J-RexPlays

On Facebook today theatre circles imploded in an orgasmic seizure over an article from the Boston Globe's Metro section about the notion of Tweeting during live theatre.

From a very unscientific survey on Facebook, it seems most people are passionately for or against it.  Some hate the idea (it detracts from the live art, after all).  Some love it (a cool new way to connect with people).  A few aren’t sure. 

Personally I’m a passionate agnostic.  I don’t know, because frankly it’s new and hasn’t really been experimented with.

What boggles my mind is that the conversation and articles always boil down to two points, and both arguments – to me – seem completely invalid.  Here’s my breakdown:

THE ARGUMENT FOR:

Live tweeting offers a new way for audiences to connect with theatre, and ideally a way to connect theatre to NEW AUDIENCES.  (READ: those young people who are on twitter and DON’T Come to see theatre – maybe this will lure them). 

Here’s why I think that’s honky: twitter is an opt-in, interest-based experience.  In other words, I select who I follow, and I typically choose based on shared interests.  If I’m a theatre fan, and I’m live tweeting a show, the people who see that are people who already follow me.  If they follow me, they likely have similar interests (theatre is possibly one of those similar interests, possibly not).

Take as an example:
I declare a Boston Blasphemy and state openly that I do not care about baseball.  At best I’m an October Sox fan.  If we’re still playing I’ll tune in.  Otherwise I couldn’t care less.  A friend of mine, devout believer, live-tweets a Sox-Orioles game in May.  If I see that on Twitter I will not pay attention because frankly I do not care.  Him tweeting an experience I’m not involved in – and don’t want to be – does not get me interested.  Worst case scenario it might do the opposite!

The argument for live tweeting based on it’s marketing potential, to me, sounds a lot like someone who’s tweeting to the choir while the preacher is trying to lead the sing-along.   Who will it reach?  Marketing is about starting and nurturing relationships.  Live tweeting has immense possibility to nurture relationships, but not start them. 

THE ARGUMENT AGAINST:

Live tweeting will disrupt the audience and performers, and cheapen the experience of live performing arts.  It gives the audience permission to pay attention to something other than what’s happening onstage.

Why I think that’s hooey:

In its 2500 year history, the notion of theatre as a place to sit and pay polite attention to the stage is roughly 250 years old (less than that in some traditions).  So if theatre was 10 years old, sitting quietly only started in the last year.

For the MAJORITY of its history, theatre was associated with festivals, with the outdoors.  Not only did people watch the show, but they ate and drank, cavorted, jeered and cheered, and gambled.  Look at just about any photo of a contemporary summer music festival (Bonnaroo, I’m looking at you) and condense the crowd to about 1/100 the size, and that’s what theatre looked like for the majority of its history.  Throwing tomatoes used to be common courtesy.

Shakespeare, Aristophanes, and Marlowe would cackle at the idea that we consider theatre an art form where we sit in the dark and listen politely to what’s going on onstage.

Would tweeting detract from what many people consider to be the standard contemporary theatre experience?  Yes.  I don’t think that’s a valid argument against live-tweeting because frankly, theatre has survived worse.

What I would be Excited About

Believe it or not based on the reactions against live-Tweeting, but there is an artery of theatre in which the audience is invited and encouraged to participate.  Every night at Shear Madness, the audience votes on the killer, determining the ending of the play.  Traditional English pantomime – kept alive locally by Imaginary Beasts – thrives on the cheering and jeering of the audience.  My own company did a show in March where each night we solicited a line from the audience which was used during a climactic moment, to much applause.

All of these shows/tactics engage the audience in a way that “sitting quietly and un-distractedly, silently watching the play” forbids.  None of them use Twitter, but all of them could.

How cool would it be to – at the climax of Shear Madness – have a brief party excursion where the audience goes to the bar, characters amidst them, discussing, and the audience has five minutes to Tweet their vote for who the murderer was, before returning to their seats to see the results play out?

How exciting would it be to see a play unfolding before your eyes where at each turn you had a say in the next actions of the hero?  A live choose-your-own-adventure drama where the audience had a collective say via Twitter in how the drama proceeded?

How amazing would it be to Tweet a joke to a theatre’s account, only to hear the words repeated and laughed at onstage moments later?

There is much potential in a relationship between Theatre and Twitter.  But it’s hazy and unexplored.  I would hate for us to make choices that effect someone’s night out in a negative way.  But I would also hate to rein in a thrilling and beautiful antique art form because we think it has no place mingling with modern technology.  

Live-Tweeting might not be a good way to engage audiences.  But that doesn't mean theatre should stay as it has been for the last 250 years.  It's evolved before.  What I wouldn't give to see it 250 years from now, to see where it goes from here!  Maybe you'll be able to tweet a tomato.

One of my favorite aspects of the holidays are the movies.  Not just the classics they always show on TV, but the new ones.

I was a Thanksgiving baby and it soon became fairly regular that my “birthday” party would consist of going to a new movie with a lot of friends before returning home for ice cream and games.  So I had the great fortune to see many great holiday movies surrounded by friends:

An American Tail for my 6th Birthday;
Home Alone for my 10th, and of course:
Die Hard, for my 8th.

The tradition grew into a lifestyle, so much that I associate my birthday with new movies.  My first birthday in college I was stuck on campus with the 10 other kids involved in the winter show, and no one else!  My best bud at the time drove me down to Albuquerque where we hit the Cracker Barrel for Thanksgiving dinner, then went to see SLEEPY HOLLOW.  

It’s the time of year that you just can’t get away from holiday music.  Like all music, some holiday tunes are fantastic and some is downright horrible.  Some folks can't get enough and some quickly get too much.

I’m not a lover or a hater.  I have a few standard favorites but I’m not someone who has a playlist 5 hours long and just puts it on repeat for the month.  The songs I return to over and over are the collection Vince Guaraldi put together for the CB special, Deano’s “baby it’s cold outside” (although Kurt and Blaine’s is pretty lovely too) – even though that’s a WINTER song and not strictly a holiday song.  

And you can’t really go wrong with the Jackson 5 Christmas tunes or anything Harry Connick touches.  Though I'm not a member of the chosen, I also have a soft spot for Sandler's Hannukuh Song.

However there is one song that I cannot get enough of.  Ever.  And I’m ashamed of it, frankly.  But for me I don’t think of the holidays at all until I hear it for the first time: Mariah Carey’s All I Want for Xmas Is You (the 1994 version sans Justin Bieber).

Let’s face it, Mariah’s a fabulous singer who’s kind of gone to seed.  At this point in her life she’s essentially a Kardashian with a talent.  But god what a talent it is. 

She’s in good form on the song, and it’s a tune that – from the slow-burn opening, to the speed-up piano riff, to the horns and the beat – is built really well.  It’s so well produced and so fun.  It’s got a great bridge.  

And best of all it's got a kick ass back-up part.  And if you know me, you know that all I really want to do with my life is be a singer in a girl group.  THIS is an awesome girl group song, even if it's men singing the back up.  

Honestly I can’t hear the song without smiling and dancing my booty off.  There is no thing that fills me with holiday joy like this song, and no matter how many times I hear it I have the same reaction.  In fact I have been known to play it a second time immediately after it finishes, because I just need MORE.

So there it is.  I’m out of the closet. 

How about you – what’s your all time favorite Xmas tune?

With the holidays approaching, gift-giving is in the air.

But with the economy still in the shitter, some other things are in the air as well.

So how can you give wonderful gifts that people will cherish, but in a way that’s responsible to the world?  I would like to share an idea I think is brilliant, and which I have to acknowledge came to me from Dawn M Simmons and Robin LaPlant: Giving the gift of local art. 

I was recently fortunate enough to sell four of my own paintings to someone for this very reason, and that made me particularly thoughtful about the benefits of giving and receiving local art.  (BTW you can check out my other paintings at my Etsy shop, where I’ll be adding more throughout the holiday season: http://www.etsy.com/people/JRexPlays)

The reasons to give local art, while sometimes obvious, are powerful:

1.     Buying local art directly supports the local arts scene and – if you’re buying it for someone NOT local – spreads Boston’s reach.

2.     Buying local art supports artists who likely NEED IT.  More than, say, Lady Gaga or Jonathon Franzen.

3.     By the same token, giving local art likely gets something unique into your receiver’s hands that they wouldn’t have gotten otherwise.  GETTING local art is FUN!  Aren’t some of the greatest gifts surprises that we fall in love with? 

So I encourage you, this holiday season, to surprise yourself and your loved ones by giving the gift of local art.  Here are some suggestions:

1.     A subscription to WHISTLER IN THE DARK.  Ranges from $60 - $160, gets your friend various access to shows by one of the most talked about small theatre companies in Boston. http://www.whistlerinthedark.com/index.php

2.     A painting by Dana Nacer.  Honestly, the lady does cool work and it’s well priced.  Who doesn’t need something cool and pretty and colorful to look at in their home? http://www.dananacer.com/index.html

3.     Tickets to a Gold Dust Orphans Show.  There are some people who would NOT enjoy a show by the Orphans.  Those people are not friends, so you shouldn’t be getting them anything in the first place. https://www.facebook.com/golddustorphans

4.     Something from the hands of Christina Watka.  The woman does everything and does it all spectacularly.  Check out her paintings, her sculptures, and if your eye gets tired, listen to her sing.  There’s no shop on her website but I’m pretty sure if you emailed her and said “I want to give you money for art,” she’d say yes. http://christinawatka.com/

5. Join CSArt.  If you're familiar with CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) you probably get the idea.  In CSA you pay a certain amount per month and you get a fresh shipment of locally raised produce.  Now apply the same to art: you put down some $$ each month and you get your monthly ration of art: paintings, sculptures, etc.  The artists vary by year.  Check out the full details here.

6.     We all know there are hundreds of great local bands.  Pick your favorite that someone might not know.  Buy a CD or take them to a show. 

These are five ideas mostly for groups and artists I already know and love.  The real list of what Boston artists give to the world is hundreds of pages too long. 

So tell me in the comments: what Local Art are you anxious to give the gift of?

Some weeks ago, WHISTLER IN THE DARK put together a night called Something Rotten, on which different companies each re-conceived an act of Hamlet.  I got Act II and did it as a James Bond spoof.  The show was well received and I got some encouragement to do a full version of Hamlet as James Bond, which I am happily embarked upon.  To help, I’ve spent hours of serious “research” watching every Bond movie.  23 films so far (I’m counting the non-canonical Never Say Never Again) though I intend also to watch the parodic Casino Royale from 1967.

I have to say I have a deep place in my heart for Bond but hadn’t seen most of the films, at least not that I remember.  I have a sense of watching Bond on my trips to Alaska as a child.  For some reason when I think of Bond I think of my grandfather, which I think is both because we watched the films together and also because he was a bad ass with great wit.  At any rate, this was my first time to see most of the films, certainly my first time as a grown man. 

What amazes me the most is the inconsistency.  For the longest running (and 2nd largest-grossing) series in history, it goes in many different directions from film to film.  The best movies of the series (i.e. Spy Who Loved Me, Casino Royale) are often preceded or followed by some of the worst (i.e. Moonraker, Die another Day, respectively).

What I find most interesting however is the huge disparity in tones from one Bond actor to another.  There have been 6 actors to play Bond in the Eon canon films, and each pulls their films in a totally different direction.  In this, the role has an odd connection to Hamlet, which is often judged by the actor in the title role.  Gielgud’s Hamlet, Branagh’s Hamlet, Jacoby’s Hamlet.  Let’s face it, the core story of most Bond movies is fairly similar, the differences are in the details; quite a lot like Hamlet.

What holds the series together are the iconic elements, the “checklist” that each Bond film has: a great villain, a Bond Girl, gadgets, killer theme song, great action.  A great Bond action sequence is like a great Hamlet soliloquy – you KNOW you’re going to see it; the curiosity is in how they’ll do it THIS time!

I’ve tried to do a “Top 5” for most of the key elements of the series: Film, Villain, Bond Girl, Theme Song, etc.  Please note these are not in order (often I have trouble picking “the best” as they skew in different directions).  I’ve also given an Honorable Mention note to a few key folks who didn’t make the list, as well as an analysis of what I think is the most overrated film in the series. 

Enjoy!

Best Villains
“Red Grant” – Robert Shaw (From Russia With Love)
“Frank Sanchez” – Robert Davi (License to Kill)
“Jaws” – Richard Kiel (The Spy Who Loved Me)
“Le Chiffre” – Mads Mikkelsen (Casino Royale)

Best Bond Girls:
“Domino” – Claudine Auger (Thunderball)
“Anya Amasova” – Barbara Bach – (The Spy Who Loved Me)
“Tatiana Romanovna” – Daniella Bianchi (From Russia With Love)
“Wai Lin – Michelle Yeoh (Tomorrow Never Dies)
“Aki” – Akiko Wakabayashi (You Only Live Twice)

Theme Song:
Live and Let Die – Paul McCartney, Live and Let Die

Another Way To Die – Jack White and Alicia Keys, Quantum of Solace

On Her Majesty’s Secret Service – John Barry, OHMSS (an instrumental)

Nobody Does it Better – Carly Simon, The Spy Who Loved Me

Diamonds are Forever – Shirley Bassey, Diamonds Are Forever. (she was told to sing it like she was singing to a penis and it shows)

Best Films:
Goldeneye, 1995

Pierce Brosnan’s intro as Bond is full of great action.  And the villain?  An ex-MI6 agent and friend of Bond’s getting revenge against 007 and England.  Simple.  Can’t get better than that.

License to Kill, 1989

My only complaint with Dalton’s Bond is that he has no sense of humor.  But the darkness works and in this one, matched up with a great drug lord from Robert Davi (whose henchman is Benicio del Toro – double win) and one of the hottest Bond girls of the series in Talisa Soto. 

From Russia With Love, 1963

This one set the blueprint in many ways for the great movies in the series.  Its fairly simple – most of the action takes place on a train.  It’s just Bond, his wits, and his girl, against a villain who won’t stop.  When that villain is the amazing (and blond) Robert Shaw, you can’t lose.

The Spy Who Loved Me, 1977

The whole series is known for its opening action sequences, but this one has the crème de la crème.  Bond leaves a cabin in the Austrian Alps on skis, and is pursued.  He kills one of the chasers, and escapes by skiing off a cliff and parachuting with a Union Jack.  He’s then sent to find missing atomic submarines.  En route he meets the gorgeous Barbara Bach, a Russian agent on the same mission who just happens to be the lover of the man Bond killed in the opening.  It’s nation vs. nation, with a star crossed lover’s revenge thrown into the mix.  All this so they can stop a man who wants to destroy the world and build a new civilization undersea. 

Casino Royale, 2006

Oh god how the series needed a reboot and this was the perfect way to do it.  This film starts from the beginning of Bond’s career and essentially follows his first official mission as a 00 agent.  Craig is brilliant.  The story is simple and brutal: Le Chiffre manages the money of terrorist organizations and he loses it when Bond foils him.  Le Chiffre sets up a high stakes poker tournament to make back the money before the terrorists get him, and Bond has to out play him.  Add in the gorgeous Eva Green and an honest to god love story, and you’ve got a Bond that is tough, brutal, funny, ballsy (dude re-starts his own heart!), and incredibly human. 

Honorable Mentions
Jane Seymour
Pretty much all I remember about Live and Let Die is the killer theme song and that Jane Seymour was smoking hot.  She got a cast as what was a good idea for a character, but stuck in a lame movie as the lover of an even lamer villain.  If she’d been given a half-decent role in a better movie, she’d be a classic Bond Girl. 

Desmond Llewellyn
Played Q in 19 of the films (starting with FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE up to THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH).  The stalwart actor practically held the series together in the 80’s, always brought a great sense of fun and spry to the part, even towards the end when he was noticeably reading his lines off cue cards.  Watching the entire series back to back, the one moment in the full oeuvre that truly choked me up wasn’t Tracy Bond’s death, but Q’s farewell in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.  Thank god they knew they were losing him in time to sign off properly.  And thank god the producers found the only man on the planet who could replace Llewellyn without pissing everyone off: John Cleese.

OHMSS, 1969
George Lazenby got a raw deal.  Poor kid never acted before and he gets to fill Sean Connery’s shoes.  That’s like someone having to take over Harry Potter just for the final film.  He’s not a great Bond, but he’s GOOD, and so is this film.  History footnote: a 22 year old Timothy Dalton was offered the James Bond role in 1968 when Connery bailed out.  OHMSS would have been his first outing.  Given how dark his 80’s Bond was, and that OHMSS is one of the more cynical of the lot (Bond falls in love on his mission, marries the girl, who is killed by nemesis Blofeld minutes after the wedding), you can easily see how the 70’s would have been much different if Dalton had said yes. 

Judi Dench as M
Hands down the best casting choice of the series.  After the unspeakable horror which was Die Another Die, Dench was really the only reason this series should have continued.  And thank god it did.  With Daniel Craig as her sparring partner / wolfhound, one of the two might eventually win an acting Oscar for a Bond film.  They are fantastic together.  In the 90’s Dench gave the series more balls than it knew what to do with.  Now that Craig’s in on things, the rest of the film has balls to match her. 

The Most Overrated Bond Film:
I’m gonna be completely blasphemous and say that GOLDFINGER is entirely overrated.  Good Bond film?  Absolutely.  Top Three (as it is consistently ranked)?  No way! 

Gert Frobe plays Auric Goldfinger, the main villain, like the Swedish Chef. 

Pussy Galore is a great Bond Girl in name only; Honor Blackman does what she can with a poorly fleshed out role.  Her fight with Bond in the hay is classic, but otherwise she’s just a pawn for Goldfinger.  Her one strong character choice in the film happens off screen, when she betrays Goldfinger. 

And then there’s her Flying Circus, which is a laughably bad idea, but also sadly the inspirations for the Angels of Death in OHMSS, as well as Austin Powers’ Fembots. 

A poorly drawn Bond girl, plus a silly villain with a kooky idea to take down the world, plus an overemphasis on gadgets… this one isn’t a classic, it’s the blueprint for all the bad Bond movies to come.  They just did this one with a bit more taste.