So, it's official. I own my car! I received the title in the mail, and it's mine. It feels weird to own everything I have. That's a first in my life. I don't even know how to celebrate. Maybe I'll get my mirror fixed. Haha
I've been thinking a lot about the discussion in my theatre history and lit III class. We were talking today about why America is one of the only countries in the world to never have established a national theatre. That doesn't seem important to anyone outside of theatre, and it might seem trivial even to those in the profession. Almost like, who cares? First off, we should define national theatre as a theatre that best represents a country. i.e. Russia has the Moscow Art Theatre. America attempted to establish the Lincoln as the national theatre. I speculate there are a number of reasons this did not pan out: first of all, America is comprised of so many different cultures, and so many diverse states, it would be hard to accurately represent us with one theatre touting one type of theatre or style. Secondly, we are so politically divided that it would be a point of contention as to who would fund such a theatre. If the theatre is public, does it then fall to taxpayers to maintain it? And finally, America just doesn't value theatre the way other countries do. We are a young nation, and we have not been as deeply rooted in, well, anything the way some cultures have rooted themselves in theatrical presentation. America is so fleeting. New York is AMAZING, full of culture, and it's the theatre mecca. That said, it is still comprised of all other forms that we've gotten from all over the world. So herein lies the qualm: who are we? Who are we as artists? As a nation? What do we value beyond spectacle? What can we artistically offer to the rest of the world that can be found nowhere else?
Another thing hit me today as I became aware of a play called Machinal, in which a woman becomes so trapped in a world that operates like a machine that she is driven to murder. I am always fascinated by the psychology of people, myself included, and by what drives us to be who we are and to react the ways we do. The idea of this play excites me in two ways. I've been giving a lot of thought to the tempestuous working relationship of Stella Adler and Lee Strasberg. Stella Adler is one of the most famous acting teachers of the 20th century, as is Lee Strasberg, but their approaches differed greatly, and were in great contradiction to one another. Stella Adler was a huge proponent of getting into character by observing the given circumstances by way of careful breakdown of the text. Strasberg, on the other hand, developed what's known as "method" acting, which relies on emotional recall for character development. Several notable actors have come up under each of these teachers, but I find Strasberg's method the most controversial, interesting, and dangerous. It is not uncommon, for instance, for an actor getting into the mind of a cocaine addict, when using the method, to take cocaine to really get into it. But the mind is delicate territory. Many people can get so lost in the mind of a character that they will never fully regain their own identity. I have never experienced this, as I combine many methods for character approach, but I cannot stop spinning ideas about how one might use the method to get into a dark character like that in Machinal.
The play also fascinates me in its mechanistic theme. So many days, I am in love with and terrified by the idea of a cyber punk existence. All of humanity walking around with microchips and programmed intelligence. I would never want this to actually happen because I want to stay human, but at the same time, it would be so easy to explain humanity if we were to look at it pragmatically. I wouldn't have to try to explain my emotions or my desires; this is just the way I'm programmed. We would be dead to emotions deemed unsafe for our continued existence: lust, love, hatred, fear, and so on. We would be robots, able to exist without really living, and we would never die...
The more I think about it, I don't want to be a robot. I do want to be emotional. I want to experience myself as I am. I guess it's best to learn how to pragmatically communicate what I'm feeling. No matter how I approach my life, whether by examining the given circumstances or by experiencing my full-blown emotions, I want to live accurately according to who I am. Who am I?
I am a woman. A lover of poetry, art, performance, and expression. I have to see with my hands. I have to analyze everything; it's what I've been trained to do. I am a feminist and activist for equal rights for all humans. I am an adventurer. I will go wherever the moment takes me, even if it leads to trouble. I am smart, and intelligent. I am strong and independent. Sometimes, I let my guard down. Sometimes I get hurt. Sometimes I hurt others. I am a great miscommunicator. I am colorful. I cannot fit into any mold. I was a chorus geek in high school, and always will be. I feel everything passionately. Apathy is not in my emotional vernacular. I value honesty more than almost anything else. I cannot do subtle; I don't know what it even looks like. I am blunt, and I love bluntness in return. I would rather spend quality time with myself than mediocre time with anyone else. I am more convinced every day that everything happens for a purpose. I believe in destiny, and I believe that mine is going to prove beautiful. I want to live a story that will be told for generations to come. I am a dreamer of dreams. And no one can ever program all of that into one being.
No comments:
Post a Comment