Monday NYC Theatre, 2005: “From Tel Aviv To Ramallah”

From Tel Aviv To Ramallah  was a production I attended, spontaneously and alone, on a rainy Monday night in Manhattan, late 2005.  As many theatre patrons know, Mondays are the day of the week when many theaters are dark (no performance.) But sometimes, these are the best opportunities to catch the magic of live theatre. And here’s how I managed to catch this one particular night which resonates more and more with each passing year.

Here in New York City, a smorgasbord awaits the avid theater-goer. Even if you are on a budget (students or starving, Bohemian artists; or cash-poor adventurers, like me,) folks have ways of getting tickets. The catch is, most discounts demand the person be ready to go the day-of the performance.

Well, there’s a reason why I love seeing theatre, at the last minute, with no expectations. To elaborate, The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict inspired a number New Plays Off-Broadway and Off-Off-Broadway in 2005 and I found myself trying to attend as many as possible. A handful of these plays challenged perceptions, offered insight, a human story, all those things that made other productions worth the risk. To bluntly put it: if I allowed the synopses and especially, the critical reviews, to pick and choose which productions I saw then, I’d have missed the best one.

The habits for overtly political theatre may be a time honored tradition in theatre history but what is it more akin to in the 21st Century? What politics are we addressing and how?

Every time we sit down for a performance arts piece, centered around modern day conflicts and cultural-politico-socio-ideologies, we risk exposing ourselves to the moribundity of Populist Theatre. (Not just theatrical mediums but all media and its audiences are more easily are mistaking political for populist propaganda.) A bad-habit we are all forming, because it is becoming all to “normal.”

That is, to employ mechanisms like “definitive archetypes,” portraying only selective pieces of information, building upon one opinion, one perception of a war, stereotyping each of the cultures involved. Pounding cheap, theoretical conjecture into an audience already over-saturated in Op/Ed news and information.

In the case of certain productions about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and also, the War On Terror, the human experience serves only to cater for the intent of Populism. To add emotional impact, ignite the zeitgeist, am I correct?

A reflection of the humanist struggle when the forces of Political or Cultural Movements subsume a person’s existence?

See, this is why I like walking into a production, understanding the risk, not knowing much about it, and hoping for a jewel.

As part of the Out Loud: New Play Reading Series at Ars Nova in 2005, the show From Tel Aviv To Ramallah performed for only that one night. And for those 75 minutes or so…  Man, I wish I could bring Yuri Lane and his solo production here, today, for people to see. I think its message is more important than ever.

At a small but inviting performance venue on 54th, between 10th and 11th Avenue, I took my seat among the small audience. Two young men, maybe 16 years old, were sitting in front of me, excited to see their favorite beatbox performer and drinking Red Bull. They came in from Connecticut. They were not expecting a powerful piece of theatre and neither was I.

Yuri Lane avoided all the aforementioned pitfalls for the Political and Populist Theatre productions. He did it simply. With minimal design, he told us a story. Using his skills with beatbox, language, rhythm, gesture; using three light cues to distinguish SR, SL and Center; finally inverted pictures, multimedia projected on the backdrop, he set the scene for a fable about one young man from Tel Aviv and one young man from Ramallah.

Instead of showing us who was wrong and who was right, he told us of Amir and of Khalid. The idea that dreams and ideals of youth exist in separate microcosms outside the larger reality of (the Israeli-Palestinian) conflict set the story in motion. We learn about two different, but also similar people, whose goals are not unlike yours or mine. One wants to be a DJ. One wants to own an Internet Cafe. They share the threat of attacks. And their journey shows how a gradual diffusion of the greater reality into each microcosm, negates the youthful idealism for a future independent of violence and injustice. Both have their dreams compromised. Both must transition from adolescent to adulthood. Both must face each other in the end and the choices they make, leading them to the final moment of the play. A vision of peace comes down to two young men, who make one choice. Peace, perhaps, may not be realized by Treaties or United Nations intervening, or a great leader’s solution, but perhaps, it begins with a choice. An understanding.

And the audience is left without any clear answer about who is right, who is wrong and why one side is bad versus the other. Why would we presume an understanding? How to solve the permutations of a conflict, as deep and complicated as the Israeli-Palestinian hostilities?

Rachel Havrelock wrote and directed this play.

Is our civilization so solid that you do not fear to shake the pillars on which it rests? Can you not see that all falls in upon you if one column be shattered? Could you not have learned if not to love one another, at least to tolerate the great virtues and the great vices of each other? Was it not your duty to attempt –you have never attempted it in sincerity– to settle amicably the questions which divided you, the problem of peoples annexed against their will, the equitable division of productive labor and the riches of the world? Must the stronger forever darken the others with the shadow of his pride, and the others forever unite to dissipate it? Is there no end to this bloody and puerile sport, in which the partners change about from century to century– no end, until the whole of humanity is exhausted thereby?

ROMAIN ROLLAND, “Above The Battle,”

Journal de Geneve_, September 15, 1914.

Confessions Of A Multimedia Spinster

Saturday, June 18, 2011

 

NEW YORK CITY

It begins with only a whisper. Like a single spark igniting a firestorm. Holding Strategic Business Contingency meetings among their executive management has proven ineffective. What they thought was a new platform full of promising financial opportunity has indeed generated additional revenue streams, but their focus has been and remains OFF of the “little guy.” All it takes is the smallest catalyst to trigger a chain reaction the news media and corporate conglomerates fear the most.

Executives rely upon a traditional business operations model to work for this new platform: Managers overseeing Editors overseeing their roster of Independent Contractors, Work-For-Hire (the legal term is Work-MADE-For-Hire, but it’s now losing that very important word, ‘MADE’) and Temporary Staff responsible for generating the designated content for the product. These “little guys” are working under the same parameters they always have. For example, writers are contracted to produce content for the company under the same auspices as the writers working for Marvel or DC Comics in 1980. They get their paycheck and whatever intellectual content they generate is no longer theirs, but owned indefinitely by the company. Even if an employee creates a character or product that becomes a multi-billion dollar franchise, she has no right to financial compensation beyond her Work-MADE-For-Hire contract. Why do you think Jack Kirby’s family has been in a legal battle with the Marvel Empire for a share in the billions of dollars the company makes from Kirby’s creative genius?

High above the New York City street traffic, the corporate executives meet to discuss their Strategic Business Contingency plans, again. This time, they’ll have to face a double-edged sword. Or else risk exposing the sweat shops of their information entertainment divisions.

Employees hired to generate content for these growing Multimedia and Digital platforms are neither compensated, nor feel obligated, nor have reason to maintain Confidentiality as they did before. Non-Disclosure Agreements used to keep company policies and internal operations away from public scrutiny. But when hundreds of people are treated as expendable and with the nubile, job-seeking youth always in supply, the question for these media mega-giants will be how to save face when their former employees wise up and use the anonymity of multimedia platforms to air the dirty laundry.

What is the first corporate media giant you think of when you hear that a “former employee reveals how he was told to lie in his coverage, writing for ______ ?”

If you said, “News Corporation or FOX News,” then I am afraid you are too easily swayed by the media propaganda.

I am referring, actually, to this article about AOL: An AOL Content Slave Speaks Out

This will not be the last testimonial from a person who has been a writer or producer behind the “news” that millions of people consume every day. AOL and News Corporation are furthermore, not the only companies who operate under similar moral/ethical ambiguities as detailed apropos of this article. The truth is, THEY ALL OPERATE THIS WAY. In fact, it’s getting worse due to the online start-ups. The Huffington Post, for example, was a brand built and made profitable by the “little guys,” who in this specific case, were generating content for FREE and received little to no compensation or credit when Arianna Huffington sold it to AOL.

When I say the decline in journalism today has reached a breaking point, I mean it. It’s no longer publish or perish. It’s Spin. Whoever can spin the best story gets the most hits. The better the Spin Doctor, the more valuable you are to the corporate executives sitting in their Strategic Planning meeting.

Understand, what you read as news is really just spin doctored information produced with the intent to out-spin its rival multimedia platforms. Expecting journalism to be what it used to be remains more than ever before, an exercise in futility.

“Don’t believe what you read in the papers.”

It’s all propaganda. It’s all a telephone game. Wake up and smell the coffee–it stinks!

Recognize how the media itself is spinning out of control. We’re all caught in the Spin together. If the audience does not stop consuming what these media giants are producing, then they will suck us all straight down with their spin-doctored “news.” Do we want to end up back into the Dark Ages?

I’ve said it before and I will say it again. I will keep saying it until more people begin to realize it’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a mysterious new dynamic in our reality:

There is a new species in the habitat and it’s not biological. It’s viral.

DEVELOPING…

Copyright 2011 by Kimberly Cox, All Rights Reserved

Alice’s Bucket List: Hashtag On Twitter, Epic Win

Within moments of seeing the first message on my stream, the hashtag #AliceBucketList was trending worldwide.

A 15 year old girl with terminal cancer just started a blog on Blogspot.com. There are only two entries thus far, but what stands out immediately? Her Bucket List.

And guess what’s on it?

…. TO TREND ON TWITTER? Some may argue no, this is not on her “Bucket List,” but by creating the trend, more people are going to see her blog and reading it.

*

Here she is, Alice Pyne, http://alicepyne.blogspot.com/?spref=tw

*

Again, within moments, enough people retweeted the link to her blog and the Hashtag, #AliceBucketList, to start it trending worldwide. Behold! Twitter can be used for good. Yes, there are the #Weinergate ‘hashtagging’ species of Twitter users, but the power of this little hash symbol ought not be underestimated.

Alice Pyne helps us see how the communication and message capabilities across a social network platform like Twitter, can be used for good purposes. Despite being separated by geography, user names, and computer screens, we can actually come together and spread a little love and support. Will this really make a difference in someone’s life? Consider the case of Alice and her Bucket List as an example. She makes a difference in our lives.

Cancer is a monster many face but the importance of self-education and cancer awareness, preventative medicine and also, community support, is something every single one of us must face, NOW. Not too many folks know what to do if they are diagnosed. Not too many folks know there are things we can do to help cancer patients. But this new platform for communication has allowed for there to be a forum to access and share information like this, so more people can learn and a difference can be made.

So, to Alice, I want to say thank you.

DEVELOPING, June 9, 2011: 01:50 FROM June 8,2011: 23:45 (EST) from 19:00 (EST)

I find it fascinating that I experienced an ad hominem attack from a random Twitter user who stated in a tweet that I endorse, “Lying by any means.” I do NOT advocate for using a lie to get attention. The question is, within the 140 characters allowed on Twitter, are using “hooks” as they do in marketing and advertising, examples of “lying.” Is this an example of a “False Hook,” and an immoral event on the social network? What do you think?  See the latest from the BBC and David Cameron’s support for Alice’s Bone Marrow Donor Aim

Telephone Games: Today’s News Media Without Journalism

PROPAGANDA: Control The Media - The Media Controls Us

CAN YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE?

April 6, 2011 — New York City

So, I’m adding some new links on my Blog Roll and went to the ArtsJournal: Theatre Daily News site for its http address, when an article from a few days ago caught my attention. “The Tangled Web of Broadway’s Spiderman,” read the headline. And like an idiot, I clicked on it, hoping to find something valuable. Of course, what I found and read was exactly the opposite. As 88% of all music has the same chord progressions, 99% of all news media, today, has the same “Opinion Progressions.”

Yes, the Idealist in me proves powerfully stubborn because of a personal faith in our culture’s positive aspects. Especially when it comes to seeking Journalism in an era when News Media has been absolving itself of whatever moral and ethical structure journalists hold as unspoken and sacred. The Newshounds and journalists out there, risking their lives in the field and/or battling to maintain a standard for the moral and ethical guidelines of their profession, DO EXIST. But can we, the readers and consumers, tell the difference between Op/Ed Conjecture and Op/Ed Journalism? Specifically, are we aware of how to differentiate between an article forming its conclusions based on incomplete information and one that forms its opinion from a complete analysis of evidence and source material?

Remember playing “The Telephone Game” or “Operator” when you were a kid? I do. I think my first memory was from around 1984…. The teachers instructing us how to play, as we, little fidgeting students, sit in a circle on our classroom floor….

“Now, I am going to whisper something in Ada’s ear,” the teacher said, “then Ada’s going to whisper it into Nat’s ear, and so on. Now, after you have passed the message along, try to remember what you heard and what you whispered to the person next to you. Once it goes all the way around the circle, I will ask Ada to tell the class what I whispered in her ear. Then, I will ask Tommy, who will be the last person to hear the message, to tell the class what he heard. Let’s see what happens!”

Everyone erupted into astonished giggles when we heard Ada’s answer and then, all began laughing uncontrollably when Tommy answered. I forget exactly what the little messages were, now that I’ve grown up, but I remember how much they were changed as they passed from one person to another. For kids, discovering how easily misinformation occurs and how silly it is that words can be misunderstood or changed, makes for a fun game. We all were shocked and excited by what occurred, eager to play again. All talking at once, telling each other about “what I heard and passed along,” because it all differed from the original message and then, even differed from the final message. For children, this is a wonder to learn and a big deal when first confronted with this kind of inexplicable chain of reaction. I’ll never forget the experience and the lessons of this little childhood exercise in communication.

After a few rounds of playing “Telephone,” eventually someone realized it would be even funnier to deliberately change the message. After the results caused mass hysteria among the 18 pint-sized rugrats, they quieted everyone down and turned the game into a lesson. Suddenly, it was no longer about playing a game and we listened solemnly to our stern teacher. “See what happens when we gossip? When we whisper secrets to each other? How easy it is for us to either misunderstand or, ON PURPOSE, change the story, even by just a little bit?  This is why we do not tell secrets and why you cannot trust gossip to be real. Because even if we are honest and do not mean to, we all can easily miscommunicate and easily misunderstand.”

CONTINUE READING

No Shit, Sherlock: Another Boomer Thinks Millennials Suck

New York City

April 5, 2011

Here we go…AGAIN.

This time, we’re getting it from HuffPo and a Mr. Michael Kaiser, whose affiliation with The Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., makes him a powerful proponent for the arts. Unfortunately for our nation’s capitol, his personal feelings about the Millennial Generation make him a powerful proponent for pulling the funding from young artistic endeavors. Who’s going to want to finance a generation of drooling, ambivalent, self-entitled, adolescent Peter Pans, who have never, according to Mr. Kaiser, been exposed to “high art?”

I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Liz Maestri for responding to Kaiser. She gives him a run for his money and I encourage you to read her post today, entitled Join Michael Kaiser In The Fight For Youth

And of course, I had to respond to her excellent post. All of us need to champion another voice rising up against this regurgitated argument. Kaiser’s position is offensive not only because of what he says about Millennials, but also, because his talking points have no evidence to support them as anything but pure conjecture.

Can I get a round of applause, here? Will fellow ladies and gentlemen of the Bacchae, please stand up? Make some noise, hail Dionysus and antagonize this Pentheus out of his walled city to play….

SNAP! You are awesome. Thank you for writing a brilliant testimony. Excellent use of the classical method for deconstructing the reputed position, I might add. Ad hominem rhetorical redundancy, meet the Millennials! (And they say we’re all too dense to appreciate the arts.)

Very articulate, passionate and cogent response to this Kaiser’s HuffPo article, one I fear to fully read myself. Having a personal investment in the fight for my generation, it feels damn good to see someone else standing up against the senile and redundant rhetoric.

I’ve been actively refuting the Millennial stereotype since I saw the front page of January 2005’s TIME Magazine and read its “TWIXTERS,” Opinion/Editorial. The ripple effect of this Lev Grossman piece has been astounding. Six years later, reading about our (as in Millennials) ‘cultural-sociological evolution’ in the mainstream media has been torturous for folks like us but like candy for the elder generations, primarily Boomers. Even more frustrating, they loathe any Millennial who dares to write an article defending the stereo-type. I’ve tried. The effect is a wonder to observe. How seething with rage and sadly disenchanted people seemed, as made evident in the responses. Why such anger? Why the disenchantment? Why is it our fault?

The position being argued, despite all the circumstantial evidence and statistical analysis, remains offensively weak. In almost every article written, the same three errors in judgement appear. Unfortunately, people like Grossman and Kaiser forget what it was like to be 25 or 34. That is their first mistake.

The second mistake is the most egregious because its hypocrisy augurs a kind of transfered neurosis. Their own experience of transitioning from an adolescent to an adult is not a qualifier for negating the promise of youth, the character of a generation. On the contrary, it is a qualifier for an empathy that every generation begs of their elders. “I’m sorry, I thought the whole James Dean, Juvenile Delinquency, Rock ‘n’ Roll, Hippie Movement, and stuff, was younger generations rebelling against the elders who misunderstood them?”

The third mistake is one I cannot believe they keep making because it is so damn obvious: Technology. We are in the middle of a technological revolution that is rapidly changing our culture, our society, our environment, ourselves, but it’s not like it is the first time in human history this has happened (Guttenberg’s Printing Press? The Industrial Revolution?)

And if you look at our history, who has benefited most from these changes? The Arts. Every time a new technology is introduced, the elders quake in fear, predicting the death of one artistic form or another. Then, the artistic medium, apropos of imminent doom, proves how they underestimated the arts, yet again. We are better at adapting and surviving than given credit for.

Simple logical deduction reveals how our generation is facing an unprecedented and yet-to-be defined set of obstacles appropriate to this world we all share.  Um, is it just me or is this NOT rocket science?

#HeadDesk

It is not going away and is only getting worse. Thank you, thank you, thank you for writing such a powerful post. We need more people, more voices making noise in the face of this nonsense. MTVN’s and Reality Show’s depiction of American Youth/Millennials are far from the reality of who we are. Sadly, Kaiser is neither the first, nor the last in a long line of misguided, agist, tired old Pentheites. But keep in mind, they do not win their fight  against Dionysus and the Bacchae. For the same reasons Euripides’ play is still being adapted and staged today, the moral of the story has relevancy thousands of years after it was written. Some folks just never learn. I say, we take THEM to school.

(Does this Kaiser have ANY kids? Seriously, because if not, he’s insulting his own generation more than ours at times. My parents want their money back from all the productions they took us to at The Kennedy Center. That’s 30 years of patronage, times 5 seats per production, adding up to quite a hefty sum.)