Andor - Mon Mothma's Wedding Dance

According to the creator of the Disney/Star Wars series "Andor."  Mon Mothma is dancing (with such abandon,) to keep from screaming.  Spoiler alerts to follow.

Mon Mothma was a minor, as far as screen time goes, character from the last of the original trilogy.  At that point in time she is one of  the highest leaders of the rebellion against the evil empire and emperor.  She pops back in the franchise in the film "Rogue One."  But she is one of the three most important characters in the "Andor" series.

The setting.  We are at least a year or so before the revolution takes out the death star.  She is having a very bad day, week, year.  A lot of shit is hitting her, between her daughter's wedding to a loveless union, blackmail from her oldest friend, and having to ok his assassination.  And not only struggling to keep the revolution going and remaining undetected, their top operative on a crucial mission, is way past his check-in.  So yeah.  She wants to scream, but abandons herself to trance dance instead.

This is the culture story of the week.   Among people like me, at least.  Sci-Fi fans who look to the politics and rebellion in the Star Wars galaxy as something too close to reality.  Many of us want to scream, over what the empire we have to deal with, has been up to.  And would love to be able to trance dance for a bit and really blow off some steam.

I am definitely on Team Mon Mothma!

Non Political Content. Super!

Pic is of a dancer for the NY City Ballet, in her favorite (winter, I am guessing)  warm up get up.

Hey.  That theatre can get drafty.  I should know.  I used to work there, back in the day. 

Everything . . . is beautiful.  At the ballet.   Haven't been to a City Ballet show yet this season.  Gotta get on that.  I haven't seen any ballet in a month!  Talk about deprivation.  But I might get to see the special Kings of the Dance: Opus 3  show at City Center in a few weeks.  If I am lucky.  And by lucky I mean comped.  I love getting comped.  It's  the only way I can get  really good seats, as I am not a subscriber for either City Ballet, or ABT.  And this upcoming show I am talking about is not officially an ABT  gig.  But I know someone who knows someone.  Well I will stop there but hey.  I have a reasonable expectation for that gig.

Oh.  And I don't mean my former boss, who used to run sound at City Center. Last I heard  (as of last year) he's working at Carnegie Hall.  And he doesn't get comp tix.  I would imagine.  Usually.



Shit! My Fault! (Not Really!) I Did Not Know She Was Trying to be Funny!

Ok.  I had hoped to get to the new year with out feeling so compelled to mention silly person Ann Althouse  again.  But this post is not only about her.  It is a re iteration of one of my favorite themes.

Try being funny at your own risk, bitches! And if you fuck it up, it's your fault, not the audience.

Now for the set up.  Althouse generally does this totally fucked up shit all the time, where at one level she plays devil's advocate, and sorta seems to advocate fucked up ness, by virtue of not then and harshly condemning such fucked up ness.  She will post quotes and links about issue  X, Y, or A, and not comment.  Or she will comment, and it's supposed to, I am guessing maybe, be tongue in cheek.  And apparently sometimes  she thinks she is being funny, and says shit that she thinks is funny and people lo and behold, don't get the fucking joke.  And according to her, sorta, it's yours  it's our fault for not getting the joke.

Case in point.  She (again with the fucked up ness in not being clear about what she actually thinks about the issue) posted some quote and link (go here  if you must) about  whether or not that racist piece of shit Ron Paul is a racist.  And her  own commentary, in the comment thread after  was . . . . let me just post that as a quote:

"Let's be fair. I think he made a lot of money on those newsletters. That's a completely separate motivation for publishing that stuff. Do you think everyone who publishes porn loves exaggerated, promiscuous sex?"

 Now to me, that in of itself is much fucked up.  Doesn't matter if he was cynically publishing racist homophobic shit to make money.  According to my rule, which is the same rule they told us runs the world, when we were in grade school, that all that shit goes on your permanent record?  Well using that kind of rule, if you run around pretending to be a racist and homophobe just to make money, you are showing yourself to the public as a racist and a homophobe.  That's the part that goes in your permanent record.  And ya can't blame people for judging you and harshly, if you run around acting all racist and homophobic.  I mean really?  As if it is everyone else's job to do the impossible and be able to figure out your fucked up motivations and fucked up inner self?  People can only judge based on what they see.  And if they see you acting like a racist homophobe, that as they say is that!

I went long there, but that's really my take on the whole  Did He Mean It, question.  I say it doesn't fucking matter.  Moving on  though, someone later takes her to task for seeming to defend Paul by talking about the alternative motivation for his racist seeming  behaviour.  Her reply to that?

"Sorry if my humor is too dry for you."

Now we get away from the racism shit and back to comedy theory.  I have said it before.  I will say it here again.  Try to be funny at your own fucking risk.  It is NEVER the fault of the audience for not getting your fucking lame assed  attempts at humor.  It is 100% the responsibility of the humorist/comedian/joke teller.  Professionals know this.  Fucking amateurs oftentimes  don't.  And I know.  Trying to be funny is something a lot of people do.  And I am not saying there should be some sort of law that says, only trained professionals should be allowed to attempt this.  But if someone is so reckless that they attempt to be funny in public, and don't pull it off?  It's their failure, not the audience.

And while I am at it.  There's a difference between a novel and a play.  And there is a difference between telling a joke (trying to be funny) in person or for tape/vid/film  and doing that in text only.  Text only is actually harder.  Why?  Because all the human communication parts are missing.  There's no physicality, no tone of voice, no facial messaging, and usually timing is off as well.

Now I have to admit that back when people still emailed jokes to me, I would often hack them  to make them read better as a joke, because  usually they were badly formatted.  And that all goes to my next point, and that is that it is one kind of recklessness to try to be funny in public, but trying to do it in text only communications?  That's really fucking hard to do.  Particularly when someone really does not get the core idea of comedy.  It's less about what the joke teller thinks is funny.  It's more about whether or not the joke teller successfully figures out what will be funny to the audience, and successfully  entertains the audience.

But again.  Unlike Althouse, who has her undergraduate degree in a narrow visual arts field,  I have mine in Theatre.  I did not exactly take a class in comedy theory.  But I did a little acting, and I know, it's the performers job to sell that shit.  It is not the audience's job to buy it. 

Edit to add:

I could have let it slide.  But ya know?  My argument is inferred in there when I talk about comedy theory, and permanent records.  But now that I have thought about it, I do not want to let it go.  Her fucked up remark about pornographers?  How fucked up is her thinking there?  I mean, really!  It doesn't fucking matter if a pornographer loves their work.  All that matters,  and all that is going on their permanent record is that they actually produced and marketed smut.  So that whole analogy was very much fucked up.

And in that vein, I will add the following image.  Sorta sums up my feelings, here.

Call Me Lazy Today.

Well I had a lost 1/2 half of the day.  Saw the ABT Nutcracker at BAM and did not get into political agitation mode yet.  Even if I have done the usual blog and news circuit.  Sorta not all that much going on.  Same stupid shit, only less so, on account of people getting ready for New Year's.  And Iowa.

Unoriginal thought occured to me.  Does the Iowa straw poll actually mean as much as a bucket full of spit?

Ok.  Lemme  post some eye catching stuff.

Why this?  Why not.  The star, and some other cast members of Broadway's new musical, Lysistrata Jones.  An updated, comedic and musical retelling of the classic Greek Play.  Ain't she cute?


And if I don't post again till after the year turns, Happy New Year.  Bring it.  I am ready to bury the corpse of 2011 in a shallow grave, and not look back as I keep on trucking.

Was This Really a Genuine "Black Face" Incident (Meaning Meaning to be Insulting?)

Or was this just bad stage craft?

The national office of Phi Mu sorority has put six white University of Southern Mississippi students on probation after a photograph surfaced on Facebook showing them in blackface at an off-campus costume party.The sorority sisters put on the makeup and donned curly-haired wigs to attend the 1980s-themed party as the Huxtable family from the sitcom ‘The Cosby Show. Here.

I admit. At first read of the headline and teaser on the blog I found this story, I was ready to go all batshit. Then I read the story. And the story that is linked to in the story. And very quickly I was willing to cut slack. Why?

I have a degree in Theatre. I know how to apply theatrical makeup. Likelihood is these stupid girls did not have a clue, and to make matters worse, did not track down some one who hangs out at the theatre for some help. I have shopped for makeup myself, back in the day. So I know about the kinds and varieties. And all these dumb girls needed to do was go to a store that carries the stuff, or even order it off the Net. I would recommend to pass on the sticky greasy stuff, and get the pancake. And the range is so varied they could have picked any number of nice shades of brown. Now theatrical make up isn't all that expensive. And there were six of them. They could have chipped in for one unit of one good shade and it would have cost them next to nothing. Each. But they were stupid. And stupid is as stupid does.

Oh. Go here for the Mehron makeup brand's performance Color chart.

One last thing on this subject. Now stage actors, ballet dancers, and even opera singers (who are a specialized kind of actor) usually do their own makeup, unless it's way too complicated for the role. It's an age old tradition and serves an important function in the whole "getting into character," ritual. And there is this famous story that has been out there for decades about the one star tenor who was singing the lead in "Otello." And he did his own makeup. And he liked to leave his shirt unbuttoned at the neck and upper chest. And one day he did that. But he forgot to apply the make up on his neck and chest.

Whoops! That looked weird, I bet!

Didn't I Just Say I Need To Stop Talking About Her? Ann Althouse Doesn't Get It. I think.

Never can be sure if she's doing that devil's advocate shit, or if she's really that (and I want to be kind. I am grasping for the right phrasing here,) jejune, but I am perplexed by her question. If it's not her doing the devil's advocate thing. (Which is sorta intellectually dishonest to me. Outside of the classroom, that is.)

Anyway, the question followed her post of a link to a scathing review of Spiderman, the cursed Broadway musical. (As an aside, I do have a weak spot for cursed shows. Can't say how soon I will try to get to see it, though.)

Anyway, she asked out loud, why do people go to see live theatre when we have movies? Here.

Ok. I really don't want to do this the cheap shot way, but the cheeky sarcastic reply to that question is the following question: "Why do people still have real sex when they can cyber and sext?"

Now to get serious with the answer. Because it's so different an experience that it is a different experience.

I'm not going to repeat one my why I go to the Opera or the Ballet stories here. That would be a waste of keystrokes. But I will recount one episode from my time in summer stock. We were doing that year, along with a couple other shows in repertory, Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing. I had one of those throng parts. Soldier in Don Pedro's Army. No lines, but still part of the show. And to explain, the theatre building was the university's former gym, built in the early 1900s, and had this massive vault of a peaked roof. And that was home to at least one bat. So one performance, during the scene that is taking place before Hero's tomb, as if on cue, our resident bat came down and did a few loops of the cast on stage. I think the bat got close to me, as I was holding my torch. I don't think bats like lights, but compared to the stage lights, my sterno can flame did not seem scary to the bat. I guess. Oh. And Mr. Bat only buzzed the stage that one time, that season, during a performance.

That's why people still go to see live theatre. Not because of the unintended appearance of bats, but because there is a element of uniqueness to each performance. Each performance is a new work of art, and a new shared experience. Again, it's not about being static. It's a fluid and properly dynamic experience.

Ok. Just to point out the other side, I remember being in high school and dying to see The Empire Strikes Back. I saw it the week it came out. And over the next few weeks I saw it two more times. Now the first time, I was totally blown away. During the second time, I still enjoyed the brilliant special effects enough to think, ya I can see this again. And during the third time, my eye was good enough to start deconstructing the gags. Ya. Cause there was nothing new to see, except the parts I wasn't supposed to. As an aside, I guess I have/had the eye for that kind of detail. I did go in that direction for my first career. Anyway.

The point is, each time you see a movie, it's supposed to be the same. Relentlessly the same. But a play? It's supposed to be mostly the same. But only mostly. Nuances matter. God. Right now David Tennant and Catherine Tate are doing MaDo in London. And those two have a year of doing Doctor Who with each other already. So their timing and their reparte as the comic set of lovers in MaDo has to be producing some great moments. Really great actors who really get on well can put on some interesting, different performances night to night. Even if they never ad lib on the words, there are moments that change, night to night.

Oh. And it's a tribal thing. Live theatre is as old as human communication and living socially. It's in our genes. Much more so, than sitting in a large room watching flickering lights and images on a wall. That's only about 100 years old. And even if watching a movie in a theatre can be a shared group experience, it's just not the same. Not by a long shot.

I'll stop there. I have rambled enough, I recon.

How Many People Will Fall For This Shit?

And I mean this documentary about Skulls Palin, Cyborg, Arctic Decoy Unit?

Story Here.

Not too many, I suppose. Even if (at the end of the article it is said) some people think of it as her, "Secret weapon." Since the movie, for now, is going to be in theatrical release, that limits the market.

"Ya means I get to watch political propaganda, and all I gots to do is give you money? That is so cool. Sign me up!"

And if what the pollsters say is true, most Americans likely to vote have already made their minds up about Mrs. Palin. So secret weapon? Hardly. That's my guess. Now to be fair, she has had a few accomplishments, that would seem big to the average American, but small to the ranks of leading politicians (and sorta middle of the pack for the pack of grade B GOP Nominee Wannabes.) But touting her short list of political accomplishments, the questions are begged;

Is that it? What else ya got to say about her?

Didn't she quit when the pressure got too hard on her?

What has she done in the past two years but cash in on her celebrity?

But enough about that. I want to talk documentaries. Now I had a very good professor in college for one of my Communications courses. How good? She was on the team that won an Oscar during that semester, for best (short feature) documentary, If You Love This Planet. So if at first I was hesitant to take her at her word when she said that a documentary director could be every bit as creative as a feature film director, once she came back from LA with tales of the thrill of winning the award (and the parties,) I totally trusted her word.

Thing is, call it propaganda (her movie was officially declared foreign propaganda -- the production co. was Canadian, and was sponsored by the Canadian film board,) or just call it a visual and audio essay. It's not meant to be news. And saying that nowadays in the age of infotainment doesn't have the same meaning it would have, in 1982. But still. Many people still don't get it that documentary doesn't mean "This Is All True!"

In film classes we learn about what the academics and even the crafts and guilds consider the first documentary: Nanook of the North. Short version of it is that the director of that first documentary took liberties with the truth and reality. Many liberties. And the die was cast for subsequent documentary filmmakers.

Now are all documentary filmmakers flim-flam artists? Are they all ideologues intent on getting a specific viewpoint across, no matter the actual truth? Not all, but many. Go over to Netflix. You will find dogs like "Loose Change," in the docu. category, just as you will find things produced by Ken Burns. It's not a qualitative label, documentary. And it is not a guarantee of honesty and candor. It basically means this film is not a dramatic or comedy film that was written and produced mostly for the purposes of entertainment, which follows the conventions of fictional movie making. And it does mean at the least, that it's an opinion essay, but one done on film, with audio, and sometimes some fun and fancy special effects.

Again, I don't think all that many people are going to leave the experience of that Palin docu. thinking, my mind is changed, I now view her in a favorable light. Some will. Some few I imagine. And among those who already like her? Might fire them up. You know them wing nuts love them some confirmation bias. They will plop down real money for a book that is nothing more then the same shit Sean Hannity says on air, for free, or some collection of Ann Coulter's essays, that they already have (and still could) read on the Internet for free.

Anyway, the story of the docu. got me thinking about that stuff.