet often with governor-generals, or in Britain, prime ministers with the Queen. This, of course, used to happen much more frequently. Queen Victoria was regarded as a bit meddlesome, and she played favorites between prime ministers.

But as the great British constitutionalist Walter Bagehot wrote: "The sovereign has ... three rights -- the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn."

More constitutional info...

2008-12-02T09:43:00.001-05:00

Courtesy of the Globe & Mail.

Still don't know whether or not the government will fall. Very tricky indeed...

UPDATE:

A very detailed analysis of all of the government's options to avoid falling can be found here at the G&M (Andrew Steele again).

While all the talk has been about proroguing the House, if I were a betting man, I would go with Option #1 as being the Conservatives "nuclear option," conveniently also the most fitting with their typical playbook.

It's in the Governor General's hands now...

2008-12-01T20:03:00.001-05:00

Uh-oh, did someone say "prorogue"???

A lot can happen in a week. Unlike the Department of Culture, I'm not quite ready to bestow victory on the coalition government yet. Look at all that has happened in the last week, hell, the last 3 days. December 8th is still a long way away.

However, despite the Conservatives' best efforts, it looks like the Liberals-NDP-Bloc coalition is ready to go, for at least 18 months and at least two federal budgets. It's really quite remarkable that these parties managed to shelve their differences (at least for the last week) in order to get this thing together. No matter what anybody says (secret deal or not), this was a HUGE mountain to climb for all involved.

But. The government has yet to fall. Harper does have one procedural 'out'. He could try to prorogue the House. In short, this essentially means that he ends this session of Parliament before a vote of non-confidence can be made, until January 27th. If he does try this (highly unlikely) procedural tactic, it will be difficult to maintain his argument that the proposed L/N/B coalition government is undemocratic.

As unlikely as this scenario might be, well, this seems to be the week for unlikely political scenarios. In any case, whether the government falls or Harper attempts to prorogue the House, the end result is that the final decision about the future of our government will be the Governor General's responsibility.

(For a detailed description why proroguing the House still means that the GG has final say, check out Andrew Steele's blog over at the Globe & Mail.)

But let's assume that the government falls on December 8th. If so, Harper must go the GG and tell her that he has lost the confidence of the House. He will then, presumably, ask her to hold another election.

The Conservatives are not going to roll over on this one. They are fighting, and will continue to fight, tooth-and-nail to get public opinion on their side. This is important because the GG is obliged to act in the best interest of Canadians. If she feels that the Canadian public is not being represented properly by the coalition government, she will call for another election.

Alot of the material I've read so far has noted that the GG will be facing a lot of pressure to let the coalition take a shot at governing because the current Parliament has barely lasted two months, and it's too soon for Canadians to go to the polls again. However, if the Conservatives can persuade her that more Canadians believe that the government has been "stolen" by the coalition, or that it's somehow undemocratic that coalition should govern, then the writ shall fall.

And again, let's consider also the tools the Conservatives have to wage this war:
1) Stephane Dion: Not only was he the least popular leader in the last election, but he's also stepping down in May. The Conservatives will argue that Liberals' leadership problems are not only destabilizing, but even less democratic because Canadians will not have had an opportunity to vote for the next PM of our country.
2) The economy: Again, let's talk optics. The stock market fell more that 9% (the worst since "Black Monday") on the same day the terms of the coalition were announced. This had more to do with the United States admitting that they're already in recession, and some ridiculous commodity fluctuations, but that's not going to stop the Conservatives from using this story to their own advantage.
3) Michaelle Jean: (This one is dirty, but I've already seen it start to surface on forums and comments sections.) Remember back when Ms. Jean was appointed as the new GG after Ms. Clarkson, and ugly rumors about her husbands separatist past began to surface? Well, they're coming back up again, and the spin this time is that the GG will only let this coalition government fly because of her sympathies for Quebec separatism.

My personal opinion is that all of these arguments are somewhat desperate. At the same time, it matters more what the rest of Canada thinks... or to be more specific, what the GG percieves what Canada thinks. It's really all in her hands.

And she's currently in Europe. Her information is coming from her advisers and from the media. So, really, no one really knows what her state of mind is at the moment.

What do we do about it?

The DofC asked us to write our MPs. Great (please continue) but maybe we need to take it one step further. Write the Governor General. If you want this coalition to happen, let her know how you feel about it. Here's how:

Comments, questions and suggestions may be sent by e-mail at: info@gg.ca.

The full title of the Governor General is:

Her Excellency
the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General of Canada

The title of the Governor General's spouse is:

His Excellency Jean-Daniel Lafond, C.C.

If you are writing to the Governor General, address the letter to:

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean
Governor General of Canada
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A1

(no postage necessary)

You can write to His Excellency at the same address.

In either case, the salutation is: Excellency

If you want to write to both of them, address the letter to:

Their Excellencies
The Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean
Governor General of Canada
and
Mr. Jean-Daniel Lafond

The salutation is: Excellencies

One more thing. According to the National Post, the GG does have one other option. She could just say "no." As in no coalition and no election. As in, go back and figure it out. Make it work.

Again, I think this is a stretch. What the NP seems to be arguing for is an end to our political party system, and have each member be allowed to have a free vote on an issue by issue basis, so that the PM doesn't need the confidence of the House.

A free-vote system is an interesting way of doing things... but it's not the way our parliamentary democracy has been built. That's more in line with the American system and, unless I'm mistaken, no Canadian really wants any part of that.

Whoa...

2008-12-01T09:14:00.002-05:00

Trouble in paradise... looks like the Liberals are not the only party with internal problems.

Check it out.

Thanks to Department of Culture for pointing it out.

UPDATE:
Here's another one...

Secret deal

2008-11-30T14:38:00.001-05:00

CTV news is reporting that the Bloc and NDP have been chatting about a coalition well before Thursday's economic statement.

Already saw a couple of Conservatives on TV discrediting the whole idea of a coalition gov't. Talking points well in hand.

Again, bad optics on this one. I don't think the government will fall on Dec. 8, but after all that has happened in the last 48 hours, who knows what's next?

UPDATE:

Both the NDP and Bloc are denying a "secret deal." The NDP is saying that the lines of communication have been open with all parties ever since we've been in a minority gov't situation with the Martin Liberals.

It also turns out that this tape of Jack Layton talking about a "secret deal" was provided to CTV by the Conservatives. Somehow they managed to tape a conference call of an NDP caucus meeting.

I guess when Harper said "use any tool at your disposal," he wasn't kidding.

This is craziness. I feel like I'm watching a symphony of Neros while Rome burns.

UPDATE #2:

After watching NDP Deputy Leader Thomas Mulcair make a statement and take questions I feel a little better about the calibre of at least some of our representatives in Ottawa to be able to talk to the public like rational, intelligent adults. One of the things that I hated about the recent NDP election campaign was its populist language and brutally negative tone. I was happily able to listen to Mr. Mulcair without cringing.

Feel free to compare to the language used by Pierre Poilievre, Harper's parliamentary secretary. Pierre isn't as bad as some I've heard (on either side of the House), but I did laugh out loud at his assertion about how Mr. "Build A Firewall Around Alberta" Harper has battled separatism throughout his life.

While I'm less pessimistic about the coalition government failing, the Liberals have been very silent about this whole issue. The ball is really in their court, and I guess they're waiting to see how this all plays out. Given their penchant for weakness in the last parliament, I'm still hesitant to say this will actually happen. The coalition option requires boldness. We haven't seen that from the Liberals in a long while...

Diabolical

2008-11-29T12:33:00.002-05:00

Harper's cuts to the arts earlier this year showed more than a callous attitude towards Canadian culture... it revealed how he intends to govern, period.

What's happening on Parliament Hill right now is almost unheard of. And it hinges on a relatively small cut that will have a huge impact on a target group that is politically unfriendly to Harper's Conservatives.

Sound familiar?

Like the cuts to culture funding only a few months ago, the Conservatives' plan to eliminate public subsidies to political parties does nothing to solve the current economic crisis. It does, however, solidify their core support (presumably to distract from upcoming and unavoidable deficit spending the government will be forced to engage in) and it will also nearly destroy the opposition's ability to compete in the next federal election (which will probably be coming up in a matter of months, or even weeks, based on these moves.)

Like the culture cuts, the $30 million the government will save is barely a drop in the bucket compared to the $3 - $10 billion that economic forecasters are saying next year's deficit may amount to. However, just as the culture cuts disproportionately damaged the long-term viability of the exports component of our industry, cutting subsidies to political parties will also disproportionately hurt the opposition parties' finances and viability to construct a future election campaign (at least in the short term... when it will matter most).

During the election, I wrote that the culture funding cuts could be used as a political tool for progressive voters to describe a pattern of ideological governance by the Conservatives. However, I thought that Harper's capacity to do so would be contained by the context of a minority government and a worldwide economic crisis. Who knew that his ambitions would be so naked or bold.

As the Globe's Jefferey Simpson wrote

Thursday's economic statement was an economic lame duck and a political boner. It revealed, among other things, the kind of Conservative Party that all but its core supporters suspected would eventually be outed: a group of ideologues, led by a Prime Minister who discarded his campaign sweater to reveal an economist with a tin heart and a politician who looks everywhere for political advantage.

Instead of trying to grow Conservative support, he appealed only to his party's core. Instead of acting in a statesmanlike fashion at a time of crisis, he opted to play politics, proposing to cancel public subsidies for parties, a move that would disproportionately benefit his.

The Conservatives have altered the parliamentary schedule so that a vote of non-confidence won't happen until at least December 8. The G&M is reporting that the Conservatives are going to embark on a massive public relations blitz to build public opinion against a possible Liberal-NDP coalition government, relying on (ick) Bloc support.

As much as I am skeptical that this coalition would work for any extended amount of time, at this point I'm positive that anything would be better than this current bunch of goons that running the show.

What can we do about it?

Remember that the optics on this one are not so good for the progressive parties, and that's why the Conservatives tried to pull this fast one in the first place. Their plan is too shout as loud as they can to anyone that will listen that:
1) The opposition is trying to force an election because they are not willing to give up taxpayer-funded subsidies; and
2) The Conservatives won the election fair-and-square, and the opposition was not given a mandate to govern.

Please, shout back:
1) In a minority government situation, it was the Government's responsibility to maintain the confidence of the House, and the Conservatives failed miserably only six weeks after the election;
2) The Conservatives tried to use the most serious financial climate in seven decades in which thousands of Canadians have lost their livelihoods for their own political gain;
3) It's actually the Conservatives that want another $300 million dollar election, the opposition is actually taking extraordinary steps to avoid one by setting up a coalition government; and
3) The Conservatives were not given a mandate to govern either -- they lost 62% of the popular vote.

Remember: if this wasn't a blatantly political move, then why didn't the Conservatives also impose election advertising spending limits along with cuts to funding? Or alleviate individual donation caps?

The Department of Culture also has more tips about how to get involved and avoid being railroaded by this weekend's upcoming publicity blitz.

Seriously. What a friggin mess.

No more Batman?

2008-11-26T11:59:00.001-05:00

Is this the end of Batman... or at least, Bruce Wayne as Batman?

Doubtful. We've seen it before. Superman died. Eventually he came back.

It did make for a great story though. It makes for even better publicity: your comic gets mentioned in regular newspapers.

But we're talking iconology here. (Plus a reinvigorated movie franchise.) There are certain heroes that will never die (for long). Their names are Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Hulk, and Wolverine.

Although... I'm still waiting for Captain America to come back. Is he back, yet?

Still, I'm interested to see what happens.

AWWWWW.... crap.

2008-11-25T15:55:00.002-05:00

Ballet BC lays off entire company.

War Robots

2008-11-25T11:07:00.001-05:00

Yeah, that's right... War Robots

Does this have anything to do with theatre?

Not yet...

There's a play in the making here, my friends. Meanwhile, let's all collectively weep for our future and pray for the coming of John Conner.

Content is key, my friends...

2008-11-19T10:54:00.001-05:00

Everyone is still gushing about Barack Obama's remarkable online political campaign, and many are looking for applicable marketing lessons for their own industries.

Even theatre. Check out the Guardian's Theatre blog to see what I mean.

I fully agree that there are lessons to be learned. However, let's all make sure not to get too swept up with the free marketing tools that Web 2.0 provides... because that's all they are, just tools. And those tools are going to see a surge in popularity in the next few months, rendering them less effective.

While the Obama campaign was masterful, its core strength was not the tools that it used but the idea that those tools were promoting. The concept was its core strength.

All you artists out there, please don't forget your core purpose: to make truly ingenious, exciting and captivating art. Learn about the tools to be able to market your work and utilize them to their full extent, but don't exclusively rely on them. Well-marketed but ultimately mediocre theatre will not serve you in the long run.

To paraphrase Scott McCloud, the content, not the surface of the apple, must be our primary focus.

A little inspiration

2008-11-15T09:56:00.001-05:00

Lisa Pijuan-Nomura shared this quote, so I thought I'd pass it along...

“This is the true joy in life, to be used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one, to be thoroughly worn out before you are thrown on the scrap heap. To be a force of nature instead of a feverish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy. I am a member of a community and as a member it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can before I die. Life is no brief candle to me. It is a sort of splendid torch that I want to make burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to future generations.”
- George Bernard Shaw

Nice.
Thanks Lisa!

Humble Pie

2008-10-16T17:22:00.003-04:00

Well, I guess I can admit when I'm wrong.

The furor over arts cuts didn't give Mr. Harper a majority, it actually was one of the only things that prevented it.

The arts cuts equalled a resurgence of Bloc support in Quebec, which in turn prevented Harper of making his "breakthrough" in La Belle Province. In English Canada however, it was another story...

I'm not sure how I should feel about all this, and I imagine that a lot of other artists are similarly confused. After all, Harper still won, so I imagine the cuts will remain. And from what I hear, he's a pretty vindictive politician: if artists prevented his coveted majority, than I wonder (and fear) if artists will be subject to his subsequent wrath.

And I'm not sure how good anyone feels about the arts funding issue directly benefitting a party committed to breaking up the nation...

Are we to blame for this too?

We're All Fools

2008-09-24T20:21:00.002-04:00

Harper might win a majority by cutting arts funding... and we artists are helping him do it.

Don't ask me how I feel about Harper's cuts and his outrageous comments. I'm as hurt and and angry as the rest of you, but there are more important issues here than my feelings. Or yours.

As a political maneuver, this was brilliant. (er... diabolical?)

Harper had to deal with a couple of small problems: he was being attacked by all the party leaders on a number of issues and he needed to consolidate his base support while, at the same time, attract swing voters at the centre of the political spectrum.

Regionally, he was working long before the writ was dropped with massive pre-election spending in order to warm up the electorate. Conservatism at its most basic level (I thought) is against taxpayer's money being spent like this, especially on frivolities like a UFO sighting commemoration.

As the economy gets worse and worse during this campaign, he looks like he's doing his due duty in managing the economy by cutting "frivolous" arts funding. He tells artists that we have to "stick to a budget."

Now these cuts were made a while ago, but they didn't receive a lot of press. But we as artists must challenge them. Because we're constantly under attack. And the arts need to be defended. And so Quebec artists, bless them, use the Gemeaux awards to shame Harper and the ideology behind these cuts. But unfortunately, outside of Quebec, this plays right into Harper's hands.

He calls us "fat cats" and says we live in an "ivory tower." He says that the furor over these cuts won't resonate with "ordinary Canadians," i.e. regular folk that work hard for their money, not like them bum artists living on the taxpayer's dime, the worst kind of corporate welfare. (Ick.)

All of a sudden the arts (for the first time that I can remember) have become a major election story. Let me tell you why, in my opinion, this is not a good thing for artists.

What has been accomplished here? Let's take a look:
1) Harper has consolidated his core support. Even those who may have felt alienated by his concession on Afghanistan, can rally around on Harper on this issue. These cuts are ideological in nature and appeal to many of the same voters who support life sentences for children.
2) Harper hasn't lost any support from the centre spectrum voters; in fact, he may have gained some traction. Think about it: we're an electorate that is having trouble understanding the Green Shift. Trying to explain how cuts to programs that send artists overseas are a bad thing... is damn hard. Unfortunately, Harper's comments about artists being "whiners" is ringing true (at least in English Canada).
3) The left still remains split. While artists have succeeded making a lot of noise about the value of art, we've only been denouncing Harper and we haven't thrown our combined weight behind a different candidate that will champion the arts. And we, just like the rest of Canada, remain divided into camps of ideological or strategic voters.
4) The other major parties have jumped on the band wagon. As passionate as I am about the arts, the pragmatist in me knows that it won't win an election. So while this is a major election story, it's not an election issue. But all the other party leaders think they smell blood in the water, and at this point, are desperate for any conservative weakness that might have some traction. This is not it.

The two major election questions are the economy and Harper. He has made the election about these issues, and the more the other leaders are sidetracked away from them, the more this plays in his favour. Especially if they continue to be unified in their pro-arts, anti-Harper response... if there's no distinction, then there's no mending of the left-of-centre split.

Now I realize that Harper needs Quebec to form a majority, and yes, cutting Quebec arts funding IS actually a major election issue... in Quebec. But in BC and especially in Ontario, it's the economy stupid.

So what do we do about it?

1) Keep making noise... but be strategic. This election is about Harper. He's coming to us in a fuzzy sweater and trying to woo the centre by claiming he makes common sense decisions for the good of Canada. But THIS decision is steeped in ideology. Same as his crime bill. This is a pattern: what journalists like to call a narrative. (He's also being mean about it - another narrative). This is the narrative that we must promote: if he follows far-right ideology on the arts and crime, then what does this mean for health care? Education? WHAT WOULD HARPER DO WITH A MAJORITY??? (You get the idea.)
2) We have to back one of the other parties. Any one. But we have to consolidate our vote. This is a tremendous opportunity: the other leaders are listening. What can/will they do to consolidate our vote?

E-mail this post to every artist you know. There's still time...

~talbot

Superhero LIVE! at the 2007 Edmonton International Fringe Theatre Festival.

2007-08-19T15:53:00.003-04:00

Holy moley, it's been a long time since I've blogged!!!

I'm in Edmonton right now. I came to rehearse and produce my play Superhero LIVE! at the Edmonton Fringe this year. I arrived at midnight on August 1st, and was up early the next morning to do the Fringe Media Conference. We were one of only four groups (of 140) to perform at the conference. At that time I had less than two weeks to put this show together; now we are offically up and running (both the staged show and the radio series).

I guess I should mention what Superhero LIVE! is. It is a comic book spoken word rock opera. I wrote, produced and directed for the Fringe this year. Our executive producer is Happy Habor Comics: a nationally recognized, award-winning comic store in Edmonton. (They win awards because they sponsor stuff like this!) It's a two hour show performed against a original rock n roll score played by a live band; we're doing it at The Attic Bar & Lounge as a BYOV this year. I've been producing the play as a radio-play serial, online and free to download as Podcasts at http://www.superherolive.com. I booked a sponsorship deal with CJSR FM 88.5 to broadcast each episode of the serial everyday during the Fringe. Then on August 23, 2007, we're doing a live-to-air broadcast of the full-length play from the Fringe Festival. This has never been done at the Edmonton Fringe before.

Okay, so a big task. And like I said, we only had two weeks to pull it off. Luckily, most of the cast from the Podcasts had returned to do the live performance. Alison Boyce was new to our crew, but she has been a superstar and absolutely wonderful to work with.

We've been getting pretty good press coverage: we've been plugged on SONiC radio, City TV, the Edmonton Examiner, and of course CJSR.

The run is only beginning but all ready I have some wonderful memories of this experience. Most notably during the Fringe parade. Shaun's boss at K&K Deli let us use his truck and a generator so that Shaun and John could rock out on the flatbed. We were doing a spot for City TV so Shaun and John started playing: suddenly we were surrounded by a dozen dancing clowns from another show attracted by the kickin' tunes. It was amazing and totally surreal.

Only at the Fringe.

Now that we're open, I'll try to blog a bit more often. It was a real push to get this show up and running, and I didn't have a lot of time to devote to cyber-thoughts. Hopefully now I can be a little more visable during the rest of the festival.

See you in the beer tents???

Fantastic Four -- Rise of the Silver Surfer

2007-06-18T10:20:00.001-04:00

SPOILER ALERT. If you don't want to know anything about this movie before you see it, then stop reading right now.

Last night I picked up my fellow actor/comic-geek buddy, David Shelley, to go watch the next Fantastic Four flick. He had spent the entire day on a film gig and was pretty exhausted. I asked him if he was up for checking out the movie and he said he was ready to just relax and veg out in front of the big screen. I said to him, "Don't worry pal, tonight we're gonna enjoy some really cool special F/x and some really bad acting, and it will be a good night!"

Sometimes I'm so on the mark, I surprise myself.

FF 2 or "Rise of the Silver Surfer" is not a bad movie. It's not a great movie, by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not bad. I did not come close to feeling the crushing deflation and seething anger that I felt after Spider-man 3. In fact, I felt pretty good coming out of the theatre. If you have kids, I would recommend taking them to this movie whole-heartedly. If you're a long time fan of the comic, you'll probably think it's a horrific bastardization of the FF mythology. But, then again, you'd probably agree that it's ten times better than the first FF movie.

The highlight of this film is the Silver Surfer. Completely animated, and voiced by the always stellar Lawrence Fishburn, the Surfer is also the best actor on the screen. This is in part a jab at the cast of the FF family, but also this is in praise of the director, F/x team and Fishburn. The performance of the Surfer was simple, direct and empathetic. And he also had the best lines.

Writing: the first 25 minutes of this movie, and the final 10 had me wincing in my seat. Until the FF started interacting with the Surfer, this movie stumbled -- badly. Too many overused, predictable one-liners and too many cheap jokes. And the cast either didn't have the talent to save the dialogue or, maybe, they saw that the stinky writing couldn't be salvaged and didn't bother to try. Jessica Alba, while always nice to look at, was probably the worst offender. As Sue Storm (eventually Sue Richards), she had absolutely ZERO chemistry with Reed Richards. In fact all her chemistry seemed to be saved up for Johnny Storm, her brother; as David pointed out, "Every time they had a scene together, I thought they were going to kiss!"

Iaon Gruffudd (Reed) tried his best, but the writers saved the worst bits for him. And, like Jessica Alba, he's just not old enough to pull of this role. (If the producers were smart, they would have cast Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan as the patriarch/matriarch of the ultimate superhero family: they both have the years, chemistry and chops to truly bring these roles to life.) Chris Evans (Johnny) had a little too much nudge-nudge, wink-wink in his performance for my liking, and Michael Chiklis was okay, especially considering he had a giant rock suit to act through for most of the movie.

Now, as my partner-in-crime, Shaun Mckee says, "I refuse to judge a movie for what it isn't instead of what it is." I, on the other hand, have no such qualms: I think the FF franchise has done a terrible dis-service to the myth of the Thing. The tragedy of the Thing is that he is trapped inside a monster's body and he can't get out. FF2, like its predecessor, keeps having the Thing transform between human and monster, and there are no consequences to the character. It's like Ben Grimm doesn't really mind being the Thing. And I'm not talking about his sense of humor or his good will or continual horseplay with Johnny Storm: this stays true to the comic and is one of the Thing's most endearing traits. At the same time, the Thing is the most tragic figure of the the FF as well as the physical manifestation of Reed's guilt. Neither movie takes the time to explore these themes (or the first one did but in the most cursory, platonic way possible -- like a laughable second thought). I feel like both FF flicks are prime examples of how when a superhero franchise is seen as money-making vehicle instead of an opportunity to make art, the consequence ultimately hurts the superhero-film industry as a whole rather than helps it. FF is one of the longest running and most recognizable comic titles out there: don't you think it's deserving of some research or at least recognition of its artistic merit? Don't you think it's more deserving of some thought and affection when being adapted for the screen? Don't you think the characters have something more to offer besides hot actors in tight outfits doing kick-ass special F/x?

But, maybe I'm wrong: maybe what I want is much too heavy when you're designing a franchise for kids.

(Mind you -- take look at classics like The Secret of Nymh or The Dark Crystal from the 1980's as examples of childrens' films that are unafraid to expose a young audience to elements of darkness. A generation grew up on these films; hell, I watched both of these films in elementary school. While scary, they were also wonderful.)

Okay - enough bitchin'. I actually liked this movie, for the most part. The exposition and conclusion, while painful, were also mercifully short and the movie wastes little time getting to the action. And the action is fun: the Surfer/Torch chase (as scene in previews) is excellent, there is a natural disaster in London averted, a choice battle between the Surfer and the US military which is short and sweet -- and an even better battle between the FF and Doctor Doom (SPOILERS COMING NOW) after Doom takes control of the Surfer's board and powers. I actually really like the film's depiction of Galactus (ominous black nebula cloud) and, as my buddy David says, you can see the outline of the comic-based Galactus head/helmet within the nebula during the film's climax (I'll have to take his word for it; I totally missed it). The film fails to explain how the Surfer is able to destroy Galactus or how he finds out he is able to do it... or if he already knew then what his reasoning was for not destroying it until this point. There were a couple murmers of "what?" in the theatre during the climax. This also was confusing for a moment because you think that the Surfer has decided to sacrifice his home world/true-love-at-home to save the Earth -- but then you realize the Surfer is actually deciding to sacrifice himself for the sake of the Earth.

So it's all good. Overall I'd say 3 1/2 stars of 5.

It's fun ride!

Holy Crap! It's an Oratorio... I think...

2007-05-27T11:42:00.001-04:00

On the front page of the "BUZZ" section of the Sunday edition of the Toronto Star today:

"THE AFTERLIFE OF BRIAN: The film that delighted millions and shocked a very noisy few comes to a Toronto stage in the form of an oratorio, no less."

Inside there is a photo of Life of Brian dress rehearsal with Eric Idle, among others, standing in front of music stands, in plain dress... performing.

Dress rehearsal? This is starting to seem awfully familiar. What the heck is an Oratorio? I look it up. From the Oxford Dictionary: a large-scale musical work for orchestra and voices, typically a narrative on a religious theme, performed without the use of costumes, scenery, or action.

Holy Crap, I think. I'm doing an Oratorio.

A little backgroud: Superhero Live!, currently being released as 15-min audio Podcast episodes online at www.superherolive.com, is going to be performed in full "Live!" at the 2007 Edmonton International Fringe Theatre Festival in August. The production is NOT going to be fully staged and there will be no sets, little costuming, and no stage-fighting. It IS primarily a musical work for band and voices. And, depending on how fervent the fan, Superheroes are a religion of their own.

I was wondering how the heck I was going to describe this upcoming production to the media in the days leading up to the Fringe. A live version of the radio-play? That sounds like it's a fully staged work. A staged reading? Well, no, because the work will be completely memorized, and the performance will be much more heightened than just a reading. A stationary musical? Not really--there's no singing. An audio comic book? That's okay, but it doesn't really say anything about the show...

"Oratorio"... now that sounds impressive. Established. Distinguished--classy even. Maybe I could call it a Rock-Oratorio in my press release. "I'm gonna produce an Oratorio," I thought; I was pretty damned impressed with myself.

Of course, there are major differences for what I intend to produce with Superhero Live!, and what an Oratorio is supposed to be. First off, an Oratorio is meant to be performed with a full orchestra. I have two musicians. Second, an Oratorio is meant to be primarily a musical piece and the plot/story of the piece is somewhat minimal compared to the music. Superhero Live! is very plot heavy, and the acting of the dialogue is central to the success of the production. And there is no singing. Oratorios are basically church-friendly operas, from what I understand.

However this will all be very useful to me when we start rehearsals and it becomes my duty to explain to the cast what I want this production to be in its "Live!" form. The musical score had to play an unfortunately-but-necessarily diminished role within the Radio-play format of the Podcasts. This was for the sake of clarity: without anything to look at, we needed to make sound effects much more prominent in the soundscape of the story so that the listener would be able to understand what the heck was going on. But the original intent of the production was for the music to be much more integral to the piece: it is supposed to be as integral to the plot as the dialogue... just a different way of experiencing the piece. In the live show, the music will be more prominent, and watching the musicians (and actors) perform will be one of the best things about the show... maybe even moreso than listening to the plot.

Is the play going to be a bunch of actors and musicians standing around and delivering their lines? Yes and no. The way our venue is set up and how I'm going stage the work is going to be intriguing to watch... or not watch, depending where you sit...

I won't say any more, as I don't want to spoil it months before the Fringe starts! You'll have come check out the show if you're interested to see what I've got up my sleeve.

So I suppose "oratorio" works as well as any other descriptor for Superhero Live!, which continues to prove itself somewhat un-classifiable. It is and it isn't.

What I know for sure, and what I'm excited to share, is that the "Live!" production is going to be it's own animal. It will be different than the Podcasts, an entirely different experience. It's going to be exciting, fun and an adrenaline rush.

I can't wait to see what people think!!!

Event Movies

2007-05-21T11:20:00.001-04:00

On May 25, 1977, Star Wars opened and flipped the film-making industry on its head, 55 days before that, I was born.

There has been a tonne of focus in the media about Star Wars' 30th anniversary because that movie changed... well, everything about movies. The term "Blockbuster" didn't exist before Star Wars, the opening weekend wasn't the litmus test for the film's success, and merchandising was meant to support the movie rather than vice-versa.

There has also been a tonne of lamentation: George Lucas' destruction of the Star Wars franchise through his incessant profit-mongering. The destruction of the film industry itself since the focus has changed from story-telling to special effects and action sequences. There was a quote in the Toronto Star: "The danger is that the public buys into the concept of seeing event movies to the point where people don't want to see anything but event movies."

Well, sure. But isn't that what Hollywood wants too? Why else do they built the huge cinema complexes with digital surround sound and 10 story high definition screens? "Silver-City" was not built for art films from Quebec. Or any other kinds of movies, really. If I'm going to pay $15 bucks for a movie ticket (plus another $30 on a small popcorn), you're damn right I want to see an event.

It IS an event. The experience of seeing an event movie in the (newer) theatres can be awesome (as in awe-inspiring rather than just "cool"). When the story and characters aren't totally ruined by shallow writing... which does happen more often than not with event movies... the experience can be immensely satisfying. And this is not to say that non-event movies don't allow for that same experience. However many people would rather rent those other movies, or catch them on TV a couple years down the road, or download it and watch it on the computer. In my case, I'd rather go to live theatre.

Because what's the point of paying $15 bucks to see a movie that doesn't do the screen it's shown on justice?

I grew up with the Hollywood of today; I can't lament for the past because I don't know what that was. I expect to see trilogies and I expect cool special effects. My expectations are not any lower because I grew up with Star Wars; I get just as disappointed and disgusted when what should be a perfectly good quality franchise gets ruined by "artistic" choices determined by profit rather than creativity.

People usually categorize the event-movie by its mega-budget, its merchandising capability, and its franchising capability. But it's more than that. It's an opportunity for a community to gather. All the "Pirate" nerds, all the "Sci-fi" nerds, all the "Schwarzenegger" nerds, all the "Comics" nerds... they all can get together and identify with one another. "We all belong to this community, we are great in numbers and we are proud of our geek-dom."

I'd like to make event-theatre to be honest. This is a bit of an oxymoron, though, as the experience of seeing theatre is already an event even when you've gone to catch an experimental solo performance with no props. Because the theatre community is by definition a tight-knit local community. And, to be fair, we're mostly made up of former high school drama nerds.

Theatre franchises have yet to be tried... George F. Walker's "Suburban Motel" excepted of course. I'd like to try to create a theatre franchise. If I'm ever successful in doing it, I hope that my artistic choices will always remain artistic.

I hope my audience will hold me to that.

A note on Happiness

2007-05-11T09:37:00.001-04:00

When I was 18 and living in Germany, I had a book of Plays called 10 Out of 10. It was a compilation of winning scripts over ten years for an American national playwriting contest for young adults (i.e. 18 and under).

Of course I submitted. I wrote a play called "Terrible Mistake" and it was a very dark piece about murder, rape, firebombs and suicide. It was my first play. It didn't win. (But it fit my age range very well!)

I lost the book in the move back home to Canada. One line from the whole book has always stuck with me, though; it was from a playwright's introduction to his work. He wrote:

"I am disheartened that Orsen Welles was only 25 when he made Citizen Kane. I am comforted that Samuel Beckett was 42 when he wrote Waiting For Godot."

(I maybe misquoting here, but I lost the book over 10 years ago... cut me some slack?)

Moving to Toronto, it has been a joyful-yet-surreal experience catching up with actors and artists that have also moved here from Edmonton, but came here near the beginning of their careers. It's interesting to see and hear where their lives have led them; it's interesting to observe how they seem to feel about their careers. Even within the confines of my own BFA class: from actors with featured roles in multi-million dollar Festivals to actors who have chosen to focus on their children instead of their careers.

When we were all training in "the Program," the powers that be warned us that despite the fact we were receiving some of the best conservatory instruction offered in the country (a fact that would pump up our respective egos even fuller with hot air!), not every one of us in the class would make it as an actor. I think we solemnly nodded our heads in affirmation of this glum reality... but secretly we all knew that this didn't apply to OUR class. We were the exception that would prove the rule: we were all going to be STARS!

As idealistic as we might have been back then, and despite the caution signs our profs were trying to show us, our self-deception was larger than anyone had realized: no one told us what "making it" was supposed to mean.

I'll give you an example: in 2004-05, my former theatre company (the Etcetera Theatre Collective or ETC, a physical theatre collective creation company) was having its most productive season yet. We had created two new works -- one of which was nominated for a Sterling award. We were preparing for a 5-city Fringe Festival tour in the summer. We were beginning to dream up plans for a subscription-based season of plays produced by various Edmonton-based independent theatre companies and co-ops. I was rehearsing for something in the Fine Arts Building at the University and I ran into one of my former profs. She was excited because a (more recently graduated) BFA alumnus was cast in a major musical production in Toronto. She gushed about how she loved hearing about the success of her former students... and then she caught herself and added, "And you! You've been doing well... haven't you???"

I wasn't insulted but was a little confused. Was this other gig better than what I had been doing? Was it better press for the department? Did it have more cache because it was a musical? A large production? Because it was in Toronto and not Edmonton? ... And why on earth was I feeling jealous?

I'm not a musical theatre guy. At all. In fact, the work that I was doing was exactly what I wanted to be pursuing, I thought. I was creating and performing in my own work. I was exploring alternative methods of producing and presenting theatre. I ws writing, directing AND acting. Yet there it was, inside me: the pang of Doubt.

Comparing oneself to anyone else is stupid; yet we all can't help but do it sometimes. I have to constantly remind myself that the measure of happiness can only be determined by juggling what I want with what I already have... in my life and not just in my career.

Having moved to Toronto, I am in the unique position of re-starting my career without wearing the same blinders of inexperience I had in my early twenties. This has forced me to look at what I want and need in my career vs. what I already have, and then redefine myself and my ambitions accordingly (... a process that is ever ongoing). I wrote a play. It's called Superhero Live! and it is different from most work I've seen and heard of. I secretly hope for an inflated budget and inflated cache of a Mirvish Musical for Superhero Live!... I doubt that it would be the correct path for this work, or for me to pursue in general.

... I could certainly use a Mirvish paycheque though...

The most famous actor in the world will meet up with his buddy from high school who has a stable marriage and three beautiful children. They'll sit down over a couple of beers and take a good long look at each other. They will both think to himself: "I wasted my life."

There will ALWAYS be someone who's doing better than you: cast in better role, is in better physical shape, has smarter or better looking children, has more hair on his head and less in his nose, was luckier in his career and was wiser in his life.

Right now, Brad Pitt is looking at Leonardo di Caprio and saying to himself, "That son of a..." (And vice-versa.)

Be happy with what you got. Be clear in what you want. Always remember: in the theatre, if it's not fun it's not worth doing. Enjoy your life; it's the only one you got.

New Beautiful Scientist?

2007-05-09T09:32:00.000-04:00

This is a more utilitarian blog: I need an actor.

Superhero Live! is scheduled for a "Live!" production at the 2007 Edmonton International Fringe Theatre Festival, August 17-27. We're in a BYOV (Bring Your Own Venue) and are scheduled to do shows every night.

Amber Borotsik, the Beautiful Scientist, is unfortunately unable to reprise her role for the Fringe production. So I'm looking for a replacement.

Here's what I need:
- an actress with a similar vocal sound/style as Amber (listen to the podcasts at www.superherolive.com to hear what she sounds like).
- an actress that will be based in Edmonton from August 5-27.
- an actress that has a lot of vocal energy and likes to ROCK OUT!
- an actress that understands the needs of the voice and is able to protect it so that she endure 10 performances in a row of a two hour show.

I will be holding auditions on June 3 (Sunday afternoon). Send me an email at tibbitytalbs@yahoo.ca if you're interested. If for some reason you can't be in Edmonton on June 3, I will accept an emailed file recording of your voice. Sides are available upon request.

Thanks everyone!
aaron

Not everyone agrees with me...

2007-05-08T09:32:00.002-04:00

Especially not my partner in crime, Shaun Mckee! He's a composer for Superhero Live! and plays the Bass Player.

I'm importing this blog onto my Facebook page (... yeah, I'm on Crackbook...) and Shaun had his own two cents on my review of SPIDER-MAN 3. Read on, superhero lovers, and see which side you agree with:

*** I should add that since Shaun's a notoriously slow typer, this original conversation was all mixed up because I would respond to Shaun's comments before he was finished typing them. I've tried to reedit so that it all makes sense. However I'm a biased editor, so if you think I'm winning this argument, it's probably because I made it to look that way... ;-)

SHAUN:
K, I will play number 1 to Aaron's captain Picard. First Aaron's main problem with the movie, at least what i get from his review, is how Spidey is seen as a hero by the people of New York. Aaron you know I have read a lot more spidey comics then you and you seem to forget, the people of New York have always loved spidey. But the comics dont focus on that cause why bother, people who love spiderman dont make a good story.it is J. Jonah Jameson who hates Spiderman, and the daily bugle gives him all his bad press cause jj runs it. I should mention I am talking classic spidey here not ultimate by the way. Yes there have been points where spiderman has been public enemy number 1, but this is definetly not the status quo in the marvel universe. Just because spidey is villified in the media that does not make it the public opinion. Just take the american media and the Iraq war as an example.

Now don't get me wrong here I thought Spiderman 3 was definitely disappointing, I give it a 6.5 out of ten, but it must be said there is flashes of brilliance in this movie, and also flashes of wtf were they thinking. Some of the best sequences of the trilogy were in this movie, but some of the worst sequences also. I fucking hate singing and dancing in my movies. and there were three of these sequences for no fucking reason. Why the hell would you have peter dancing to show how badass he has become? Hi im peter im turning evil, now look at me dance? Raimi you fucking idiot. You hear peter say he is becoming more powerful, but why not show this instead of giving him a god damned emo hair style and having him dance.

AARON:
I couldn't agree more! It was like watching a nightmare... I don't what they were thinking. And it's true there were some good moments in the film... but few and far between. Mostly they were great action sequences.

SHAUN:
By far though my favorite moment from the screening I attended was after the big jazz club sequence and peter accidentally "hits" MJ, in what was I imagine supposed to be a powerful dramatic moment,a four year old boy sitting in the row ahead of me said " she deserved it". The entire theater howled with laughter as his mother in disbelief asked "what did you say" he repeated " she deserved it".

AARON:
Weird: Some kid in our theatre in Toronto called her a tramp when she kissed Harry too. How come no one said anything when Spidey did the upside-down kiss with Gwen? That was BRUTAL! Nobody called Peter a Man-Whore.

Can you say double-standard?

See, my main problem in the film is not the fact that he was reviled -- I used that point to show that the film had totally departed from what makes Spiderman great -- how he suffers and perseveres. You're right -- you've read more Spiderman comics than me, but dude, all those New Yorkers were meant to represent public opinion in general -- esp. American public opinion and this was shown by the Spidey-pose in front of the stars and stripes. You're pretty generous with your rating... I'd put mine closer to a 3 out of 10 or less. I'm harsh because that movie was SUPPOSED TO BE GREAT. Same creative team, same core group that made the other two fabulous, and yet shit result.
But to be sure there were some things I liked:
1) Brilliant casting. Topher was awesome as Eddie Brock and Thomas Hayden Chuch looked like Stan Lee himself drew him (too bad the writers gave him a shit storyline though)
2) Acting was overall pretty good. Especially Topher, THC and James Franco (Green Goblin). The dialogue a lot of the time was shit, but the cast was talented enough to make it work most of the time.
3) F/X -- first spidey and green goblin fight was especially good. Venom looked suitably scary, they got the costume's alien appearance right, and Topher looked good with the crooked teeth
4) Peter Parker totally clueless -- at the beginning I was cringing with embarrassment with Peter's bonehead decisions about women and what not. That was great.
5) Bruce Campbell -- brilliant, again, nuff said.

SHAUN:
I actually like everything about this movie except everything to do with Mary Jane which unfortunately is about 50 percent of this movie. And singing and dancing. Is that not why we did superhero in the first place, to make a musical without the singing and dancing?

AARON:
Dude. Come on. What about that terrible sequence at the end with Sandman explaining himself to Peter? Long, boring and no need. It tried to make Sandman sympathetic, but instead it just made him unbelievable. What about the Butler coming out of nowhere and telling Harry how he cleaned Gobby's wound. Totally awkward plot structure -- and even if he did "clean the wound," how would he know it was a self-inflicted wound? The dialogue was terrible and the story was weak.

(But yeah -- we made SHL! so that you guys could rock out and I didn't have to sing...
But mostly to make a kick-ass story and hang out and talk superheroes and read comics and call it a business expense!!!)

SHAUN:
Dude have you ever read a comic with sandman in it? That is the sandman character to a tee. And yes it may be unbelievable but we are taking about COMIC BOOK characters. Sandman was always a sympathetic character and for the last fifteen years he has been a hero not a villan in the spiderman stories. Hell he was even an Avenger for a couple of years.

And the butler, well yes that was simply a plot device to advance the story, because they dug themselves a hole and forgot a shovel.

AARON:
Hm...
To tell you the truth, the Sandman I'm most familiar with is the one from the 60's cartoon...
I still thought the plotline with the daughter was extraneous and I didn't believe him when he said he was "sorry" and "he didn't want this" at the end. I don't care if they are comic book characters. They still have to be believable.

SHAUN:
I know but if you are familiar with the sandman character he is actually the most faithfully represented spiderman character in all three movies.

AARON:
If Sandman is the most accurately represented hero, then he is complex enough to focus a whole movie on him and him alone. Lot's of moral questions to explore when you're fighting a villain who's totally ruthless and yet is justified by his actions (ie. his sick daughter). Problem is, they never explored that part of his character and sacrificed it for the other four story lines they were following -- Peter and MJ, Peter and Harry, Peter and the symbiote, and the Eddie Brock storyline.

Too much.

SHAUN:
Yes too much because the studio forced Venom on him because thats what the fans wanted, was venom. I'm guilty for that and I know you are too. I wanted Venom, but not at the expense that we had to pay.

AARON:
Yeah I wanted Venom, I wanted Venom real bad.

Like I said, Topher Grace was really good. My favourite moment in the whole movie was when he was praying to God, and asked him to "kill Peter Parker". That was a truly chilling moment.

But back to the plot holes: they didn't need the butler. If Harry comes in at the end, it should be to save MJ, and that alone. Way more interesting angle -- the unlikely team-up, and then you have another element to the fight -- if they are victorious, do they then fight each other????

Why redeem the Goblin? Why redeem Harry and Peter's relationship? Why go for the happy ending when tragedy is so much more interesting...

SHAUN:
Happy ending? Dude he DIED. DEAD. Peter Parker's best and only friend in the whole world died, and thats a happy ending? Harry finally learned the truth about his best friend and his father, who was a raving lunatic who didn't love his only son, and died helping him save the girl they both loved and thats a happy ending? Just because Harry redeemed himself and finally made the right decision for the first time in the whole trilogy, does not make it a happy ending.He finally learned the truth and died to save his best friend whom he had despised for all the wrong reasons. I think thats pretty tragic dude.

AARON:
Meh. I didn't care by the time Harry died, because the story had gotten all stupid by that point. Intellectually I see your point. Emotionally, I felt nothing. I didn't care. Sure he learned the truth about his father, but the way the story revealed this (like you said) was a plot device that was forced and, well, stupid.

They shot themselves in the foot. I really didn't care when he died, I didn't care that he forgave the Sandman, and I definitely didn't care that he got back with MJ. And that makes it a terrible movie.

SHAUN:
I should add that I read a review which said the movie was crap before I saw it so I had zero expectations going in, while I am guessing you thought you were going to see the coolest movie ever, hence your huge disappointment.

AARON:
Yeah... I was expecting brilliance. I heard mixed reviews too, but man, this was supposed to be good. It was the foundation of the comic book movie industry. It had the creative core that made #1 good, and #2 great. What the hell happened.

SHAUN:
Overall I do not know who to blame the producers or Raimi. He has stated numerous time in the past he is a fan of the 60s comics and the 60s comics only. He does not like Venom and never wanted to involve him.He had the power to say look I am fucking sam the man let me make the movie I want to make. He should have stuck to his guns, introduced the suit and just left venom for number 4, especially since he and the cast have expressed zero interest in returning. w

AARON:
Raimi co-wrote the film along with Ivan Raimi (his brother?) and some dude named Alvin. The two Raimi's are also credited with the story. I don't know man. I think they dropped the ball on this one. Maybe they were drunk with power, like George Lucas making the Star Wars prequels...

I think the first sequel to all the comic book movies seem to be the best: Spiderman 2, X-Men 2 were the best movies in the trilogies. So I still have hope for FF.

SHAUN:
LOL I still think Xmen 3 was better then 1 and 2 put together, lol. Yes they may have been better dramatic movies but I dont watch comic book movies to get my drama fix, I want balls to the wall action and that was Xmen 3. The first comic movie without a silly love story for the girls.

AARON:
Oh, I don't know, Shaun -- action is fine, but I think you like story too. Don't mistake romance for story. X-men 3 had a great plot and should have been just as good as 2, except they tried to do too much just like Spiderman 3 -- Dark Phoenix Saga, the Cure saga, the Death of Professor X saga -- it's like they're trying to condense all the best storylines told over years of publishing comic books into a single film, and then the movie suffers.
I think romance can work in comic book movies but it has to be done right, and you can't sacrifice action for the romance.

SHAUN:
Yes but I refuse to dislike a movie for what it isn't rather then what it is. I know I get disappointed a lot when I see a movie for the first time and I have these great expectations for what I want to see, and it's usually starts off as "well in the comics......." I think that Xmen 3 Did a damn fine job of wrapping up its storylines and character progression of the first two movies and the movies alone. Aaron superhero movies are just like the Ultimate line, they are their own stories and theirs alone.Yes they draw INSPIRATION from some classic storylines but they are not adaptations of those storylines. XMEN3 took some elements from some classic stories but still managed to use all of them to tell its own story, and used it to create a satisfying conclusion that never contradicted what had come before. It all made sense. But you are correct that the same can not be said for spiderman 3.

AARON:
You know what I wish they could have done with Venom? Make a Secret Wars movie. Then a movie with Spidey dawning the black suit in New York, and really REALLY make him go down a bad road, until he finally separates himself from it and THEN make a 3rd movie with Venom.
That's what I wish. Sucks to be me.

SHAUN:
I know Aaron, that is why we need to be in the power positions in Hollywood. Let the real fans make the movies and not the suits that read comics when they were 10 and thought spiderman was neat.

SPIDER-MAN 3

2007-05-07T12:33:00.001-04:00

WARNING: If you haven’t seen SPIDER-MAN 3 yet, and still want to go, stop reading right now…

I went to see SPIDER-MAN 3, Sunday evening. I felt like I was taking a chance, going on opening weekend but, surprisingly, there was no line up for the 7 p.m. show. When the commercials started at 10 minutes to, the theatre wasn’t even half-full. When previews finally ended (at 7:25!), there were still empty seats all around me.

I thought to myself: well maybe people don’t go to movies in Toronto. Maybe they like… I don’t know… plays? Concerts? Maybe they’re not as movie-crazy here as they are in Edmonton.

Nope.

SPIDER-MAN 3 sucks. That’s it. And I’m so disappointed.

And to top it off… I think I just witnessed the end of “superheroes” dominating Hollywood films.

SPIDER-MAN was the cornerstone franchise of both Hollywood’s and (especially) Marvel’s superhero-movie industry. No one was doing it better (except maybe X-MEN 2). Character, style, story and F/X all seemed to come together in the SPIDER-MAN movies; Sam Raimi made great superhero flicks. He seemed to get it, while the others (Marvel and DC alike) always had the stink of producers fucking with it for ever-more profit.

Now SPIDER-MAN stinks the same way.

From start to finish, the movie tried to do too much, be everything to anyone who bought a ticket, rendering the movie meaningless to everyone who watches it. From the weird disco-strutting “bad” Peter Parker, to the deus-ex-machina butler who “cleaned your father’s wounds”, to the news-report telling the audience what they are supposed to feel watching the climactic final battle, to the Sandman blowing away into the sunrise as Spider-Man forgives him (and therefore forgives himself)…

“All we are is dust in the wind…”

If I start going into details about the movie I’ll never stop writing. I’ll give you one example that illustrates my point: the throng of cheering, adoring fans who think Spider-Man is number one... AT THE END OF THE MOVIE.

Yes, Spider-Man can be popular within his own mythology at certain points, and the movie was bang-on in this by having it feed his ego and making him screw everything up. We love this about Spider-Man because it shows how he’s fallible, just like us. However, in the comics, Spider-Man is continually vilified and generally disliked even after he vanquishes his enemies. He’s unpopular within his own mythology, and audiences love that about him.

Because he perseveres. He chooses to do good no matter what because it’s his responsibility to do so, because of Uncle Ben’s immortal: “With great power comes great responsibility.” He’s a modern-day Sisyphus.

In the first movie, Aunt May says to Peter, “You’re not Superman.” And she’s right. In this movie, though, the producers seemed to forget that, and tried to make him into Superman-with-a-spider-mask. Their transparency is highlighted by the “Spider-pose” in front of the American Flag, as the audience cheers him into battle (…and the news reporter telling us that people are cheering for Spider-Man... just to make sure that we got it.)

But it is the producers who missed the point: we love how Spider-Man is reviled. We love that he puts his responsibilities above everything else. We hope that things will get better for poor Peter Parker; we secretly love that he suffers. It makes us want to buy the next issue.

SPIDER-MAN 3 does not make me want to see the next movie.

And, now what hope does the rest of the comic book inspired movies have now that their centerpiece has fallen? I mean, I'm excited for the next FANTASTIC FOUR movie, but I'm a comic book geek and even I admit the first FANTASTIC FOUR movie wasn't very good. Who else but the geeks are going to support these movies?

And... when are the geeks going finally give up on them... because they KEEP SCREWING IT UP!

A-hem.

I get excited about these things because I have a vested interest in superhero-based entertainment being popular among the masses. I wrote a story about a superhero -- I called him "Superhero" -- and I want the superhero boom to keep on rolling. When I see movies like SPIDER-MAN 3, I have my doubts.

So I don't know what to tell you. Go see it so that they keep investing money into superhero stories? Don't go see it because it's not what makes superhero stories cool?

Maybe this... download the Superhero Live! podcasts and listen to how's it's supposed to be done...

hehe.

The beginning...?

2007-05-03T12:29:00.001-04:00

Where to start?

My name's Aaron. I am a multi-disciplinary theatre artist originally from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. I just moved to Toronto last month. I've trained at the UofA BFA (Acting) program and got my degree in 2001. I do collective creation, physical theatre, and I like multi-media. I also like comics... a lot.

I've been nominated twice for an AMPIA award ("best actor") in 2006 and in 2007, but apparently that doesn't mean as much here in T.O. as my BFA does. I'm getting more and more into writing and directing as my career progresses.

Now that I'm in Toronto, my career is either going to stall right out or I am going to start fresh and explode right out of the gates... Right now I am unemployed and totally broke. *sigh*

This blog has been started in support of my website:

http://www.superherolive.com

What is Superhero Live! ???

Superhero Live! is an epic tale of heroism, adventure and… rock!!! The story of Superhero’s origin and first adventure is an eight-part mini-series developed for online delivery as 15-20 minute audio podcasts. It is a love song dedicated to pop culture and is action packed to boot!

...imagine Tenacious D in a head-on collision with Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Fans of The Mighty Boosh, you'll like this too.

Where can I listen to it?

Anywhere you like. (hehe)
Okay, here's where you can find it:
http://www.superherolive.com/podcast.htm
or
http://www.indyish.com/podcast/
or (if you're on Facebook)
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2673005654

...there's a MySpace page too, but to be honest, I haven't updated it in weeks and weeks...

Beyond shameless self-promotion, I will try to post some actual ideas and thoughts on here once and a while too.

Another word about this blog. About 2 or 3 years ago, my good buddy Shaun told me that all he wants to do is wander the earth and spread righteousness. I'm gonna try to emulate that here.

"There are two kinds of people in this world: those who might imagine a whole other, fantastic reality from the world we know… and those who participate in that reality."
-- Shady Character (Episode 2)