Britain Protects Critics

In yet another example of just how badly American critics are treated as opposed to their European counterparts comes this ruling. It is now a criminal offense for British theaters to take critics' quotes out of context. Of course, Britain is not exactly a model of free speech, but imagine a ruling like this getting passed in the States.

Weekend Linkpunch: I've got some serious thinking to do (and by thinking, I mean drinking)

Here's some links to whet your intellect before you drown it in beer:

• I certainly liked the Court Theatre's Carousel, but apparently not as much as Terry Teachout, who went as far to call the production, now at the Long Wharf, "the best Rodgers and Hammerstein revival [he's] ever seen." He also gives props to Chicago theater in general. It's nice to see the love, here's hoping it comes from more than just the one New York theater critic who actually reviews regional theater.
• The biggest commotion at Cannes this year has been in response to Steven Soderbergh's 2 part, 4+ hour bipoic of Che Guevara, with critical opinions raging from masterpiece to needs work to utter crap. The Los Angeles Times has a good summary of the reviews, as does Defamer.
• In Britain, where free speech standards have increasingly reached Orwellian (or Ashcroftian) standards, legislators are looking to extend the movie rating system to online video. This is a sure-fire success; after all, the same standards have prevented 13 year olds from viewing online pornography everywhere, forever.
• Further proving that theater critics can actually make a living (even if it comes after they're done being theater critics) the Butcher of Broadway is signing on to work with HBO. He'll still be writing fr the Times, but finding alternatives to exclusively working for print journalism is probably a good idea right about now.
• Despite the 2005 Dover ruling, which proved to me more than anything else that historians of science are employable, 1 in 8 high school biology teachers are still teaching intelligent design or creationism in some capacity. I'm actually surprised it's that low, but considering that it's 0% in pretty much anywhere else in the industrialized world, that's nothing to brag about.
• Finally, when you combine the powers of hockey mythology with the powers of stop-motion animation, you will almost certainly get a link on Tynan's Anger. The NHL proves its adeptness at new media once again with this video:
  
  Let's hope a Stanley Cup Finals with two major American hockey markets outdraws CSPAN reruns this year.
  

Debunking complaints about the ending of Indy 4

SPOILERS below, for those who care.

Why are so many critics complaining about how ridiculous the ending of Indiana Jones 4 is (examples here, here, and here, for starters). Is the notion of Martians populating the Earth really that much more ridiculous than the Ark of the Covenent releasing eye-popping demons, voodoo doctors and monkey brain eaters guarding legitimately sacred stones, or the Holy Grail? Once you've crossed the threshold into fantasy, who's to judge which is more ridiculous than the other? Are the Judeo-Christian myths that more "realistic" than the Mayan myths?

Too Much News: Links of the Moment

There's only so much time to post links, so here's the storys that have been getting my attention lately:

• My first major 6th grade crush turned Scientology robot Katie Holmes is headed to Broadway to star in All My Sons, in a role that awkwardly praises her legs. Sure enough, the YouTubes have already beat the future Joe Keller (John Lithgow) to it.
• Mel Brooks hams it up for an interview with the Los Angeles Times in honor of Get Smart. Best line? "You're Greek, Andreas. We don't start sentences with 'or' in America."
• While were on the topic of Mel Brooks, unless there was a Bialystock and Bloom-esque accounting scheme, those 23 year old Broadway starlets of Glory Days I blogged about have cost their producers several millions of dollars after a grand total of one performance before closing. They seem to be handling it in the manner I would: lounging about their apartments watching bad sitcom reruns
• Theater people are doing what they do best—being dramatic—over this year's Drama Desk awards. The domination of Broadway in this years awards has led to resignations, accusations, counter-accusations, and counter-counter accusations. I lost track of all the complaints by the second paragraph, but it seems the primary complaint was removing someone from an email list in a fit of anger. Leave it to theater people to see having less email clutter as a source of outrage.
• Michael Feingold at The Village Voice has an excellent article on the resurgence of the musical in recent years. No snarky remark here, just damn good commentary to be found
• Finally, The Guardian has a post up on the theatricality of Barack Obama's speechmaking, echoing W.J.T Mitchell's commentary in my Theories of Media class this winter. Sometimes I wonder if I would be supporting Obama as strongly if I hadn't seem his 2004 Democratic Convention speech live, but based on my demographics, it'd be a miracle if I wasn't an Obama supporter anyway.
  

Indiana Jones crap rumors squashed: How Paramount conned the movie press

There seems to have been a Mamet-esque con played on the moviegoing public and critical community: that the Indiana Jones film is terrible. This is in response to what Dave Poland at Movie City News Described as one idiot at Aint It Cools News: a movie executive who had an incentive to downplay the movie, posted an extremely negative review of the movie on the website as the first review on record. This led to feature pieces in The New York Times, USA Today and even The Onion that the movie was going to suck. Over the past 54 hours or so, however, critics have been unraveling the fact that they've been had: the movie is pretty damn good by summer blockbuster standards. I usually hate the Indy movies and Spielberg in general, but I loved it. My fellow attendee, an absolute Indy die-hard who chose the University of Chicago in part because of the movies, loved it too. I was expecting Star Wars Episode II level-crappiness. This couldn't be further from the truth, and if you look at the actual negative review, it's a vague, largely inaccurate review that doesn't say all that much.

It seems we're dealing with some rather shady, Mel Gibson-esque marketing tactics here. The executives in charge of the film, including George Lucas himself, let out a false rumor that the movie was going to be terrible, thereby lowering expectations, and making the film's quality seem like a suprise rather than a given. Four the four days leading up to the release, you'll hear nothing but rebuttals to the early negative reviews. While's its certainly a weird strategy to say you're movie sucks, it's certainly not unprecedented-Mel Gibson, after all, promoted The Passion of the Christ as "Gibson's folly" before the zeitgeist hit. I know that summer blockbusters are rare and welcome, but I can't help feeling somewhat spited by this massive-scaled con game played by the studios.

(A great summary can be found on Jim Emerson's Scanners blog)

Brecht's role in contemporary theater

Nick Cohen had a deeply challenging proclamation against Brecht's role in the current theatrical world in today's London Observer (the paper, that, of course, made famous this blog's Brecht-loving Marxist namesake). He raises some very valid criticisms, including Brecht's complacency in Stalinism, wavering opposition to fascism, and most importantly, the inescapable influence of politics in his dramatic theory. Cohen depicts Brecht as complicit in Communist genocide in both Russia and China, and places the blame squarely on modern audiences for overlooking that side of Brecht.

It's a fair argument, but I would contend that Cohen misjudges Brecht's role in contemporary theater as still being absolute acceptance. Yes, Brecht's plays are still being frequently revived, and his dramatic theory is still one of the dominant dramatic theories of our time. But it is not the only theory of our time, as those who think seriously about politics and theater do take into account the totalitarian side of his politics.

For me, the key to Brecht in an unabashedly capitalist society is more his view of the alienation effect than his socioeconomic theory. More than anything else, Brecht's main opponent was complacency, his hatred of what he called "culinary" theatre whose ideology was loose, floozy life maxims over directed social points. What Brecht wanted was to get people out of their comfort zones, to make them think about an issue in a new way, to change minds more than society. True, he saw this as a necessary product of a larger Communist revolution, but by no means do we have to take everything he says verbatim.

Part of the problem has been the modern interpretation of Brecht primarily as a style--in dramatic structure, dialog, costume, etc.--as opposed his general intellectual approach to theater. Audiences expecting a "Brechtian kind of play" are suffering from the exact same complacency that Brecht tried to abolish. In reality, he touched upon a universal ability of theater to make us think and to influence the audience member's mind. This side of theater has been prominent in just about every dramatic theory, including the fascist-sympathizing Italian Futurists, who had the polar opposite of Brecht's politics. The fight against complacency has been Brecht's most enduring influence, and you can see traces of it through the Angry Young Man, the punks, the hoodies, and just about any other incendiary form of entertainment. I say this as complete devotee to capitalism.

Those Damn Billiard Balls

I think it's a testament to how badly the U of C has warped me that when I saw this video, my first thought was that David Hume would have a field day.

Broadway did NOT contribute $5.1 billion to New York economy

Variety had a report up talking about how Broadway contributed $5.1 billion to New York's economy, which is up from $5.09 billion last year. These reports, according to Broadway league's biennial report, are misleading and a gross exaggeration that anyone who's ever taken a basic economics class can counter. The report got that number based on "sums paid out by producers and theater owners as well as ancillary spending -- hotel, restaurant and transportation costs, for instance -- by visitors who reported seeing a Broadway show as their primary reason for visiting New York. Total also figures in the indirect after-effects of this spending as it circulates through the economy."

To be fair, this report is slightly more accurate than most reports of this type, as it focuses on tourists who primarily visited for Broadway. But the number is a still an exaggeration for a number of reasons. For one, it assumes that if Broadway didn't exist, Broadway producers, realtors, and visitors would not contribute to New York for another reason, including what could theoretically be there instead of theater. It adds hotel, restaurant and transportation costs as if the rooms in hotels or the tables at restaurants wouldn't be filled by visitors in New York for other purposes. Secondly, I'm deeply suspicious of what those "indirect after-effects" were, as the report was basically able to make up any figure it wanted for that. It also doesn't consider the costs that hotels, restaurants, and transportation went through. Instead it just considered the costs of Broadway (and the Variety report was unclear if those were figured into its contributions to the economy), which went up by $111 milliuon dollars.

The more telling sign is that even as visitor spending for New York tourism increased overall, Broadway visitor spending was actually down. This basically means that Broadway has actually contributed less to the overall economy than a conceivable substitute—for instance, stores for international shoppers looking to capitalize on the weak dollar—would be able to contribute. So not only is Broadway not contributing $5.1 billion to NYC, it's actually costing the city money through unrealized revenue with conceivable substitutes.

This is not to say that all Broadway theaters should fold and be replaced with more Disney stores. I'm just saying that this report should be taken with about a pound of salt.

The role of scientific evaluation in theater

The Guardian's theater blog had a post recently that got me seriously thinking about the role of how science and statistical evaluation should play in the theatrical process. I feel this is an area where I have particular expertise, as I am getting a B.A. in History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Science at the University of Chicago, as well as pursuing a career in theater criticism. In this case, an American consulting firm known as WolfBrown is offering quantitative metrics for evaluating the impact of theater, using terms such as "Intellectual Stimulation Index," "Captivation Index," and other "impact constructs."

While Jason Grote worries that this will cause increasingly tame theater, George Hunka at the Guardian mocks the whole proposition with a slightly condescending tone, noting that "It's naive, though, to think that ultimately programmers and curators, in a time of shrinking support for the arts, may not accept and reject work for their seasons based upon the narrow 'impact constructs' that WolfBrown defines," and noted that "Brecht's decidedly non-empathetic theatre isn't even in their sights. A form of drama like that of Howard Barker or Sarah Kane, which denies that theatre should be 'therapeutic' at all, is likely to be entirely off WolfBrown's radar."

I would argue that dramatic theory and statistical evaluation of a play's impact are not contradictory, but rather approach the same topic from different angles for different purposes. Film theory is as alive as ever in academia, and I've seem incredibly convoluted theoretical analysis of movies as commercial as The Matrix and Clueless. That doesn't mean Hollywood studio execs remotely cared about the theoretical implications when they green-lighted those movies. Despite what Mr. Adorno may have said, the commercial considerations of a work of art don't detract from scholars ability to evaluate them, or from an audience member to enjoy them for any reason he or she so chooses.

To that end, it's a wonder that theater hasn't started using commercial consultants in this capacity years ago—just about every other major culture industry already has, be it film, music, book publishing, or even the visual arts. Theater has been able to get away with it because it's work isn't technically reproducible, so it's mass consumption is always limited. Some may say this is theater's greatest strengh, but it's also why it has fallen out of vitality since the 20th century. So while the use of scientific evaluation may not be welcoming to artists, it's probably necessary to promote sustainable theater. Ultimately, it probably won't affect the artistic process all that much, just perhaps the bank accounts of certain artists. It could even end up resulting in more profitable theater for artists as well as producers.

Diablo Cody gets a boner for John Cusack

I've been a fan of unmoderated conversations between two movie types ever since I saw Coffee and Cigarettes, and I must say, this interview/conversation between John Cusack and Diablo Cody—a perfect combination if there ever was one—is rather Jarmusch-esque:

Artist on Artist: John Cusack and Diablo Cody


Of course, the video is nothing without Cody's commentary:

Three things to look out for:

1.) The moment in which I play it cool and feign a lack of recall when John mentions the infamous "Two dollars!" quote. "Oh yeah..." (Please. I own that movie.)

2.) Me rocking in my seat like a stimulus-deprived Romanian orphan.

3.) The goofy straight-to-camera look on my face right after we exchage Eurokisses at the end. Boing!

To be fair, Diablo, kiss only one cheek does not a eurokiss make. Her pose at the end is still priceless.

State of Tynan's Anger

As you may have noticed, my blogging topics have been getting more eclectic than just theater/film commentary. That may be because I don't have enough to say about theater and film to fill a regularly updated blog. My blogging interests are admittedly varied, some may say even spastic, and I feel like I no longer need to separate my sports and media blogging from my theater and film blogging. Hence, from now on, Tynan's Anger will no longer be dedicated to merely film/theater commentary, but will be the exclusive source of my general blogging, outside the sites I write for independently (including those that pay me). So that means more sports, more media, more politics, and a new motto: Never Mess with the Zeitgest (my choice of "mess" there was rather mature of me, I do say)

Leitch Bissinger Scandal is Not Just a Problem of Sports Journalism

The controversy between sports bloggers and traditional media has reached it's apex this week, with the Buzz Bissinger's all-out attack on Deadspin editor Will Leitch on HBO the other night (the irony of a print journalist calling a blogger "full of shit" because he uses profane language tickles my writer's sensibility.) Here's the video. I, for one, found it virtually unwatchable.

Bob Costas, as it has previously been documented, sides with Bissinger in the debate, and he's not alone. The day after this segment, Leitch was cornered again on The Best Damn Sports Show Period by John Calipari and John Salley (though he was at least allowed to speak, marking the first time TBDSSP outclassed HBO Sports). In both segments, people were deeply suspicious of what he does, and simply could not accept the general style and content of blogs, even while engaging in that style themselves.

As bloggers, we tend to be outraged whenever a mainstream journalist insults new media. That's because we're mostly under 35, and have spent most, if not all of our lives with the Internet as a given. We have to realize that there is an avid hatred of new media that is not only not understoof, but also produces an active rage. In both interviews, Will was barely able to get a word in without being screamed at, despite completely reasonably and calmly explaining the purpose of his site. The fear factor of blogs has been well documented by others, so I won't go into it here.

The part of the clip that interested me here was the reaction of Calipari and Sally, both subjects of sports media (though Salley's now a media personality himself, old habits die hard). Unlike Bissinger, Calipari's someone who is reported on, not someone who reports. He noted how awful it was to be on the other end, which Leitch was more than willing to recognize (though I'm sure another screamfest would have started if Will had gotten into his arguments from God Save The Fan.)

But the thrust of Calipari's point could be applied to mainstream journalism as well as blogs. Journalists and athletes are, by definition, antagonistic groups, and have only been forced into a faux camaraderie out of mutual interest. In reality, public personalities hate the media in all shapes and sizes, and no form is more despised than tabloid journalism and gossip news. One of the problems with this decade's commercialization of the media is that so much of a traditional journalist's ability to report honestly is conflicted by an overwhelming number of factors, be it television contracts (of the networks or of themselves), the need for exclusivity, and to make sure you will be able to get the scoop in the future.

This is not exclusive to sports journalism: it's the same reason you don't see the dead bodies of American soldiers in Iraq on CNN. But while pressures have prevented MSM from reporting stories that get their hands dirty, the demand for that kind of news hasn't gone down. This is where blogs step in: they are almost perfectly suited for the racy, outlandish, but not necessarily unwarranted commentary that journalists avoid. It shouldn't be ignored that many of these journalists are flat out not as intelligent as the bloggers they fear. While journalism and blogging are indeed two separate styles, the overall demand of the media consumers has not changed, but scattered to various outlets. The Darwinian in me thinks this has to work itself out to a happy equilibrium sooner or later, but there's a chance for a media apocalypse of some kind as well.