Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Photographer from Baltimor... | Giuliani Slams Cantwell on Det... »

Monday, October 9, 2006

Former vs. Former

posted by on October 9 at 18:21 PM

Former Stranger reporter Phil Campbell argues with former Seattle resident Mike Daisey over at not-former-nothing Maud Newton dot com. Winner? Mike Daisey. Paraphrase? Theater is not an OpEd piece.

RSS icon Comments

1

That explains why the Monopoly I saw at Bumbershoot just kind of dissolved at the end like a mirage, after building insights and connections so remarkably from the beginning.

Maybe Daisey should script things out a little more.

Or at least post the video of some exceptional performance somewhere, for posterity - like Homer did with the Odyssey.

Posted by Prospero | October 10, 2006 8:36 AM
2

Monopoly dissolved? I thought it faded out in a very satisfying way.

Posted by keshmeshi | October 10, 2006 9:58 AM
3

We're agreed, then, it seemed somewhat...inconclusive.

No denouement.

Is that drama?

After all the buildup, I expected to be left somewhere more persuasive than a deserted building on a vacant lot.

Posted by Prospero | October 10, 2006 11:05 AM
4


You should post a link to this video that Homer made--I don't remember him working with video so much.

I thought MONOPOLY! resolved beautifully--if you're looking for something a little more spoon-fed, wait around and the Rep will serve it up the rest of the year.

Posted by Caliban | October 10, 2006 1:14 PM
5

"I thought it faded out in a very satisfying way" - keshmeshi

"I thought MONOPOLY! resolved beautifully" - Caliban

Well I'm glad *you* thought so.

What evidence do you have that it really did so?

If you can't say more, you're just indulging in contradiction.

Maybe you're the one in need of pablum.

Posted by Prospero | October 10, 2006 2:55 PM
6


"Evidence?" What a strange way of asking for an artistic impression.

I thought the end of Monopoly!, happening at Tesla's abandoned laboratory captures the beautiful futility of Tesla's dream of wireless power--a dream short-circuited by the corporate interests Daisey has been exploring throughout the show. The final moments, talking about how you can make a connection without touching refer not only to Tesla's wireless power but the connection forged in the audience, and the charge that he talks about being carried out the doors beyond the theater is not only the literal electric one, but the idea that corporate personhood and corporate rule has become the defacto rule of law in our society.

I think the piece itself has the wonderful quality of being not merely structurally clever and formal but having real heart and taking real risk in reaching for heights--which again mirrors Tesla and the themes the piece wrestles with. I do think Daisey should take care not to become ungrounded, but he's arguably the best monologuist working in America today and he's young. He'll figure it out.

Posted by Caliban | October 10, 2006 3:09 PM
7

What are you Caliban - Daisey's publicist? Or Daisey himself?

I doubt many people, seeing the piece once at Bumbershoot, would retain so detailed a memory. I don't.

Nevertheless, after pleading impressionism, you do give good evidence - except that it contradicts itself.

So you feel connected to me by an electric charge now? I was in the audience too, but I don't feel any special connection to you - especially after you insulted me as needing to be spoon fed by the Rep.

And the charge that holds us together also grounds the defacto rule of corporate law? Now you've lost me - as did Daisey by not making such points explicit, but only to be divined like allegorical will-o-the-wisps rising in the Long Island fog.

I agree Daisey's as good as it gets since Spalding Grey jumped in the river, and all his stuff has great potential - especially this piece.

I just thought Phil Campbell had a point: Daisey lets that potential fritter itself away in amguity and inconclusive smoke signals at the end.

But he's not alone - most theater people these days seem to have taken the "equal time" rule to heart, and make a virtue out of mere ambiguity and inconclusiveness, as if that equals complexity.

It's like no one ever read Brecht.

Posted by Prospero | October 10, 2006 3:45 PM
8


I think it's telling that you demand a personal response, I give you one...and you begin by insinuating that my views aren't worth listening to.

Your writing style reminds me of Campbell in that article--he was overly combative and more interested in point-scoring than actual discourse.

There's no contradiction in what I said, friend...I believe Daisey was hoping people would feel charged, and I believe I expressed what I think he was driving at...just because you didn't get this from the performance doesn't make my view contradictory.

I don't know why my comments about the Rep bothered you so much--do you work there?

If Phil Campbell is right about anything in that piece it's purely by accident--but I do agree that Daisey should work on his endings, as they do tend not to work for everyone and sometimes become ungrounded. I guess that's a kind of consensus.

Did you see Daisey's piece on Brecht?

Posted by Caliban | October 10, 2006 4:05 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).