Vote For Comment of the Week

Here are this week's contenders:

Student #1 has left a new comment on your post "Here's A Wild Idea For Shakespeare: Do It His Way":

This is great, for several reasons.
First of all, I think that history is neat, and historically accurate things are awesome. Going to this show would seem like a half-way point between conventional theater and a medieval recreation at a museum or something, and I would absolutely love to experience it, purely for its historical value.
The second reason, of course, is that I'm tired of Shakespeare being re-invented in modern times and places(as most of us are). The argument often seems to be that audiences can't relate to events set in the middle ages. Uh, wrong. Sure, I can't quite understand what it's like to be a knight, but that's not what Shakespeare's plays are about. They're about people living life, and that's something that I can definitely relate to on a pretty basic level. If a play is good, it doesn't need its setting to be completely changed for the sake of relevance. The only thing that I think can be confusing to certain audiences in those plays is the language, and throwing a leather jacket on the actor delivering the lines really won't enhance comprehension of a way of speaking that most of us are unfamiliar with. And on a more personal note, I don't relate to Romeo and Juliette when it's set in the inner city between two rival gangs in modern times any more than I do when it's set in Verona, several hundred years ago.

So, the point is, yay Globe Theater. I have nothing against re-inventing old classics, but it's now way overdone and it's nice to see some change. You can always count on the British to bring some good old tradition back into our world of moon Othello's and other heresies. 

Student #2 has left a new comment on your post "Do U.S. Arts Suffer From A Lack of Working Class V...":

I was just talking to a friend about how expensive art school is and it just doesn't make sense. It cuts out regular folk or it puts you into a lot of debt. Also, artists usually don't make that much money, so overall it just really doesn't make sense. Also, why do art when you know it is never going to be profitable? Sad, but usually pretty true. You don't go into the arts to make money -- you do it because you love it. But also frustratingly this makes it impossible for many of people to do.Then I found this article. The author poses some good questions at the end -- does programming not connect to audiences because of the privileged backgrounds that many artists come from or do those with money have the influence over what is being shown/performed/made, etc.? I think there are artists from all walks of life, despite expenses, lack of funding, etc. I think maybe the second question is more worth exploring -- do those who fund the arts control the arts? I'm not sure -- to an extent, certainly. But there are still performances, art spaces, shows, etc. out there doing their thing despite financial instability. Interesting questions. I'm sure there are some very interesting answers out there with more research. I'd be interested to hear what is found. 

Student #3 has left a new comment on your post "'Princess Bride' Stage Show in the Works":

This is a terrible idea., mind you, usually when talk rolls around about making classic films into stage shows I hands down agains it. I realize theater is about being open minded but something so classic should not be altered. Look at Big fish for example, the film was excellent, witty, charming, and magical. The Broadway show on the other hand was a flub. The problem is that there is a difference in the way a film goes about telling a story and the way a stage show does it. I'm not saying I'm entirely against adaptation. It works wonders when books are turned into films and plays. Animated films also tend to make great musicals ( Julie Taymor's the Lion King being a prime example.) The thing about the story told in the princess bride is that part of the humor in the story relies on film aspects. The fire swamp horrors and the rodents of unusual would not be the same on stage because they can't embrace the campy film quality the the movie has and if the stage version tries to encompass that, it is a very different play. The other part of the film that I don't see an easy way to change into a stage version is the scenes where is cuts between the grandfather telling the story to is sick grandson and the actual tale of buttercup. Those scenes are as funny as they are because of their abrupt nature. There's a sudden cut and the audience is left yelling "wait go back, I want to know what happens" you can't create that effect as well with a black out or a frozen pose because you can still see the performers on stage. You know they are there and that they'll have to move eventually. When you cut to a different screen in film you loose the image and are give no promise that it will return. And those are just some of the problems with creating a stage version of it, don't even get me started on a musical version. I think one of the biggest issue is that it is a cult classic. If a company wants to try and turn a film into a stage play I can't hate them for trying (as uncreative as it may be). But to take a cult classic loved by so many and possibly ruin it beyond recognition with cheesy gimmicks and unnecessary musical numbers is just wrong, not to mention a slap in the face to the original film. 

Student #4 has left a new comment on your post "See the Freaky, Animatronic Baby That Almost Invad...":

I completely agree with Akiva. They say they did not want to use a "fake thing," and yet they ended up using a fake baby through CGI. The baby was not creepy because it was an animatronic puppet. Sometimes, things are creepy because they look so realistic, but that is not the case in this situation. Chuckesmee doesn't even have the correct human anatomy. Her eyes are too big and spread apart, the face sculpt and makeup do not look human, and a one-day-old baby will never have long eyelashes and that much hair. The puppet itself moved very well, and overall the technology worked. I think the art department made a huge mistake in how the baby looked. If the head sculpt was better and if the artist actually knew how big and where human eyes are on a baby's face, the result would have been better. I have a feeling that they did not recreate a puppet because of the cost. I hope his baby animatronic is done again in the future with a better design aspect because I think this is a really good idea overall. I looked at the Curious Case of Benjamin Button again, and yes you can definitely tell the aged-baby was CGI, but that was a movement issue. It at least looked like a baby. When Benjamin dies, however, I believe they used a real baby. Because the scene was so somber, the baby actually looked wise beyond its years. The only question I have for the director is, "Why didn't you use a real baby?" 

Student #5 has left a new comment on your post "Nuggets mascot ‘Rocky’ collapses after being lower...":

Anyone who has left a comment on this article that stated they didn't know how this happened should click on that link that David posted. This is something that will come up any time you work on a production in which you fly a person. This was an issue we had to face a little bit on Sweeney, and a great deal on Angels. Before we got anywhere near the tech process of either of those shows Carnegie Scenic, Production Management, and Stage Management sat down and figured out how long someone could be suspended in the air in the cage or on the swing for Sweeney or how long the Angel could be suspended in her harness before the performers needed to come down. This time wasn't just how long they were suspended above the stage, but began as soon as the performer's feet left the deck backstage. We made it clear that no matter what was happening on stage if we hit the 10 minute mark of having Imari in the air, we had 2 minutes to begin the process of getting her back into the deck. That didn't only mean she needed to be on the deck, it meant that she needed to come off of the flying rig and walk around for 10 minutes before she could go back up. While this slowed the tech process considerably while training that portion of the show, it was what needed to happen because of the safety constraints.

It sounds like the people who arranged for this mascot to fly in from above the arena didn't know the proper safety protocol for using a harness system. It looks like they had no way for the mascot to communicate that he wasn't feeling well, and no one was monitoring him in order to know that something was wrong. It also looks like the mascot was suspended above the arena while waiting to come in to the floor, and had no way to take the pressure of the harness off of his body. If he needed to be suspended for longer than a few minutes in order to make this effect work, then it never should have even been considered. This was a gross oversight by all involved, and probably could have easily been avoided.

It Did Say I would Lose

Worth a Look

Here are a few posts from last week's Greenpage that might be worth your time...

Do U.S. Arts Suffer From A Lack of Working Class Voices?

Butts In the Seats: There is an ongoing conversation that all children be exposed to the arts and be taught creative expression in school. While affluent communities are no guarantee of arts education in schools, there is a better chance of experiencing the arts in an affluent school district.

Posted by David at 11/15/2013 05:48:00 PM

Nuggets mascot ‘Rocky’ collapses after being lowered from rafters while motionless

The Point Forward - SI.com: “Rocky” the Nuggets mascot reportedly collapsed on the Pepsi Center court after remaining motionless as he was lowered from the rafters before Denver’s home opener against Portland on Friday night. Video of Rocky’s entry — via the Altitude broadcast — can be seen above. The mascot’s arms and legs did not move as he descended with the help of a harness, and his head was slumped forward. Upon dismount, he simply fell to the side.

Posted by David at 11/13/2013 05:19:00 PM

Why Everyone Should Study Stage Combat

HowlRound: “Professional Fight Director and Stage Combat Instructor” is apparently one of the best jobs one can possibly have when attending a cocktail party (though for the record, I would like to state that I always say “playwright” first). Outside of the worlds of theater and film, a surprising number of intelligent and educated people are unaware that the job actually exists. And once they do know, there is a lot of curiosity about how our work is done.

Posted by David at 11/14/2013 05:35:00 PM

Indie Director Ava DuVernay on Dressing for Success

Women and Hollywood: Clothes make the director. That's the lesson filmmaker Ava DuVernay imparted in her keynote speech at the LA Film Independent Forum last week. In her 45-minute speech, the 2012 winner of the Sundance Film Festival's Best Director prize described her "director's uniform," a kind of work armor that's more about self-protection than self-expression.

Posted by David at 11/13/2013 05:15:00 PM

Keeping Creativity In Broadway's Mix

WSJ.com: When Hal Prince produced hits like "West Side Story" and "The Pajama Game," the business of Broadway wasn't quite the high-stakes gamble it is today. Stagehands and wardrobe supervisors gave $500 donations to help him get musicals off the ground, and a $5,000 check was like hitting the jackpot.

Those increments are pocket change in an age when blockbusters like "Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark" cost $75 million, and they wouldn't even be able to move the needle much for relatively modest productions, such as "Peter and the Starcatcher," which cost $4.5 million.

Posted by David at 11/11/2013 02:37:00 PM

Not Encouraging

So Here's My Question

Every news broadcast and many, many articles in my feeds bemoan the disaster that is Obamacare.  Listening to the cacophony is fairly depressing, and over the last few days it has really got me thinking.  My impression was that most of the law hadn't even kicked in yet and that for many of the parts of the law that had begun things were just swell.  So if that's true, who is complaining and what are they complaining about?

Think about it.  Just what is going wrong?

No denial for previous conditions: working.
Insurance company spending directed toward health care spending: working.
Preventive care included with all insurance: working.
Mental health care included with all insurance: working.
No dropping coverage because you get sick: working.
Adult children can stay on their parents' policies longer: working.
No annual or lifetime spending caps: working.
Oh, and millions of people previously ineligible for insurance now eligible:  working.

Those are just the ones I know off the top of my head and I'm not a policy wonk.  But I know it isn't all good...

Healthcare.gov: mostly not working.
"If you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage.": mostly not working.

So there are some things that aren't going well, but looking even a little bit closer is it really that big a deal?  Off the top, we're only talking about people that had no insurance before or were in the individual market.  For people who are the former things are unfortunate, but no worse off than they were before.  For people who are the latter things are also unfortunate, but weren't we told that only 5% on insurance moves through the individual market?  Right, so whatever is going wrong it doesn't impact somewhere in the world of 95% of the public.

However terrible things have rolled out, at most they are terrible for less than 5% of folks that already had insurance.

With that in mind let's recap the things that aren't working.  The website isn't fully functional.  Leaving aside that for some people healthcare.org is working, and leaving aside that there's a telephone alternate (which admittedly is also only partially up to speed), and leaving aside that you can still - just like before - go direct to the insurance company, the federal website is only in play for people that live in states that didn't set up their own exchanges.

In California, Kentucky, Oregon and the other states that didn't leave things to the federal government things are working peachy.  Of the whole of the group vulnerable to this particular issue let's assume that maybe half of them live in states dependent on healthcare.gov.  Put a pin in that.

Then there's the promise: "If you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage."  Part of me wants to fall back on what I said about this during the campaign:  there simply isn't anyone that likes their coverage.  I just always assumed that anyone that liked their coverage either hadn't had to use it or was ignorant of the mechanics in some way.  I thought that promise was hollow to begin with.

But let's assume there actually were people that were happy with their coverage and let's assume that the list of global improvements above is somehow not enough to make the change worth it for them.  From what I've heard maybe 1/3 of these people are actually untouched by the program at this time - they're just either "sure" or terrified something bad is going to happen, but as of yet the fear or the certainty is unsupported.  Another 1/3 of these folks, once they find what their new coverage will be find that they are getting more for less.  And then yes, the remaining 1/3 are a little bit getting screwed for the rest of the country.

Who does that leave with a legitimate beef?  From 1/3 to 1/2 of 5%  Between 1.5 to 2.5% of the population and THAT is only with the caveat that they are totally unmoved by the improvement for the whole.

Why is there so much noise over 2%?

There are going to be things that need to be changed.  There are going to be things that are not going to have the exact consequence when they come into play.  We will need to have frank conversation about those things when they happen.

But can everyone please turn down the volume until there's really something substantive to yammer about?

Coulda Been Worse

Considering we were supposed to lose by more than 30 this wasn't too bad.

But, close doesn't count.  A loss is a loss.  In case someone is counting, this is the second week I've left enough points on the bench to have won.

Comment of the Week

Here are this week's contenders - vote by Friday morning!

Student #1 has left a new comment on your post "Is the Great Recession Over for the Arts?":

This is a really great article for relating to topic talked about in Tech Management and Olivier's Nose. At the end of the article it asked some questions we as a class asked. The first question was "Can a origination be perpetuity?" I think this question is an extremely good question because when writing mission statements most arts organizations create a statement that would would allow the organization to last forever, which does not necessarily done. There can be great arts organizations that do not last forever. I think we shouldn't focus on sad cases such as New York City Opera but, focus on the great companies that can now start from New York City Opera. The rest of the questions the article gave really seemed to be tips for organizations, many of which seemed like things which an organization should be doing to anyways like, being honest with employees, and remain true to the organizations mission. The two tips that I really thought were useful was advising the creation of a smaller board to help make decisions quick and, don't lower your budget on marketing. The smaller board particularly stood out in my mind because it seemed as if that was something to be done in emergencies and that it could be dangerous do to the fact it could leave out important chains of command. A dangerous thing to do when a business is in trouble. I think that this article was great, and I am really glad I read it to get exposed to the economical side of the arts. 

Student #2 has left a new comment on your post "All the News That Fits the Print: The Failure of A...":

This article sheds light on the side of the arts that we often don't get to read about: the positive one. As this article says, the vast majority of articles in the press about the arts are about the failure of companies or how the arts are in decline. Sure, some companies have financial problems or aren't doing great because of their subscriber base or some other reason, but it's important to note that there are also companies that are doing well. Symphonies, ballets, and operas are usually the sectors of the arts that get slammed for being "too elitist/expensive/out-of-touch" for the general public and the realities of a not-too-distant recession, and the press harps on this constantly. However, something this article doesn't really talk about, but is another part of this, is how some orchestras have adapted to the changing times. The Pittsburgh Orchestra recently did a compilation of Pixar hits and another of the Lord of the Rings soundtrack, and, as Sophie mentioned, they are performing The Planets with projections of space. Classical music companies are still able to attract a large audience and donors, as his examples of the symphonies in St. Louis, Houston, and Detroit show, and it would be great if the press was able to balance their reporting with this positive stories as well. 

Student #3 has left a new comment on your post "Why Creativity Thrives In The Dark":

Artists have used the concept of chiaroscuro for centuries, and it demonstrates how the human eye sees more details when confronted with shadows and highlights. So it would not surprise me if creativity thrives in the dark; however, I had several issues with this article. In their experiments, what kind of lights did they use? There is a difference between cool and warm lights, and I know personally that warm lights make me comfortable enough to explore ideas. I also had questions about the Toni Morrison statement (Don't get me wrong, I love her work!). "It's not being in the light, it's being there before it arrives." When I'm working in a dimly lit environment, the sun is usually going down. This gives me exposure to a dim light and shadows. But I'm not waiting for the next day's sunrise. I'm waiting for the midnight's darkness. I think the night's darkness itself encourages creativity because our minds must fill in what we cannot see. We have to create our worlds, whereas the light would give us all of the answers, and that's just boring. I wasn't really impressed with this study, actually. I found it lacking certain facts. The article said that when "the lights switch off, something in the brain switches on." Well what part of the brain? What switches on and off? I think what they've done is a good start, but I hope they would finish this experiment with scientific studies on the brain. I'm also interested to know if there is any connection between this experiment's research and depression. It is known that lack of light exposure can lead to depression for some, and it is widely known that many creative people are prone to mood disorders and depression. The Ohio State University did an experiment on mice with sleep apnea and discovered that mice who were exposed to dim light at night increased depression and anxiety. So although darkness increases creativity, is it at the cost of our sanity? Is it something we want to gamble away? This all depends on how much that individual wants to explore the unknown. 

Student #4 has left a new comment on your post "Can Art Teach Patience?":

I disagree with the statement, "Our increasingly online, instantaneous existence accounts for those numbers, obviously." Yes, the modern emphasis on speed, contributed to by the internet, no doubt plays a large role in why people look at paintings so quickly. However, we can't state that this is the definitive sole cause for this behavior. There are other factors that certainly play into it. For example, just as mentioned in the article, when I went to see the Mona Lisa, I only looked at it for about 15 seconds. This wasn't because I wasn't interested- it was because I was in a huge room in a claustrophobic crowd of people all looking at a painting more than 50 feet away, behind a glass wall and ropes so that the closest you could possibly get, if you managed to fight your way through the crowd, was maybe 20 feet. I liked the painting, but there were paintings just as interesting in the next room over, and it wasn't as uncomfortable an experience viewing them. I know that personally I love spending long amounts of time in museums- the only reason I would hurry through them is if I was eager to see all of the pieces in a limited amount of time. I'm sure I could spend more time looking at art- it's a problem that all of us have, and it should be addressed in the context of short attention spans caused by the internet. however, we should also examine how we could better set up museums and other spaces so as to encourage prolonged observation, as opposed to rushing through to make sure we see everything. Bemoaning the attention spans of the young isn't going to fix the problem, and not everyone has access to an art class that forces them to spend 3 hours in a museum. We have to find practical solutions to ensure that people actually look at the art, instead of rushing past and only seeing it. Perhaps ways to solve this would be by having smaller rooms with fewer paintings, instead of the overwhelming galleries that are often the display space (I always find myself distracted by the art next to the piece I am looking at). Maybe we could organize the art in a way that would encourage connections between the pieces, so people would see one and then go back to a previous one. We have to think of actual solutions. 

Student #5 has left a new comment on your post "Black Swans and Trojan Horses: Why That Internship...":

After reading the multiple articles posted on the Green Page regarding this issue, I feel very conflicted. I have always had the attitude that unpaid internships can both be good and bad. It really depends on the specific internship and person who is seeking the internship. I completely agree that it should not be legal for companies to have unpaid interns replace or work in a position where a paid employee would have otherwise occupied. Companies that are having unpaid interns work in real positions are playing the system. However, at the same time, I think that unpaid internships are an important part of education, and students and other young people would struggle to break into their aspired industries without them. For example, many theatre companies offer unpaid internships. In most cases, theatre companies are not able to offer wages to their interns because the money is already being spent elsewhere. If unpaid internships were altogether banned, many aspiring theatre students would have a harder time breaking into the industry. Also, one of the articles described how getting fired from an unpaid internship is not a huge deal since you are not being paid in the first place. However, I would completely disagree with this, as developing relationships and contacts in the industry is something that is invaluable when entering the work force.

Greenpage Crosspost

And another thing...

Sometimes it is difficult cutting down to five "Worth a Look" articles...

30 Fantastic Movie Costumes by the Legendary Edith Head

The Cut: Costume Designer Edith Head once said "If it's a Paramount film I probably designed it." She doesn't even have to pretend to be humble. Her influence continues — immortalized both as a character in Pixar's The Incredibles, and today, as a Google Doodle tribute in honor of her 116th birthday.

Posted by David at 11/04/2013 02:22:00 PM

How Foam Latex Spawned a Horror Makeup Revolution

Tested: When Netflix debuted its original horror show Hemlock Grove this year, one of the things that got viewers and critics talking was the gruesome werewolf transformation in the first episode. It was a uniquely designed metamorphosis--and yes, it was gory--but if you ask me, it was held back by the production's reliance on computer generated graphics. The transformation looked too fake, shiny, and even rubbery. Which is ironic because the horror monsters of yesteryear looked better when they were actually made of rubber. Specifically foam latex.

Posted by David at 11/05/2013 08:37:00 PM

Design FX: How Ender's Game Filmed Zero-G Battles That Obey the Laws of Physics

Underwire | Wired.com: A signature piece in Gavin Hood’s latest film Ender’s Game is its massive zero-gravity Battle Room — a place where the titular character played by Asa Butterfield trains for alien war. Seeing the film’s young stars float through weightless battle is a wonderful thing to behold — and something that took astronomical amounts of time and digital trickery.

Posted by David at 11/08/2013 01:05:00 PM

A Whole New Ballgame in Arts Hiring

theatrebayarea.org: In 2003, the National Football League was facing a problem in hiring not dissimilar to the one theatres are confronting today: its leadership didn’t look like the rest of its employees. That year, 70% of players were black, but only 6% of head coaches were. In fact, in the course of the NFL’s history up to that point, only seven head coaches of color had ever been hired. Those numbers meant that the problem wasn’t a pipeline issue, i.e., that there weren’t enough qualified candidates of color to interview for those positions. The problem, rather, was a glass ceiling issue, meaning bias was preventing qualified candidates from advancing.

Posted by David at 11/09/2013 12:00:00 PM

Dan O'Bannon and The Origins of Alien

Tested: About a decade or so back, I did a lengthy interview with screenwriter Dan O’Bannon about the film he would always be best known for: Alien. Alien first came together from several scripts O’Bannon came up with. One was called Omnivore, a sci-fi horror story about creatures that emerge from a million year life-cycle during an ecological dig. Then he wrote Star Beast, which later morphed into Alien.

Posted by David at 11/04/2013 02:27:00 PM

Worth a Look

Here are a few posts from last week's Greenpage that might be worth your time...

Can Art Teach Patience?

Picture This | Big Think: Have you ever noticed how long people look at a painting in a museum or gallery? Surveys have clocked view times anywhere between 10 and 17 seconds. The Louvre estimated that visitors studied the Mona Lisa, the most famous painting in the world, for an astoundingly low average of 15 seconds. Our increasingly online, instantaneous existence accounts for those numbers, obviously. Can we ever again find the patience to look at art as it was meant to be seen?

Posted by David at 11/06/2013 12:07:00 PM

All the News That Fits the Print: The Failure of Arts Journalism at a Time of Cultural Need

by ICSOM Chairman Bruce Ridge: October 1 was a difficult day for the musicians of the Minnesota Orchestra, a day that marked the one-year point of the managerial imposed lockout that has silenced an orchestra once called “the best in the world.” That morning, their beloved Music Director, Osmo Vanska, delivered his resignation, precisely as he said he would if the lockout did not end. The relationship between Vanska and these musicians had begun to reach the status of legend; a unique pairing of leader and orchestra that had the potential to approach Szell and Cleveland, Ormandy and Philadelphia. So, on this dark morning the Locked Out Musicians of the Minnesota Orchestra did the only thing they knew how, and the only thing their years of dedicated study and training would allow them to do—they went out and served their community.

Posted by David at 11/09/2013 12:00:00 PM

Is This the Opera of the Future?

Wired Science: At 10:34 PM on a recent evening, passengers at Los Angeles’ Union Station scurried down well-worn linoleum hallways toward departing trains, running to catch the evocatively-named Coast Starlight (Seattle), Pacific Surfliner (San Luis Obispo), or Sunset Limited (New Orleans). Among the crowds was a man carrying a backpack, sauntering between the rows of chairs and singing to himself. The scene was far from unusual given the station’s diverse and colorful clientele, but there was something different about this singer – people were actually paying attention. An entourage of spectators, all wearing matching black headphones, traced the man’s path, hanging on every word.

Posted by David at 11/08/2013 12:59:00 PM

Show Me The Money

American Theatre – November 2013: It's all there in the photo.

The family’s in black, and the funeral dinner has gone bonkers: Two women are covering their faces, two are being held gingerly for paltry comfort by men. Another woman stands upstage, solitary and indignant, appalled at whatever has just been said.

Posted by David at 11/07/2013 01:09:00 PM

Monoculture, and Pleasures of The Jungle Book

HowlRound: The sun never sets on the Disney empire. We are told in a program note for Disney Theatrical Productions (DTP),
With 15 productions currently produced or licensed, a Disney musical is being performed professionally somewhere on the planet virtually every hour of the day. Worldwide, its eight Broadway titles have been seen by over 124 million theatergoers and have, cumulatively, run a staggering 195 years.
It is both puzzling and laughable that Disney claims a history of nearly two centuries when its first experiment, Beauty and the Beast (the first experiment) opened on Broadway only in 1994.

Posted by David at 11/06/2013 12:01:00 PM