The Primate Press

For the full Instant Theatre discussion, go here:

www.instanttheatre.blogspot.com

Two pieces stuck in my mind from last night because I thought they both worked well, for somewhat different reasons. They are the notorious Bottle of Lotion play, and the one in which the writer is torn between two women. I like it when even extremely short plays written for an exercise are art. I like it when the pieces not only meet the goals of the exercise, but also express something meaningful and human, and operate on more than one level. These two seemed to do that, in different ways.

Lotion Play: I never found out who wrote this, I’d like to. There was a powerful double punch of creepy and hilarious in the sister’s reactions to the bottle of lotion. The actors did a wonderful job of exploiting these moments. There was also a wonderful-creepy poetry of associations going on with the creamy, white, sweet smelling stuff that was made of mother, and how the two sisters longed for it/her. It raised the play above the level of simply a story fulfilling the Instant Theatre requirement.

I have a question about this play, because I can’t be sure if I missed something. I understand that the mother was lost at sea, and it seemed like it was building towards a climax of how it was that she was turned into lotion, and I’m just wondering if there was a specific explanation (like, she was engulfed in a kelp bed, which was an ingredient in the lotion) or if it was left ambiguous. I’m just curious how it was resolved because I didn’t catch it all.

Muse Play: This was the play in which the writer seems to be leaving one woman for another, but it’s quickly apparent the first love is actually his writing. This was written by Nick, who I met last night; I think he got a lot out of his actors, because most of the time I forgot they were even reading from a script. The thing I really liked about it, though, was how complete it was. It expressed something very specific and it had everything it needed to do it, no more. It seemed like a five minute play, not a moment out of something larger. For this reason I disagree with Aaron that you learn the point of the play too soon, because the point is not for the woman to transform into a computer, the point is to show what it’s like to be a writer.

It was also very easy to follow, and it seemed like this is a function of having all the problems worked out of what, where and how everything was supposed to happen — unlike my play. It made me realize how important good directing is to getting a story across.

I want to thank my cast, Kristie and Morgan (I think it’s Morgan, if not I’m sorry!), who did a wonderful job of interpreting somewhat dense material in a very short period of time. As a matter of fact, everyone I talked to from the audience raved about how great all of the actors were. They were very impressed. My play, “To Tell the Truth”, involved a clock which one character, Aline, insisted was a mirror; the other character, Alicia, who was getting ready to go out into the world with a suitcase, protested that it was not a mirror, it was a clock — and also gave a short treatise on the nature of time.

What I Learned: I would love to return for Instant Theatre to improve on a couple things. First, about props. My play might have been stronger if my character Alicia could have opened the suitcase and flung the colored letters from Andy across the stage, and pulled out the real mirror that was in there, to demonstrate that Aline was wrong. These things were in my script, but it’s impossible to do a physical prop-oriented thing unless you take time to physically run through it. We discussed it and felt it would still make sense if she wasn’t able to pull it off; the actor playing Alicia (Morgan) did a wonderful job of improvising with the clock — pulling it off the wall (much to Aaron and Chris’ chagrin…!) and gesturing with it. These weren’t in the script, but had a good impact.

I was thinking the solution was to omit actions or props that were too complicated — better not to need them or to think of a work-around. After seeing the origami kitty created on stage out of newspaper, however, I now realize that opening a suitcase wouldn’t be too complicated to attempt, you just have to make sure the actor knows exactly how to do it.

The second thing I learned was that it is very helpful to have directing and/or acting experience to make your play successful, and next time I want to be more prepared to think in these terms.

Some Things I’d Appreciate Comments On: I was wondering how clear my play was to the audience? Did it have a clear feel, or was it obscure? One thing I found that was difficult watching all of these short plays in a row was shifting gears for each one. It was hard to tell sometimes if the action was supposed to be surreal/abstract or if it was supposed to be realistic and I just missed something. Therefore, I’m sure it was a challenge with my play because it was definitely abstract. I was hoping it would have an obvious emotional thrust though, even if you couldn’t explain exactly what it was about. Did it do this? What did you get out of it?

If You Want to Read My Instant Theatre Play: www.wendyschmidt.com/totellthetruth

I will be participating in Instant Theater, Wednesday, January 30th at Chicago Dramatists. It’s free and open to the public.

Once a month Instant Theater organizers Aaron Carter (Victory Gardens Literary Manager) and Christopher De Paola give ten writers a theme and a week to write a five minute play. One hour prior to performance, the ten writers get to cast from a pool of actors and rehearse… that’s… 60 minutes divided by ten… ten minutes of rehearsal per piece! Then the pieces are performed over the next hour.

This month the theme is “Transformation;” as an added requirement, writers must bring an everyday object to be used as a prop, which during the course of the play is transformed into something else.

8pm • Weds. January 30th
Chicago Dramatists
1105 W. Chicago
Chicago, IL (Chicago, Milwaukee and Ogden, southwest corner.)

– Wendy Schmidt

I have a very very very bad feeling about this. Are the Democrats once again going to nominate the candidate only they can love? I think these debates have been harmful to Obama in the eyes of Democrats. “My, look how Hillary can rattle off policy ideas and stats!” “My, look how mean Obama seems when trying to subvert the subversions of the Clintons.”

But I ask them to consider whether these debates really indicate how great of a president he would make. If there were serious questions about Obama’s skills, wisdom and qualifications to be president, as opposed to Hillary’s, I would say, you’re right, we can’t be controlled by what will be popular in the general election. But there are not these questions. Obama presents us with a great opportunity – I personally think he’d make as good or better president than Hillary, for all the reasons he’s different from her. He’s got a better shot at coalition-building and is more focused on and serious about ending the influence of money in politics. (Check out his PAC-free donor list.) Let’s not once again go with the Gore-Kerry composite character who only appeals to other wonks.

Let me quote Jonathan Chait in The New Republic, in turn quoting Byron York in National Review

In my post yesterday, I made the point that just as it’s perfectly obvious to most Democrats (but not all Republicans) that John McCain would be the strongest GOP nominee, it’s obvious to most Republicans (but not all Democrats) that Barack Obama would be the most dangerous Democrat. Well, National Review’s Byron York has been reporting in South Carolina, and makes the same point, from the right:

I went to Barack Obama’s rally here, on Sunday night, with a Republican friend who had never seen the Illinois senator in action before. Watching the crowd of more than 3,000 fill up the convention center, watching the people send up waves of energy to Obama, and watching him play off that energy in a speech that was one of the best political performances anyone has seen this year, my Republican friend said, simply, “Oh, s—t.” He recalled the scene from Jaws, in which the small seaside town’s sheriff realizes how big the shark he’s tracking truly is, and says, “We’re gonna need a bigger boat.” What my friend didn’t have to say was that he was deeply worried that Republicans just don’t have a bigger boat. …

Watching Obama perform at the convention center Sunday night, it’s easy to understand why Bill Clinton is walking around with a look of red-faced frustration these days. Obama represents a mortal threat to his wife’s candidacy, and, given the identity politics that prevail in the Democratic Party, it will be hard to cut his legs out from under him without appearing racist. But there’s no doubt that some Republicans are hoping the Clintons will succeed. Running against the man on stage at the convention center would be a hard, hard campaign, requiring a very big boat.

–Jonathan Chait

I’m fairly worried about Super Tuesday. My only consolation is, if Democrats do nominate Hillary, there’s always the chance Republicans will be even more stupid and nominate someone other than John McCain.

Tyne can redeem himself.

With all the decisive games Green Bay has won this year, does the NFC Championship really need to be this much of a nailbiter?

9:12 pm. 20-20. First play of overtime. At least they won the coin toss — oh, the Giants intercept it.

Can you say Cubs?

If you’re like me, someone you know is afraid you’re going to hell. They fret about it behind your back, for more hours than you’d care to speculate.

When friends wonder why religion is still an issue for me, since I apparently make meaning for my life without traditional religion, this is one reason. It is not that I have unresolved issues about my spirituality; it is because other people do.

Why do I care about other people? Because first of all, I wish I could stop their pain. No one would wish it upon their friends for someone close to them to be terminally ill, and this is how dogmatic Christians experience my difference in religion. I am tempted to pass myself off as believing as they do, just to put their minds at ease. (Indeed, I did pass myself off for this very reason in the early years of my life.)

But in the second place, I care because I am revolted by the idea of being mistaken for believing as they do. I am finished with people not knowing what I am; it is thoroughly against everything I do believe to misrepresent myself in such a way, and my integrity is worth far too much to me.

I care because I am determined to find a way of explaining myself that sets their minds at ease, but doesn’t leave me feeling in need of an anti-bacterial shower afterwards. I am certain there is a way of doing this.

Here is my most recent attempt — not great, but far more successful than the incoherent mutters I’ve been capable of to date. This conversation happened on Monday.

L: So do you consider yourself an atheist?

ME: By the definition of your religion, yes. By the definition of any conventional religion, yes. When I learn what your religion says of what I believe, I find it considers me an atheist. I would rather you called me that than think I believe as you do. But I don’t consider myself an atheist.

I don’t think religious belief is about being factually correct, it’s not about one group being right and one group being wrong.

L: But you believe the Bible is true?

ME: Yes, I believe it has truth in it of the most serious and important kind to people. But I don’t think it is true in the same way that a scientific fact is true. It’s not meant to be interpreted literally, it is symbolic language, it is symbolic language through and through. Your religion says interpreting it this way takes the seriousness out of it, but I disagree. I think when it is interpreted literally it loses any meaning it had, and is trivialized as well. Your religion says interpreting the Bible symbolically and metaphorically is atheism, and if that’s what you think, so be it. I think the reverse is true. When a person sets out to prove the content of the Bible in a scientific way and believes this somehow has any bearing on being religious, he has completely missed the point.

If the subject matter is a mystery, the ultimate mystery, how can the language be anything other than symbolic? How can it be specific and precise about something no one has seen yet? That is why it doesn’t sound like any language we use in every day life. It’s not about every day things.

That is how it can be that other religions are true also. Judaism has this same truth in it, Buddhism has this same truth in it. [I thought of mentioning Islam, but thought I better not to go there.] They function in the same way. They are different idioms.

L: But what about the after life, what about going to heaven?

ME: I have hope for the future. I am not preoccupied with life after death. I don’t think being religious can have a goal or be so tied to a guaranteed payoff for playing. The emphasis needs to be on the intensity and integrity with which we live now, because that takes all of our consciousness. To think that it’s possible to have a factual key that unlocks future paradise once and for all (and is exclusive to your tradition) is the most unreligious thing I can imagine.

L: Why did you say that about never hearing anything bad about atheists?

ME: The irony about atheists is that most of them are better people than most of the religious people I know. To them, there’s nothing else, so you better make the best of things here. Simple reason shows if you’re good to the people around you, they’ll be good to you. On the other hand, most religious people are religious for the sole purpose of appearing to be something they’re not, and to excuse the most evil behavior to their own conscience.

[On reflection, I could have differentiated between atheists, because the really dogmatic atheists are not any nicer than the really dogmatic religious people. But it would have only confused things. They don't know who Richard Dawkins is.]

L: What about the ones who think, there’s nothing after this, I might as well do whatever I want?

ME: But it doesn’t work that way. Sure, there may be a few like that, but the irony is that most atheists aren’t inordinately worse people than most religious people. Simple reason argues against it. Perhaps they have no reason to be really saintly people either, and that’s too bad. But they don’t go out and rape and kill just because they “can”. That’s the irony of it.

……………..

By this time my questioners had had enough light conversation. I was so nervous I bit a nail off and it bled; I’m pretty sure they felt I was bleeding because I was an atheist. But if I had done nothing to convince them, at least I had given some sense of the complexity of our differences. There was a certain relief in the air.

The Problem

I have recently been explaining my support for Obama by saying he is most likely to stop the destructive influence of business on our democracy. But is this really true? And why is this my top concern? I’m going to do some investigating to see how true my general impression is. But first, in this post, let me frame why I think this issue is so important.

People are definitely looking for a comprehensive change this year, something more basic than new personnel. There may be a million different ways of formulating what this means, but the deep discontent, the demand for something that is, for once, neither cosmetic nor mere tinkering, is not a fairy tale.

If Washington is filled with corrupt people, it is something structural that has made it so fabulously ripe for infection in the past 30 years. Throwing the old bums out and fitting the new bums in only guarantees a change in bacteria.

This structural problem is related to how the economy has changed in the past few decades. It used to be that a vast bureaucracy and gargantuan equipment were necessary to create anything of value for the economy and be paid for it. That was 40 years ago, when large dinosaurs called GM, Ford and Ma Bell ruled the earth. There were comparatively only a few firms in the U.S. (and GM was the largest company in the world!) But a process of technological advancement in the meantime has created a situation in which something of value for the economy can be produced with nothing more than a single brain and a single keyboard with which to type code. Wow, neat, really marvelous!

However, the unintended consequence of this marvel, with virtually anyone able to compete, is that the number of competitors expands exponentially. With that increase comes a spike in the furiousness with which any one of them needs to compete. Very quickly we reach a state of insanely hyper competitiveness that Robert Reich calls “Supercapitalism.” Indeed, the preceding scenario is the premise of his book.

Change or die has become the mantra of old-economy institutions, and every one of them is pouring money and desperation into that effort. What do they pay for? Advertising, research, access to consumers, favorable laws. The only advantage huge corporations have over nimble micro-enterprises is huge reserves of capital, and they must spend it on things little guys can’t.

Like Congressmen. Senators. Mayors. And aldermen. Certainly the entire executive branch.

I am convinced this situation is why such a majority of voters feel the whole system no longer works for them. Their representatives have no time to hear about their little problems, their schedules are filled in with the needs and demands of lobbyists. The judicial branch hardly has time for personal injury cases, its dockets are filled with corporation upon corporation litigation. The pressure from industry is huge to change what a single person can really demand, so as to lessen the burden on judges and free up courtroom time — so businesses may use them to jockey for position. This is what Republicans called “tort reform.”

I won’t even waste my breath reiterating how the first MBA president has converted the executive branch into some obscene, mutant limb of business interests.

But it is extremely dangerous to see the solution to this in terms of bad guys. The key idea here is that marketplace conditions have caused industry to expand into places it didn’t used to go. Those conditions have been caused and are perpetuated in part by every single one of us.

How so? Because along with the mushrooming of competitors, public investing in companies has exploded as well. The mutual fund didn’t exist before the 80’s; now even factory workers have a stake in the stock market through their 401(k) plans. This has set up a parallel hyper competitiveness on Wall Street. Fund managers, in the interest of increasing the value of our portfolios, have become hyper demanding in what a company’s value must do if they are to hold onto its stock. It’s not enough for the Tribune company to be a perfectly profitable company; its value must keep growing at a faster and faster clip, no matter what kind of transition newspapers are going through. Thus, publicly-traded companies must go above and beyond simply delivering their goods and services. They must prove they will continue to make a better and better return on investment, through means having nothing to do with the value they provide consumers. In fact, consumers in some disastrous cases, such as health insurance, are no longer part of the equation. But it is wrong to blame this entirely on Republicans.

How annoying. What is the most annoying word I just said? No, not Republicans — our portfolios. And you may be rightly anticipating another old, unwelcome word: that the solution will involve sacrifice on our part. I know. What a buzz killer. The good news is it would be sacrifice in one realm that would produce benefits to us in another.

See Part Two for more!

But for the record, I didn’t mean that I won’t vote for Hillary Clinton if she’s the nominee. In the previous post I said I wouldn’t vote for her because I don’t think she’s motivated to quit the crack habit of corporate influence. In the primary contest I do think Barack Obama will be better on this issue. But I will vote for her if she’s nominated, because A) I think she’d be a good president and B) she’d be more likely to do something about corporate influence than any of the Republicans.

It’s not Hillary’s gender. I feel sorry for her because on top of the disappointment Al Gore, John Kerry and Howard Dean felt at the realization that voters vote on personality (and it’s not their personality that they like) there is the insult to injury of being a woman. I feel sorry for all the double barriers she’s had to rise above in her profession and all the sacrifices and doubt she’s had to put up with that men don’t. But it’s not being a woman that puts her in this predicament. In our identity-obsessed culture we forget about the more profoundly determinant and sometimes tragically limiting element of character.

Gloria Steinem makes a very good point. Women in power are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Especially for unenlightened men of the older generation, if women are human and emotional they are derided as feminine. If they are tough and heartless, they are derided as not feminine. The professional women I know are very sensitive to this quandary.

But as with other systems of injustice, the first step towards change is for the victim of discrimination to allow herself to be that thing they are told they cannot be. They must sit in the front of the bus themselves. They cannot wait to be invited. Eventually the other riders get used to it.

In my experience this is happening for women. Women of my generation are far more comfortable being human beings as well as leaders and far less willing to stop being human beings in order to succeed.

The confusing thing here is that, even if Hillary was a man, she would not be that emotional kind of leader. She would be John Kerry or Al Gore. So for her to say, or Steinem to insinuate, “I can’t be emotional because I’m a woman” is at once disingenuous and cooperating with oppression.

I don’t believe her tearing up was a ruse the other day. I will certainly cut her that slack. But all the rest of the things she’s been doing to counter the personality issue are total calculation. It’s the same calculation Al Gore reduced himself to when he was campaigning, and it never works. “I have emotions,” “My heart is full.” How many times did she say “heart” in her New Hampshire victory speech? It has the credibility of a Hollywood board of directors deciding which plotline will make a successful movie. “We’ve got to have some emotion words in there,” I can picture her team saying. “How about ‘heart’.” Even more ludicrous, they have yet to realize is it’s not about Hillary’s emotions anyway, it’s about inspiring emotions in the people.

The truth is, she would do far better repeating the argument that this is not American Idol, and we have to vote smart. That would be a very effective counter argument, especially if coupled with some self-deprecating humor, in the vein of Al Gore’s joke about doing the Macarena.

And yet, my core attitude towards Mrs. Clinton’s campaign has nothing to do with gender or personality. I am not voting for her no matter how much she improves her image by being herself, because I will not vote for someone who I don’t think will do the right thing. It is not even on her radar to take on the influence of business on Washington; and you do not hire the crack addict to clean up the crack house. This is the core issue of this election, whether the voters know it consciously or not.

Poor Hillary. All I can say is, God speed her Al Gore moment. Al Gore has made peace with himself — with the fact that he’s never going to be president, with the fact that maybe he’s glad he’s not president, and crucially with the fact that he’s more valuable behind the lecture stand, running a PowerPoint, and teaching than being a politician.

Teaching and advising are higher professions than politics anyway.