US Leaders: Keep the drama on the stage

 culture  No Responses »
Jul 272011
 

As a working theatre maker and a teacher of theatre, I’m really tired of people trying to do my job.  The Great Debt Debate is just one more moment in recent American political history where our national leaders are working harder to make this situation dramatic than they’re working to solve the problem.

I teach an introductory theatre course for non-majors at NYU, and in one of the first classes, I define theatre as any live event where A performs B for C.  My graduate professor Harley Erdman used this definition, and he attributed it to Eric Bentley.  Theatre plays out on a daily basis right in front of us if we use this definition.  Endless possibilities emerge, and my students and I often discuss how political rallies and speeches can qualify as theatre under this definition.  I blogged a bit about this before when Obama spoke so eloquently and thoughtfully following the tragedy in Tucson earlier this year.

At this point though, using theatre to think through what’s happening with this debt debate feels really irritating.  I love good theatre, but I don’t like theatre when it’s happening in a situation where it doesn’t belong.  The over-the-top performances that are happening around Washington are embarrassing and wasteful.   The energy that politicians expend thinking about how to up end one another in public appearances and statements released to the media could be energy used to actually solve this problem.  A friend of mine said that he thinks that Boehner and Obama had this whole thing solved back when they played golf together, and I wouldn’t be surprised.  Our national leaders seem to be engaged in the same dramatics as the New York State legislature when they finally voted on marriage equality last month.  The urge to draw all of this out and make it dramatic is not working for the American public.

I wonder what it used to be like when leaders could work without the onslaught of 24-hour news outlets constantly asking them for statements and questions.  I think the media complicates all of this.  I’d venture to say that democracy works the best when the public has less information.  I know that sounds crazy, but we don’t trust our elected officials because we know every move they make, personally and professionally.  We judge, we critique, and we contribute to the dramatics.  Maybe if we stopped feeding the media hype beast, the drama off the stage would die down, and these elected officials could fully focus on their jobs rather than the immediate ramifications of their salad choice at the cafeteria to their approval ratings. Not to mention making clear, thoughtful decisions that could save the country’s financial situation now and in the future.

Let the theatre people make the drama, friends.  Stay off the media stage and do your job.

Our national leaders need to join Wipers Anonymous.

 culture  No Responses »
Jul 232011
 

So once again the talks surrounding the US fiscal crisis broke down last evening with Obama and Boehner hurling strong phraseology at each other, placing blame, and spinning their wheels.  Media outlets are reporting that the “silent majority” is dissatisfied with the job that our national leaders are doing.  One poll reported 80% of Americans feel this dissatisfaction.  We’re not talking about party lines here.  We’re talking about people feeling like their elected officials don’t deserve to get re-elected.

This debt ceiling-debt reduction thing has gone on entirely too long.  Our “leaders” are digging in their heels, in the name of protecting the American public’s interests, when in fact, I think that most of them are more worried about getting re-elected so they can continue to be “in power.”  Some of this is supposedly democracy at work.  I’m at the point now where I’m losing faith in democracy.

I think that most of these leaders are card carrying members of something I call Wipers Anonymous, or WA for short.  You know that expression, “Shit or get off the pot”?  Well, our leaders are doing neither of those things.  They seem to be paralyzed and wiping continuously. Digging for the proverbial gold, one might say.  Posturing, blaming, criticizing, all with their pants and skirts around their ankles and mummified in Charmin.  God only knows how much TP they’ve gone through on Capitol Hill.  And I think that Obama must have a trail of it following him through the White House, and it’s not just stuck on the bottom of his shoe.

I’m not going to pretend that I understand all of the dynamics of our national debt.  Nor am I going to suggest a solution.  But that’s not my job.  We’ve elected these people to lead the country, and they’re doing a shite job of it.  Both parties have lots of answering to do, and while Obama seems to be trying valiantly to lower the debt and not default, clearly something is keeping him and our congressional leaders from getting on the same page.

Maybe the Gang of Six will come through.  Maybe someone can Roto-Rooter a way through all of the TP stuck in the drains from all of the wiping, and finally something will get done.

Stop wiping, people!  Membership to Wipers Anonymous is officially closed.

 

Something just clicked…loudly

 culture  3 Responses »
Jul 212011
 

As New York ramps up to begin marrying gay and lesbian couples on Sunday, July 24, Frank Bruni of The New York Times shared a story of one gay couple and their two children that drove the importance of this new legislation all the way home for me.  Much to my embarrassment, I found myself getting a little choked up as I read it on the subway today.  You can read it by clicking here.

I like Bruni’s writing a lot.  There’s a snappiness to his voice without being bitchy or condescending, and his intelligence and wit come through without ripping others a new one.  Maybe when he wrote as the food critic for The Times it was a different story.  My boyfriend brought him to my attention when we first started dating almost four years ago, and I’ve become a fan of how simply he outlines an argument and then finds a way to drive his viewpoint home.  It’s an elegant style that I enjoy.

Bruni’s description of this family helped me to understand why marriage equality has had so many people jacked up for so long now.  It’s been difficult for me to understand because I’m not so into viewing myself as “less than” other people just because I couldn’t get married.  In general, I think that we Americans of all races, creeds, and orientations spend way too much time thinking up ways to view ourselves as “oppressed” in some way, shape, or form.  I remember watching the march on Washington for marriage equality on television back in October 2009 and seeing someone holding a sign about being a second class citizen because he couldn’t marry.  There I sat, on my comfortable couch in my nice apartment, drinking a glass of chocolate milk after an 18-mile run in preparation to run a marathon, and I thought, “Am I a second class citizen?”  I certainly didn’t feel like one.  And I’ve witnessed countless other examples of people assigning themselves the “second class” or “oppressed” title for reasons that I find trivial.  Granted, I am white, male, and supposedly privileged out the whazoo, and I also recognize that one’s perception is one’s reality.  So if a person thinks that he or she is oppressed, then I guess that’s fair.  However, I do think that there’s a difference between oppression that is self-imposed and/or self-actualized and then accepted as truth versus the oppression that is institutionalized and historical and out of one’s control.  Like the kind of oppression I witnessed on a trip to India, where I got my clock cleaned in terms of thinking that I had anything to feel oppressed about.

But this article by Frank Bruni got me today because he explains how two little girls have found it difficult to understand why their parents–two dads–were not married like their other friends’ parents.  And for some reason that clicked for me.  In my opinion, adults should be able to separate out the differences between institutionalized oppression and self-imposed oppression, and then make some decisions about how to navigate their way through the world with that information.  Children cannot and should not have to make these distinctions, should not have to feel “less than” because their family hasn’t been validated and acknowledged.  It’s these children that helped me to understand why this whole marriage equality argument makes sense and why for many gay and lesbian couples who have children or who want to have children that this legislation levels the playing field.

The “marriage nomenclature” is the only real way that most of our society understands “family.”  It’s unfortunate that our view is so limited, as lots of different family constructions exist.  I know that viewpoints are changing and expanding, but less than 400 years out from our Puritan roots isn’t quite enough time yet.  Change like this is glacial, and we need to be patient.  It’s part of the reason why I’ve stopped expecting “equality.”  Puritans came to the New World to escape religious persecution (read “oppression”), I would imagine with the hopes that they could remain homogeneous and insular on this very large hunk of land.  Clearly, that didn’t happen, and we’ve been trying to figure out how to co-exist with each other ever since.  Americans don’t have a stranglehold on this ditty, as it’s the oldest conflict story in the world.  Yet we Americans keep working for and demanding an egalitarianism that I’m not sure will ever exist.

However, if you read the article by Bruni, you’ll learn that seeing your two dads get married and having the cupcakes and icing to go with it may just help us to stick it out as the glaciers continue to shift and melt.

The more you see the less you know: Thanks, U2

 art, culture  No Responses »
Jul 152011
 

Finally saw something inspiring. Attended the U2 360 tour in Philly last evening.

The concert marked my seventh time seeing the men from Ireland live in concert. I started in 1992 with Zoo TV in the Spectrum in Philly with my dear friend Cathy, then Zoo TV at RFK in DC in the rain with Cathy again and Andrea, followed by Zoo TV at Vet Stadium in Philly with my brother Shawn who eventually eclipsed me in his adoration for the band and my friend Amy, among Cathy and others, who afterward said that she understood why girls held their faces and screamed for the likes of Elvis and the Beatles. (Side note: We slept on the street outside the Vet for fifteen plus hours to get those tickets just days after the riots in LA following the acquittal over the Rodney King beatings.)  Then the Pop tour at Franklin Field in Philly where thirteen of us almost got trampled, and my now sister-in-law Miranda and I witnessed a young woman “worshipping at her boyfriend’s altar” in a very public fashion. Miranda was 16 at most; I was mortified.

After a long hiatus, my brothers scored tickets to the Vertigo tour at the Wachovia Center in Philly watching from a super box directly opposite the stage. We had comfortable seats, bar/food service, etc. Going in, I proclaimed that I would act my age at this concert, as I was well into my 30s. Instead, I left hoarse from screaming like a teenager, eating my words.

Seeing U2 in concert is one of the places where the Salvatore brothers come together and agree. Anyone who knows Shawn, Brian, Kevin, and I would probably say that we are very different, and that has, at moments in our history, caused the typical tension between brothers. But the band has represented a site of neutrality for us, and our shared experience around these concerts creates a special bond that we can always return to, even when a disagreement over politics or family or whatever emerges.

My sixth time seeing U2 marked a very special time with my brothers. Brian and Shawn bought general admission seats on the floor of the Wachovia Center for the second leg of the Vertigo tour. I was reluctant to stand for three hours without a seat in a potential mosh pit, but I eventually succumbed to the peer pressure and signed on to go. The Vertigo tour featured a circular satellite stage that allowed the band members to mix with the general admission audience. U2 introduced this concept on the Zoo TV tour and repeatedly expanded it with subsequent outings. Certain general admission tickets gained access within that satellite oval via lottery. Of course, the Salvatore brothers wanted to be in that oval, but we knew the possibilities were limited. As we arrived at the concert that evening, we got out our tickets and moved through the scan line. I can’t remember which of us went first, but Shawn went last. None of the first three tickets registered anything other than the normal beep for entry. However, when Shawn scanned, an alarm went off, and the venue person asked, “Who are you with?” Shawn said, “These guys,” pointing at the three of us, and they proceeded to hand us pink bracelets that placed us in the center satellite oval on the floor. So I went from the potential of a huge mosh pit to a more intimate, privileged mosh pit, one that I was happy to enter. Bono was basically within reach at one moment, I jumped so much and so hard that I had shin splints the next day, and there are incriminating photos of all of us acting like complete, unadulterated wankers. Suffice it to say, the concert was an incredible experience that I will never forget. The Salvatore brothers still talk about it, and when we do, I get glassy-eyed and a little weak in the knees. It’s an important moment of shared history for us, and I am incredibly grateful for it.

Salvatore Shawn was absent from our party of eight last evening, as he opted for a break, and he was sorely missed. Brian and Kevin brought their wives (Meghan and Miranda–yes, the teenager from the Pop tour), some friends of Brian and Meghan’s, and my cousin, Renee. Renee is like a sister and had never seen U2 live, so the family affair continued. At one point, Bono’s profile came up on the INCREDIBLE live television show that they produced as the concert unfolded, and Renee simply turned to me and said, “I just changed my religion. OK?”.

U2 gave us their typical high-energy live performance, but the technical theatricality that has become a trademark over recent tours has just intensified on the 360 tour. Basically, a circular, ever-morphing projection surface provides a two-hour live, simultaneous broadcast of the concert. Renee, Kevin, Miranda, and I all work in the theatre in some capacity, and we spent the evening in awe of the magic and intimacy that unfolded before us. I should have carpal tunnel syndrome from pointing so much at what was happening. The music and vocals were awesome as usual, but the immersive quality of the experience is what makes the U2 live concert such an institution. As a theatre maker, I’m inspired by what they achieve. The boys know their roles in the performance, and they play them to the letter. And whoever directs this live broadcast is a genius. End of story.

The men of U2 have been inspiring me for almost 20 years now, and I look forward to their next outing. Their music lands in my head and my chest and reminds me about things that I need to consider and care about, their theatricality pushes my own artistic sensibilities, and their political and social messages offer me hope that so called “megastars” can still maintain a worthwhile global consciousness that others can and must aspire to achieve.

Thanks, U2, for personal history and inspiration and for showing your love.

Click here for the last night’s play list and some great photos.  And below, I’ve included some shots from my iPhone.  Click on the pics for their titles.

Good, giving and game: Thank you, Dan Savage & Mark Oppenheimer

 culture  No Responses »
Jul 022011
 

In this weekend’s New York Times Magazine, Mark Oppenheimer writes about marriage and infidelity in one of the most compelling and thoughtful ways that I’ve seen.  His article is called “Marriage, with Infidelities,” and it’s started quite a conversation in the “comments” area online, with 431 as of this blog post.  Oppenheimer writes the Beliefs column for The Times, and in my mind that makes his work this weekend all the more powerful and important to consider.  You can read more by and about Mark Oppenheimer here. The title of my blog post refers to a phrase that Dan Savage uses, and you’ll have to read the article to find out what it means.  If you don’t know Dan Savage’s work already, you really should, and you will know more after reading Oppenheimer’s article.

The ideas of monogamy and fidelity have been at the center of my creative work for the past five years, most notably through my play III about the 15-year menage between George Platt Lynes, Glenway Wescott, and Monroe Wheeler from 1927-1943, and then my more recent play open heart featuring verbatim interview excepts from 15 gay and bisexual men, some of them coupled, talking about their experiences in open, non-monogamous relationships with other men.  Both plays focus on relationships between men, but each time they were produced, the thoughtful comments coming from people of all sexual orientations, drawing parallels to their own experiences in long-term, committed relationships, excited me beyond my expectations and affirmed for me that people want and need to talk about these issues.

Oppenheimer’s article uses Dan Savage’s ideas on monogamy and marriage as a way into the discussion, but then he carries that conversation into deeper territory by repeatedly highlighting the idea that ultimately a loving, committed relationship between two (or more) people requires honesty and communication and an understanding of all parties’ realistic expectations around relationship monogamy.  Oppenheimer and The Times are already taking some flack for the article, and that’s understandable.  People who have been burned by dishonesty in a relationship (“Raise your hand if you’re Sure”) probably don’t want to read about how infidelity might be “OK” for a relationship to encounter and endure.  I’m not opposed to monogamy nor am I advocating for anyone to enter into a relationship that s/he isn’t comfortable with.  If monogamy is for you, then go for it.  However, Oppenheimer’s article does a great job of examining our historical and current relationship constructs and how these have led us to an assumption of monogamy rather than a choice for monogamy.  And for me that’s the key.  Assumptions about marriage and commitment have been wreaking havoc for a long time now, and this article effectively points out that it’s time for us to stop making asses out of each other.  Have the conversations, people.

I really want to encourage anyone in a relationship or contemplating a relationship to read this article.  It’s a thoughtful exploration of a difficult topic written in a very accessible way.  It’s not a conversion piece by any means, but rather an intelligent exploration of what it means to commit to another person in the 21st century.