Ah-HA

Yeah, so here I am again. Things are going well; I helped Stef move into her apartment last week. Made a date to grab lunch with her on Thursday. Or is it a date? I don't really know, and I think it's kind of crass to ask. I don't really know what we are, but I'm trying not to obsess over that too much. I don't know if she knows what we are, or if she's interested in me or a relationship period. I mean, there's some things you can sort of guess...like, I'm pretty sure she doesn't HATE me. But there is, of course, a pretty fine line between not hating someone and liking that person in a romantic sense. But then, maybe it won't even end up being romantic, maybe we'll just be friends.

That would kinda suck.

I tend to agree with the statement made in When Harry Met Sally, that men and women can't be friends because sex always gets in the way. I don't know if I'd say they can't be friends, but I do think that sex is always present in relationships with people of the sex whom you're attracted to (I would have said opposite sex, but not everyone's attracted to the opposite sex, I guess). You can work past it, but if you become really close with someone, I think people tend to fuse their feelings of emotional comfort with those of romantic love. Or maybe it's not even fusing. That doesn't really make sense. And then, there are also situations where people can be friends and not be attracted to each other in the least. Or are they attracted and maybe not realizing/admitting it? Anyways, the process of becoming very good friends with someone means that you get to see them at their worst and at their best, and it can be very hard not to see things to admire and appreciate - or else why are you friends with that person? Of course, then you also run into the problem of falling into the dreaded friend zone, which sucks ass.

I watched the Tao of Steve recently; it's a cute little movie. There were a number of interesting things said, though I'm not quite sure how I feel about them. The movie is all about this guy who, though out of shape and a huge slacker/pot head, manages to sleep with all sorts of women. His name, contrary to what you might think, isn't Steve; Steve is the name for the cool everyman, the Steve McQueens of the world who exude cool and sex appeal. The tao (way) of Steve is how to be like that, and attract women: to not overtly desire, to be "excellent" in front of them, and not to be their friend. Of course, in the movie he meets the "one", this girl he falls for and tosses all this aside for, which is mostly the usual Hollywood line, and also neatly allows him to negate the whole tao of Steve he had previously espoused.

I don't really want that, but I guess I just wonder sometimes how some people can be so confident and seem so knowing when it comes to dating. Then again, maybe nobody really is, outside of Hollywood scripts. I'm just trying really hard to relax and let things happen as they come. I just hope I don't end up missing an opportunity while I'm waiting for something to happen.

What do I want?

So I sat and chatted with Stef for a while today - in the afternoon and later in the evening (though that was just pure chance - we got back up here at the same time and I saw her in the station).

First of all, she was upset because I went to her play, which I guess she wasn't feeling very proud of. We talked about that for a bit - I said I wanted to see a) her work and b) her. That seemed to mollify her a bit. I could understand not being happy with the production, but I said that as a fellow actor, I know what it's like being in productions you're not proud of...I know the things you, as a single actor, can't control around you. In situations like that, all you can do is take care of your own work and do the best you can do, which I thought she did. I think it all got smoothed out - the fact that she sat and chatted with me for quite a while longer seemed to indicate the same.

Anyways, near the end of the conversation she asked me, "What do you want from me?" It sort of caught me by surprise, mainly because that's usually the kind of thing you hear through sobbing tears just before a door slams in your face or the phone gets hung up. But in her case, she meant it as a straight up question. I've been reading up on Scorpios and Sagittariuses (is that the plural?), and I've read that they're both shockingly honest. I guess that was my first demonstration of that aspect of her. Anyways, I responded as best I could - that I didn't really know what I wanted from her yet, because I didn't really know her all that well yet. I didn't say that I was interested in pursuing something, because I figured that was sort of a given. She seems to be coming from a difficult place, and the last thing I want to do is pressure her into anything.

I really think (maybe it's hope...maybe it's a bit of both) she could be someone special in my life. I don't want to tell her yet because I don't want that hanging over her. If she's going to be with me, I want her to decide that...I hope I'm not making a mistake in not saying it to her. I don't think I am.

Well shut my mouth

So I guess I didn't scare her off...she just stopped by the apartment. Oddly enough, I had been thinking that someone who'd rang the doorbell an hour or so before she actually showed up might have been her...lying in bed. Then I got up, unable to sleep, and like 10 minutes later she knocks. We had a really good conversation. I think I came across as a lot less spazzy.

Sweet!

Another month, another post

Working through the dog days of summer now...last couple of days have been disgustingly hot and humid.

Morty's will be continuing soon; Jimbo somehow ended up on the Apple site. I don't know how. Here's a few more links I've been surfing lately. The first webcomic...I think I got the link off of MacHall, and the Iraq one I actually got from one of my classes. It's so difficult to know what's really going on there, since no media can or will tell you what it's like. I guess those blogs could be being written with the express purpose of deceiving everyone who reads them, but let's hope they're not. Well, in a way that might be nice, because it would mean things over there aren't that shitty. But I'm pretty sure they are.

I've been thinking about whether or not to put this in this entry, because it seems like I always get way too excited about things like this way too early and they turn out to be nothing and I'm upset again. But anyways, I've sort of kind of met someone, though I'm getting sort of a weird vibe from her. It was good at first, but I honestly think I might have scared her off.

On some level, I know I should calm down when it comes to relationships. But I can't (is that won't?). When I meet someone and I like them, I want to be with them a lot. Is that so wrong? Apparently. I guess when (if?) it happens right, that won't be an issue. I feel like there's a lot I'm missing out on by being so crazy. But I don't know how to be anything but myself.

I always feel like when she asks me questions, I answer in the worst possible way. Not to say that I lie, I'm always honest, but I feel like I only say part of the truth to her. Like the other day, she asked me what I wanted out of a relationship. I thought about it for a bit, and said I wanted someone to love, who would love me back. Which is true. What I DIDN'T say, and what upset me afterwards when I thought about it was that I'm not LOOKING for that...if it happens, it happens. Until it happens, I'm perfectly happy to hang out, to have some laughs and some good times and, yes, generally make out and/or be intimate. But now I can't go back and SAY that to her (or can I?).

Anyways, shit like that is why I think I might have scared her off. We'll see, I guess. Fuck it.

The greatest invention of all time...

...is air conditioning. Well, to be a bit more precise, it's climate control, as indoor heating is pretty goddamn sweet in the winter. But right now, air conditioning is king, as I've finally buckled under and bought a unit for my room.

As for why I spent so long without one, I think the biggest reason is because I have a roommate who's the best friend I have here, and she's...well, not the richest person in the world. I, being relatively well off, didn't want to flaunt it or anything, so I decided that as long as she didn't have one, I could live without one too.

I don't mean to say I decided as in I actively thought about it, it was a bit unconscious and it's only now, when I bought a unit and was thinking about why I hadn't bought one yet that I hit on that reason. Anyways.

So now I have air conditioning and life is good again. I also finally got in touch with a certain someone who I'd love to date and get to know...but I'm not quite sure if I'm getting blown off or not. She says she's busy, which I can completely understand, but at the same time...does it really take all that much time to have coffee or a drink with someone? I mean, if you were interested in someone and they asked you out for a drink, couldn't you make the time?

I don't know. I'm pretty out of the loop when it comes to dating in general. I just hate that you can't be straight up with people, that you always have to wonder what people mean when they say they're busy. That you can't just say, "Hey, I'm really really REALLY attracted to you and hope you are to me, but if you're not, please just say so so I can get on with things and stop wasting our time." Not that I'm not getting on with things anyways, because you can't (or shouldn't, at least) make your own happiness contingent on having someone in your life. If you can't be happy alone, you can't be happy in a relationship. No, I just hate checking my mail and hoping there's going to be something from her and seeing nothing.

Back to civilization

Yes, finally back in New York. I'd been away so long I actually forgot the code to get in the front door (there's a security panel that lets you buzz the apartment if you're delivering something, or you can tap in a code and the door unlocks). Luckily, another tenant was coming in and I just slipped in behind them. I've started cleaning out the piles of papers and things that had accumulated in my room; another few days of tossing out trash and it should look decent in here. Stopped by the network and caught the last episode of Morty's, as well as snagging the other two episodes on dvd - they're probably the best we've done yet. That tends to be pretty typical for sitcoms, I think; the first season is an odd mash of episodes that have moments, but on the whole are not as good as the series can be if it continues, and has the necessary talent. Most of the first seasons of great sitcoms I've watched have been eminently forgettable. Not that I rank Morty's with those shows necessarily, it's just an observation about sitcoms.

So why did I go?

Why indeed. I don't really know, just as I don't know why we still talk. I enjoy talking to her, I suppose. There is a comfort level there that you reach with people you know for long periods of time. And I really do owe her quite a bit, not in the sense that I feel beholden to her, but in that I can recognize that dating her was a huge turning point in my life, one that changed me (for the better, I believe), and which set me on the path I walk today.

But that's still not a reason why I'm in touch with her, why it's not too painful for me.

Most of the time I'm pretty sure I'm over her. Every now and then, I do find myself thinking about her, or missing her.

I think it's fear.

I spend a lot of my life afraid. Sometimes I think my life is characterized by fear. In this case, fear that I will never find someone who will love me like that, who I love back.

Even now, fear holds me back - and maybe it's the reason why I still talk to Ursula. It's all the things left unsaid because of fear - because I know that ignorance really is bliss, that there are some things you are better off not knowing, not because it's good to lie to yourself, but because sometimes the truth can really fuck you up.

I don't know when we broke up. I don't know when Ursula and Brian started dating. I don't know when she first felt attracted to him. I've never asked. She's said she never cheated on me. Can I believe that? I've never explicitly found out these details, and it has to be at least partially because I'm afraid of what the answer might be. I do know that when I came home in June of 2002, we were still nominally together. I went back to New York soon after, and a few months later she was engaged.

Seems quick, doesn't it?

I hope she hasn't made a mistake. But there's a little part of me that hopes she HAS made a mistake, that this ends badly and that she realizes hey, what I had was better. I'm not proud of that, but neither will I hide from it.

It also seems incredibly pretentious and presumptuous to say, "I hope she hasn't made a mistake". Who the hell am I to judge other people's mistakes? I've made more than my fair share, and I'm nowhere near done. The day I stop making mistakes will likely be the day I die.

But it's ok to make those mistakes, I think - it is those mistakes that tend to define us as humans. I was kicking around a theory a month or so ago that the person you are is formed at the end of high school; that for the most part, that is the person you will remain for the rest of your life. That's why so many people remain stuck in that moment, with the same issues and the same lives. I mentioned it to a friend, and she replied that she felt it was a cop-out; an excuse to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

She's right.

But I'm still not convinced that you can change some things about yourself. Some aspects, yes, some aspects, no. Take alcoholism. You can choose to fight it, to not drink, but it will always be there and it will always color the way you see things - it is a part of you. But, and this is where I stand today, just because success isn't guaranteed, it does not follow that you shouldn't try. It may not be logical to try when there is no chance of success, but humans are not logical creatures, nor should they strive to be in every facet of their lives. If anything, it is the reach for perfection while being fully cognisant of the impossibility of its attainment that is, to me, the simplest truth in life.

So, I'm afraid to ask Ursula those questions. I don't want to upset her, I don't want to upset myself. But maybe it would be better to get those things out. And maybe she's afraid too - maybe that's why she stays in touch with me, out of a sense of guilt for having betrayed me either physically or emotionally. I guess there's only one way to find out.

Back in the C.A.N.A......da

Ok, so Canada isn't as catchy as the USSR. Who would have guessed?

Asia was...interesting. Something I've been aware of for several years now is the increasing homogenity (wonder if that's spelled right) of the world - that is to say, no matter where you go in the world, cities always feel very similar. You're always seeing the same brands, the same fast food restaurants and the same daily routine. And I suppose part of the reason why it was that way was because most of the cities I went to are ones where a foreign influence has been around for quite some time. But another part of it is the whole globalization thing. I don't really feel like typing out a pile of crap about that because there's authors who are far more informed than me who've written at much greater length than I could, and I don't feel positively or negatively about it - it's just a reality of the world today.

If anything else, it is the character of the people that sets Asia apart. The density of people I was somewhat prepared for by living in New York. It's worse in Asia, of course, but walking through Times Square during a peak time is a decent approximation of walking around in Asia. What's different is how the people approach it: with a passive-aggressiveness which seems inherent in Asian culture. The concept of lining up seems to be an alien one, unless there's a strong Western influence in the city; lines are replaced by amorphous mobs, waving their money or tickets. Driving is handled somewhat similarly, with only a cursory amount of homage paid to the elements of the road which keep order on the streets of North America; signs, traffic lights, even lanes. It's quite an experience seeing a 3 lane expressway turn into 5 lanes, let me tell you.

Of course, we did the two main tourist-type things: the terracotta warriors and the Great Wall. It's difficult to put into words what it's like to be in those places. The history of the area is something that dwarfs your imagination and your sense of being, especially coming from such a culturally infantile area as North America. It is humbling to stand somewhere and to know that hundreds or thousands of years earlier, someone else stood in that exact place - someone with their own set of hopes, dreams and fears. It is a realization that makes you both small and huge all at once - to know that you are not unique, that you are both a part of the human organism and an individual, one given a degree of choice that no previous generation has ever been afforded.

I also went to Ursula's wedding last night; I have some jumbled thoughts on that I can dump, but I think I'll put them in a different post.

Postpostpostpostpostpostpost

Yeah, been a while. Not much has been happening, though that's about to change. This week I'll be shooting the last 3 episodes of Morty's for the season, and the dubbing will be next week. Then at the end of the week I'm flying back to TO to meet up with my younger brother, after which we will be joining my dad in Taiwan. Not really excited about it yet, focusing more on the things I have to do this week, but it's definitely going to be interesting.

When I get back from the trip, I'm also going to be going to my ex-girlfriend (Ursula)'s wedding. I suppose it's odd that I'm still even in touch with her to begin with. Honestly, I can't really say why we stay in contact. People have asked why, and my only response is, why not? Our breakup wasn't particularly acrimonious (as such things go), it just sort of...was.

Anyways, the point I wanted to make about going to the wedding is that the oddest thing for me so far has been the juxtaposition of that circumstance with my current one. I mean, marriage was something that we had discussed in passing (I suppose, as all young couples in love do), and I had a clear moment when I made the decision to return to New York, which I guess was the signal to her that I was breaking up with her, or that it was time for her to break up with me. So I honestly believe that it could have been me standing across from her at the altar. That life could have been mine. It's somewhat like the experience of looking up the people you went to high school or college with, and finding out that the majority of them are married, or are starting to have kids, while the very concept of having and raising a child at this age scares the living bejeezus out of me. Not that I'm averse to baby talk, or what-you-want-to-name-your-kids conversations, it's being up to the responsibility that comes with raising a child to be an intelligent, useful member of society that terrifies me. Anyways, finding out that all those people have already moved on to that point in their lives is the sort of thing that tends to freak you out in a very general sense. As I am right now, I don't want to be married. And yet, had I made my choices differently in life, I might not only want to be married, but I might be getting married in 4 weeks, or I might even already be married.

It's pretty possible though, now that I think about it, that even if I'd chosen to stay in Canada for the summer and work on my relationship, it still would have ended when I returned to New York. Perhaps that would have made this seem a little less like an episode of The Twilight Zone. But perhaps not - and I'll never know, because that choice has already been made. I'm sure there will be other times when I'll wonder what might have been, and I wonder if she ever has those thoughts.

I'm a Google!

Well, not me per se, but UMDS is. Yes, the other day I was at the netowork and Jimbo got an e-mail mentioning that Uncle Morty's had been mentioned on a few blogs...clicky! And clicky again! Yeahhhhhhhh!

On an unrelated note, I noticed that this title and the last one both have exclamation marks in them. I don't really have anything to explain this sudden burst of exclamatory joie d'esprit, I guess I'm just in a good mood when typing these. Or maybe it's because they come so infrequently I like to infuse them with a little extra oomph.

Free to go to the land of Make Believe!

Well, another semester in the books. Only failed one class this semester (I think), which I'm pretty sure is enough of an improvement that they won't kick me out.

Been listening a lot to Weezer's new album, Make Believe - like the first album they put out, it's just a really strong album, with some catchy hooks and tunes you'll find yourself humming randomly. Also recently bought a Fred Astaire album and the original cast recording of the revival of The Pirates of Penzance; both brilliant as well.

The Uncle Morty's website has been updated; there's a new design, an episode guide and bios, as well as downloads; I'm a wallpaper!

Nothing really deep to say. Been working my way through The World is Flat, by Thomas Friedman (saw him plugging it on Real Time w/ Bill Maher one night), and it's interesting; now that my classes are fully over I should be able to finish it off pretty quickly.

Ping Pong Diplomacy

Ping Pong Diplomacy is the title of the play that I just did the reading of yesterday, part of Reverie Productions's new play contest (now in its second year). As I indicated previously, I had some misgivings about the script, but it's sort of grown on me, probably at least partially helped by the audience (such as it was; probably about 10-12 people) reaction to the reading. It really is quite a cute script, though perhaps a touch long (the reading was about 2 hours), but some of that could be tightened through staging. The winner of Reverie's contest will be announced on June 8th or so, at which time they're also going to be reading new plays by Tony Kushner (Angels in America) and Greg Kotis (Urinetown), which I would LOVE to make it to but I think I'll be out of town and getting ready for my trip to Asia.

The reading itself went pretty well; I was actually quite pleased with my own performance. As I said, audience reaction was fantastic, and there was only one real hiccup, when one of the actors completely broke down in a scene with a case of the giggles. The audience was laughing, and he just started laughing too, and as anyone who's ever been in that situation can testify, it's pretty much impossible to stop once you've started, sort of like "I Love to Laugh" in Mary Poppins. Of course, then the question becomes, what do you do when you're one of the other actors in the scene (which I was). I mean, we're not on stage - we're reading off scripts, and people understand (or they should, at least) that it's not a performance. And yet, there is an element of professionalism which should be maintained, I feel. So, I kept character and just tried to wait it out. The other actor struggled through the scene and his giggles as best he could, losing it a few more times, but eventually making it through. In any event, it was a great experience and another chance to make connections with another production company, and I certainly wish the best of luck to the playwright, Joe Basque.

I'm trying very hard not to get caught up in the Episode 3 (Star Wars) hype. I'll probably go see it in theaters, but I'm trying to avoid information about it as much as possible. I really want to try to just watch it and enjoy it as best I can. I don't even really think about it all that much, and I seem to somehow magically be able to avoid the brunt of the media campaign for it - I see more Batman Begins (which I'm also looking forward to) ads than I see Episode 3 ads.

And the shower just opened up, so I need to run in there and do my hair really fast.

More Morty

So this past week has been pretty much a blur, shooting on every day except Wednesday. I also skipped my last class for one course, and haven't written the final for that - the professor (one of the nicer ones I've had) sent me a mail about that. I told him I'd get it to him ASAP, which I really am planning on doing...once I read the book I'm supposed to read for it. Well, re-read, I did read it but I can't really remember the pertinent details for the paper I need to write.

I also got called to audition for a reading for a play that was entered in a new play contest this company runs that's in the same building as Pan Asian Rep is in (let me re-read that sentence to make sure it makes sense...not quite, had to add a word or two and it's still a pretty horrible sentence. Let me try that again)

So, a while ago (about a year now, I guess - no, 2?...no, 1 year, winter/spring 2004) I did a play called KWATZ!: The Tibetan Project with Pan Asian Repertory Theater, which is the oldest Asian-American theater company in New York. The company's office is in this building on 8th Avenue which has offices and such all throughout it, as such buildings are wont to do. For whatever reason, there are several other theater companies which also have their offices in the building. One of them - Reverie Productions - runs a new play festival, and they called me and asked me (after getting my number from Pan Asian) to read for a play they have.

The biggest thing to draw from this, of course, is the business aspect. In the arts, you're told so much about your talent and about working on your craft. But in the end, when you want to make a living, it comes down to who you know - the personal contacts you gain as your career unfolds. These people become important because they will (hopefully) call you when they have projects that come up that you'd be good for, or if they talk to someone who needs someone that fits your description, they can volunteer you. Really, that's all an agent is - though an agent doesn't even have to like you to get you work. I'm sure it would help, but I'm also sure it's not necessary. You probably don't have to like your agent either, as long as you're getting jobs and getting paid (and thus, so are they). It probably wouldn't be the healthiest relationship, nor would it be fantastic for your career, but it wouldn't make any difference as to whether or not you were making a living. And I don't mean to say that talent and ability make no difference - even with a contact you do need to read or do whatever for whoever's in charge, just so they can see and make sure you fit - rather that it isn't really the most important factor. I knew plenty of people in school who were more talented than me, but I'm pretty sure I've done work that all of them combined, because a lot of them lacked the drive to really apply themselves and work to get jobs acting.

The play itself is ok. It's no Angels in America (but then, how many plays are); it's a cute play about these two people who fall in love, one of whom is an American ping pong player and the other being a Chinese ping pong player. It's set mostly in the 70s, with China just opening up again, and there's a number of cute little references to the differences between the two cultures. On the whole, it's a bit obvious, especially in terms of the whole, "Oh, if China were a democracy it would be so much better" premise, but I'm fairly certain that the playwright is not Chinese, so that's not too much of a surprise. That's not to say that the premise is wrong, simply that there's a lot more to it than just making the place a democracy. When the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia became a democracy, I'm not too sure that the citizens were better off immediately - even today, I really don't know if they're in a better situation. The same goes for the people in Iraq today - yes, they have a democracy. But aside from moral and intellectual platitudes, are they really better off today? Maybe, but maybe not.

I also have a bit of an issue with the fact that the American is male and the Chinese player is a woman, mainly because it's a stereotype (not quite the perfect term, but it'll server) you see continually in entertainment. It's ok for a Caucasian male to romance and pursue an Asian female, but how often do you see an Asian male paired romantically with a Caucasian female? Aside from stories of that Anna chick and the King of Siam - that includes musical versions and movies. I remember reading a comment - I'm pretty sure it was in a magazine article of some kind, though I can't remember which - that in literature and entertainment, the sexual power of Asian males ranks somewhere below Caucasian females and above retarded people. Asian guys just are not seen as sexy.

Can you tell I'm a little bitter about that? I suppose I am. It's just frustrating to always see the same type of roles over and over, to be asked to play that same character over and over. The solution, I suppose, is for Asian writers to write roles that are not these same archtypes - you see these efforts in recent movies like Better Luck Tomorrow and Harold and Kumar, and in the plays of David Henry Hwang - most of which you can only read, as they don't tend to be produced too often. In fact, I've never seen them being done aside from the original Broadway productions, most of which were in the late 70s and 80s. But for me, and for many other minority actors out there, it seems that the only way to get the role that you really really want is to write it for yourself. That's something I've been wanting to do for a long time, and which a couple people have asked me about/nudged me towards, but I keep running up against the same block: I don't have a clue what the hell to write about. Maybe someday I'll run into it, but for now I guess I'm stuck playing these roles.

My mistake

So someone ate the purple ones, but I still say those black ones ain't goin NOWHERE.

Random Thoughts

We had this big basket of candy in the apartment for Easter, with jelly beans, chocolates and the like in there. From what I gather, the peanut butter cups went first (no big surprise there). The next to go were the good colored jelly beans and the chocolates, also no surprise. The problem is that now there's a HUGE PILE of black, purple and white jelly beans sitting in there that no-one's gonna eat and they're probably going to sit there until Christmas cause no-one's gonna want to throw them out in case someone wants one even though no-one ever will because, let's face it, those flavors suck.

Seriously, who came up with those ones anyways? Who the hell was it that said, hey, you know what kids really want? Purple flavored stuff! What is that, anyways? Usually it's grape but I'm pretty sure it isn't in this case, and I'm sure as hell not gonna try one to find out. And white? What the heck is that? And don't get me started on black licorice. That shit's just nasty.

Blah

Fuck you you stupid errors, quit making me double post like a jackass.

Peelander Z

So, shot a brief clip for The Lounge, which is another ImaginAsian show, yesterday. The show itself is one of those shows where they air other things (movies usually, though in this case it's Asian television serieses) and have hosts to provide banter and to summarize the plot for viewers as they go. It used to have a male and female host, but I didn't see the guy this time so I don't know if he's still there. The female host is Emily Chang, who's both beautiful and charming, and who I would date in a second if she didn't have an attachment already (I think) and if I could actually work up the guts to ask her.

Anyhoo, for the stuff we shot yesterday there was a Japanese band on the show named Peelander Z, and they were pretty cool. For anyone interested, you can check out their site here.

Oh, and now that I think of it, I'd probably better put a link to ImaginAsian on the right too, so people can clicky clicky on that if I mention it and they don't know what it is.

Of course, that would mean that someone was reading this, and we all know how silly THAT is.

I need help

...so I watched The Starlet again the other night. Thankfully, the judges didn't say "the Starlet" once.

What was interesting, though, was that the category, or lesson, or whatever for the week's show was comedy; that is, for their "screen test", the actresses (or actors, if you're one of the people who prefer the all-inclusive term for both male and female performers) took a class in comedic acting and then had to perform a scene from Friends, in front of a live studio audience and the judges.

First of all, I question the validity of teaching comedic acting. Part of my reasoning for this stems from the fact that I believe that to a large extent, comedic acting cannot be taught. You can't really teach someone to "be funny" because a big part of being funny is timing and delivery. Comic timing involves knowing the pace of a joke - knowing when barrelling through lines full speed will make it funny and knowing when a big pause can be used for comic effect. To a certain extent, you find that in rehearsals, but since in tv or movies you don't get too many of those, if you want to be successful in a comedy you have to have a certain knowledge of that. Delivery, meanwhile, is completely unique to every performer. Take standup comics, for example. Comics spend a lot of time working on their delivery as they develop, because your delivery is as much a part of the performance as the material. Every comic develops his or her own style, one that works for them and for the material they perform. Imagine Chris Rock's delivery and Jerry Seinfeld's material, or vice versa. How bizarre would that be? And chances are it wouldn't work; or at the very least, it wouldn't be as funny.

The one point that the teacher for the episode made that was valid was that comic acting is about taking risks, and about not being afraid of looking stupid. But then, I would argue that that applies to dramatic acting as well. Any time that you act, if you're thinking about how you look you're going to look stupid, and your actions will not be as effective as they can be if you simply lose yourself in the moment, which is the goal of any actor.

Second, I think it's a crying shame that they gave them scripts from Friends. The scene was a little bit between Rachel and Phoebe talking about Chandler and Monica getting married, and how they weren't jealous at all, but then Rachel said she was maybe 2% jealous and that was like nothing, and then she says maybe 80-20 and then they talk about having a friend that you agree to get married to if you hit a certain age and you're still single and Phoebe says she has that with Joey and ha ha ha.

Honestly, it's not very funny. I suppose you could make the argument that scripts like that are probably the high end of network comedies that you could realistically expect people to perform with relatively little preparation time (not to mention involving 2 women), but any time you perform, the script plays a huge role in how well you will do. Michael Caine said, (and I paraphrase, cause I don't feel like pulling out his book) "You can have the hardest days of your life acting out a bad script and the movie will still look like crap, and you can breeze through shooting a great script and win awards for it." The more work I do, the more I realize just how many factors go into an actor's performance. It starts with the script - is it a good script? Are there fake moments there? How good is the dialogue? Then, the other people in the scene - are they talented? Have they done their work? Do they listen? Do they react? Director - what kind of blocking are they giving actors? How do they interpret the scene, and does that differ from what the actor things? Not to mention all the technical on-set worries - being on marks (positions set in advance so you'll be in the camera's frame - onscreen - when you're supposed to be and where you're supposed to be), lighting worries, special effects, etc. And even after all that, after you've shot the scene and it's all forgotten about, the editor comes into play, cutting and splicing different angles of the scene to make it into a narrative whole. I don't believe editing can turn bad acting into great acting, but it can make decent performances very good - but then, the reverse is also true.

Comedy, of course, always gets knocked for somehow being "less" than drama. In my opinion, like the differences between stage and screen acting, they are simply different, with pros and cons for each. I do think comedy is more difficult, though, and here's why: drama is often inherent in a scene - people get drama because everyone has events in their lives that are dramatic, that they can relate to a scene through. Comedy is harder to write and harder to perform, ESPECIALLY for a live audience because there's nothing more excruciating to watch or perform than a comedy where no-one is laughing. If you've never experienced it, trust me.

I feel so dirty...

So I watched an episode of The Starlet yesterday, which is the WB's new reality series where they look for an actress who (I think) gets a recurring, if not regular, role (I think) on a WB series as her reward. A couple thoughts.

First of all........wow, a series on the WB. I saw a magazine at the iaTV offices the other day that had a big cover montage of WB shows, because of its 10th anniversary. Am I the only one who is both shocked and surprised that the WB has lasted that long? Is there another network out there with a crappier assortment of shows? How many souls did they have to sell? Seriously. If nothing else, that goes to show you that you can have crappy ratings as long as you market to the right demographic and advertisers want to reach that demographic.

Second, I never want to hear the words "the Starlet" again. They had this panel of three judges who decide who stays and goes and whatnot; one guy who I didn't know, a girl I think was Vivica A. Fox and Faye Dunaway. And (probably because they were told to use the words whenever referring to the eventual winner of the competition) they kept saying "the Starlet has to have this" or "If you want to be the Starlet"...WTF DOES THAT MEAN? THAT'S NOT A WORD, GODDAMMIT.

Lastly, I kind of have issues with what the show chooses to air and make public. Like the audition process of American Idol (which is somewhat similar to the audition process for a play, movie or musical), acting classes and the process of learning the craft of acting are an extremely difficult process; not because it's difficult to understand what the teacher wants you to do necessarily, but because acting deals with all the emotions and all the baggage that you as a person and as a performer bring. If you're taking "Method" classes - the Method referring to Stanislavski's beliefs regarding acting and sense-memory - which is what they seem to be teaching the girls on the show, the process is bound to be extremely emotional and leave the performer very vulnerable. This is, of course, understandable in terms of the show - emotional vulnerability and the situations it causes are gold for ratings. But I have an issue with the show choosing to air these moments, which most actors would (I think) be horrified to have shown to a general audience. It's true that hopefully the performer will hit those same notes in a performance, but I feel there is a difference between that and the process that an actor goes through to be able to recreate the emotions in a performance.

On that note, I've read a couple of interesting interviews recently with two actors I wasn't really too sure what to think about; Russell Crowe and Daniel Day Lewis. The first I've never really liked, the second I've never really seen in things. Both are Oscar winners (though I don't think Crowe really deserved his), and both have negative reputations in Hollywood. Anyways, what brought those to mind (aside from the fact that they were pretty good interviews) was that Daniel Day Lewis was asked about his process - one of the reasons he has a reputation for being kind of weird is that he's notorious for doing a ton of background research for his characters and always staying in character on set. He mentions that one thing he hates are the "roving press kits" or something of that kind - basically this group of people that catches up with you after you've finished a scene and asks about the scene and where it fits in, the character's motivations and all that, to which he replies that he never really knows because he's still in the middle of his own process, still trying to figure those things out for himself. I find that interesting because it's actually much more of a stage training view than film; typically on a film shoot you're expected to come to the set/shoot location with all your character work done; setups and filming are so time consuming that there is no time to work on character on set. For a stage production though, there are several weeks of rehearsal in which you can explore characters, explore choices and select the one you like best. The more you rehearse, the more the character tends to grow; the more levels you find and the more subtleties you can add to a character. I find the film actors who I appreciate the most are the ones who can bring this to a film role - Kevin Kline, Meryl Streep and Johnny Depp to name 3. Anyways, I have to go because a friend is harassing me to go watch the latest episode of Red vs Blue. I think that's more than enough for now anyways.

Do the Hustle!

Nothing too interesting going on; just finished shooting two more episodes of Morty's yesterday. Well, the live action stuff. Typically when we're making an episode we'll shoot all the live stuff one day, all the bar stuff another day and then all the dubbing on a third day. This time around we only did two (as opposed to last time, when we did 3 and it was HORRIBLE), so it was pretty chill.

Anyways, what I wanted to mention was Kung Fu Hustle, which will be out in NY/LA April 8th and wider release April 22nd. Honestly, it's AWESOME. It's funny, there's some great fight scenes and some incredible shots. I haven't watched much of his other stuff, but Stephen Chow just shot close to the top of my "guys-whose-stuff-I-need-to-watch-more-of" list (Woody Allen and Wong Kar Wai are pretty much the only two other people on there right now).