I served (and by "served" I mean "was paid to work") as a Y Group Leader at Freshman Orientation this last weekend. I was in charge of leading the group of students who I'll be mentoring this coming term. Fortunately they're all pretty cool so it'll be a fun semester. Orientation, though, was an interesting experience indeed. Here are some highlights for those of you who didn't have this experience (or, like me, who somehow forgot about the madness...):
-We opened with a meeting all about how great BYU is and how lucky we all are to be here. This was the first of FOUR meetings like this. Yes, four. They all said the same thing and if you didn't leave that orientation feeling an overwhelming guilt, I suppose they didn't do their job. Now, I agree that BYU is wonderful and that we are indeed lucky to be here. However, let's not lose our heads.
-That night, the new students gathered in the Smith Field House for a celebration of the Honor Code. Hey, if seeing Jericho Road perform motivates you to shave every morning, good for you...or for Jericho Road, I suppose. What else did they use to brainwash...I mean, inspire the young BYU newbies? "Sieze the Day" from "Newsies," "Higher" by Creed (or a very enthusiastic and clean-cut cover band), and Mariah Carey's "Hero." Hey, whatever works.
-We folk danced which was embarrassingly fun. And, hey, getting paid to dance...
-We took the kids on a tour of campus. I pointed out the best food on campus, the best places to nap, the places to avoid, and the places to meet people. My partner covered the rah-rah BYU stuff.
-A professor told us all to save our neurons for math, not for porn. Yes, he said that and I was very happy about it.
-The event culminated in what is perhaps the pinnacle of the BYU experience: a dating game. This along with a Mario Cart tournament and, of course, a dance. Party-pooper that I am, I opted out of the fun. I can only hope that my freshmen had a good time. And got some phone numbers. Because that's what it's all about, right?
I could see members of my group growing pretty weary of beating the "BYU-is-great" horse and hope they can manage to be enthusiastic about the first day of classes. Speaking of which, I am really excited about the first day of classes. I'm such a nerd...
Sunday, June 22, 2008
That's what I'm talking about!
I thought I'd break into the multimedia approach to blogging because I need to share this. "Billy Elliot" has changed my life. Yes indeed.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Checkpoint Five
Yes, I'm back. But I have to finish my report...
THE CHALK GARDEN - This was a great example of a good solid production of a good solid script. There really wasn't any pretension here. It was just a good production. I have come to appreciate the bravery of doing the tried and true. When you do, you'd better do it well. And the Donmar certainly does it well.
AFTERLIFE - I was not a big fan. After the novelty of "Oh cool, he's telling the story of Max Reinhardt and Everyman at the same time" wore off, I was bored. It felt long, indulgent, and not up to snuff with Michael Frayn's genius work.
THE MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR - This was just a lot of fun and I wondered why I've never seen or read this play before. It's simple and fun, not the intellectual feast of Shakespeare's other comedies, but it's a solid piece of writing.
TWELFTH NIGHT - I learned that I do NOT get tired of Shakespeare. We saw this after a Shakespeare final exam in the morning followed by the matinee of "Merry Wives." When it was over, I was aching for more Shakespeare! Good thing, too. If I'm going to be at this theatre thing for the rest of my life I had better enjoy it!
MAMMA MIA - See previous blog.
CHICAGO - Ditto. This show was very educational for me. It's interesting, though, to see that in order to sell it, it's marketed as a sultry sex romp full of hardbodies and sensual jazz music. Yes, it was all of those things but it really was so much more. Unfortunately, it's been playing for ten years because of the sex, not because of the theatrical brilliance that's there. Pity.
ROSMERSHOLM - This was the first time I ever saw Ibsen onstage. (A shocking confession, I know.) I understand now why he is hailed as a genius. Ibsen invented the "well-made play" that I strive to write myself and seeing his work performed so brilliantly (though not flawlessly) reinforced those ideals that I've been striving for.
STRICTLY GERSHWIN - Gershwin is America. Britain knows this but they put on one heck of a show. This reinforced the transcendent power of romance and beauty. There is a reason why we keep writing love songs and going to see chick flicks. They speak to us in the same way that Gershwin's ballads do.
LONDON ASSURANCE - I went to see this because it's an important piece of history, not because the play really drew me in. But, really, that's why I saw "Rosmersholm" as well. The difference: "Rosmersholm" is well-written. There, I said it.
DE PROFUNDIS - This was, I felt, a relatively one-note performance by Corin Redgrave, but a heartfelt one nonetheless. I actually wasn't quite captivated and realized that if Oscar Wilde had intended this piece of writing for performance he was more than capable of writing it that way. That said, it's quite a beautiful piece of writing and made me consider the "other hand" of the romance issue.
BILLY ELLIOT - I wondered if I would enjoy this as much as I had at first. My experience was largely the same but I cried more this time. This is a great show and it made a wonderful (and symmetrical) end to my adventure!
THE CHALK GARDEN - This was a great example of a good solid production of a good solid script. There really wasn't any pretension here. It was just a good production. I have come to appreciate the bravery of doing the tried and true. When you do, you'd better do it well. And the Donmar certainly does it well.
AFTERLIFE - I was not a big fan. After the novelty of "Oh cool, he's telling the story of Max Reinhardt and Everyman at the same time" wore off, I was bored. It felt long, indulgent, and not up to snuff with Michael Frayn's genius work.
THE MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR - This was just a lot of fun and I wondered why I've never seen or read this play before. It's simple and fun, not the intellectual feast of Shakespeare's other comedies, but it's a solid piece of writing.
TWELFTH NIGHT - I learned that I do NOT get tired of Shakespeare. We saw this after a Shakespeare final exam in the morning followed by the matinee of "Merry Wives." When it was over, I was aching for more Shakespeare! Good thing, too. If I'm going to be at this theatre thing for the rest of my life I had better enjoy it!
MAMMA MIA - See previous blog.
CHICAGO - Ditto. This show was very educational for me. It's interesting, though, to see that in order to sell it, it's marketed as a sultry sex romp full of hardbodies and sensual jazz music. Yes, it was all of those things but it really was so much more. Unfortunately, it's been playing for ten years because of the sex, not because of the theatrical brilliance that's there. Pity.
ROSMERSHOLM - This was the first time I ever saw Ibsen onstage. (A shocking confession, I know.) I understand now why he is hailed as a genius. Ibsen invented the "well-made play" that I strive to write myself and seeing his work performed so brilliantly (though not flawlessly) reinforced those ideals that I've been striving for.
STRICTLY GERSHWIN - Gershwin is America. Britain knows this but they put on one heck of a show. This reinforced the transcendent power of romance and beauty. There is a reason why we keep writing love songs and going to see chick flicks. They speak to us in the same way that Gershwin's ballads do.
LONDON ASSURANCE - I went to see this because it's an important piece of history, not because the play really drew me in. But, really, that's why I saw "Rosmersholm" as well. The difference: "Rosmersholm" is well-written. There, I said it.
DE PROFUNDIS - This was, I felt, a relatively one-note performance by Corin Redgrave, but a heartfelt one nonetheless. I actually wasn't quite captivated and realized that if Oscar Wilde had intended this piece of writing for performance he was more than capable of writing it that way. That said, it's quite a beautiful piece of writing and made me consider the "other hand" of the romance issue.
BILLY ELLIOT - I wondered if I would enjoy this as much as I had at first. My experience was largely the same but I cried more this time. This is a great show and it made a wonderful (and symmetrical) end to my adventure!
Monday, June 16, 2008
Hostel Environment
I'm staying in a hostel for my last few days in London. I came here with a good deal of trepidation. I have heard as many horror stories as the next guy and have known some pretty unsavory people who swear by them. And one has to wonder how can they keep the prices so darn low anyway. As I discussed in my last post I'm quite alone here which honestly doesn't scare me...But if some hostel owners killed me in my sleep to sell my liver on Craig's List there wouldn't be anybody around to do a thing about it.
BUT I checked in nonetheless. Upon receiving my key I was given a list of good pubs, a coupon for the bar they have conveniently located here at the hostel, an invitation to join them on a tour of London's best pubs, and the assurance that drinking is more than welcome on the premises. (As if I hadn't figured that out already.)
All things considered, I suppose I'd be making more friends (since that's what hostels are for, right?) if I were indeed a drinker like the rest of this crowd seems to be. It's a very social environment as long as you're ten sheets to the wind. Me, I leave in the morning and come back late at night to sleep in my bed-cubicle. It's not a bad existence for a couple days and, hey, for twenty pounds a night who can complain? Still, it's a strange place. I avoid it as much as possible. In the meantime, if you happen to see any bits or pieces of me for sale on eBay, put in a good bid.
I'll be home tomorrow.
BUT I checked in nonetheless. Upon receiving my key I was given a list of good pubs, a coupon for the bar they have conveniently located here at the hostel, an invitation to join them on a tour of London's best pubs, and the assurance that drinking is more than welcome on the premises. (As if I hadn't figured that out already.)
All things considered, I suppose I'd be making more friends (since that's what hostels are for, right?) if I were indeed a drinker like the rest of this crowd seems to be. It's a very social environment as long as you're ten sheets to the wind. Me, I leave in the morning and come back late at night to sleep in my bed-cubicle. It's not a bad existence for a couple days and, hey, for twenty pounds a night who can complain? Still, it's a strange place. I avoid it as much as possible. In the meantime, if you happen to see any bits or pieces of me for sale on eBay, put in a good bid.
I'll be home tomorrow.
Table for one
It's an interesting feeling to be alone in a foreign country. I mean, really alone. Everyone in the program has gone home and anyone I do know here (people in the ward, etc.) I have no way of contacting. Truly, I'm on my own.
It's a pretty empowering position, I've found. I wake up every morning with the full knowledge that I can do whatever I want to do. That said, I don't behave any differently, but without roommates to greet to classes to attend, the world (or at least the city of London) is my oyster.
Still, I can't decide if I like being alone. Sometimes, it's truly all I want. It's so nice to come and go as I please, to sit and read a book without having to force conversation with anyone, and to be able to experience the world on my own terms, unfiltered through the minds of well-meaning companions. On the other hand, however, it's lonely. When someone does something ridiculous on the subway, you laugh alone. When you're not sure where to have dinner, no one else can make the decision. When you see an amazing piece of theatre, you're hard pressed to find anyone who cares to discuss it. It's the little moments when you really realize how much you miss those well-meaning companions.
So, good and bad on both sides. A little solitude is important, though, and I have to say I am enjoying my quiet end to the London adventure. It's only a few days and, frankly, that's quite enough for me. Still, I've observed some interesting things about being alone:
-When you get dressed in the morning, it's for you. When you set out alone and don't plan on meeting anyone of consequence (i.e. someone to dress up for) it's tempting to simply throw on whatever is lying around and head out the door. I tried this. It's miserable. Self respect has little to do with how many people you have around.
-When you're out, you always have to occupy yourself. There's no one else to occupy you, so you substitute a novel, a notebook, or an iPod in their place. I noticed this not only with myself but with other loners I've observed recently. Even when we have no other people around, we are reluctant to be truly alone.
-You enjoy the world differently. You feel more a part of things when you're not in a group of people. Yesterday afternoon I went for a walk by Buckingham Palace and through St. James's Park. I really felt like I was a part of that park, that I belonged there, and that brought me a great deal of peace and comfort. I no longer identified myself as a member of a group, so there was nothing left but to identify myself simply as a piece of that beauty and serenity. It's a nice feeling.
-There is something absolutely liberating about being alone. Not just that you can do what you want to do and see what you want to see, but that you truly discover who you are. When no one is looking do you still give up your seat on the train? Do you take time at museums? Do you clean up after yourself? Stripped of all the external social forces, how do you behave yourself? This is the true measure of who you are and you can only discover it when you're alone.
I think the most interesting things I've observed through all of this is that we're never really alone (cheesy "Into the Woods" moment). We have to identify with something and when it's not a friend it may take the shape of a book, a park, or a stranger who needs help. At least it's true for me: I crave connection and find it where I can. So, I have one more day to myself. It'll be nice, but to be honest it'll be nicer when I'm with my family and friends again. "Me time" is good only in moderation.
It's a pretty empowering position, I've found. I wake up every morning with the full knowledge that I can do whatever I want to do. That said, I don't behave any differently, but without roommates to greet to classes to attend, the world (or at least the city of London) is my oyster.
Still, I can't decide if I like being alone. Sometimes, it's truly all I want. It's so nice to come and go as I please, to sit and read a book without having to force conversation with anyone, and to be able to experience the world on my own terms, unfiltered through the minds of well-meaning companions. On the other hand, however, it's lonely. When someone does something ridiculous on the subway, you laugh alone. When you're not sure where to have dinner, no one else can make the decision. When you see an amazing piece of theatre, you're hard pressed to find anyone who cares to discuss it. It's the little moments when you really realize how much you miss those well-meaning companions.
So, good and bad on both sides. A little solitude is important, though, and I have to say I am enjoying my quiet end to the London adventure. It's only a few days and, frankly, that's quite enough for me. Still, I've observed some interesting things about being alone:
-When you get dressed in the morning, it's for you. When you set out alone and don't plan on meeting anyone of consequence (i.e. someone to dress up for) it's tempting to simply throw on whatever is lying around and head out the door. I tried this. It's miserable. Self respect has little to do with how many people you have around.
-When you're out, you always have to occupy yourself. There's no one else to occupy you, so you substitute a novel, a notebook, or an iPod in their place. I noticed this not only with myself but with other loners I've observed recently. Even when we have no other people around, we are reluctant to be truly alone.
-You enjoy the world differently. You feel more a part of things when you're not in a group of people. Yesterday afternoon I went for a walk by Buckingham Palace and through St. James's Park. I really felt like I was a part of that park, that I belonged there, and that brought me a great deal of peace and comfort. I no longer identified myself as a member of a group, so there was nothing left but to identify myself simply as a piece of that beauty and serenity. It's a nice feeling.
-There is something absolutely liberating about being alone. Not just that you can do what you want to do and see what you want to see, but that you truly discover who you are. When no one is looking do you still give up your seat on the train? Do you take time at museums? Do you clean up after yourself? Stripped of all the external social forces, how do you behave yourself? This is the true measure of who you are and you can only discover it when you're alone.
I think the most interesting things I've observed through all of this is that we're never really alone (cheesy "Into the Woods" moment). We have to identify with something and when it's not a friend it may take the shape of a book, a park, or a stranger who needs help. At least it's true for me: I crave connection and find it where I can. So, I have one more day to myself. It'll be nice, but to be honest it'll be nicer when I'm with my family and friends again. "Me time" is good only in moderation.
Friday, June 13, 2008
"Mamma Mia" and "Chicago" - The shocking truth!
I didn't expect to see so many West End musicals during my stay in London. They might kick me out of the elitist theatre snob club for this. However, I have learned a great deal from a lot of these experiences. These two musicals offered the biggest surprises.
I went to see "Mamma Mia" last night with relatively low expectations. I anticipated the simplistic plot, the corny dialogue, the overall campiness of the whole production. By the end of the show, the whole audience is on their feet dancing and having a great time and I must admit I was one of the jubilant crowd. (I mean, how can you NOT dance when you hear ABBA?) I was alarmed, though, by the blatant amorality of the whole show. This story (and I suppose I should use that term loosely) took place on a Greek island where there truly are no rules. The climax of the play consisted of the romantic leads dodging all responsibility and commitment in order to just go out and have a good time and the show was laced with sexual humor that was clearly there only to keep the audience (and the actors, no doubt) titillated. What truly bothered me about this show is that in the fanciful world of Greek resorts, ABBA music, and never-ending dance numbers, there are no consequences for one's actions. For that would get in the way of the fun. By the end, you get caught up in said fun so long as you check any morals at the door. They won't be challenged and there really isn't anything offensive in the show, but there is nothing real about it. I found myself dancing and singing along, but wondering what it was we were celebrating? Was it virtue? No. Was it iniquity? No. It was hollow, devoid of meaning. Pure fun. Perhaps it has its place, but I left the theater feeling not enriched or enlightened, but not offended or conflicted either. It was emptiness. When the ABBA music stops playing, you have nothing.
This afternoon I had a very different experience. Based mostly on the recommendation of a friend, I decided to see "Chicago" and was still unsure about that decision as the overture started to play. However, I was thoroughly impressed by what I saw. Here was a superbly written, brilliantly staged, and wonderfully acted piece of theatre that had something to say. I won't go into what that was (I'll let you go see the production yourself...with my recommendation) but I can say that it was an enriching, enlightening, and (dare I say) uplifting experience. Theatre should be a discussion. Maybe I agree with you, maybe I don't. But whatever you do, be responsible. Acknowledge that what comes up must come down. Be brave and say what you want to say well. We don't need any more lukewarm "Mamma Mia" experiences, as fun as they may be. I mean, that's what the ABBA Gold CD is for, right?
I went to see "Mamma Mia" last night with relatively low expectations. I anticipated the simplistic plot, the corny dialogue, the overall campiness of the whole production. By the end of the show, the whole audience is on their feet dancing and having a great time and I must admit I was one of the jubilant crowd. (I mean, how can you NOT dance when you hear ABBA?) I was alarmed, though, by the blatant amorality of the whole show. This story (and I suppose I should use that term loosely) took place on a Greek island where there truly are no rules. The climax of the play consisted of the romantic leads dodging all responsibility and commitment in order to just go out and have a good time and the show was laced with sexual humor that was clearly there only to keep the audience (and the actors, no doubt) titillated. What truly bothered me about this show is that in the fanciful world of Greek resorts, ABBA music, and never-ending dance numbers, there are no consequences for one's actions. For that would get in the way of the fun. By the end, you get caught up in said fun so long as you check any morals at the door. They won't be challenged and there really isn't anything offensive in the show, but there is nothing real about it. I found myself dancing and singing along, but wondering what it was we were celebrating? Was it virtue? No. Was it iniquity? No. It was hollow, devoid of meaning. Pure fun. Perhaps it has its place, but I left the theater feeling not enriched or enlightened, but not offended or conflicted either. It was emptiness. When the ABBA music stops playing, you have nothing.
This afternoon I had a very different experience. Based mostly on the recommendation of a friend, I decided to see "Chicago" and was still unsure about that decision as the overture started to play. However, I was thoroughly impressed by what I saw. Here was a superbly written, brilliantly staged, and wonderfully acted piece of theatre that had something to say. I won't go into what that was (I'll let you go see the production yourself...with my recommendation) but I can say that it was an enriching, enlightening, and (dare I say) uplifting experience. Theatre should be a discussion. Maybe I agree with you, maybe I don't. But whatever you do, be responsible. Acknowledge that what comes up must come down. Be brave and say what you want to say well. We don't need any more lukewarm "Mamma Mia" experiences, as fun as they may be. I mean, that's what the ABBA Gold CD is for, right?
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Checkpoint Four
Another great week of theatre. Let's see what young Matthew learned this week...
ROMEO AND JULIET - I've found that I would rather a director give me a straightforward interpretation of a text than a half-baked "progressive" production. This production tried to be more than it obviously could be. I did appreciate seeing actors performing in the rain. The show must go on, right?
BRIEF ENCOUNTER - This reaffirmed for me the joy of theatre. It incorporated so many things and the several elements came together to make a great night of theatre.
THE MERCHANT OF VENICE - Another lame Shakespeare interpretation. Although I don't think this had to do with treatment of a classical text. Really it went back to the complete lack of a director's concept. Moments were cool, but nothing unified them. Thus, it left most of us pretty cold.
TAMING OF THE SHREW - This was the first time I've seen a director do something responsible with this text. The sexism inherent in the play is disgusting and this production didn't shy away from that. Courage! Courage is essential for great theatre.
MAJOR BARBARA - Shaw has a way of making you question everything you hold to be true. This production was quite strong and was staged in such a way that the themes of the brilliant play came through loud and clear. It was great to see someone tackle a text in a new way.
THE VORTEX - I love Noel Coward. The set was hideous but I saw how strong actors giving a straightforward performance of a great play makes for great theatre.
THE DEEP BLUE SEA - I don't think the actors quite understood this text. They were all (well, mostly all) great actors but it just wasn't quite the right fit. It was, however, a thoroughly enjoyable production.
ROMEO AND JULIET - I've found that I would rather a director give me a straightforward interpretation of a text than a half-baked "progressive" production. This production tried to be more than it obviously could be. I did appreciate seeing actors performing in the rain. The show must go on, right?
BRIEF ENCOUNTER - This reaffirmed for me the joy of theatre. It incorporated so many things and the several elements came together to make a great night of theatre.
THE MERCHANT OF VENICE - Another lame Shakespeare interpretation. Although I don't think this had to do with treatment of a classical text. Really it went back to the complete lack of a director's concept. Moments were cool, but nothing unified them. Thus, it left most of us pretty cold.
TAMING OF THE SHREW - This was the first time I've seen a director do something responsible with this text. The sexism inherent in the play is disgusting and this production didn't shy away from that. Courage! Courage is essential for great theatre.
MAJOR BARBARA - Shaw has a way of making you question everything you hold to be true. This production was quite strong and was staged in such a way that the themes of the brilliant play came through loud and clear. It was great to see someone tackle a text in a new way.
THE VORTEX - I love Noel Coward. The set was hideous but I saw how strong actors giving a straightforward performance of a great play makes for great theatre.
THE DEEP BLUE SEA - I don't think the actors quite understood this text. They were all (well, mostly all) great actors but it just wasn't quite the right fit. It was, however, a thoroughly enjoyable production.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Checkpoint Three
This week's treasures and... disappointments:
THE GOOD SOUL OF SETZUAN - This was a great example of epic theatre and showed how you can be faithful to a Brecht text without becoming a museum piece. It did want Brecht wanted to do, but from a different way and I very much appreciated that they didn't try to beat me over the head with how sophisticated they were.
THE COMMON PURSUIT - This show was nicely structured and the dialogue was taut and smart. I felt like it was a little too unclear because I didn't feel I got everything out of it that I could have. There was only so much there but even of what I could see, I felt like I missed something. I blame this on the writer (of course) and a lack of clarity.
THAT FACE - Awful angry college student writing. Polly Steiman wrote this when she was nineteen. And it shows. Completely irresponsible and not really worth writing about.
FAT PIG - This play started somewhere we've been so many times before ("Boy meets girl...") but took me somewhere I'd never been. It was completely enjoyable all the way through and I left the theatre desperately examining my own life and trying to sort out what I'd just seen. It was a great theatrical experience.
TROILUS AND CRESSIDA - This was a good adaptation but I think this script (and most Shakespeare, actually) needs to be cut for performance. I saw how an imaginative director can enliven a text and create a strong show.
HARPER REAGAN - This was a deceptively simple play that prompted hours of conversation among the group I went with. I loved its structure and the gentle ways that its themes were discussed. Nothing was overt or heavy-handed, but it was all thoroughly dealt with.
FAST LABOUR - Sometimes a structure that I don't like can have good results. This play was not without it flaws, but I think it was relatively successful in what it set out to do. And it did it in a way I don't like. Interesting...
THE GOOD SOUL OF SETZUAN - This was a great example of epic theatre and showed how you can be faithful to a Brecht text without becoming a museum piece. It did want Brecht wanted to do, but from a different way and I very much appreciated that they didn't try to beat me over the head with how sophisticated they were.
THE COMMON PURSUIT - This show was nicely structured and the dialogue was taut and smart. I felt like it was a little too unclear because I didn't feel I got everything out of it that I could have. There was only so much there but even of what I could see, I felt like I missed something. I blame this on the writer (of course) and a lack of clarity.
THAT FACE - Awful angry college student writing. Polly Steiman wrote this when she was nineteen. And it shows. Completely irresponsible and not really worth writing about.
FAT PIG - This play started somewhere we've been so many times before ("Boy meets girl...") but took me somewhere I'd never been. It was completely enjoyable all the way through and I left the theatre desperately examining my own life and trying to sort out what I'd just seen. It was a great theatrical experience.
TROILUS AND CRESSIDA - This was a good adaptation but I think this script (and most Shakespeare, actually) needs to be cut for performance. I saw how an imaginative director can enliven a text and create a strong show.
HARPER REAGAN - This was a deceptively simple play that prompted hours of conversation among the group I went with. I loved its structure and the gentle ways that its themes were discussed. Nothing was overt or heavy-handed, but it was all thoroughly dealt with.
FAST LABOUR - Sometimes a structure that I don't like can have good results. This play was not without it flaws, but I think it was relatively successful in what it set out to do. And it did it in a way I don't like. Interesting...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)