#my film terms teacher talking about how would we make a film on joan of arc and me saying i would focus on her love/isolation with her gift | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

itsblosseybitch · 4 years

Text

Griffin Dunne by Lynn Geller (INTERVIEW Magazine, May 1985)

At 29, Griffin Dunne has seen the movie business from many different perspectives. Born in New York City to Ellen Griffin Dunne and television producer-turned-writer Dominick Dunne, Griffin grew up in Los Angeles and is the nephew of Joan Didion and John Gregory Dunne. Eleven years ago, he returned to Manhattan to pursue an acting career and, after roles in Off-Broadway plays, television, and “An American Werewolf in London,” teamed up with Amy Robinson and Mark Metcalf [misprinted with an e at the end] to produce the film “Chilly Scenes of Winter,” in which he had a small part. He and Amy went on to produce “Baby, It’s You” and, most recently, Martin Scorsese’s “After Hours,” starring producer Griffin Dunne in the male lead. As if this weren’t enough responsibility, the past year has also included acting roles in the films “Johnny Dangerously” and this spring’s “Almost You.”

Looking remarkably fit for such a busy man, Griffin strode into the Lion’s Head in Manhattan only fifteen minutes late and carrying a briefcase full of future projects.

LYNN GELLER: You come from a literary family--your aunt, uncle and father are writers--were there any actors before your generation?

Griffin Dunne: Well, my mother was an actress until she had children, meaning me. I was the first. She was raised on a ranch in Nogales, Arizona, and my grandfather sent her to school in the East. My father was an actor then and he met her at a play. Actually, she hated being an actress.

LG: I didn’t know your father had been an actor.

GD: He wanted to be an actor before he became a producer. He was a stage manager and actor, studying with Stanford Meisner, who ran the Neighborhood Playhouse. Meisner told him he would never be a leading man because he was too short. When I say short, I mean my height, five-seven, five-eight. He left the profession because he wanted to be a leading man, not a character midget, or whatever he thought he would be. This was in the pre-Dustin Hoffman days. He became a stage manager for live TV, everything from Howdy Doody to Playhouse 90 in the ‘50s. When I was two, he got a job in L.A. and that’s where I was brought up.

LG: Is that home?

GD: Well, yeah, home is where the mother is, but I’ve lived in New York for eleven years.

LG: Why did you move here--you went to school in the East?

GD: I went to boarding school in the East [more specifically, Fay School in Boston, Massachusetts, based on a New York Times article from the -late ‘90s and the Alumni page] , a pre-prep school that was very repressive. Coats and ties, whippings--if you ever saw the Lindsay Anderson movie If... you know what I’m talking about. You stay through eighth grade and then hopefully you graduate and go somewhere like Exeter and Andover.

LG: Did you?

GD: My response was to get the hell away from the East Coast and go to a liberal arts school in Colorado called Fountain Valley.

LG: I know about that school. That was supposed to be a very wild place.

GD: Well, I was hoping it would be. It was wild in my wildest imagination. You could grow you hair as long as you wanted and you were allowed to smoke cigarettes. You could pretty much get away with anything, but I did manage to get myself kicked out.

LG: What did you do?

GD: I smoked dope and a teacher saw me through a window. The next night I was going to appear in Othello, and I never got to do the play.

LG: So you were acting at an early age. Was that because of your parents?

GD: No. I was planning to be a writer. But a guy who taught acting talked me into auditioning for Zoo Story, the Edward Albee play. I got the part and that was the end of that.

LG: How old were you when you got kicked out?

GD: I was 17 and almost finished. They wouldn’t let me graduate, which was really depressing. It was more depressing that I didn’t get to play Iago. They felt that my performance would be tainted by the fact that I had been kicked out and I might be unduly rewarded by applause.

LG: What did you think you might do after that?

GD: Be an actor. I finally got some work. I was in a movie called The Other Side of the Mountain.

LG: Then you came to New York?

GD: No, then I got a job on a television series called Medical Story. I had about ten lines. I played a doctor, stuffing an IV in Linda Purl’s veins [misprinted as Linda Pearl] and answering Meredith Baxter Birney when she came in and said, “What’s the diagnosis, David?” I’d memorized the diagnosis, which was complicated medical jargon.

LG: What did you use for inner motivation?

GD: My major motivation was to say the words correctly. I figured if I did it like a real scientist, I’d pull off a real character coup. Then right as we were about to roll, the medical adviser on the show came over and said that the diagnosis wasn’t accurate, we had to change the description. They changed the lines and every time we’d go for a take, I couldn’t remember the lines and I’d clam up. The director would go, “Cut. What’s your problem? What is your problem?” I said I needed five minutes, so he said, “Okay, five minutes, the kid’s got five minutes.” I went into a little room and I was so nervous about ruining my career that when I went to light a cigarette, I set my lip on fire. So when I went back to give the diagnosis I hadn’t memorized in the first place, I lisped. The director was furious. He said, “Cut. What’s the accent? Are you doing an accent on me?” Finally, the actress, Linda Purl, took out one of my pens in my top pocket and without me knowing it, she wrote out the diagnosis on her arm, where I was to insert the IV. So when they said, “Roll ‘em,” I had no idea at first what my line would be and then I looked down at her arm and there it was. It was very sweet of her.

[Based on the available information I have, the Medical Story episode that Griffin Dunne was on was titled “Up Against The World” or “Us Against The World” depending on what you check. The episode is said to have aired December 4th, 1975. All I could find on the show was a promo on YouTube.]

LG: You must have fallen in love.

GD: I did, but we never got to say goodbye. So I got the lines out, but what I realized from that experience was...nothing. Absolutely nothing, but to have a cigarette in your mouth when you go to light one. Shortly after that I moved to New York and signed up at the Neighborhood Playhouse.

LG: Because your father had gone there?

GD: I didn’t know he’d gone there until I was already in there and he told me the Stanford Meisner/leading man story.

LG: While you were studying acting, did you work as a waiter?

GD: Yes. At Beefsteak Charlie’s for a limited engagement. At Joe Allen once for two weeks. I lied and said I was experienced and I clearly wasn’t. That was enough to get me the job at Beefsteak’s. I hung in the longest there--they liked my work.

LG: Then you would go on auditions? Is that what you do when you’re a waiter/actor?

GD: When you’re a waiter/actor with no agent, you read Backstage and go out for plays that you never see in ads for openings. They never appear as productions. I went to an audition for an original play once, written and directed by a woman with a long Russian name. She thought I was perfect for the part. It was the first time a director said, “You are going to be great, you’re it.” She told all the other actors to go and took me out for coffee. I couldn’t believe my luck--I’d just arrived in New York. She took me out, we talked intensely, and at some point I realized she was stark raving mad. She had this long scarf that dragged behind her picking up dirt and pizza crust. I looked closely at her and realized she was a bag lady. I realized that anyone can hold an open casting call, a trick I haven’t really employed yet as a way to meet new and exciting people.

LG: How much does it cost to take an ad out? As much as a bag lady collects in a day?

GD: No, these people weren’t quite bag. They have apartments and enough money to be able to decide, is it Safeway tonight or an ad in Backstage? At some point, they just cross that line.

LG: How did you get involved in producing?

GD: Well, Amy Robinson, Mark Metcalf and I were unemployed actors hanging out together. We were working on the play Cowboy Mouth, which we were going to do for ourselves and hopefully get a production. That never happened, but the three of us had a lot of energy together. Eventually that translated into our trying to get a movie off the ground. Amy loved the book Chilly Scenes of Winter by Ann Beattie, and we agreed. That became our first project. We were all frustrated at being out-of-work actors. At the time I was working at Radio City Music Hall selling popcorn. I carried around a big set of keys as the manager of the popcorn concession. I wasn’t getting a lot of feedback on my work.

LG: Had you ever thought of producing before?

GD: I never had dreams of producing, but I was with Amy and Mark and what we wanted to do was much closer to what I wanted to do than what I was doing. It felt as good as acting.

LG: How did you end up doing Baby It’s You?

GD: I was in Poland acting in a TV movie called The Wall. Amy was talking about the idea for the film before I left. It was loosely based on her life, about a middle-class girl who gets involved with one of her classmates, a guy from the other side of the tracks. While I was away, she got John Sayles involved. We discussed it over the phone from Poland, the conversations closely monitored by the hotel staff. God knows what they made of it. But I didn’t have too much to do with development.

LG: You mean in terms of the story?

GD: More in terms of getting the development deal at the studio. Amy and I have a very good relationship. We both rely on each other’s opinions and support. We were both line producers on the film. Our job was to keep things rolling and to make sure that John Sayles had everything he needed.

LG: Are you good at that?

GD: Yes, to my surprise. I never considered myself much of an organizer, but it turns out I’m good with money and at getting along with people, making sure that everyone has what they need and keeping those needs within the budget.

LG: Let’s talk about some of the films you’ve been acting in recently. Have you seen Almost You yet?

GD: Yes. I liked it. The characters were incredibly human and sympathetic. And screwed up. Not homicidal--but normal, confused human beings. My character in particular was a very confused fellow.

LG: That was a movie where someone approached you with a script. What made you decide to take it on?

GD: Well, Adam Brooks, the director, had a script he’d been telling me about when he was a script supervisor on Baby It’s You. One day, when I was living in a beach house with Brooke Adams, he came up with the producer, Mark Lipson, and the script. We had a great day at the beach. Brooke cooked this great meal. After they left, we read the script and thought it was really charming, funny. Brooke and I wanted to work together and this seemed perfect. We said yes, thinking, this sweet little picture is never going to get made anyway, but, of course, we’ll do it if it does. Ha ha ha. All we did was say yes, and Mark and Adam took the ball and ran with it. The next thing I knew, we had a start date.

LG: What was the time lapse between those two events?

GD: Six months. It was shot in February. Very quick--I was pleasantly surprised.

LG: But at this point you’re no longer living in that beach house?

GD: Six months is also a very. very long time. A lot can happen in that time. Brooke and I aren’t living together anymore, nor were we when we did Almost You.

LG: Wasn’t that hard?

GD: It was interesting. We get along very well. We’re good friends, and we were very professional. I think we both dreaded the idea of letting the crew think there was something more to this than there was.

LG: Do you think people see you as wearing two hats now, actor and producer?

GD: It’s hard to tell. I don’t really know. I have noticed that scripts that are submitted to Doubleplay Productions that have a character that is anywhere from 20 to 35, they say, “This would be a good part for you.” I don’t know if that’s supposed to be a lure.

LG: Well, aren’t you looking for movies to produce that you can act in?

GD: Whatever movies Amy and I decide to do, it’s totally collaborative. I can see doing a movie that I would rather produce than act in, but it would have to be very special, like Chilly Scenes of Winter or Baby, It’s You. But doing After Hours revitalized my interest in acting, it really inspired me. So my dream is to be able to continue producing movies with Amy that I can act in.

#griffin dunne #interview magazine #interviews #old magazines #vintage magazines #archives #may 1985

2 notes · View notes

skammovistarplus · 5 years

Text

Culture and Translation - S01 E10

After the cut, lots of thoughts of bullying and betrayals. Also, me trying to get through these quick before season 2 starts dropping.

CLIP 1: And now, for a lot of thoughts on bullying

¿Con las clases empezadas? (“Mid-term?”): Nora asks Eva something like, “with school having started?” I reworked it as it sounds awkward.

Es que no me entra nada (“I have no appetite”): Eva says something like, “I can’t get anything inside.” Again, no one says this in English.

Okay, so when this clip dropped, there were some discussions on twitter. Firstly, as someone who has attended high school in the US and Spain, I don’t believe Nora would be nicknamed Joan of Arc at an American high school. I don’t think Joan of Arc is that well-known of a figure that side of the Atlantic. Joan of Arc is a fairly recognizable figure in Spain because she is a Roman Catholic saint, and Spanish culture is highly influenced by Catholicism. In my opinion, a person like Nora, living in Wisconsin, would be called a SJW or a snowflake or something along those lines. The issue is, Spanish people don’t understand what those nicknames would mean. They would, however, understand the nuances of getting called Joan of Arc.

Then there is another issue. Nora says, “I swear that, in the US, being a freak is a lot worse than here.” That raises some questions, because the kind of bullying Eva is victim to, is actually really serious. I believe she has it the worst out of all the Evas. To recap: She has been abandoned by all her friends except for Nora. People are talking about her and pointing at her. People throw notes at her, and she is the victim of 24/7 cyberbullying, which involves a picture of the Eva/Cristian kiss and defacing the pictures posted to her ig. This has been going on for around a week. Tyler Clementi, to name a notable victim of cyberbullying, suffered under similar circumstances.

So, since Nora is speaking from personal experience, how severe was the bullying she suffered in Madison, the bullying that makes her say that, “in the US, being a freak, is a lot worse” than what Eva is experiencing. Some viewers felt that Nora was minimizing the bullying Eva was going through, as Nora only mentions namecalling, being nicknamed Joan of Arc. Spanish teen viewers (the target audience) felt that Nora was exaggerating what “being a freak” is like at an American high school. That is because Spanish teens’ knowledge of American high school comes from, you guessed it, TV shows and movies. In particular, a movie that was brought up in the comments to the clip was The Perks of Being a Wallflower. When this movie was dubbed for Spaniards, the title was translated as “Las ventajas de ser un marginado” (Perks of being marginalized). Now, you will agree that being marginalized is a lot stronger than being a wallflower, and so that led to the impression from certain viewers that being bullied in the US is a glamorous affair where your best friends are Ezra Miller and Emma Watson, you eat cannabis brownies, drive through tunnels for the aesthetics and go to school dances.

In short, this clip attempted to broach the topic of bullying in the US as compared to bullying in Spain, to an audience who has no real references of what American high school culture is like, outside of American popular culture. And to do so, they gave an unrealistic example (American students using Joan of Arc as a demeaning nickname), failed to explain why Nora would feel that bullying at US schools is “a lot worse” than what Eva is experiencing (which barely holds up as an argument, as what Eva is going through has led students in the US to grievous harm), and led more educated viewers to wonder about the extent of the bullying Nora went through. And while bullying at American high schools is an important topic, should that be a topic that Skam ESPAÑA deals with? Is it relevant to the average Spanish teen’s experience? Personally, I feel like the writers may have bitten off more than the show can possibly chew, with this narrative choice, which informs Nora’s character as it is her backstory.

On a lighter note, Nora compares Eva to a dog, which should imply her stance on dogs isn’t so hard-line. The word she uses, “galletitas,” can mean a number of different things in Spanish. Generally speaking, “galletas” are cookies, but they may also be biscuits, salty crackers, or yes, dog food. I went with “kibble” to keep to the dog-related teasing.

Again, the characters suggest that Eva talks to her mom, but she doesn’t. As I mentioned, this is generally true of Spanish teens (we aren’t a hivemind after all), and more specifically, of bullying victims. One of the biggest issues about bullying in Spain is that victims take up to a year to tell their parents.

CLIP 2: Learn English with Skam España

Okay, so this is definitely more about the effects on bullying than culture or translation anymore. Is everyone in that library talking about Eva? At this point, it no longer matters for either Eva or the viewer. The bullying she has gone through so far has made it so that both Eva and the viewer now feel paranoid that everyone is talking shit about Eva while Eva is present. Maybe those guys are just checking 9gag! But since they took out their phones at the same time Eva got an IG notification, it feels like they are definitely mocking Eva. I thought Eva’s actress was great through the entire bullying arc, and I liked that Skam España expanded on the bullying sl from the og, so that we could get a fuller portrait of the effects of bullying on their victims.

¿Con qué estás? (“What are you studying?”): The literal translation would be, “What are you with?” I.e. What subject are you working on right now.

When did Amira take that Bio test? She’s supposed to be in Eva’s group (we saw her in the third clip and she’s also on the Science track), but of course, that test was all about Eva and Lucas’ friendship angst.

Phrasal verbs are the bane of every ESL student’s existence, Cris included.

No seas plasta (“don’t be a pain in the ass”): “Plasta” is a synonym of “pesado/pesada,” which I already covered in an earlier post. It literally means “flattened mass.”

Me cago en la puta (“shit on a whore”): More pooping! Now we’re pooping right on top of prostitutes! But yeah, that’s the literal translation and, you know, sometimes you want to find the closer English equivalent, and other times, you just want to make sure people understand who or what we’re pooping on this time. Cris is really frustrated with her English skills, so she uses one of the stronger pooping variations.

This was one of the clips that were most fun to translate, for the challenge of translating an English quiz to English.

CLIP 3: Mess

Es que ya hay que tener mala hostia (“You really gotta be a fucking asshole”): “Tener mala hostia” is the stronger versión of “tener mala leche” (literally, to have bad milk). A person with “mala leche” is someone who acts in bad faith, a malicious or a bad-tempered person. The idiom comes from the idea that a mother’s breastfeeding milk can have an impact on her person’s temper or personality. “Hostia,” as we’ve covered, is the sacramental bread used for the ritual of the Eucharist, but it’s used more commonly to mean a smack across the face.

Cris makes a point of singling out the person who first uploaded the pic to instagram. When I link Skam España to people, I point out that they should also follow the social media posts, and here’s the reason. If you follow the social media posts, you already know who first uploaded the picture to instagram. It was Inés. The hate ig took it from her stories, cropped it, and posted the first meme. The sequence of events is clear if you followed the show in real time. However, if you bingewatch the episodes and don’t follow social media, you get the impression that, at this point, how the Eva/Cristian picture made it to the hate ig is a mystery. And also, that whoever uploaded it first (who we know to be Inés) is the one with beef against Eva. And, well, there’s beef of the level of “I uploaded a compromising pic to my stories to be a dick” and beef on the level of “I’ve vandalized all your pictures, turned you into a meme and covertly filmed you at school.”

This confrontation is so odd when you consider that, unlike the og girl squad who didn’t know about the letter written in period blood, the Spanish girl squad suspects the second years of being behind the hate ig. In fact, they know the girls have pulled similar shit before. And, best of all, Cris actually hooked up with one of them, so you’d think Cris’ presence might help matters?

The second year girls have a different Maths teacher. This one is a guy. The girl squad’s Maths teacher is a woman.

I find it funny that Rubén was suspended for three days for fighting with ALEJANDRO, but ALEJANDRO was not punished himself.

I just noticed that there should be an “into” in the sentence, “People are huge assholes and anything can turn INTO a joke to laugh your ass off.” Oops.

CLIP 4: Failing grade in Biology and in Friendship

As noted in the subs, in Spain we’re graded on a 0-10 scale. 5 is the passing grade. Lucas got an 8, which is considered a “notable” grade, but not “outstanding” (those are grades over 9). Eva got a 3, which is well below 5. Much like Isak, Lucas is good enough in Biology that he does well in surprise exams. He seems to be resentful of what this grade might do to his GPA though, lol.

Lucas says that his mom was hysterical after his dad left, but the language he uses doesn’t make it explicit that his mom is mentally ill. The writers may or may not keep this part of Isak’s background. Thought I’d mention that since we know at this point that they have no issues giving the Skam España characters entirely different backgrounds. So far, it’s clear that Lucas’ parents fight a lot and that his home life is massively impacting Lucas’ mood and life, but we don’t know what the fights are about.

¿Para esto vienes de buenas a hablar conmigo? (“Is this why you talked to me like nothing happened?”): “de buenas” is kind of tricky to translate. You can come at someone “de buenas” (good) or “de malas” (bad). If you come at someone “de malas,” it means you’re already on a bad mood when you start a conversation, or you’re angling for a fight. On the other hand, if you come at someone “de buenas,” it means you’re in a conciliatory mood, or trying to avoid a fight.

CLIP 5: Hi privileges

Comiéndoos la boca (“Sucking face”): Inés actually says that Jorge and Eva were eating each other’s mouths. This is a common Spanish idiom, by the way!

El insta es muy jodido (“Insta is a mindfuck”): Eva says that Insta is “really fucked up,” as in, it does a number on one’s mental health. I went with “mindfuck” to get to the point of what Eva means, but keeping the swear word.

Eva asks Inés why she stayed friends with Jorge, but not her. I saw some commentary to the tune of, “why did they add that bit of dialogue? It adds nothing to the conversation, we already know this.” Personally, I think it’s good that they added it, because it’s a good starting point for a discussion, and particularly when it comes to the s2 storyline. Skam has gotten massive kudos for promoting sorority and friendship between girls. However, the s2 storyline is about Noora being forced to choose between her friend and a boyfriend. Vilde never dated William, but the storyline shares some of the same elements: Eva is torn between a guy she likes who likes her back, and her friend who is in love with that guy. So is Noora. Skam offers two outcomes to that scenario. Eva’s decision results in her expulsion from her friend group, while ultimately the girl squad friendship is stronger after Noora’s season.

Inés says she assumed that boyfriends come and go, but that she thought she’d stay friends with Eva forever. Was Eva Mohn right in choosing a boyfriend over her best friend? Was Eva Vázquez (since, thanks to the bonus clip, we know more of how Eva and Jorge got together)? Was Inés right to hold a grudge against Eva? And if she was right to do so, was she right to not hold a grudge against Jorge? Is it ever okay to choose a boyfriend over your friends?

Again, if you haven’t kept up with the social media, Inés’ apology may seem confusing. It seems like she admits to being the person behind the hate ig, but then why would she not take credit for the meme? The first profile to make a meme out of the Eva/Cristian pic was eva_la_z0rra (or eva_the_s1ut). That’s because Inés is not behind the hate ig. She just uploaded the pic to her stories. I have noticed that people who didn’t keep up with the social media posts assume Inés took responsibility for the hate ig, which is interesting. You could watch og Skam without the social media posts and the story would be exactly the same than if you’d watched it with the social media posts. Social media added characterization details. When it comes to Skam España, you come away with two very different conclusions as to who ran the hate ig, depending on your level of investment (reading and watching everything vs just watching the episodes).

Retirar el saludo (“to snub someone”): This idiom doesn’t come up in the clip itself, but it gives cultural context to Eva and Inés’ conversation. In the course of a day, we say hi to everyone we know that we come across. We don’t necessarily stop and have a conversation, but we acknowledge them with a “hi” or a “how are you doing.” In Spain, we have a specific idiom for when someone’s fucked up and has lost their “hi” privileges. This is “retirar el saludo” (literally, “to remove the greeting”). Through the conversation, Eva seeks to get her “hi” privileges back, and eventually Inés agrees she will say “hi” to Eva when they see each other at school/around the neighborhood/at parties or botellones. It doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll stop to talk and catch up, but Eva now gets to be told “hi.”

Social media:

Cris turned 16 this week! I love that the writers specifically picked her birthdate so that it would fall on a day where the girl squad was still broken up. Needless to say, people were very salty in the comments, heh.

I’ve liked the way Skam España has referenced the og with similar social media pics, Kose Club, and song choices. Referencing songs from the og on insta is actually clever as it helps them circumvent music license issues, lol. That said, I think naming the Spanish girl squad after the og girl squad name Las Losers would be far too much. I hope they leave it at that, just a reference on a text update.

#culture and translation #skam españa #skam spain #skames #skamesp

8 notes · View notes

thewidowstanton · 6 years

Text

Chris Barltrop, actor and ringmaster: Audacious Mr Astley

Chris Barltrop describes himself as “semi-nomadic”, but is originally from Walthamstow in London. He has entertained audiences all over Europe as a performer, and also devised, directed and facilitated shows. He has a lengthy theatre CV – including leading roles in Twelfth Night, The Crucible and Pygmalion – and has also appeared on TV programmes as diverse as The Dick Emery Show, The Royal Variety Performance, Casualty and Blue Peter.

Chris has been a ringmaster for 40 years, including a lengthy run from 1997–2012 for the Grand Cirque de Noël in Toulouse, where he spoke in French. In the UK he has been general manager and MC for the Moscow State Circus, Gerry Cottle's Circus, Jimmy Chipperfield's Circus World and Continental Circus Berlin, among others. He lectures on the history of circus and circus life and is an in-demand after-dinner speaker.

Now Chris makes his Edinburgh Festival Fringe debut – opening on his 70th birthday – with his self-penned one-man play Audacious Mr Astley. The show – which celebrates the equestrian Philip Astley and marks the 250th anniversary since he started the art form in the UK – runs at the Pleasance Courtyard from 1-27 August 2018. Chris chats to Liz Arratoon.

The Widow Stanton: Were you formally trained as an actor? Chris Barltrop: I went to East 15 Acting School in the late 1960s. No one in my family was in the theatre but my father and my mother had done some amateur acting. My father was a teacher when I was small, but he stopped doing that to be a full-time writer and artist. So I grew up in a house that was arts orientated, full of books, and which was also full of political discussion. My parents used to go to see Joan Littlewood’s productions at Theatre Workshop, Stratford, when they were a young married couple so they saw a lot of actors and were very pleased when I eventually decided to go into it. I never had a plan for life and I haven’t now, really [laughs]. I was good at acting at school and suddenly decided to try it.

Part of my father’s personality was that he was a great raconteur and would tell stories and do the characters and voices. That gave me the idea it was fine to do that. I am, like a lot of performers, very, very shy, but you can hide behind a persona and face the world because it’s not you they’re looking at, it’s the ringmaster or Dogberry, or Malvolio; it’s the character. You’re putting up a front, like the clown with his mask.

What did you do on The Dick Emery Show? It was 1979, when Jimmy Chipperfield was approached by the BBC to do an episode setting all the sketches in the circus. It was wonderful to work with him. Dick was doing a summer show in Great Yarmouth. I went down to see him and he was very nice. I asked him to back my application for Equity membership and he wrote me a charming letter.

And on the Royal Variety Performance? I got in touch with the BBC, whose turn it was that year, and spoke to the producer, Kevin Bishop. He was very keen to include the Moscow State Circus, but he said I’d have to produce our spot. So I planned the spot and we did it as a little showcase; one trick from the Russian bar, 30 seconds of the hat juggling and the clowns and me standing on the side of the stage as ringmaster. [Laughs] The other time was 1989 or ’90, the producers wanted to include ‘The World of the Circus’; Paul Daniels introducing artists from Jolly’s Circus, from Gerry Cottle’s, from John Lawson’s… people brought snakes, Gerry brought a baby elephant, and I came on as the Moscow State Circus’ ringmaster.

How did you get into being a ringmaster? The circus was really an accident. Having finished drama school when it was still the days of the Equity closed shop, I didn’t have an Equity card and you couldn’t get a job without one. It was 18 months after graduating and I was doing fill-in jobs, driving, and so forth. We were living in a little cottage in Saffron Walden and my wife, Barbara, who was a teacher, had had to stop work when we had a baby daughter. So it was up to me to earn a living.

One week in The Stage there was an advert for Hoffman’s Circus: ‘Staff Wanted’. Not performers, but what we in the circus still call ‘billers’, people who put up the bills. They wanted a married couple to run the advance booking office. It said: “Luxury accommodation provided. Best terms in the business.” I said to my wife: ‘What do you think?’. We decided to write and if we got the job, we’d stick with it even if it was absolutely dreadful and awful, because we’d learn something. It was in the entertainment business; it was a new aspect to learn about.

The accommodation was in an artic vehicle that had been built as a mobile hairdressing studio for film location work. It was nicely fitted out and comfortable. We weren’t with the circus but we were on the circus and got to know it. We toured Scotland and enjoyed it very much, and asked if we could go back the following year when they were touring the West Country. One of them said; “You’re hooked.” We said: “No, we just fancy doing a second year,” but actually that was the case.

After that I went to work for Gerry Cottle, still putting posters up, and into the second season with him, he asked about my background. He thought I was better spoken than a lot of people and said would I like to try being ringmaster for one of his Christmas circuses in Cardiff. That was 1976. Then the next season he took me on to the circus as house manager and deputy ringmaster, but as the season went on it became more and more that is was me being the ringmaster all the time. It was very hectic, dealing with the public, doing a show, running back out and trying to do both at once. It was very enjoyable and I learnt a lot.

What qualities does a good ringmaster need? The public see the ringmaster as a sort of compere but in fact the ringmaster is the stage manager. I was very quickly aware that I needed to watch out for people’s wires and everything else and make sure things were safely put up and that the props were in the right place. So there’s an element of safety. I remember once when I was one of two assistant ringmasters to Norman Barrett, a Russian trapeze artist missed his trick and was falling. There was the safety net but it looked as though he was going right to the side of it. He was OK, but my reaction was to run forward and when I looked it was Norman Barrett and me running towards one another to do something about it.

That’s what you need, an awareness and a knowledge of the rigging and of what is happening to the artists. I’ve had swings on trapezes, I’ve climbed up to the high wire just to stand there and see what they’re seeing. It’s important to do that, and over and above that it’s alertness, awareness and a calm character because if something goes wrong you’ve got to deal with it. ‘Right, you pick that up, I’m going to talk to the audience, clear that and tell the clowns to come in… ladies and gentleman…’. You have to be concise and have the skill of thinking what to say next; so often when there’s a bit of action going on I’m editing words in my head. Also you have to be able to present yourself if it’s a TV interview. I do love the variety of it. You can be on national television one minute or knocking stakes in or driving a lorry the next.

Did you have to learn French for Grand Cirque de Noël? I was taught French at school. Our teacher was the headmaster, whose wife was from Brittany. I was the dunce of the class and only scraped through. Sadly, he died but I would have loved to say to him, ‘Guess what I do for a month every winter? I stand in front of 2,500 French people talking French!’. He’d have laughed his head off. He’d have loved it.

Tell us how Audacious Mr Astley came about? In 1973/74 at the end of that first season there were no Christmas circuses. It wasn’t practical with canvas tents in the winter. I thought I’d like to find out about circus. There were two books in Saffron Walden library: I Love You Honey But the Season’s Over by Connie Clausen and British Circus Life by Eleanor Smith. I read about Philip Astley starting circus in London. As time went on, I think it was 1986, and having an interest in the history of the circus and knowing roughly where it started, I researched and pinpointed the exact spot at Halfpenny Hatch. Astley chose a field where there was a busy footpath. The landowner charged a halfpenny for people to take a shortcut across his land and you paid at a little window in the fence or hatch. So this is the famous spot. It has lovely Georgian cottages on it now that were built in about 1820.

Has the spot been marked now? I was pleased to identify it for people but there had never been a commemoration on the spot, hence on Easter Monday we unveiled a plaque, which the local residents paid for. They’re so interested in this piece of history related to where they live. I did the premiere of Audacious Mr Astley in Waterloo East Theatre a few yards away; it was smashing.

What form does the show take? With the 250th anniversary getting closer and closer, I thought I’d love to combine my circus knowledge with my acting – directing myself – and my writing skills, which I’ve developed over the years working with the press. A year or so ago, I started to make some notes, in the knowledge that I was not simply giving a lecture or illustrated talk but that I wanted to be Philip Astley and that this would be, not only a unique way to tell the story in the sense that someone will be standing there being him, but also I believe, I hope, with a unique insight.

Astley established various traditions; he wore a red coat, he toured his shows straight away, they went out to Bath and Bristol and he took the circus to Scotland, where I’ll be in a couple of weeks. He introduced it to Ireland and Europe. And he also established a tradition of tough mindedness and independence and overcoming the odds to make sure it happened.

How important has it been for traditional circus in the UK to mark this 250-year anniversary? It’s very important for all circus. It’s a great thing with Circus250 having tremendous individual supporters; Martin Burton of Zippos Circus is one. He’s got the horses and this year he’s reproduced The Courier, which happened in Georgian circuses, where someone stands across two horses with the other horses coming through. Also it’s had the backing of Dea Birkett. She’s the chair of the co-ordinating group and has originated some events of her own.

There is also Andrew Van Buren’s Philip Astley Project in Newcastle-under-Lyme. I love their line: “Philip Astley is Newcastle-under-Lyme’s Shakespeare.” And so he is. Look what he achieved; it’s not literature but he had a cultural impact, which has spread worldwide… . He called it Astley’s Amphitheatre of Equestrian Arts and took it to royal families everywhere. He promoted himself and it was famous throughout the 19th century; Dickens, Jane Austen, Thackeray wrote about it. William Blake lived in one of Astley’s houses and he must have sat there sketching the horses in the amphitheatre. Some people think circus started with contemporary circus 30 years ago, and don’t want animals, but Astley was a rider so horses were involved. He called it a ‘hippodrama’; a play with lots of horses.

Who created your costume? I carefully researched the costume and was very lucky and found a book on eBay The 15th King’s Hussars with uniforms from 1759, which was when his regiment was formed and when he joined. The costume was made by Farthingale Costumes, who make costumes for reenactors, such as The Sealed Knot. It’s the exact material, it’s the exact cut and tailoring; it’s precise.

How do feel about going to Edinburgh for the first time? It’s been a wonderful 12 months in lots and lots of ways. It’s been absolutely fantastic! And to have performed as him on the very spot on Easter Monday, the exact 250th anniversary, was a fabulous thing to be able to do. There’s another anniversary, mine and Mr Astley’s; my 70th birthday on 1 August and I’m presenting him as 70 years old. It’s perfect, absolutely brilliant; it’s such a happy coincidence.

Chris performs Audacious Mr Astley at the Pleasance Courtyard (venue 33) from 1-27 August 2018 during the Edinburgh Festival Fringe

Picture credits: Ashleigh Cadet; Pierre Gautier: David Davis

For Audacious Mr Astley tickets, click here

Chris’ website

Twitter: @Astley250 @circus250 @ThePleasance @edfringe @PhilipAstleypro

Follow @TheWidowStanton on Twitter

#Chris Barltrop #Philip Astley #circus250 #ringmaster #interview #actor #Audacious Mr Astley #edinburgh festival fringe #the pleasance #Philip Astley Project #circus

1 note · View note

troutfishinginmusic · 3 years

Text

Interview: Tim Kinsella (2012)

In 2012 my life was chaotic. I was working on my degree at Wayne State University and working two jobs. I was also going through some trauma in my personal life, which I’ve only recently sorted out. During all of this, I interviewed one of my favorite artists. Tim Kinsella has been a part of numerous musical projects (most notably Cap N’ Jazz and Joan of Arc). I was lucky enough to interview him when he did a limited run of living room shows at the time. I wrote an article from the interview for my college newspaper. I really don’t like how it turned out. This interview appears on another Tumblr page I made at the time and have since forgotten all the login stuff (including the email). Joan of Arc recently concluded after over 20 years, so I thought it would be fitting to post it again with a bit of light editing. The interview happens at a creative high for JOA and a commercial low. Kinsella currently performs in Good Fuck.

What made you want to tour living rooms?

It was really a very practical decision. I’ve been working as an adjunct teacher around Chicago and I have a better job that starts in February. I didn’t want to go back to my old job yet and get lots of music done. But by the time I found out I wasn’t working it was too late. It was too late to book clubs; to do a normal tour. It was very much just a backwards kind of a panic. Dave Bazan of Pedro the Lion and Tim Kasher have been doing this. So I got hooked up with the guys who booked those. And I’m excited this is the first one.

What subject and where did you teach?

I taught two semesters at the Art Institute [of Chicago] teaching a weird first year seminar. I taught classes on Utopia that I made up. But that’s just while I was in school there. But then I taught at Harold Washington, which is part of the Chicago City colleges, and I taught popular culture and mass media studies sorts of things. In February I start teaching experimental fiction writing at the University of Chicago’s night school program. That’ll be more exciting for me, teaching writing classes.

Are you going to write a follow up the “Karaoke Singers Guide to Self Defense”?

You know I just finished the second one and I can’t find a publisher. I actually just finished a first draft of the third one in the last two and a half months. So that means it’s still about two and a half years away from being done. I sent out the second one to 28 different publishers and have gotten 12 or 13 rejections so far and haven’t heard back from the other 14.

Why not put it out with the last publisher?

That’s part of there deal they don’t do two books by anyone. Half the people they put books out by have deals with bigger publishers, so this is like their weird side project thing. So they’re helping me find people to send it to. And I’ve become really good friends with them. So they’re on my side but they won’t do the book.

I saw in another interview that you were starting to move away from song-based albums to larger instrumental pieces. On the new self-titled album there is one side devoted to song-based material. Do you see yourself continuing to move away from that in the future or is it kind of up in the air in terms of Joan of Arc?

It’s hard to say. I remember when Joan of Arc Dick Cheney Mark Twain came out in 2004 and, when we finished mixing it, we met this friend of mine who’s in this band called Disappears, who’re really awesome, and telling him how excited I was about the record and gushing about how it does this and it does this and how we balanced it’s so crazy. He was nodding along patiently and he was like ‘you know it sounds like you just described the first Joan of Arc record to me.’ And I went ‘oh…right. I guess so’ But I don’t know I feel like I’m getting better at the craft of song writing. They’re very separate disciplines in my mind; song writing and playing music. I feel like I’m getting better at both, but they’re definitely separate disciplines in my mind.

Does it feel strange doing very different things under the same banner?

Yeah, from my perspective it’s very unified. Ideally, it should have contradictions. I don’t know. Have you ever seen a really depressing movie or read a really fun book and think ‘oh man I want to make something like that.’ That never lets up or never goes one way or the other. Realistically, I’m sad a lot of the time and I’m funny a lot of the time.

You wouldn’t want to box it in or anything?

If it’s going to representative then it needs to be multi- dimensional. So I’m comfortable with it. I understand it’s hard to sell. And at the same time when I feel like I’m getting better at these things, but the business aspect of it has never been worse. Our audience is shrinking and shrinking as I get better and better at what I mean to do.

Were any of the east coast shows canceled due to hurricane Sandy?

I guess I’m doing them. I’ve talked to all the hosts. There was one show at a friend of mine’s house in New Jersey that we moved to Brooklyn anyways so we could sell more tickets there. His street was destroyed but that show was canceled anyways. The only show that would’ve been canceled was already canceled…so it might be weird getting in and out of places…but I don’t know. Yeah I’ve been in contact with all of them and they’ve said ‘no you have to do it everything’s fine.’ I guess it’ll go neighborhood to neighborhood.

Are you going to make another film after Orchard Vale?

It’s a thing I think about a lot. ��Both novels started as script ideas. I found I have an easier time realizing the thing when it was just me, a laptop and a notebook. The movie was very frustrating. It didn’t turn out like I hoped it would. The tension of it ended my marriage because me and my ex-wife made it together. My girlfriend now is an experimental filmmaker and she’s really great, so we collaborate on some little things. I’ve done some music for a couple of her films and we’re constantly talking through ideas, but I don’t think…I mean I would love to, it would be my dream.

What made you want to soundtrack the Passion of Joan of Arc film?

This festival asked us to do something, it could be whatever we wanted. But they wouldn’t tell us how much money they had. They said ‘well how much do you guys want?’ Well for this little bit of money we’ll improvise to a 10-minute experimental film, for a lot of money we’ll do an original score to the Joan of Arc movie. It just popped out of my mouth. I didn’t think about it. They said ‘oh that sounds cool let’s try that.’ The one time we preformed it was in an old church this old church that was really perfect. There were stained glass windows, some people sitting in pews and a big pipe organ sitting to the side. We tried riding with the pipe organ, but we couldn’t get things in tune with it. The a-lot-of-money turned out to be very little money considering the amount of time we had to put into it. They called my bluff.

How much did the film influence the band name? Did it feel like it was coming full circle to do that?

It did feel great to do that. My relationship with the name Joan of Arc has gone back and forth a few times over the years. At first we thought it was a good idea because we wanted this familiar thing. Then there were some years where I was like this is a stupid band name, why are we stuck with this? It felt like claiming it as our own. I mean obviously it belongs to everyone. Our original idea was Sony. But our first label wouldn’t let us be named that. We just wanted a name that everybody knew that we could change the meaning of the name to certain people.

How’s the Owls reunion going?

It’s going great. It’s really fun. It took us a really long time to get momentum Sam [Zurick] moved back to Chicago last Valentine’s day. He was living on my couch so he needed to find a job and had to find a place. Then my brother had a second baby. I think we wrote the whole record twice and threw it away. It just wasn’t working. It had been 12 years since we all played together even though all of us play in Joan of Arc some of the time. Now we finally have momentum. We have enough songs where we’re throwing songs away. I think if we had to record next week we could but we’re waiting until the spring because we’re enjoying playing together and not tweaking things or making it a public thing right now. It’s fun for us to cultivate.

Did you plan to release three albums in a year? Is it hard to do that or is it more of a natural process?

No we’re totally backlogged right now, the labels hate us. Two years ago we did 113 shows we were all just miserable and exhausted. So we were like OK let’s stay at home and figure things out. It was a good year we all enjoyed it, but it’s difficult to sustain it. We’re just staying home but we still like playing music. Most days of the week we play music together. We throw away a lot of stuff you know.

The three records are very different: the soundtrack is a very specific thing, Pinecone is a very specific thing and this acoustic record. There’s three records for next year too. We aren’t trying to, it’s just how it kind of naturally occurs. I mean there’s the Owls record and our main focus has been our soundtrack to this performance art piece. We did it in London in April I guess and that’s a very specific thing. We’ve been doing this funny greatest hits record of rearranged old songs. The label’s saying you sound better live than you ever have, you should make a record as a live band.

They’re very distinct. And that’s a music industry thing really, I mean if you love what you do you’ll want to do it every day. It doesn’t seem weird to me. I understand the labels hate it because the records come out in very small pressings now.

Do you still bartend at all?

You know, I just started again and it’s fine. I was miserable the first couple shifts, but I’m just doing it until I can start teaching again. I’m just not used to being up that late.

Did that inspire the book at all?

I’ve lived above the bar I worked at. I’m not in there very often when it’s open and crowded unless I’m working. But the owners and managers there are my best friends. So I guess I’ve just been around the bar. And my Dad was a governor of a Moose Lodge, so he was like a bar manager too. So I’ve always been around bars I guess.

#tim kinsella #joan of arc #owls #capnjazz

1 note · View note

frivoloussuits · 7 years

Text

Firm (Coming Soon To Theaters Near You)

In which Donna is a film star, Harvey is the best closer in Hollywood, Mike is a strange, strange child, and Rachel is Aaron Korsh.

Ships: Donna Paulsen/Rachel Zane, Mike Ross/Harvey Specter Rating: General Audiences Warnings: References to anti-LGBT discrimination Word Count: ~4.7K

For @suits100’s 43rd prompt.

It’s a hot, hazy night in Bel Air, and Harvey Specter-- agent, dealmaker, the greatest closer in L.A., the unofficial king of Hollywood-- is circling his next conquest like a hunter on the prowl. His chosen prey is an actress whom he wouldn’t have recognized before this party, but he decided to snatch her up as soon as she walked in with that flame-red hair and tossed him a knowing, challenging smile.

“I’m Harvey Specter,” he says, reaching out a hand.

She shakes it firmly and says, “I know. I was wondering how long it’d take you to work up the courage to introduce yourself.”

For a second, his usual schmoozing smile slips into something more genuine as he replies, “I assure you I don’t lack courage. I’d be glad to let you personally confirm that other qualities of mine aren’t lacking either.”

She chuckles. “I could take you up on that offer, but I can give you something even better.”

“You’re gonna invite a friend?” he says, raising an eyebrow and smirking. “Male, female, other-- I’m very open-minded.”

“No, I’m offering you me, as a client.”

“I’m not here to talk business--”

“First off, you’re always ready to talk business-- you haven’t taken a vacation in a good five years. Second of all, you’re definitely here to talk business tonight, because Travis Tanner just landed a major client, and you want to show him up and put him in his place.” He opens his mouth, and she says, “And before you ask, no, I’m not giving up my sources.”

He snorts. “How do you know all this?”

“I know everything. Specifically, I know that Stephen Huntley, my current agent, is on his way down, and that I need to find a winner to represent me going forward. I also know that you aren’t willing to both sleep with me and work with me, not after the Dana Scott debacle, which is why I’m telling you all this now and not over breakfast tomorrow morning.”

“You know how to act?”

“Undergrad degree at Tisch and the Lee Strasberg Institute, MFA in acting from Yale.”

He blinks, and she can see him re-evaluating. “Why me?”

“Because we’re both damn good at what we do and hungry for success. And because your former boss is directing one of the most interesting films I’ve heard of in my life, and I want an audition.”

“I’m not sending Jessica anyone but the best.”

“Good thing you’re sending me. And oh, I should introduce myself. I'm Donna.”

If Donna wasn’t as good as she was, she’d be alarmed at how quickly Harvey signs her upon looking into her previous work. But she is that sublimely, divinely good, and Jessica Pearson casts her in her period drama Firm soon afterwards. She’s in one of the starring roles, naturally.

By the sheer power of being Jessica Pearson, Jessica ties up funding, finishes hiring, and moves to the production stage surprisingly quickly, and Donna finds herself filming on location within weeks.

“Hi, I’m Rachel Zane, I’ll be showing you both around the mansion.”

Donna glances at one of the supporting actors, Michael Ross, a young man with golden hair and unfairly blue eyes, and momentarily rues the fact that her make-out scene’s with an entirely different actor.

“Wow,” Mike immediately replies to Rachel, “you’re pretty.”

Donna raises an eyebrow at him, but she also sneaks another look at Rachel. He’s not wrong. At all.

“Good,” Rachel says with a passive-aggressive smile that even Donna has to envy, “you’ve hit on me. We can get it out of the way that I am not interested.”

“I’m sorry, I wasn’t hitting on you--”

“Trust me, I’ve met dozens of up-and-coming actors and, without fail, whatever new hotshot it is thinks that, because I’m just an assistant, I will somehow be blown away by his dazzling smile, let me assure you I won’t. I don’t swing that way in the slightest.”

And then Donna looks back at Mike, who’s currently undergoing a revelation. “I was.”

“Mm-hmm,” Rachel says, sweet as syrup.

“I was hitting on you.”

“You were,” she coos like a particularly proud preschool teacher. “Now let’s go on with the tour.”

Scratch that. Rachel’s definitely the one Donna wants a make-out scene with.

Donna doesn’t appear in the first scene they shoot, so she stays in her dressing room, re-reading her lines, taking notes in her script. She hears a knock on the door.

“Come in!”

It’s Rachel, with a folder tucked under her arm. “Sorry to bother you, but Jessica just obtained some letters from the Archives of American Art that might help inform your choices in the teapot scene.”

“Wow, where does she find the time?”

Rachel smiles, tucking a wayward curl behind her ear. “Well, to be more precise, she told me to obtain them, and that’s exactly what I did.”

“You like research?”

She shrugs. “I’m very good at it, even if it’s not what I want to do for the rest of my life.”

Before Donna can reply, a message comes through on their walkie-talkies: “Rachel, what’s your 20?”

“By the dressing rooms, I’ll be back up in two minutes,” she says before looking back at Donna. “Sorry, I gotta--”

“Yeah, go do what you need to do.”

“I’ll see you around.”

As she watches Rachel stroll away, Donna murmurs, “I’m looking forward to it.”

They dance around each other in one late-night research session after another. Finally, Donna asks Rachel out.

With a teasing smile, she says, “I was wondering how long it’d take you to finally make your move.”

“I knew you were wondering.”

“Did you know I already decided on my my answer?”

“Of course, and I wouldn’t have asked unless it was an enthusiastic yes.”

Once they finish shooting on-location, they head back to L.A. Donna lingers around the set one night after filming, reviewing the next day’s scenes. Out of the corner of her eye, she sees Mike leaving his dressing room.

“You need help running lines?” As he passes behind her, he peers over her shoulder at her script. “I’ve got that scene memorized--”

“No, I’m fine,” she says. Then she catches the kicked-puppy look on his face and explains, “I have to go meet Rachel in a couple minutes anyway.”

“What are you doing?” he asks.

Donna considers telling him they’ll be doing something work-related, but she opts for honesty. “She insists Shunji has the best sushi in SoCal, so we’re going to go try it out.”

“Yeah, Shunji’s awesome. The omakase sets are upwards of a hundred dollars each, but so worth it.”

Donna raises an eyebrow. “Sounds good. She’s quite the foodie, so I’m excited to explore L.A. with her.”

“Hang on, is this-- is this a date?”

“Yeah, it is.”

She expects those innocent baby blues to fill with tears, but instead he grins broadly. “Hey, that’s great. You two enjoy your sushi, and I’m just gonna . . . go sleep.”

“Right.”

“At my apartment.”

“. . . Right.”

Mike hesitates for a second, then does an awkward finger-gun snap and stumbles away.

“Mike is such a strange child,” Donna says as she relates the whole scene to Rachel over sushi. “I don’t know how he functions!”

“My question is how he affords a omakase set. He doesn’t get steady work, to the best of my knowledge, and it’s even hard for me to buy this without falling back on Daddy’s credit card.” Rachel rolls her eyes.

“You’re an independent woman, huh?”

“That’s the aim,” she says. “It’s not always feasible, but I’m attempting to establish myself without relying on the name of ‘Robert Zane, famous producer.’”

“Speaking of establishing yourself . . . you never did tell me what you wanted to spend the rest of your life doing, if not research.”

Rachel chuckles, suddenly bashful. “It’s a little silly.”

“When I was younger, I wanted to grow up to be Joan Holloway. Try me.”

“Well, I’m a writer.” She pauses.

“And?”

“See, that was the jump scare, and this is the part where you run screaming.”

“I’m an actress, darling, it takes more than that to get rid of me. What do you write?”

“I’m interested in film in the long term, but right now I’m working on an idea for a TV show.”

“What kind of TV show?”

“A legal drama? It’s not a procedural exactly, or at least I don’t want it to be. It’s about these two characters, Jim and Reg, and Jim is a pothead but also a secret genius and Reg is a shark in the world of New York corporate law, and he decides to hire Jim as an associate-- that’s a junior lawyer-- except Jim doesn’t have an actual degree and-- oh god, I never explain this well.” She sinks her face into her hands.

“It sounds interesting,” Donna says with an encouraging smile.

“It doesn’t sound half as good as it is. I never know how to present it right.”

“Do you have any of it written?”

“I have a treatment, plus a pilot and detailed notes for the next three episodes, but I am not showing those to anyone in their current state.”

“All right, I’ll let you wiggle out of giving me details,” Donna says, “for now.”

Filming wraps up a few weeks later. Harvey immediately has Donna out doing auditions while Rachel stays with the project, helping Jessica with post-production. Still, the two women spend every possible night together.

“Ugh,” Rachel says, letting herself into Donna’s apartment one Friday night and collapsing immediately on her couch. “I’ve watched that damn teapot scene fifty times in the past eight hours.”

“Why?” Donna asks, pecking Rachel’s cheek and then taking a seat on the nearby ottoman.

“Jessica’s a worse perfectionist than I am, and so she is trying every possible combination of shots. If you weren’t in that scene, I would have put my fist through the screen by now.”

“Aww.”

“I’m serious! God knows I love everything about this film, even now, but I think your acting might be my favorite part.”

“Speaking of which--” Donna nudges Rachel’s leg with her foot-- “do you by any chance want to go out for drinks?”

“Maybe. Is there a particular reason?”

“Well, alcohol might help you scrub the teapot scene from memory, though after fifty iterations that may no longer be possible . . . And also, I got cast today in that new Hamlet film.”

Rachel bolts upright. “What part?”

Ever so casually, she shrugs and says, “Ophelia.”

And then Rachel is leaping onto her, and they’re both squealing at the top of their lungs.

Less than an hour later, they’ve zipped one another into two of Donna’s fanciest cocktail dresses and headed to a bar.

“All right, we’re going to celebrate in grand fashion--” Donna begins.

“Without paying a dime.”

“Wait, how?”

“You’re the actress, you’ll catch on.”

And Donna watches Rachel swagger up to some guy, flash him her sexiest smile, and say, “Hi, I’m Michelle Ross.”

“I’m . . . Harriet Specter. The best goddamn closer this city has ever seen.”

“I’m the smartest paralegal on this coast.”

“I’m a COO who regularly rescues multi-billion dollar deals.”

“I’m a professional food critic.”

“I run an artificial intelligence start-up up in SF. VCs love me.”

For all Donna’s improvisational skill, Rachel undoubtedly wins the most free drinks. She stumbles back into Donna’s apartment far past tipsy and then throws her arms around her girlfriend, leaning in for a kiss.

“Hey, no--” Donna pushes her back-- “I’m not taking advantage of you in this state.”

“What if I want you to take advantage of me?” she slurs.

Donna raises an eyebrow. “You really want that, huh?”

“Mm-hmm.”

“How about you show me your pilot?”

“Pilot?” she titters. “I don’t even have a plane yet.”

“Not that kind of pilot,” Donna laughs. “I mean the Jim-and-Reg pilot.”

“Ohhhh. Yeah. Yeah, it’s on my laptop.”

“Can we go look at it?”

“Sure!”

Donna maneuvers them over to the couch, and Rachel clumsily pulls her laptop from her bag and opens it, all the while muttering about how she’s going to get herself a jet one of these days, just you wait.

“Here,” she says, clicking on a file named ‘Law Dorks’ with a flourish. “Here is the meaning of life.”

“Go to sleep, Rachel.”

Rachel hums and burrows in her shoulder, mumbling, “Comfy.”

And when she nods off less than a minute later, Donna places a kiss on the top of her head and then starts reading.

“Oh, my god.”

Rachel awakes with a shudder on the couch, under the blankets Donna carefully draped over her.

“Oh, my god. Donna! Did you read it?”

“I read it--”

“Oh god, you hated it, didn’t you? Please, ugh, it wasn’t ready, I’m still working out the pacing, and there’s so many plot holes I have to fix--”

“And I loved it.”

Rachel stops mid-sentence. “What?”

“I want to hug Jim. I want to be Roberta. I want to worship at Katherine’s feet, and I really want to see Reg naked.”

“What about Elizabeth?”

“Well, since she’s clearly just an adorable baby lawyer version of you, I want to cuddle with her on the couch--” Donna flops down and nuzzles Rachel’s neck-- “and then smack her upside the head for not already being a Harvard lawyer, or, in real life, not already turning this genius of a story into an actual show.”

“Ow!” Rachel yelps as Donna really smacks her upside the head.

“Seriously, what’s the hold-up? You don’t need any LSATs to shop this script around, and god knows you have enough connections. Jessica alone would be able to put you in touch with people, and when you account for all your previous jobs and also the fact that you know me--”

“I don’t know how to pitch it,” Rachel blurts. “I don’t have a hook, I don’t have a good summary, I don’t even have a title at this point--”

“Two lawyers, one degree.”

Her eyes widen. “There’s my hook.”

“Mm-hmm. And one more question-- are you aware of the sexual tension and possible burgeoning love between your two leads?”

“Aware?” Rachel scoffs. “Donna, if I get to keep even the slightest bit of control-- and I will, because no network is going to push me around on this-- those two are ending up married.”

“Perfect. Now run with the hook, get this story out there and go take over the world.”

“On it!” She snatches up her laptop and bag and scampers out of the apartment.

“And when you end up tackily rich I get to share your jet,” Donna calls after her.

Rachel turns terribly secretive about her progress with the show, and Donna doesn't pry-- not directly, anyway. Soon, she gets swept up by the buzz around her own accomplishments. From the first reviews, Firm is a hit with critics, and they rave over her performance in particular. She knew they would, but still there’s something downright magical about looking at an article and seeing her name in the same sentence as the words “Oscar buzz.”

Due to the timing of the film’s release, Firm misses the deadline for the Golden Globes, but other nominations and awards start filtering in, along with interview requests. The reporters ask Donna about her love life, and she plays coy, sending them all off with different and increasingly implausible stories until they know not to even bother.

She spends long stretches of time off filming Hamlet in Scandinavia, so fortunately she avoids the worst of the paparazzi harassment. Still, there’s definitely someone camped out across the road from her house when she comes back to L.A.

“I don’t think we should meet at my place,” she says, calling Rachel up on Skype. “I’m being low-key stalked.”

“I don’t care if the paps see me,” Rachel replies. “If they realize we’re a couple, hey, I’ll just spin it into publicity for the show!”

“Lemonade outta lemons.” Donna grins before turning serious again. “But seriously . . . I don’t know if I want to come out yet, publicly.”

Something shifts in Rachel’s expression. “Wait, what?”

“Maybe you’ve been sheltered because you’ve grown up in Hollywood, and California cities are just generally good about these things, but . . . It’s not like that everywhere. And I don’t want to rock the boat for the film during awards season.”

“Jessica wouldn’t care. Hell, she’d try and spin it as good publicity too--”

“And what if she can’t?” Donna interrupts. “It’s not fair to her to throw that kind of bombshell out there, not before the Oscars.”

“Then what about after the Oscars?”

“I-- I don’t know.”

“So, what?” Rachel snaps. “You just want us to spend the rest of our lives sneaking around and having dates on Skype?”

“Rachel--”

“I’m going to talk to to you later, but I need a little time for myself right now.”

She disconnects.

Actress in a Leading Role.

There she is on the Academy Award nominations list. There’s Donna Paulsen, right between Jennifer Lawrence and Meryl Streep.

But Rachel’s “little time” has stretched into weeks, and so it doesn’t feel quite like a victory.

The day before the Oscars, there’s a knock on her door.

“Hi.”

“Can I come in?”

Donna steps aside and lets Rachel into her apartment. She’s dressed professionally, with a briefcase in one hand and a file in the other.

“In case you’re worried,” she says as soon as Donna shuts the door, “I’ve been meeting with everyone from Firm who’s going to the Oscars to go over some simple red carpet do’s and don’ts, so nobody’s going to read too much into this. I just came from Jessica’s place, and I’m heading over to Mike right after this.”

“To his house?”

“No,” Rachel frowns, “he wants to meet at Hot Dog on a Stick.”

Simultaneously, they whisper “strange child,” before falling silent.

“How have you been?” Rachel asks with a soft smile.

“I don’t know,” Donna answers, frowning. “Everything’s good, everything’s bad, it’s all a bit overwhelming right now.”

“I’m sorry for dropping off the face of the planet like that,” Rachel replies. “You just took me by surprise that day, because I forget sometimes how much the world sucks.”

“And that’s what I like about you, you know that?”

“What do you mean?”

“You’re a silly, pessimistic worrywart on the small scale, but when there’s a big problem, you are the bravest woman I know. You just march right in with your head held high, and you ignore anybody who would dare stand in your way.”

“That’s . . . really sweet. And I agree, I am somewhat brash when someone tells me I can’t be who I am or have something I want, which is why I didn’t want to talk to you until I figured things out--”

“Rachel--”

“Wait, let me finish.” She inhales deeply. “My parents raised me to be an open person. I don’t try to hide who I am, or what I believe, or who I love-- none of it. And yet you’re asking me to hide us from the rest of the world, and I understand why you’re doing it, but it goes against the core of who I am. Do you understand that?”

“I do.”

“And I’ll do it.”

“What?”

“You’re asking me to defraud the whole world, and I’ll do it. For you. Because I happen to be in love you, and I know you love me too.”

Her eyes go wide. “I do.”

“I know.”

Donna swallows hard. “This isn’t fair to you, is it?”

“All’s fair in love and business.” She shrugs, trying to act casual, and continues, “Anyway, we have actual work. I gotta get you all ready for tomorrow. Do you have an acceptance speech drafted?”

Donna rolls her eyes. “Why would I? It's not like I’m going to win.”

“And the award goes to . . . Donna Paulsen.”

“Wait, what?” Donna blinks and turns to her mother, her plus-one for the night. “What just happened?”

“You just won,” her mother says, beaming back at her.

“Wait, what?”

As she goes up to the podium, she focuses on not tripping over her gown and also on adjusting herself to the new world order. Because really, she’s more than a queen tonight-- she is a goddess. She can do whatever the hell she wants.

Can’t she?

“I don’t have note cards, or any notes at all, because according to the gambling sites there was a 5.78% chance I would be up here tonight. If I forget someone and thus lose a lifelong friendship, I’m suing said sites for emotional damages,” she jokes, and the audience gives a warm laugh. “First of all, thank you to the Academy, and to the cast and crew of Firm-- Jessica, congratulations on your Best Director award, may it be the first of many. I also have to thank Harvey Specter, my agent, for actually being as good as he says he is-- not an easy task--” thanks to his reputation in this town, that gets another laugh-- “and to the other nominees, all of whom inspire me everyday . . .”

She ticks off all the typical boxes of an Oscars speech, and it’s not hard-- she’s been watching them since before she could read. People start zoning out, she knows, and she keeps her cool and plods along all the way to the end--

“Thank you to my parents for not forcing me into a so-called ‘sensible career.’ And thank you most of all to the person who held my hand and taught me about this character and this world, who ran lines with me, who held me after the teapot scene sent me into a nervous breakdown-- the woman I love, Rachel Zane. Thank you all, and have a good night!”

The room is silent for a moment, and then she gets a standing ovation.

“So tell me,” Donna strolls up to the bar at a particularly exclusive Oscars afterparty, “how screwed is my career?”

Harvey turns to her, one eyebrow raised. “Why would your career be screwed?”

She raises an eyebrow of her own. “Because I just came out on the largest stage in what is still an intensely discriminatory industry?”

“The fact that you picked the biggest stage works in your favor-- this town can’t resist high drama.”

“Harvey.”

“Okay--” he takes a sip from his scotch-- “let me ask you a question. How could your career possibly be screwed, when you just won Best Actress, your film would have won Best Picture if things were even a little less rigged, and your agent is even better than he says he is?”

She resists the urge to roll her eyes.

“Here’s my advice. Just give some thoughtful interviews, don’t make broad statements you don’t mean, and stay the hell off Twitter for a few weeks. I’ll handle the rest. Even if offers slow down in film-- which I highly doubt-- you’ve got options elsewhere.”

“What’s worth doing elsewhere?”

“TV, Netflix--”

“Broadway?” she says hopefully.

He shrugs. “I wouldn’t count it out.”

Donna grins at that. “Hey, how’d you get in here anyway? Whose plus-one are you?”

He looks at her in mock-offense. “Excuse me? I can get into any after-party in the city on the strength of the Specter brand--”

“He’s here because I brought him.”

Donna turns with a start and finds Mike behind her, smirking.

“Firstly, congrats to you and Rachel, and remember not to feed the internet trolls unless you’re trolling them back. And there will be trolls. That said, I personally welcome you as Hollywood’s bisexual overlord.”

“What am I,” Harvey protests, “chopped liver?”

“Secondly--” Mike barrels on as if he didn’t hear-- “congrats on taking home a naked man.” He reaches out to stroke the golden statuette in the crook of Donna’s arm. “Still not as pretty as mine, but you’ll make do.”

“Kid, you have to stop calling me ‘pretty,’” Harvey sighs, shaking his head.

“I call him all sorts of things, and he loves it,” Mike mutters in conspiratorial fashion to Donna. She just stares as he leans in, plants a kiss on Harvey’s cheek, and says, “See you around, babe. I got networking to do, just like you taught me.”

“Just like I taught you?”

“Okay, maybe not just like you taught me, I don’t really want to deal with sexual harassment suits . . .”

“Get out,” Harvey commands with a wave of hand, but Donna notes the clear fondness in his expression. He turns to see her gaping at him. “What?”

“On the one hand, I now understand how he affords the omakase set. On the other hand, on what planet are you two dating?”

Harvey frowns. “What, am I not good enough for him?”

“What-- what? No, I’m thinking the other way around.”

His eyes widen, and then he bursts into chuckles. “Oh, Jesus, he’s trying not to scare the mundanes again.”

“Excuse me?”

“I’d say he’s a modern-day Einstein, but that doesn’t actually do Mike’s brain justice. Once he reads something, he understands it. Once he understands something, he never forgets it. He plays the genius angle down because it freaks people out, but I think he overdoes the act sometimes.”

“Wait, he has a perfect memory?”

“Yep,” Harvey says, smiling into his scotch.

“Oh, my god, that’s just like--”

“Hey, Rachel’s here,” he says, and Donna halts mid-sentence and whirls around to look.

Rachel’s standing at the entrance of the room, downright stunning in an all-black gown-- it’d never play on the red carpet, but here in this dark, crowded club she takes Donna’s breath away.

“Harvey.” She nods to him as she strides forward.

“Rachel, good to see you. I’ll give you two some space,” Harvey says before slipping away.

Donna can feel all the other eyes in the room on them, but she doesn’t care, not when Rachel is beaming at her, throwing her arms around her, kissing her and then pulling her close. “You’re the bravest woman I know, you know that?”

“I did it for you. It wasn’t fair to make you hide.”

“And I am so proud of you for that. And also for winning an Oscar. You know, that’s kinda cool too,” she chuckles.

“From what I hear, you’ll be up for awards next.”

They share a look.

“Donna, how did you know?”

“I know everything. Seriously, did you think your show could get picked up for a pilot without my knowledge?”

“I obviously should have known better,” Rachel laughs. “Anyway, I’ve gotta figure out casting now, and I have the worst idea, and I need your help to make it a reality.”

“What role are we talking about?”

“Reg.”

“Who do you have in mind?”

“Harvey.”

“Not the strangest thing I’ve heard all day, and that says a lot about today.”

“Bear with me-- because of my dad’s work, I saw Harvey all the time growing up, and I definitely patterned a lot of Reg’s personality off of him.”

“But Harvey isn’t an actor--”

“But he was once! All through his childhood he was trying to break into the industry, and he did actually make it when he was in college, his senior year. He got cast in nothing less than a Bond movie.”

“Why didn’t I know about this?” Donna exclaims.

“He broke his shoulder right before shooting, got replaced, and never got another role. Then he went off to Harvard Business-- so he could control casting for a change, I guess. But I dug up his old audition tapes, and he was incredible. I can’t believe he’s given up on acting entirely, even now.”

Donna thinks about it for a moment. “He does sometimes treat his life as a role.”

“Yeah, I don’t know if he’s shown a genuine expression in the past decade.”

She barks out a laugh before saying, “You’d be surprised. His boyfriend gets a surprising amount of honest caring out of him.”

“He’s in a relationship?”

“With an actor, who incidentally might have an eidetic memory like Jim and definitely has a hell of a lot of chemistry with Harvey.”

“Oh my god, who?”

“Mike Ross.”

Rachel’s jaw drops. “Our strange child?”

“Our strange child’s all grown up, and potentially a great cast opposite Harvey’s Reg.”

“Well, then, please excuse me for being busy on your special night, but I’ve got to go talk to Harvey.”

“Oh, I’m coming with you. I’ve had practice persuading him to do ridiculous things, and also I fully intend to give you all the support that you’re willing to take.”

“Marvelous,” she says, pressing one more kiss to Donna’s mouth. Then she takes her by the hand and leads her over to the table Harvey’s claimed. “Let’s find ourselves ‘the best closer in New York.’”

“Hey,” Donna asks before they quite pounce on their victim, “what’d you end up calling the show?”

“’A Legal Mind.’”

“That’s funny-- ‘a legal,’ ‘illegal,’” Donna muses. “But still, I feel like we can do better than that.”

A/N: In this AU, writers post fanfic where Jim and Reg are actors playing characters named Patrick and Gabriel.

#suits100fanwork #suits #ronna #marvey #donna paulsen #rachel zane #mike ross #harvey specter #my fic

19 notes · View notes

firstfootingscotland · 5 years

Text

International Dance Day, Dannsa, and Art of Treepling Full Program!!

Greetings from Edinburgh and happy International Dance Day! Though initiated in honour of the birthday of French balletmaster Jean-Georges Noverre (1727 -1810), widely considered to be the instigator of the narrative ballets of the 18th century, International Dance Day now celebrates dances from all times (past, present, and yet to be!), all geographies, all abilities, and all ethnicities. After all, Joann Kealinohomoku reminds us in her classic piece of dance research, “An Anthropologist Looks at Ballet as a Form of Ethnic Dance,” just how ‘ethnic’ ballet is. Disputing the notion that ballet is somehow ‘universal,’ Kealinohomoku argues that ballet, like all movement forms, is couched in (especially European) cultural practices. She writes:

“Consider, for example, how Western is the tradition of the proscenium stage, the usual three part performance which lasts for about two hours, our star system, our use of curtain calls and applause, and our usage of French terminology. Think how culturally revealing it is to see the stylized Western customs enacted on the stage, such as the mannerisms from the age of chivalry, courting, weddings, christenings, burial, and mourning customs. Think how our [sic] world view is revealed in the oft recurring themes of unrequited love, sorcery, self-sacrifice through long suffering, mistaken identity, and misunderstandings which have tragic consequences” (1)

Though I would critique the piece especially in its uncritical use of the term “ethnic” to refer to indigenous or non-Western dance forms, “An Anthropologist Looks at Ballet as a Form of Ethnic Dance” reminds that we all have cultural biases that colour our experience of movement. This is known in anthropology as “ethnocentrism.” (2) The article encourages us to be aware of our own biases and also levels the poetic playing-field of dance analysis. Kealinohomoku suggests puckishly that all dance forms - not just those on the concert stage - should have equal opportunity to be celebrated, examined, and supported.

In that spirit, each year on International Dance Day, a dancer is invited to write a message to the international community of dancers and dance-lovers. I’ve been combing through these messages today, nourished by some delicious quotes. There’s the 2012 message from Sidi Larbi Cherkaoui: “I think of dance as the most current, the most up-to-date history lesson, as it is in a constant relationship with its most recent past and can only happen in the present.” Trisha Brown’s in 2017: “Dance is made of people, people and ideas...there is no secret meaning in my dances.” And Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker’s in 2011: “For me dancing is a way of thinking. Through dance we can embody the most abstract ideas and thus reveal what we cannot see, what we cannot name.” However, my favourite International Dance Day message comes from fellow percussive dancer Israel Galván, delivered in 2015. Galván writes eloquently about dance at-large but also brings into the conversation his own heroes from Spanish Flamenco and other dancers from traditions which might not usually have a place on the proverbial castlist of dance writ-large. I’ve excerpted his message here:

I danced my first duo with my mother, seven months pregnant. It may seem an exaggeration. Although I almost always dance alone, I imagine that I am accompanied by ghosts which make me abandon my role of "dancer of solitudes". Did Didi-Huberman not mean to say: of soleares songs.

I like the word fusion, not as a marketing word, a confusion to sell a certain style, a brand. Better fission, an atomic mixture: a cocktail with the feet fixed to the ground of Juan Belmonte, the aerial arms of Isadora Duncan and the half swaying belly of Jeff Cohen in the Goonies. And with all these ingredients to make a pleasant and intense drink, which is delicious or bitter or which goes to your head. Our tradition is also that mixture, we come from a cocktail and the orthodox people want to hide their secret formula. But no, races and religions and political creeds, everything mixes! Everybody can dance together! Maybe not holding onto each other, but by each other's side.

There is an old Chinese proverb which says: "the flutter of a butterfly's wings can be felt across the world". When a fly takes flight in Japan, a typhoon shakes up the water of the Caribbean. Pedro G Romero, after a shattering sevillanas dance says: the same day the bomb fell in Hiroshima, Nijinsky repeated his great leap in a forest in Austria. And I continue imagining: a lash of Savion Glover makes Mikhail Baryshnikov turn. At that moment, Kazuo Ono stays still and triggers a certain electricity in María Muñoz, who thinks about Vonrad Veidt and forces Akram Khan to cause an earthquake in his dressing room; they move their rattles and the floor becomes covered with the tired drops of their sweat.

youtube

(Isreal Galván at the London Flamenco Festival in 2011)

I had the pleasure of watching this video of Israel Galván dancing during this past week in Kingussie during a five-day step dance development session with Scottish traditional dance company Dannsa. After spending the mornings and afternoons working in the stunning Talla Nan Ross hall improvising, talking about the connections between dance and music (as well as dance as music) and expanding the dancers’ vocabularies through traditional percussive dance repertoire from many different geographies, we often gathered at the dancers’ homes in the evenings to watch videos of our favourite movers. Curled up on the floor of Sandra Robertson’s house between Sandra and Caroline Reagh, we marvelled together at Israel’s incredibly idiosyncratic physicality, his articulation, and amazing integration of body movement and impeccable feet. It was a wondrously enjoyable week with these two astonishingly beautiful Scottish dance artists, and it was made all the more special because I first saw Israel Galván’s work in much the same way, gazing awed into a laptop in the home of contemporary Irish dancer Colin Dunne.

(Working with Dannsa’s masterful movers Sandra Robertson and Caroline Reagh last week at Talla Nan Ross, Kingussie)

This style of pedagogy - a mentor sharing the work of other artists that they find personally inspiring is something I first experienced with my teachers. I’m very pleased to announce that two of whom, Colin Dunne and Sandy Silva will be visiting Edinburgh soon as part of the Art of Treepling weekend June 7-9! Michelle Brady, Wendy Timmons and I have been working since the autumn to put together this very special weekend of percussive dance workshops, work-in-progress sharing, panel discussions, dance film screenings, and performances to culminate the First Footing Dance Residency. I am delighted to say that the full program is now LIVE! Here are the details, it would be wonderful to see you, and dance with you, there!

Nic Gareiss: The Art of Treepling - Work-in-Progress Showing

7 June, 7:30 pm, St. Cecilia’s Hall, 50 Niddry Street

In the final chapter of dance collectors Joan and Tom Flett’s 1964 book Traditional Dancing in Scotland, the authors make reference to “the art of treepling.” At the time of the text’s publication, treepling, “beating out the rhythm of the music with the feet,” was one of the lesser-known features of Scottish dancing and had almost entirelydisappeared. (Flett & Flett, 1964, p. 260) This new solo step dance work-in-progress engages the Flett’s original research, re-imagining treepling as a locus of creative interpretation of traditional music & dance in Scotland and other geographies in which treepling is found, including Ireland, Canada, and the Appalachian region of the United States. Followed by Q&A with invited guests.

Masterclass with Sandy Silva

8 June, 10 am, St. Leonard’s Land Dance Studio, Holyrood Road

This masterclass is for dancers working in traditional forms of foot percussion who want to develop a deeper sense of movement flow and sonic placement within the hands and feet. We will accompany ourselves singing a vocal turlutte (melodic syllables) integrating the full body music experience. Dancers are expected to have some percussive dance experience.

Masterclass with Colin Dunne

8 June, 11:30 am, St. Leonard’s Land Dance Studio, Holyrood Road

In this masterclass, Colin will draw upon his unique approach to traditional Irish dance, focusing on release of muscular tension to find a flow, rhythm and clarity in both movement and sound. Dancers should have some percussive dance experience.

Playing with Dance: Masterclass with Nic Gareiss for Traditional Musicians

8 June, 2 pm, St. Leonard’s Land Dance Studio, Holyrood Road

This workshop for traditional musicians explores the relationship between music and dance. After trying out a little foot music, participants will play with percussive dancer and artist-in-residence Nic Gareiss, sparking conversations around collaboration, listening, and creative connection. Musicians should be able to play a tune at moderate speed. The class will encourage musicians to explore creative collaboration in a safe, non-competitive environment. Participants should come ready to move and wear smooth-soled shoes with a low heel.

The Art of Treepling Panel Discussions

8 June, 3:30 pm, Scottish Storytelling Centre, Netherbow Theatre, 43-45 High Street

Part 1: Imagining New Futures for Scottish Step Dance

The resurgence of interest of step dance in Scotland in the late 20th century was encouraged in-part by inspirational teaching visits by dancers abroad (Melin 2005, passim). Since then, step dancers in Scotland have continued teaching, performing and reimaging percussive dance as a rich cultural locus of music-making, creativity, identity and community-building. This panel aims to spark conversation around fostering continued rich, diverse and innovative step dancing in Scotland across many contexts.

Part 2: Developing New Solo Step Dance Work: A Conversation with ColinDunne & Nic Gareiss

Contemporary traditional dance artists Colin Dunne and Nic Gareiss discuss the process, pleasures, and pitfalls of developing their new solo step dance works including Colin’s critically-acclaimed shows Out of Time and Concert and Nic’s show Solo Square Dance and work-in-progress The Art of Treepling.

Migration Dance Film Project Screening

8 June, 7 pm, Scottish Storytelling Centre, Netherbow Theatre, 43-45 High Street

Migration Dance Film Project is a series of interconnected short films exploring themes of migration. Award-winning team, filmmaker Marlene Millar and choreographer Sandy Silvacombine nuanced image, sound dynamics and the intricacy of percussive dance to shape an emotional cinematographic storyline that gives voice, image and movement to past and present transformative journeys. Followed by Q&A with Choreographer Sandy Silva and Director Marlene Millar

Masterclass with Nic Gareiss

8 June, 11 am, St. Leonard’s Land Dance Studio, Holyrood Road

This masterclass for dancers with percussive dance experience (tap, flamenco, step dance, clogging, etc.) is designed to enrich percussive dance practice and give participants tools to improve articulation, phrasing and technique. Using an intersectional approach, attendees will be guided through a series of exercises drawing on a myriad of rhythm-making step and clog dance styles and their symbioticrelationship with, and as, music, enriching audible rapport with the floor through creativity and improvisation.

Treepling in Performance: Sandy Silva, Colin Dunne & Nic Gareiss

9 June, 2 pm, Venue TBC

This culminating performance will feature solos, improvisations and spontaneous collaborations by three masters of contemporary percussive dance. The audience is encouraged to move about the space to observe from many angles as Silva, Dunne and Gareiss synesthetically combine movement and sound, dance and music, treepling through their feet, hands and voices.

First Footing is a collaboration between dancer and dance researcher Nic Gareiss, the Traditional Dance Forum of Scotland, University of Edinburgh Moray House School of Education, and the School of Scottish Studies with support from Creative Scotland. For engagement opportunities check out the First Footing website.

(1) Joann Kealinohomoku, 1970

(2) For more on this, see Theresa Buckland’s 1999 response “All Dances Are Ethnic but Some Are More Ethnic Than Others.”

#Kealinohomoku #Ballet #Ethnic dance #Buckland #Theresa Buckland #dance research #dance anthropology #Trisha Brown #Israel Galvan #Israel Galván #dannsa #caroline reagh #sandra robertson

0 notes

alifeafloat · 7 years

Photo

Mirrors of the Great Mind

What if we’ve gotten animals all wrong? What if we’ve made ourselves out to be the A students of nature, when in fact we’re really more like that slacker in the back of the class—the one who will go on to brag about top honors that never happened? What if our profound lack of humility is really the most pressing problem the planet faces? Might our arrogance dwarf other natural disasters altogether in terms of potential for damage?

Barefoot Lady’s journeys along the rivers, estuaries and coasts of North America brought me to these questions. Unfortunately, navigating all these waterways hasn’t supplied all the answers yet. I have more work to do, some of it falling in the “out there” category. For example, I’m pretty sure I’m going off next year to study sound healing, time travel, multi-dimensional communication, aligning with the consciousness of the oceans, education & transformation, encoded DNA geometry, messages from the universe, galactic contact, underwater photography, Dolphin Dreamtime, group consciousness, personal mastery and planetary ascendance with some wild spinner dolphins and a wildly New Age, quintessentially hippy, dolphin savant named Joan Ocean who lives in Hawaii. But we’ll come to that.

Let’s begin, though, in Apalachicola, where much of this inquiry got rolling. While perusing the shelves of a very left-banky used bookstore in that lovely fishing village, I ran across a book by a local author: Joe Hutto. The book, Illumination in the Flatwoods: A Season with the Wild Turkey, changed my life.

Joe Hutto is a well-known wildlife artist and ethologist, a term I had never heard before. Within a page of starting the book, a hastened myself to Wikipedia, where I found that:

Ethology is the scientific and objective study of non-human animal behavior rather than human behavior and usually with a focus on behavior under natural conditions, and viewing behavior as an evolutionarily adaptive trait.

Uh, O.K.

It wasn’t long, though, before I was swept up by the tale Hutto told. He was given two clutches of wild turkey eggs that had been exposed when an overgrown field was mowed. Not fully appreciating the journey he set himself out upon, Hutto determined to hatch those eggs and raise the turkeys. But raise them as wild turkeys, not as pets or as food stock. That would mean he had to become a wild turkey himself and do so in their native environment—the Florida flatwoods.

He began that process by assuring that each hatchling saw Hutto before it saw anything else. On the very first look, it imprinted on him, just as it would a parent. "[The hatchling] raises his shaking wet head and looks me square in the eyes. In that brief moment I see a sudden and unmistakable flash of recognition."

The newly hatched poults began immediately to enroll Hutto in their flock. They surrounded him, fell asleep in his lap, wanted to touch and be touched by him. They dictated his clothing by turkey standards (no red or purple, and maybe not beige, either). They opined by acclamation on what he could eat in their presence (only apples).

For Hutto, the initial rewards were those of of parenthood — respect, admiration, love without judgment, pride in his fledglings and their accomplishments. But slowly, something else began to happen. Hutto started to merge into their flock, to become a slow-footed, flightless member of their tribe. Once a parent and teacher, he became ever more the student, and he recorded their teachings in a beautifully inscribed and illustrated set of field notes.

It is in this posture as member that Hutto’s eyes begin to open. He quickly rejects the widely-held notion that turkeys are the witless, clumsy dullards of the avian community. To the contrary, he discovers that they are far brighter than crows, have longer, more sophisticated memories and come equipped with a sense set that seems to go far beyond the human five senses. Wild turkeys know so much about the world around them.

Each day in a turkey’s life is beset with predation. Mortality in the flock is very high—foxes, snakes, birds of prey, they all take their toll. But for all that mortality, members act collectively to celebrate a rich and vibrant life together. These birds are more alive than anything Hutto has ever seen.

Hutto comes away stunned at how sophisticated, how beautiful, intelligent and deep life as a turkey is. The temptation is to anthropomorphize all that, to compare it to humans. But Hutto makes clear that to do so would diminish the majesty and integrity with which wild turkeys face mortality. In many ways, to compare them to humans would be to diminish them.

* * * *

The illumination of Hutto’s book got me hooked on ethology, and I continued my readings in that field with works on other species. At each stop, I gathered more reverence for the animals studied. Reverence is a trait that often emerges in ethological studies, whether they’re about apes, or sharks or mule deer. Scientists come to see, and revere, the inherent richness in creatures that are often the product of tens or even hundreds of millions of years of refinement. The shark, by the way, is the king of such development. Sharks have existed in approximately their current form since before there were trees. Humans, by comparison, have existed in their current form for much less than a million years.

* * * *

It’s dolphin ethology that’s really captured me, though. I’ve been energized by the dolphins that constantly surround us in our travels. They seem so…encouraging (bald anthropomorphism, I know). And I felt led to consume innumerable books, films, and articles trying to get at what it means to be a cetacean in general and a dolphin in particular.

Before we go on, though, let’s attack fish prejudice head-on. Let’s get some basics out of the way for those who are tempted to treat dolphins as big, smiley, cute fish:

Dolphin brains are, on average, larger than human brains, and more complex.

Dolphin brains contain two extra, very large, lobes that seem to be devoted to emotional intelligence. You know those emotional intelligence tests you can take in Cosmo and the like. Dolphins wrote them.

Dolphins can process sound as vision and vice versa

Dolphins can sleep on one side of their brain at a time and function fully using he other side

Dolphins communicate over a very high bandwidth sub-sonic to ultra-sonic spectrum and at very high speed. Think of our speech as like those old modems used over dialup. Dolphins have fiber.

Dolphins can communicate over tens or perhaps even hundreds of miles.

Dolphins can improvise very complex techniques to solve problems, using all the resources available in the sea. They even use their ability to blow bubbles to fashion bubble nets to corral fish.

Dolphins act collaboratively in groups from as few as two to over 1,000. Almost all dolphin activity is collaborative

Dolphins have language and syntax, local dialects and a lingua franca for communicating across species and dialects.

Some scientists hypothesize that dolphins communicate using discrete words, sentences and paragraphs.

Dolphins have names for themselves and are able to recognize themselves in photos or mirrors

Dolphin young stay with their mothers for years as they learn the skills necessary to survive at sea and operate in dolphin society. Orca children (orcas are dolphins) stay for life.

Dolphin society is very close. Indeed, dolphins traveling together are often touching most of the time. And talking. They are real talkers.

Scientists hypothesize that cetacean strandings result from the unwillingness of members of a clan to abandon members who are sick or disabled. They would rather die than leave a friend or family member.

Group play is a big part of dolphin life. Dolphins surf, they play catch, hide and seek. They seem to play jokes on each other.

Dolphins may use their ability to make bubbles to effect a kind of writing. Spinner dolphins in particular use elaborate aerial maneuvers to create distinctive bubble signatures.

I could go on at length. The point here is not just that dolphins are complex, interesting creatures. It is that they may be more complex and more interesting than we are!

Think what it means to have been together as a species for millions of years, and to have done so with powerful brains and elaborate communication skills. I’m at that stage of assimilating such possibilities. Not answers, mind you, just possibilities.

Which brings us to Joan Ocean. I learned of her work in the book Voices in the Ocean by Susan Casey, which I highly recommend. Joan conducts seminars in Hawaii a few times a year that involve spending hours a day in the ocean in the company of a clan of spinners that Joan has come to know. I think she’s gone beyond honorary membership; she’s come to be included in the group, much as Joe Hutto was. Indeed, I’m counting on it.

Her sessions encompass such titles as Whales and Dolphins: Mirrors of the Great Mind, and Birthing Whales and the Multiverse.

And I know what you think. If you’ve met me, or at least read my writing, then you know I’m a rationalist through and through. Seminars like that are…how to put it…outside my wheelhouse.

Except.

My ethological studies have taught me that there is there is a huge amount about animals I don’t know. I used to think I knew a lot. I preferred, after all, to spend more time with dogs and horses, even cats, than with humans. But I see now that those animals are themselves emissaries to our society, not lenses into theirs--that I have really learned more from my animal friends about us than about them.

So I want to learn as ethologists learn…and learn about dolphins in particular. And I will not go to one of those “dolphin experience” sessions at a marine park. I won’t subsidize the confinement of cetaceans. There are very few wild dolphin encounters available to non-scientists, and hardly any that show respect to the animals involved. Joan’s shows that respect. So, I’m going.

And that is how I come to talk about arrogance and humility. We have enshrined the notion that we humans have “dominion” over animals in holy texts from all the major religions. We can thank Plato for much of that. His organization of the universe—the pure, the impure and the in-between (intermediaries like Jesus and Mithras manage the in-between)—leaves us in charge of the realm of the impure. And, in the raw deal of all time, animals get lumped into that.

I don’t know which came first, the religion or the categorization. But the notion of dominion permeates western thought. We view ourselves as entitled to exploit even the most intelligent of creatures. Even creatures who show every sign of being smarter than us.

I don’t imagine that I’ll come away from these studies actually speaking dolphin. That’s arrogance. And also probably impossible in this era. One of the early scientists to study dolphin communication—John Lilly (who had the dubious distinction of facilitating the first human-dolphin sex)—imagined that by applying computer power he could dissect and master dolphin communication in a few months or years. Unfortunately, his computer was as powerful as that part of your smartphone that runs the alarm clock. He clearly underestimated what was involved, and other dolphin scientists have been no more successful since. SETI may actually have had more luck.

What I want to find in my searches is some structure for the humility we so lack in our treatment of animals. When I say structure, I mean for myself. But I also mean for us as a species. I don’t know if there’s a book in this, or some other sort of initiative, or just an elaborate dream. But I want to continue.

And, with respect to Joan Ocean, the mirrors of the great mind and all that entails…I’ll keep you posted.

#dolphins #ethology #bottlenose dolphin #spinner dolphin #cetacean

3 notes · View notes

mrmichaelchadler · 5 years

Text

Jonathan Rosenbaum on His New Book Collection, Cinematic Encounters

In the summer of 1972, Jonathan Rosenbaum was a writer and film critic living in Paris who had begun researching an article on Orson Welles’s original Hollywood project, an adaptation of Joseph Conrad’s novella, Heart of Darkness.

Learning that Welles was also in Paris during the off and on shotgun production production of “The Other Side of the Wind” and the editing of his essay film “F For Fake,” Rosenbaum sent him a letter with detailed queries about his screenplay. He dispatched the letter on a Saturday night.

On Monday morning, Welles’s assistant called and asked Rosenbaum to join Welles later that day for lunch. Upon meeting Rosenbaum expressed surprise that Welles would ask him to lunch.

“I don’t have time to answer your letter,” Welles responded.

The resulting article, “The Voice and the Eye: A Commentary on the Heart of Darkness Script,” first appeared in the magazine’s November/December issue that year. Forty-six years later, Rosenbaum worked as a consultant on the completion of Welles’s “The Other Side of the Wind.”

The Welles interview is also the taking off point for Rosenbaum’s new two-volume book collection, Cinematic Encounters. The first volume, subtitled “Interviews and Dialogues,” is newly out from the University of Illinois Press. In addition to Welles, the book culls interviews Rosenbaum conducted with such essential figures as Jean-Luc Godard, Jacques Rivette, Alain Resnais, Jacques Tati, Samuel Fuller, Raúl Ruiz and Béla Tarr. The interviews took place in various far flung locations, including Paris, London and New York.

The second volume, “Portraits and Polemics,” set to come out this June, makes for a natural juxtaposition, overlapping with essays and critical evaluations of many of the same directors like Rivette, Resnais, Tarr and Jarmusch. Orson Welles, who has loomed so prominently over Rosenbaum’s life and work, is the natural structuring figure. As the first volume is arranged chronologically and the second part alphabetically, Welles opens and closes the two works.

Though he retired in 2008 after 21 years as the chief critic of the Chicago Reader, Rosenbaum remains a prolific writer, lecturer, teacher and traveler. His work is archived at www.jonathanrosenbaum.net.

A leading authority on Orson Welles, Rosenbaum is also about to start a 14-week lecture series on the director at the Gene Siskel Film Center, in conjunction with the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. His opening lecture, accompanying a 35mm screening of “Citizen Kane,” is scheduled for January 29.

In a recent interview, Rosenbaum talked about the genesis of the two volume work and the constantly evolving nature of film criticism in the digital age.

The first volume is dedicated to the French writer and teacher Nicole Brenez. She actually suggested the idea of the book?

She originally said to me, why don’t you do a book of your interviews? I was already thinking of putting together a book of recent pieces. When I started thinking about it, I thought it would be interesting to combine these ideas into one big book. When I proposed that to University of Illinois Press, the editor said, “Why don’t we do them as two books?”

So are these the interviews that mean the most to you? How did you decide to arrange them for the book?

It was basically the interviews that I had in print form. I noticed there was a lot of difference between them in terms of how they were formulated and structured. I thought in a certain way, it became a kind of investigation into the various forms that interviews can take. What I’m trying to explore in both volumes is how much film criticism is a social activity involving other people. Sometimes it involves polemics and sometimes it involves dialogues. It’s against the idea that the critic is someone who has or should have the first and last word. That’s why I bring up the Hitchcock and Truffaut book in asking to what extent it is or isn’t criticism. Even though it had a great critical impact, I think there’s a lot of cloudiness in people’s mind about this topic that I’m trying to address.

How would you describe or define your interview style?

It‘s often confrontational when it isn’t simply looking for information or clarification. I should add that when I was a kid, I was relatively asocial. But at the same time I went to movies a lot. Movies are an easy way of being very social because you are with all these other people, but you are also alone. Film criticism is still social now, but in a different way because of the Internet. There was a book party in Chicago recently, and I knew very few people there. The reason for that is I’m fairly reclusive in Chicago but I’m very social on the Internet and when I travel. It’s a kind of a paradox, the fact that close to a thousand people read me on my website every day and I interact with them. At the same time, I don’t go out very much or hang out with other people in Chicago. I do that more when I travel.

Are you of the belief that interviews, when done properly, are a form of criticism by other means?

Not exactly, but it’s a way of exploring and testing some of the ideas of criticism. One of the things I talk about in the introduction to the second volume is that I am very much influenced by the French idea that cinema is literature by other means. Also, music and theater. It basically includes an involvement with all the other arts.

Do you have personal favorites of these interviews, or in the act of revisiting these pieces, what stands out about them?

I’m especially happy about the rapport I developed with some filmmakers: Sam Fuller, Godard, Jim Jarmusch, Jackie Raynal, Raúl Ruiz, Jacques Tati, Béla Tarr, and Peter Thompson, among others. In the case of Paul Morrissey, there is really only one of his films that I like a lot, and I certainly don’t agree with his politics, but it was interesting to hear his rants. I wanted some diversity in the book. This also applies to John Carpenter [a production story about the making of “The Thing”], because I’d never been on a junket before, even though it was kind of a fake interview, a phone interview that I had to pretend was taking place in British Columbia.

You first started writing critically in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the time of New Journalism. Were you influenced by those writers? You’ve talked about Susan Sontag, but what about Michael Herr, Norman Mailer, or Joan Didion?

Mailer did influence me, especially “The Executioner’s Song,” which I was reading when I was working on Midnight Movies with Jim Hoberman. When I was writing about “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” and David Lynch, that kind of pretending to be subjective when you write about someone else but you’re really being objective about your research, that was influenced by Mailer. Herr didn’t influence me at all, but “Dispatches” certainly impressed me.

I’ve always argued that I believe in subjectivity as a critic, but I believe you have to objectify your subjectivity. In other words, state where you’re coming from and not disguise your subjectivity as another form of objectivity.

I’ve never been a fan of Tom Wolfe and I dislike his smarmy showboating. I like Joan Didion as a political thinker, but I’m not sure how I feel about her as an autobiographical writer. I wouldn’t say that she’s been an influence. I learned something about style from Pauline Kael’s writing, but I reject her taste and her preoccupation with power. Sontag has always impressed me in a cultural way and also as the last of the New York intellectuals, plus the only one who was always very sophisticated about film. She was also sort of a friend.

The fact that many of these interviews occurred when you were an exile, or expatriate, in Paris or London, is that coincidental or meaningful?

It’s mainly circumstantial. But it’s true that by living in Paris I had more easily access to people than I had in New York. Everybody I wanted to interview I was able to. I tried to interview Godard in Paris, but he was recovering from his motorcycle accident, so I met him briefly then but we couldn’t do an interview. We did two interviews later, once in New York and the other in Toronto, and both are in the book.

“Noroît"

The Geraldine Chaplin interview is probably the most radical stylistically, with how you play with the form of the interview.

I also thought it was a way of challenging some of my own preconceptions. For instance, as interested as [Jacques] Rivette was in Geraldine Chaplin as an actress, I found out and realized that she had little interest in Rivette. She did not really enjoy working for him and had little interest in seeing his films. Maybe she saw some of the films later, but she was not interested in seeing “Noroît.” On the other hand, she was full of enthusiasm about Robert Altman because she had so much fun on “Nashville.”

Obviously in any interview you are challenging critical preconceptions with the experiences of filmmaking, which are sometimes quite different. But sometimes they can be close. I was very pleased to discover my grasp of what Tati was doing was very close to his grasp of what he was doing. That also happened to a lesser extent with Rivette.

Given your time in Paris overlapped, I was curious if you ever interviewed Nicholas Ray?

We were casual friends in both Paris and New York. I even wrote a piece called “Looking for Nicholas Ray” which includes some interview material, and I debated with myself about possibly including that in the book. It originally ran in American Film. After his death, I spent a lot of time with his widow, Susan.

Are there any interviews you regret did not make it into the collection?

There was one interview I could have included, but it’s more recent, one I had with Abel Ferrara. That was in Zagreb just a couple of years ago. But even though I’ve seen a fair number of his films, I’m not an expert like Nicole Brenez or Brad Stevens. I liked Abel personally, but I didn’t feel like what he had to say in our interview was particularly revealing or interesting. And I have no regrets at all about excluding a disastrous commissioned interview I did with Marco Ferrari in Paris.

You have written about your life and background quite a bit. Your life is quite different than most critics. How did that shape that development of your voice as a critic?

That’s hard to say, but it’s relevant that I wrote a lot of fiction when I was young, both novels and short stories. That obviously played a role, because I was thinking about form a lot, and I still think about that all the time, as well as voice. As for my frequent recourse to autobiography, that came from writing Moving Places: A Life at the Movies—my first book, and my own version of a nonfiction novel—and I later found it both natural and useful to use that in my criticism.

You have been very outspoken, perhaps even iconoclastic about this idea that the quality of the readership is more than important than quantity.

I have very concrete evidence supporting that. I got the best quote of my life from Jean-Luc Godard because I wrote for a magazine that has never had a circulation of more than 2,000 people, and he never would have read me if I hadn’t written for Trafic—a French quarterly without illustrations (apart from one small one on the cover) that was founded in 1991 by the critic Serge Daney shortly before his death. [At a press conference at the Toronto Film Festival in 1996, Godard said: “I think there is a very good film critic in the United States today, a successor of James Agee, and that is Jonathan Rosenbaum. He’s one of the best; we don’t have writers like him in France today. He’s like Andre Bazin.”]

When I wrote [critically] about Ingmar Bergman in The New York Times, I got a lot of abuse from people, and that’s largely because it was in The New York Times. If I had written the same article for the Chicago Reader, it would not have happened the same way. I actually think when you write for a niche market, what one writes can actually have an effect sometimes. It depends. I don’t want to be dogmatic about it. But in terms of my overall experience, I find the writing I do for smaller but more intense groups is more satisfying.

Given the importance of Orson Welles in your professional life, I guess it’s fitting that he opens and closes the two books.

That’s one of the kind of games I like to play, as inspired by [the late Chicago filmmaker] Peter Thompson and his whole idea of diptychs. For me it was very enjoyable working on the two books together that way, because I found that they were in dialogue with each other, the two books. And pieces in each book are in dialogue with each other. 

That time you met in Paris, in 1972, that’s the only time you ever met.  

The only time, just that one hour for lunch.  

Was he aware of your writing about him?  

There was hardly any early work for him to be aware of. That was the amazing part—at that point I had published almost nothing, maybe two or three pieces in Film Comment. I had published a fairly lengthy attack on “Raising Kane” [Pauline Kael’s controversial two-part New Yorker essay about the authorship of “Citizen Kane”] in Film Comment. It was a piece that began with the misguided assertion that [John] Houseman was correct about Welles writing almost none of “Citizen Kane.” I don’t know if he read it or not when he met me, but most likely not. He never alluded to it, although I did find out later that a copy of it was in his papers. He more likely read it afterwards.

"The Other Side of the Wind"

 The second volume ends with your essay on "The Other Side of the Wind." You worked as a consultant on the film, just as you had on the re-edit of "Touch of Evil" in 1998. What were those experiences like?

It was different in a lot of ways. One thing similar was working with huge corporate entities, which I don’t like to do very much. You’re getting people who don’t know much about film, and they’re afraid of alienating their boss and therefore can be obstreperous. I was less successful in getting certain ideas across on “Wind.” It’s not that we didn’t communicate but they decided to go against some things I was urging. I succeeded in almost everything with “Touch of Evil.” “Wind” was much trickier, because that was edited by a committee in which only Filip Rymsza had a background that was not mainly Hollywood.

I thought that doing the sound editing to match Hollywood standards was a big mistake. At the same time I understand it. In a way I am more irked by the Morgan Neville documentary [“They’ll Love Me When I’m Dead”] because it’s led so many people to think the dialogue wasn’t scripted, even though the script was published several years ago.

You are also about to start a 14-week lecture series at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago about Orson Welles.

We are going to show the films, and then have a break and then I will give a lecture and lead a discussion about each one. Prior to “The Other Side of the Wind,” Welles and Stanley Kubrick made the same number of released features, which I find very interesting because Kubrick is seen as a great success and Welles, at least in the U.S., is seen as a failure. Both ended their careers in exile. So now Welles has one more than Kubrick, fourteen and there is a possibility of still others.

As these books demonstrate, you are writing as much as ever. Do you miss having that weekly platform in the Reader?

I think some other people miss my doing it, but I don’t think I do, except for the loss of steady income. I miss that. I had to see so many films I didn’t like and didn’t want to see, and I don’t have to do that anymore. For me that’s a big difference. I do try to keep up, though, in a more limited way.

from All Content http://bit.ly/2RVkE8j

0 notes

hollywoodjuliorivas · 7 years

Link

Inspired Life The priest who healed orphans with poetry By Joan Chrissos April 3 Spencer Reece with some of the girls at Our Little Roses, the home in San Pedro Sula, Honduras started by Diana Frade. Photo by Diana Frade Spencer Reece had gone to Honduras to learn Spanish after a crisis at work. Reece, an acclaimed poet who later became an Episcopal priest, had been working as a chaplain at Hartford Hospital in Connecticut in 2009 when a teenage boy was rushed into the ER late at night. Stabbed 25 times, the boy died at 6 the following morning, another gang-war casualty. Reece had tried as best he could to comfort the mother, but she spoke only Spanish. Reece, a Midwesterner who in a previous incarnation sold wingtips and windowpane suits at Brooks Brothers, spoke only English. Reece called Leo Frade, the Episcopal bishop of Miami. At the time, the Diocese of Southeast Florida, led by Frade, was sponsoring Reece at Yale Divinity School. How could he became fluent in Spanish, Reece asked Frade. “He immediately said, ‘I have just the place for you,’’’ recalled Reece, who prior to seminary had been an assistant manager at the Brooks Brothers in Palm Beach Gardens. Frade, who came to Miami in 2000 after serving 17 years as the Bishop of Honduras, filled him in on Our Little Roses, a home and school for abused and abandoned girls in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, a city where children bathe in brown, fetid river water and scavenge for scraps at the city dump. Reece spent the summer of 2010 in a Spanish-language immersion program at the home. His contact with the girls was scant — until the night before he was to leave. Climbing the concrete steps to his guest room, he found one of the girls standing beside his door. ‘“What are you doing here?’ I asked her,” he said. “We heard you are leaving tomorrow,’’ Reece recalled the girl responding. “It took me by surprise, as I didn’t know they knew I was there. She turned to me and said, ‘No nos olvides.’ Don’t forget us.’’ Spencer teaching poetry to the students at Holy Family Bilingual School at Our Little Roses in San Pedro Sula, Honduras. Photo by Mary Jane Zapp “Those three words changed the course of everything,’’ Reece said. “I went into my room, closed the door and cried.’’ Reece returned, and the moving story of his time at the orphanage is the subject of a new documentary, “Voices Beyond the Wall: Twelve Love Poems from the Murder Capital of the World,’’ which will be shown April 5 at George Mason University in Fairfax. After the film, Reece will talk about his experience. (San Pedro Sula is now generally ranked second for the world’s highest per capita murder rate, behind Caracas, Venezuela.) Reece, now 53, applied for a Fulbright Scholarship so he could spend a year teaching poetry to the girls, using the lines of meters and verse to help them excavate the layers of emotional scars left behind after their parents abandoned them. “The whole thing didn’t look very good on paper,’’ Reece said of his Fulbright application. “I hadn’t taught before, I wasn’t a priest that long, and I hardly spoke Spanish. “But poetry was what I knew,’’ he added. “It gave me a place where I could find solace, feel that I was loved.” Reece turned to poetry as a teen coming to terms with being gay in the late 1970s, made even more traumatic after the suicide of a close friend who was also gay. “He was teased on the bus, an hour-long bus ride, kicked, punched, called a faggot, blood coming out of his mouth,” he said. “He got off the bus, put a rope around his neck in his parents’ basement and hung himself.” Six years later, when Reece was 22 and about to graduate from Wesleyan University, his aunt called him to tell him his cousin had been murdered, dragged to the river in St. Augustine, Fla., and drowned. He later learned it may have been an anti-gay hate crime. Those events had a profound impact on Reece, who twice attempted to take his own life and turned to the bottle. “It was an arc of almost 30 years of work in church basements and coffeepots,’’ Reece said of his 12-step programs and therapists. “It took a long time to get to the top of the church steps.’’ Literature was his lifeline. Toni Morrison’s “The Bluest Eye.’’ J.D. Salinger’s “Catcher in the Rye.’’ Sylvia Plath’s “Lady Lazarus.’’ He read. He wrote. Reece’s poem, “The Clerk’s Tale,’’ detailing his days at Brooks Brothers — “I am thirty-three and working in an expensive clothier, selling suits to men I call “Sir.’’ — was published in the New Yorker, on the back page of the June 16, 2003, edition. The award-winning poem later became the title of his debut poetry collection in 2004, which was followed by a second volume, “The Road to Emmaus,” in 2014. Reece was selected as a Fulbright Scholar and returned to Honduras in 2012 with a film crew. While he planned to publish the girls’ poems — “Counting Time Like People Count Stars” (Tia Chucha Press), the 24-poem anthology is coming out in the fall — he knew poetry alone would not tell the stories of the girls. The film, which was directed by Brad Coley and lists James Franco as executive producer, follows Reece in his year-long quest to open the girls to poetry. He threw out the textbook and homed in on 20 poems he knew by heart, eventually building to a line-by-line call and response with the girls. Among the poems: An anonymous ode from Terezin Concentration Camp. W.H. Auden’s “The More Loving One.” Emily Dickinson’s “I’m Nobody! Who Are You?’’ “They walked out the room at the end of the semester and had the poems in their head,” Reece said. “And no one could ever take that away from them.’’ And the girls kept a poetry journal. The girls’ own poems, guided by Reece and set to music in the film, aren’t easy to listen to. “Little Red Hot Lips,’’ written by Ana Ruth, who with her twin sister, Ana Cecilia, arrived at Our Little Roses as a toddler and penned the poem at 16, gives a glimpse outside the walled sanctuary of the home and school. Little Red Hot Lips went away, la la! Oft to her beloved grand mama. She knew nothing about life at all, nothing about anything outside the wall. The poems speak of being left behind, poems like “I Will Be A Happy Girl,’’ written by Leily, a shy, bespectacled 17-year-old at the time. When I was six I saw my parents a few times between one and four in the afternoon. I forgot their names. When I look up at the sky I do not wonder about them, is how the poem begins. The poems don’t sugarcoat the rage, the rage of knowing your family has deserted you that rips through the body like a wild river. Every week, every day, every hour, every minute and every second that I pass without my family it feels like a knife trying to get inside a rock, wrote Aylin, then 15, in “Counting.” I am the knife and the rock is my life. By the poem’s end, Aylin, who came to Our Little Roses as a 5-year-old with her three older sisters, arrives at forgiveness, a biblical teaching many never arrive at in life: When I graduate from college and when I am finally somebody in this world, God, I will go straight to Mexico where my mother lives and I will stare at her like I stare at the stars and with a voice that cracks like thunder I will say: I FORGIVE YOU. To Richard Blanco, the poet who spoke at President Barack Obama’s second inauguration and who taught the girls in Honduras for a week at Reece’s behest, that’s the power of poetry. Poet Richard Blanco teaches a workshop to the girls of Our Little Roses in San Pedro Sula, Honduras. Photo by Mary Jane Zapp “Poetry makes us pause, makes us reflect, makes us come to resolutions,’’ Blanco said. It’s also the power of Our Little Roses, founded nearly 30 years ago by Diana Frade, a Kansas native who owned an apparel business in Honduras. While living in Tegucigalpa, the Honduran capital, she discovered a boys’ home and school started by five local Episcopalians. Why wasn’t anyone doing anything for the girl child? she asked. Since 1988, Frade, who later married the Miami bishop, and her team have shepherded hundreds of girls at Our Little Roses. At any given time, the home cares care for as many as 76 girls, from infants to college students. Early on, Frade started a bilingual school with one preschool classroom. Today, Holy Family Bilingual School has nearly 250 students, from preschool to high school, educating the girls and children in the community. The Class of 2013 was the first high school graduating class. The school also runs a Spanish immersion program for language students. Through a network of Episcopal churches across the United States — Christ Church in Alexandria has been a longtime supporter — the girls have been mentored, financially sponsored and encouraged to believe they can accomplish anything. Jensy, who came to the home as a 9-year-old after her mother contracted AIDS, is a dentist today who teaches at the university dental school and runs a dental practice on the posh side of town. Jessica graduated from law school a few years back, the program’s first lawyer. Heather, who earned an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, is getting an MBA at a university in Wales. And there are scores of teachers, businesswomen and entrepreneurs who have broken the cycle. Reece has witnessed these transformations. The documentary details the impact he had on them — “To Sir With Love,” Honduran-style. Perhaps more telling, though, is the impact the girls have had on him. A few days before he left, he talked to Tania, one of the girls featured in the film. Tania came to Our Little Roses as a 4-year-old, badly abused. “Here was the girl with the most unspeakable story, who they found in a well with a rock around her neck, who met with me at the end of my time,’’ Reece says. “It didn’t matter that I was this unconventional gay poet who had spent time in a mental hospital [suicidal thoughts], who was estranged from his parents for 10 years, who had experienced the ravages of alcoholism. Inspired Life newsletter Weekly inspiration to improve your life. Sign up “All these things she listened to. After she heard them, she said, ‘It makes sense to me now why God brought you here. It’s because you understand us.’’’ Reece paused as he told the story. “That was a pivotal moment in my own life,’’ he said. “I felt ordained, anointed, and Tania was my priest.’’ Joan Chrissos is a journalist with the Miami Herald who is a longtime volunteer at Our Little Roses through St. Philip’s Episcopal Church in Coral Gables, Fla. What: Screening of documentary, “Voices Beyond The Wall: Twelve Love Poems From The Murder Capital Of The World,” and discussion with Spencer Reece after the film When: 2 p.m. Wednesday, April 5 Where: Research Hall, Room 163, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive Fairfax Va. Cost: Free: Contact:: http://fams.gmu.edu/events/6525[fams.gmu.edu] To order a copy of the poetry anthology, “Counting Time Like People Count Stars,” email [email protected]

0 notes