Bring it on Back

1 Conference, 8 shows, 3 movies (HP 7.2 twice!), 1 awesome lunch date with Phaidra, 2 iPads, and 1 evening hanging out with family (including hilarious nephews and a brand-new niece) I am back in London and buckling down. Following is a list of people I really want to see the next time I take a "working holiday":

(In no particular order)

Christopher

Karen

Tara

Lauren

Mallorie

Sara

Ricky

Stephanie
The GNO girls

Kacey

Michelle

Phaidra

My parents

Siblings and their spouses

Niece and nephews (and nieces and nephews)

My dentist

I'm thinking Christmas break. (This is not necessarily a complete list - it's just the ones I've been thinking about recently that my sleep-deprived brain can remember.)

Trip stories (and pictures!) to follow - is it weird that the first thing I do when I get back to my computer is blog?

Hello, London.

Potent Quotables

"Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn."
Benjamin Franklin

"Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm."

Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn."

Benjamin Franklin

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
Leonardo DaVinci

                                                                                        "We are all dying of miscellany."    

                                                                                                Ralph Waldo Emerson

* * * * *

Oh, What A Night...

Stephanie: "What I meant to say... I don't remember... I'm kind of like a goldfish."

Charisse: "I like the idea of being a manwhore with standards."
Steph: "It means you'll almost try anything once!"

Mal: "I'm an athletic tutor."
Sara: "Not to be confused with an athletic supporter!"
Charisse: "It's a different level of elastic."

Stephanie: "He got married and they have two kids, and they're ugly. I wish them well. And their ugly little family."

Charisse: "Seriously, it's just so random. They're like... rabbits. Bunnymellows!"
...
Mal: "Hold on - let me chew through my fluffy friends."

Stephanie: "Actually, I'll probably try anything twice - after all, if you try it once and it doesn't work it's not really a fair judgement. So, I'll almost try anything twice!"

Sara: "I don't think what I'm feeling is the Spirit."

Stephanie (holding the open end of a large drinking glass over her mouth): "Rutabaga. Arugula. Various Garden Greens."*

Mal: "Celine Dion's voice gives me a migraine and makes my legs hurt..."

Stephanie: "Rogue olive! Rogue olive!"



EPIC.





*Seriously, try it. Everything is funny when you say it into a glass.

Lest We Forget

The Fourth of July and Religion - Editorial

As the nation celebrates its independence this weekend with the customary and appropriate festivities, it is important to pause a bit to ponder how, unlike virtually every nation on Earth, the United States was founded on ideas, not on a particular ethnic identity. Those ideas are succinctly described in the Declaration of Independence as the "self-evident" truths that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."


That one phrase succinctly defines what matters to Americans. We believe in the rule of law, protected by enumerated unalienable rights that later were specified in the Constitution. We believe government should allow people to thrive through individual initiative by providing them safety and the freedom to find fulfillment as they pursue their own visions of happiness.

And most importantly, we believe that all these things come to humanity as entitlements from a divine creator. They cannot be revoked by any act of a human being. That part of our nation's founding, so essential to the essence of America, seems to be getting pushed aside lately by a host of "isms" that include relativism, secularism, atheism and even commercialism. And yet, without the idea that rights are derived from a higher power, they become merely good ideas, not inherent, inborn traits that are immune to negotiation.


This important truth also is being pushed aside by ignorance. The recent National Assessment of Education Progress test found that American schoolchildren are woefully deficient in knowledge about the nation's history. Only 20 percent of fourth-graders, 17 percent of eighth-graders and 12 percent of high school seniors demonstrated the knowledge and analytical skills to be labeled as proficient, and just 1 percent displayed "superior performance." A basic level, by contrast, denotes only "partial mastery" — and this is where most American students score in history. (Sample questions can be found at www.nationsreportcard.gov.)

Fewer than a third of eighth-graders could identify an advantage American forces held over the British during the Revolutionary War, and only 2 percent of 12th-graders understood the meaning of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court case that ended public school segregation.

Without a knowledge of American history, people put themselves at the mercy of political spin or of trendy ideas about the role of religion in society.

The wording of our founding documents, as well as the record of how the Founders felt, makes it clear that the nation's greatness doesn't derive from the rights the people hold, but from the creator who endowed them with those rights.

That is an important truth to ponder this weekend, as are the potential consequences to the nation if it is not taught to each new generation.

The NBC television network recently edited out the words "under God" from a video montage that included schoolchildren reciting the Pledge of Allegiance before the final round of the U.S. Open Golf Championship. The decision to edit those words seemed to be a nod to those who find any mention of belief or devotion in the public square to be embarrassing or disconcerting.

The Founding Fathers, however, believed such discussion was so important they began the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights by saying, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." and then followed that with protections for free speech. They intended to protect the nation from passing laws favoring one religion over another, but there is no indication they wanted to remove the discussion of, or references to, religion in the public square.

Deseret News Editorial

Reality Check

I love babysitting.



(I'm not kidding.)



I always feel so much better about my 'single and childless' life afterwards.




No matter how great the kids are (and they were) somebody absolutely refuses to brush their teeth, put on their pajamas, or get up off the floor and into bed. Fortunately, by 10:30 it's no longer my concern!

And I had to laugh to realize that I've 'graduated' from babysitting for money (which the family accurately assumed I would not accept) to babysitting for American junk food (which the family correctly perceived I would be too weak to turn down).



Would anybody like a Brown-Sugar-and-Cinnamon Pop Tart?

Dramaturgical Mindset

I'm planning to get a blog set up for my dramaturgy work - the journal stuff that I learn or would like to note that isn't necessarily about a specific production - as it's tough to link videos and such to the notebook I use as a journal. In the meantime, I'm going to keep linking things here!

This article talks about how the Mormon Tabernacle Choir was used as a 'flash mob', which I think is AWESOME. I was watching the video of the event, and it occurred to me that I was analyzing the dramaturgy of the scene that was playing out in the reenactment - wondering about the research, how the writer laid everything out, the balance of the lines and the actions... and that I was starting to think about most things this way. Movies, books, TV shows, commercials (ack! the commercials!), everything is starting to be evaluated for its dramaturgy.

I'm pretty excited about this new habit, actually.

* Here's the video link (no embed, bleh) - the singing starts about 3:28.
 - I've been such a sap lately, even this was getting me a little emotional!

Politics and Religion and the Arts (Y'know, the Little Things)

It's linky time!

* * * * *

I used to have at least a grudging admiration for Sarah Palin. I thought she was occasionally interesting, and might have some worthwhile things to say. Not anymore.

Sarah Palin trashes the National Endowment for the Arts - stating that NPR, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, etc... are all 'frivolous', shouldn't be funded by the government, and, if she has her way, will be headed for the chopping block.  Sarah Palin, you are dead to me (in a metaphorical sense, since I have never met her and now hope I never will). In the words of a PhD student at my school: " We are entering an conceptual age that will be dependent on adaptability and innovation to remain a dominant force of industry. How are the next Apple or the next Google going to thrive without an understanding of design, storytelling or empathy? Art is not a luxury but an essential part of life and the human experience." (Dierdre McLaughlin, FB) 


* * * * *


If you have much interaction with the Arts (thanks to the NEA, *phplggbt*), you're probably aware that the Tony Awards, the ones that deal with 'excellence' in American theatre, were broadcast a week ago. If you're reading this blog, you're probably also aware that I'm Mormon. It was a matter of some interest, therefore, when "The Book of Mormon" musical won all kinds of awards last week. Best musical, Best Score, Best Book, among others - and lots and lots of my friends from back home have been raving about how funny and terrific it is. Here's the thing:


When did it become OK to mock a mainstream religious organization, particularly when most of your "research" and "documentation" turns out to be completely false? Cheap jokes are still cheap, even when they're cleverly written or set to a catchy tune. Here's a collection of responses from a range of writers and University educators. This article talks about the potential cultural embarrassment the musical could provide, likening it to the bigoted minstrel shows of the previous century (and the article was written by a non-Mormon). Here is one of the the full columns briefly referred to in the Deseret News piece, and it deals with how to respond when being egregiously ('gently') mocked and condescended to. (Excellent advice.)

And with at least a small nod to my previous post, I say: as the show is also being noted as the 'filthiest' in Broadway history (I believe I read there were at least 49 major obscenities just in the script) I wouldn't see the show even if it weren't about my religion. I don't care how 'clever' it is - if you can't find a more interesting way to be funny than to resort to crass 'humor' repeatedly, how clever can you really be?

* * * * *

I respect people's right to create Art. "The Book of Mormon" Musical is not art: it's a flashy minstrel show with catchy tunes and lucky timing. I doubt that it will have any legs. That's not important, though - what is important is that we keep telling stories and talking about the stories and about the telling and about finding new ways to do the telling and the talking. The BofM Musical's time is limited - Art is here to stay. And anyone aiming for high public office who cannot acknowledge that fact is an idiot.

As a bonus article, here's one about an experience with material-free live art. It's very interesting, full of intriguing ideas - and I'm not a person who's usually intrigued by experiential live art!

* * * * *

I will now go back to learning how to be a 'blessing to society' through my choice of profession. (I can take advice.)


  

(Civilized) Ranting About Rating

I had an interesting movie experience last night - I saw how a PG-13 film is made.

Back in 2006 (sheesh, that long ago?) a sweet, quirky movie came out called "Penelope". It is about a girl who is the victim of a family curse and comes equipped with smarts, charm, great hair (extensions), and the nose of a pig. It also features a scruffy, greasy-haired, emo-enabled James McAvoy (still swoon-worthy, though - and ironically playing an American while most of the movie was shot in London. Great accent). In the States, at least, the movie was rated PG, which meant I was guilt-free when taking my niece to a showing while on a girls' day out.

Yesterday, I pulled up what is evidently a British version of the movie - it's longer by at least a few minutes, since there were scenes I'd never seen before. One of those scenes involved a rude gesture, one with the aftermath of a family member's infidelity. Others were sprinkled with a few more (relatively mild, but still) swear words. There was nothing there that was massively offensive (especially if you watch prime-time TV) and some of the additions were interesting expansions on the characters, which I liked. The thing that really stood out to me was that I could absolutely see how the cuts from yesterday's version to get it to the in-the-American-theaters (and on DVD) version made it so distinctly a PG movie instead of PG-13. (Now, versus almost 5 years ago, the longer version would probably actually rate a PG, but it's very clear how things were thematically cut.)

So, swear words, rude gestures, thematic issues that had no bearing whatsoever on the story being told were all the things that were cut out to make a good, clean movie. The movie didn't suffer from not being "real" - it's a movie. It wasn't ever real anyway. In the end the editing focused on the plot and not on interesting distractions. This certainly can't be the only movie that would benefit from that kind of focus - and I mean 'benefit' in a literal sense.

There was an article in the Deseret News recently that talked about the dearth of PG and G-rated movies. The author writes that in the years from 1995 to 2011, there were "...more than 4,300 PG-13 and R-rated movies making an average of $29 million compared with almost 1,200 PG and G flicks that make an average of $38.4 million per show." Granted, there were far fewer of them made, but they're averaging almost 10 million more per movie than those with darker ratings! I might be crazy, but I would think that clean, family-friendly shows that cost less to make (since you don't tend to be blowing things up and such) and have a higher average return would be a good investment. At a guess, I figure you'd need at least another thousand PG or G movies before you started skewing the average... and it's going to take another several years in which we'll see many, many more PG-13 and R before we hit that thousand. Just think - spend the money you would have used to make one crappy, formulaic blood-and-guts action movie to make two or three smarter, funnier (or sadder) movies that parents and kids can see and talk about together, and you're practically guaranteed an extra 20-30 million before you've even started.

Surely I'm not the only person to have figured this out - come on, Hollywood, we don't need sex and violence and bad language. (We've got the news for that.) We need good storytelling and new ways to see ourselves and the ones we love, interesting ways to talk about people and ideas. Yes, you can do all this with the 'reality' of sensuality and obscenity and violent behavior - but Ima gonna call you out, Hollywood, and tell you to lay off the trash. I'm better than that, smarter than that, and so is most of the rest of your audience. We don't NEED any of that junk.

So stop trying to sell it to us!

Thank you.