Showing posts with label Toni Ann DeNoble. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Toni Ann DeNoble. Show all posts
Monday, January 30, 2012
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Meet The Fourteen - Toni Ann DeNoble
Meet The Fourteen interview, whaaaaaaat!?!?!?
I know right! This was shot during Intensives Week, and I've been super lazy, so it's only coming to you now, but it's good and it features the imagininja, Toni Ann DeNoble.
I'm working on editing another interview right now, hopefully I'll have it ready for tomorrow!
-R
I know right! This was shot during Intensives Week, and I've been super lazy, so it's only coming to you now, but it's good and it features the imagininja, Toni Ann DeNoble.
I'm working on editing another interview right now, hopefully I'll have it ready for tomorrow!
-R
 |
| and The Imagininja! |
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
The Given Circumstances.
One of my favorite parts of working on anything scene-related is pulling it apart based on the actions and words of the characters and figuring out what happened to these people before they got involved in whatever they are getting involved in. What makes these people tick? What are the possibilities? I often don't like it when people go to far and make up some story about a character losing a dog and how that affected them terribly... blah, blah, blah. It's cool if you lose a dog and that helps you get to wherever you need to go, but don't waste my time with your fanciful bullshit. The answers are in the text. granted sometimes a text modern needs some fleshing out; that's fun, but whatever the case may be, doing the detective work really turns me on. I remember back in undergrad, my very first Chekhov scene that Svet had assigned me was between Masha and Vershinin from 'Three Sisters'. That scene was a fucking puzzler, and my room-mates,who were grad students at the time and had already dealt with it were strictly pulled aside and told not to help me out. That Svet is a crafty one. The whole major action between the two characters happens off stage and is never directly referred to; it's alluded to. I look back on it now, and say to myself, "Obviously. Of course, that's what happened.", and really appreciate the lesson. I won't spoil it for you. Most of you probably know exactly what I'm talking about, but for those of you who don't, read it; check it out. It's good stuff. I mean, Chekhov, right!?
Toni Ann and I are working on 'Mourning Becomes Electra' right now in Andrei's class. I am the Orin to her Lavinia, which is great because back in ancient Greece, she's the Electra to my Orestes. It might be a bit of a cheat, but the great stories are often stolen and reshaped, and you can't go wrong with 'The Oresteia'. Aeschylus for the win. I will admit to you, that the scene was a bit of a last-miutepick-up for me, so I haven't read the three plays entirely through; we're still muddling through that. Naughty actors... tsk, tsk. So I, in need of putting up the scene for the first time had to go off of what I know about the play, generally, and my more extensive knowledge of it's source material. Thank god that Andrei's the type of teacher that gives you time to get yourself involved with what you're about to do before you launching to it. I get some time to write in my manuscript, converse with my dead father and get in touch with my own personal inner-guilt demons.
Our scene today was a pretty rocky first start. Getting to work with another actor in a company for the first time is alway s a bit of an experiment: finding their own rhythm, jiving, learning how they work and how to best work together. It's very jazz. I'm more the kind of guy that mostly likes to learn lines; know my own business; lay a ground plan; throw in some environmental surprises, trust the other actor and let fate and discovery decide where things take us. Now there is a "plan" in the script; Romeo and Juliet never get a happy ending because I feel like it, and eventually some traffic patterns loosely form. I like to know that I can move "off the rails" when the perfect opportunity strikes, but, in the end, most of the time some general foundations are laid (a nice balance between knowing what's coming, but still being able to be caught off guard). Like, I said, it was a rocky start, but we each learned something and after some post-mortem and another kine-rehearsal, I'm really excited to give it another go tomorrow.
What's really great about tracing the clues back to their possible foundations is not only the chance to play detective (after all, part of my draw to this form of start telling is that it is, to me, a social science), but also getting in touch with the need to think about why people in the world of the text and, by extension, the real world are motivated to do the things that they do. It's a whetstone that, with use, can very finely hone a person's sense of compassion: something that, I would argue might be in somewhat of a short supply (even if the world were full of compassion, I might still argue it; can you really ever have enough?).
Personally, I have been dealing with a challenge for the past several months. This is going to get honest, probably more so than I ought to in this forum, but it was an experience and applies to my point, so here it comes. I have a friend for whom I, admittedly, care a great deal. We haven't seen much of each other over the last several months, but there has been a growing antipathy between us for this time that we have not... been in each other's social sphere, let's say. There has been talk by third parties of how one dislikes the other, conversations tend to be awkward, bordering on not-so-subtle (yet socially polite) enmity. There was a mild confrontation that left me more than a bit cross yesterday after dinner. My entire bus ride home was filled with thoughts of how this had all come to pass. What led the two of us, two people who once got along quite well, to a state of dissolution. It occurred to me in my tracing of the lines that there had been times where I had been trying to rebuild a bridge and had been rebuffed, and times when she had been boldly extending the olive branch, only to be spurned by my recently singed feelings and pride. It was a disconsolate cycle in which we had mired ourselves. The fates had provided an opportunity to steal away for a quick, private chat today; we seized it and allowed for us to share sentiment and cleanse and salve the wounds that we were perpetually inflicting on one and other. I believe, now, that miscommunication and, perhaps, some external bending of the truth were the source of the problem, but fortunately, it no longer matters the given circumstances no longer hold sway.
The theater, and the power to share stories of kings and beggars and losers that win, can be a truly healing place; a triage for the soul. Today, and the lessons of the days leading up to today sometimes afford us the opportunities to heal ourselves with solicitude; warmth; love; tenderness; mercy, leniency - Compassion: the very best of given circumstances.
"Compassion brings us to a stop, and, for a moment, we rise above ourselves."
-Mason Cooley
Tonight, my heart is full.
-R
Toni Ann and I are working on 'Mourning Becomes Electra' right now in Andrei's class. I am the Orin to her Lavinia, which is great because back in ancient Greece, she's the Electra to my Orestes. It might be a bit of a cheat, but the great stories are often stolen and reshaped, and you can't go wrong with 'The Oresteia'. Aeschylus for the win. I will admit to you, that the scene was a bit of a last-miutepick-up for me, so I haven't read the three plays entirely through; we're still muddling through that. Naughty actors... tsk, tsk. So I, in need of putting up the scene for the first time had to go off of what I know about the play, generally, and my more extensive knowledge of it's source material. Thank god that Andrei's the type of teacher that gives you time to get yourself involved with what you're about to do before you launching to it. I get some time to write in my manuscript, converse with my dead father and get in touch with my own personal inner-guilt demons.
Our scene today was a pretty rocky first start. Getting to work with another actor in a company for the first time is alway s a bit of an experiment: finding their own rhythm, jiving, learning how they work and how to best work together. It's very jazz. I'm more the kind of guy that mostly likes to learn lines; know my own business; lay a ground plan; throw in some environmental surprises, trust the other actor and let fate and discovery decide where things take us. Now there is a "plan" in the script; Romeo and Juliet never get a happy ending because I feel like it, and eventually some traffic patterns loosely form. I like to know that I can move "off the rails" when the perfect opportunity strikes, but, in the end, most of the time some general foundations are laid (a nice balance between knowing what's coming, but still being able to be caught off guard). Like, I said, it was a rocky start, but we each learned something and after some post-mortem and another kine-rehearsal, I'm really excited to give it another go tomorrow.
What's really great about tracing the clues back to their possible foundations is not only the chance to play detective (after all, part of my draw to this form of start telling is that it is, to me, a social science), but also getting in touch with the need to think about why people in the world of the text and, by extension, the real world are motivated to do the things that they do. It's a whetstone that, with use, can very finely hone a person's sense of compassion: something that, I would argue might be in somewhat of a short supply (even if the world were full of compassion, I might still argue it; can you really ever have enough?).
Personally, I have been dealing with a challenge for the past several months. This is going to get honest, probably more so than I ought to in this forum, but it was an experience and applies to my point, so here it comes. I have a friend for whom I, admittedly, care a great deal. We haven't seen much of each other over the last several months, but there has been a growing antipathy between us for this time that we have not... been in each other's social sphere, let's say. There has been talk by third parties of how one dislikes the other, conversations tend to be awkward, bordering on not-so-subtle (yet socially polite) enmity. There was a mild confrontation that left me more than a bit cross yesterday after dinner. My entire bus ride home was filled with thoughts of how this had all come to pass. What led the two of us, two people who once got along quite well, to a state of dissolution. It occurred to me in my tracing of the lines that there had been times where I had been trying to rebuild a bridge and had been rebuffed, and times when she had been boldly extending the olive branch, only to be spurned by my recently singed feelings and pride. It was a disconsolate cycle in which we had mired ourselves. The fates had provided an opportunity to steal away for a quick, private chat today; we seized it and allowed for us to share sentiment and cleanse and salve the wounds that we were perpetually inflicting on one and other. I believe, now, that miscommunication and, perhaps, some external bending of the truth were the source of the problem, but fortunately, it no longer matters the given circumstances no longer hold sway.
The theater, and the power to share stories of kings and beggars and losers that win, can be a truly healing place; a triage for the soul. Today, and the lessons of the days leading up to today sometimes afford us the opportunities to heal ourselves with solicitude; warmth; love; tenderness; mercy, leniency - Compassion: the very best of given circumstances.
"Compassion brings us to a stop, and, for a moment, we rise above ourselves."
-Mason Cooley
Tonight, my heart is full.
-R
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Race, Virtues & Vices.
Anika Chapin: "So after that post, what did you think of Memphis?"
... *dies.
Little did he know that one little question would launch him into a response that would take five days to properly compose.
Based on the parameters that I had set up for myself in last week's post (Arts & Entertainments), I can tell you, Anika, that the show was merely entertaining. Broadway faithful, before you get up in arms, yes!!! Yes, they sang well; yes, they danced brilliantly; yes, they did... other things. What they didn't do was challenge me. I couldn't remember any of the songs upon exiting the theater, but they were good when I was there. I couldn't help but feel that they really feel that they missed an opportunity to really deal with racism in a way that wasn't kitchy and filled with only white people solving problems. A lot of the more risky opportunities to shine a light on social injustice were glazed over or turned into a joke, some of which some people really ought to think about being uncomfortable at laughing at. Just saying.
That's all!? It took you five days to come around to composing that? For real?
Well, yes and no. I could go on giving my piffling revue of the show, or I can turn to the far more interesting conversation that the show did, in fact, spark. I should say that there was a moment when we had stopped and considered that the show that we (Toni Ann, Zarif and myself) had been railing on, had indeed opened up a conversation about a greater problem, which forced us to reconsider it's status as art, but after some deliberation, we had decided to go with our first assessment. No.
Many of the opinions I'm about to share may be a little touchy, so please feel free to set me straight if you disagree with anything I write hereafter.
I started in on the show and it's treatment of the subject of racism. I really feel that the show was more brimming with sentimental hufflepuff and feel-good, "everybody gets along", ideology where we can all leave the theater feeling like we've accomplished something and that we no longer live in small-minded, barbaric times where people drink at different water fountains based on the color of their skin. I feel that anything or anyone that presents a message that we live in a post-racial society is immensely dangerous.
You may be the type of person, that I would like to consider myself to be, where you don't have any particularly hostilities towards people of a different race or openly hate "the other" or use derogatory, demeaning, hurtful language. That's a brilliant thing. Truly. But what I believe is important to remember is that there are still people out there who openly and actively believe that certain races are superior to others, or have warped perceptions, like "Korean people are good at math", or "Irish people are really bad at showering daily", or "All Pakistani people want to destroy your neighborhood." The worst thing that can possibly happen is turning a blind eye to these things. The problem isn't gone, it's only not "as bad" as it used to be according to our current social paradigm, but the problem isn't gone.
There has been a convention, in the contemporary theater that, in my opinion, has been one of the biggest perpetrators of this idea that we live in a post-racial society: the idea of color-blind casting. Allow me to explain, I'm not against the concept entirely. Can a Romeo of one racial background romance a Juliet of another? Absolutely! Bring it on! But if I see a production of All My Sons where Chris is white and Ann is Asian and that fact is not somehow addressed, I'm distracted because, to me, it defies the reality of the period (1940's America, it would have been a big deal). I recognize that this is not, in fact a family as they are written. I'm taken out of the show for a moment, as I have to consider this, and for me, it's a rather mammoth distraction. To go back to 'Arts & Entertainments', it's an added layer that possibly distracts or confuses the audience from the thought and intent of the play.
Can the show not be performed by a mixed cast? Not at all! As long as it makes some sort of sense for the benefit of the story; let's do it. But as Zarif and I agreed on, there's no believable way (I think we were talking about film) that we could ever pass as blood-related. Well, maybe but it's a stretch. I mean, if you've seen Zarif, you'd know immediately that he's way to attractive to be related to me. FACT. Now, can Zarif and I play brothers in a scene in class? Of course; that's how we learn. In the outside world, however, if there simply are no suitable actors to audition for a play with a clearly defined part in a text, is it ok to cast someone who doesn't outwardly suit the part? If the theater must do the show, then yes, of course. But to establish a hard and fast rule set where people who are perfectly suited to play a part have the possibility to be passed on for someone whiter or thinner or, I dunno... blonder is a shame, and a terrible one.
I've seen fantastic black actors turned away from playing slaves in a slave drama in favor of a multicultural cast; I've seen a white Tituba (she was 'darkened' which lent itself to a whole different set of uncomfortable feelings) in The Crucible when a incredibly capable actress could have taken the part. I had a friend once tell me that the director that she auditioned for had told her that she was the best actress for the part, but she was to "big" to be cast. I know this isn't racial, but I'm questioning the thought of verisimilitude here; she was auditioning for Helen in Fat Pig... the titular fat pig of the show. How does that make any sense? Is it fair? In these particular cases, I certainly feel that much of the gravity of the situation is taken away and that we disrespect and dishonor the our shared history and the mistakes and cheat ourselves of the opportunity to remind ourselves where we are, where we were, and where it is possible for us to go, when we do these things. Do I enjoy seeing people enslaved? Absolutely not, but in these cases, I believe that the color-blind casting was not color-blind, but very color-aware and a gruesome mistake. I can totally wrap my head around non-traditional casting. It may, perhaps, take an added level in suspension of disbelief, admittedly, but as long as the truth and the intent is not usurped, I think it's amazing. The abuses that are made, waving the flag of homogeny, I take issue with. We are not all the same, but we are all beautiful; and if we lie to ourselves, how can we be honest for the audience?
Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this
special observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature:
for any thing so o'erdone is from the purpose of playing, whose
end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold as 'twere the
mirror up to nature: to show virtue her feature, scorn her own
image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure.
Hamlet Act III, Scene 2
-William Shakespeare
I realize that I may not be qualified at all to posit anything on this subject. I might be getting a bit "big for my britches" to put these thoughts out into the world, but the fact that the bard agrees gives me a little comfort. I'm not sure there is a perfect answer. There are is a lot of grey area, but I want to examine it and see if there is a perfect answer. The search for it is meaningful. I do feel, deep in my soul, that if we ignore the problem, not only do things not improve for us as one human race, but we suffer the possibility of backsliding in to the same old mistakes. Let's continue to embrace and delight in our differences. If you made it this far, thank you for indulging me in my semi-theater-related rant. Tomorrow I promise a return to form!
The discussion makes us stronger.
... *dies.
Little did he know that one little question would launch him into a response that would take five days to properly compose.
Based on the parameters that I had set up for myself in last week's post (Arts & Entertainments), I can tell you, Anika, that the show was merely entertaining. Broadway faithful, before you get up in arms, yes!!! Yes, they sang well; yes, they danced brilliantly; yes, they did... other things. What they didn't do was challenge me. I couldn't remember any of the songs upon exiting the theater, but they were good when I was there. I couldn't help but feel that they really feel that they missed an opportunity to really deal with racism in a way that wasn't kitchy and filled with only white people solving problems. A lot of the more risky opportunities to shine a light on social injustice were glazed over or turned into a joke, some of which some people really ought to think about being uncomfortable at laughing at. Just saying.
That's all!? It took you five days to come around to composing that? For real?
Well, yes and no. I could go on giving my piffling revue of the show, or I can turn to the far more interesting conversation that the show did, in fact, spark. I should say that there was a moment when we had stopped and considered that the show that we (Toni Ann, Zarif and myself) had been railing on, had indeed opened up a conversation about a greater problem, which forced us to reconsider it's status as art, but after some deliberation, we had decided to go with our first assessment. No.
Many of the opinions I'm about to share may be a little touchy, so please feel free to set me straight if you disagree with anything I write hereafter.
I started in on the show and it's treatment of the subject of racism. I really feel that the show was more brimming with sentimental hufflepuff and feel-good, "everybody gets along", ideology where we can all leave the theater feeling like we've accomplished something and that we no longer live in small-minded, barbaric times where people drink at different water fountains based on the color of their skin. I feel that anything or anyone that presents a message that we live in a post-racial society is immensely dangerous.
You may be the type of person, that I would like to consider myself to be, where you don't have any particularly hostilities towards people of a different race or openly hate "the other" or use derogatory, demeaning, hurtful language. That's a brilliant thing. Truly. But what I believe is important to remember is that there are still people out there who openly and actively believe that certain races are superior to others, or have warped perceptions, like "Korean people are good at math", or "Irish people are really bad at showering daily", or "All Pakistani people want to destroy your neighborhood." The worst thing that can possibly happen is turning a blind eye to these things. The problem isn't gone, it's only not "as bad" as it used to be according to our current social paradigm, but the problem isn't gone.
There has been a convention, in the contemporary theater that, in my opinion, has been one of the biggest perpetrators of this idea that we live in a post-racial society: the idea of color-blind casting. Allow me to explain, I'm not against the concept entirely. Can a Romeo of one racial background romance a Juliet of another? Absolutely! Bring it on! But if I see a production of All My Sons where Chris is white and Ann is Asian and that fact is not somehow addressed, I'm distracted because, to me, it defies the reality of the period (1940's America, it would have been a big deal). I recognize that this is not, in fact a family as they are written. I'm taken out of the show for a moment, as I have to consider this, and for me, it's a rather mammoth distraction. To go back to 'Arts & Entertainments', it's an added layer that possibly distracts or confuses the audience from the thought and intent of the play.
Can the show not be performed by a mixed cast? Not at all! As long as it makes some sort of sense for the benefit of the story; let's do it. But as Zarif and I agreed on, there's no believable way (I think we were talking about film) that we could ever pass as blood-related. Well, maybe but it's a stretch. I mean, if you've seen Zarif, you'd know immediately that he's way to attractive to be related to me. FACT. Now, can Zarif and I play brothers in a scene in class? Of course; that's how we learn. In the outside world, however, if there simply are no suitable actors to audition for a play with a clearly defined part in a text, is it ok to cast someone who doesn't outwardly suit the part? If the theater must do the show, then yes, of course. But to establish a hard and fast rule set where people who are perfectly suited to play a part have the possibility to be passed on for someone whiter or thinner or, I dunno... blonder is a shame, and a terrible one.
I've seen fantastic black actors turned away from playing slaves in a slave drama in favor of a multicultural cast; I've seen a white Tituba (she was 'darkened' which lent itself to a whole different set of uncomfortable feelings) in The Crucible when a incredibly capable actress could have taken the part. I had a friend once tell me that the director that she auditioned for had told her that she was the best actress for the part, but she was to "big" to be cast. I know this isn't racial, but I'm questioning the thought of verisimilitude here; she was auditioning for Helen in Fat Pig... the titular fat pig of the show. How does that make any sense? Is it fair? In these particular cases, I certainly feel that much of the gravity of the situation is taken away and that we disrespect and dishonor the our shared history and the mistakes and cheat ourselves of the opportunity to remind ourselves where we are, where we were, and where it is possible for us to go, when we do these things. Do I enjoy seeing people enslaved? Absolutely not, but in these cases, I believe that the color-blind casting was not color-blind, but very color-aware and a gruesome mistake. I can totally wrap my head around non-traditional casting. It may, perhaps, take an added level in suspension of disbelief, admittedly, but as long as the truth and the intent is not usurped, I think it's amazing. The abuses that are made, waving the flag of homogeny, I take issue with. We are not all the same, but we are all beautiful; and if we lie to ourselves, how can we be honest for the audience?
Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this
special observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature:
for any thing so o'erdone is from the purpose of playing, whose
end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold as 'twere the
mirror up to nature: to show virtue her feature, scorn her own
image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure.
Hamlet Act III, Scene 2
-William Shakespeare
I realize that I may not be qualified at all to posit anything on this subject. I might be getting a bit "big for my britches" to put these thoughts out into the world, but the fact that the bard agrees gives me a little comfort. I'm not sure there is a perfect answer. There are is a lot of grey area, but I want to examine it and see if there is a perfect answer. The search for it is meaningful. I do feel, deep in my soul, that if we ignore the problem, not only do things not improve for us as one human race, but we suffer the possibility of backsliding in to the same old mistakes. Let's continue to embrace and delight in our differences. If you made it this far, thank you for indulging me in my semi-theater-related rant. Tomorrow I promise a return to form!
The discussion makes us stronger.
-R
Friday, September 30, 2011
Orestes, Electra, and a Messenger Walk in to a Bar.
Today was probably the shortest day of grad school that will ever occur. Ever. I think everyone was a little thrown off before savagely attacking sweet, sweet freedom like a pack of starving hounds on the scent of a fleeing rabbit.
We started off with Niky training at oh-nine-hundred, as is the norm in Friday mornings before being dispersed to our own devices while a few of us were wiring to be summoned by Ulla to work on our Greek monologues.
I'm working on Orestes from The Libation Bearers where he's recounting the plan to murder Clytemnestra and Aegisthus. I love me some Orestes. That's a fact. The house of Atreus is all-around pretty awesome as far as ancient Greek drama goes, but Orestes and Apollo set the tone for modern law. You really can't get much better than that.
I've been trio-ed with Toni Ann (whom I posted about yesterday) and Ethan "Win" Nguyen (who is a stud, pay attention, ladies). Toni Ann is working on Titular Electra by Sophocles and Ethan has been working on a monologue from Euripides' Acelestes and stands in as the apogee of awesomeness as Pylades... a friend of the house. Ulla had us set an empty stage with some random items to play with and commence exploring the space, text, and each other; working through each piece in turn. I have to say this now: beware of caps...
THIS IS WHAT I CAME HERE FOR!!!
Seriously, this is what I've been waiting on. Don't get me wrong, so far all of the professors have been incredibly warm, generous, and insightful, but this... THIS is my flavor right here. We work a little bit (by that I mean I pretend to be Orestes and deliver some poetry); then she says "Stop!"; breaks down some real amazing, simple ideas and then says, "Go."; and we're off again, working, working, working, "Stop!"; and then we repeat the process. This is my flavor. I worked like this with Sveta at Cal State, Fullerton. After that experience, it's the only way I ever want to work in lab. It is sort of what I expected the entirety of the program to be like, but I am still so excited about what happened today. Ulla is brilliant. I mean, truth nuggets fall, fully formed, from her mouth and into your brain. It is incredible. I was watching her work with Toni Ann and Ethan (who are incredible, in case you were wondering) after she had finished up with me, and all I could think about is, "I need to work with this woman as much as possible over the next three years. I want to be her acting-child." I might be a little in love, I dunno.
That's all for tonight! It's Friday, and that means I'm taking the weekend off from writing, so look back here Monday for more updates on how things are progressing. There should be some ripe thought after Larry's added class tomorrow morning and a very special gathering of dudes from the class for "Bro-toberfest" at the Bohemian Hall Beer Garden tomorrow night.
“Success is transient, evanescent. The real passion lies in the poignant acquisition of knowledge about all the shading and subtleties of the creative secrets.”
-Constantin Stanislavski
Until Monday!
-R
We started off with Niky training at oh-nine-hundred, as is the norm in Friday mornings before being dispersed to our own devices while a few of us were wiring to be summoned by Ulla to work on our Greek monologues.
I'm working on Orestes from The Libation Bearers where he's recounting the plan to murder Clytemnestra and Aegisthus. I love me some Orestes. That's a fact. The house of Atreus is all-around pretty awesome as far as ancient Greek drama goes, but Orestes and Apollo set the tone for modern law. You really can't get much better than that.
I've been trio-ed with Toni Ann (whom I posted about yesterday) and Ethan "Win" Nguyen (who is a stud, pay attention, ladies). Toni Ann is working on Titular Electra by Sophocles and Ethan has been working on a monologue from Euripides' Acelestes and stands in as the apogee of awesomeness as Pylades... a friend of the house. Ulla had us set an empty stage with some random items to play with and commence exploring the space, text, and each other; working through each piece in turn. I have to say this now: beware of caps...
THIS IS WHAT I CAME HERE FOR!!!
Seriously, this is what I've been waiting on. Don't get me wrong, so far all of the professors have been incredibly warm, generous, and insightful, but this... THIS is my flavor right here. We work a little bit (by that I mean I pretend to be Orestes and deliver some poetry); then she says "Stop!"; breaks down some real amazing, simple ideas and then says, "Go."; and we're off again, working, working, working, "Stop!"; and then we repeat the process. This is my flavor. I worked like this with Sveta at Cal State, Fullerton. After that experience, it's the only way I ever want to work in lab. It is sort of what I expected the entirety of the program to be like, but I am still so excited about what happened today. Ulla is brilliant. I mean, truth nuggets fall, fully formed, from her mouth and into your brain. It is incredible. I was watching her work with Toni Ann and Ethan (who are incredible, in case you were wondering) after she had finished up with me, and all I could think about is, "I need to work with this woman as much as possible over the next three years. I want to be her acting-child." I might be a little in love, I dunno.
That's all for tonight! It's Friday, and that means I'm taking the weekend off from writing, so look back here Monday for more updates on how things are progressing. There should be some ripe thought after Larry's added class tomorrow morning and a very special gathering of dudes from the class for "Bro-toberfest" at the Bohemian Hall Beer Garden tomorrow night.
“Success is transient, evanescent. The real passion lies in the poignant acquisition of knowledge about all the shading and subtleties of the creative secrets.”
-Constantin Stanislavski
Until Monday!
-R
Thursday, September 29, 2011
DeNoble. (Imagi-ninja)
Today was a stressful day. For quite a while this afternoon, I was fretting having to come home and write about it because I really didn't want to relive it for you in front of my computer screen. Much of what I was planning on revolved around the idea of teaching and terror as a tool to accomplish that goal... I'll leave it at that.
I hadn't slept much last night. This is an admission: I may have done a little too much blogging (re:journaling) last night. There. I said it. After class today my sole purpose in life was to get home as fast humanly and MTA-ingly possible and enact Operation: Nap Time (which was a resounding success), but I found myself falling in to my usual pattern of engaging in a little verbal horseplay on the way to fetch things out of my locker. I ended up in a conversation with Ms. Toni Ann DeNoble. She's an actor in my class, and she's spectacular.
On a quick tangent: I did the exercise in Larry's class that I had posted about earlier this week with Toni Ann and made a comment to her about having three fully-grown imaginations. Seriously, the woman in imagining on planes of existence that only three-year-olds can fully harness, such is the power of her imagination. It's a flabbergasting thing to see. It's a little like being a ninja in ninja school and watching one of your fellow student-ninjas ninja-sword fight with her feet... and win. It's ninja-impressive.
Back to the conversation: we had gotten involved in a conversation about the concept of age and what it means to people. I found that she's of like mind with me, where it becomes an annoyance to be constantly asked, "How old are you?"
I, for my part, have a bit of fun with this, and generally don't share right away with people my true count of sun-revolutions because, to me, it becomes an instant label to be confined in. In my life, it's almost always one of the first questions asked when meeting some one. It's like being sorted for future reference. Ideas are formed and my personality gets assigned weights based on measures of other people, rather than just being allowed to have someone learn about who I am the old-fashioned way. It's almost like:
Name: Jim
Age: 34
Political: Conservative
Religion: Mormon
Marital: Married
Children: Yes
Job: Dentist
Education: College Graduate; Dental school
... and so on and so forth
And, yes, these things come up; and, yes, they do define us, but there can be certain judgements that arise when certain other factors don't add up to a person's age. There's an assessment based on someone else's standards, like when you hear that there's a woman who's thirty-six that's never been married/no kids and is a manager at a watch store in the mall in the town she grew up in. You might think to yourself, "What's wrong with her? She should be doing a lot better for herself at thirty-six." I find that it's usually people in their fifties and people younger than their early twenties that tend (to me, at least) to assign so much significance to this number. The 50+ like to remind me about how I'm not married (because that's a fail, right) and how "much more" they had accomplished by the time they were my age. By people not old enough to drink in bars, I'm, "Old-as-shit, dude.", before I get assaulted with a litany of things that this person is going to do to be in a much better place when they reach my age.
This was essentially the nature of the conversation, and how this one little piece of information can so quickly define you in the eyes of others. It's such an inconsequential thing. It's nothing to be ashamed of, and yet it becomes the heavily-guarded secret by someone like myself, and as I discovered, Toni Ann, because you want people to know who you are and what you're about before offer them a little nugget of information that can help them make a snap decision. It's like a way of respecting yourself... maybe. Besides, isn't it much more exciting what you can learn about a person when you don't ask the expected questions? Anyway, that's the philosophy behind it, and one that we both, I found, share. I was so rapt in our chat, that I opted to take the train home (which adds an extra 20 minutes on to my commute to Astoria from the Upper West Side, just so I could squeeze in about ten extra minutes of brilliant conversation with her. It was good.
I had discovered myself thinking while listening to Zarif today in Andrei's class that I really do enjoy the faces of the people who I get to share these next three years with. I mean, they have some really excellent, look-worthy faces; and thanks to these great little accidental moments with Toni Ann, I get to appreciate what goes on behind the faces that I'm coming to adore so much.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To continue to honor Anika's demand for "More Photos!", here's a picture of some faces back from collaboration weekend. Tonia Ann, sadly, whom this post has been titled for is not present, but you can see for yourself some of the look-worthy faces that I mentioned earlier. Aren't they a good-looking group!?!? Also, this should please Sheyenne who constantly reminds me that I don't give her the attention she deserves.
"I hope that posterity will judge me kindly, not only as to the things which I have explained, but also to those which I have intentionally omitted so as to leave to others the pleasure of discovery."
- Rene Descartes
Doo zee Fool!
-R
I hadn't slept much last night. This is an admission: I may have done a little too much blogging (re:journaling) last night. There. I said it. After class today my sole purpose in life was to get home as fast humanly and MTA-ingly possible and enact Operation: Nap Time (which was a resounding success), but I found myself falling in to my usual pattern of engaging in a little verbal horseplay on the way to fetch things out of my locker. I ended up in a conversation with Ms. Toni Ann DeNoble. She's an actor in my class, and she's spectacular.
On a quick tangent: I did the exercise in Larry's class that I had posted about earlier this week with Toni Ann and made a comment to her about having three fully-grown imaginations. Seriously, the woman in imagining on planes of existence that only three-year-olds can fully harness, such is the power of her imagination. It's a flabbergasting thing to see. It's a little like being a ninja in ninja school and watching one of your fellow student-ninjas ninja-sword fight with her feet... and win. It's ninja-impressive.
Back to the conversation: we had gotten involved in a conversation about the concept of age and what it means to people. I found that she's of like mind with me, where it becomes an annoyance to be constantly asked, "How old are you?"
I, for my part, have a bit of fun with this, and generally don't share right away with people my true count of sun-revolutions because, to me, it becomes an instant label to be confined in. In my life, it's almost always one of the first questions asked when meeting some one. It's like being sorted for future reference. Ideas are formed and my personality gets assigned weights based on measures of other people, rather than just being allowed to have someone learn about who I am the old-fashioned way. It's almost like:
Name: Jim
Age: 34
Political: Conservative
Religion: Mormon
Marital: Married
Children: Yes
Job: Dentist
Education: College Graduate; Dental school
... and so on and so forth
And, yes, these things come up; and, yes, they do define us, but there can be certain judgements that arise when certain other factors don't add up to a person's age. There's an assessment based on someone else's standards, like when you hear that there's a woman who's thirty-six that's never been married/no kids and is a manager at a watch store in the mall in the town she grew up in. You might think to yourself, "What's wrong with her? She should be doing a lot better for herself at thirty-six." I find that it's usually people in their fifties and people younger than their early twenties that tend (to me, at least) to assign so much significance to this number. The 50+ like to remind me about how I'm not married (because that's a fail, right) and how "much more" they had accomplished by the time they were my age. By people not old enough to drink in bars, I'm, "Old-as-shit, dude.", before I get assaulted with a litany of things that this person is going to do to be in a much better place when they reach my age.
This was essentially the nature of the conversation, and how this one little piece of information can so quickly define you in the eyes of others. It's such an inconsequential thing. It's nothing to be ashamed of, and yet it becomes the heavily-guarded secret by someone like myself, and as I discovered, Toni Ann, because you want people to know who you are and what you're about before offer them a little nugget of information that can help them make a snap decision. It's like a way of respecting yourself... maybe. Besides, isn't it much more exciting what you can learn about a person when you don't ask the expected questions? Anyway, that's the philosophy behind it, and one that we both, I found, share. I was so rapt in our chat, that I opted to take the train home (which adds an extra 20 minutes on to my commute to Astoria from the Upper West Side, just so I could squeeze in about ten extra minutes of brilliant conversation with her. It was good.
I had discovered myself thinking while listening to Zarif today in Andrei's class that I really do enjoy the faces of the people who I get to share these next three years with. I mean, they have some really excellent, look-worthy faces; and thanks to these great little accidental moments with Toni Ann, I get to appreciate what goes on behind the faces that I'm coming to adore so much.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To continue to honor Anika's demand for "More Photos!", here's a picture of some faces back from collaboration weekend. Tonia Ann, sadly, whom this post has been titled for is not present, but you can see for yourself some of the look-worthy faces that I mentioned earlier. Aren't they a good-looking group!?!? Also, this should please Sheyenne who constantly reminds me that I don't give her the attention she deserves.
"I hope that posterity will judge me kindly, not only as to the things which I have explained, but also to those which I have intentionally omitted so as to leave to others the pleasure of discovery."
- Rene Descartes
Doo zee Fool!
-R
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)