CAP Hollywood Update

In all honesty, I don't have much of an update. Since Connor's editing at home, I can't really say how the editing's going (though he has shown us periodic rough cuts, and they look BEAUTIFUL). We're finishing up filming today--thank you, Mr. Mayo, for helping me find the equipment and for lending us your own camera (!)--but that should only take half an hour or so. Really, the most pressing problem I have right now in regards to CAP Hollywood is figuring out what to wear, because I have no idea. (Also persuading Olivia and Everleigh to wear ball gowns like they promised). I have full faith in Connor to make our film excellent, and I'm excited to see how it turns out.

CAP Hollywood Update

Well, we're trucking along.

Last Sunday, we came very close to finishing our filming. We finished almost all of the montage, and we finished everything involving the girls. We just have to do the bits with the guy typing, and then we'll be done. We'll probably film that one evening this week, after the AP or after school.

The montage stuff with the girls looks AWESOME, thanks to Connor. It's super artsy and pretty and I am a big fan. Olivia and Everleigh were very good sports as we trekked all over kingdom come, going from Connor's house to the park to along Sligo Creek and back, then to downtown Silver Spring, a couple bus stops, and the train station. (Since the montage is meant to span lots of time, they also had to keep changing their outfits, which they were also nice about. Both of them brought big bags filled with outfits, and just changed every time we changed locations. It was great).

So far, this has been my favorite project that we've done in media. I appreciate the creative free reign we get, and it's so exciting to see my story becoming real. Connor's doing most of the editing, and he's doing a great job. I'm really excited to present the films in--yikes!--17 days. (All of my actors are gonna get super dressed up and come. It'll be awesome).

Unfortunately, I missed two of the three media classes this past week, due to sickness and Change Project stuff, so I haven't got much to report by way of what we've been working on, but I know it'll be great.

CAP Hollywood Update

I am so freaking excited about our movie.

To be honest, I've been excited about it since I wrote my short story. Ever since I started it, I've been able to picture it in my head. When I discussed my story with Ms. Fillman, we talked about how easy it'd be to film, and how good it would look. (We agreed that it would make for great indie, artsy cinematography, which I love). When it was picked to be made into a movie, and our group started discussing filming, it seemed only natural: my story already was a movie, at least inside my head.

Last Saturday, we had our first day of filming. It was one of the most incredible things I've ever seen: the characters in my head, once only imagined, now real and beautiful and emotional, saying the things I wrote for them. My friend Olivia, who was in my Conservatory at Imagination Stage, plays the main character, and Josh, the father of a friend, plays her scene partner. They are both so talented and professional, and it was amazing to work with them. Going back and watching the footage, I can't imagine the scenes any differently. Olivia in particular is fantastic--at one point in the scene, she was actually crying, and we have one beautiful shot of a tear falling down her face. I fully expect her to be at least nominated for Best Actor.

We also got a lot of filming done on Saturday--namely, all of our dialogue and the majority of our script. Tomorrow, we have our second day of filming, and while that'll be a bit of a pain--it requires us to move around a lot, to a bunch of different locations--I'm excited for it, not in the least because it'll be the most fun part to film. It's going to be a montage of cute scenes between Olivia and Everleigh (another actor), and Connor's filming it in a super artsy indie hipster beautiful way.

I'm a little worried about editing, just because we have SO MUCH footage. Luckily, Connor's offered to edit at home in addition to editing at school, so that we can get everything done in time. (Which we will).

We also have great music--we found some good stuff on Creative Commons, but we also emailed an artist that we like and asked if we can use their music. They said yes, so we'll be using 'Big Jet Plane' by Angus and Julia Stone in our film.

Basically, it's gonna be great.

'Murder, Mayhem, and Monkeys...An Evening of David Ives'

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/.

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.  

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.

Things I Would Rather Be Doing (And Will Do, Come April)

So, over the past couple months (since November, I think), my activity level has become outrageous. I like to keep busy--there's so many fun and interesting things to do, and when I have free time, I normally just go on Tumblr a lot--but this has gotten ridiculous. So far this year, I've been on two school sports teams (cross-country and swimming), worked on four shows (One-Act Festival, Pippin, The Taming of the Shrew/The Tamer Tamed, and this year's Sarah Play, which will be performed in March), graduated from a conservatory, written for the press team of the SMOB's Student Advisory Council, stayed on top of academics, and (mostly) got enough sleep. Mind you, I wouldn't take back on of that--it's all been incredibly fun--but I also haven't gotten to hang out with my family or friends very much, make dinner, or exercise as much as I'd like to (once the sports teams were over). Come April, however, I'll have significantly more free time, as my only commitments will be to school and the press team (as well as to Richie Yarrow's SMOB campaign--VOTE FOR RICHIE!)

I still have a lot of goals for this spring, because I have a lot of stuff I'd like to do, so I'm going to think of myself of being no less busy, but being busy with different things. Because, as I mentioned earlier, if I think I have free time, I spend all of it on Tumblr. So, here are some things I'm planning on doing in the spring:

1) Exercise every day. This past fall, I did cross-country for the first time at Blair, and I loved it. I've come to the conclusion that I am naturally slow, but it doesn't matter to me, as I just like running, and the Blair XC team is really supportive and nice (and weird). I'm looking forward to being able to get home and go for a run every day after school. On Saturdays, I'm going to go biking (probably mostly to Bethesda, because a) there's a Barnes and Noble and b) one of my best friends lives there). On Sundays, I'm going to go to yoga at the Y. It'll be great.

2) Learn how to play the ukelele. I asked for and received a ukelele for my birthday, which was in October, but haven't had much time to mess around with it since. I've learned the basics, but would really like to develop my skills, especially my strumming, because for some reason I'm really bad at that. I've promised to serenade certain members of my family for their birthday gifts, so I have to do that, and also I just feel that my life would be significantly better if I could play the ukelele. I can kind of play 'Only the Good Die Young', as well as some folk songs, but that's it.

3) Cook more often. Last year, I started making dinner twice a week, and I'd like to get back to doing that. I bake a lot (and would like to bake more), but also need to develop my cooking skills, because most things that you bake are either dessert or bread (both of which I love, but which aren't the core of a healthy lifestyle). I like feeding people, and would like to start pulling more of my weight in my house. Also, me and Milena used to have a weekly Friday playdate where we made dinner, and I want to start doing that again. And I want to learn how to make bread.

4) Hang out with friends and family more. I'd like to start hanging out with friends at least twice a week, because I think having an active social life is important to the well-being of every person, and there's a lot of really cool people in my life that I do not get to see enough. I'd also like hang out with my parents and grandmother more often--go for walks and hikes and stuff--and go visit my sister at college in North Carolina.

5) Sleep. I don't think I know anyone in high school who gets the full 8.5-9 hours that teenagers need. I will aspire to this standard come April. Sleep deprivation is incredibly bad for your brain in ways we can't even begin to fathom. Messes with the circuitry and all that. In order to get 9 hours of sleep, I need to be asleep by 9:15, so I can wake up at 6:15. This would mean I'd need to be getting ready for bed by 8 or 8:15, and turn off the light at 8:45, as it takes me a while to calm down for sleep. It'll be hard, but I think I can do it.

Another exciting thing beginning in April is the season for professional women's soccer! In January, the National Women's Soccer League was officially formed, and the Maryland Soccerplex, located in Germantown, is now home to the Washington Spirit. I hope to attend many games, as the Washington Spirit holds some of my favorite USWNT players, and most of their games will be against teams that hold MORE of my favorite USWNT players! Wheee. So excited. I'll post an introduction to the teams and players soon.

Basically, I'm just really excited for spring.

The Taming of the Shrew/The Tamer Tamed

So, for the past two months I've been working on a cool little show called "The Taming of the Shrew/The Tamer Tamed" at Blair. Most people would recognize the first half of the title as a pretty famous play by a pretty famous guy, but the second half is considerably less well-known. "The Tamer Tamed" is a play by 17th-century playwright John Fletcher, who, though he doesn't enjoy the same name-recognition as Shakespeare nowadays, was one of the most influential dramatists of his day. It's a sequel and a counter to the decidedly sexist message of "Taming of the Shrew": in "The Tamer Tamed", Petruchio (the male lead, who 'tames' Kate, the female lead and the 'shrew' of the title) marries again after Kate's death, and is shocked when his new wife, Maria, refuses to obey him, and goes to considerable measures to tame him. Once he is tamed, however, she promises never to rule over him, and the message, stated in the epilogue, is to "teach both sexes due equality."

Which is a pretty great message, yeah? When I auditioned for the play, I'd never heard of "The Tamer Tamed", but now I can't imagine performing "The Taming of the Shrew" without it--partially because it's really fun, really well-written, and generally terrific on its own, but also because the ending of "The Taming of the Shrew" really does make one cringe. Kate's final speech is a sermon of obedience, describing a husband as "thy lord, thy life, thy keeper," and stating that women are bound to "serve, love, and obey." Eeeww. It just doesn't feel right to end like that. Art is, for me, the ultimate portrayal of the human condition. You learn so much about being a person, and, if you are successful in your portrayals, the audience does, too. Ending with an expression of unfeminist values and gender roles makes me feel (or rather, would make me feel) like I had just communicated that I support that, even if just for entertainment. Thinking about it, I'm kind of surprised that people do still perform "The Taming of the Shrew" as it is.

(Incidentally, reading through the 'Controversy' section on the Wikipedia page of "Taming of the Shrew", two interesting arguments pop up: first that Shakespeare is not promoting female submissiveness, but rather arguing against the mistreatment of women by exaggeration. In other words, Shakespeare intentionally makes Petruchio and the other men as cruel and awful as possible so that the audience is repelled by their actions. He investigates misogyny, and comes to the conclusion--as does, presumably, the audience--that it's bad. While this argument is nice to think about, I have difficulty believing it, primarily because Petruchio wins, everyone celebrates, and it is acknowledged to be a comedy because it has a happy ending. If you sympathize with someone, you'll probably sympathize with the person whose burden you most identify with, and for most 16th- and 17th-century men, that would probably be the guy with the crazy wife. I don't think Shakespeare was subtly arguing the opposite of what his play is blatantly stating. The second argument is that the play is neither anti- or pro-women, but rather an more-or-less accurate portrayal of what Shakespeare saw as the relationship between men and women, and while I do think it's almost impossible to give a fictional portrayal of something without adding your own opinion or stance on the issue, I think this is the most likely argument--that Shakespeare wasn't against women (indeed, he has some remarkably strong heroines in other plays), or against women (despite what Kate's final monologue would suggest), but rather was just telling it like it was).

Anyway. "The Taming of the Shrew/The Tamer Tamed" is basically just an incredibly fun show. I play Hortensio, and am wretchedly abused throughout the whole thing--a guitar is broken over my head, I have to eat a lot of food really fast, and a bowl of water is thrown on me. It doesn't really matter if you don't especially like Shakespeare--the show is hilarious and very fast-paced, and, as Ms. O'Connor likes to say, would entertain a five-year-old. Ravyn, Christina, and Conor are also in it. If you haven't already, you should definitely come see it. The four of us are all in the Red Cast (BLOOD!), and our last two performances are Thursday at 3:30 and Saturday at 7:30. If you can't come to either of those, the White Cast is also really good, and is performing on Friday at 7:30 and Saturday at 2. See you there!

The British Are Coming

Hey there! This is me and Milena's independent film video. We both filmed, I juggled, she (tried to) juggle, she edited, and I made cupcakes. Also provided props.

Plan of Action

For the documentary me, Ravyn, and Abir are making about the importance of including unskilled attendant care in medical insurance, my primary role is editor, because I am fairly good at and enjoy video editing. Therefore, in order to create the rough cut of our documentary, I am in charge of cutting up the footage we have, listing the shots, and arranging them (with assistance from my group members), along with spaces for quotes and B-roll. This is, I think, my favorite part of editing: when I actually get to do stuff. Despite my fondness for writing, I dislike writing scripts, particularly when I feel like I don't have all the parts organized: we've done lots of research and two really good interviews, and we know what we're trying to say, but somehow the parts don't seem to link together quite yet. Abir's found a lot of good pictures and music, and he and Ravyn have come up with the beginnings of a script, but I really think it'll all start falling together once we have a rough cut. The rough cut and the script are going to be formulated together, which I think will help us visualize the final product a lot better: I'm always reluctant to write scripts prior to putting together footage, since it's likely to change drastically as we accomodate the clips and pictures, and figure out the arc of the documentary. Those are our basic goals for the next week, but to put it plainer:

(I don't remember the exact dates on the handout, so this is subject to change, but):

Monday, Jan. 28: list all shots, B-roll, and pieces of information to include, and organize by order to begin establishing a narrative line.

Wednesday, Jan. 30: begin putting shots, B-roll, and text slides with research (to be replaced by voiceover, etc. in the final video) in order in Final Cut, so we can see what it'll look like, and arrange accordingly.

Friday, Feb. 1: finalize rough cut of documentary. I'm not sure exactly what that'll look like, but it'll entail finalizing the narrative line and finishing the script, as well as polishing clips, B-roll, etc. to make sure it all basically hangs together.

Why I'm Vegetarian

I've been vegetarian for about six years now, since January 2007. It started with a bet: my best friend and I wanted to see which one of us could go without meat for longer. Obviously, I won. (It wasn't even close--she broke it within 24 hours, because her dad made bacon for breakfast the next morning). I kept going because I wanted to see how long I could do it. It wasn't that hard--the only meat I liked was hot dogs, chicken nuggets, and bacon, and I enjoyed not having my parents try to get me to eat ham, steak, hamburgers, etc. However, as I got older, I found more and more reasons to be vegetarian, and by this point, it surprises me a little that people still eat meat at all. It is good protein, and I know that particularly in low-income areas the nutrition in meat is important; I also know that most people like meat too much to give it up. While I think the first reason is a far better one than the second, I do respect people's right to eat meat (far more, I generally find, than people respect my decision to not eat meat), and therefore present these three simple reasons not as persuasion, but as explanation.

1. It's good for you.

According to the American Dietetic Association, a vegetarian diet is "healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provides health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." Vegetarians have lower levels of cholesterol and saturated fat, as well as lower blood pressure, which leads to significantly lower rates of heart disease, diabetes, dementia, and other disorders. There is also evidence it decreases the chance of various types of cancer. In the 2010 edition of Dietary Guidelines for Americans, issued by the US Dept. of Agriculture and the US Dept. of Health and Human Services, vegetarianism was described as being associated with improved health outcomes, such as lower levels of obesity, reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, and lower total mortality. Vegetarians consume less calories and more fiber, potassium, and vitamins. Also, according to studies, protein intake for vegetarians is only slightly lower than meat-eaters, as one can get the essential amino acids from various complementary vegetables and other sources. Therefore, the argument that you need meat to be healthy is frankly false, and, it would appear, the exact opposite is true.

2. Murder is murder.

When I see raw meat, I can't stop thinking about the animal it was, and how our greedy, selfish human desires have caused us to slaughter poor, innocent creatures just so we can eat what we want. If a human killed another human in order to eat them--remember, humans are meat, too--they would certainly be given life in prison, if not the death penalty, for such a horrific crime. It would become an Internet sensation, and millions of people across the world would be appalled at such inhumanity. Guess what? We do this every day, and millions of people across the world eat the flesh of another living creature all the time, casually, without even thinking about it. Oh, God, it makes me shudder to think of it. I don't care if--as people tell me all the time, semi-apologetically, with a shrug--you "like meat too much to give it up." Oh, well, that makes it all okay then. It's not that I don't want to let the innocent live, it's that I like the taste of their flesh too much to let them live in peace, without being trapped in slaughterhouses, fattened, and murdered, just so I can eat it. We all have the right to live.

Sorry if I'm grossing you out. Maybe you'll think about this next time you eat a corpse.

3. Slaughterhouses and meat-processing are bad for everyone.

We're already established that most meat-eaters don't think or really care all that much about the welfare of animals, and if the last paragraph didn't gross you out, I doubt I can get you emotional about the miserable conditions animals in slaughterhouses face--but I'll try. Slaughterhouses have been, historically, largely unregulated, and agencies and animal-rights activists still have difficulty getting information from them. There has been criticism of the methods of transportation, herding, preparation, and killing within slaughterhouses, and several investigations have indicated that animals are, due to the speed at which workers are required to work, frequently skinned and gutted while alive and conscious. Also, the journeys to the slaughterhouses (often very far away due to the fact that they make people uncomfortable, with the smell and aura of death) frequently cause injuries and death to the animals en route. Most countries have laws in regards to the treatment of animals at slaughterhouses, but not the US: the only law pertaining to the treatment of animals in the meat industry, the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958, which mandates that animals be unconscious before being shackled and hoisted up on the line, is largely ignored, since there is no penalties for violation, and inspection officials typically ignore it. Gail Eisnitz, chief investigator for the Humane Farming Association, interviewed slaughterhouse workers who, without exception, told her that they have beaten, strangled, boiled, and dismembered animals alive, and/or failed to report those who do. Several said that this violence has led them to be physically abusive and/or take to alcohol and drugs.

The production of meat and animal products for mass consumption is also bad for the environment. According to a 2006 United Nations initiative, the livestock industry is one of largest contributors to environmental degradation worldwide, and modern practices of raising animals for food contribute on a "massive scale" to air and water pollution, land degradation, climate change, and loss of biodiversity. Also, animal agriculture is a large source of greenhouse gases, representing, according to one estimate, 18% of the world's emissions. Going vegetarian is, therefore, a simple and easy way to go green and reduce your footprint.

The simple conclusion?

 

Being vegetarian is good for YOU, for ANIMALS, and for the WORLD.

Every Day

A couple days ago, I finished reading "Every Day", by David Levithan. I'd originally purchased the book as a present for my older sister Emmy, since David Levithan is one of her favorite writers. I got the book at Politics & Prose, and attended a book reading and signing for it (as well as "Beneath a Meth Moon", by Jacqueline Woodson) to get it signed for Emmy. However, I was then so interested in the book that I decided to read it myself before giving it away. I expected this to be easy; however, since I had just started a new book ("Snow Flower and the Secret Fan"), had two reading assignments for school at the same time, and had a ridiculously busy December, I didn't finish the book before my sister came home from college, or before I gave it to her. She teased me about my lack of subtlety--I left the book lying around by mistake, and she saw it numerous times--but the autograph was still a surprise, so I didn't mind.

"Every Day" is centered around the unique life of A, who wakes up every day in a different body, living a different life. There is no way to control where A will wake up, and there is no way to stay in a certain body. A has no attachments, no future, no possessions. And A has made peace with that--until A wakes up in the body of Justin, and meets Justin's girlfriend, Rhiannon. A loves Rhiannon. But is that enough?

*SPOILER ALERT*

No.


Now, please don’t get me wrong. Levithan is a fantastic writer, and “Every Day” is a terrific book. However, the uniqueness of A’s situation makes A’s problems difficult to relate to, and, since the book doesn’t end happily and A’s situation is incredibly depressing, it becomes Unrealistic Depressing Fiction (UDF), which is my least favorite genre. (The Hunger Games series and “My Sister’s Keeper” are also good examples of UDF. It’s as if the author is just making up scenarios to make you cry. There are plenty of real-life horribly depressing things in life. We do NOT need any more).

Just thinking about A’s life makes you sad. A has no past, no recurring characters, no home, no friends, no family. There is no way A can hold onto anything—as A points out near the end of the book, A can’t even carry around a picture of Rhiannon, let alone be in a relationship with someone. When A was little, it upset A when people (borrowed parents or friends) spoke about ‘tomorrow’, or tried to make plans of the future: A would start crying, saying that they wouldn’t be there tomorrow. The person would reassure A that of course they would be there. Then A would wake up, and of course they weren’t there. God, it’s heartbreaking. Lonely forever. What is the point of A’s existence? How can one go on like that? There’s not even some future to look forward to, to work towards. When one feels down, and questions the meaning of one’s existence, feeling like a small, infinitesimally small, infinitesimally pathetic speck of dust in the wide, wide universe, it is at least some consolation to merely continue on with your life. Eat a bagel. Go for a run. Read a book. Chat with a friend. You might be small and pathetic and useless and meaningless, but life’s pretty nice. If it’s not, you can work towards it being nice. Life goes on.

But not for A. A’s circumstances change every day. What can you do? A can’t even commit suicide, because it would also kill the person whose body A is in.

Now, if you’re still with me, and I haven’t totally put you off this book, it is actually very good. It’s really, really interesting, mostly due to the insight into the lives of the countless people A inhabits. The expression ‘walk a mile in someone else’s shoes’ doesn’t even begin to cover it. One of our chief problems as human beings is our persistent inability to understand and empathize with our fellows. This intolerance is not intentional, or at the very least wasn’t in the beginning. Think about it: if you had never seen another human being, what would you imagine human beings to look like? In other words, if you only knew yourself, how accepting would you be of others? I am tall. It is therefore reasonable for me to assume—having no other basis for What a Human is Like than myself—that a human being who is short is freakish in some way. Naturally, this is wrong, but unless I am taught otherwise, it is the logical conclusion. The only person you know in and out is yourself. The diversity in our bloodlines, and the cultural melting pot of our cities, makes us accustomed to all different colors and races. However, when we encounter something (a custom, religion, tradition, etc) that we don’t recognize, we condemn it is wrong because it is unfamiliar. Again, this is not intentional intolerance—we are hardwired to reject as scary and weird that which we do not know to be safe and normal. But by this point in our civilization, we really ought to be able to manage this impulse and be freakin’ open-minded already. We are all human. We all want the same things—food, shelter, safety, love, acceptance. Let’s just live in peace, okay?

Why can’t I get through a blog post without an off-topic rant?

Anyway.

A lives in some pretty interesting people. Since I’m interested in psychology, one of the most interesting for me was a girl with depression. Depression is a largely misunderstood mental disorder that causes a person to have low mood, energy, and functioning. It is not just sadness, and the person cannot just get over it. In fact, due to the uniqueness of each person’s psyche, there is no one treatment for depression. Talk therapy and certain medications have proven to be the most effective, but what works for one person does not necessarily work for others, which is why depression (as well as other mental disorders) is so difficult to treat. However, one of the keys to understanding depression is recognizing that it is a condition that the person can’t help, and which affects their whole level of functioning. When A wakes up in the body of the girl with depression, A can sense it immediately. The senses are muted. The thoughts are slow. It is difficult to maintain interest in anything, let alone get anything done. Even though A’s mind is separate from the girl’s, and does not hold the sadness and pain that may have been a factor in causing her depression, A is affected by her illness, because it has become part of her body, and she cannot get rid of it. At least, not alone: A looks through her journal, and discovers that she is planning to kill herself in six days. The girl’s mother isn’t there, and her father doesn’t pay attention to her. She doesn’t have close friends. To save her life, A confronts her father, telling him that he has to get her help: take her to a doctor, hospitalize her, anything. Depression is serious, and its consequences can be permanent. If you know someone who you worry is thinking about hurting him/herself, talk to a trusted adult, like a parent or a counselor. Do not worry that you are betraying their confidence, or that they’ll be mad at you. They deserve to live.

Anyway.

A also experiences life as a severely obese boy, as an extremely hot girl, and one half of a gay couple. I’m not going to go into another rant—three is enough for this post—but let’s just be nice to each other, okay, and not judge based on appearances or what you think you know about people. Okay? Great.

The last thing I want to point out about this book—which you should totally read even though I just spoiled it for you and criticized it at length, it really is really super good—is the concept that initially fascinated me, and the moral lessons to take away from the book. What most interested me about this book prior to reading it was the concept of who we actually are, outside of our physical properties and surroundings. While not having a body or life of one’s own would, as I pointed out above, be lonely and depressing and awful, it would also be incredibly liberating. Think about it. Imagine yourself merely as a self, without a body. If you could be anyone, who would you be? A does not have a gender. A does not have body image. No one has perceptions or impressions of A, and A does not have to worry about how other people view A. If you could be anyone, who would you be? If your consciousness/soul/personality was not influenced by others around you, what would it be like? What would you be like? What would you do? How would you think, create, love, believe? The possibilities are endless. And that, I believe, is the moral lesson we are meant to take away from the book: the life you are stuck in should not influence who you are as a person. In other words, even if your circumstances are unkind, choose to be kind. Even if your situation is hopeless, choose to be hopeful. Even—especially—if your life is bad, choose to be good. At the end of the book, A discovers that there is a way to stay in a body, to steal someone’s life. If A did that, A could be with Rhiannon. Forever. The entire book has been based around the question ‘how can A stay with Rhiannon’, and this is the answer. But A doesn’t do it, because stealing someone’s life is worse than murder. A gives up Rhiannon—giving her to another person at the same time—because it’s the right thing to do.

Make the right choice. Be a good person. Also, read this book.

Babies

Babies are cute.
This universal truth is, or would seem to be, the basis of "Babies", a 2010 documentary made by French director Thomas Balmès. "Babies" follows four babies...

Ponijao, from Opuwo, Namibia

 

Mari, from Tokyo, Japan

Bayar, from Bayanchandmani, Mongolia
 

Hattie, from San Francisco, CA, USA

 

 

...as they embark on that great journey known as life. The film documents the first year of their lives, and, though they are extremely adorable, the overall impression--minus the cooing--is that of amazement at how radically different and yet similar each child and upbringing is. I, naturally, identified most with Hattie, who has an upper-middle-class American family and home, but all the children developed in noticeably similar ways, from the curiosity, the sleeping, the crying, the movement, and the adorableness. Gah. So cute. Anyway...

The film was basically entirely B-roll, or straight footage of the children interacting with their parents and environment. One might think this could get boring, but it was strangely fascinating to watch the children explore and learn (or just be really really cute). It was also very interesting to observe the different cultures shown, particularly the ones from rural areas, Namibia and Mongolia. Those children spent significantly more time outdoors, playing in the dirt, grass, and with random bits of wood and stone, and interacting with animals (which was often hilarious). Somehow their upbringing seemed much more peaceful than the Tokyo or San Francisco babies, whose environments, while fairly tranquil, couldn't compete with the wide open skies and plains shown in Namibia and Mongolia.

Since it was all basically the filmmaker passively observing the children, the astounding quality of the cinematography was the most striking aspect of the film. Simply put, it was beautiful. It was also all completely real, which was even more exciting. There was nothing staged, not even interviews. No one wore makeup, and no one dictated what was going to happen. It just happened. That kind of filmmaking excites me: completely true-to-life films that highlight the beauty of life instead of creating it.

...That being said, it might have been even more interesting had more things been explained. In a way, it was as though we were seeing the movie from the perspective of the babies, as nothing was explained to them, and they just had to watch and learn. And that was cool. However, I would've liked to know more about each baby's life than what I saw. I don't think it would've disrupted the flow too much just to have some text on the images giving some basic facts, or more basic facts than location and name. The situations of the Namibia and Mongolia children interested me specially, because I know absolutely nothing about either of those places, and about how life works there. But I was overall content, because...babies.

Admittedly, in order to enjoy this movie (which I did, whole-heartedly), you must like babies. I do not understand how one could not like babies, but apparently it is possible, and those sorts of people would probably not enjoy watching 79 minutes of babies. For everyone else--i.e., all normal and sane people--WATCH THIS MOVIE.

"Babies"

79 minutes

PG

The Mysteries of Handedness

Wikipedia defines handedness as "a human attribute defined by unequal distribution of fine motor skills between the left and right hands". Most people are either right- or left-handed. However, some have cross-dominance, which indicates a degree of versatility in each hand. Usually, a person favors one hand for certain activities and the other hand for others. Cross-dominance can also refer to mixed laterality, which refers to the side of the body favored.

Handedness fascinates me, largely because I'm cross-dominant. I write, throw, and paint my nails with my right hand, and, generally speaking, am right-handed. However, I am left-eye dominant, and use a riding crop and perform juggling tricks with my left hand. I kick equally well with both feet, but prefer being on the left side of the field (or anywhere else).

Types of Handedness

• right-handedness, the most common type (studies suggest 70-90% of the world population are right-handed)
• left-handedness, less common (about 10% of people)
• mixed-handedness/cross-dominance, difficult to say how common. Many people identify handedness by their writing hand, and therefore may not count themselves as mixed-handed; also, many left-handed people become mixed-handed by virtue of necessity in order to function in a right-handed world.
• ambidexterity, naturally exceptionally rare, though it can be learned. However, those who learn ambidexterity still tend to prefer their dominant hand.

Ambidexterity is perhaps the most famous type of cross-dominance. About 1% of people are ambidextrous. It's more common to find ambidextrous people who started off being left-handed, but learned to use their right hand equally well, either deliberately or as a result of societal pressure in schools and workplaces. Since many everyday items (can openers, scissors) are designed for right-handed people, left-handed people learn to use them right-handedly, and thus develop motor skills in their non-dominant hand much more than right-handed people, who are rarely forced to use their non-dominant hand. However, certain activities, such as typing, knitting, juggling, and percussion can help develop ambidexterity, as they require motor skills in both hands.

Theories of Handedness

The most common theory is division of labor, which states that since both motor control of speaking and handiwork require fine motor skills, it'd be more efficient to have the same hemisphere of the brain do both. Since, in most people, the left brain controls speaking, right-handedness would be much more common. (The brain hemispheres control the opposite side of the body). Objections to this theory include that the opposite is not true for left-handed people: in over 50% of left-handed people, the left brain controls speaking, and 25% of left-handed people use both sides equally. Another objection is that there is no explanation for why either side would be more likely to perform a certain function, though that problem is part of a more general inquiry as to why functions and organs display laterality, or preference for one side of the body or other.

There are also theories that imply that left-handedness, or anything not right-handedness, is a result of some sort of problem suffered before or at birth. Some statistics support this theory--difficult or stressful births seem to happen more commonly among babies that grow up to be non-right-handed--but there is no practical explanation for why this should be.

The "twins theory" suggests that all left-handed people were originally part of a set of identical twins, whose right-handed twin failed to develop. Though the "vanishing twin" theory may seem far-fetched, it is true that twins have a high frequency of right-handedness/left-handedness in the pair.

A newer theory looks at handedness differently. It suggests that handedness is not a simple preference, because the hands actually work together to accomplish tasks. For example, with writing, while the dominant hand writes, the other hand orients and grips the paper, and provides the context from which the dominant hand operates. Therefore, both hands are equally important, but one is specialized for fine movements, and the other for broad movements.

Which One's Better?

Probably neither. Most advantages/disadvantages of either hand are largely societal/cultural constructs, and most of popular psychology's notions of a type of handedness being more artsy/logical/etc. is probably false.

How-ev-er, there are certain correlations that have proven difficult to debunk. Left-handed people are often said to be more intelligent, more eloquent, and have better problem-solving skills than right-handed people. This is often attributed to their "wider range of thinking" given by the fact that they have a fuller use of both sides of their brains. A disproportionately high number of Nobel Prize winners are left-handed, and, of the past seven Presidents, four (Obama, HW Bush, Ford, and Clinton) were left-handed, and one (Reagan) was ambidextrous. The last time the US Presidential Election featured no left-handed candidates from a major political party was 1972.

But don't despair, righties. Lefties smudge their writing when they write. (In left-to-right languages, anyway).

Some Thoughts (and Rants) On Books; Snow Flower and the Secret Fan

I have decided to write book reviews for every book that I read outside of school. I love to read, and am sad that numerous things (including school, books we read for school, and life) keep me from reading everything I want to read (basically everything). (Although I would add that school does not keep me from reading, but rather forces me to do it more subtly, as I have a bad-but-unbreakable habit of reading during class). Some things I read on a regular basis include the newspaper (every morning, although lately it's been every afternoon), the New Yorker magazine (which I read cover-to-cover and quote frequently), poetry (particularly Andrea Gibson), and every type of book imaginable. In 8th grade, I started keeping a list of books I wanted to read. I couldn't bear the idea of not having anything to read. That list has now filled two notebooks and is well on its way to filling a third, so I don't think that will ever happen. I also currently have a pile of books. (I made a point of reading all the books on my bookshelf. It seems obvious that you'd have read the books on your bookshelf, but when I checked a couple years ago, to my surprise, I hadn't. I promptly took care of that). My pile of books includes books I got for my birthday (some on math, some on languages (another thing that fascinate me), some on theatre, some miscellaneous), books I got at a Worthy Cause yard-sale, and (mostly) books I got at a moving sale at the house of someone on my street. I went over and introduced myself. They asked what I might be interested in. I said old telephones (I collect them) and books. They showed me two huge boxes of books, and said, take what you want for free. Those are dangerous words to say to me, my friends. Dangerous words. I filled a grocery bag to the brim, and ended up needing to reinforce it with a second bag so it wouldn't rip under the weight.

(Though it isn't the point of this post, I would like to take a tangent train to nowhere for a moment and say that while I think I've made it obvious that I love books, you may be mistaken, and think I mean only the substance of books, namely stories or knowledge or whatnot. No. I love the entire book--the ink, the words, the meaning they hold, the pages, the spine that cracks slowly as you progress, the feeling of holding a world in your hands. Especially the feeling of holding a world in your hands. But you know what I don't love? Electronic books. Kindles and Nooks and whatever other stupid names they call them. While I naturally support the sharing of words, there is an experience involved with reading, and technology does not have a place in it. I hate e-readers. I loathe them. I DETEST THEM. GAHHHHHHHH. And accessibility--carrying numerous books at your fingertips--bah! That's what bookstores are for! I have a beautiful memory of one summer vacation when we were visiting family, colleges, and scenic areas in Oregon and Washington. I did not bring enough reading material to fill my time and wandering mind. You know what I did? I went to bookstores, and looked at new arrivals and bestsellers, and got tips from a clerk (which turned out to be a terrible idea, as the resulting book was incredibly depressing, but regardless). When I finished that book, I got suggestions and borrowed from my family in Seattle. Books traverse boundaries. They are common bonds. They are something we can unite on, and discuss, and love. But they are a community effort, in the finding and sharing and giving and loving and understanding and teaching, and e-readers can't touch that. Or at least they better not. It's depressing enough when everyone on the Metro is on their iPhones or whatever, but if the smattering of newspapers and New Yorkers and real, live, actual books disappear, I don't know what I'll do. Probably open a bookstore. New future job, right there. Sorry this is such a long tangent. I HATE E-READERS).

Anyway...

One of the books I got at the yard sale was "Snow Flower and the Secret Fan", by Lisa See. It is a noval set in the 19th century, about two Chinese girls named Lily and Snow Flower, who become a laotong pair--two girls bonded together for eternity as kindred sisters, or "old-sames". Together, they progress through such cultural practices as foot-binding, marriage ceremonies, and the production (or lack thereof) of sons, who determined a woman's worth in society. They also learned, and communicated in, a secret phonetic language called nu shu, which was developed so women could have a way of communicating without the knowledge of men, who might've seen their messages as improper and unladylike.

This book interested me primarily because of the historical and cultural perspectives and information given. I knew (and know) very little about Chinese culture and history beyond the meager overview given in 6th grade. The culture, practices, and values were and are very different from those recognized in the United States today. Certain things, like the footbinding and marriage ceremonies, were interesting purely because I knew nothing about them. (The footbinding was graphic and disgusting, largely because it actually happened). Others, like the recognized values, were somewhat disturbing. A woman's worth was based on her ability to produce sons. What else? That's it. She should be obedient, quiet, and fulfill her duties as a woman. Kindness, sympathy, and love had nothing to do with anything. Footbinding was given as an example of a woman's "mother love" (the characters for which phrase, by the way, mean "love" and "pain"). The footbinding was because the mother loved her child. Pain is required for beauty, and beauty for status, and status for the unborn sons. Gahhh. In the end--though I won't give away the ending--the protagonist (Lily)'s inability to recognize and portray these qualities (kindness, sympathy, love) end in disaster. You can't really blame her--after all, it is not something her society promotes. However, you don't want to not blame her, because she does not behave nicely.

To be honest, I didn't particularly like the book. I'm glad I read it, because it was interesting and I learned things I didn't know and probably wouldn't have sought out to learn, but I'm not going to give it a stamp of approval. Which isn't to say you shouldn't read it. But...don't blame me.

Down the Rabbit Hole

Last Tuesday, at 7pm, Blair students (including myself, Ravyn, Natalie, and Conor) presented "Down the Rabbit Hole", a collection of one-act plays directed by Maya Davis and Clare Lefebure. The evening was a rousing success, and lots of fun for both the actors and the audience.

I was in a one-act called "Variations on the Death of Trotsky", which was comprised of eight short scenes on how Trotsky's death might have gone. According to the one-act (and verified by Wikipedia), on August 20, 1940, a Spanish communist named Ramon Mercader smashed a mountain-climber's axe into Trotsky's skull in Coyoacan, a suburb of Mexico City. Trotsky died the next day. The eight scenes showed Trotsky's discovery of the axe in his head (aided by his long-suffering wife) and subsequent acceptance of his death. Since there were eight variations, and each required Trotsky to die at the end, the directors decided to split the stage, and have two Trotskys and two Mrs. Trotskys each do four variations. Variations 1, 3, 5, and 7 were performed by Nick Byron as Trotsky and me as Mrs. Trotsky, and 2, 4, 6, and 8 were performed by Ben Lickerman as Trotsky and Ravyn as Mrs. Trotsky. Conor, as Ramon Mercader, walked between the two couples as needed.

This was my first experience in the one-acts, as well as my first experience on the Blair stage, and it was very enjoyable. I've been seeing Maya and Clare in shows since I was in 5th grade, and I admire them both very much, so it was extremely cool getting to work with them on the one-acts. My next Blair theatre project is "Taming of the Shrew/The Tamer Tamed", for which rehearsals started last Wednesday, and which will be performed at the end of January/beginning of February. I'm playing Hortensio, which is going to be a challenge in several ways. First, I have a fair number of lines, which is both terribly exciting and somewhat frightening, as learning lines--especially Shakespeare--isn't easy. Second, I'm playing a man: I used to play men a lot when I was younger, but haven't played one in about a year and a half, and have certainly never played a man whose characterization mattered this much, and I anticipate the physicality requiring some amount of work on my part. However, since I'm really excited about this show and determined to do well in it, I am choosing to see these challenges as opportunities.

Sorry. Got a little off-track there. More about the one-acts! We had tech for the week prior to the performance, but, following the informality associated with the one-acts, it was not particularly intense. On the one hand, that was pretty nice; on the other, I would've liked to have had a little more preparation with costumes, props, lighting, etc--we didn't get costumes until the day before the show, we got several props the day of, and we didn't rehearse the proper lighting until the actual show. The audience didn't really notice, and it didn't present much of a problem, but it gave me more anxiety than I think was absolutely necessary. I bought knee-high nylons for my costume an hour before the show, practiced flipping open the hand-held makeup mirror with one hand for the first time right before we went on, and did not realize how absolutely pitch-black the audience was until I was actually saying lines out to the audience. It is like looking into a black hole. Also, the Trotskys had never practiced with the "axe-heads" (headbands with plastic knives attached to them, to look like they had weapons in their skulls) or with the classic Trotsky beard and mustache, and both lost their mustaches and axeheads at least once if not several times.

Nevertheless, the one-acts were terrific. Brief overview:

"Bedtime": about two little girls discussing God, "forever", death, and the apocalypse at bedtime. Performed by Mikayla Cleary and Sarah Wilson.

"Laundry and Bourbon": a hilarious and sad one-act featuring a couple of Southern women folding laundry, drinking bourbon, watching TV, and gossiping, in the heat of a summer afternoon. Performed by Natalie Behrends, Mia Massimino, and Anabel Milton.

"Funeral Parlor": an eccentric man comforts a grieving widow at the reception following a funeral. Performed by Peter McNally and Laura Kennedy-Long.

"Ron Bobby Had Too Big a Heart": when prom doesn't go as planned, two girls get revenge. Performed by Emma Bergman and Meg Lebow.

"Variations on the Death of Trotsky": variations...on the death of Trotsky. Performed by Nick Byron, Ben Lickerman, Zoe Johnson, Ravyn Malatesta, and Conor James.

"The Boy Who Ate the Moon": a boy comes to a doctor's office with a rather unusual problem: he has eaten the moon. Performed by Sam Dembling and Calley Mayer-Marks.

"The Philadelphia": a man is stuck in a state of being called a 'Philadelphia' where he can get anything except what he wants. Hey, we're all got to be somewhere. Performed by Aaron Posner, Alex Michell, and Dana Cook.

The Cure

"The government has created a perfect society. Through Citizens United to Revitalize Equality, or C.U.R.E., no citizen goes hungry: if citizens are struggling in any way with money, unemployment, or disease, the government provides food for them via N.U.R.S.E. Nancy, or Network Used to Ration Supplementary Eatables. A suffering family will receive a visit from a Nurse Nancy within the week. If they are ill, the food is enhanced with medical spray. The standard of living has reached an unprecedented high. Every citizen is healthy. Every citizen is equal. Every citizen is happy.

Except for one. Jess’s parents were on C.U.R.E. for over a year. Now they are dead. In terror, Jess runs. She meets Anna, a Nurse Nancy who has begun to question the food aid she has been distributing. Together, they must somehow untangle the web of government secrets to learn the truth about the C.U.R.E., and what is really happening to their citizens."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is our Dystopian Trailer Project, created by myself, Ravyn, Esther, and Song-Binh over the past month or so. We've had lots of fun and many adventures, which took us from school to Value Village to my house to the editing suite, and then to another computer when our computer literally died. The development of the story and subsequently the trailer was really cool to watch and experience: from our first story idea, which was terrible, to the final color-correcting and music-editing touches, we've learned a lot. We hope you enjoy the trailer.

Capture the Fall

Two hours on a Sunday morning. Gorgeous day--65 degrees and sunny. Perfect for wandering around my neighborhood and Sligo Creek with a camera in hand. So that's what I did. Used Windows Live Movie Maker and Free Music Archives. Pretty simple. Pretty fun. 

Election Day Joys

Everything is beautiful, and nothing hurts.

Obama was re-elected President. Maryland citizens passed the Dream Act. Maryland, Washington, and Maine have granted all citizens the right to marry. Minnesota citizens struck down a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. In Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren was elected Senator. In Virginia, Tim Kaine was elected Senator. The list of victories goes on.

Maryland approving same-sex marriage was probably the most exciting and stressful part for me, because that was the election I was most invested in. Over the past two months, I've gone canvassing four times, in addition to electioneering at voting areas, because granting equality to all Maryland citizens under the law was and is very important to me. Both canvassing and electioneering aren't as awkward as one might think they would be, but they certainly are exhausting. Walking around neighborhoods talking to people for four or five hours at a time wasn't easy, but it was rewarding, both in the results of the election and in the responses I got from people. I canvassed mainly in liberal areas--Silver Spring, Bethesda, Glenmont--and talked to some very nice people. I'm introverted, but I like people, and I like meeting new people, particularly people who are excited about the same issues as me. The vast majority of people were supportive, and those who weren't were usually polite about it. On a whole, people don't slam doors in your face, and the one person who lectured me about sinful acts did so with a smile on her face, in a condescending voice. I got the feeling she thought she was teaching me good, wholesome life lessons, that maybe she could change this young person's mind and save me from the devil. Sorry. It didn't work.

(That's a lie. I'm not sorry).

Canvassing also ended up being a good bonding experience for me and my mom. The first time I went, they partnered me up with a nice woman who had gone canvassing before, but the second time I was by my lonesome self. Since I can't drive, I took the Metro out to my canvassing area, before realizing that I didn't have enough money to get home. I canvassed for five hours, then called my parents to pick me up. I got a cup of ice water from a couple of nice ladies who were doing something in their garage, and then sat on the curb for forty-five minutes talking to my sister on the phone. After this experience, my mom didn't want me to go canvassing alone, so she came with me, which was lovely. I don't get to spend enough time with my mom, and canvassing, in the sheer amount of walking, provides great conversational time. The first time, when we were in Bethesda, I did most of the talking, and my mom offered the people literature about the issue; the second time, I was tired and made my mom do the talking, which luckily she saw as me forcing her to confront her shyness and talk to strangers, as opposed to me just being lazy.

I also signed up to volunteer at voting areas on Election Day. This meant that I arrived at Kennedy HS at 6:20 in the morning to give the election judge a piece of paper that meant I was certified by Marylands for Marriage Equality to be at the voting area, giving out material and talking to voters. According to the rules, I was not allowed to enter the voting area itself, but I was welcome to stand outside, and catch whatever people I could. So that's what I did.

The fun part about electioneering is that you can be as obnoxious as you want: while I tried not to annoy people, and didn't interrogate or talk with anyone who clearly wanted to be left alone, I did my best to be as loud, cheerful, and direct as possible. When someone approaching the entrance was within ten or fifteen feet of me, I called out, "Hello, [ma'am/sir]! Please vote *for* Question 6 in order to support marriage equality!" and gave them literature (a leaflet with quotes from people (including Democrats and Republicans, religious leaders, and Michelle Obama) detailing why marriage equality should be approved. Regardless of what they said (or didn't say--some people just ignored me entirely), I'd say, "Thank you for your support [ma'am/sir], have a lovely day." In my head, I referred to it as practicing relentless cheerfulness and optimism. I don't know how effective electioneering is: most people come to the voting area with their votes figured out, or make snap decisions based on values. There were certainly people that I handed literature to who said, "Vote for Question 6?...Okay." These seemingly opinionless people are the probably the voters who made a difference: if a large part of people really wanted equality to pass, and a large part really didn't, the ones in between were the ones we had to sway.

This isn't to say I didn't meet people with strong opinions, but rather that I really couldn't tell which way the election was going to go. As one voter put it, we were "cautiously optimistic" about our chances, but the opinions I got from people were split just about down the 52-48 percent lines. One guy high-fived me. Several people expressed their excitement about it, and their hopes for its passage. People thanked me for coming out and supporting it, and for doing what was best for my country. A very nice lesbian couple gave me hugs.

But not everyone was rainbows (heh) and sunshine. When I asked people to vote for Question 6, people looked furious. "No", "Of course not", and "Certainly not" were common responses. One man pulled his wife closer to him and put his arm around her, as if to protect her from me and all the other crazies out there. One African woman with a thick accent ranted "No! Question 6 is no!" Her friend asked her which one Question 6 was. She answered, "Homosexuals marrying!" and continued muttering unhappily under her breath, darting angry glances at me as she walked up the steps. In general, the people saying no were middle-aged or (more often) elderly, and either wealthy whites, immigrants with thick accents, or very religious Christians. One elderly African-American woman with a cross around her neck spoke to me kindly, explaining that it just wasn't Biblical. I smiled, and told her to have a nice day. She told me to "take care, sweetie."

Other than her, the nicest person who was against Question 6 was a woman in her thirties who reminded me of Jennifer Garner in that she was very pretty, with soft, wavy brown hair, and looked like an extremely kind lady. Some people just look nice. She told me very sweetly that she didn't feel she could support it. I didn't really mind responses like that. My least favorite person, however, was an elderly man who, after hearing my pitch, turned around, glared me in the eye, and said--or, rather, spat--that it was the "most repulsive thing" he'd ever heard of. I had a couple of knee-jerk responses to that, none of which I said out loud (I thanked him for his opinion, and told him to have a nice day). My first thought was, "Don't hurt yourself, honey." He was clearly very old, perhaps in his 80s, and it seemed that the force of his hatred for me and the issue might break him. That much hatred can't be good for you. I wonder if anyone's ever done a study on the effect of bigotry on the heart. It's probably a leading cause of heart attacks. My second thought was, "You must be incredibly sheltered if loving couples getting married is the most repulsive thing you've ever heard of." Even if you don't think it's "Biblical", or if you consider it sodomy, what about war? What about poverty? What about starvation and genocide and mass rapings? You're clearly unconcerned with human rights and equality, but can gay people getting married really be more repulsive than the millions of people who have died in combat, who continue to die in combat, for no good reason? If you want to direct hatred against something--and, again, I don't think hatred is healthy, but whatever--direct it against a worse sin than love. Regardless of your opinions on it, murder and suffering should really be much more repulsive to you than love.

My last thought to that man was one of sadness, that he may not get a chance to reverse his beliefs, to be on the right side of history. Fifty years from now, this is no longer going to be an issue. My grandchildren will look at people like that man the way we look at 19th-century racists and slave-owners, marvelling at their stubbornness and irrational hatred, wondering how anyone could be so intolerant of something so ordinary. That man will be an emblem of bigotry. Did he deserve that? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe he's just following what his parents told him when he was little. It's just a shame that they were wrong. A lot of people brought their children to the voting area, to show them what was going on, what 'civic duty' entails. One of the women who ignored me entirely was holding the hand of an adorable little girl with a pink knit hat designed to look like a pig. It made me sad to think what was being put in her precious little head, beneath her precious little hat. But, with any luck, she will be growing up in a country that embraces equality. Even her parents can't ruin that.

We made history on Tuesday. But there's still a lot of history left.

Juggling

I like to juggle. I learned when I was about seven, but was (understandably) frustrated with the amount of practice it takes to be good, and so practiced only intermittently through the years. Then, in seventh grade, I got fairly good at juggling so I could do it in a show ('Annie Get Your Gun' at Act Two Performing Arts). I juggled in last year's third-quarter interdisciplinary (the USO Show), and am now practicing constantly to be able to do it in another show ('Pippin' at Imagination Stage). Last Sunday I was at the Renaissance Festival, and I spent at least half an hour at the Juggling Station, just talking to the instructors and learning tricks. I had never before attempted tricks, chiefly because I wasn't confident about my ability to juggle normally (technically called the three-ball cascade), let alone do tricks. However, as one of the instructors pointed out to me, the trick that everyone can do--beginners and masters--is called gravity. No matter what, the balls will fall. If dropping balls makes you a bad juggler, there is no such thing as a good juggler. (This can be construed into a life lesson if you look closely enough). So--with the enthusiastic prompting of the instructor, who, after many minutes had passed and I had not made any progress, looked at me seriously and said, "I believe in you"--I learned how to do an outside throw.



As the guy in the tutorial says, outside throws are the easiest tricks you can do with three balls. The chief difficulty with it is reversing the pattern: by this point, I've developed a lot of muscle memory for the three-ball cascade, and it was initially very hard for me to ignore that. However, after practicing for probably a total of 2 or 3 hours, I'm pretty comfortable with the outside throw (by which I mean that my only flaws with it are my regular juggling flaws, not flaws related to the trick itself. I can't always do it 'cause the balls hit each other mid-air, but that's because I have issues with throwing them high and loose, which is how you're supposed to do it to give yourself maximum room to work). Next time I practice (probably tomorrow afternoon), I'm going to work on doing the outside throw from the other hand; once I can do that, I'll work on tennis, and finally on reverse cascades.

I'm really excited by this new trick: not only because it's cool to be able to do tricks (it used to really irritate me when people asked me to do tricks, because regular juggling is plenty hard enough to learn, but now even I'm bored with the three-ball cascade), but because now I know I can do it. I learned a trick. It took me a while, and a lot of practice, but I did it and I'm proud. Now I can move on to new ones, even cooler ones, even harder ones. I'm excited. Are you? You should be. Because you can do it, too. Juggling is genuinely not as hard as it looks. Well--that's a lie. In the beginning, it is WAY harder than it looks. Then it gets easier, as everything must, if you just practice. Do yourself a favor, and get some juggling balls. Not tennis balls, though those are good to start with--juggling balls are better because they fit in your hand better and they don't bounce when you drop them. (Dropping balls is more frustrating if you have to chase them). Then practice. There are some very good juggling tutorials online, including the one below.



My goal is to master the ones shown below:



Wish me luck.