Parabasis

Fan Service

by 99 Seats

The Hold Steady, last night, Music Hall of Williamsburg. Photo by my friend, Lynn

As many, if not most, folks I know know about me, I'm a very, very big fan of the Brooklyn-based, Minnesota-born band, The Hold Steady. Isaac dislikes them intensely, particularly the voice of lead singer Craig Finn, so I will spare his ears out of respect and not post a video. Instead, you get the sweaty, manic visage of the man himself, just the way I saw him last night at The Music Hall of Williamsburg.

This is what joy looks like to me. And this is what the reciprocal loop of loving your audience and your audience loving you should look and feel like.

The Hold Steady are nothing if not a fan's band. One of their lyrics goes "Our psalms are sing along songs." And all of The Hold Steady's songs are sing alongs. From the first mighty guitar licks, the sold-out house was singing, chanting and screaming along, pretty much everyone in the house knew every word of every song. Craig tends to cram words into his lyrics, switchbacks, double entendres (some are nearly puns), and just too damn many words, but each of them were shouted out by a sweaty, roiling mob. I've been to a bunch of their shows, but I've never been that far upfront before. While my ears are still ringing and I've probably done permanent damage to my hearing (what's that you say?), it was worth it.

I went into the show almost literally after getting off the bus from D.C. so all of that conversation and thought was still in my head and it was hard not to look at the evening through the lens of some of the issues and questions that came up. I've often said that theatres and theatre artists should approach their work more like bands. In the past, I've emphasized the marketing and fan connection aspect of that. But I think there are some organizational and business models to look at. Not to mention artistic models for collaboration and connections.

The Hold Steady is a band. When I saw them last night, it was a band that consisted of a drummer, a bassist and three guitarists (well, really, 2 and a half; Craig mostly sang.). That wasn't the band that I saw the first time I saw them. When I first saw the band, they had a keyboardist, Franz Nicolay. He was a big presence, kind of flashy and outrageous and when he was in the band, the songs were drenched in keyboards: piano, accordion, organ. The songs had long piano solos, and were, in some ways, more contemplative and introspective. But that wasn't how the band started. It started off as a quartet, two guitars, a bass and drums. When they added Franz, their sound changed. Now that he's gone, the sound has changed again.

But here's the thing: all of the songs are written by Craig (or nearly all). It's his voice and his vision...to a certain extent. Who he works with and how they work, though, determine the sound and the effect. Your collaborators feed you and you feed them. And obviously, if the other band members weren't feeling Craig's vision, they could move on.

But the changes go both ways. The Hold Steady's first album was different from their fourth, because of the influence of Franz. The whole point of collaborative arts is that the changes go both ways. And I can't think of a playwright trained in the last twenty-five years who doesn't embrace the collaborative nature of our work. So maybe, we all embrace it.

Find a partner, a director, a designer and become a twosome. Add actors, make a band. Reach your fans. There may be something to all of this.

The Greatest

By Isaac Butler

Today, Terry Teachout calls Brian Friel "the greatest playwright of the English-speaking world."  Oh dear. I owe Terry Teachout two enormous debts of gratitude, the first for helping to boost both Parabasis and my public profile early and often and the second for making sure that the NYRB brought The Dud Avocado back into my life. But I have to disagree with him here.

I'm also going to assume Terry meant living English language playwrights and either way I'm not well versed in Friel's work enough to mount a serious argument on Terry's statement (because I've never liked his work enough to investigate deeper) so instead, I ask you for your own candidates for TGPOTE-SW.  Have at it in the comments!

(PS: Yes I had a long post ready to go about Rocco's comments and yes the need for that post was totally abrogated by Rocco writing a follow-up blog post about it so this is the best I can do in a pinch.)

From the Horse's Mouth

by 99 Seats

And Rocco responds! And doubles down! Interesting stuff. Lots, and I mean, LOTS more to talk about here.

It's getting interesting out here...

Rocco Sock-o

by 99 Seats

Um. So. Yeah. Rocco Landesman made some news at the Arena Stage covening this week. It was the opening keynote address heard 'round the theatre world, I suppose. Well, it's not often you have the director of the NEA say that we need less arts in the country.

Except that's not what he said at all. And he didn't say we need to close small theatres, or regional theatres, or anything of the like. Even in the moment, though, people reacted as if that was what he said. Basically he was treated as if he'd announced the NEA was only going to fund Broadway shows. Which is largely the opposite of what he said, especially in context.

Trisha's post give a really good rundown of the main points he went over. If I were to sum up what he had to say in one sentence, well, I'd rip off another guy who stirred some shit up when he said it: the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. Rocco started off railing about enhancement money and how it was corrupting the missions of non-profit theatres. Ironically, this is a practice he basically started with the La Jolla production of Big River back in the '80s:

Enhancement money is key to the Dodgers approach. "I'm feeling very old," says Strong, "because I can still remember the first time Jujamcyn's Rocco Landesman used the word 'enhancement,' talking about giving money to La Jolla Playhouse for Big River—somewhere around $75,000 in addition to what they had budgeted for it. The enhancement monies were to cover additional costs of sets, lighting, and so on."

Now, though, he's very much against it and against the cozy relationship between commercial producers and non-profit theatres. And most of disgust is directed at the theatres, not the producers. He basically stated that he thought the relationship has been of greater benefit to the Broadway community, but great detriment to the non-profits.

The guy was a great quote generator, right from the start. It all kind of blew by us so quickly that the larger implications behind what he was saying didn't really take root for a couple of days. When he started off talking about the difference between the commercial theatre and the non-profit (or regional or resident) theatre being more than what tax return you file, it sounded kind of cranky and, especially coming from a somewhat reformed commercial producer, like a smackdown. But it's a real point. Underneath the skin, shouldn't they be different? Shouldn't they have different missions? And isn't really the complaint about the major non-profits that they are functionally operating like commercial producers?

He was full of bile, making it clear which theatres he had disdain for. I think you can guess the name of the elephant in the room when he was talking about theatres that are functionally commercial producers, but taking advantage of non-profit status to pay artists and techies less and produce at a lower cost than competing commercial producers. You know, roustabouts like that. Anyhoo. It was in that context, as I saw it, that he started saying we have too many theatres.

Here the commercial producer in him really reared its head. He mentioned the new numbers out from the National Arts Index to say that demand is dropping off, so supply should be. But it's not. And that's a fair question. Several people, both at the convening and on Twitter and the blogs after, have pushed back at the notion that "demand" had dropped off. Scott Walters was one, as was my friend Jeni Mahoney from the Seven Devils Playwrights Conference. Both of them noted already well-known coastal/urban bias in NEA grants and LORT theatres. To his credit, Rocco was pretty receptive to them and to Kirk Lynn from RudeMechs, who was legitimately apoplectic over Rocco's suggestion that NEA should shift to giving fewer and larger grants.

But, I think, when you add up what Rocco was saying, it seems less like he's aiming at taking the little guys out of the equation and more like he's re-evaluating his funding priorities on the basis of what kind of work a theatre is doing. If a theatre is effectively a commercial producer, but still needs the NEA to survive, it's doing something wrong.

But his point about supply and demand...what if he's just...right? And actual demand for our product is waning and won't significantly rebound. We offer, in most cases, a luxury good, inconvenient, time- and resource-intensive, an experience that can be more reliably replaced with other art forms. Is flooding the market with more theatres necessarily going to create more interest, in and of itself? But that's what we're doing: 3,000 new arts organizations have cropped up in the last three years, when the economy is in the tank. It's like we're opening Hummer dealerships. We're opening Five Guys, next to Fuddrucker's, next to McDonald's, next to Burger King. Maybe we don't need all of them. Or maybe we don't need all of them to be serving the same needs and audience.

Obviously, though, the place to trim isn't at the bottom, but at the top. If you look at the list of NEA grantees over the last couple of years, you're going to see some familiar names, some large (in some cases, VERY large) theatres that are receiving grants. Maybe the NEA needs to look at its grant requirements and make some small changes. Maybe it needs to shift its focus. Well, not much in the way of "maybe" there.

But maybe we also need to look at the field differently. Stop building quite so many institutions that need to last forever, or that grow and grow well beyond their own capacity and support. If you can't support yourself, maybe you do need to close. And something better get built in your place.

A lot of folks, and, in particular, the marketing folks who were in attendance for (or have heard about) Rocco's speech were suitably apoplectic about his flippant comment about the lack of demand for the work we do. I absolutely agree that there are ways to reach new audiences that aren't being served. I sincerely and absolutely do. BUT. If we're talking about finding new audience who will like what we're serving just because we asked them to come in a different way...we're going to be sorely mistaken about that. If we want new audiences we have to think about new things to give them. New stories. New people on stage. New ideas to feed them. What is absolutely waning is the audience taste for the work we are doing. Doing more of the same isn't the answer.

The other section of the Great Rocco Smackdown that really shouldn't go unnoticed was his full-throated defense of providing actual living wages for artists. Part of his point about having less theatres was that, then, with more resources focused in fewer places, we could maybe, just maybe, start pulling our artists out of poverty. The idea that a theatre could consider itself successful or even solvent without paying its artists a living wage should be offensive to all of us. And yet, we accept it. I was very, very glad to see the NEA chairman even bring this up.

There was even more there, like the bubble that's being created in our field by the proliferation of arts training programs at the undergrad and grad level...but, you know, this is enough to get started on, isn't it?

UPDATE: In case you're not following it, there are great comments happening at Arena Stage's New Play Blog. Also, Adam Thurman weighs in and kicks ass. And Travis Bedard was the first out of the box on Rocco. All worth taking a look at.

A Quick Note On Wikipedia

By Isaac Butler

I'm not sure that I share Jonathan Lethem's Wiki-hate, but I had an experience today that rather hilariously reinforced the kinds of concerns he highlights in his brief Atlantic Monthly piece.  To whit, if you look up Spiro Agnew, and scroll down to the "trivia" section, you will find, in the following order:

• (1) Something about the television series Angel
• (2) Something about the television series Futurama
• (3) Something about a Creedence song
• (4) Something about the tv show Teen Titans (about junior DC superheros)
• (5) Something actually trivial and interesting about Spiro Agnew
• (6) Something about King Crimson
• (7) Something about Frank Zappa
• (8) Something about Norm McDonald's short-lived sitcom.

Mmm. Yes. Can you smell the wisdom delivered by that crowd?

True Grit

By Isaac Butler

Is it possible that I wasn't that into the movie because of its religiosity? This Stanley Fish review has got me thinking about that. 

WTF Is Devised Work, Anyway?

By Isaac Butler

99 and I were talking about having this conversation on Parabasis about Devised Work and I thought I'd get the ball rolling.

For those of you who read this site who aren't big into theatre... Devised Work is kind of hot right now, but it's also not especially well defined, because it seems to be both a method of constructing theatre and an aesthetic that work created through that method tends to adhere to.  As a method, it's basically a play that is created without a written script as a starting point.  Generally, collaborators (who may be any mix of writers, actors, directors and designers) begin from some kind of starting point-- a title, a found text or film, a line of inquiry-- and from that they generate a play.

That work tends to adhere to certain aesthetics of experimental theatre. It tends to be deliberately messy in its narrative structure and/or stuffed the gills with thematic content. There's frequently post-modern dance breaks in it. Video work if often integrated. It may be missing some of the components of traditional drama (such as characters, or plot, or words). 

There's a number of reasons why  it's worth asking this question about devised work as a process vs. devised work as an aesthetic and inquiring deeper into it as a field, now that it's kind of ascendant.  First off, do audiences care about how a play is created? Should they?

Second, what about devised work that eventually is crafted by playwrights, directors and actors in a more traditional structure? The Civilians, The Debate Society and Young Jean Lee's company all use devising processes, but the shows they produce are written, directed and acted by people in fixed roles (even if those roles overlap).  Are they still devised work? Are they devised work once actors other than the original development company take over roles ?  What about when other companies license the scripts and do the shows?

If a playwright writes a play for a specific group of actors, and then meets with those actors and discusses the play with them and with a director and then does rewrites and then mounts the play with that cast and that director... is it a devised work? Does it become a devised work if they call themselves a company and get their 501(c)3 status?

Is Cloud Nine a piece of devised theatre? 

I ask these questions because it seems to me that what is most exciting about devised work is, in fact, what is oldest about it.  It represents a stealthy way to reintroduce to our theatremaking system a very traditional method for making plays wherein roles are written with particular performers in mind who also go on to actually play those roles instead of being replaced for someone who used to be on Charles In Charge or whatever and may also participate in the research and development of the material. And if theaters want to embrace that method of making plays instead of the standard deal they've gotten going on right now that most people insist isn't working, then I think that's great.

What I've noticed in most of the work that openly embraces the label "devised work" is that I frequently end up wishing it had whichever staff member they've eschewed (generally either a director or a single person tasked with writing/assembling/structuring the text). And that a lot of work I've seen that embraces the label devised or company created work makes work they call final products that really should be called development workshops.  And that the more focused on talking about how awesome their process is, the more likely it is that that process is being used to justify shoddy work. This isn't always true, of course. But it often is.

And I notice that, depending on what your definition of a devised piece is, all sorts of work can fall into it.  The Civilians aren't called a devising company, but they have a research process and the first productions of the plays they write generally feature the people involved in that research process in the roles they've researched etc. 

I'm just wondering if the term has meaning or at the end of the day is simply something that a group of artistic collaborators adopt so that they won't be fucked with by theaters. And again, I go back to audiences. Does this term have any value for audiences? Or is it so elastic that it just kinda means "it's going to be weird?"

UPDATE: Guy Yedwab takes a crack at answering some of the questions above. Check it out!

Ryan Express

by 99 Seats

Pop quiz: who was the House Budget Committee Chairman in 2006? Don't Google or Wikipedia it. Just guess. Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?

It was John Spratt of South Carolina. And I had to Google it. And Wikipedia it. And wound up on SourceWatch after Googling it again.

You know what John Spratt didn't get? A two-minute puff piece on ABC News. But Paul Ryan sure does.

Now, I'm all for differing points of view and ideas about governing and for robust conversation. But giving this guy an on-air hummer is doing none of that. But this seems to be the pattern with our media. The voices of left-wing thinkers and politicians are ignored while right-wing politicians and pundits can literally do nothing to get them to yank the cameras away. Not even be totally and completely wrong about their signature issue.

It's this bias that drives me crazy. How can we honestly and thoughtfully debate the issues of the day as a country if the media is keeping one finger on the scale all the time? Well, we can't. And we're seeing where that leads us.

Sometimes I think paying attention is doing serious harm to my mind and soul.

Quote of the Day

by 99 Seats

Gail Collins edition:

If Palin and Bachmann were your co-workers, Palin would be the one sneaking out early to go bowling, while Bachmann would stay late to reorganize the office seating chart to reflect her own personal opinion of who most deserves to be near the water cooler.

The View From The Ground Up

by 99 Seats

This is not liveblogging. It's, well, as a tip of the hat to my favorite band, I'll call it a scene report. We're motoring into the last day of From Scarcity to Abundance, the big ol' convening/conference/free-for-all that the Arena Stage has been hosting. I've been blogging about it on the New Play Blog as it's gone on, side-by-side with Trisha Mead. You should definitely be reading the whole thing to get a sense of what's going on. I think we'll be talking about this stuff for a while to come.

Hell, folks are already talking about it. And today we're talking about next steps, new (or better) ideas, synthesizing everything that's happened. Like I said, there's been a lot on a lot of axes.

And what's going on here? A little bit of everything. A little bitching. A little puffery. A little tough talk. A little bravado. A little whining. Basically the kind of things you would expect from any group of folks, particularly a bunch of hyper-educated, hyper-literate, passionate, committed folks. There have been sparks, conflict, friction, agreement, grant-speak, bad language, straight-shootin'. It's been a challenging few days, honestly.

Already there have been some misconceptions and misunderstanding about the vibe here, particularly about the Rocco throwdown, even by folks here. I'm looking forward to getting into all of this. But for right now, smart people are talking, so I'm gonna listen.

#newplay

by 99 Seats

I'm currently in Washington, D.C. at Arena Stage's super-awesome stunning new home, participating in and blogging about From Scarcity to Abundance: Capturing the Moment for the New Work Sector. It's kind of a Convening of All Convenings, bringing folks who have attended the convenings and conversations about new work that the Arena Stage has hosted for the last year or so. It's a pretty grand time.

I'm blogging about it for Arena Stage's New Play Blog, and you can check out the various Twitter feeds of participants and attendees. Yes, including me, actually. You can also search for the hashtag #newplay to get the goods.

This has already been a great conversation. Feel free to join in.

83rd Oscar Nominations

by Nicole Beth Wallenbrock

 
The nominations for the 83^rd Oscars are out. While ten “best picture” nominations may still seem double it makes room for more indie features such as: 127 hours, The Black Swan, The Kids Are Alright, and with no celebrities Winter’s Bone the most independent of the bunch.  The Golden Globes indicate that Nathalie Portman will win again for Black Swan—not  No Strings Attached.  However, both the Golden Globes and the Academy recognized Jennifer Lawrence’s  performance in Winter’s Bone  with a nomination. In her first film, Lawrence plays a stoic teen in the Ozarks struggling to support her family and to find her missing meth cooker dad.  14-year-old Haillee Steinfield as Mattie Ross in True Grit, is another girl searching, this time knowing beforehand her father is dead. A favorite for best supporting actress, the part could be interpreted as a leading role. Although Facebook as publicity surpasses any Oscar campaign, The King’s Speech has eleven nominations  making it a likely winner  for the Best Picture award.

The rest of the nominations: http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/83/nominees.html

In 1968 Stanley Kubrick won a Best Visual Effects Oscar for 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Quick Note On Taxes and the SOTU

By Isaac Butler

Obama mentioned how high our Corporate Tax Rate is and expressed a desire to lower this and to make up the revenue by simplifying the corporate tax code, eliminating a bunch of deductions and dodges.

While I applaud that idea, it's worth noting that one of the reasons why our corporate tax rate is high compared to other nations is that our top income tax rate is low. And thanks to to the tax cut compromise, it will remain low for at least two more years. Even reverting to the Clinton era rates, it would still be too low.

A country like Denmark, for example, has a 25% corporate tax rate. But their top income tax rate is 50%.  Ireland's famously (and, it turns out, disastrously) low corporate tax rate is 12%, but their top income tax rate is 44%. The UK has a top corporate tax rate of 28% but a top income tax rate of 50%. Australia has a top corporate tax rate of 30%, they have a top income tax rate of 45%. Additioanlly, many first world nations have VATs, which further increases the tax load on individuals.

Meanwhile, we have no VAT and our top income tax rate (like our top corporate tax rate) is 35%. You cannot continue to do what the voters (and even the Republicans) say they want to do with those tax rates. We're going to have to start about additional source of revenue, cuts and simplification aren't going to be enough, particualrly when Republicans are opposed to any increaed efficiency in Medicare. One step that makes sense to do immediately would be to tax capital gains as income.

Quick Note On Taxes and the SOTU

By Isaac Butler

Obama mentioned how high our Corporate Tax Rate is and expressed a desire to lower this and to make up the revenue by simplifying the corporate tax code, eliminating a bunch of deductions and dodges.

While I applaud that idea, it's worth noting that one of the reasons why our corporate tax rate is high compared to other nations is that our top income tax rate is low. And thanks to to the tax cut compromise, it will remain low for at least two more years. Even reverting to the Clinton era rates, it would still be too low.

A country like Denmark, for example, has a 25% corporate tax rate. But their top income tax rate is 50%.  Ireland's famously (and, it turns out, disastrously) low corporate tax rate is 12%, but their top income tax rate is 44%. The UK has a top corporate tax rate of 28% but a top income tax rate of 50%. Australia has a top corporate tax rate of 30%, they have a top income tax rate of 45%. Additioanlly, many first world nations have VATs, which further increases the tax load on individuals.

Meanwhile, we have no VAT and our top income tax rate (like our top corporate tax rate) is 35%. You cannot continue to do what the voters (and even the Republicans) say they want to do with those tax rates. We're going to have to start about additional source of revenue, cuts and simplification aren't going to be enough, particualrly when Republicans are opposed to any increaed efficiency in Medicare. One step that makes sense to do immediately would be to tax capital gains as income.

More On The Gendered Lens

By Isaac Butler   

This time, in interviews with Hillary Clinton and Condi Rice. 

Glenn Beck vs. Frances Fox Piven

By Isaac Butler

After the Tucson shootings, I felt somewhat agnostic about the whole "violent rhetoric" thing. I think many were, perhaps, overstating the linkages between violent rhetoric and the shooting itself.  At the same time, the institutional right in this country uses violent, insurrectionist and inappropriate rhetoric and I'd been arguing that we needed to shed some light and heat on that ever since the Tea Party Summer.

Having that conversation now is not (to my mind) the same as having a conversation about Marilyn Manson lyrics or The Matrix right after Columbine. We can, in fact, draw linkages between violent right wing rhetoric and threats made on people's lives. While I would never argue that people don't have a right to say this kind of stuff, it does not then also hold that calls for Right Wing demagogues to tone it down are inappropriate.

Witness, for example, Glenn Beck's campaign against Frances Fox Piven, the 78 year old CUNY Graduate professor whom he dubbed one of the nine most dangerous people in the world.  Why?  Because 45 years ago, she published a paper in which she argued for a strategy of intentionally collapsing welfare through increased enrollment in order to create a new system in which an annual income would be guaranteed.  

Here's what some of Beck's fans have written on his website in response:

“Be very careful what you ask for honey…A few well placed marksmen with high powered rifles…”

“Maybe they should burst through the front door of the arrogant elitist and slit the cow’s throat.”

“Somebody tell Frances I have 5,000 rounds ready.”

“We should blow up Piven’s office and home.”

“Let’s go string her up.”

“Snap her little chicken neck. This pinko filth needs a long dirt nap.”

Now look, most if not all of this is hot air and macho posturing from disturbed people, but it's worth saying Glenn Beck et al intentionally whip these people up for personal (and political) gain. And I don't think-- given that we're at a moment of trying to chill out our national conversation-- it's inappropriate to call these people out.

Peter Marks on David Muse and Joy Zinoman

By Isaac Butler  

Thus saith Peter Marks in the WaPo:

Muse could not diverge much more from Zinoman in style and training. She was intuitive and emotional (you could hear her sniffling in the audience on opening nights); he's coolly cerebral and kind of Zen. At a series of get-acquainted dinners in board members' homes, such as the one last month in board President Susan Butler's house overlooking Rock Creek Park, Muse dutifully thanks the friendly crowd for its support, but the index cards he holds for security indicate that he is not yet well versed in how to command a room.

Like Zinoman, the rehearsal room is where he's most comfortable, although his path to it was far more academic. Zinoman was an autodidact: She was a child actress in Chicago and later exercised her passion for theater in her years overseas with her husband Murray, a Foreign Service officer. Muse, who grew up in Fulton, Mo., came to Washington in 1996 as a Teach for America recruit after completing an undergraduate degree at Yale, where he devised his own major (ethics, politics and economics). He taught math at Eastern High School during the day and attended classes at night in Studio's acting conservatory before returning to New Haven for a master's degree in directing from Yale's drama school.

I don't know the work of incoming Studio Theatre artistic director David Muse very well.  I know it by its sterling reputation and I've met David once or twice and quite like him. So for all I know, Peter Marks is correct when he talks about David Muse being coolly cerebral and "Kinda Zen."  But I really have to push back against the idea that Joy Zinoman as a director is "intuitive and emotional," or that she's fully an autodidact.

I was directed by Joy twice, studied at her acting conservatory and she's an old family friend. I've had countless conversations with her about theatre.  And while Joy is certainly emotional, I wouldn't call her working style (or work) intuitive. She's the kind of director who shows up at rehearsal with a fully diagrammed out first draft of blocking and then asks the actors to hold off on their ideas until they try it her way the first time. That's not intuitive. Nor do intuitive, emotional directors make their name directing the work of Tom Stoppard. And there's nothing emotional nor intuitive about guiding a theater through a multi-decade expansion that still left it on sound financial footing.  

Furthermore, Joy isn't really an autodidact so much as simply of a generation that had fewer opportunities for formal directing training. She trained and studied at Northwestern, Radcliffe and American University. Zinoman was in fact preparing for a career as a theater academic when-- as we talked about in the American Theater piece I did on her-- a pregnancy lead her to found an acting school instead.  

This thing feels a little gendered to me.  Or, to put it another way, throughout her entire career, Joy Zinoman as a character has been viewed through gendered prisms.  When I was growing up, the gossip and press about her was that she was and Overbearing, Domineering Shrew. And now as she's retired from the Studio, the image is changing, but it's still one where gender dynamics shape the POV, now she's emotional and intuitive in order to better contrast with her calm, cerebral successor.  She might mist up on opening night, but that has nothing to do with her directing style or aesthetics. 

Well That's (Somewhat) Comforting

By Isaac Butler

The Blag Hag explains (using science!) why it is extremely unlikely that genetics is going to lead to people deciding the sexual orientation of their children. 

The House Of Blue Leaves Revival

By Isaac Butler

Quick question...  Maybe Chicago people can help me out on this one:  Does David Cromer have any kind of track record of getting the kind of comedy that House of Blue Leaves requires? Because his NYC work is all praised for its gentleness and straightforwardness and whatnot. And what I've seen of his work doesn't attest to any kind of predilection for the kind of tonal approach Blue Leaves demands. I mean, it's most resolutely not a gentle play. 

I'm not saying he can't do it. Let us all praise the idea of the versatile freelancer! I'm just wondering if people who know his pre-NYC work better than I do think of his sensibility for that material.

Annie, Are You Okay?

By Isaac Butler

This is actually much better if you don't watch it and just listen. Whew, boy can editing really ruin the shit out of something...