Lee Wochner: Writer. Director. Writing instructor. Thinker about things.


Blog

Important matters

November 21st, 2009

Overheard tonight, as my 7-year-old and his 11-year-old sister came across a television commercial for the new teen vampire movie:

Him:  “Why doesn’t he die? He’s a vampire. Vampires can’t be out in sunlight.”

Her:  “I don’t know. He just doesn’t.”

Him:  “Why not?”

Her:  “I don’t know. I know one way to kill them for sure. Rip them apart into pieces. They did that in the first movie.”

Him:  “Why don’t they use acid? That would work.”

Her:  No response.

Him:  “Why don’t they use acid?”

Her:  No response.

Him:  “EMMA!!!!! Why don’t they use acid?”

Her:  “I DON’T KNOW!!!!”

Later, he told me that he had “a plan to put an end to her diabolical ways.”

Other than that, how did you enjoy the play?

November 20th, 2009

There’s a joke that goes, “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?”

Which seems apropos, having just come from seeing “Better Angels,” a play about Mr. Lincoln, at the Colony Theatre in Burbank.

At this point, I think I’m pretty well-versed with Mr. Lincoln and his story. Above my desk at home I’ve got a miniature bust of that president, and throughout the house I’ve got countless biographies and studies of the man, and collections of his writing. I’ve been to his memorial several times, and I respectfully refrain from comparing other, lesser politicians to him, no matter how close they try to sidle during election campaigns, no matter which party they come from.

Still, this play tonight did just what you hope the theatre will do, every time you step inside one: it awoke me to the reality. There is Lincoln the monument, and there was Lincoln the man. In order to remove Lincoln from the reliquary, the playwright (Wayne Peter Liebman) arrives upon the device of a framing sequence concerning Lincoln’s secretary, John Hay, as played by David Dean Bottrell. At the play’s beginning,we encounter an older Hay, serving as secretary of state in the early 1900’s during the administrations of McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt. This Hay now realizes that with Lincoln he was in the presence of greatness. The younger Hay, seen throughout most of the play, like so many other contemporaries mistakes Lincoln for a lucky and talentless buffoon. He, like the third character in the play, a female petitioner to the president, grow to understand his depth. And then, in the moment of his triumph, having won the Civil War and passage of the Thirteen Amendment, which abolished slavery, Lincoln suffers his tragic end. But this is offstage, and Hay, the older Hay, 40 years after the fact, one of the last few wh knew Lincoln personally, is the one to tell us, except he cannot fully tell us, his voice cracking as he says about that evening in the theatre, “You know the rest.” The moment was like a depth charge. Almost 150 years after the death of a man I never knew, I started to well up.

This was the second play I saw this week. The other, sadly, I didn’t like at all. I took a good friend with me and we spent the next day exchanging emails picking the play apart (and the direction). I could go on about why it didn’t work, but they’re the usual reasons:  no real conflict, no real investment in the characters or the milieu, long and self-important monologues, late-arriving themes and complications. Rather than go on about that, I’d just like to say this:  There’s a reason we’re drawn to art. Art is the expression of someone else who was here, someone who is connected to us, someone who left this trail. The cave paintings at Lascaux are the earliest and most vivid proof of this. In an age when we are bombarded by sensory overload and traffic jams of the freeway and of the mind, when a producer has to remind audience members before the performance that they can indeed forego Twitter and email for 90 minutes and to please do so, it’s art that has the power to reroot us in the ground we all stand on, the ground of our common humanity, and to remind us of its potential and its impossibility, its exultation and its awfulness. That’s what art is for.

It didn’t work for George W. Bush

November 17th, 2009

According to a news story on MSNBC.com, “Tiny insect brains can solve big problems.

Imprisoned, addendum

November 17th, 2009

If you’d like to see what “The Prisoner” really looks like, click here.

The new one doesn’t even have cool theme music, let alone Patrick McGoohan’s penetrating glare (which I practiced for hours back in high school).

Without reservations

November 17th, 2009

I’m not the only one seeing more people in restaurants. In another good economic portent, even the restaurants in Indiana are showing signs of life.

Imprisoned

November 16th, 2009

 As a fan of the original series, which spoke so directly to my rebellious teenage self, I was looking forward to the remake of “The Prisoner” running on AMC this week. Sadly, it’s unbearably bad. Really, truly, tediously, awful. I would go on about why, but this fellow has already enumerated all the reasons, with one exception:  There’s nothing at stake. No stakes = no conflict = no story. In its place:  dolorous music accompanying logy acting. If there are terrorists in the village, I’m rooting for them.

Word of the year

November 16th, 2009

The New Oxford American Dictionary’s Word of the Year is, fittingly, “unfriend.”

Let auld acquaintance be forgot

November 16th, 2009

I used to have this very close friend. He was a big part of my circle for years. He and another friend and I smoked cigars together and went to Mexico together and did theatre together and did all sorts of things together. Great times.

Then he fell into a deep conversation with an actress at one of my parties and soon after they moved in together and then he drifted away. Which happens. I understood it then and I understand it now.

I did try to maintain the friendship, though. I mean, I have other friends who suddenly have love interests who remain my friends. And shouldn’t that be what you want for your friends? If not, maybe you’re not such a friend.

So I would call him and he’d sure-sure me, but then not call me back or not show up. The final straw was in 2004 when I was at the launch party thrown by Nike for the Rockstar energy drink. They took over the Music Box (aka The Henry Fonda, home of that recent Devo concert) and threw open the taps and bottles and generously dispensed appetizers. The rooftop speakeasy provided a great venue to smoke cigars and take in the night time buzz of Hollywood. So I got on my cellphone and invited my friend because I knew I could get him in and because I knew he lived close by — in Hollywood, mere blocks away. He said great, thanks for the invite, he’d be right over. An hour later I called him back and he answered his phone at home and then I knew it was the last time I’d be talking to him.

Me: “You’re still there.”

Him: “Uh… yeah. Sorry.”

Me: “I called you an hour ago and invited you and you said yes and now I call you and you’re still home. So you’re not coming.”

Him:  “Yeah. Sorry.”

Me: “No. It’s okay. I get it. I got it.”

Him:  “No. It’s not like that.”

Me: “Yeah. I think it is.”

Five years went by.

Two Fridays ago I got a call on my cellphone. It was him. “Hey, it’s [name here]. Uh… I’m going to call you at your home number too.”  Five seconds later, my home phone rang and he left a message there too. Asking me to call him.

So here’s what I’ve done:  Nothing.

Oh, I’ve been tempted to text him and say I’m going to call him right away, and then do nothing. But that seems petty.

As soon as I told our third friend that our former friend had called, he said, “He wants something.”

When I told my playwriting group this story, a friend in the group immediately said, “He wants something.”

Wants something as in, wants something that will benefit him. And that’s my thought too.

I deleted both messages and forgot about it until five minutes ago when I thought I’d post it here for posterity. And, who knows — maybe he reads this blog.

Today’s music video

November 15th, 2009

This is infectious. Plus it lends further insight into why 1967 indeed must have been the summer of love.

Guessing game

November 15th, 2009

Earlier this week, my friend-since-college Paul alerted me that he’d shipped a gift from the wilds of New Jersey I once haunted. All week long, via emails and text messages, we’ve played a guessing game that went just like this:

Me: “Animal, vegetable, or mineral?”

Him: “No hints. You’ll have to wait until Friday.”

Me (not known for my patience, and channeling Peggy Cass): “Is it bigger than a bread box?”

Him: “Yes, it is bigger than a bread box.” (So much for “No hints.”)

Me: “Is it heavier than a chicken?”

Him: “No more hints, it will ruin the surprise. You’ll just have to curb your curiosity for a few days. (If that’s possible.)”

Me: “Is it perishable?”

Him (unable again to keep to his pledge of “no hints”): “It could last several years.”

Me: “Is it cremains of Joe’s old clients?” (We have a mutual friend who went out of the funeral business. We sometimes speculate about, um, lasting obligations.)

Him (still, you’ll note, giving hints): “No. You might be able to guess one item in the box but not the other. I’m going to sleep now, so more info tonight.”  (I think he meant no more info tonight, but that didn’t daunt me.)

Me (emailing back immediately): “Is it something one might use in the home?”

Him:  “It could be used in or outside the house.”

Me: “Is it a chainsaw, or a pound of twenty dollar bills?” (Both of which I could use inside or outside the house, the latter to bribe small children. The former, according to many low-budget films produced since the 1970’s, to dispense with small children.)

I received no reply to that one.  I started to think:  Maybe I guessed right. Maybe it is a pound of twenties. Which would be useful. (I already have a chainsaw.)

Then, on Friday, I got this email:  “So did the package I sent arrive?”

And here was my reply:  “Dunno. I’m out of town on biz ’til Monday.”

The smoke I smelled while driving down to Palm Springs was coming out of Paul’s ears.