So, some of you may recall that last year, I and Sarah Trunk were in a little (actually not so little, actually kinda giant and awesome) thing called the Sarah Play at Roundhouse Theatre. Last year it was 'The Giver,' directed by Jessie Klueter. I played the Chief Elder, and Sarah played Lily. It was the 10th anniversary of the Sarah Play, so it was a huge deal, and lots of exciting things happened as a result of it--there was an article in the Gazette, NPR did a piece on it, and the Sarah Play held its very first student matinee, performed during the school day for students of Loiderman Middle School.
The Sarah Play was created in honor of the memory of Sarah Metzger, an active member of the theatre community in her school and at Round House, who was killed in an automobile accident during her freshman year of college. One of the Round House family’s lasting memories of Sarah is that, while still a high school student, she independently mounted a full-scale theatre production. Wishing to expand on the opportunities offered by her high school’s theatre department, Sarah worked to raise funds, secure facilities and a production staff, market and promote her production, and direct a full-length play. After her passing, Sarah’s family worked with Round House to create The Sarah Metzger Memorial Fund as a tribute to the inspiring young woman. Through the generosity of many contributors, the fund provides the financial resources each season for similarly passionate and motivated high school students to create a fully-realized production with a professional theatre company. Every year, the Sarah Play is directed, designed, stage-managed, and performed by high-schoolers, all of whom are mentored by professionals in their area.
This year, I am once again performing in the Sarah Play, entitled 'Murder, Mayhem, and Monkeys...An Evening of David Ives', and directed by Joan Sergay. It's a collection of one-acts, all by David Ives, and linked together through a theme of technology. The four one-acts are:
'The Philadelphia': a girl is stuck in a state of being called a 'Philadelphia' where she can get
anything except what she wants. Hey, we're all got to be somewhere. Performed by Zoe Johnson (Ali), Megan Wirtz (Waitress), and Helen Hanger (Marcy).
'Words, Words, Words': three monkeys in a research lab explore the philosophical idea that monkeys typing into infinity will sooner or later produce Hamlet. Performed by Kenny Hahn (Milton), Everleigh Brenner (Kafka), and Zoe Johnson (Swift).
'Sure Thing': two people, meeting for the first time, have their conversation reset over and over until they get it right. Perfomed by Megan Wirtz (Betty) and Kazz Feliz-Hawver (Bill).
'The Mystery of Twicknam Vicarage': in a classically ridiculous murder mystery, some startling revelations about the relationships between upper-class Brits surface as they try to determine who killed Jeremy Thumpington Fuh-Fuh-Fines. Performed by Everleigh Brenner (Sarah), Kazz Felix-Hawver (Roger), Kenny Hahn (Mona), Helen Hanger (Jeremy), and Zoe Johnson (Inspector Dexter).
The technological theme relates the one-acts through texting, Google searches, and iPhone apps, which connect each one-act to each other and to the audience.
The play opened last Friday night, and, though I say it myself, it was wonderful. The really, really tricky thing about David Ives one-acts is that they are language comedy, and, as Ives' most popular book of plays is entitled, it really is "All in the Timing." As an actor, there have been a lot of challenging aspects of this play--memorizing three one-acts, having three very different characters, going from one character to another quickly, learning how to act like a monkey, developing a Cockney accent--but the most persistent difficulty I and other actors have had with it is getting the timing, rhythm, and energy right. There is a very distinct rhythm to be found in one-acts, and that--combined with the fact that these are comedies (significantly harder than dramas), and language comedies to boot (meaning the audience has to hear and understand everything we say, or else it won't be funny)--makes them supremely difficult to perform. And, although we've been working very hard on this show for three months, and have a terrific fantastic wonderful director, as well as the assistance and guidance of Brianna Letourneau, our acting mentor, and Danisha Crosby, the directing mentor, it's still hard.
On top of that, tech week made me worried. The weekend before the show opened, we had thirteen hours of rehearsal in the black box, just teching the show (putting in lights, sound, etc), and running transitions (quick changes, furniture changes, etc). For most of that time, we were performing at half-energy, as it was a long weekend and we were mostly there to help the designers, anyway. That, combined with all the new elements being integrated, as well as the desire to take our already-done work to a whole new level, made the focus on rhythm intense. Tuesday we had a lot of difficulty, Wednesday we had a great run, Thursday we performed our final dress rehearsal for friends of Roundhouse...and 'Philadelphia' was way too fast, 'Twicknam Vicarage' was too slow. I was scared for Friday. It's a common theatre saying that a bad dress rehearsal makes for a good opening night, but my response to that is always, "What if it doesn't?"
As it turned out, it was a beautiful, beautiful show. The energy was high, the audience was warm, and the fact is, we love theatre, we love performing, and we loved telling this story. Also, the opening night of the Sarah Play is always a really really big deal. As I mentioned above, the reason it's called the Sarah Play is because it's in honor of Sarah Metzger. We are performing in honor of someone's life--someone who, like us, loved theatre. On Thursday, before our final dress, we had a long talk with Brianna and Joan about that: about what a gift it is that we get to do theatre, how the Sarah Play is really about enjoying theatre, and no matter what happens, the fact that we are doing this is special. Because Sarah was special, and theatre is special, and all of us coming together to commemorate that is special. And on the opening night of the Sarah Play, after the show, the Metzgers, Danisha, and various Roundhouse people (including Artistic Director Ryan Rillette, with whom we had an acting workshop earlier this year) speak about Sarah, and the Sarah Play, and what it means to all of us. There were many tears--from the cast, the professionals, and the audience. Everyone cries on opening night. (Incidentally, most of the cast had also cried a lot before the show. Joan had left us each a rose and a note saying how proud of us she was. I knew I would be crying that night anyway--it's an incredibly emotionally charged night--so I took the note and my thoughts to an empty hallway an hour before the show and bawled my eyes out). Before we went onstage, the cast warmed up together, and dedicated the show to Sarah.
Come see the Sarah Play. Really.
March 22nd and 23rd at 8, March 24th at 2. More information at
http://www.roundhousetheatre.org/learn/programs-for-students/the-sarah-play/.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Sunday, March 10, 2013
VAWA Reauthorized, Extended
Last Thursday, President Obama reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which was first passed in 1994 to help victims of rape and domestic violence find safety, care, and justice. VAWA is credited with reducing rates of domestic violence by two-thirds over the past two decades. The reauthorization, which occurs approximately every five years, was opposed by House Republicans, who objected to extended protections for LGBT victims, immigrants, and Native Americans.
VAWA is a federal law, first signed in 1994 by President Clinton, that provides $1.6 billion for programs and services for survivors of domestic violence and rape, implements a federal 'rape shield' law, and establishes the Office on Violence Against Women in the Department of Justice. VAWA was first drafted by the office of then-Senator Joe Biden, with the help of advocacy groups, and passed Congress in 1994 with bipartisan support. In 2000, a sharply divided Supreme Court declared the provision of VAWA allowing women the right to sue their attackers in court unconstitutional, as it was an infringement of states' rights. Nevertheless, VAWA again passed Congress easily in 2000 and 2005.
However, the 2012 renewal of VAWA was opposed by conservative Republicans, who objected to the extended protections written into the newest version of the Act. In April 2012, the Senate passed the bill. Later that year, the House passed the unextended version, omitting the passages pertaining to LGBTQs, immigrants, and Native Americans. Reconciliation of the two bills was slow, and it was uncertain whether VAWA would be reauthorized at all. The 112th Congress ended without it being passed. Luckily, the extended version of VAWA was again introduced to the Senate in the 113th Congress, and it was passed on Feb. 11, 2013, with a vote of 78-22. The House had also re-introduced its bill, with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor explaining that "Our goal in strengthening the Violence Against Women Act is simple. We want to help all women who are faced with violent, abusive and dangerous situations."
(Can we just take a moment to appreciate the fact that he says "all women" despite the fact that he's trying to strike down provisions to help all women? Yeah).
Anyway, the House's proposal was met with indignation from women's groups, the White House, Democrats, and some Republicans, and on Feb. 26, the GOP leadership in the House agreed to have a vote on the Senate bill. On Feb. 28, the House passed the Senate's all-inclusive bill 286 to 138, after rejecting the limited-protections bill 257 to 166. It was awesome.
Something interesting to note is what this will mean in terms of the GOP's appeal to women. While the Republicans argued that they were opposed to the extensions, not to the core of the bill, their reluctance to pass the bill only heightened the sense that the Republican party is anti-women, a popular narrative that didn't help their chances last November. (Democrats have been winning the female vote since 1984). It's also interesting to note that all the female Republican senators voted for it--the only ones against it were male. Perhaps the GOP will take this opportunity to take a good hard look at their policies and re-evaluate their positions towards women. That'd be good for everyone.
Some notes on the extended provisions:
1) Native American women suffer domestic violence at rates more than double the national average. However, Native American courts do not have jurisdiction over non-Native Americans, and federal prosecutors do not take up about half the violence cases because of lack of resources to pursue crimes on isolated Native American lands. The Senate bill gives Native American courts the ability to prosecute non-Native Americans for a set of crimes limited to domestic violence and violations of protecting orders.
2) The bill adds stalking to the list of crimes that make immigrants eligible for protection and authorizes programs dealing with sexual assault on college campuses. It also reauthorizes the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which is arguably the most important anti-trafficking law ever passed.
3) It authorizes $659 million a year over five years to fund current programs that provide housing, legal, police, and hotline grants.
VAWA is a federal law, first signed in 1994 by President Clinton, that provides $1.6 billion for programs and services for survivors of domestic violence and rape, implements a federal 'rape shield' law, and establishes the Office on Violence Against Women in the Department of Justice. VAWA was first drafted by the office of then-Senator Joe Biden, with the help of advocacy groups, and passed Congress in 1994 with bipartisan support. In 2000, a sharply divided Supreme Court declared the provision of VAWA allowing women the right to sue their attackers in court unconstitutional, as it was an infringement of states' rights. Nevertheless, VAWA again passed Congress easily in 2000 and 2005.
However, the 2012 renewal of VAWA was opposed by conservative Republicans, who objected to the extended protections written into the newest version of the Act. In April 2012, the Senate passed the bill. Later that year, the House passed the unextended version, omitting the passages pertaining to LGBTQs, immigrants, and Native Americans. Reconciliation of the two bills was slow, and it was uncertain whether VAWA would be reauthorized at all. The 112th Congress ended without it being passed. Luckily, the extended version of VAWA was again introduced to the Senate in the 113th Congress, and it was passed on Feb. 11, 2013, with a vote of 78-22. The House had also re-introduced its bill, with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor explaining that "Our goal in strengthening the Violence Against Women Act is simple. We want to help all women who are faced with violent, abusive and dangerous situations."
(Can we just take a moment to appreciate the fact that he says "all women" despite the fact that he's trying to strike down provisions to help all women? Yeah).
Anyway, the House's proposal was met with indignation from women's groups, the White House, Democrats, and some Republicans, and on Feb. 26, the GOP leadership in the House agreed to have a vote on the Senate bill. On Feb. 28, the House passed the Senate's all-inclusive bill 286 to 138, after rejecting the limited-protections bill 257 to 166. It was awesome.
Something interesting to note is what this will mean in terms of the GOP's appeal to women. While the Republicans argued that they were opposed to the extensions, not to the core of the bill, their reluctance to pass the bill only heightened the sense that the Republican party is anti-women, a popular narrative that didn't help their chances last November. (Democrats have been winning the female vote since 1984). It's also interesting to note that all the female Republican senators voted for it--the only ones against it were male. Perhaps the GOP will take this opportunity to take a good hard look at their policies and re-evaluate their positions towards women. That'd be good for everyone.
Some notes on the extended provisions:
1) Native American women suffer domestic violence at rates more than double the national average. However, Native American courts do not have jurisdiction over non-Native Americans, and federal prosecutors do not take up about half the violence cases because of lack of resources to pursue crimes on isolated Native American lands. The Senate bill gives Native American courts the ability to prosecute non-Native Americans for a set of crimes limited to domestic violence and violations of protecting orders.
2) The bill adds stalking to the list of crimes that make immigrants eligible for protection and authorizes programs dealing with sexual assault on college campuses. It also reauthorizes the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which is arguably the most important anti-trafficking law ever passed.
3) It authorizes $659 million a year over five years to fund current programs that provide housing, legal, police, and hotline grants.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Inclusive Fitness Theory
I have issues with humans' inability to get along with each other.
All I want is for people to be nice, and respect one another, and not kill or do harm or otherwise intentionally ruin other people's lives.
Historical precedent would suggest, however, that this is unlikely to happen.
But don't despair: there is a spark of hope, in the form of a evolution theory known as 'inclusive fitness theory.'
The basic principle of inclusive fitness theory (or IFT, as I will hereafter refer to it) is that organisms can improve their genetic success through altruistic social behavior. Biologists have long been perplexed by the behavior of animals who help their kin at the risk of their own lives, as this selfless behavior does not fit under the survival-instincts-only theory based in Darwinism. IFT explains this behavior through overall, not personal genetic succession. There is a much better chance of genes surviving if everyone looks after everyone else in the family, and not just themselves.
For example: vampire bats live in huge colonies of thousands of bats, and feed only on blood. They have a remarkably fast metabolism, and so must feed at least every two days, or they will die. They also only emerge at night. This poses a problem, as they cannot guarantee finding food every night. However, the bats share: if a bat is unable to find food, it finds a bat who did find food. The two bats clamp mouths, and the food is distributed between them. This is how the colonies are able to thrive, and the species to survive. If not for the generous behavior of the bats, they would die off very quickly. Therefore, sharing ensures the survival of the species.
In 1964, W. D. Hamilton proved mathematically that a gene and/or species can increase its evolutionary success by promoting the survival of the entire group with that gene or within that species, not just the survival of the individual. Hamilton's rule states that rb > c, where r is the probability (above the species average) of the individuals sharing a gene (commonly known as the 'degree of relatedness', b is the reproductive benefit of the recipient of the altruistic behavior, and c is the reproductive cost to the altruist.
In "Kin and Kind", a New Yorker article about IFT by Jonah Lehrer, he describes the conflict arising from this equation, and this theory. A whole lot of mathematicians are super upset about the alleged inconsistency of this equation (described in this paper), and a whole lot of scientists--particularly evolutionary biologists--are super upset that the mathematicians are getting super upset. As Lehrer describes, the conflict seems primarily to be rising from the different approaches taken: the math people are annoyed about the math used, and the science people are annoyed that the math people are getting bogged down in the math part when the science part is so much more important. IFT has offered all sorts of insights into natural selection theory (the current ruling evolution theory), especially as relating to social behavior and why animals do the things they do. If one removes IFT, one removes a whole lot of scientific theory in a field that had just about stopped making headway.
To me, IFT makes sense. I'm not a mathematician or an evolutionary biologist, but one of the theory's strong points is that it's just simple enough to seem true. However, it would seem that humans have too many other complex psychological things going on (as well as perhaps too many people in the species) for this theory to apply to them: none of us are particularly worried about our genes being carried on, as everyone around us shares 99% of our genes anyway. Which is unfortunate, because maybe if we had more riding on each other's lives, we'd take better care of each other. But oh well.
My only other problem with IFT is a point made by Lehrer:
"The controversy [over IFT] is fuelled by a larger debate about the evolution of altruism. Can true altruism even exist? Is generosity a sustainable trait? Or are living things inherently selfish, our kindness nothing but a mask? This is science with existential stakes."
If IFT is to be believed, there is no such thing as true altruism. If we do anything for each other, it's purely a survival instinct. We as humans like to believe that we're deeper and more meaningful than that, that we love people because we love them, not because they're best suited to survive; that we help people because we're nice, not because we're ensuring the survival of our own genes. But IFT would suggest that none of that is true, and we are all living under the influence of our genes, who are greedy bastards longing to live on.
To be honest, though, I don't mind if that's true. Even if it's just for our genes, the fact that we are altruistic and loving at all is something to be happy about.
All I want is for people to be nice, and respect one another, and not kill or do harm or otherwise intentionally ruin other people's lives.
Historical precedent would suggest, however, that this is unlikely to happen.
But don't despair: there is a spark of hope, in the form of a evolution theory known as 'inclusive fitness theory.'
The basic principle of inclusive fitness theory (or IFT, as I will hereafter refer to it) is that organisms can improve their genetic success through altruistic social behavior. Biologists have long been perplexed by the behavior of animals who help their kin at the risk of their own lives, as this selfless behavior does not fit under the survival-instincts-only theory based in Darwinism. IFT explains this behavior through overall, not personal genetic succession. There is a much better chance of genes surviving if everyone looks after everyone else in the family, and not just themselves.
For example: vampire bats live in huge colonies of thousands of bats, and feed only on blood. They have a remarkably fast metabolism, and so must feed at least every two days, or they will die. They also only emerge at night. This poses a problem, as they cannot guarantee finding food every night. However, the bats share: if a bat is unable to find food, it finds a bat who did find food. The two bats clamp mouths, and the food is distributed between them. This is how the colonies are able to thrive, and the species to survive. If not for the generous behavior of the bats, they would die off very quickly. Therefore, sharing ensures the survival of the species.
In 1964, W. D. Hamilton proved mathematically that a gene and/or species can increase its evolutionary success by promoting the survival of the entire group with that gene or within that species, not just the survival of the individual. Hamilton's rule states that rb > c, where r is the probability (above the species average) of the individuals sharing a gene (commonly known as the 'degree of relatedness', b is the reproductive benefit of the recipient of the altruistic behavior, and c is the reproductive cost to the altruist.
In "Kin and Kind", a New Yorker article about IFT by Jonah Lehrer, he describes the conflict arising from this equation, and this theory. A whole lot of mathematicians are super upset about the alleged inconsistency of this equation (described in this paper), and a whole lot of scientists--particularly evolutionary biologists--are super upset that the mathematicians are getting super upset. As Lehrer describes, the conflict seems primarily to be rising from the different approaches taken: the math people are annoyed about the math used, and the science people are annoyed that the math people are getting bogged down in the math part when the science part is so much more important. IFT has offered all sorts of insights into natural selection theory (the current ruling evolution theory), especially as relating to social behavior and why animals do the things they do. If one removes IFT, one removes a whole lot of scientific theory in a field that had just about stopped making headway.
To me, IFT makes sense. I'm not a mathematician or an evolutionary biologist, but one of the theory's strong points is that it's just simple enough to seem true. However, it would seem that humans have too many other complex psychological things going on (as well as perhaps too many people in the species) for this theory to apply to them: none of us are particularly worried about our genes being carried on, as everyone around us shares 99% of our genes anyway. Which is unfortunate, because maybe if we had more riding on each other's lives, we'd take better care of each other. But oh well.
My only other problem with IFT is a point made by Lehrer:
"The controversy [over IFT] is fuelled by a larger debate about the evolution of altruism. Can true altruism even exist? Is generosity a sustainable trait? Or are living things inherently selfish, our kindness nothing but a mask? This is science with existential stakes."
If IFT is to be believed, there is no such thing as true altruism. If we do anything for each other, it's purely a survival instinct. We as humans like to believe that we're deeper and more meaningful than that, that we love people because we love them, not because they're best suited to survive; that we help people because we're nice, not because we're ensuring the survival of our own genes. But IFT would suggest that none of that is true, and we are all living under the influence of our genes, who are greedy bastards longing to live on.
To be honest, though, I don't mind if that's true. Even if it's just for our genes, the fact that we are altruistic and loving at all is something to be happy about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)