Rambling (again) on Sunday

Mutual support and the ability to have a conversation where both people get heard...is that too much to want?  Not very common.  I do have it with some people, I appreciate them more and more everyday.  I went to this one-act play festival (?) the other night, the first one had to do with everyone so into having an online life, that they didn't actually have a real one.  Amusing and exaggerated, but not by that much.  Who exactly are we trying to connect to, and what would happen if that connection became real, as in standing in front of us?  Would we reject it?  Is it a game?  Is it wanting to feel like we matter somewhere (else, not where we are, not with who is in front of us)?  I'm not immune, I am writing this.

I messed up a tendon in the back of my foot, inside, below the ankle.  Can't figure out how to stretch it, would like to avoid snapping it.  It doesn't "hurt" per se, but it feels like it needs to pop, and is uncomfortable.

One thing I do disagree with Mamet on, is he makes a statement about maybe the best way to encounter a play is to read it yourself (but then why would he choose to write a play as opposed to a short story or a novel?  Something in him wants it performed.)  Other people would say to toss out the first couple of readings.  I find that doing character work, background work, improv, etc, while it can be intellectual, helps to find a deeper meaning in the text.  Take "Riches," the play I just did work from, when we performed it on Tuesday, I think we got a lot deeper into it, and it was more meaningful to the audience, and I don't think we could've gotten there without character work, without finding deeper meaning in the text.  I mean if you didn't need to do that work, you wouldn't need directors, you could just stand there and read it.  When we first started working on it, it was a lot of surface meaning, there was humor and sarcasm...but it wasn't particularly meaningful.  Ho hum, some middle-aged couple having an argument, so what?  Why would anyone want to see a play about that?  The audience connects with the work when they feel the human struggle, when they can see themselves in it.  And the few reviews I could find of performances criticized Carolyn for being petty, and I don't think she is, but it can come across that way when you just read it.  When she finally is able to ask for what she needs, she asks him to save her, "I need a great big kiss that says honey, I will do whatever it takes to keep you alive, including break up this marriage." (Lee Blessing, Riches.)  That's not petty, that's human pain.

And it was the same with "Oleanna," as I've mentioned before, when I first read it, I sided with John.  And perhaps that's what Mamet wanted, and that's the way the movie version played out.  Carol was an unsympathetic character, you felt like she deserved what she got.  But as I've mentioned before, when you start looking at the power structure, the privilege, she becomes the "hero," as much as there is one in this story.  He's written like a victim on the surface, but all the rules have been in his favor his whole life, he gives some sob story, but he has no idea what everyone outside that structure, whom were not considered when the rules were written, struggle with everyday, just to: get work, get an education, get housing, get fair compensation, vote, not feel like you always have to have your guard up when you walk outside, etc (grow a thicker skin?  Please, that's a temporary fix at best, allowing those who discriminate to get off without self-examination or empathy.)  And you don't necessarily pick up on that when you read it.  It took a lot for me to like her, but I did in the end, you have to at some level, empathize.  And I had to look at myself and figure out why my sympathy immediately flowed in his direction.  How much have I resigned myself to the way things stand, even as it doesn't really work in my favor, or for the majority now?  The rules favor the very few and we justify it, saying they've somehow earned it, and the rest of us aren't playing the game right...we never will.  It wasn't made for us.

Still, he writes great plays, and a lot of what he says in the essays ring true.  He studied with Meisner for a while and then rejected it, I think. There's some healthiness in that, you take what you learn and make it work for you, keeping your own autonomy and not giving all your power to some guru.  I don't think Meisner meant to be a guru, all the good teachers continually revise, there wasn't an ultimate teaching that would be the answer to end all answers.  The work is fluid, and you take from it what you need, and what helps you to do more truthfully on stage, or in life.

He (Meisner) has kinda' ruined me.  I watch performers all the time now for connection and truth...it's very distracting.  Not saying I'm better, I'm sure if I saw a my own performance, I'd notice the same things.  But I like it when they are so in the moment I get lost in them...it happens a lot.  That's the holy grail.

I should go plant something.