In the preface to Eats, Shoots, and Leaves: The Zero Tolerence Approach to Punctuation, (Gothem, 2004) Lynn Truss relates that at a booksigning in the U.K. before the book was published in the U.S. a school teacher tells Ms. Truss about her frustrations with punctuation, lamenting that there is no place to get a good guide to help her with its problems. Ms. Truss repeatedly offers to autograph her book. The woman wanders away, unsatisfied, without buying the book, still seeking a guide through the wilds of punctuation. Ms. Truss sees this as an example of “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.”
After reading Eats, Shoots, and Leaves, I wondered whether Ms. Truss just didn’t get it. I wondered if the woman was trying to tell Ms. Truss in the subtlest possible way that she hadn’t written a very good book about punctuation.
Ah, the British, so polite.
Lynn Truss rants about missing or misplaced apostrophes and threatens acts of vandalism to teach people “the right way to punctuate.” The problem is she doesn’t know quite as much as she thinks she does. She sets herself up as an expert. Then she makes a boneheaded error.
The book is funny. Ms. Truss’s ravings made me laugh, but the truth is she doesn’t know much about grammar. There is more to punctuation than putting marks in the proper place on the page. Grammar counts.
Someone wrote to Ann Landers or Abigail Van Buren a long time ago complaining about the use of “flammable” on trucks carrying volatile materials. The correct word is, of course, “inflammable.” However, the prefix “in-“ generally means “not.” That led some people to assume that the contents would not burst into fire at the least provocation when, in fact, the opposite is true. The columnist’s reply was a model for me to judge all such quibbles. She said something to the effect that you are no doubt correct, but if the incorrect “flammable” will save even one life, let us, by all means, have “flammable.”
Clarity is more important than custom.
A lot of punctuation problems can be cleared up with some basic knowledge of grammar and an emphasis on clarity. There are sentences that I can not punctuate. My response is not to haul out all the books on grammar and punctuation in my library searching for the answer but to consider how to rewrite the sentence so that it is clear.
The sentence that set me off on this tirade was “Stop, or I’ll scream.” I asked two other women, both of whom are college educated, what they thought of this sentence. We all agreed that an exclamation mark was needed. The punctuation may be technically correct in Britain, if not the United States, but Ms. Truss claimed that “Stop” is an interjection. It is not. It is the command form of the verb “to stop.” It is an order. The punctuation is right for the wrong reason. As punctuated, it is correct because it is a compound sentence – two independent clauses joined by a conjunction. Ms. Truss is wrong because she doesn't know what part of speech she is punctuating.
Most American punctuation manuals direct that an exclamation mark follows a command. I looked through Ms. Truss’s book for directions on the use of exclamation marks. She does not mention this use.
One of the problems here is that when the authors of grammar books are discussing “a compound sentence: two independent clauses joined by a conjunction,” they forget that “or” and “nor” are members in good standing of the conjunction group; their dues have not lapsed and they have been active enough not to be dropped for nonparticipation. Some books only specifically mention “and” and “but” or only give examples using these two most commonly used conjunctions. “Or" is relatively uncommon and “nor” rare, but both are conjunction and may be used correctly in this situation.
As written, the sentence “Stop, or I’ll scream” is rather coy – “I’ll give you an hour to stop doing that.”
I wondered if Ms. Truss would have had the same problem identifying the command form of the verb if the sentence had been “Stop, or I’ll shoot” or "Halt, who goes there." In the United States, we would put an exclamation point after “shoot” at the very least. “Stop, or I’ll shoot!” I could also write the original sentence "Stop! Or I'll scream!"
That is if I wanted whoever it was to stop.
Guessing from Ms. Truss’s book, the exclamation mark is not used in commands in Britain as it is in the U.S. , or if it is, she doesn't know about it. I will therefore allow her punctuation to be correct.
Even conceding the difference in British usage, Ms. Truss still had the part of speech wrong.
Eats, Shoots, and Leaves is a funny book. Read it for a laugh, but don’t take it too seriously. It is humor, not instruction.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
THE WOODS WOULD BE SILENT ...
This morning, I heard a mocking bird singing in my backyard. I have a variety of birds besides mockers: cardinals, robins, blue jays, hummingbirds, goldfinch, and the ubiquitous sparrows. Most of them don't sing like mocking birds, but there is a lot of cheeping and chittering. I don't run the others off because they aren't as accomplished singers as the mocking birds.
The sparrows in particular amuse me. I know they moved in and pushed out a lot of native species, bluebirds for instance, but -- done is done. Last summer, I had a serious infestation of webworms. I was energetically cutting out the infested branches when a sparrow landed on a branch about 6 feet away with a worm dangling from its mouth. I stared at it. It stared at me. Then I quit cutting out the branches and just opened the webs, to give it and its cohorts a better shot at the worms.
I just went out and looked. The trees I cut the branches out of are doing fine – and so are the ones I just opened up the webs. The way I look at it: if the birds will do most of the work for me, why not?
This past week, I read a couple of comments on blogcritics dissing fantasy and community theater. I thought then about the comment I read somewhere that the woods would be silent if only the best singers among birds sang.
If only intellectual fare like literary fiction were published, if only PBS were allowed on TV, if only serious drama were presented on Broadway, what would the rest of us do? I sometimes read literary fiction, but I find most of it is boring. I sometimes like some serious theater, but I find most of it trying too hard to be too earnest for me to enjoy. I like TV that presents serious intellectual content, but I watch CSI and Law and Order, too. Of the three fields, I think I'll take the intellectual content on TV, but for those who do like literary fiction or serious drama, well, just because I find it boring doesn't mean I think any the less of you for enjoying it.
People who diss genres of fiction that they don't care for or levels of theater or whatever remind me a lot of the kind of rednecks in the old south who looked down on blacks – only they didn't call them blacks, they used the "n" word. Some of those rednecks who were only repeating what they had been taught got over it pretty fast when someone pointed out the serious flaws in their logic – not to mention their theology, -- but some rednecks persisted in their prejudice. There was no one they could feel superior to so they picked on a group. "We ain't much, but we're better than them thar "N—s." You know what I mean.
I found that pretty sad, just like I find the above kind of intellectual snobbery sad.
Some one said to me, "I think less of you for making it a point to watch American Idol."
I replied, "I think less of you for making a statement like that."
The thing is that playwrights make money from community theater, money they can use to keep on writing and keep theater alive. Most of us can't go to New York to see Broadway shows; we can't even get to road companies of Broadway shows. Community theater is our only chance.
The airways would be silent if only Mozart were played.
There is a lot of TV that I think is pretty dumb, but it keeps people off the streets – both the viewers and the people who work in the industry. I have a habit of looking down on sit-coms because they are so-o-o predictable, but little kids like predictable stories, it helps them learn to read. Maybe it helps grown-ups learn something, too. Luckily, some of the actors and production personnel go on to do more interesting work.
I don't pretend to be an intellectual, "egghead" they used to be called. I don't need to prove anything. I enjoy the woods when all the birds sing. If only the ones that qualified for the Metropolitan Opera sang, it would be pretty quiet out there.
Another anonymous quotation: A bird doesn't sing because it has an answer; it sings because it has a song.
The writers of fantasy have a song; the good people of community theaters have a song; sit-com actors, writers and producers have a song; country and western singers have a song; romance novelists have a song; I have a song; even the people who look down on other singers have a song –even if it sounds more like the cawing of crows; --we all have a song,
It would be a very quiet world out there if only the elite were singing.
The sparrows in particular amuse me. I know they moved in and pushed out a lot of native species, bluebirds for instance, but -- done is done. Last summer, I had a serious infestation of webworms. I was energetically cutting out the infested branches when a sparrow landed on a branch about 6 feet away with a worm dangling from its mouth. I stared at it. It stared at me. Then I quit cutting out the branches and just opened the webs, to give it and its cohorts a better shot at the worms.
I just went out and looked. The trees I cut the branches out of are doing fine – and so are the ones I just opened up the webs. The way I look at it: if the birds will do most of the work for me, why not?
This past week, I read a couple of comments on blogcritics dissing fantasy and community theater. I thought then about the comment I read somewhere that the woods would be silent if only the best singers among birds sang.
If only intellectual fare like literary fiction were published, if only PBS were allowed on TV, if only serious drama were presented on Broadway, what would the rest of us do? I sometimes read literary fiction, but I find most of it is boring. I sometimes like some serious theater, but I find most of it trying too hard to be too earnest for me to enjoy. I like TV that presents serious intellectual content, but I watch CSI and Law and Order, too. Of the three fields, I think I'll take the intellectual content on TV, but for those who do like literary fiction or serious drama, well, just because I find it boring doesn't mean I think any the less of you for enjoying it.
People who diss genres of fiction that they don't care for or levels of theater or whatever remind me a lot of the kind of rednecks in the old south who looked down on blacks – only they didn't call them blacks, they used the "n" word. Some of those rednecks who were only repeating what they had been taught got over it pretty fast when someone pointed out the serious flaws in their logic – not to mention their theology, -- but some rednecks persisted in their prejudice. There was no one they could feel superior to so they picked on a group. "We ain't much, but we're better than them thar "N—s." You know what I mean.
I found that pretty sad, just like I find the above kind of intellectual snobbery sad.
Some one said to me, "I think less of you for making it a point to watch American Idol."
I replied, "I think less of you for making a statement like that."
The thing is that playwrights make money from community theater, money they can use to keep on writing and keep theater alive. Most of us can't go to New York to see Broadway shows; we can't even get to road companies of Broadway shows. Community theater is our only chance.
The airways would be silent if only Mozart were played.
There is a lot of TV that I think is pretty dumb, but it keeps people off the streets – both the viewers and the people who work in the industry. I have a habit of looking down on sit-coms because they are so-o-o predictable, but little kids like predictable stories, it helps them learn to read. Maybe it helps grown-ups learn something, too. Luckily, some of the actors and production personnel go on to do more interesting work.
I don't pretend to be an intellectual, "egghead" they used to be called. I don't need to prove anything. I enjoy the woods when all the birds sing. If only the ones that qualified for the Metropolitan Opera sang, it would be pretty quiet out there.
Another anonymous quotation: A bird doesn't sing because it has an answer; it sings because it has a song.
The writers of fantasy have a song; the good people of community theaters have a song; sit-com actors, writers and producers have a song; country and western singers have a song; romance novelists have a song; I have a song; even the people who look down on other singers have a song –even if it sounds more like the cawing of crows; --we all have a song,
It would be a very quiet world out there if only the elite were singing.
Gilbert and Sullivan
A couple of weeks ago, I went with a friend to see Austin Gilbert and Sullivan Society’s production of The Pirates of Penzance. I wasn’t going to write a review because I really have little to say about the production. I liked all the costumes, but one, Mabel’s. I thought one of the leads was a weaker singer than the other leads, but did fine otherwise. I liked the set, didn’t notice the lighting, and liked the performers. Overall, a little uneven, but a good show.
However, it amazes me how funny Gilbert still is nearly a century after he died. His was a talent that appears, not once in a lifetime, less than once in a century.
The convention of musical theater is to list the composer first, then the librettist. Rogers, composer, Hammerstein, librettist, Rogers and Hammerstein; Rogers, composer, Hart, Librettist, Rogers and Hart; Lerner, composer, Lowe, librettist, Lerner and Lowe; etc. Sometimes, especially in opera, the librettist doesn’t even get that much credit.
Then we have Gilbert and Sullivan: Gilbert, librettist, Sullivan, composer. What’s that? Gilbert, librettist, Sullivan, composer. The only exception to the rule. I know of no other.
Sullivan composed some fine music, but nothing as successful as his collaborations with Gilbert. Gilbert wrote other librettos, but none has lasted the way his collaborations with Sullivan. Together they made magic. For a little while, at least.
However, it amazes me how funny Gilbert still is nearly a century after he died. His was a talent that appears, not once in a lifetime, less than once in a century.
The convention of musical theater is to list the composer first, then the librettist. Rogers, composer, Hammerstein, librettist, Rogers and Hammerstein; Rogers, composer, Hart, Librettist, Rogers and Hart; Lerner, composer, Lowe, librettist, Lerner and Lowe; etc. Sometimes, especially in opera, the librettist doesn’t even get that much credit.
Then we have Gilbert and Sullivan: Gilbert, librettist, Sullivan, composer. What’s that? Gilbert, librettist, Sullivan, composer. The only exception to the rule. I know of no other.
Sullivan composed some fine music, but nothing as successful as his collaborations with Gilbert. Gilbert wrote other librettos, but none has lasted the way his collaborations with Sullivan. Together they made magic. For a little while, at least.
Review: Granbury Opera House’s Annie Get Your Gun
The drive to Granbury for the musical Annie Get Your Gun, presented by Texas Family Musicals which also has shows in Galveston as Galveston Summer Musicals, is worthwhile – mostly.
The Irving Berlin score contains some of the best –loved songs in musical theater: “Doin’What Comes Naturally,” “The Girl That I Marry,” “You Can’t Get a Man with a Gun,” “They Say Its Wonderful,” “I Got the Sun in the Morning,” “Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better,” and that ultimate paean to show business show stopper: “There’s No Business Like Show Business.” It is worth the drive to hear these songs in context.
About the play itself, I have reservations. What kind of man wants a woman who will pretend to lose a match she could have won in order to win him? A very insecure man, that’s what. Which will lead her to a lifetime of stifling herself.
In the context of the time it was written, 1946, women had moved into the work-force in large numbers to aid the war effort. There was some angst about what would happen if they refused to go back home after the war. (After World War I, many soldiers returned to find unemployment, in part because some industries scaled back and had to retrench when they weren’t producing goods for the war effort. There was some worry about the returning veterans. One result of this angst was the G.I. Bill which eased the unemployment situation by sending large numbers of G.I.s to college instead of directly into the workforce.)
I doubt that Herbert and Dorothy Fields who wrote the book deliberately set out to support the idea that women should leave the work force and go home but that was the result. In any case the prevailing ethos of the time was that women should find a man at any cost, get married, and forever limit herself to what would not “threaten” her man. If that meant she stunted her own growth, so what?
Kelly Maier shone as Annie. She sings pretty, she dances pretty and she is pretty. And her acting -- tinged with the melodramatic manner of the play -- was fine. A lot of talent in a petite package and, unless I miss my guess, a director’s dream. How far she will go will depend upon her drive, her ambition and her luck. I wish her well.
Ryan Vallo as Frank reminded me in his looks and manner of the most arrogant SOB but one the best directors I worked for. Fortunately, arrogant SOB exactly fit the character. “Swollen-headed stiff” I believe was the phrase. Vallo has a big, magnificent voice, but needs to work on his breath control. Sometimes his expression didn’t match the words which I attribute to forcing his voice rather than producing it naturally. He is a good dancer. If he gets his vocal control, he can go as far as he wants.
Both the stars are well worth watching.
I would have liked both James Fairchild as Buffalo Bill and Shaun Yates as Pawnee Bill to be more “larger than life.” Neither actor came across as the kind of commanding personality that these men were. It takes a delicate balance to play these two parts correctly without overpowering the leads. Nevertheless, I would have liked more bluster. This was the greatest failure of the show.
Jeff Van Damme was suitably deadpan as Sitting Bull. He needed to project a little more, but all in all, I liked him.
Two little girls playing Annie’s sisters, Jessie and Nellie, were absolute dolls. Unfortunately, their names weren’t included in the program. I asked them afterward if they had fun. They assured me that they did. I enjoyed them, too.
Tim Pare as Charlie Davenport, also needed to be larger. I don’t know if he was holding back in order to stay in balance with the other performers. He was personable enough, but to be believable as the entrepreneur, he needed more presence.
Jacqueline Rez as Dolly was wholly satisfactory as Dolly Tate. She has a leading-role voice. I hope to see more of her.
Julie Richter as Wild Horse was a delight.
The ensemble dancers, Chelsea Serocke, Carly Vernon, Anna Egenes, Audra Rizzo, Meg Lanzarone, Stacie Gogo, among the women, and bit players: Patrick Morrisey, Spencer Curnutt, and Shaun P. Kelleher added a great deal to the productions. I noticed Elliott Graber’s dancing particularly so it came as no surprise that he was also the musical director.
Techie stuff:
I don’t like that staple of the community theater, canned music. It doesn’t work for me. I was surprised to find it here. Otherwise, they should have put mikes on the two little girls. Jessie’s dialog was very good – what I could hear of it. The sound was by Daniel Totten.
I particularly liked Cece Sickler’s costuming. It was well planned and well thought out.
I didn’t find any thing wrong with Amy Stein’s light design. From me, that is high praise.
Erin Johnson’s set was interesting. I thought the use of slide projections of scenes that coordinated with the supposed location was different, but a couple of times I wasn’t sure how it coordinated with the plot. The set changes were a little slow, but okay. No complaints.
Overall, the cast did a good job on the musical numbers, but was very uneven in between. Go see Annie Get Your Gun, if you are inclined to drive to Granbury.
The Irving Berlin score contains some of the best –loved songs in musical theater: “Doin’What Comes Naturally,” “The Girl That I Marry,” “You Can’t Get a Man with a Gun,” “They Say Its Wonderful,” “I Got the Sun in the Morning,” “Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better,” and that ultimate paean to show business show stopper: “There’s No Business Like Show Business.” It is worth the drive to hear these songs in context.
About the play itself, I have reservations. What kind of man wants a woman who will pretend to lose a match she could have won in order to win him? A very insecure man, that’s what. Which will lead her to a lifetime of stifling herself.
In the context of the time it was written, 1946, women had moved into the work-force in large numbers to aid the war effort. There was some angst about what would happen if they refused to go back home after the war. (After World War I, many soldiers returned to find unemployment, in part because some industries scaled back and had to retrench when they weren’t producing goods for the war effort. There was some worry about the returning veterans. One result of this angst was the G.I. Bill which eased the unemployment situation by sending large numbers of G.I.s to college instead of directly into the workforce.)
I doubt that Herbert and Dorothy Fields who wrote the book deliberately set out to support the idea that women should leave the work force and go home but that was the result. In any case the prevailing ethos of the time was that women should find a man at any cost, get married, and forever limit herself to what would not “threaten” her man. If that meant she stunted her own growth, so what?
Kelly Maier shone as Annie. She sings pretty, she dances pretty and she is pretty. And her acting -- tinged with the melodramatic manner of the play -- was fine. A lot of talent in a petite package and, unless I miss my guess, a director’s dream. How far she will go will depend upon her drive, her ambition and her luck. I wish her well.
Ryan Vallo as Frank reminded me in his looks and manner of the most arrogant SOB but one the best directors I worked for. Fortunately, arrogant SOB exactly fit the character. “Swollen-headed stiff” I believe was the phrase. Vallo has a big, magnificent voice, but needs to work on his breath control. Sometimes his expression didn’t match the words which I attribute to forcing his voice rather than producing it naturally. He is a good dancer. If he gets his vocal control, he can go as far as he wants.
Both the stars are well worth watching.
I would have liked both James Fairchild as Buffalo Bill and Shaun Yates as Pawnee Bill to be more “larger than life.” Neither actor came across as the kind of commanding personality that these men were. It takes a delicate balance to play these two parts correctly without overpowering the leads. Nevertheless, I would have liked more bluster. This was the greatest failure of the show.
Jeff Van Damme was suitably deadpan as Sitting Bull. He needed to project a little more, but all in all, I liked him.
Two little girls playing Annie’s sisters, Jessie and Nellie, were absolute dolls. Unfortunately, their names weren’t included in the program. I asked them afterward if they had fun. They assured me that they did. I enjoyed them, too.
Tim Pare as Charlie Davenport, also needed to be larger. I don’t know if he was holding back in order to stay in balance with the other performers. He was personable enough, but to be believable as the entrepreneur, he needed more presence.
Jacqueline Rez as Dolly was wholly satisfactory as Dolly Tate. She has a leading-role voice. I hope to see more of her.
Julie Richter as Wild Horse was a delight.
The ensemble dancers, Chelsea Serocke, Carly Vernon, Anna Egenes, Audra Rizzo, Meg Lanzarone, Stacie Gogo, among the women, and bit players: Patrick Morrisey, Spencer Curnutt, and Shaun P. Kelleher added a great deal to the productions. I noticed Elliott Graber’s dancing particularly so it came as no surprise that he was also the musical director.
Techie stuff:
I don’t like that staple of the community theater, canned music. It doesn’t work for me. I was surprised to find it here. Otherwise, they should have put mikes on the two little girls. Jessie’s dialog was very good – what I could hear of it. The sound was by Daniel Totten.
I particularly liked Cece Sickler’s costuming. It was well planned and well thought out.
I didn’t find any thing wrong with Amy Stein’s light design. From me, that is high praise.
Erin Johnson’s set was interesting. I thought the use of slide projections of scenes that coordinated with the supposed location was different, but a couple of times I wasn’t sure how it coordinated with the plot. The set changes were a little slow, but okay. No complaints.
Overall, the cast did a good job on the musical numbers, but was very uneven in between. Go see Annie Get Your Gun, if you are inclined to drive to Granbury.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Light Up the Lake
Arlington, Texas, sponsored its second annual “Light Up the Lake” event. It was so awful I don’t know where to begin. Podunk Junction, population 10,023, does a better Fourth of July.
The two bands I heard thought they had a choice between good and loud. They chose loud.
“Theater Arlington” put on a good show of kids performing nonstop Broadway show tunes. I could hear them, but not see them. This was the highlight of the evening.
The best vendor in the area was the United States Army that provided a “climbing wall.” My grandson finally decided to try it, but it was getting too dark and they were closing. Besides, he had to get his mother to sign a document. Our neighbor, a representative of another branch of the service, wondered if it was an enlistment, as soon as he turned 18. We had visions of them turning up on the morning of his birthday and hauling him out of bed. Surely, my daughter said, they would wait until high school graduation. “Not so,” my neighbor countered, “they would simply hand him a GED.”
The “Lighted Regatta” took place behind the portapotties invisible from the parking lot where the show was held.
About that parking lot – it featured a thin stagnant pool running through the middle, widening at one end to a proper mosquito breeding pond. I wondered if the city of Arlington was taking up a mosquito-breeding experiment. If so, I killed a few. I hope I didn’t ruin their data.
Kids on bicycles, kids on skateboards, kids on scooters, kids in tank-like strollers wove through the crowd. Some of those strollers should be registered as lethal weapons.
The whole thing was dismal and disorganized. We had to park miles away and take a shuttle bus to the staging area. We then had to walk a considerable distance, over ½ mile, to the park itself. The City of Arlington Parks employees raced through the crowd in green golf-cart-like vehicles called “Gators” doing what? I never saw them do anything, although they were supposed to provide shuttle service. I saw at least two people on crutches struggling to climb back up to the staging area to catch the buses. The City employee’s attitude seemed to be if you were stupid enough to come to this event, you deserved anything you got. Apparently (I heard) at the staging area for the buses, the crowd overflowed onto the lawns of the unfortunate home owners. I guess the City’s view is that they have 364 days of a wonderful place to live and one day of destruction – a fair trade.
The vendors were promised assistance in the form of shuttle rides from the city workers to retrieve their cars in order to pack up their booths. That never happened. Again, I heard the city employees were rather rude about it. The police advised the driver of a armed service recruiting vehicle that he couldn’t leave until the crowd departed so just “sit back and pop a cool one.” (Naming a particular brand of beer., no less.) City employees seem to view the citizens of Arlington as lower beings – stupid lower beings.
I’ve noticed this attitude on the part of the City employees before.
Most of the vendors I talked to won’t be back.
Now you know why when I was looking for a house I told the realtor “not in Arlington.”
Then there was the fireworks show. Which took place behind a streetlight and a row of trees. Most of the crowd did get to the lake shore to see this, I guess that they weren’t impressed. I even saw people walking away from the show. I don’t recall seeing so many people walk away from a fireworks show. They were the smart ones, though; they made it to the buses as soon as they started running again.
Oh, yes, “started running again.” Anyone who parked in the lots (more than five miles away) who wanted to leave early was just stuck. No way out, besides on foot. Did I mention that the parking lots were more than five miles away?
All in all, a mess. But hey, what can you expect? It’s Arlington.
The two bands I heard thought they had a choice between good and loud. They chose loud.
“Theater Arlington” put on a good show of kids performing nonstop Broadway show tunes. I could hear them, but not see them. This was the highlight of the evening.
The best vendor in the area was the United States Army that provided a “climbing wall.” My grandson finally decided to try it, but it was getting too dark and they were closing. Besides, he had to get his mother to sign a document. Our neighbor, a representative of another branch of the service, wondered if it was an enlistment, as soon as he turned 18. We had visions of them turning up on the morning of his birthday and hauling him out of bed. Surely, my daughter said, they would wait until high school graduation. “Not so,” my neighbor countered, “they would simply hand him a GED.”
The “Lighted Regatta” took place behind the portapotties invisible from the parking lot where the show was held.
About that parking lot – it featured a thin stagnant pool running through the middle, widening at one end to a proper mosquito breeding pond. I wondered if the city of Arlington was taking up a mosquito-breeding experiment. If so, I killed a few. I hope I didn’t ruin their data.
Kids on bicycles, kids on skateboards, kids on scooters, kids in tank-like strollers wove through the crowd. Some of those strollers should be registered as lethal weapons.
The whole thing was dismal and disorganized. We had to park miles away and take a shuttle bus to the staging area. We then had to walk a considerable distance, over ½ mile, to the park itself. The City of Arlington Parks employees raced through the crowd in green golf-cart-like vehicles called “Gators” doing what? I never saw them do anything, although they were supposed to provide shuttle service. I saw at least two people on crutches struggling to climb back up to the staging area to catch the buses. The City employee’s attitude seemed to be if you were stupid enough to come to this event, you deserved anything you got. Apparently (I heard) at the staging area for the buses, the crowd overflowed onto the lawns of the unfortunate home owners. I guess the City’s view is that they have 364 days of a wonderful place to live and one day of destruction – a fair trade.
The vendors were promised assistance in the form of shuttle rides from the city workers to retrieve their cars in order to pack up their booths. That never happened. Again, I heard the city employees were rather rude about it. The police advised the driver of a armed service recruiting vehicle that he couldn’t leave until the crowd departed so just “sit back and pop a cool one.” (Naming a particular brand of beer., no less.) City employees seem to view the citizens of Arlington as lower beings – stupid lower beings.
I’ve noticed this attitude on the part of the City employees before.
Most of the vendors I talked to won’t be back.
Now you know why when I was looking for a house I told the realtor “not in Arlington.”
Then there was the fireworks show. Which took place behind a streetlight and a row of trees. Most of the crowd did get to the lake shore to see this, I guess that they weren’t impressed. I even saw people walking away from the show. I don’t recall seeing so many people walk away from a fireworks show. They were the smart ones, though; they made it to the buses as soon as they started running again.
Oh, yes, “started running again.” Anyone who parked in the lots (more than five miles away) who wanted to leave early was just stuck. No way out, besides on foot. Did I mention that the parking lots were more than five miles away?
All in all, a mess. But hey, what can you expect? It’s Arlington.
Review: Shakespeare Dallas’ All’s Well That Ends Well
What Was He Thinking?
Shakespeare had a habit of writing himself into a corner and then declaring a "happy ending." Take, for example, (please take it) All's Well That Ends Well. Having written a thorough cad, Bertram, Shakespeare forcibly reunites him with his scorned wife, Helena, and with a straight face declares, "All's well that ends well.'
I don't think so.
I have visions of Helena and Bertram, the rare occasions that he is at home -- not out chasing other women -- having epic battles, culminating with "how do I know that brat is mine?" and slammed doors. Shakespeare glosses over that part, doesn't he? And they didn't have DNA to determine once and for all whose kid it is.
The truth is that Shakespeare was so bad at plotting that he had to borrow most of his from other sources.* He then skewed them around to fit what the patrons of his time (and ours) wanted to see. Of course, that doesn't happen now. Of course not.
(See my blog, Pygmalion and My Fair Lady)
The lovers don't obey their parents? Off with them! A son doesn't care for his mother's new husband? Do him in! A lord is ambitious? Kill him! Drive him insane! A fairy king tricks his queen into making an ass of herself, but she'll forgive him no matter what. A woman twice tricks a man into marriage, but he'll then become a model husband. (Or take care not give her another chance to trick him. One or the other.) Maintain authority and the status quo, no matter what.
Or did Shakespeare have his tongue in his cheek all along?
That being said, the cast of Shakespeare Dallas' performance of All's Well That Ends Well did their best with the script. I thought Brandon J. Walker as Bertram did the best possible job of making Bertram's change of heart plausible. I don't think Bertram actually did have a change of heart, mind you, I've seen too many men fake it. We saw Bertram before when he gave up his priceless family heirloom for the sake of bedding Diana and then promptly forgot all about her, so we may doubt his sincerity this time, but he played it exactly right for Shakespeare's "happy ending."
There are two schools of thought about playing Shakespeare. One emphasizes the "I'm reciting poetry" method; the other tries to deliver the lines naturally. I prefer the second method; Joanna Schellenberg as Helen prefers the first. It is very difficult to create a believable character while reciting, but she almost carried it off.
Laura Yancey did a creditable job of the Countess of Rossillion. She didn't take away from the leads, as she should not, but developed her character quite clearly.
T. A. Taylor as The King of France was better when he was ill in the early scenes than he was in the final scenes. I didn't feel that he was driving Bertram hard enough to break his story.
On the other hand, Mark Oristano as Lafew came forcefully to the foreground in the final scenes. He stayed admirably in the background for most of the play, asserting himself when he needed to, rejecting Bertram as a suitor for his daughter.
I liked Kara Torvik-Smith as the Widow Capilet. She took the place of the actress who usually played the role. Her plotting with Helena was natural.
Shauna McLean made a beautiful and effective Diana. Her speech filled with riddles was a climax of the play.
I didn't get much from Elias Taylorson as Lavatch. Shakespeare's fools are ambiguous at best. In the last three plays I've seen, some of the fools have been effective, some have not. My guess is that there was a lot of stage business associated with them that we are missing. We didn't see it last night.
I can't comment on Anthony L Ramirez as Parolles. I felt he was the victim of some bad directorial choices.
Jessica Wiggers as Reynalda supported the Countess admirably. I am a fan of supporting actors. They come on stage, do their job, and move the story forward, without calling undue attention to themselves, and are often unsung. Wiggers represents these unsung heroes of the stage admirably.
Josh Blann, Ethan Norris, Thiago Martins, Jared Eaton, Austin Tindle, Christopher Hartman, and Ira Patrick Stack filled the multiple roles of lords, soldiers, and retainers, while moving the furniture with aplomb. Sara J. Romersberger moved them about the stage with a dancer's precision. They were a pleasure to watch.
Techie stuff:
Lighting: The lighting design by Tristan Decker only made me notice it once. As you know by now, from me, that is high praise.
Set changes: The set changes were handled well and speedily. The "stage hands" were the actors, who managed to look like they were performing in the play, not changing the set.
Set: There were several things I liked about Clare Floyd DeVries' set. The revolving wagon upcenter was well planned and designed. The different sides made fine backgrounds and using them to carry some furniture was excellent. I didn't like the two archways that flanked the wagon. Sometimes the actors used them as doors; sometimes they entered next to them, making the arches seem superfluous. It would have been better to have solid flats or consistently used the arches as doors. A little miscommunication between the director and set designer I fear.
Props: This is something else that I don't mention unless they call attention to themselves. (Or unless I have too many other things to say.) Props are important, though, so I'll mention that they seemed about right. On the other hand, I did notice.
Costumes: I like costuming that doesn't call attention to itself. In this case, the early-Victorian-but-avoiding-excesses was very effective. Sometimes, especially in Community Theater, the costumes are from a lot of different periods without a plan. This costuming was consistent. The soldier's uniforms were from about the same period as the ladies' dresses. The lord's costumes were also about right. In the first act, I wondered if everyone was going to be in black and white through out the play. Later I wondered if the costumer had gotten a really good deal on a lot of black fabric. The two Florentines dressed more like generic peasants than nobility, even though they asserted that they were of "good family." I noticed that Helen's colors got lighter as the play progressed. I thought that was a statement of sorts. I can see why everyone in the first act was in black given that the Countess was a widow and Helen was in mourning, but I still think it sent the wrong message.
My complaints are minor, though, overall the costuming was a pleasure. The Costume Designer was Jacob A. Climer
Sound: Everyone could be heard clearly. The sound effects were pleasing. No complaints. The Sound Design was by Marco E. Salinas.
Direction: The Director, Rene Moreno, could pick up a few tips from the Directors at Plaza Theater Company and Stolen Shakespeare on using a thrust stage while making the action clear to everyone in the audience. However, I liked the fact that he did everything -- other than make better use of the clown -- he could to get some humor into this comedy. (No, comedy does not mean funny: I've told you that.) There weren't too many opportunities to get the audience to laugh, but he made or made up the most of them.
I can't say whether the choice to give the clowns more business as they probably had in Shakespeare's time or keep them more in the background is the right one. I think that choices like these are what separates the directors from everyone else. It takes real guts to make these choices.
Shakespeare could be cruel to minor characters like Parollers in this play or Malvolio in Twelfth Night. Mostly they deserve their fate, but I emphatically didn't like the bondage aspects of the treatment of Parolles. I think the scene could have been played almost any other way and been effective with out making me feel like saying peuw. Maybe I am exposing myself as not being sufficiently sophisticated to appreciate such wormy apples, ...er aberrations, but I don't.
My daughter and I read through the educational backgrounds of the cast and crew. An impressive collection of college degrees in theater. A great concentration of education and experience, and a worthwhile result.
* Most authorities believe they can find sources for all but two of Shakespeare's plays. I've heard it said that one of these two, The Tempest, was based on some Commedia d'Arte scenarios.
Shakespeare had a habit of writing himself into a corner and then declaring a "happy ending." Take, for example, (please take it) All's Well That Ends Well. Having written a thorough cad, Bertram, Shakespeare forcibly reunites him with his scorned wife, Helena, and with a straight face declares, "All's well that ends well.'
I don't think so.
I have visions of Helena and Bertram, the rare occasions that he is at home -- not out chasing other women -- having epic battles, culminating with "how do I know that brat is mine?" and slammed doors. Shakespeare glosses over that part, doesn't he? And they didn't have DNA to determine once and for all whose kid it is.
The truth is that Shakespeare was so bad at plotting that he had to borrow most of his from other sources.* He then skewed them around to fit what the patrons of his time (and ours) wanted to see. Of course, that doesn't happen now. Of course not.
(See my blog, Pygmalion and My Fair Lady)
The lovers don't obey their parents? Off with them! A son doesn't care for his mother's new husband? Do him in! A lord is ambitious? Kill him! Drive him insane! A fairy king tricks his queen into making an ass of herself, but she'll forgive him no matter what. A woman twice tricks a man into marriage, but he'll then become a model husband. (Or take care not give her another chance to trick him. One or the other.) Maintain authority and the status quo, no matter what.
Or did Shakespeare have his tongue in his cheek all along?
That being said, the cast of Shakespeare Dallas' performance of All's Well That Ends Well did their best with the script. I thought Brandon J. Walker as Bertram did the best possible job of making Bertram's change of heart plausible. I don't think Bertram actually did have a change of heart, mind you, I've seen too many men fake it. We saw Bertram before when he gave up his priceless family heirloom for the sake of bedding Diana and then promptly forgot all about her, so we may doubt his sincerity this time, but he played it exactly right for Shakespeare's "happy ending."
There are two schools of thought about playing Shakespeare. One emphasizes the "I'm reciting poetry" method; the other tries to deliver the lines naturally. I prefer the second method; Joanna Schellenberg as Helen prefers the first. It is very difficult to create a believable character while reciting, but she almost carried it off.
Laura Yancey did a creditable job of the Countess of Rossillion. She didn't take away from the leads, as she should not, but developed her character quite clearly.
T. A. Taylor as The King of France was better when he was ill in the early scenes than he was in the final scenes. I didn't feel that he was driving Bertram hard enough to break his story.
On the other hand, Mark Oristano as Lafew came forcefully to the foreground in the final scenes. He stayed admirably in the background for most of the play, asserting himself when he needed to, rejecting Bertram as a suitor for his daughter.
I liked Kara Torvik-Smith as the Widow Capilet. She took the place of the actress who usually played the role. Her plotting with Helena was natural.
Shauna McLean made a beautiful and effective Diana. Her speech filled with riddles was a climax of the play.
I didn't get much from Elias Taylorson as Lavatch. Shakespeare's fools are ambiguous at best. In the last three plays I've seen, some of the fools have been effective, some have not. My guess is that there was a lot of stage business associated with them that we are missing. We didn't see it last night.
I can't comment on Anthony L Ramirez as Parolles. I felt he was the victim of some bad directorial choices.
Jessica Wiggers as Reynalda supported the Countess admirably. I am a fan of supporting actors. They come on stage, do their job, and move the story forward, without calling undue attention to themselves, and are often unsung. Wiggers represents these unsung heroes of the stage admirably.
Josh Blann, Ethan Norris, Thiago Martins, Jared Eaton, Austin Tindle, Christopher Hartman, and Ira Patrick Stack filled the multiple roles of lords, soldiers, and retainers, while moving the furniture with aplomb. Sara J. Romersberger moved them about the stage with a dancer's precision. They were a pleasure to watch.
Techie stuff:
Lighting: The lighting design by Tristan Decker only made me notice it once. As you know by now, from me, that is high praise.
Set changes: The set changes were handled well and speedily. The "stage hands" were the actors, who managed to look like they were performing in the play, not changing the set.
Set: There were several things I liked about Clare Floyd DeVries' set. The revolving wagon upcenter was well planned and designed. The different sides made fine backgrounds and using them to carry some furniture was excellent. I didn't like the two archways that flanked the wagon. Sometimes the actors used them as doors; sometimes they entered next to them, making the arches seem superfluous. It would have been better to have solid flats or consistently used the arches as doors. A little miscommunication between the director and set designer I fear.
Props: This is something else that I don't mention unless they call attention to themselves. (Or unless I have too many other things to say.) Props are important, though, so I'll mention that they seemed about right. On the other hand, I did notice.
Costumes: I like costuming that doesn't call attention to itself. In this case, the early-Victorian-but-avoiding-excesses was very effective. Sometimes, especially in Community Theater, the costumes are from a lot of different periods without a plan. This costuming was consistent. The soldier's uniforms were from about the same period as the ladies' dresses. The lord's costumes were also about right. In the first act, I wondered if everyone was going to be in black and white through out the play. Later I wondered if the costumer had gotten a really good deal on a lot of black fabric. The two Florentines dressed more like generic peasants than nobility, even though they asserted that they were of "good family." I noticed that Helen's colors got lighter as the play progressed. I thought that was a statement of sorts. I can see why everyone in the first act was in black given that the Countess was a widow and Helen was in mourning, but I still think it sent the wrong message.
My complaints are minor, though, overall the costuming was a pleasure. The Costume Designer was Jacob A. Climer
Sound: Everyone could be heard clearly. The sound effects were pleasing. No complaints. The Sound Design was by Marco E. Salinas.
Direction: The Director, Rene Moreno, could pick up a few tips from the Directors at Plaza Theater Company and Stolen Shakespeare on using a thrust stage while making the action clear to everyone in the audience. However, I liked the fact that he did everything -- other than make better use of the clown -- he could to get some humor into this comedy. (No, comedy does not mean funny: I've told you that.) There weren't too many opportunities to get the audience to laugh, but he made or made up the most of them.
I can't say whether the choice to give the clowns more business as they probably had in Shakespeare's time or keep them more in the background is the right one. I think that choices like these are what separates the directors from everyone else. It takes real guts to make these choices.
Shakespeare could be cruel to minor characters like Parollers in this play or Malvolio in Twelfth Night. Mostly they deserve their fate, but I emphatically didn't like the bondage aspects of the treatment of Parolles. I think the scene could have been played almost any other way and been effective with out making me feel like saying peuw. Maybe I am exposing myself as not being sufficiently sophisticated to appreciate such wormy apples, ...er aberrations, but I don't.
My daughter and I read through the educational backgrounds of the cast and crew. An impressive collection of college degrees in theater. A great concentration of education and experience, and a worthwhile result.
* Most authorities believe they can find sources for all but two of Shakespeare's plays. I've heard it said that one of these two, The Tempest, was based on some Commedia d'Arte scenarios.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
DRAMATIC THEATER VERSUS EPIC THEATER
Last summer, I found this in some notes. I'm not sure where I got it -- probably in a class on writing or on directing. Even though the context is drama, everything more or less applies to novels or short stories.
The term, epic novel, is thrown around without regard for the actual meaning of the term, but there are some "epic novels." For example, I think Candide fits the criteria even though it is also satirical. James Michener wrote novels that qualify as epics. On the other hand, I've heard The Lord of the Rings described as "epic" which it assuredly is not. I know that people use the word when they mean a long or generational novel, but length is not one of the criteria. The notes below don't mention length.
I probably won't convince too many people that length isn't the sole criteria for epic any more that I will convince very many that "comedy" doesn't mean humorous.
For those who are aspiring writers, most novels and plays being published are obviously Dramatic rather than Epic.
Lajos Egri warns about jumping conflicts, but I am not sure that he means the same as below in 16. This would be a fruitful subject for discussion. Any literary critics out there interested in starting the ball rolling?
There is a short story by Ursula LeGuin, "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas," that qualifies as epic. If you have read it, tell me if you agree.
DRAMATIC THEATER VERSUS EPIC THEATER
Characteristics
Dramatic Theater .....................Epic Theater
1) Plot...............................Narrative
2) Implicates the spectator in the....Turns the spectator
....stage situation...................... into an observer,
.......................................... but
3) Wears down his capacity ...........Arouses his capacity
....for action...............................for action
4) Provides the audience with.........Forces audience
....sensations........................... to take* decisions
5) Experience.........................Picture of the world
6) The spectator is involved in.......He is made to face
....something............................something
7) Suggestion.........................Argument
8) Instinctive feelings are...........Brought to the point
....preserved............................ of recognition
9) The spectator is in the thick .....The spectator stands
....of, shares the experience............outside studies(the
.........................................experience ?)
10) The human being is taken for......The human being is the
....granted..............................object of the
.........................................inquiry
11) He is unalterable.................He is alterable and
......................................... able to alter
12) Eyes on the finish................Eyes on the course
13) One scene makes another...........Each scene for itself
14) Growth............................Montage
15) Linear development................In curves
16) Evolutionary determinism..........Jumps
17) Man as a fixed point..............Man as a process
18) Thought determines being..........Social being
......................................... determines thought
19) Feelings..........................Reason
*my notes say "take." "Make" seems better, but I don't remember for sure. (That is why I take notes.) :-)
This is offered as an aid to critique.
The term, epic novel, is thrown around without regard for the actual meaning of the term, but there are some "epic novels." For example, I think Candide fits the criteria even though it is also satirical. James Michener wrote novels that qualify as epics. On the other hand, I've heard The Lord of the Rings described as "epic" which it assuredly is not. I know that people use the word when they mean a long or generational novel, but length is not one of the criteria. The notes below don't mention length.
I probably won't convince too many people that length isn't the sole criteria for epic any more that I will convince very many that "comedy" doesn't mean humorous.
For those who are aspiring writers, most novels and plays being published are obviously Dramatic rather than Epic.
Lajos Egri warns about jumping conflicts, but I am not sure that he means the same as below in 16. This would be a fruitful subject for discussion. Any literary critics out there interested in starting the ball rolling?
There is a short story by Ursula LeGuin, "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas," that qualifies as epic. If you have read it, tell me if you agree.
DRAMATIC THEATER VERSUS EPIC THEATER
Characteristics
Dramatic Theater .....................Epic Theater
1) Plot...............................Narrative
2) Implicates the spectator in the....Turns the spectator
....stage situation...................... into an observer,
.......................................... but
3) Wears down his capacity ...........Arouses his capacity
....for action...............................for action
4) Provides the audience with.........Forces audience
....sensations........................... to take* decisions
5) Experience.........................Picture of the world
6) The spectator is involved in.......He is made to face
....something............................something
7) Suggestion.........................Argument
8) Instinctive feelings are...........Brought to the point
....preserved............................ of recognition
9) The spectator is in the thick .....The spectator stands
....of, shares the experience............outside studies(the
.........................................experience ?)
10) The human being is taken for......The human being is the
....granted..............................object of the
.........................................inquiry
11) He is unalterable.................He is alterable and
......................................... able to alter
12) Eyes on the finish................Eyes on the course
13) One scene makes another...........Each scene for itself
14) Growth............................Montage
15) Linear development................In curves
16) Evolutionary determinism..........Jumps
17) Man as a fixed point..............Man as a process
18) Thought determines being..........Social being
......................................... determines thought
19) Feelings..........................Reason
*my notes say "take." "Make" seems better, but I don't remember for sure. (That is why I take notes.) :-)
This is offered as an aid to critique.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
