This morning. 8:30 am.
What's that number? Oh, yeah...244-8338...
(dial, dial dial...)
(ring, ring, ring...)
(ring, ring, ring...)
"Hello?"
Joel?
"Yeah?"
It's Rob. I just wanted the time of the director's meeting.
"You want to what?"
The time of the meeting. When is it?
"Ten thirty."
Ten thirty?
"Yeah."
Okay, wasn't sure if it was ten or ten thirty.
"No. Ten thirty."
Okay. Thanks, Joel.
"Yeah, ten thirty. The twenty-sixth. See ya."
CLICK.
Hmm.
Hey, wait a minute.
(dial, dial, dial...)
(ring, ring, ring...)
(ring, ring, ring...)
CLICK-LUNK: "Hi! Joel Gersmann isn't here, but let me tell you what's going on down at Broom Street Theater...(CLICK) Hello?"
Joel? Me again. Did you just say the twenty-sixth?
"Yeah."
Because I have on my calendar that it's today.
"No, that's impossible."
That's what I have here. It's been here for months.
"Who told you that it was today?"
You did.
"No."
But I've had it on my calendar here.
"What day of the week is the twenty-sixth?"
It's a Saturday--
"Then it has to be then. We had to move everything around Q's schedule."
I've always had here that it's today.
"Who told you that?"
You did. And Scott.
"Scott told you that?"
You told me that.
"No."
I've had this on my calendar for months.
"I never would have said that. It's always been the twenty-sixth."
This is the first I'm hearing that.
"No, it's the twenty-sixth."
Then we have a problem. I work that day.
"That's a Saturday."
Nevertheless. I'm working.
"Well, we'll be meeting until noon, what's the big deal?"
I work from eight thirty to twelve thirty, Joel, I'm not gonna be able to make it.
"What is this, the bank job?"
Yes. The bank job. I work then. I changed around my whole schedule just to free up today.
"Well, I don't know what to tell you..."
So, I can't make the meeting. I'm sorry.
"Maybe it's something about the way I give out information, I don't know, but it's always been the twenty-sixth."
Okay, Joel.
"Sorry. I guess we'll have to do it without you."
I guess so.
"Goodbye."
Bye.
posted by Rob Matsushita on 9:13 AM |
link
--------------------
[ Friday, January 18, 2002 ]
The Isthmus review is out for Mercury Players' Computers In Love.
To celebrate, I'd like to start a new segment called (da-da-da-tah!!):
(in which we critique the critics)
The critic is somebody new: Lue Allen. Or, at least, I will assume this person is new.
Here's a clip:
Slightly hackneyed open, but what are you going to do? The last sentence ("tempting to attempt too much") is a bit clunky--like Allen is trying to burn a few words before forming a real thought-out opinion.
And now, ladies and gentlemen...Doug Reed's reaction:
I don't know what the hell "overcomplicated" means. Either you can follow it, or you can't. From the review, it seems as though s/he followed it. (What the hell kind of name is Lue?) I'm not going to pander and spoon feed the message. Maybe "overcomplicated" means, "I had to do some thinking".
Indeed. Critics in town are loathe to have to figure anything out on their own.
What's strange about this is that Allen spends a deal of time on "Sonata," more or less praising it, but then pulls out just short of recommending it. Allen seems to get it, but never mentions whether or not the "overcomplicated" nature of the piece sinks it.
Allen goes on:
And so on.
What's interesting is that all of these other shows get a brief mention, but Sonata's clip takes up almost the same amount of space.
I'd like to think that this is because it was the most thought-provoking (reason enough for praise), but really, it's probably because Allen just ran out of room.
No real complaints, here, it seems to be a positive review, for the most part--but it's hard to tell.
Still, good first effort.
In other news, Doug Reed sent me his initial reaction to "Welcome To The Terror Dome," which, to boil it down, was a strong, virceral, ultimately negative reaction--which I'm cool with. He and I are going to talk about that tonight some more, but I will say that pretty much all of his points are valid: The characters are unlikable, and the story is disturbing.
This, admittedly, has been bothering me from the beginning--does that aspect sink it?
Diplomatically, he pointed out that his sense of style is more quirky and light--and mine is a whole lot darker.
We'll schmooze, we'll both feel better.
And now, click here for the most horrifying sights 1971 had to offer.
posted by Rob Matsushita on 6:52 AM |
link
--------------------
[ Wednesday, January 16, 2002 ]
I saw the review that The Capital Times' Debra Neff Nathans wrote for Mercury Players' Computers In Love.
Some excerpts:
Which is pretty neat. A lot of people have been complimenting me on the show I wrote...which makes me feel bad as well as good, because I feel like if I accept the compliment, then I'm turning my back on the show I directed.
More on this later.
Anyway, then she said:
I should probably note at this point that I've been reviewed by Neff Nathans before.
Now, to be fair, she has liked everything I've done but one show--Meeting Jerry Springer--which she disliked so much that she felt the need to slam it again in her review for my next show.
I wish I could find the copy of that review, actually, so you could see what I'm talking about.
But she saw a really bad performance--arguably the worst performance of the run. It was a night where we were missing the actor who ran camera (Scott Feiner), and as a result, I ended up doing it--my own dumb idea--which ended up seriously hindering the show.
See, I was in the show as the "producer," and it was my job to keep things moving, and basically "direct" the improv as it happened.
When I was only half-involved, the show went spiralling out of control--what normally would have been a half hour improv turning into almost an hour and a half--and it wasn't funny or interesting. The audience (which included not only Neff, but the mother of a one of Jerry Springer's real-life crew, and my dad) was bored.
Anyway, back to the Computers In Love review:
Okay, let me be the first to point out that it is by no means the longest play in the show. I'd also like to point out that she does get the point of the piece--but doesn't get that we meant it.
She also compares it to another play in the show, called "Chat Room." Doug Reed, writer of "Sonata For Internet," (who Neff Nathans' never credited in the review) says this to that:
As a side note, I have come up with several ways that "Chat Room" and "Sonata For Internet" are "simliar in style and content"...1) Both take place in the same theatre.
2) Both make frequent use of English words such as the, of, to, in, and and.
3) Both feature carbon-based mammals in leading roles.
4) Both take place in an oxygen-rich atmosphere capable of sustaining life. (At least, this is true of Chat Room's first ten minutes.)
5) The law of gravity is in effect for both shows.
Okay, so back to Neff Nathan's review of Springer. Since that show was about 60% improv, she said in the review that she suspected that I did it that way so that I didn't have to write as much of a script.
Um, no.
In fact, I had to write nearly three times as much script as I normally would have had to for a regular show.
What's really dumb is that hers was the only negative review for that show--all the other critics raved about it.
So, I did the only mature thing...I named a character in Irish Lesbian Vampire 2 after her and killed her. For those of you who've seen the show, it was "Sister Neff," the nun who gets her tongue sliced in half and is then forced to go down on a female vampire.
Yes, yes, I know.
That show I expected to get panned--I pretty much named every character who gets killed after a critic in town. But I did play fair--I included critics who've never reviewed me and even some who have reviewed me favorably.
But, yeah, I was pretty much daring them to slam me.
After that, I was pretty okay with it. While I disagree with Neff Nathans often, and gleefully acknowledge her time-to-time blunders (she once complained about what she thought was a local reference to the Capital Building in a production of Sweeney Todd--without taking into account that the play is sort of set in London, and that there might be more than one dome-shaped building in the world) I will say that I do respect that she does pay to see every show she goes to, doesn't annouce herself like some critics do, and never engages the artists one-on-one. Plus, you can actually tell whether or not she likes a show (Nadine Goff, take note).
Oh, yeah, and if any theater critics are reading this now, be aware of one thing when you come and review my next show:
Yes, I am watching you. I am checking to see if you actually enjoy the show. Because some reviewers--and I'm talking to you, Jessica Berson--will see a show, laughing and enjoying it...and then slam it in the review.
My friend Bill Hagen (who also didn't really like or understand Meeting Jerry Springer) once said that reviews are kind of pointless in the scheme of things--that if you don't find worth in the bad reviews then you shouldn't pay attention to the good ones either. To this I say:
1) Good point.
and
2) Jesus, cheer up, dude.
Although, really, Doug Reed put it best, when he said:
Neff is a slack-jawed, six-toed, drooling moron.
I'll get off my high horse about critics when I meet one who can write better than I can.
Of course, that's just my opinion, and I'm never wrong.
Hey, you! Don't click that--click this.
posted by Rob Matsushita on 11:04 AM |
link
--------------------
[ Tuesday, January 15, 2002 ]
So last weekend I went to the Sunday performance of Mercury Players' Computers In Love. I brought my digital camera, for the purpose of taking pictures of the cast and putting them up here, but in typical Rob Matsushita-fashion, the battery decided to suddenly be out of power when the show started and I didn't think to bring the AC adaptor.
Argh.
At any rate, I'm gonna be on WORT 89.9 FM today at 7:30 pm for an interview on the show Creative Agenda. So if you live in the Madison area, listen in, or tape it, or create a dance mix from my annoying voice.
"Do you expect me to talk?"
"No, Mister Bond, I expect you to click here."
posted by Rob Matsushita on 11:28 AM |
link
--------------------
[ Monday, January 14, 2002 ]
I got some more script notes on "Welcome To The Terror Dome" from some friends.
Brandon, one of my co-workers read it and told me he "couldn't put it down," so that's cool.
Another friend (a fellow WilWheaton.net crony), Misty Mills, had this to say:
If I didn't know you had a warped mind already, I'd wonder what the hell was wrong with you. :)
I get that a lot.
Actually, it's pretty damn good. I liked it. Aside from a typo on the top of page 62, I just have comments of how much I enjoyed it.
Woo-hoo!
Nyx is a loon. She reminds me of my ex-roommate, actually. I guess it's a good thing she isn't my roommate anymore. ;)
To explain for folks who haven't read the script, Nyx is a character in the script; she's a sad, deranged, teenage girl who may or may not have been having affair with the husband of Polly, the main character.
More comments as they come.
I also got and interesting email from Jesse, a fellow writer, about "where ideas come from," and whether or not to outline.
What I told him was:
There are scriptwriters who refuse to use outlines. These people rarely finish scripts.
Here's how I usually write (this is copied verbatum from my email, but there you go):
Usually, I come up with a lot of ideas at once…I had an image of a woman in a chair, flanked by two men carrying shotguns, then of a teenage girl with a Polaroid camera, then I had some general ideas about teenage violence, and such…
I write all these down and then I start.
Once I start, I can tell if I want to keep going with it. If I do, then I outline.
My outlines usually look like this:
…you get the idea.
With “Terror Dome,” I did it different.
I actually tried writing without an outline—but then decided that that was dumb—so I just started a new kind of outline, that went page-by-page.
The following is a section of my actual outline for "Welcome To The Terror Dome:"
Pg. 58—Almo heads to bathroom.
Pg. 59—Masks of BadAss start to slip.
Pg. 60—“Why’d you say all that stuff?”
Pg. 61—Futility of Education.
Pg. 62—“Why stay with your husband?”
Pg. 63—“Why is Almo so loyal?”
Pg. 64— Ives and Almo: How We Met.
Pg. 65—Nyx Returns.
Pg. 66—Almo: “I took a quick trip to the can, and when I got back, we were surrounded.”
Pg. 67—“Everyone leave now.” Takes ALMO’S shotgun. Ives to Almo: “I’ll give you mine.”
Pg. 68—Ooh, what she did.
Pg. 69—Poloroids.
Pg. 70—Choking.
Pg. 71—At this point, anything can happen.
I left a point in the outline that gave me a wild card.
I’ve heard friends give all sorts of reasons why they can’t outline—my favorite one is “but then I’m stuck having to write what’s on the outline!”
Who says?
“But then I have to change the outline… (whine)”
Whatever, dude. Like it’s SO much work.
And if you kids don't shut up back there, I'm turing this car around and nobody gets to click here.
posted by Rob Matsushita on 3:21 PM |
link
--------------------
