On paying attention

I recently had a conversation with someone I had never met before -- and the remarkable thing was that she devoted her entire attention to me. I could feel her looking intently at me, with full eye contact. She let me talk for a long time without interruption. How rare and special is it to have someone focused on you and not distracted by other things?

Encounter with a theater junkie

Last night, I went to a cabaret concert and I sat next to a woman who is basically a theater junkie. She told me that she goes to off-off-off Broadway shows. She doesn't like Broadway shows. I'm guessing probably because it's too commercial and expensive. She's a member of a discount club which has great deals (usually 50% off) on shows, ranging from musicals to plays to circus acts to radio theater. I had no idea people still did radio theater in the US! She gave me some great recommendations on things to see. Some shows she really liked: a radio theater thing, a circus act performed by people with "beautiful bodies", a transsexual artist doing a tribute to another famous artist. And we bonded over our love of opera. These kinds of encounters are unique and special -- I'm extremely grateful. I don't know any theater junkies so it's really hard to get into it.

Thought of the day: Inspired connections

I realized that talking to really smart people inspires me to say smart things that I didn't think I knew. Well, that's not completely accurate, more like the underlying thoughts were already there, but talking to someone smarter than you provides the spark that allows you to connect those thoughts. My advisor said that it feels like the words just come out of your mouth. For me, the words feel so new and fresh that it's hard to believe it's me saying them. As if someone else were talking and I'm just an observer.

Thought of the day: Being a minority

The problem of women in science (or whatever you want to call it) is a fundamentally a problem of being a minority. Many areas of life were traditionally run by white, straight men, and even in the 21st century, it's very hard to break in. Being a minority is always hard. I've been on a sports team where I was surrounded by people were 20 years older, with families, and middle class jobs. The fact that we were all female didn't really matter much. Then I played with a sports club where there were a lot of guys (some women) but they were all around my age and studying science. Much better!

A woman developer gave a talk about making the developing community more female friendly and she has some good examples to illustrate what it's like to be a minority.

So what does it feel like to be a woman in open source? Jono Bacon, at the Community Leadership Summit on the weekend, said — addressing the guys in the room — that if you want to know what it’s like to be a woman in open source, go and get your nails done at a salon. He did this a week or so back, and when he walked into the salon he realised he was the only man there, and felt kind of out of place.

Another example someone suggested is walking into a sports bar on game night wearing the wrong team’s jersey. It can be the most friendly sports bar in the universe, but you’re still going to feel pretty awkward.

So as a woman in open source, it can be a bit like that. You walk into a space, and you feel like you stand out. And there’s enormous pressure to perform well, in case any mistake you make reflects on everyone of your gender.

So if you're lobbying to make life better for women in science, don't make yourself look like a man-hater. Your colleagues are probably white, straight, male, and speak English. They've never been a minority so they just don't know what it's like. Talk to them and educate them.

Thought of the day: Becoming an autodidact

I've found that the most useful skill to develop is the ability to teach myself. Recently, I found out that the term for this is "autodidact." I wonder if teaching oneself has general principles itself. Here are some of the methods I use to teach myself:

1. What is universal? What are the most important concepts?
   This is a typical physicist perspective. For example, for photography, I might say the important ideas are light and shadow, the quality of light (diffuse or harsh), warm vs cool colors.
2. How is this field different from similar fields?
   In physics, we tend to be concerned with finding clean, beautiful, logically consistent mathematical rules for explaining nature. In biology, people are trying to model complicated, messy, real systems.
3. What is the progression?
   You want to identify where to start, where to end, and how to progress in between. If you don't have a progression, you have no idea how far you have to go or what you've accomplished and it's easy to become frustrated. To learn hockey, you start with skating, then progress to stickhandling and shooting, and finally tactics and teamwork.
4. Read interviews with important people in the field.
   They'll identify what's important. I learned a lot about narrative and character by reading interviews with distinguished actors.
5. Listen to what people in the field say or read forums.
   This is a bit trickier because you have to find the right people -- hopefully intelligent, articulate types. This might not be easy. I read theater forums sometimes. I found one forum where people frequently trash shows (though there were some insightful comments if you sifted the wheat from the chaff). The Sondheim specific forum was better because people were more interested in analyzing the shows than shoving their opinions down people's throats.
6. Find a partner.
   I've never done this, but if you can find someone at a similar level and you get along well, this could be dynamite. You can hang out together, support each other, inspire ideas, etc. I guess this is not being an autodidact, but who cares.

If you try to learn several unrelated fields, you'll start to see patterns and that will make it easier to pickup more subjects.

Link of the day: Video games as psychological tools?

I've always loved video games, but nowadays I don't play them much due to both lack of time and lack of innovation in game design. Still, I try to keep up with the discussion of "video games as art" and "the future of video games."

Recently, there was a cleverly written and insightful New York Times essay about "stupid games."

I can sympathize with the author's desire to stay away from "addictive" games which make your unproductive and add nothing to your life. He makes the point that it's true games have been around forever (for example, dice), but video games (starting with Tetris) are addictive in a way that is different and new. Now that you can play games on smartphones, you can play anytime, filling the smallest sliver of time when you're bored. I remember when a friend of mine told me that Baldur's Gate (a PC RPG) was "crack." iPhone games are probably crack+++. The fact is that on a smartphone, you have a tiny screen and a limited control interface, so the games have to be very simple.

This has encouraged a very different kind of game: Tetris-like little puzzles, broken into discrete bits, designed to be played anywhere, in any context, without a manual, by any level of player. (Charles Pratt, a researcher in New York University’s Game Center, refers to such games as “knitting games.”) You could argue that these are pure games: perfectly designed minisystems engineered to take us directly to the core of gaming pleasure without the distraction of narrative.

Sam Anderson, the author, goes on to research the addictive nature of smartphone games by interviewing various game designers. One person he interviews is Zach Gage, an indie game designer. Gage laments the death of public arcades in America. Me, too, although I made a point of visiting arcades in Japan, where they are still very much alive. He's right that there just aren't many social games anymore, but that he means games where you play in the same room with other people. The only games I can think of are sports games, dance/music games, and a few Nintendo games like Mario Kart, Super Smash Brothers, and Super Mario Strikers. Gage also makes the interesting point that many smartphone games are just Gameboy games that have been ported. This is despite the fact that the Gameboy controller interface is completely different -- buttons as opposed to touch screen. There's no creativity. It's obvious that if touch screens had come first, there wouldn't be a game like Tetris on the iPhone.

Gage has multiple projects going on, including a satire of "stupid games."

In fact, one of Gage’s current projects is a satire of the current state of the gaming industry, especially companies’ tendency to try to cash in by copying the latest trend. The game’s working title is “Unify Birds.” It’s exactly the same as Unify except that it has been redesigned in the most superficial possible way: Gage has turned all of the blocks into colorful, wide-eyed birds. “I made a couple of other little changes,” Gage says, “but mainly I just made everything superadorable. It’s been really interesting, because I’ve showed it to people who liked Unify, and they’ll play it, and they’ll be like: ‘Oh, man, Zach. This is a really good game. This is better.’ They wondered what I’ve changed.”

I thought this really shows how manipulative games are. "Stupid games" are designed to tap into the basest of human compulsions and desires, in the above case: cuteness. Anderson tells us that there's even a name for this, it's "gamification." Companies use this all the time, for example, frequent flier miles.

Zynga, a company which is the king of "stupid games", is a target of blame. Many people, including myself, think that Zynga is just peddling a form of digital crack.

Some people argue that Zynga’s signature games — FarmVille, FishVille — shouldn’t even be called games. As Nicholas Carlson of the Web site Business Insider wrote: “They are click-machines powered by the human need to achieve progress by a predictable path and a willingness to pay small amounts of money to make that progress go faster. They are not ‘games.’ ” But you could argue that games like FarmVille are in fact just the logical end of gamification: gamified games. They have the appearance of games, they inspire the compulsions of games, but for many people they are not fun like games.

I remember playing a Gamecube title called Animal Crossing. I liked the fact that the game didn't even try to disguise the fact that there was no point to it. You were forcibly given a house at the beginning of the game and told to pay it off. To do this, you pick fruit, catch fish, etc and sell your goods to the store. As you earn money, you can buy new outfits or decorations for your house. When you find new species of fish or insects, you can also donate these to a museum. After you pay down the house, you're forced to upgrade the house and pay that down, too. So in the end, the game is all about consumerism and hording. And of course, all the characters (except yourself) are cute animals.

Anderson interviews the game designer for Drop7, which is a game that even he found irrepressibly compulsive. The game designer, Frank Lantz, had an interesting view. He thought that instead of thinking of games as fun or crack, we should think of them as a way to test our brain chemistry.

Games, he told me, are like “homebrew neuroscience” — “a little digital drug you can use to run experiments on your own brain.” Part of the point of letting them seduce you, as Lantz sees it, is to come out the other side a more interesting and self-aware person; more conscious of your habits, weaknesses, desires and strengths. “It’s like heroin that is abstracted or compressed or stylized,” he said. “It gives you a window into your brain that doesn’t crush your brain.”

The fact that "stupid games" are so stripped down and designed to feed our compulsions makes us that a good hard look at the question "what is a game". Through the essay, there are a few hints about this.

Certainly there are games that we consider more like "art" and a worthy pursuit.

Chess, you might say, is the king of stupid games: the tide line where stupid games meet genius.

A bit of wisdom from Sid Meier, who developed the fantastic Civilization series (one of the "better" games):

The legendary game designer Sid Meier once defined a game as, simply, “a series of interesting choices.”

Finally, the ending passage from the essay:

Lantz told me that the deepest relationship he has ever had with a game was with poker, to which he was almost dangerously addicted. “Somehow teetering on the edge was part of the fun for me,” he said. “It was like a tightrope walk between this transcendently beautiful and cerebral thing that gave you all kinds of opportunities to improve yourself — through study and self-discipline, making your mind stronger like a muscle — and at the same time it was pure self-destruction. There’s no word for that in English, for a thing that does both of those at the same time. But it’s wonderful.”

I asked him if he knew a word for that in another language.

He said no, but then he thought for a minute.

“I think it’s ‘game,’ ” he said. “I think the word for that is ‘game.’ ”

I'm not sure I agree with that last quote. Would we consider poker self-destructive if we took away the gambling aspect? Honestly, anything can be corrupting or self-destructive. What about chasing money or status? As Lantz says, maybe games are a safe way to learn about our compulsions. What about sports? People frequently call those "games." Are sports considered "worthier" because they are physical and social?

I think a better definition of "game" is something that simulates some aspect of life or human nature, in a self-contained, simplified environment. I prefer a definition that doesn't make value judgments about whether a game is "stupid" or not.

Notes on shows I've seen in the last six years

The Producers (March 2006)
St. James Theatre, New York (Broadway)

I'm pretty sure this was the very first Broadway show I saw. This was back when I knew zero about Broadway. My sister and I took the train down to meet up with some family friends. We had no idea what to see, but we had heard of the The Producers so we got tickets to see it from the TKTS booth. Our seats were somewhere in the middle of the theater. Neither my sister or I were very impressed with the show and I fell asleep during the climatic "Springtime for Hitler" number. Our friends, meanwhile, had scored lottery tickets to see Wicked in the front row. Apparently, they had a good time. C

Die Zauberflöte (November 2007)
Saturday matinee, Dress Circle D121, Metropolitan Opera, New York

I went for a doubleheader of Mozart, starting with Die Zauberflöte in the afternoon. I liked Act I, but found Act II dull and fell asleep except for the famous Queen of the Night aria. It was good to see a production at the Met, but this probably isn't my favorite Mozart opera. B

Le nozze di Figaro (November 2007)
Saturday evening, Dress Circle B22, Metropolitan Opera, New York

This is one of my favorite operas, so I was expecting a lot. I love the entire score. I don't think the production hasn't changed much over the years, so it seemed pretty similar to the DVD performance that I fell in love with. I think the famed baritone Bryn Terfel played Figaro. I vaguely recall that it was a good performance, but nothing amazing. B+

Il Barbiere di Siviglia (2007)
Metropolitan Opera, New York

I can't remember when I went to see this, so I'm guessing at the date. My friend, a German and an opera fan, got tickets to see it. The production was beautifully staged and I remember a lot of oranges. Peter Mattei played a very dashing Figaro. I had never seen any production of The Barber of Seville, so this was tremendously exciting. The music was, of course, amazing. I didn't find out until later that the Count who spends all his time trying to get the girl in The Barber of Seville ends up becoming an adulterous jerk in The Marriage of Figaro. A

Sunday in the Park with George (January 2008)
Tuesday evening, Orchestra B109, Studio 54, New York (Broadway)

This show is what convinced me to become a theater fan. I had just found out that the London production of SITPWG was transferring to New York and I was so excited that I bought a ticket to see it during the first week of previews. I'd never seen a show up close, and the best seat I could find was second row center during previews for the next day. I charged the ticket on my credit card without much hesitation and ran down to New York to see it the next day. It was the first time I'd done anything like that and it was one of the best decisions I ever made. Normally, it's not the best idea to see a show during previews, but the show had transferred from the West End with the same leads, so it was more like a tech rehearsal. I do remember the mics having nasty feedback at one point during the show, but mostly it went on without a hitch. I vaguely recall that someone in the audience told me a story about how he had been at the original Broadway production of Sweeney Todd in 1979 and that the set almost collapsed on the cast. It's amazing how I meet these people who've lived in New York for their entire lives.

Daniel Evans (George) and Jenna Russell (Dot) were amazing, especially up close. (After that, I always tried to get a seat in the first five rows. Yes, you pay twice as much, but the experience improves exponentially.) Evans was particularly intense. I recall Russell's interpretation of Dot was very different than what I had seen of Bernadette Peters on the DVD recording. Russell played Dot more sweet and bumbling compared to Peters' feisty portrayal. People say that SITPWG is a sobfest and indeed, I found myself crying (probably during "Children and Art"). I'd never been so moved during a theater production. This was also the first time I had ever stagedoored. Daniel Evans didn't really want to sign; he seemed irritated and wanted to run away with his shopping bag. I tried to tell him how much I admired his "intense" acting and he didn't seem particularly impressed by my compliment. But Jenna Russell saw us kids standing in the rain and felt really touched that we waited for her. She was just as sweet as her character.

A couple months later, I took a friend to see it again from the first or second row of the mezzanine. It didn't seem quite as moving the second time, especially from farther back. I had hoped that my friend, an artist, would like the dramatization of a life in art, but she didn't seem to like it that much, though she admitted that the ideas were very "creative." Still, when I think about an ideal night at the theatre, I think of Sondheim and SITPWG. A+

Sweeney Todd (March 2008)
Thursday evening, Orchestra M30, Ahmanson Theatre, Los Angeles (national tour)

This was actually the national tour of Sweeney Todd, but the same production as seen on Broadway. Back then, I had just become a huge Sondheim fan, particularly after I saw the Sweeney Todd stage and concert DVDs. It was too late to see the show on Broadway but the tour was still going around. I convinced my sister to see it with me in LA. Our seats were in the mid-orchestra. We both liked it, though I preferred the original staging from 1979. I thought the John Doyle actor-musician concept was interesting, but too gimicky and distracting. At the national tour, Mrs. Lovett was played by Judy Kaye and Sweeney was played by David Hess. My sister claimed that she saw Steven Spielburg (or maybe it was George Lucas?) in the audience. B+

Gypsy (May 2008)
Tuesday evening, Orchestra D105, St. James Theatre, New York (Broadway)

Following my experience with SITPWG, I knew what it took to get a great ticket to a hot show. I wanted to give the cast sometime to settle into their performances but I didn't want to see them too late when they were worn out. Patti Lupone had very good reviews from City Center and there was a lot of buzz about the transfer of the show to Broadway. The first day Gypsy tickets were available online, I jumped on them and got fourth row seats orchestra center. I chose a Tuesday evening performance on the theory that the audience would be made up of sophisticated New Yorkers (as opposed to tourists). Also, Much later, I found out that May is high season for Broadway shows. It's the best time to see them because it's after the Tony Award nominations are announced and the cast is scrambling to turn in.

I don't remember a lot about the show intellectually, despite the fact that I had watched a couple of the Gypsy films to familiarize myself with the material. The show was just an emotional blur of incredible excitement. When Patti Lupone (Rose) made her entrance, everyone started applauding. I had no idea this kind of thing happened and I learned another new theater tradition that day: entrance applause for a diva. I remember Laura Benanti (Louise) and Leigh Ann Larkin's (June) amazing voices and harmonies. I remember being in awe of Patti Lupone tearing up the letter at the end of ACT I's showstopper "Everything's Coming Up Roses." At intermission, I walked up to the stage and stared at the little scraps of paper, tempted to grab them as a souvenir. After the show, I met Boyd Gaines (Herbie). He was very gracious and down-to-earth. I told him that I had a friend who did a show with him and he asked me what show but I had forgotten. When Patti Lupone came out of the stage door, it was pretty hectic and she only had time to scribble her initials "PL" on my Playbill. I was very thankful nonetheless.

Three days after the show, I emailed Lupone at her fan page. I wrote that she and her supporting cast were brilliant, that I appreciated her signing my Playbill, and that I hoped she might have a performance recorded on Great Performances. She wrote back the next day and told me how much she appreciated my compliments. She said she would love to have the show recorded but it wasn't up to her. And sadly, the show was never recorded. A+

The Visit (May 2008)
Sunday evening, Right E12, Signature Theatre, Arlington, Virginia

Technically, this was not a Broadway show, but it was a tryout which had the potential to transfer to Broadway. Plus, it was written by Kander and Ebb and featured Tony Award winning actors George Hearn and Chita Rivera. I saw it at the Signature Theatre in the DC area when I was visiting my cousin's family. It was my first time seeing something at a first-rate regional theater in a small venue (about 300 seats) -- which was very cool. Unfortunately, I just didn't really like the musical. It was adapted from a play and I felt like the music didn't add much. It should have stayed a play. I was surprised by how informal things are at a regional show. My cousin and I met a woman who was the wife of one of the actors. The actors just came out into the lobby after the show (none of the crazy stagedooring I was used to at a Broadway production). I got George Hearn's signature and made the mistake of complimenting him on his work in Sweeney Todd. His response was "this show is good, too." Oops. I guess I won't be making that social slipup again. B

Rent (August 2008)
Sunday matinee, Center mezzanine A108, Nederlander Theatre, New York (Broadway)

I caught a Sunday matinee performance of Rent, the month before it closed on Broadway. Will Chase (as Roger) and Eden Espinosa (as Maureen) were in it, but obviously they didn't make much of an impression because I didn't even know until I looked at my records today. All I remember is that the music was really loud and I felt like I could have spent my time and money better. It probably didn't help that Rent seems so dated now. C

In the Heights (November 2008)
Sunday matinee, Front mezzanine B108, Richard Rodgers Theatre, New York (Broadway)

I got caught up in the Tony hype for In the Heights especially after I saw the clip of the recording studio performance of "96,000." I guess there was so much buzz that it was hard to find good seats. Plus, I made plans to see it with my friend, who wasn't going home to New York until the fall. So I got tickets for November, which in retrospect, was a bad idea. The cast seemed tired by then and it didn't help that we weren't sitting that close. Maybe they were tired because it was a Sunday matinee. Still, I was glad that we saw most of the original cast including Lin-Manuel Miranda (writer and star of the musical), Mandy Gonzalez (an awesome belter), Christopher Jackson, Robin de Jesús (Tony nominee), and Priscilla Lopez (original cast member of A Chorus Line). Karen Olivo had moved on to West Side Story. I thought my friend who like the modern score and the rap songs, but she didn't seem impressed. Now I know that musical theater's version of contemporary music (pop, rock, rap, etc) is not the same. Another failed attempt to show a friend a good time at a Broadway musical. B

August: Osage County (February 2009)
Wednesday matinee, Orchestra D106, Music Box Theatre, New York (Broadway)

This was my first Broadway play and not a good introduction. As far as I could tell, it was a play about crazy people who were completely unrelatable. There were too many characters. It's a bad sign if I sit in the front and still dislike the work. And this won the Pulitzer? I was also kind of disappointed to get the understudy for the lead role of Violet. Actually, she was very good, but I learned not to get matinee tickets because there'a a significant probability of getting the understudy. C

Mendelssohn and Mahler, LA Philharmonic (March 2009)
Sunday evening, Balcony C138, Walt Disney Concert Hall, Los Angeles

I went to see this concert with my sister. I didn't know anything about Mendelssohn or Mahler symphonies but they had a pre-concert talk to explain it to us. I had no idea that that are Mahler fanatics. The performance was pretty awesome and I was exposed to music I wouldn't normally listen to. Another plus was getting to see the Walt Disney Concert Hall, which has fantastic acoustics and amazing architecture. We took the architecture tour before the concert.

Unless I go see some hip musical, I tend to see older people at the theater. But that did not prepare me for a crowd who was all 60+ at the symphony. I was really shocked. If this is what it's like in LA with a top-10 symphony, I can't imagine that orchestras are going to survive much longer. It's truly frightening. A

Wagner's Ring Cycle (May 2009)
Monday/Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday evening, Family Circle standing room, Metropolitan Opera, New York

This was the opera experience of my life. After attending the Ring Cycle at the Met, it's okay if I never see another opera again. The friends I made at the rush line earlier for Don Giovanni told me how to get rush tickets for the Ring Cycle. I took the earliest train, which left at 4:11 am, getting into Manhattan at 5:47 am. From there, I took the subway to Lincoln Center and went to a place underground where a woman took my name to save my place. Then I went to a diner to eat breakfast and came back to get in line around 8 am. The box office opened at 10 am and I think I got my tickets before 11 am. What a steal, standing room tickets to see four Wagner operas for $100. It was the first time I had done standing room at the Met and I really liked it. Yes, I was at the top of the house as far back as you can go, but the sound was great, I could see everything and use my binoculars for closeups. Plus, what I hated about orchestra seat rush was that you had to wait for hours. For standing room rush, you just show up when the box office opens. There are also standing room tickets for the back of the orchestra section, but I wouldn't get those because the top half of the set is cut off from view. It wouldn't be fun to miss the rainbow bridge!

The Ring Cycle is considered the benchmark for a great opera company and I can see why. The insane, strenuous singing, the elaborate sets, enormous orchestra. I started to wonder if Siegfried ever left the stage and I noticed four harps in the pit. The most surprising experience I've ever had at the theater was during the finale of Götterdämmerung, when there are two set changes within five minutes. It was like the set just slammed onto the stage. I think my favorite was Die Valkürie, 'cause women warriors are cool. But Siegfried was also awesome, particularly the ringing hammer that is incorporated into the score. This Ring Cycle was particularly special because it was the last performance of the old Met production from the 1980s. Europeans really like it because it uses traditional staging and costumes. The new production (full of high-tech special effects) has gotten mixed reviews.

Some memories: 1) A European woman who hit me for talking on the cellphone during intermission. 2) A young Asian woman who I met in standing room. She asked me what I thought to the performance. I said I really liked Die Valkürie because I finally saw a strong woman character in the opera. She told me that unfortunately, this changes in the later operas, Siegfried and Götterdämmerung. I also told her that I was disappointed that I didn't like Don Giovanni as a character. 3) A woman gave me her ticket to sit in the family circle. I tried to refuse it at first because I was quite happy in standing room, but she insisted and I accepted. I promptly fell asleep in that seat. Another reason to do standing room. A+

Don Giovanni (2009)
Family Circle, Metropolitan Opera, New York

This was the first Met opera I rushed. I heard about the Varis rush tickets which allow you get really nice orchestra seats. To be safe, I got to Lincoln Center around noon. The tickets aren't sold until around 5 pm, so that's a lot of waiting. Everyone in line seemed to be a die-hard opera fan and they gossiped about things like men lusting over Renée Fleming. One woman was reading a copy of the Opera News. The people were impressed that a young person like me came so early to rush and they were really nice and gave me tips about rushing. I can't remember what I did to pass the time, but I was prepared with a folding chair.

Unfortunately, the waiting made me so tired that despite getting the coveted rush ticket (I also got an extra for my aunt), I fell asleep during the performance. Don Giovanni is supposed to one of the best operas ever written. But I have no way to judge. The parts I did see I didn't really enjoy, maybe because Don Giovanni himself is a pretty nasty character.

Despite my fatigue, I met some really cool people including an older man who lived out near Stamford. He claimed that he came to the opera to escape his mother -- pretty amusing. no grade (since I fell asleep)

Wicked (2009)
Gershwin Theatre, New York (Broadway)

I can't even find my Playbill for this show. That bad, huh. Wicked seemed like the obligatory hit show I need to see at least once. I could never find good seats, but then the recession hit and I was able to score fourth row. Yes, it had big impressive sets, but other than that, I didn't find it particularly compelling. I never connect with or enjoy teen "high school" stories. The songs weren't that great, and the characters weren't well-developed, more like placeholders for teenage angst. C-

A Gala Evening with Kristin Chenoweth (May 2009)
Monday evening, Mezzanine B215, New York City Center

Technically, this was not a Broadway show. It was a concert at the New York City Center. I'm a great admirer of Kristin Chenoweth and wanted to see her. It was a good show and she did some of the songs I saw in the video of her concert with the Boston Pops. Unfortunately, the acoustics at New York City Center suck. Kristin loves her fans, so she came out to sign afterwards. I snickered a bit when a young girl complained that she sang too much "old" stuff and nothing contemporary like from Wicked. I was the last one to get my program signed. I was grateful that Kristin signed her full name. B

West Side Story (May 2009)
Tuesday matinee, Orchestra B116, New York (Broadway)

Another Tuesday matinee. I sense a pattern here: easier to get tickets for Tuesday night than any other night of the week. I didn't buy these tickets myself. My friend who lives in Manhattan dropped by the box office and they were able to find these awesome seats near the front. So my friend (finally a theatre-goer) and I went to see it. It was impressive to see real dance in a musical. It made us realize how much we missed it. I guess if musical theatre is supposed to be a dying art, dance must be in even worse straits. The leads, Josefina Scaglione (Maria) and Matt Cavenaugh (Tony), were good but I don't recall them being remarkable. Karen Olivo (Anita) had great energy and looked fantastic in her purple dress. No surprise that she later won a Tony Award for best supporting actress in a musical. When Olivo came out for the curtain call, we noticed that she had put on the purple dress again. My friend and I remarked, "She really likes that dress, doesn't she?" The production was also notable for using Spanish lyrics in some songs. All in all, a satisfying night of theater. A

Twelfth Night (July 2009)
Saturday evening, Section J Row U Seat 601, Delacorte Theater, Central Park, New York

Ah, this was my first experience of Shakespeare in the Park, a summertime New Yorker tradition. I think Twelfth Night is considered Shakespeare's most popular comedy. Some notable members of the cast: Anne Hathaway (as Viola), Raul Esparza (as Orsino), and Audra McDonald (as Olivia). Anne Hathaway, the A-list movie star, was probably the biggest attraction and Ben Brantley's rave reviews probably also gave the production a huge boost.

I had been thinking about going to see it, but like all Public Theater Shakespeare in the Park productions, you need to line up for tickets the day of the performance. Finally, the last week rolled around, my friend's mom was in town. So I decided to go for it and line up for tickets. At the beginning of the run, you needed to line up at 6 am. Now, at the end, people were reportedly camping overnight on the street. I prepared by bringing a folding chair and my Nintendo DS Lite. That night, I checked Craiglist and saw that someone mentioned their campers were in line at 11 pm to get tickets. I thought "crap!" and immediately got on the subway. Unfortunately, I left after midnight so it was tricky getting to Central Park (subway runs much less frequently after 12 am). I finally got in line around 1 am, on the street outside Central Park. People were clearly more prepared than I. They brought tents, sleeping bags, games, musical instruments, etc. Then there were people like this Indian guy who showed up with nothing except a book and slept on the concrete sidewalk. Sometime around 6 am, they moved the entire line inside the park. Tickets were handed out around noon. Despite being in line for almost 12 hours, I didn't even get a real ticket, but a standby voucher. I came back about a half hour before the performance to see if I got the standby tickets and fortunately I got them! One for me and one for my friend's mom.

As for the performance itself, it was fantastic and kudos to the sound engineers at Delacorte Theater for the best sound I've ever experienced at the theater. My friend's mom had a blast, I had an adventure, and we both had memories to cherish. A+

Promises, Promises (May 2010)
Tuesday evening, Orchestra E109, Broadway Theatre, New York (Broadway)

I went to this show, solely to see Kristin Chenoweth. It was a huge disappointment. Chenoweth (who played Fran) was so skinny that I was concerned for her health. The music was pretty dull, not my kind of thing at least. Sean Hayes (a TV star who played Chuck Baxter) was good, but I'm not really a comedy person, so his slapstick was lost on me. Promises, Promises seemed so dated. Since when is suicide funny? My unhappiness with this show drove me away from the theater for a while. C+

Come Fly Away (June 2010)
Friday evening, Orchestra M4, Marquis Theatre, New York (Broadway)

My sister was visiting for a week, so I had a pretty restricted window to get tickets. Hence the unusual Friday night time. Since my sister loves dance, we went to a bunch of dance shows. The first was Twyla Tharp's Come Fly Away. I enjoyed the Sinatra music and the dance was pretty good. I'm not super into dance, so it didn't blow me away. Still, a good night. B+

By Popular Demand, Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater (June 2010)
Saturday matinee, Orchestra D16, Howard Gilman Opera House, Brooklyn

I tried to squeeze in one more dance show for my sister and I found out about a distinguished New York dance troupe by the name of Alvin Ailey. This was my first time seeing a show in Brooklyn. There was a lot of variety in the dances, and I found it more interesting than Twyla Tharp's choreography in Come Fly Away. I had a good time, despite knowing nothing about dance. At one point, I fell asleep despite the loud music, but that was due to fatigue and not boredom. A-

Billy Elliot (June 2010)
Sunday evening, Orchestra N114, Imperial Theatre, New York (Broadway)

My sister loves Billy Elliot, so I got tickets for us to see it. There really weren't any great seats. I even went to the box office to see if there was something that hadn't popped up on Ticketmaster, but to no avail. The music was largely forgettable, the comedy was lame, a couple scenes were offputting, and the dance was cool, but there wasn't enough of it. I think my sister had a good time though. C+

Carmen (November 2010)
Wednesday evening, Family Circle B114, Metropolitan Opera, New York

I specifically bought this ticket to see the acclaimed performance of Elina Garanca. She was as great as advertised. After seeing this production, I have to put Carmen in my pantheon of favorite stand-alone operas along with The Marriage of Figaro and Tannhäuser. Yay, a strong woman role and more importantly, one of two great roles for mezzo-sopranos (I feel really sorry for them). Carmen is one of the few roles where strong acting really sparkles. A

Follies (October 2011)
Tuesday evening, Orchestra B107, Marquis Theatre, New York (Broadway)

At this point, I was sort of "Sondheimed out," but Follies is almost never put on, much less on Broadway. I skipped seeing A Little Night Music, but I dragged myself to see Follies. The day before I went to the library to get the Follies concert documentary and libretto and listened to the songs on Rhapsody in a furious cram session. I was familiar with a few songs from the Sondheim 80th birthday concert like "Losing My Mind" and "Could I Leave You?"

The cast was a distinguished group including Broadway legend Bernadette Peters (Sally), Jan Maxwell (Phyllis), Danny Burstein (Buddy), and Ron Raines (Ben). Still, I wasn't sure what to expect. The critics were relatively positive about the cast in DC, so that was a good sign. Follies was fun, but I understand now why people say it has a weak book. It felt like we were lurching from cabaret solo to cabaret solo. Janye Houdyshell gave a rousing, enthusiastic rendition of "Broadway Baby." Terri White led the ensemble in an energetic delivery of "Who's That Woman?" I wasn't too keen on Elaine Paige's diva-ish "I'm Still Here." Peters and Raines were good as the Stone couple, but I wasn't crazy about them. Peters sang "Losing My Mind" in tears, which wasn't to my taste, though a valid acting decision. My favorite was Danny Burstein. I could see the sweat on his face as he did the frantic "Buddy's Blues" number. Jan Maxwell was very good, but I already saw Donna Murphy in video clips of the same role, so that spoiled it for me. One thing I liked was the staging, particularly the spectacular colorful sets in Act II. That's really something you can only see on Broadway since Follies is so expensive to put on.

I took my time getting to the stage door, but I was able to catch Terri White and compliment her on the fun ensemble number she led. I also got Bernadette Peter's autograph, but I didn't get to say anything to her since she was busy talking to a friend. The other cast members fled out a different entrance or left early, so that was a bummer not to catch Danny Burstein or some of the other performers. Despite a few disappointments, it was a rare treat to see Follies and Bernadette Peters, so I have to give the night high marks. A

Final tally: 12 Broadway shows, 1 Shakespeare in the Park show at Public Theater, 2 non-Broadway New York shows, 1 Broadway show on national tour, 1 regional show, 9 operas, and 1 symphony concert. A total of 27 shows in 6 years. Not included a couple Shakespeare plays I saw in the 3 years prior.

Favorite actor-singers

Soprano

• Kristin Chenoweth - great comic actor, operatically trained voice which makes everything sound easy, transitions effortlessly between pop/jazz/opera/legit musical theatre
• Victoria Clark - has such a sweetness and optimism in her mannerisms and singing
• Audra McDonald - has a voice to die for and four Tonys to prove her acting prowess, love her muscular arms
• Kelli O'Hara - classically beautiful soprano, exudes class and professionalism
• Marin Mazzie - beautiful, classically-trained voice with impeccable technique, fantastic dramatic actor (especially Sondheim), does my favorite rendition of "Losing My Mind"
• Megan Hilty - just getting familiar with her, but she's great on Smash

Soprano/mezzo-soprano

• Alice Ripley - known for her unique voice and intense belt (check out her belt face), probably the most versatile performer on this list, equally comfortable singing legit/pop/rock and doing comedy or drama, gives my all-time favorite performance in next to normal
• Jenna Russell - great actor, saw her in Sunday in the Park with George

Tenor

• Raúl Esparza - unique, rich voice, great acting in Company
• Brian d'Arcy James - fantastic, rich voice with impeccable technique (watch his mouth when he sings "I've Been"), touching performance in next to normal

Baritone

• George Hearn - Mr. Sweeney Todd!, near-operatic, classically trained booming voice

Actor-singer pretty much means musical theatre, though Carmen is a fine operatic acting role. I notice a lot of sopranos on my list. Maybe I like that voice type, because all the contemporary music is squashed into the alto-tenor range. Musical theatre is getting that way, too. It seems like all the guys sing tenor and all the women sing mezzo-soprano. Musical theatre composers: please write more roles for baritones and sopranos (I mean legit soprano roles, not sopranos singing low)! Altos and basses, too! We want variety in our singing.

All about next to normal

I've become obsessed with the musical next to normal. The composer is Tom Kitt and the lyricist/book writer is Brian Yorkey.

History of the work

Kitt and Yorkey met as undergraduates at Columbia University. In 1998, they presented a 10-minute workshop piece called Feeling Electric. After a couple readings (2002), many workshops (2005, 2006, 2007), and the steadfast backing of producer David Stone, the title of the show was changed to next to normal and was produced off-Broadway at Second Stage Theatre during early 2008. The reviews were mixed, so the producers took the show to Arena Stage in DC, where Kitt, Yorkey, and the creative team tinkered with it until it was deemed ready. Then it premiered on Broadway in April 2009. That only took 10 years (!).

What it's about

The plot of next to normal has some clever twists, so without giving anything away, I would say that it's the story of a generic suburban American family trying to cope with loss and crisis. In the center of it all is the mother, Diana, who can't take care of herself much less her husband Dan, 17-year old son Gabe, and 16-year old daughter Natalie. It turns out that Diana has recurrent manic episodes and delusions, which the doctors think might be bipolar disorder, but they're not sure.

It's easy to call next to normal the musical about the bipolar mother, but that's a huge injustice. There are deeper issues like Diana and Dan's past, and Dan's habit of suppressing bad feelings and hoping that doctors will fix everything. Natalie is frustrated about having a "crazy" mother who monopolizes the attention of the family (namely Dan) and makes Natalie feel "invisible." The fact that Diana "might" be bipolar is very flashy and provocative, allowing for some interesting scenes. But it just happens to be that Diana is mentally ill. She could have had some other illness or be a very difficult person, and many of the same family issues would have come up.

I missed the Broadway production (yeah, stupid me). I've always been a very conservative theatre goer. I tend to see the "classics" like Gypsy and Sunday in the Park with George. I'm pretty sure I heard about next to normal in the New York Times but paid no attention. I didn't think that anyone could do a musical about mental illness. Not that it's really about mental illness, but many people say that. To remind you again, that's wrong!!!

Discussion of the work

With the help of the libretto, cast album, videos, clips, reviews and interviews, I've pieced together a sense of what the stage production must have been like. I understand why people love next to normal. It's (1) an original musical with original music and original story, (2) the book [1] is well-written, challenging, and addresses controversial, relevant issues, (3) the staging is very clever, (4) the music and lyrics are excellent, and (5) the story is personal.

Originality

The way people talk about it, there hasn't been any revolutionary work in musical theatre since Sondheim, his last real success being Into the Woods in 1987. There have been some baby steps moving musical theatre in a more modern direction. Rent (1996) showed that you could use "rock-style" music in a contemporary setting. Spring Awakening (2006) had beautiful alternative rock score that integrated well with a story about teenagers coming of age. As wonderful as Rent and Spring Awakening are, their success derives from celebrating teenage angst and might I say, self-absorption. (Avenue Q has similar themes.) This is clear when you look at the fanbase, which is all pretty much between 12 and 30.

I guess this is better than the "sentimental" and "light-weight" reputation of the Golden Age musicals [2]. All the musicals I've mentioned [3] have barely kept Broadway semi-relevant in an age dominated by Hollywood and internet. Mostly the other musicals are filler -- jukebox musicals like Jersey Boys, productions based on film/TV like Spamalot and Shrek, and revivals. It's wonderful that most of Sondheim's best work has been revived in the last decade, but isn't that a sign that nothing has come along to replace this guy?

What makes next to normal special is that it has both original music and an original story. It is not based on a TV show, movie, play, or book. The story was written from scratch. Moreover, its main theme is not teenage angst (though there is a little bit of that) but timeless, universal issues like grief, spouses who have difficulty communicating, or a daughter who feels ignored and terrified that she'll turn into her mother. Truly a musical you can bring the whole family to!

Themes and book

The discussion of mental illness gives the work a timely relevance and contemporary setting. The musical brings up questions like how should mental illness be treated and how do people deal with their mental illness when modern medicine fails or is unsatisfying? The title of the show provokes some interesting thoughts. What does it mean to be normal? Maybe we can find the bright side of people who are a little "different." Many bipolar people are extraordinarily creative. Is it important to be normal or to reach some ideal? Maybe "next to normal" is good enough. Perhaps we can appreciate what we have and the people who love us even if they aren't quite "normal."

next to normal is well-characterized as an intense dramatic play set to music. If you read the book (libretto) without listening to the music, you'll see that the material is on-par with any straight play. The musical is mostly sung-through which makes the music like a tidal wave pushing you relentlessly through the action. The few non-musical scenes are underscored. The pacing is great -- fast but not too fast. I'm amazed that there are no dull moments in the show. Every scene is interesting. The one exception is the "Song of Forgetting" in Act 2, which as you can tell by the title, was unimaginative. Brian and Tom, what were you thinking? Why would any character sing "sing a song of forgetting" and not just once but multiple times? It seems like a meta-reference, which is not what you want in a realistic musical play.

Back to praise... kudos to Yorkey for the well-done humor in next to normal. The funny things are actually funny and they emerge organically from the characters and their personal situations. For example, some humorous moments arise from Diana's adventures in psychiatric drugs and Natalie's interactions with her boyfriend Henry.

Problems with the book

I am disappointed that the musical feels somewhat anti-medication/anti-ECT and portrays psychiatrists slightly negatively. The writers definitely did their research and attempted to make the portrayal of psychiatry more balanced, but the fact is that there are far more instances where psychiatry is mocked or criticized than advocated. In the ending, it is suggested that Diana stops all medical treatment permanently (she might be continuing talk therapy, it's not clear). There is a point where pain ceases to be educational and is merely pain that prevents you from living your life. Chris Caggiano has similar complaints (though he sounds much more unhappy than me) in his blog review.

Most of my specific complaints are about Act 2. "Light," the show finale, rubs me the wrong way. The constant metaphors of "light" and the cast belting "shine" four times feels borderline religious. The events of Act 2 are dark and ambiguous and not something to celebrate. Broadway musicals suffer from the expectation that the audience must not leave depressed or that there must be a comic scene somewhere, even in the darkest of works [4]. Why not end on some low-key ambiguous dialogue like in Gypsy? Or use a finale song that is not so in-your-face and bright and doesn't sound like a choir at Christmas mass? I think the message of the show is that survival and the acting of moving forward are huge accomplishments in themselves and are not things to be taken lightly. I should say that apparently the writers revised the off-Broadway version of this song to address complaints like mine. I guess it wasn't enough for my satisfaction.

I'm also not entirely happy about using a dramatic conceit (the same thing was done in the Season 1 finale of Homeland). But the payoff was some revealing scenes, most notably about Dan, so it was marginally okay in my book.

This is more minor, but I wasn't a fan of the opening number for Act 2 "Wish I Were Here". It seems like the remnants of the off-Broadway Act 1 finale "Feeling Electric." I felt like Natalie's foray into illicit activities was forced and the act of mother and daughter running around the stage in a trippy haze while lights flash didn't fit the serious tone of the show [5], especially Act 2 which is musically more low-key overall than Act 1.

That said, I've never encountered an (overly?) ambitious musical that didn't have problems. That must be why many musical theatre aficionados consider Gypsy to be the best musical of all-time. It had ambition, but not too much. Writing dramatic musical theatre is incredibly hard, especially in a modern world where people prefer either realism or irony over metaphor in art. Some people might say that it shouldn't be attempted. Obviously, I don't share that opinion, given my life-long love of singing.

Staging

I love the Broadway staging (much of the credit goes to director Michael Greif). The set is sparse -- a few shelves, chairs, a table, a medicine cabinet, and a mock piano. The elaborate part is the three level design with poles. It allows some separation when there are scene with Diana overlapping a scene with another character. I'm not sure about the poles, but they do give the actors some extra options in blocking. It's particularly effective for the character of Gabe who is dancing with the poles and making trouble. There's a fantastic scene during "I'm Alive" where Gabe is on the third level and Diana is at the bottom reaching out towards him.

There are only six characters in the cast and they are on stage almost all the time, except to change clothes. I like how you'll see characters out of the action doing things like Gabe reading a book or Dan cleaning up the house. The blocking is fantastic. The characters move around the stage and go up and down the levels constantly. It feels dynamic and every movement sets up the next one. In general, next to normal is as minimalistic as possible without losing anything -- no fat and all muscle. The work invites intimacy -- the six-person cast, six-person band, and minimalistic staging. It would be fantastic for a small 100-200 seat theatre.

Music

Rent and Spring Awakening showed me how much fun contemporary music can be [6]. I think Spring Awakening might have a better and more creative score than next to normal, but next to normal has the most effective score. Yes, there are some pastiches of folk, rock, Gilbert & Sullivan, and waltzes, but among innovative composers, there is only one Sondheim [7] and the wannabes (Adam Guettel, Jason Robert Brown, etc) haven't come up with any musicals that integrate the music and book well. Plus, Sondheim wrote pastiche scores (Follies, Assassins), too!

I like how Tom Kitt chooses the right style of music for each moment and each character. It's eclectic but it works. Diana is frequently manic and has lots of energy so she has most of the heavy rock numbers [8]. In their key "this is who I am and what I want" songs, Gabe and Natalie sing in a bright rock style which suits their youthful ages. Dan is reserved guy, so he mostly sings moody, lonely ballads.

The two waltzes are wonderfully written and yet completely different aside from the style. The first is a satire and the second is a pivotal emotional scene. The conversations between Natalie and her boyfriend Henry ("Hey #1", "Hey #2", "Hey #3") are low-key, alternative or modern musical theatre [9] style. I took me a while to appreciate these songs, but it's cool to hear songs that are conversational and not "big" or "I want" songs.

My favorite song is "You Don't Know/I Am the One." It's intense, thrilling, and has the most sophisticated and interesting blocking. Diana's tirade really scares me (boy, I'm glad I've never been that depressed), while Dan's angry response makes complete sense to me. I think my personality is probably closest to Dan; I am not Diana jumping on the hospital bed and belting rock songs at the doctor.

Also on my karaoke list, the Gabe and Natalie rock songs "I'm Alive" and "Superboy and the Invisible Girl" (very very fun and showy) as well as Dan's emotionally heavy [10] and touching ballads "I've Been" and "A Light in the Dark." (very very dark and emotional)

Besides "Song of Forgetting", there are two songs I'm lukewarm about. I'm not a huge fan of "I Miss the Mountains," mostly because I don't really like folk music. But I think that's my personal taste. It's a well-done song and there's a nice belt in it, which always makes me happy.

Original Broadway Cast

I should make some remarks about the original Broadway cast (OBC). I didn't see them perform, so I can't really comment on their acting except to say that for the most part, critics and audiences thought they were outstanding. Alice Ripley (Diana) convinced me that singing doesn't always have to be "pretty" (I tend to like the legit, classical style of singing.) and raw, imperfect singing [11] can be beautiful, too, and arguably more interesting than legit singing sometimes. Before I studied (yes, that's the word) next to normal, I had never heard of Ripley (guess I need to brush up on my Broadway knowledge) but she has a reputation for the most gigantic and enthusiastic belt on Broadway [12]. J. Robert Spencer (Dan) has a nice rock voice, but I prefer Brian d'Arcy James' (off-Broadway original and Broadway replacement Dan) strong, expressive baritone for the ballads. Jennifer Damiano (Natalie) and Aaron Tveit (Gabe) sound fantastic. This guy Tveit, how can he be so good looking and have such an amazing voice? What planet does he come from? Adam Chanler-Berat (Henry, Natalie's boyfriend) is absolutely charming, and Louis Hobson (Doctor Fine/Doctor Madden) has a gorgeous, angelic tone to his voice. Despite the small cast, the choral numbers sound much bigger than one would think. Is this some clever sound engineering?

Personal comments

My favorite thing about next to normal is how personal it is. I've been Natalie, Dan, and Diana at various points in time. I understand how they feel and Brian Yorkey's lyrics are spot-on. I feel connected to the story and the characters most of the time (there are a few parts in Act 2 that lose me, but it's minor).

I think Sondheim is fantastic (like everyone else), but I tend to like specific songs. I'm never completely satisfied with his musicals as a whole. next to normal isn't without its flaws, but to me, it's the best musical overall. In the end, that's why we have diversity in art. Hopefully, there is something out there, that speaks to you and resonates for a long time.

Because of next to normal, I've reached a new level in my understanding of theatre. It's inspired me to think about how to play characters in different ways (for example, Marin Mazzie, Ripley's replacement, played Diana very differently) and the importance of making good acting decisions so that the work hangs together as a whole (acting choices for Dan affects how Diana is played; playing one scene one way might be exciting for that scene individually, but not be consistent with other scenes). I understand why English professors love deep plays like Hamlet. I don't think next to normal is Hamlet, but I find that I learn new things on repeated viewings. I understand why theatre nuts get excited about understudies going on a Broadway show -- it's fun to see how a different actor will interpret the role. There are many interesting ways to play Diana, Dan, and Natalie and that separates next to normal from most musicals.

After this ridiculously long post, the only thing left to say is that if there's a production of Next to Normal playing near you, go see it!








[1] The book of a musical is like the equivalent of a movie script or the dialogue and stage directions for a play. Many musicals fail due to a badly written book.

[2] There are some fantastic musicals that are amazing and definitely not "light," for example, Gypsy, West Side Story, South Pacific, and most of Sondheim's work.

[3] I might also add The Lion King, Wicked, and the various British pop operas written by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Claude-Michel Schönberg.

[4] In particular, I think of "The Song of Purple Summer" from Spring Awakening (two main characters died, but we need to make the audience feel okay!) and a very awkward joke about dumb Texans in Sunday in the Park with George.

[5] Jesse Green of New York Magazine has similar comments in an interesting lament about "bombast" on Broadway.

[6] I grew up with one parent who liked oldies and another parent who thought anything but classical music is trash, so my taste through high school was only musicals and classical. I didn't start listening to "contemporary" music until I was 21.

[7] Not that my musical theater knowledge is particularly extensive, but I can think of one more example: Leonard Bernstein's West Side Story.

[8] I feel concerned for whoever plays Diana. Those heavy rock numbers, constant singing, heavy intense scenes, 2 hours on stage -- I wonder if the actress will either shred her voice or collapse.

[9] What I mean by modern musical theatre style is Sondheim and the young guys who look up to him, the before-mentioned Guettel, Jason Robert Brown, etc.

[10] HUGE SPOILER






These songs are sooo heavy. In "I've Been," we see Dan cleaning up the blood from his wife's suicide attempt and squeezing blood out of the towel. In "A Light in the Dark," Dan is trying to persuade his wife to go through with the ECT treatment, believing that it will save her life.





END OF HUGE SPOILER

[11] Though I'm confused sometimes whether Ripley is singing in character voice or if her voice is strained. Supposedly, she told some students at a master class that she bruised a vocal cord back when the show was doing its off-Broadway run and I don't know if she ever fully recovered from that injury.

[12] Someone said she should get an award for "belting your face off." In Side Show, she belts for 45 seconds. Insanity. Also, check out Alice Ripley and Anthony Rapp singing "Take me or leave me" from Rent. More insane singing.

Memorizing literature (musical theater songs) as a hobby

I like to learn musical theater songs, practice them while I'm walking on the street, and commit them to memory, just like people who memorize poetry. It's like my own mp3 player, I can call stuff up on demand ("today I should sing this song"). If it's a particularly thoughtful song, it reminds me of the entire musical work, like quoting a section of a Shakespearean drama. Do people still do this kind of thing? I think of the Chinese schoolchildren who are told to memorize Tang Dynasty poetry. (Some people might not think of musical theater as literature or art, but I do. If you don't agree, go look at some Sondheim musicals.)

Slow TV vs binge TV

What's the best way to watch TV? Getting the DVDs and marathoning dozens of episodes at a time? Watching as the show airs, one episode a week?

I've seen arguments for both. Mary Choi of Wired argues "In praise of binge TV consumption." Over at AV Club, Todd Van der Werff argues "In defense of slow TV."

I find that thriller, plot driven shows are better watched via DVD marathoning. If I had watched Alias as it aired, I would have been incredibly annoyed about the constant cliffhangers in the first season. Densely layered, character driven shows are better watched slowly. I have no discipline, so it's a lot easier for me to watch as the show airs. I'm not the kind of person who given a stack of DVDs, can limit myself to watching one episode per day.

When I blitz through a show on DVD, I miss a lot of details and it feels like a blur. That's no big deal if it's a mediocre show, but not so great if it was a good show that I actually wanted to delve into. (The problem with mediocre shows is that finishing them becomes a tedious chore.) Binging is frequently unsatisfying, in the same way I feel about gorging on a huge bag of popcorn. Not to mention the unhealthy aspects of watching TV all hours of the day, neglecting hygiene, and forgetting to eat.

The higher quality the show, the more I want to watch slowly. I still have fond memories of watching Battlestar Galactica as it aired (with the exception of Season 1 which I had to catch up with on DVD). I would run down to the basement TV room to catch episodes on Sunday nights. I remember being inspired by the episode "Flight of the Phoenix" -- at how people could find moments of heightened joy in the darkest situations.

Currently, I've been watching Homeland as it airs. I would usually make a first pass on each episode. This would satisfy my need to find out what happened next and I would register the highest emotions on the first pass. (This makes me think of how shocked I was to watch Carrie's manic episode in "The Vest" on my first viewing.) I would read the responses from TV critics, read audience comments, and peruse conversations on forums. People would mention details I'd missed. Then I'd go back watch the episode a second time. The second pass would be my detail sweep. Then I'd wait for the next episode and repeat the process. I wouldn't normally go to all this effort, only for a special show. It's a lot of work, but if it's a great show, I learn a lot. In this way, TV watching becomes a rich experience and not just a trivial diversion.

Thought of the day: Why the head needs the heart and vice versa

It's a cliche in film and TV: the cerebral character who doesn't seem to believe in emotions. Or less common, the wild reckless character who never stops to think. I think in situations that seem to demand an overwhelmingly intellectual response, feelings act as a good filter to weed out information. Conversely, when there are a million emotions running through your head, it's a good idea to reach for your brain and trust what it tells you. Not that any of this is new, but I thought I'd share my way of saying it.

Notes on transitions/pivots in hockey

Forward to backward

1. Glide forward on both skates.
2. Shift your weight to the front of your skates.
3. Turn your upper body and hips approximately 90 degrees.
4. Shift your weight to the back of your skates.
5. (advanced) Do a backwards crossover.
6. Skate backwards. 

Can be done on a curve or on a straight line.

Keep your body low and your feet wide. Keep your head up! That will ensure that your body is square.

The key is the part where you turn your upper body and hips. This does most of the work. Don't try to turn your feet. Turn your upper body and hips first, and your feet will follow. As your turn your body, keep your body square -- your shoulders should be level, your body weight centered over your skates. You shouldn't be leaning backwards or forwards or dropping one shoulder.

Concentrate on shifting/transfering your momentum from forward to backward without losing speed. The pivot is similar to the pivot in the hockey stop, but you don't want to do the stopping part! Ideally, you want to accelerate out of the transition.

Backward to forward

1. Glide backwards on the back inside edge of one skate, on an arc. Keep gliding until your body faces 90 degrees to your original direction of travel.
2. Open up your hips and hold the other skate in front of you and off the ice.
3. Now turn your upper body and hips towards the skate that is off the ice. Your body should be an open, V-shaped position.
4. Shift your weight to the other skate. Put that skate down on its back inside edge.
5. Skate forward. 

Can be done on a curve or on a straight line.

Keep your body low and your feet wide. When you are gliding on the back inside edge, keep your feet close together so you can really put your weight on the back inside edge.

Remember to keep your head up!

Imagine that your feet are skating on an arc. When you do the backward to forward transition, your skates need to be on a deep inside edge.

Don't change feet too early. Keep gliding (for what seems like a long time) until your body faces 90 degrees to the original direction of travel. Then rotate your upper body and hips, not before.

Applications

In game situations, transitions are used so that you always face the puck and never turn your back on the play.

Forwards might use transitions when going down low on the breakout. This way they don't turn their back on the puck when making themselves available for the defenseman to pass to.

Defensemen probably use transitions the most.

1. They might be skating forward with the puck. They can't see a good play to make, so they buy some time by transitioning to backwards.
2. Your team is attacking and you skate forward into the offensive zone to help out. But then your team loses possession of the puck and you need to switch back to defense. So then you do a transition and skate backwards to cover the defensive zone.
3. You are skating backwards playing defense against a forward. Then you use the backward to forward transition to cut off the attack and push the forward towards the boards.

Drills

1. Do transitions around a pair of cones.
2. Do transitions around your own stick.
3. Do transitions on a slalom style course. 
4. Have the defenseman skate forward towards an attacker, then transition from forward to backward and play defense against the attacker.
5. Have the defenseman skate backwards while an attacker skates forwards. When the attacker gets close, the defenseman cuts off the attacker using the backward to forward transition and pushes the attacker towards the boards

References

Robby Glantz Secrets of Hockey Speed, Vol 1 - "Change of direction", 0:00
Laura Stamm - "Quick turns and transitions", 1:26

Television in the 21st century

I'm amazed by how artistic television has become in the last decade. Critics say that this trend started with HBO's The Sopranos in 1999. This kind of television, with its heavy serialization, deep characterization, and overarching themes, has found its niche on cable TV, especially on HBO, Showtime, AMC, and FX. (There aren't as many network shows of this kind; the outstanding examples are Lost and 24.)

New York Times film critic A. O. Scott argued that TV is just as good as film now and there is really no reason why films should be higher in the pecking order. (Unfortunately, film's prestige still lingers. Compare the coverage of the Oscars to the Emmys.) Some even think that TV is better than film now! Patrick Meaney wrote a very long piece citing the advantages of the TV format over the two-hour film. He pointed out that the length of the TV series allows more creative freedom and time to explore characters. On a TV series, with good material, an actor can showcase his/her diversity and range. More and more big name film actors are jumping into TV. Here's a sampling: Martin Sheen (West Wing), Alec Baldwin (30 Rock), Sally Field (Brothers and Sisters), Glenn Close (Damages), Claire Danes (Homeland). Recently, Dustin Hoffman signed on for HBO's Luck. He told the press that

You cannot get a shot at doing your best work in the studio system. There's committees, there's meetings, they're on the set ... they get involved in a quasi -- at least I think it is -- creative way. They buck heads with people they shouldn't be bucking heads with. And with HBO, once they give a go, there is no committee, there's no meetings, these guys are allowed to try to do their best work and they then give it to us.

Famous film directors are getting into TV, too. Martin Scorsese directed the pilot for Boardwalk Empire and Michael Mann is directing and producing Luck.

The biggest changes have come for writers and their audiences. If anyone is happy about the state of television, it's got to be the writers. Can you name any film script writers? In television, the showrunner (head writer) is truly the boss of everything and (provided that the network doesn't interfere) can realize his/her creative vision. The public has heard of David Chase (The Sopranos), David Simon (The Wire, Treme), Ron Moore (Battlestar Galactica), and the nerd favorite Joss Whedon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse). Many playwrights are writing for television, to gain experience (and to put bread on the table, so they can go back to the theatre).

The audience has become a greater, more vocal participant in television. Fans gather on forums to extol the virtues of actors, or trash showrunners for clumsy plotting. By its nature, Serial drama invites discussion and analysis. TV criticism websites have proliferated, for instance, Television Without Pity, AV Club, and HitFix. (Again, TV criticism is still lower status than film criticism, but hopefully that will change.) There are wikis to keep track of complicated plot threads and numerous characters. Writers monitor forums and occasionally go onto boards to personally talk with fans. On learning the audience's reaction, they can adjust the series before the fans revolt. (Some crazy fans have actually become a nuisance for showrunners and networks -- demanding changes as if they own the show.)

Personally, I enjoy watching a great TV series unfold. Every week, I watch an episode, read the critic reviews, and participate in forums. It's a heavy investment of time, but well worth it, for the enrichening experience. I learn so much about the human condition (e.g. endurance in Battlestar Galactica), archane topics (e.g. horse racing in Luck), acting (Claire Danes in Homeland), and writing.

The massive serialization and strong audience participation remind me of the Victorian novel. Back then, authors like Charles Dickens and Thomas Hardy wrote in installments. It's hard to remember this, since we read these works as complete (and very thick) novels in our literature classes. Writing in installments meant that the lower classes could afford fiction and that writers had to keep their readers interested. In Dickens's Great Expectations, there's a line of dialogue where one character brings up another character out of the blue in the dialogue. My high school English teacher explained that the reason was so the reader wouldn't forget the named character later. Supposedly, Thomas Hardy inspired the term "cliffhanger"! Nowadays, the cliffhanger is a standard trope in modern television. Large ensemble casts and intricately woven plot threads in TV series like Battlestar Galactica remind me of my favorite novel, George Eliot's Middlemarch (which was also serialized).  The serial television drama really is the 21st century's version of the Victorian novel.

TV isn't the end of the story. New players are emerging in this media game. Felicia Day stars in and produces The Guild, a web series about gamers fully funded by donations. Netflix just committed $100+ million dollars to two seasons of a Kevin Spacey drama without even seeing a pilot. YouTube is trying to become more than just a streaming video site and commissioning several original series.

The only danger now is that we'll have so much good material to watch that the audience will splinter into niches. I actually know a substantial number of people who've watched Battlestar Galactica or The Wire. That's because there were only a few shows of that caliber at the time. It's a little like how everyone watched Walter Cronkite because there weren't any alternatives. In the future, there may be so many good TV shows that everyone will watch their own thing or be desperately trying to catch up on the huge list of "classics." (Exactly the situation we have with books.) The last decade of television has proven that there is no shortage of talented writers, actors, and crew. I look forward to see where we go next.

Thought of the day: Character is universal, plot is not

I realized today why the great actors do character driven stories.  It's because

Character is universal, plot is not.

All creative people strive to create something lasting that says something universal about the human condition or nature.  In the end, no one cares about tedious plot details.  Enough with the constant exposition and twists.  It's not that interesting.  Mysteries are so arbitrary; the audience is at the mercy of the writer.  That's why I get sick of TV shows like Lost, 24, and (the later seasons of) Alias.

OK, you need some plot, but just enough to make the story and characters work.

Why I love Homeland

I've been watching Homeland, a new TV show on the cable channel Showtime. I love it -- it's challenging, surprising, expertly written, and beautifully acted. I like all kinds of stories, but my favorite by far is the heavy-hitting, intense, raw, gritty drama. I haven't been this excited about a show since Battlestar Galactica.

Homeland is an espionage drama and a psychological thriller. The main character and protagonist is CIA officer Carrie Mathison (Claire Danes), an incredibly intelligent, driven, compulsive woman who is kind of crazy. She's been diagnosed with a "mood disorder." She's devoted her life to fighting terrorism and she becomes obsessed with the idea that an American POW, Nicholas Brody (Damian Lewis), is a terrorist. Her closest ally is her mentor Saul Berenson (Mandy Patinkin), who cares deeply about her and is constantly covering for her. When Brody is rescued from the Middle East, she's the only one who thinks he's been turned and she tries to (illegally) gather evidence to prove it.

I've never seen a show where the main characters are so unpredictable. Damn, it's exciting. Brody and Carrie are both complete wildcards. Brody is going crazy following eight years of captivity and trying to adjust to civilian life. Is he really a terrorist? Carrie is obsessed and isolated (by choice). She's a maverick spy who enjoys flirting with danger. As a viewer, my jaw is hanging open half the time and I'm thinking "what the... ?"

I've enjoyed every single character, even the minor ones. The show has the patience to spend time letting us get to know the characters as opposed to plot, plot, plot (the kind of writing I hate). Come on TV writers, character is universal, plot is not. I'm glad Homeland appreciate this. I savor the dialogue. The CIA people talk in a smart and crisp mannerbenefitingtheir education and occupation; Brody's family sound less polished as expected (they are middle class), but authentic. I like the scenes without dialogue even better. Brody cowering in a corner, Carrie watching him on video surveillance with headphones on, Carrie driving to work alone, Saul staying late at the office and digging through the refrigerator. All of it is fascinating in the context of this show. We really need less talking on TV.

The title Homeland is an interesting one. On the surface, it sounds like a reference to the Department of Homeland Security, even though technically the CIA is part of the State Department. Another way to interpret is that all the main characters are terribly isolated and lonely, unable to connect with other human beings -- they are never "at home" with themselves. There are so many scenes where people are alone, particularly Brody and Carrie.

The first seven episodes were just dynamite and absolutely riveting. Episodes 8 and 9 were good, but not stellar. Well, I guess the writers can't keep hitting home runs. Warning: spoilers ahead. If you haven't seen the show, don't read the rest of this post. Really, don't read further. You're losing out on all the fun.

SPOILERS BELOW
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

There are so many great moments that it would take forever to list them all.

• The CIA tech Virgil confronts Carrie with evidence of her mental condition.
• Carrie (lamely) trying to seduce Saul to avoid ending her career with the CIA.
• Carrie melting down in the closet.
• Carrie starting to mirror Brody: she wakes up when he wakes up from a nightmare, she brushes her teeth while lying on the coach watching Brody lie on the coach watching TV
• Brody casually leaving the house and walking in a mall after punching out a reporter.
• Brody opening the garage door a crack and conducting Muslim prayer.
• Saul unleashing his rage on Carrie because she lied to him about the illegalsurveillanceand then tried to seduce him after he found out.
• Virgil cracking witty remarks about the surveillance footage.
• Carrie flirting with her boss, David. Yeah, she's not manic and depressed all the time!
• Carrie gleefully predicting what order Brody puts his uniform on.
• Carrie, Virgil, and Virgil's brother taking down the surveillance while the Brody family is at church singing a hymn. Carrie looks awed at finally being able to step into the house and then of course, she starts frantically looking through all of Brody's belongings.
• Carrie and Brody meeting for the first time.
• Carrie chewing out Saul and calling him a pussy, then Saul throwing her out of his house.
• Carrie brashly telling Saul that they're going to catch Brody lying on the polygraph and that she'll bet "everything" she's got -- even her jazz CD signed by Thelonius himself.
• Carrie tearfully escaping to her sister's house and getting into bed with her nieces.
• Carrie and Brody having wild parking lot sex.
• Carrie antagonizing white supremacists in a bar.
• Carrie and Brody having emotionally raw, romantic sex.
• Confrontation between Carrie and Brody at the cabin.

When I watched the pilot, I was blown away by the character Carrie Mathison and Claire Danes's performance. Wearing an engagement ring to scare off guys interested in relationships? Check. Giving herself a whore bath? Check. Trying to seduce her mentor? Check. Melting down in the closet? Check. After I saw the pilot, I felt like I had to know more about this character. How does she manage to live like this and why?

I'm riveted by Carrie and Danes's portrayal of her. Carrie Mathison is the finest female TV character I've seen. So complicated, compelling, and yet likable. If you know of a better character, I want to see it. I feel deeply connected to this character. She's so smart and yet so damaged. I have so many conflicting emotions about her. I love how brash and daring Carrie is. But it's not the kind of brashness where someone shows off. She just knows that she's really smart. It's the kind of charismatic confidence that flirts on the edge of arrogance. Women are socially pressured to be compliant; Carrie's unapologetic attitude is refreshing. She loves her job because of the job itself and not because a family member tragically died in 9/11. (I hate it when writers soften up a strong female character by coming upwithsomething like "oh, she became a police officer because her mom was murdered." As if it's threatening for a strong female to simply love her job.) I feel really bad for her, for mental condition, that she has to hide it from her colleagues at work. But I also recognize that being manic (bipolar?) is just part of who she is. It's not like there is a definitive point where the mental illness begins and Carrie the person ends. I wonder why she insists on isolating herself. She stays away from her family, people who clearly love her and worry about her illness. Why is she so terrified of a loving relationship? I'm kind of mad at Saul for constantly covering for her. He keeps letting her get away with behavior that is bad for her and bad for her career. I crack up when Carrie throws her fits. Sometimes she really acts like a kid, especially in Saul's presence.

I think I know why I feel this deep personal connection. I have a close family member who has similar manic fits. I've been that smart, brash girl. I've had problems, and I isolated myself for it. I think I'm growing up and losing my taste for ingénue characters like Buffy Summers and Sydney Bristow. Carrie Mathison is an adult and a real woman who is mature in some areas and growing in other areas. I don't see many complex portrayals of younger women on film and television. (The keyword here is "younger", not a green kid but not a jaded middle-aged woman.) That's exciting to watch.

Homeland has been renewed for a second season, so I'm sure I'll get to see some of my questions addressed. I'll keep watching, if nothing else, to see what Carrie is up to and to watch Claire Danes perform. I'm hoping the writers can keep up their outstanding work. Because Homeland is a show that inspires me. It has this ineffable quality about it that makes me feel better for having watched it. I'm entertained, challenged, moved, and educated. But even if the rest of the series disappoints me, I'll still have my memory of those first seven amazing episodes.

Thought of the day: Taking a break from yourself

I was thinking that too much of our anxiety comes from living with ourselves 24/7 -- constantly being connected to our worries and feelings.  Maybe what we need is to take a break from ourselves.  Is that why people meditate?

Claire Danes the intelligent and self-aware actress

I find this happens to me over and over again. I crush on some Hollywood star and rush around the web reading all about them. Tina Fey [1], Jennifer Garner [2], and now Claire Danes [3]. All incredibly poised, thoughtful, intelligent actresses. In any industry, there are some exceptional people. Part of me is the ridiculous fan who wants to know the gossip about their lives, but the other part is the person who wants to know what they've learned about life and what they think of their art.

How many actresses use words like "avuncular" and "apoplectic"? Claire Danes! Okay, maybe the intellectual elitist in me is overly excited but that is pretty unique. It's not just the big words; her overall intelligence is striking in interviews. Critics, interviewers, and film industry colleagues have frequently marveled at her "maturity." I'm not sure that's the best word for it. She seems to be deep, thoughtful, intense, serious, and intellectual ("I want to read the great books and talk about ideas"). This kind of personality is uncommon among adults; Danes was already like this as a child. When she was nine, she thought about becoming a psychologist or therapist (in case she didn't make it as an actor). I think she's one of those rare people with a very high emotional IQ, sensitive and empathetic yet grounded by her intellect. She picks things up way faster than the average person. Check out this interview at the age of 18. She herself remarks that she's "always felt ancient."

Claire Danes seems pretty damn cool. And now I need to go out and find some friends who are just as awesome -- real people I can hang out with.

[1] Tina Fey is a media darling and willing to be brutally honest and insightful in interviews, so there is lots of good material. I like the part about having "a great house."

[2] I always thought it was amazing how Jennifer Garner would ask J.J. Abrams about his directing choices in the DVD commentary. A real student of the theater. I wrote a gushing review of her work on Alias.
[3] I didn't really know much about Claire Danes. My only exposure to her was when my high school English teacher showed Romeo and Juliet in class. Only recently did I take notice of her, in the Showtime cable TV series Homeland (which rocks).

Favorite TV shows as of 2011

I thought I'd quickly jot down my favorite TV shows by genre.

Drama
Battlestar Galactica, Homeland, Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Comedy
30 Rock (seasons 1-2), Scrubs (seasons 1-4)

Genre
Alias (action/espionage/drama, season 1), Chuck (action/espionage/comedy, seasons 1-2), Firefly (western/comedy/drama)

Procedural 
Bones (seasons 1-2)

Note: I realize my categories are a little subjective.  You could call Battlestar Galactica a military science fiction show, Homeland a spy show, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer a fantasy vampire show.  So they could also be called genre shows.  But these three shows use the genre merely as a context to drive intelligent storytelling and provoke strong emotions in the characters.  So I still call them dramas.

Unexpected conversations in the medical library

I had heard about a new exhibit in the medical library. It's based upon the collection of a famous American neurosurgeon who lived around the turn of the 20th century. I visited at the spur of the moment, since I had just finished a workshop in the same building. There were hundreds of jars containing brains and brain tumors, even a technical document by the architectural firm that designed the exhibit. When I was about to leave the exhibit, a woman approached me and asked me if she could answer questions about the exhibit. She had been giving a tour while I was looking around.

Looking back, it was a serendipitous conversation. I didn't expect to run into an artist who was working on the exhibit and who taught photography at the art school I had attended (she doesn't teach there anymore). She was an exceptional conversationalist. She was receptive, open-minded, and kept the focus of the conversation on me for the first ten minutes. Can you think of anyone who does that? I can't.

I asked her why put so much effort into this exhibit. She said that a lot of medical collections like this have been thrown away. So it's important to preserve this particular collection.

I also asked her a lot of questions about photography. She told me that if you are a good wet lab printer, you'll be a good digital printer. The terminology is the same. She showed me some prints she made for the exhibit and I couldn't tell the difference from the silver nitrate prints (the gold standard for film). The quality is that good.

She made some interesting remarks about art education. I told her about how frustrated I felt when learning how to draw. I always felt like my work wasn't very good. She said that her friends in art education find that even children are expressing the same "I'm-not-good-enough" attitude by fifth grade. She also mentioned that today's children are constantly presented with processed 2D images on a screen, to the point that they don't know how to think spatially before. Drawing is the process of observing a 3D scene, interpreting it, and rendering it on a 2D surface. This makes me think that more kids should learn drawing.

We spent a long time talking and I'm grateful that she took the time to enlighten me.