Bill's Comments

Once the script is selected, the real work begins. Producing is essentially the management side of the whole thing. It is bringing together the physical and human pieces into a working organization. In amateur theater the functions are less delineated than they are in professional theater. Often, as is the case in my church, several people share the production functions and there is no producer as such.

Regardless of who does the jobs, there are certain tasks that come under the heading of production. Selection of a venue, the date, finding run crew, front staff, light, sound, and costume designers, handling any money issues, delegating publicity, finding a director and stage manager, acquiring cast once chosen, acquiring needed equipment (sound, lights) maintaining the schedule, and acquiring the scripts and making sure the royalties are paid and the license obtained. In effect, it is anything that is not directly connected to the performance of the play.

In amateur theater often much of the producers work is done by the director. Also, many of the tasks are not necessary. The venue is already determined, at least in the case of our church, and the date is more a function of an open slot in everybody's schedule. Also it is generally known who will be the light and sound designers, the stage manager, and costume designer (if that is even necessary). Casting is done by the director, and there are usually no financial issues.

An essential role is in the acquisition of light and sound. If the production will require renting or purchasing lights or sound equipment, then it is the resposibility of the producer to determine the best options, find the sources for the equipment, and get it in-house in time for technical and dress rehearsals. Often the light or sound designers will handle this, but it is actually a producer role.

Another role of the producer that is generally handled by the director is the rehearsal schedule. With amateur productions this can be quite complex. I found that rather than have all the cast at all the rehearsals, it was better to try to group scenes for rehearsal that had the same cast members in them. This becomes more important, the larger the cast. We will talk about rehearsal in a later post, but setting the rehearsals around cast availability will lead to better cooperation and attendance. Remember, these are amateurs. They are doing this for fun. Family functions and various events already committed to will take precendence over rehearsals.

I find it hard to create a clear vision of a producer as opposed to a director. That is because I do both for our plays, and don't really think about which role I am fulfilling at any one time. In one sense the producer is the ultimate gopher. The producer has to take care of everything that supports but is not actually part of the production.

The producer is the integrator. It is possible to have a director, a set designer, a light designer, a sound designer, a cosume designer all on the same play. Keeping them all coordinated is a major part of being the producer.

Labels: drama

My previous post again led me to think that the US is so soft that we are incapable of a muscular foreign policy. We have the world's greatest military and are afraid to use it. We spend a small fraction of our GNP on the military compared to the past and a huge percentage on social programs that emasculate and enervate the recipients. We have become so socially polite for so long that we think the whole world is that way, at least if given the chance. Ha!

Right now there are barbarians at the gates with weapons that are far worse than any siege engines of the past. Unfortunately we have only decorative gates and no wall, and the moat is easily crossed.

Over a year ago Baron Bodissey mentioned the red-necks at the barricades with shotguns. Considering the enemy is recruiting right here in the US, it could literally become true. And only the people who are currently the laughing stock of our intelligensia will survive. For all the intellectuals' desire to accomodate, they will be the first to go. The men that survive will be dhimmis and the women slaves under Shari'ia. So much for PC and Feminism.

The only remnants of our society will become hunted and retreat to primitive enclaves that are physically defensible (until the invaders drop a nuke on them.) The remaining survivors will be those who play the role of rats, parasites, and scavangers in our social ecology. They are of no value to the jihadists, and will simply go deeper under cover, or make deals that have no moral value but will be honored as among thieves.

The world and especially the US has only two choices, rekindle our Western values and principles or become part of a medieval society. There will be no in between; neither is compatable with the other.

...we have lost the ability to endure hardship.

Earlier this week I read an item in USA Today that opined that the President of Iran was on shaky ground. It was about like the report during the Clinton Years that Bill and Hillary were having big fights and might divorce. Great fodder for the gullible.

From the Jewish World Review, in this article, comes a more sober assessment. Here are some quotes:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an evil man. But he is not a stupid man. Indeed, he is a smart and fastidious. He understands power and how to get it....Ahmadinejad has achieved significant success in advancing his policy aims of defeating the United States, destroying the State of Israel, and acquiring nuclear weapons.

...

On Wednesday, London's Daily Telegraph reported that Iranian-North Korean nuclear collaboration has reached new heights....North Korean nuclear scientists are in Iran today assisting their Iranian counterparts in preparing a nuclear test that could take place by the end of the year.

...

[T]he report that Iran could test a nuclear weapon by the end of 2007 means that there is reason to fear that Iran will have the means to launch a nuclear attack against Israel next year.

...

Iran's acquisition last month of advanced Russian Tor M-1 anti-aircraft missiles demonstrates that with Russian assistance, Iran is preparing seriously for war.

...

This week Hizbullah moved ahead with its stated goal of overthrowing Prime Minister Fuad Siniora's government. It should be clear from the events this week in Lebanon that Iran is working to undermine any semblance of order in that country in order to facilitate its exploitation as a forward operating base against Israel....A nuclear attack against Israel aimed at annihilating the Jewish state can be conducted by relatively primitive delivery systems. And there is little reason to doubt that Hizbullah possesses such systems.

...

Iran's hyperactive diplomacy is bringing about a situation in which every state with a beef against the US or Israel is collaborating on some level with Iran.

...

In the realm of international public opinion, Iran's position is anything but weak. This was made clear last Saturday in London in the course of a public debate between London's pathologically anti-American and anti-Israel mayor Ken Livingstone and US Islamic scholar Dr. Daniel Pipes. During the debate, Livingstone noted in a laconic manner that evoked no outrage that he thinks that the establishment of the State of Israel was a mistake. [emphasis mine, bk]

He goes on to discuss the overall implications and what is being done to counter this. I find the quotes above exceedingly worrisome. Our entire government is looking like Nero. North Korea has attempted to explode a nuclear device and Iran will explode one by the end of this year.

I have little doubt that multiple nuclear explosions will occur in Israel and the US. By trying to be "nice" in foreign relations, we will end up being extremely brutal just to survive. It will be ugly


...........Iran continues its plans to destroy Israel and the US.

You are "Face with Glasses"

Thanks to one of my surrogate daughters for this one.

Today in the WSJ Opinion Journal the two lead articles are "Congress has no constitutional power to micromanage a war" and "America is talking itself into defeat in Iraq". USA Today headlines read "Senators say 'no' on Bush Iraq plan".

I lived through the debacle that was Vietnam. So did all these idiots, some of whom are traitors, and several of whom should have been convicted of treason. They actually think we did the right thing in Vietnam. Now they want to do the same in Iraq. And they will never accept the responsibility for the consequences.

I am sick of "we support the troops." I have a son in Bahrain who is in the Navy. He is an EOD technician--a very high risk field. I could lose him to his work, and it would be a second son killed. However, he chose to do this work and I am proud of him for it. I don't want him brought home with the job he volunteered for undone. I want him given the best support and more combat troops to surround him when he is doing his work. I want that vipers nest of religious fanatics cleaned out. I want enough troops over there that when he goes in and cleans up the explosives, the area stays clean.

I hope and pray that we have a future as a country when historians look back and see that we survived inspite of electing traitors and murderers to high office, allowing our news media to commit acts of treason, allowing the impotent to dictate policies that tied our hands behind our backs, and generally acted suicidal in the face of on implacable enemy.

Unfortunately, when the people of Massachusetts can re-elect Teddy Kennedy after Chappaquidick, still see Jane Fonda movies after Vietnam, let John Kerry run for President after his consorting with the enemy, and still pay attention to Ramsey Clark, I don't have a lot of hope. If we are lucky we are still in the phase of "You can fool all of the people some of the time," and are headed into "you can fool some of the people all the time."

I shared my disinterest in my common blogging topics with the Big Hominid, and mentioned my growing involvement in drama production at our church. He thought it would be a good topic to blog on, and I realized it was something I liked talking about, but didn't realize anyone would be interested.

I don't claim to be an expert, but I did produce and direct what for us was a very successful presentation of John Steinbeck's "The Moon Is Down" last October. I had also produced and directed a presentation of "The Living Last Supper" last Palm Sunday. So I will take it in small pieces to avoid boredom for the reader and let you not have to dig very deep for something you might want to know.

For both plays, I was producer, director, casting director, set designer, light designer, sound designer, and for "The Moon Is Down" followspot operator. I also wrote the programs and the program notes. That is not to brag, but to serve 1) to show I write from experience, and 2) to warn any fledgling directors, be prepared to work harder than you ever have before. If it isn't a passion, you will never do it again.

In fact that is the first rule of amateur productions: they are never as easy as conceived.

The second rule is: NO one is a professional, and if you are directing you will never be Frances Coppola or John Huston.

The third rule is: Don't expect too much.

The fourth rule is: Balance, not perfection in anyone area, is the goal. It does no good to have elaborate sets when the actors don't know their lines or the lighting is wrong or the sound doesn't come together. The same is true for any aspect of the play.

Enough on rules. The production starts with a good script. Select a play that is obvious, has a strong message, and is appropriate for the audience and the cast. Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" is a powerful and excellent play. So is "Death of a Saleman." But neither of those plays can have justice done to them by an amateur group and especially by a high-school level group. They also are not appropriate for most church drama groups. The sub-themes are not good material for a church. For amateur theater, the characters need to be well-delineated, and not exceedingly subtle. Shakespeare is done, and overdone, by amateur groups. My own opinion is that carrying Shakespeare off properly is extremely difficult.

Play sources are many, but the best I have come across so far is Dramatists Play Service. This company has arranged to license plays to amateur groups and summer stock. They have a catalog of almost two thousand plays, many of them famous, with a brief synopsis, the casting required and the sets required. It can be purchased in printed form or the PDF downloaded and printed at home for free. The copies of the scripts are very reasonal in cost, most are $5-8.

I will warn you--there is a huge amount of drek out there. Even if the synopsis looks good, when you get a copy and read it, it will not be as good in most cases. In some cases you will find there is little resemblance, and sometimes it is better than advertised. NEVER buy the scripts for a play on the basis of description. Plan way ahead and purchase one copy of several possible scripts.

When doing the "The Moon Is Down" I had a possible list of 200 that I winnowed down to about 20 and of those bought 8. I knew I was going to do "The Moon Is Down" but I also knew there would be plays in the future to do. Of the eight, I found "The Moon Is Down," "The Crucible," and "The White Rose" as good, well-crafted plays. "The Crucible" turned out to be inappropriate for the audience I was preparing for, and "The White Rose" was a sleeper that would be good for High School students.

When selecting plays, don't select one because it has some wonderful message, if you don't resonate with it. If you can't visualize the play in progress, if you can't feel the emotions without working at it--DROP IT. If you want to direct a play, you have to be passionately in love with it. It has to come alive in your mind, or it will never come alive on a stage. It takes a lot of hours to select a play. Just going through the catalogs takes time, and then the scripts have to be read.

We have simply raised the curtain and already you have a lot of hours invested. There is more to come.

Labels: drama

I have been following this blog for a couple of weeks. I was introduced to it by Dymphna of Gates of Vienna. This particular post is an excellent example of the carefully thought out ideas that she presents on todays foreign affairs. There are many times I don't like what she says, but there are no times I can dismiss it. Please visit Pundita and see for yourself.

This article is the first in what I expect to be a very careful and slow retreat from the rhetoric of man-caused global warming. In five years it will be a dead issue.

Thanks to Drudge for the link.

Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for global warming 14:30 | 15/ 01/ 2007

ST. PETERSBURG, January 15 (RIA Novosti) - Rising levels of carbon dioxide and other gases emitted through human activities, believed by scientists to trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, are an effect rather than the cause of global warming, a prominent Russian scientist said Monday.

Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory, said global warming stems from an increase in the sun's activity. His view contradicts the international scientific consensus that climate change is attributable to the emission of greenhouse gases generated by industrial activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity," Abdusamatov told RIA Novosti in an interview.

"It is no secret that when they go up, temperatures in the world's oceans trigger the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN panel of thousands of international scientists, widely regarded as an authority on climate change issues, established a consensus many years ago that most of the warming experienced over the last half-century has been attributable to human activities.

However, scientists acknowledge that rises in temperatures can potentially cause massive increases of greenhouse gases due to various natural positive feedback mechanisms, for example the methane released by melting permafrost, ocean algae's reduced capacity to absorb carbon at higher water temperatures, and the carbon released by trees when forests dry up.

Abdusamatov, a doctor of mathematics and physics, is one of a small number of scientists around the world who continue to contest the view of the IPCC, the national science academies of the G8 nations, and other prominent scientific bodies.

He said an examination of ice cores from wells over three kilometers (1.5 miles) deep in Greenland and the Antarctic indicates that the Earth experienced periods of global warming even before the industrial age (which began two hundred years ago).

Climate scientists have used information in ice cores, which contain air samples trapped by snow falling hundreds of thousands of years ago, providing an ancient record of the atmosphere's makeup, to establish that throughout the numerous glacial and interglacial periods on record, temperatures have closely tracked global CO2 concentrations.

The fact that background atmospheric CO2 levels, shown for example by the famous Keeling curve, displaying precise measurements going back to 1958, are now known to be well above concentrations experienced in hundreds of millennia, as displayed by the ice cores, is considered by most of the scientific community as incontrovertible proof of mankind's influence on greenhouse gas concentrations.

However, Abdusamatov even disputed the greenhouse effect, claiming it fails to take into account the effective transmission of heat to the outer layers of atmosphere.

Scientists have known about the greenhouse effect since the 19th century. The phenomenon by which gases such as methane and CO2 warm the troposphere by absorbing some of the infra-red heat reflected by the earth's surface has the effect of a global thermostat, sustaining global temperatures within ranges that allow life on the planet to thrive.

But Abdusamatov insisted: "Ascribing ‘greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated. Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

Abdusamatov claimed that the upper layers of the world's oceans are - much to climatologists' surprise - becoming cooler, which is a clear indication that the Earth has hit its temperature ceiling already, and that solar radiation levels are falling and will eventually lead to a worldwide cold spell.

"Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015. The gradually falling amounts of solar energy, expected to reach their bottom level by 2040, will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-2060," he said, adding that this period of global freeze will last some 50 years, after which the temperatures will go up again.

"There is no need for the Kyoto Protocol now, and it does not have to come into force until at least a hundred years from now - a global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions," Abdusamatov said.

The 1998 Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which sets greenhouse gas emission targets for the period up to 2012, entered into force two years ago following ratification by 141 countries, which together account for over 55% of the world's gas pollutions. However, most environmentalists now consider its targets inadequate to enforce the emissions cuts necessary to curb climate change.

Russia ratified the treaty in November 2004, making it legally binding. But the world's top polluter, the United States, is still reluctant to sign on for fear the treaty's emission commitments will slow down the country's economic growth.

This was sent to me by a friend. It is a legitimate article from a Russian language news service translated into English. This academic is not the only one to have made this claim. I consider it as valid, if not more, than the greenhouse gas proponents. At this point, only by denying valid data, and mis-interpreting the remainder, can the man-caused global warming hypothesis be supported.

I have been resting for the last six weeks from almost everything. I have been able to stay home until today. Today I hit the road again and will be traveling until the end of May and more likely the end of August.

I can't get very worked up over the current political or world scene. Everything I have to say, I have pretty much said, and things still look the same. I also have no new thoughts on religion.

Now that I am back on the road, I may have the opportunity to work on some larger papers, but I also have to start production of two plays for Palm Sunday. When I am home I need to finish some scale drawings of the sanctuary, which is my theater, for scene and light design work. My middle son and daughter gave me an excellent introduction to set design for Christmas, and I am busy trying to formalize my design work to provide a base for improvement.

As always, I am grateful for those who continue to blog and provide new ideas. It keeps me from getting stale, whether I have anything to add or not.

From a good friend:

Been around under several guises - - still funny . . .

Spanish teacher was explaining to her class that in Spanish, unlike English, nouns are designated as either masculine or feminine. "House" for instance, is feminine: "la casa." "Pencil," however, is masculine: "el lapiz."

A student asked, "What gender is 'computer'?" Instead of giving the answer, the teacher split the class into two groups, male and female, and asked them to decide for themselves whether "computer" should be a masculine or a feminine noun. Each group was asked to give four reasons for its recommendation.

The men's group decided that "computer" should definitely be of the feminine gender ("la computadora"), because:

1. No one but their creator understands their internal logic;

2. The native language they use to communicate with other computers is incomprehensible to everyone else;

3. Even the smallest mistakes are stored in long term memory for possible later retrieval; and

4. As soon as you make a commitment to one, you find yourself spending half your paycheck on accessories for it.

(THIS GETS BETTER!)

The women's group,however, concluded that computers should be Masculine ("el computador"), because:

1. In order to do anything with them, you have to turn them on;

2. They have a lot of data but still can't think for themselves;

3. They are supposed to help you solve problems, but half the time they ARE the problem; and

4. As soon as you commit to one, you realize that if you had waited a little longer, you could have gotten a better model.

The women won

My Peculiar Aristocratic Title is: His Noble Excellency Bill the Imaginary of Lower Wombleshire Get your Peculiar Aristocratic Title

How very funny, Bill the Imaginary! Does that mean I am a figment of my imagination? What a wonderful infinite spiral!

Thanks to the Maximum Leader for the link.

On this quiz I scored a 36.

...The Maximum Leader from whom the link to this quiz came.

This is an assigned reading -- "Free to Say What?" at the Gates of Vienna.

The Christmas Story
The Christmas story appears in Matthew and Luke, and not Mark or John. Mark predates Matthew, and supposedly Matthew used much of Mark as a base for his gospel. John seems to be from a totally different tradition. Luke knew of Matthew's gospel, and provides essentially the same story with a lot of enhancements concerning Mary and Elizabeth who is said to be John the Baptist's mother. However, the story of the magi appears only in Matthew.

The entire story is shrouded in legend. Attempts to fix the historical clues come up with contradictions and inconsistencies. It is actually doubtful that the birth occurred on or around Dec 25, but rather the day is a co-option of a pagan holiday. That Jesus was born to poor parents is a given. His father was a carpenter and would have had little money. Laying the baby in a manger after swaddling him is a poignant image, but is it possibly true? We would have to have some idea of birth customs of the times. I would think he would be simply held by Mary.

What are the origins of the story of the Magi? No one has ever been able to create a strong, plausible explanation for the Star. Many good, reputable astronomers have tried. Without that the story becomes even more legendary. It makes a good promotion of Jesus as a great and wonderful person to have three kings or wise men or magicians come and visit him as a baby, but doesn't really fit what Jesus is to become. Again the story tends to support the Messiah as a Davidic king rather than a great Rabbi, when viewed as being foretold, though it makes a good selling point for his impact later--he was seen as a child to be a chosen one.

What strikes me more than anything else is the contrast of the birth of an infant and its attendant joy at a time that is normally drear. Mid-winter is not normally a time for celebration, which may explain some of our almost hysterical attempts to have a joyful time. Here we are given a reason to be joyful in an image that is inherently joyful. There is some historical truth in the story perhaps, but mostly it is inspirational rather than factual.

If nothing else, it emphasizes that from the most humble beginnings great things can come. The baby of a carpenter and his wife, too poor to afford a room in an inn, became the greatest teacher and spiritual leader of all human history.

Church Music
During this general time of year, our church changes liturgies fairly often. As a consequence I started reflecting on the differences, and their appeal. I began to realize that the liturgy was originally written by elites, not the common people, and that what many of us hold as traditional is something that is accepted only because there was no alternative. Generally, I think the people that like the traditional liturgies are also the ones that are into classical music and literature, in other words, the elitists.

It was hard for me to believe that the modern liturgies were actually liked. I have since changed that opinion, not because I came to like them, but because I heard from people that did. Modern liturgies are akin to pop music in their sophistication, or lack thereof. They have the same kind of easy melodies and simple rhythms. Obviously, I don't care much for pop music.

But two things are important here: 1) the basic principles do not change, and 2) the liturgy reinforces in most people the lessons and principles being provided. There is nothing in salvation doctrine that dictates it be promoted in plainsong, Gregorian chant, Luther's hymns, or for that matter any of the modern liturgy writers. What is important is that the message reach its audience. A liturgy that is not pleasing will create an antagonism that interfers with the hearing of the message, and the converse is true.

What is needed is for a church to either select for a given congregation and have only one liturgy, or else be open and have several liturgies throughout the year.

This essay was linked by the Jewish World Review today. It shows that the US has been corruptly supporting a Middle Eastern myth for 33 years, and continues to do so. In effect, almost the entire State Department is traitorous if not treasonous.

Here are the fruits of real-politik and a failure to have principles in foreign relations.