Subscribe to Max Sparber
Subscribe to Max Sparber comments
Subscribe to Max Sparber by mail

I'm Just a Bad Boy: A Fake Memoir

Max "Bunny" Sparber tells the story of his life, and every word of it is a lie.
Bunny Reading

The Jet Pack Tour

Max "Bunny" Sparber uses a small, portable jet pack to visit many of the great landmarks in the world.
Jet Pack

The World of Sailor Martin

Songs, short stories, and miscellany from a bawdy tattooed Sailor Puppet.
Sailor Martin

The Films of William Shatner

Reviews of the strange and obscure films William Shatner made in the 60s and 70s.
Sailor Martin

The Plays of Max Sparber

Original playscripts by Max "Bunny" Sparber, available for download.
Sailor Martin

Plastic Paddy


Max "Bunny" Sparber establishes, at age 41, that he is an Irish-American, and sets out to explore what this means.

Bits and Pieces


Bunny Sparber spends a year at the Walker Art Center, Minneapolis's contemporary art museum; an experiment in new forms of arts criticism.

Tulip


Max "Bunny" Sparber documents the process of writing a one-man show about performer Tiny Tim, including posting his rough scratch demo recordings of original songs, his early drafts of the script, and his research for the project.

The World of Sailor Martin


A free full-length album of original music by America's favorite drunken sailor puppet, available for download here. Songs include "Pour Me Another Box of Wine," "One Million Frogtown Whores," and "Why Are Women So Afraid of Seamen?"

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: NSFW | SCENE: WALL OF COCK

11:04 PM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
A SCENE from my new play, NSFW.

DANNY NO: Let's start with the Wall of Cocks. Is that all right? Can we bring up the wall of cocks?

Suzie Skirmish types on her laptop. On the screen behind her, a series of digital photographs of penises, arranged as a series of tiled images, fill the screen, one after the other. As they do so, Suzie presses her mouth very close to her microphone, narrating the images as they appear in a quiet voice that the microphone makes very loud.

SUZIE SKIRMISH: Cock. Cock. Cock. Cock. Cock. Cock. Cock. Cock. Cock. Cock. Cock. Cock.

Danny No turns to look at the screen.

DANNY NO: That's a lot of cocks.

The girls laugh.

MELANIE MISFIT: Yep.

SUZIE SKIRMISH: Yes it is, Danny No.

DANNY NO: And you add one at every show?

SUZIE SKIRMISH: At least one.

DANNY NO: What do you do? Just ask an audience member to take off his pants?

SUZIE SKIRMISH: Pretty much.

DANNY NO: And they do?

SUZIE SKIRMISH: Believe it or not, Danny No, when a girl asks a guy to show her his cock, they generally do.

DANNY NO: I guess they do.

IDA SCREAMER: Take a picture of Danny's cock.

DANNY NO: What was that, Ida?

IDA SCREAMER: Your cock. Let's get a picture of it.

SUZIE SKIRMISH: (To audience) What do you think? Who wants to see Danny No's cock up on the wall? Anybody? Come on, make some noise.

MELANIE MISFIT: Come on, Danny No. Show us your whang.

SUZIE SKIRMISH: You can turn your back to the audience if you're shy.

DANNY NO: Okay.

SUZIE SKIRMISH: Okay?

DANNY NO: Sure, yeah, fuck it. Why not?

IDA SCREAMER: Fucking A, Danny No. All right!

Suzie crosses to him, holding a digital camera.

SUZIE SKIRMISH: Is there some sort of journalistic code of ethics we're trampling here?

DANNY NO: Probably. But the best way to get a good story is to say yes to whatever your subject asks you to do.

Danny opens his pants. Suzie takes a photo. She crosses back to her computer, plugs the camera in.

SUZIE SKIRMISH: Drum roll please, Ida.

IDA SCREAMER: I don't know how to play a goddamn drum roll.

SUZIE SKIRMISH: Well, just hit the fucking things for a minute, would you?

Ida bangs on the drums, making a hideous racket. And, after a few months, a new image of a penis appears on the screen. The girls applaud and raise their arms up, encouraging the audience to applaud.

SUZIE SKIRMISH: You got some fucking balls on you, Danny No.

MELANIE MISFIT: Obviously.

DANNY NO: So what's the deal? Why this collection of digital photos of men's genitalia?

SUZIE SKIRMISH: You want the lie or the truth?

DANNY NO: Let's start with the lie.

SUZIE SKIRMISH: Guys kept asking us to show our tits when we performed. We got sick of it, so we started demanding they show us their cocks. And, you know, I already have this camera onstage, so one thing just lead to another.

DANNY NO: And what's the truth.

SUZIE SKIRMISH: Ugh, It's so stupid. When we started the band, Melanie got a book.

MELANIE MISFIT: We didn't know what we were doing. We could barely play our instruments. So I thought maybe we should read up on it.

IDA SCREAMER: What was that book called?

MELANIE MISFIT: 25 Ways to Make It As a Rock and Roll Band by Vincent Ercoli.

DANNY NO: (Sarcastically) Oh, of course. Vincent Ercoli.

MELANIE MISFIT: You've heard of him? Is he somebody famous.

DANNY NO: No.

SUZIE SKIRMISH: I figured he probably wasn't famous. I mean, you'd think, if he's famous, somebody must have heard of him.

DANNY NO: Probably some hack who threw together a how-to book.

SUZIE SKIRMISH: That's what I thought.

MELANIE MISFIT: Well, he seemed like he had some good advice. You know, how to put together a demo CD. How to find out who books bands for bars. That sort of stuff.

SUZIE SKIRMISH: All that stuff is available online, Melanie. You didn't have to pay $12 for a book to find that shit out.

MELANIE MISFIT: Do you mind if I tell the story, Suzie?

SUZIE SKIRMISH: Fine.

MELANIE MISFIT: So one of his suggestions was to include audience interaction. You know: sing alongs. Requests. Bring somebody up on the stage to dance. That sort of shit. Vincent Ercoli said audiences love that stuff.

IDA SCREAMER: Jesus Christ. I had forgotten about this.

SUZIE SKIRMISH: We hated his list. Actually, we pretty much hated everything Vincent Ercoli had to say. Sing alongs? We're writing our own songs, man. How is the audience going to sing along?

MELANIE MISFIT: I felt like he had some really good suggestions.

SUZIE SKIRMISH: Vincent Ercoli said you shouldn't waste your time with writing your own material. He said bars don't book bands that do original work, and audiences don't want to hear it. If Vincent Ercoli had his way, every single band would be a cover band, Melanie.

MEALNIE MISFIT: Vincent Ercoli also said we should promote ourselves directly to our audience, Suzie. He said that if you can go to a bar owner and guarantee that every time you perform, you'll bring 100 audience members, there isn't a bar owner alive who won't book you.

SUZIE SKIRMISH: So what?

MELANIE MISFIT: What do you mean so what? That's exactly what we did. You know, setting up a Facebook page for the band, sending out mass emails, all that.

SUZIE SKIRMISH: Oh, come on, Melanie. We would have done all that anyway. We were always about using the Internet for promotion.

MELANIE MISFIT: Oh, bullshit, Suzie! If it was up to you, we wouldn't even have an audience!

SUZIE SKIRMISH: What?

MELANIE MISFIT: All you wanted to do was record some demos on Garage Band and stick them on a blog as an MP3! You didn't even want to perform live!

IDA SCREAMER: That's true, Suzie.

SUZIE SKIRMISH: That's not true!

MELANIE MISFIT: Yes it is.

IDA SCREAMER: It is true, Suzie.

SUZIE SKIRMISH: I just didn't feel a live audience was necessary. I thought the idea of being exclusively digital was interesting. You know, be a band that never did a live performance anywhere, and never even played together, but just recorded their parts of a song separately and then put it directly on the Web. I mean, yeah, that was the original idea. But you guys wanted to play live, and I never said we shouldn't.

MELANIE MISFIT: You didn't set up the Facebook page either. I had to do that.

SUZIE SKIRMISH: I'm not saying you didn't! I'm just saying that I don't think we needed Vincent Fucking Ercoli and His 25 Ways to Be Like Every Other Idiot Band book to get us to do it. I think we would have done it anyway! Jesus!

MELANIE MISFIT: Well, I found the book useful.

SUZIE SKIRMISH: I'M REALLY FUCKING GLAD FOR YOU, MELANIE!

DANNY NO: Wow. Hey, if you don't mind me interrupting, can I get this back on track?

SUZIE SKIRMISH: What?

DANNY NO: How did the Wall of Cocks come about?

SUZIE SKIRMISH: Oh yeah. Audience participation.

IDA SCREAMER: Audience participation.

MELANIE MISFIT: It was our idea for getting the audience to participate without doing something that was totally cheesy. It seemed pretty punk rock. And Suzie had the idea that we would project the pictures. And put them on the Web.

SUZIE SKIRMISH: Yeah. Then it would be sort of consistent with what we're trying to do anyway. The whole rock band 2.0 thing.

DANNY NO: So why lie about why you do it?

SUZIE SKIRMISH: I don't know. I guess the lie sounded more feminist. More riot grrrl.

DANNY NO: Whose idea was it?

SUZIE SKIRMISH: Ida.

IDA SCREAMER: (Raising her hand.) My idea. (Beat.) I just wanted to see a lot of cocks, I guess.

SUZIE SKIRMISH: Satisfied?

IDA SCREAMER: With what?

SUZIE SKIRMISH: With the photo we got? Are you satisfied that you've only seen Danny no's cock?

IDA SCREAMER: Fuck no. Let's get some more COCK ON THIS STAGE!

SUZIE SKIRMISH: (To audience.) Who else wants to get their photo taken? Come on, you pussies. Afraid to have some girls look at your junk? GET YOUR ASSES UP HERE AND GET YOUR PANTS AROUND YOUR ANKLES.

MORE NSFW!

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: NSFW | THE STORY

10:24 PM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
I SPENT THE PAST FEW DAYS milling over script ideas for NSFW. There were a few parameters I wanted to work with. First of all, I wanted it to be a play masquerading as a live music performance. Secondly, I wanted the band to consist of women. Thirdly, I wanted it to incorporate elements of Internet culture. I want to explore the idea that the Internet is potentially a DIY opportunity in the style of punk music.

That's the nice thing about setting parameters. All of a sudden, a play takes form, because the parameters start forcing a narrative shape into place. Because it is a play, and plays typically demand conflict, I decided to make my girl group on the verge of collapse, and set the play on the last night they work together, on the night they decide, publicly, to disband. I could have simply borrowed a page from Hedwig and the Angry Inch and make the characters narrate their story directly to the audience, but it occurred to me that it would be more interesting to me to have the band interviewed by a reporter. And then it occurred to me to put the reporter onstage while the band is playing, and structure it as though it is some sort of gimmicky journalistic experiment, in which a writer interview the band live onstage as they perform.

And that's about it. That's all I have. But it's enough for me to go on. I can write a play based on what I have concocted, and, in truth, if I concoct anything more, narratively speaking, I run the risk of overburdening the play. Anything else I add to the play will be individual scenes, and characterization, and all the other little details I like to actually flesh out in the writing process. I try to surprise myself when I am writing, because it makes the writing process fun, and also because I reckon if I manage to surprise myself, there is a good chance I will surprise the audience. I also prefer not to have too clear an idea where a play is headed -- I almost never know how it is going to end when I start it -- because many writers make the mistake of making the ending inevitable, and therefore predictable. We do not go to plays to see people behave in predictable ways and do the things that a plot dictates we must, or, at least, we don't if we have any taste. We go to see transformative moments, the moment when somebody begins to act in an unexpected way, and to see plots twist in ways we couldn't predict. These should be credible, if the play is at all realistic, but "credible" and "unsurprising" and not synonyms.

So I can't say precisely what's going to happen with this script, and this is particularly true because, as with other scripts that I am writing directly on my blog in an episodic and nonlinear manner, the whole thing is not going to come together until I have written the bots of it separately. The play will not be written as plays are, but instead assembled from various elements, in the way a documentary might be, if it too were assembled out of various snippets of fiction.

So, in a few weeks or months, when I have written what I consider to be enough songs and enough individual scenes, I shall begin redacting them, and then we shall see what sort of play we have. I don't know if this approach is a good one, or will be a successful one, but I don't mind it, because I like not knowing. As I figure it, the risk of failure is more than balanced out by the risk of producing something surprising.

MORE NSFW!

Read more...

PHOTOS FROM THE AL FRANKEN PRESS CONFERENCE, JUNE 30, 2009

5:15 PM Reporter: Max Sparber 2 Responses
SEVERAL PHOTOGRAPHS from today's press conference at Al Franken's townhouse in downtown Minneapolis. The Minnesota Supreme Court had just upheld Franken's election as Senator, and, just a few hours before, Norm Coleman had conceded.





Read more...

TWEETS FROM THE SHOOTING I WITNESSED LAST NIGHT

9:54 AM Reporter: Max Sparber 2 Responses
I WITNESSED the police shoot a man last night in front of my apartment. I heard the sounds of shouting outside my apartment window, which faces south onto E 14th Street, between Chicago and Park Aves, in the Elliot Park neighborhood of Minneapolis.

I saw two police cars, side by side, pull to a stop. A man in what looked to be a hooded sweatshirt ran behind the cops, who jumped out and shouted something, and then one officer fired his gun at the fleeing man, who fell onto the ground on the south side of the street near a residential parking lot. I began describing what I was witnessing on Twitter, and all of my tweets from the event follow:

Just saw the cops shoot someone. 14th street, halfway between Park and Chicago, near the Band Box Diner.
about 6 hours ago from web

Shouting. Two cars pulled to a stop. Hooded fellow ran behind them. They opened up, three or four shots. He fell.
about 6 hours ago from web

He's on the ground now, handcuffs. Can't tell if he's hit. Cops asking "Where is it, where is it?"about
6 hours ago from web

Shirt appears bloody, but cops appear to be providing no medical attention.
about 6 hours ago from web

There had been screaming first -- a woman, I believe. Alerted me to the noise. Paramedics here.
about 6 hours ago from web

There appears to be a vehicle beneath my window with door open. I wonder if guy ran from there.
about 6 hours ago from web

Taping off the door to our building. I'm now above a crime scene. Cops have drug dog on the scene, sniffing.
about 6 hours ago from web

I think the drug dog just peed on a bush.
about 6 hours ago from web

Three cops with flashlights searching the street.
about 6 hours ago from web

Two plainclothes guys are here with clipboards, raking statements from the other cops. IA, because a weapon was discharged? CSI?
about 6 hours ago from web

http://twitpic.com/8nve2 - Cop and paramedics.
about 6 hours ago from TwitPic

No smell of gunpowder; odd. Wonder if the shots were something nonlethal.
about 6 hours ago from web

Still some cops milling about, but there's nothing new to report, and I doubt there will be. Move alone; nothing to see here, folks.
about 6 hours ago from web

If cops or anybody else have questions about what I saw, (612) 217-1234, but everything I saw is here on Twitter.
about 6 hours ago from web

Story about the shooting I witnessed last night: http://tinyurl.com/nsxz89
11 minutes ago from web

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: NSFW | INTRODUCTION

3:13 AM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
TO BEGIN WITH, I don't really know what to tell you about this project. It didn't start as a play, and just now, tonight, I decided to turn it into one. I have written five songs so far loosely connected by theme and approach: All look at the culture of the Internet, and all are vaguely written in the style of 70s and 80s glam rock and punk. Why? I don't know. I suppose I got it into my mind that blogging is sort of the rock and roll of the 21st century, in the way that rock and roll mythologizes itself.

More specifically, I got to thinking about the DIY ethos of punk: That each and every one of us has as much right to make rock and roll as any superstar, and we don't need to tell the same old boring stories; we can, instead, tell our own stories. We don't need to beg permission off of any corporate entity to let us make music, all we need is a guitar, three chords, and a willingness to make noise.

Blogging gives us the same freedom to communicate, without permission, or own stories, and we likewise don't need any great competence -- only a willingness to make a lot of noise. And, while the song is not a punk song, nonetheless I have found myself feeling that blogging deserved its own "Jukebox Hero" -- something big and stupid and anthemic that celebrates the essential mythology of blogging, which is still being written. I don't really write songs like those written by Foreigner, but I can write big and stupid and anthemic, and so, every so often, I have written a song about some aspect of the Web that I found interesting.

I have been thinking a lot about the idea of permission. So much of what we do in the arts requires someone else's permission, in a manner of speaking. If you're a playwright, you wait for someone else to stage your work. If you're an actor, you wait for somebody to give you a role. If you're a rock and roller, you wait for permission to get up on stage and play.

I never liked that fact, and now I find myself unbearable sick of it. So, while I don't know precisely what I want to do with this play, I have decided an aspect of it will be the rejection of permission. It will be written to be performed anywhere, assuming you have a guitar and a couple of friends. And I will be releasing it into the wild with very few conditions. Once it is written, anybody can perform it anywhere, without needing to ask me first, with one exception: If it is to be performed by a professional theater company that has more than 100 seats, you will need to acquire the rights to the play and pay me to produce it, just as you would with any play. Once you start being a theater that size, you are no longer a permission asker, but a permission giver. If you have less than 100 seats, there is a good chance you're not going to make any significant profit on the show, and I'm not going to be making any real money off you anyway. I know it's something of an arbitrary cutoff point, and I'll articulate my permissions policy more down the road, when there actually is a play to speak of. For now, well, this is a starting point.

This is one of three plays I am writing just now, all using a roughly similar writing method, which borrows from and utilizes blogging in the writing process. That's really wht I got it into my head to start thinking about using these songs as the starting point for creating a play; it just makes sense that if I am going to start writing theater that uses blogging as part of its process, then perhaps blogging, and the Internet in general, should also be a theme for one of my plays.

I'll detail all this down the road, when I have a clearer sense of what I am doing. At the moment, I only have a very rough idea, and I will flesh it out on this blog, as I write it. For now, though, it's an idea for a play and five quickly written songs, and that seems like enough to start with.


MORE NSFW!

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: NSFW

3:04 AM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: NSFW | SONG: INTERNET FAMOUS

2:06 AM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
A NEW SONG from my selection of glam rock and punk songs about the Internet.

"INTERNET FAMOUS" LYRICS:
I think I know you
I know your name
I've read your blog once
I should read it again
I've heard you mentioned
Repeatedly
You're Internet famous
But not like me

I was featured in magazines
Everybody knew me on the scene
I was I was
A Web superstar

We were treated like
Celebrities
We blogged what we wanted
We did what we pleased
Oh the drugs and women
And so much money
Now you're Internet famous
Well not like me

We had limos and corporate digs
And the suits paid and they paid big
I was I was
A Web superstar

When you ain't as famous as you were before
And soon you won't be famous no more
Where do you go when the money runs out?
What you once did with can you do without?

You're what's next now it's likely
You're Internet famous but not like me
I was I was
A Web superstar

LISTEN TO "INTERNET FAMOUS":









DOWNLOAD "INTERNET FAMOUS."

MORE NSFW!

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: TULIP | NOTES FROM HARRY STEIN'S TINY TIM, THREE

9:37 AM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
MORE NOTES FROM Harry Stein's unauthorized Tiny Tim biography, Tiny.

-As a teenager, Tiny Tim played for any event he could, and auditioned anywhere he could; he was usually rejected
-Even as a teenanger, affected old-fashioned manners, calling everybody "miss" or "mister"
-Was an avid reader of Fulton Sheen's "Life is Worth Living."
-Obsessed with cleanliness
-Used Lady Ester cold cream
-Applied for the Air Force when Korean War broke out
-Wanted to be an astronaut
-Rejected by Air Force, rejected by Army, claims he couldn't pass the psyche test
-"We'll call you if they attack New York."
-Worked a series of messenger jobs; tended to get fired a lot
-Fan of Veto underarm deodorant
-Ended up as messenger for MGM, which he really wanted; worked for a year and a half
-Performed at a lot of amateur shows, never won
-Signed with an ancient manager, Buddy Friar, in 1951, who represented all sorts of oddballs
-There was a circuit of amateur shows at that time; Friar would take Tiny to all of them
-Some places had police siren if they didn't like you; Tiny heard siren frequently
-Converted to Catholicism in 1954
-Immediately made changes: Stopped swearing, sang falsetto
-Falsetto got negative responses, but Tiny started winning amateur competitions

More plays of Max Sparber: Tulip!

Read more...

THE ARTS WRITER: MICHAEL JACKSON

5:36 PM Reporter: Max Sparber 6 Responses
SOMETIMES YOU PLAY THIS GAME IN A BAR. You have a few drinks, you run out of conversation, so somebody asks "Who is the most famous person you have met?"

I like to answer with a question: Who is the most famous person you can think of?

I've actually met a lot of famous people, which happens when you live in Hollywood, and happens when you write about the arts, and I have done both. So, whatever name somebody says, it's possible I have met them. I mean, I've met O.J. Simpson, and he's about as famous as anybody has ever been.

But I have somebody specific in mind, and occasionally somebody will guess it: Michael Jackson.

Fame is a little like money, in that you think you know somebody who is wealthy, and then, one day, you meet somebody so extraordinarily wealthy that you can't believe you thought the other guy was rich. They're not yacht wealthy. They're own your own country wealthy.

So O.J. is famous, yes. He's really, really famous. But he's not Michael Jackson famous. It is very possible that the number of people who don't know who Michael Jackson is is so diminishingly small as to be statistically insignificant. It is possible that children are born with an awareness of Michael Jackson, in the way that newborn giraffe already know how to walk. It is possible that Hiroo Onoda, the Japanese soldier who hid out in the Philippines and was so disconnected from the news that he didn't find out the war was over until 1974, was nonetheless, in hiding, a fan of Michael Jackson. It is possible that molecules of water could recognize Michael Jackson by some distinctive atomic signature. There are no bounds to how famous Michael Jackson was.

So, despite the fact that I only met him a few times, and my meetings with him were brief and unremarkable, they have stuck with me, in the same way that you might accidentally brush up against a supernova, and, even though all you really have to say is "Well, it exploded really big," it's still a hell of a story.

Michael Jackson did not wish to be recognized. His fame was almost certainly a burden to him, and so, when he came into the video store in Westwood where I worked between 1990 and 1993, he came in costume. It was a very poor costume, consisting of sideburns, buck teeth, and a baseball cap, but it was a costume nonetheless. It fooled nobody. The moment I first saw him enter the store, I thought, oh my God, it is Michael Jackson in costume. Everybody in the store recognized him. They all stopped and gaped. He had a very shy, distracted quality about him, and people left him alone. He was always with little boys, and a bodyguard, and several adults who were, I presume, the little boys parents. He would wander around the video store and pick out videos, and, after an hour of doing so, would press himself up against a far wall in the same sort of way that startled spiders press themselves against walls.

I would then cross to him and ask he was ready to check out. He would nod, terrified, and I would take his videos from him. The selection was always unusual. I remember one time he purchased the entire "That's Dancing" documentary collection and also the entire "Hitler's Home Movies" documentary series. He liked, and purchased, a lot of Warner Brothers cartoons.

This was a video rental place, mind you. But Michael Jackson didn't rent. He and one other regular, a Middle Eastern Prince, were the two who would buy, and buy by the hundreds, even though this was back in the day when a single video tape might sell for $80. (The Prince was in the "rich beyond rich" category; his videos were shipped to Saudi Arabia, or wherever he was from.) Money wasn't an issue for Michael Jackson then; it wasn't even his concern. He didn't pay for the movies. He just signed the paper and we sent it to his people, who paid.

And that's it. Not much of a memory, I know, and probably quite similar to the memories of thousands upon thousands of people who met him very briefly in a business setting. It's not even the best memory I have of Michael Jackson. That memory is from a week ago, when I went to the Interact Center for the Visual and Performing Arts in downtown Minneapolis. This is an organization that provides the opportunity for adults with developmental disabilities to create plays and original works of art. I happened to be there on a night when the artists and performers were throwing themselves a party.

So the performance space of Interact was filled with people in wheelchairs, and people with Down's Syndrome, and people with mental illness, and they were all dancing. And they were dancing to Michael Jackson's "Beat It," and every one of them seemed to know the words, and all were singing along. They danced with an enviable enthusiasm and lack of self-consciousness, and one of the employees of Interact watched on with unfeigned fascination. "Drink it in," he told me, gesturing to the party, "it's a lot to process."

I watched as well, and a few of the performers came over and danced in front of me, smiling at me and singing along with noisy enthusiasm. The song came out in 1982. 1982, for Christ's sakes. The song is 27 years old. But it was driving this group of dancers crazy, as I am sure it has driven people crazy for years, regardless of who or where they are, whether they are members of a wedding party who seemingly spontaneously start dancing to "Thriller" or prisoners in a Thai prison who do the same. That's what real fame is like -- fame beyond fame. We all know his songs. We can all impersonate his voice, or a few of his dance moves. We all know the lyrics to 27-year-old songs, and will leap to dance to it, whoever we are. We've all brushed against the supernova in some way, and none of us are likely to forget it.

Read more...

A RESPONSE TO THE SUPPOSED MICHAEL RICHARDS 'PROUD TO BE WHITE' EMAIL

1:56 AM Reporter: Max Sparber 9 Responses
THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL BLOG, and I usually don't use it to discuss matters of politics, or religion, or race. However, a peculiar email wound up coming my way recently, and it's an especially racially charged one. I think white people are, in general, responsible for responding to racism when confronted by it, so I am going to take a moment to publish the email and offer some responses.

The email purports to be the words of Seinfeld actor Michael Richards, who you might recall got into some hot water for shouting racial epithets from the stage a year or so ago. Supposedly, these are comments he made in court during a case that resulted from these comments. Never mind that the supposed court case never happened; you occasionally get these angry, reactionary emails, and they always claim to be the words of somebody famous, and almost never are.

Proud To Be White

Someone finally said it.
How many are actually paying attention to this?

There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc. And then there are just Americans.


Let me interject here to say that whites can certainly be hyphenate Americans. I am Irish-American, for instance, and have known plenty of folks who proudly identified as Polish American or German American. I can't imagine that the letter writer was unaware of this, and it is especially petty of the author to begrudge minorities their hyphenate status, but never mention that white people do it all the time. Instead, whites are, it seems, "just Americans." None of us are just Americans. We all come from specific backgrounds, and I am not clear on why the author has a problem with people identifying themselves with both their American nationality and their cultural heritage. Do they have a beef against St. Patty's Day or Octoberfest?

You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction. You call me 'White boy,' 'Cracker,' 'Honkey,' 'Whitey,' 'Caveman' ... and that's OK.

But when I call you, Nigger, Kike, Towel head, Sand-nigger, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink ... You call me a racist.


Firstly, caveman? Secondly, if you're spewing racial epithets, there is actually a pretty good chance you may be racist. These passages are puzzling, as they seem to suggest that it is okay to fling racial insults if a minority has done so too. This argument is self-evidently idiotic, and so I won't even address it.

You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you, so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?


My guess is because a lot of poor people live in inner-city ghettos, and poverty breeds a lot of some very specific type of crime. That being said, I am not sure that ghetto is especially more dangerous to live than, say, Love Canal in New York was, seeing as it was built above 21,000 tons of toxic waste. White collar crime can be pretty dangerous as well. But the author is specifically trying to link crime to race, albeit doing so in a generalized and fairly disingenuous manner. He will be more specific later, and then we will address the charge.

You have the United Negro College Fund.
Youhave Martin Luther King Day.
You have Black History Month.
You have Cesar Chavez Day.
You have Yom Hashoah.
You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi.
You have the NAACP.
You have BET.
If we had WET (White Entertainment Television) we'd be racists.
If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists.
If we had White History Month , we'd be racists.
If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR lives we'd be racists.


Well, depending on the state, we also have George Washington Day, Columbus Day, Abraham Lincoln's Birthday, Truman Day, Robert E. Lee Day, Andrew Jackson Day, Nathan Bedford Forrest Day, and Father Damien Day, to name a few, and those guys were all white.

Additionally, Cesar Chavez was Mexican-American, and Mexicans can be white. Yom Hashoah is a Jewish holiday, and plenty of Jews are white. Is Mawlid an-Nabī actually an American holiday in the way that, say, Martin Luther King Day is? Regardless, it's a Muslim holiday, and plenty of Muslims are white.

The author is conflating ethnicity, religion, and National or cultural origin with race here, which is just ignorant. As to why we have Black History Month -- well, there's also Children's Book Day, and nobody complains, hey, when is Adult Book Day. We have a Black History Month because African-Americans have a very specific history in the United States, and one that is often neglected. The history of white people in the United States is not similarly neglected -- it is, in fact, the majority of what you will read every time you read a book on history. It seems pretty petty to begrudge black people one month in which to focus on the experiences of black people in the United States.

We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce. Wonder who pays for that?


Who pays for what? All of the above are not-for-profits, and so are supported the way other not-for-profit businesses are: donations, grants, etc. The complaint here is not clear, except the sense that it is somehow unfair that Hispanics and Blacks have their own chamber of commerce, while white people don't. But people form chambers of commerce around specific interests -- there is, for instance, a Christian Chamber of Commerce, which, for some reason, got overlooked in the list of bothersome chambers.

There is no real problem with this, as people have a right to spend their money however they see fit, and if they want to support black businesses, or Hispanic business, or Christian businesses, well, it's their dollar. If the author of this missive wants to spend their money supporting white businesses, they can do so as well, and I don't expect they need a specific chamber of commerce to do so. It shouldn't be too hard to find a white owned business anywhere in America.

A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant, but any color can be in the Miss America pageant.


Do you have the same complaint about Miss Polish American Pageants and the like, or does it only bother you when racial minorities have pageants? And doesn't it bother you that only women can enter beauty pageants, or is it only a problem when a contest is limited by race, and not by gender? Do you sit and fume in a rage that Tom Cruise will never be able to win a Best Actress in a Motion Picture award? Or that an old man can't win a children's poetry award?

If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships you know we'd be racists. There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US. Yet if there were 'White colleges' THAT would be a racist college.


Actually, there are 105 historically black colleges in the United States, so obviously whoever wrote this could not be bothered to do even a cursory amount of research on the subject. About one percent of the student population at Fisk are white. Fisk was founded in 1866 -- at that time, what percentage of the student body at Yale or Harvard do you figure was black? Black colleges started because, in the long history of racism in America, it was the only post-high school education available for a lot of black people. All other American colleges were, in essence, white colleges, and quite a few were explicitly whites only until civil rights legislation made that illegal.

If the complaint is, well, why is it illegal to have a whites only college but blacks can have their own college? Well, the law is the same for all of them. You can't keep black people out of mainstream colleges because of their race, and white people can't be turned down from historically black colleges for being white -- as I mentioned, Fisk University, which is one of the oldest and most famous black colleges, has white students.

Beyond this, I need to take a moment to address the difference between "black" as a cultural identity and "white" as a cultural identity, because they mean different things, and they don't just identify race. Although they do describe real differences between people, the idea of blackness and whiteness is mostly a social invention, and is fundamentally linked with racism. It's a complicated history, and I can't give more than a thumbnail explanation, but it's important to do a least that.

Because we didn't primarily identify ourselves as "white" or "black" before we came to America. We mostly identified ourselves by nationality, or ethnic group, or religion, or language group. But race was important in America, in large part because of the slave trade. Slaves were all grouped together as blacks, even though they came from a large number of places in Africa and came from different, and sometimes competing, tribes, and that was their primary identity before they came here.

Whiteness was not as clearly defined. For a long time the Irish were not considered whites. Italians might not be considered whites. Greeks were not considered white. For the most part, they are now. The author of the letter I am addressing uses the phrase "sand nigger," which refers to Arabs; well, Arabs fit into the parameter we currently use to define whiteness in the U.S. Historically, they have always been defined as a sub-type of the Caucasian race. But obviously the author of this letter does not consider them white. So the definition of who is and isn't white is flexible and constantly changing, and it's mostly a definition of who is in power and who isn't, and who is considered normal and who isn't. It's a definition of who has privilege.

So when people talk about being proud of being white, it's not clear what they are talking about. What precisely are they proud of? Having managed to worm their way into a generalized and ill-defined category of humanity that has nothing really in common but for not being black, or Asian, or some other category of race?

So, the letter writer asks, why do black people get to be proud of their race? Well, properly, black people should be proud of whatever ethnic or national heritage they have, the same way Italian-Americans, or American Jews, or Irish-Americans celebrate their history. There is a problem for them, though: Most African-Americans don't know their ethnic or national heritage, because it was lost during the slave trade. They don't get to define themselves as a Zulu-American or a Cewa-American, because their heritage was stripped from them when they were brought to this country as chattel.

Black people do have a lot in common with each other in this country, more so that white people, because they were segregated out of mainstream American society. When black people refer to black pride, they're referring to having an appreciation for the specific shared experience of being black in America. White people don't really have the same sort of shared history, which is why, when black people talk about Black Pride, they tend to be referring to things like soul food and the creation of jazz and the gains made by the civil rights movement. When white people talk about White Pride, they tend to be talking about how great it is not to be black.

In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights. If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists.

You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.


I think people would have a lot less problem with people declaring their white pride if it didn't tend to be associated with explicitly racist groups like the KKK. But, the truth is, because the white identity developed in order to differentiate people from blacks, and to demonstrate that they were more powerful than blacks, and because "whiteness" doesn't have its own real meaning beyond that, I think anyone who forms a group celebrating whiteness is going to have a hell of a time not being racist. Also: Who the hell is orange? The only orange people I have seen are white people who tan too much.

You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug-dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.


This is the comment in this letter that is the most genuinely racist, and I'll tell you why. It's because it assumes that black people, as a group, have collective responsibility for crimes committed by individual black people. That there is such a thing as "black crime."

When a white person commits a crime, does the author of this letter likewise hold the entire white race to be accountable for that crime? I somehow doubt it.

It's a false argument anyway. Who is calling white cops racist for shooting a gangbanger or beating a fleeing drug dealer? All black people everywhere? Plenty of black people I know are quite happy to see drug dealers and gangbangers arrested, as the primary victims of black criminals are other black people.

There are legitimate questions to be asked about the criminal justice system and race, though, and there are racist cops out there, and there are police tactics, such as racial profiling, that are problematic and worth discussing. To shrug off that discussion as being just a bunch of black folks getting mad when a criminal gets arrested is unfair.

I am proud. But you call me a racist.

Why is it that only whites can be racists?


I think, if people are calling you a racist, is has a lot to do with the fact that you took the time to write an ill-informed rant about how unjust the world is because black people get to be proud of themselves and white people don't, in which you painted black people as being a bunch of racial epithet spouting criminals who live in ghettos, and because you can't even tell the difference between race, religion, and ethnicity.

It's a petty, mean little tract you wrote, and it appeals to a petty and mean side to people, who feel that somehow they aren't getting theirs, and somehow minorities are getting more than they should, and it's time to send out an email that puts these folks back in their place. I don't know whether the author of this email is actually a racist or not, but I know that what he has written appeals to racists, because, if you do a Google search on the text of this email, it shows up on a lot of racist Web pages. I am addressing the points made in the email because I think there are people who forward it along without really examining it, and perhaps those people can be swayed with a little respectful and reasoned discussion.

That being said, I don't for a second believe that the people who wrote this, and forward it, don't know in their heart of hearts that the text of this email is a little bit mean, and I would hope that, in the future, if they feel the urge to forward something they know to be angry or bitter or fighty, that they take a moment to examine it more closely. Because this is the sort of text that can really hurt people, and the urge to give yourself permission to be mean is an urge that should always be thought through.

As to whether anybody other than white people can be racist, well, that's a pretty complicated discussion, but the easy answer is, of course they can. Anyone who believes in the inherent inferiority or superiority of a group of people based on their race is a racist. The more complicated discussion is how much is matters when black people have racist viewpoints, as, for the most part, they are not collectively in a position to institutionalize their viewpoints in the way that white people can create institutions of racism. It's a very complicated discussion, and not one I want to have right now, because I think it is a bit beside the point. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that, yes, minorities can be racist. So what? Does that give white people the permission to also be racist? Just because somebody calls you a honky, does that give you permission to become hateful in response?

The digital revolution has made it very easy to spread messages to very large groups of people very quickly, and that means we must try to be responsible for our part in this. Do we really want our legacy to be one of sending out petty missives whose essential point is "black people do it so why can't we?" Is that the best thing we have to say with the technology that has been given us?

Read more...

THE ARTS WRITER: INTERVIEW WITH POLLY CARL

8:47 AM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
A FEW WEEKS AGO I sat down to speak with The Playwrights' Center's outgoing Producing Artistic Director, Polly Carl, who will soon be working at the Steppenwolf Theatre Company in Chicago. We discussed the difficulties in getting new plays produced, the importance of supporting new playwrights, and why playwrights must take responsibility for becoming a voice in arts institutions as well as develop their own relationships with an audience.



More from The Arts Writer.
 Subscribe to The Arts Writer!

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: TINY | SONG: EVERY SUNDAY MORNING

11:12 AM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
ANOTHER SONG for my one-man play about Tiny Tim, Tulip.

"EVERY SUNDAY MORNING" LYRICS:
Every Sunday morning Parson Poole
He walks to school he walks to school
He sits before class on at his desk and stool
To teach the golden rule the golden rule
Oh every Sunday morning
Oh every Sunday morning

Every Sunday morning Gillian Lark
She strolls the park she strolls the park
All the men there offer a cheery remark
But she pines for coachman mark
Oh every Sunday morning
Oh every Sunday morning

You read the papers and make yourself tea
Which you drink alone every day at three
And you toss out letters and disconnect the phone
And compose your epitaph: She lived alone
Oh every Sunday morning
Oh every Sunday morning

Every Sunday morning Marie Clair
She does her hair she does her hair
She affixes to her collar a bejeweled pear
And she pays a call on her Pierre
Oh every Sunday morning
Oh every Sunday morning

You eat alone inside your tiny little room
And primp and preen with makeup and perfume
You never lift the blind or go outside
And compose your epitaph: Alone she died
Oh every Sunday morning
Oh every Sunday morning

Every Sunday morning Danny Blue
He calls on you he call on you
He pounds at your day, he always do
Which you ignore, as he expects of you
Oh every Sunday morning
Oh every Sunday morning

LISTEN TO "EVERY SUNDAY MORNING":









DOWNLOAD "EVERY SUNDAY MORNING."

More plays of Max Sparber: Tulip!

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: TULIP | ON THE PROBLEMS OF WRITING BIOGRAPHIES FOR THE STAGE

2:46 AM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
A FEW DAYS AGO I wrote that all plays are essentially biographies, in that they tend to address themselves to constructing a narrative out of events in the lives of their characters. That being said, I also recently wrote that I don't have much taste for onstage biographies, and think it's not something theater does especially well. I want to clarify what I mean by this, as it is something I have been thinking about in preparing to write this play. When I complain about the staging of biography in this piece, I should be clear that I am discussing those shows that endeavor to somehow provide an overview of an entire life, to sum up a character by dramatizing the significant events in their life. I've never seen this done well on stage, and there are a few reasons why I don't think it works.

The first thing we have to remember is that the creating of a biography is a reductive and artificial process. Most people don't live lives that are full of self-evidently significant moments, and these moments don't necessarily drive a life forward to the next significant moment. Despite this, I would say most biographical writing, particularly the thumbnail sort that we find on, say, Wikipedia, is written as though a life can be boiled down to a series of big events, and those events, taken in aggregate, add up to a portrait of a person.

I have a few complaints about this approach to stage biographies. Firstly, I don't really understand the point of dramatizing a Wikipedia entry. If you want Tiny Tim's life, as an example, boiled down to the big events, here you go, and that's about as good as you could as in a thumbnail biography. And, when you're writing a stage biography, the best you can offer is a thumbnail biography; mounting it onstage seems redundant. Furthermore, it takes time to dramatize events from a life, and so you end up with, oh, maybe 20 scenes total from a character's life, or less. I just completed a play called Ivan the Drunk and His Terrible Tale of Woe, which looks at several defining events in the life of the fictional titular character, and, in 90 minutes, we managed to dramatize a total of eight scenes from the character's biography, and we were only looking at those moments that reflected the character's experiences as a soldier and a veteran. Theater is an abbreviated format, and so, if you try to tackle the entirety of someone's life onstage, you are necessarily going to reduce it to a degree that becomes increasingly absurd as you gloss over decades in order to attempt to find a handful of life events that both somehow define a character and are also good drama.

People just don't live lives that this can be done to. As a result, this approach whittles away all the really unusual aspects of a person's life and presents everything else with a preposterous sense of inevitability, as events unfold as they must, so that the character can end up being the great historical character that we know them to be. One of the most trying, and, I think, insurmountable tasks in writing this sort of story is that events are only significant in retrospect: we can't know their meaning when they happen. But in staging a biography in this way, the event becomes freighted with meaning -- we know that such and such chance meeting will lead to war in another country, or the creation of a popular song, or one of the great romances of the 20th century, or whatever. The trouble is, in real life, these chance encounters are very rarely actually all that interesting, and we don't know their meaning when they happen. In my own life, I don't recall the exact first meeting with many of my friends and collaborators, and the process that turned these relationships was protracted and often not especially interesting, dramatically speaking. I imagine this is true of most people, and, yet, often I see stage productions in which the character, narrating their own life, says "And it was at that party that I met, Merton Kinklenberg, who, as you know, would write 'Fly Away Little Red-Crested Warbler,' which would become the most popular song of the First World War." And then they stage the scene, and it is written to be cute and witty, and it is neither.

I often don't think biographies in book form are very good at telling life stories, and they do so with hundreds of pages with which to explore their subject; how much worse will a play do, with 40 to 60 pages. Further, a book tends to come in at 75,000 words or more. A full-length playscript clocks in at quite a bit less: one of my longest scripts is only 18,000 words. It's just not enough for a comprehensive overview of a life, much less to include the various interesting little side-tracks and oddities that happen in a person's life, which I think often can define a person as much as the more typical and expected events in their biographies.

So, if we can't dramatize someone's life onstage, from start to finish, and do that life any sort of justice at all, what can we do?

Theater is especially good at detailing transformative moments. I think the problem with many stage biographies is that the treat an entire life as a transformative moment -- they document that transformation of somebody from a baby into a famous person, and that's just too big of a transformation. (Unless, I suppose, we are dealing with a famous baby.) For my tastes, plays are best when they take one really good story from somebody's life and investigate that, rather than to try to tell the whole thing. And, the truth is, this piece of advice is really Playwrighting 101, and I feel a little silly in articulating it, but for the fact that I still see so many scripts that open with a baby being born and end with the funeral of a famous old person. There's something about it that just feels greedy to me, too. Any really interesting life is potentially material for dozen of biographies and dozens of plays, all addressing themselves to a specific facet of that life; instead, the author has tried to tell all the stories, all at once, like a child who can't stand just having one piece of cake and wants the whole thing for himself.

The other thing plays do especially well is examine character, and it's something that I think a lot of playwrights don't explore enough, which seems like a waste of theater's greatest resource, the actor. Sometimes these scripts treat the main character as the least interesting aspect of their story, and instead move them through a series of meaningful events, as though they were relatively passive and uninteresting puppets at the mercy of whatever experiences they are fated to have. There is a musical about The Andrews Sisters making the rounds right now that is especially guilty of this; at the end of it, you have learned next to nothing about the personalities of any of the sisters, except for some superficial details, such as one being a little bitchy or one being more ambitious. In the meanwhile, the script tries to dramatize every single important event in the lives of all three sisters, and they come off as popsicle sticks, each featuring a one-word character trait written in pen, being tossed around in a storm of destiny.

The truth is, no matter how famous somebody might be, and no matter how significant their actions, if they were boring, they cannot be the lead character in a play. Just don't write it. Fortunately, significant people are very rarely boring, and if they seem dull it usually represents a failure on the part of the writer. And I think that failing is a common one, and it is this: What we find interesting is often linked to a quality of surprise. If we find ourselves at a play in which we have already guessed what is going to happen, and it's not very interesting, we're going to find that play plodding and tedious. But if a play gives us a story we don't expect, and if we can't predict the plot points, and they are unexpected but consistent with the story being told, we're going to find the play a lot more interesting. We need to think about character the same way. We're not going to find characters interesting if they behave predictably -- indeed, the dramatic arc of a character relies on them to transform over the course of a play, and to move from a predictable pattern of behavior to an atypical one. But it is very hard to do this when telling biography, especially the biography of somebody famous, because we already know where the story is going and we already know the character, or at least, think we do. We actually often wind up with a reversal of the typical character arc as a result -- as the story develops, the character becomes more and more what we know, and so they move from behaving atypically, because they have not yet become the famous person we know, toward behavior that we typically associate with them. So the movie Ray, as an example, has, as its narrative, how did a little boy manage to turn into Ray Charles? By the end of the movie, that little boy has become a character we think we already know, or, at least, an impersonation of that character.

Fortunately, even with the very famous, we know a lot less that we think we know. People live a long time, and they live very busy, very complicated lives, and, if they are interesting people, they have done all sorts of unexpected and interesting things. I suppose this is why I am opposed to many stage biographies -- because they stage what we know, rather than what we don't know. We end up being reminded, again and again, that Helen Keller was transformed from an uncontrollable deaf mute girl into an extraordinary human being by being taught how to use her hands to spell out d-o-l-l by Anne Sullivan. We don't learn that she grew up to be a very active socialist, and that her socialism was directly inspired by her own disability, in that she recognized how frequently blindness and deafness was a disease of poverty, and how her education was a product of privilege that many poor people with disabilities could not share. So stage biographies often fall victim to a very strange problem, in that they try to simultaneously remind us of what we already know and surprise us with that knowledge. They must tell about events that are already well-documented and easy to find out about, and yet make it seems somehow unexpected, and they must present to us a personality who is often terrifically well-known, and yet dramatize that person in such a way that they are capable of surprising us.

This is not necessarily an impossible task, and is often assisted by the fact that we generally know less than we think we do, and so even a very dry retelling of a well-known event will often have surprises in it. But I don't find it an interesting task, and often see it done poorly, and don't think it is an especially good use of the stage.

As a result, my approach in writing the Tiny Tim play will be a little different. I am not going to try to tell his biography, and, when biographical elements creep in, I will try and focus on stories that might be overlooked by a more typical thumbnail telling of his life. I will not be writing him to conform to the Tiny Tim that we think we know, but instead to focus on the private, and less known, Tiny Tim -- I am fascinated by the fact that he was a man who deliberately lived much of his life in isolation, and seemingly acted out a very rich fantasy life when he was alone that informed his public persona, but was far more idiosyncratic than his public persona revealed, as that was a somewhat carefully crafted version of Tiny Tim intended for public consumption (we all do a bit of this, and Tiny Tim's public persona was not divorced from his private behavior, but was simply a public version of it).

I don't know how people will react to this approach, as I think an endless series of badly done but popular staged biographies have created certain expectation for audiences. Just as I know they will attend this play expecting to hear "Tiptoe Through the Tulips," and may be frustrated when they don't, they may likewise come to the show expecting to have the highlights of Tiny Tim's life narrated from the stage, and be frustrated when they don't get that. But you can't write a play based around how you think an audience may react to it -- your only obligation is to tell a story you find interesting, and to tell it in a way that best does it justice. I don't think the staging of a Wikipedia entry is the most interesting story or the best way to tell it, and so I won't be doing that.

More plays of Max Sparber: Tulip!

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: TULIP | SONG: QUEEN FOR THE DAY

11:28 AM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
ANOTHER SONG my play play Tulip, based on the life of Tiny Tim.

"QUEEN FOR THE DAY" LYRICS
When I was a younger man
I wooed the ladies as best I can
But I am not a younger man now
Now, my golden jubilee
Finds young girls running away from me
And I could not chase them anyhow

So who shall I give my trophies to
Who shall be queen for the day
Might I find I beauty to rave about?
Ooh, I may.

Now I'm in my dotage
The girls don't like my old age
They don't come around anymore
One they just surrounded me
I passed my days so pleasantly
Now my days they just drag and bore

So who shall I give my trophies to
To whom shall I this crown bestow
Might I find I beauty to rave about?
Ooh, maybe no.

LISTEN TO "QUEEN FOR THE DAY":









DOWNLOAD "QUEEN FOR THE DAY."

More plays of Max Sparber: Tulip!

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: TULIP | SONG : ALMA MATER GIRLS

10:29 AM Reporter: Max Sparber 1 Response
ANOTHER SONG for my play Tulip, based on the life of Tiny Tim.

"ALMA MATER GIRLS" LYRICS:
It's there in terra cotta
The name of my alma mater
The home of all the girls I knew
I couldn't love them all then
And that's why I've come back again
For Lonnie and Mary and Jean and Peg and Sue
They're the loveliest girls in the whole wide world
And that's why I've come back home

LISTEN TO "ALMA MATER GIRLS":









DOWNLOAD "ALMA MATER GIRLS."

More plays of Max Sparber: Tulip!

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: TULIP | NOTES FROM HARRY STEIN'S TINY TIM, TWO

11:56 PM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
MORE NOTES from chapter one of Harry Stein's unauthorized biography, Tiny Tim.

  • As a boy, fantasized about going to "Fairyland" where there was "no strife"
  • Antisocial
  • Had appendicitis, made him afraid of physical activities
  • Hockey fan; loved the Maple Leafs
  • Fan of Captain America
  • Insisted his comic book collection be pristine
  • Once called himself Count Herberto Buckingham Khaury the First
  • Laid in bed and invented his own radio shows, acting them out in his head
  • Took violin as a child, hated it, hated his teacher, dropped the class
  • Sang along to Victrola recordings in his room, sometimes performed for his parents' friends
  • Often wrote songs, including one to Elizabeth Taylor
  • As a young man, often tried to meet the people he idolized, collected signatures
  • At school, stood under the stairs and serenaded the girls
  • When he dropped out of school rarely worked; instead, spent most of his time in his room, obsessively listening to records
  • Read fan magazines and listened to gossipy radio shows, fantasized about being a star
  • Huge fan of Arthur Godfrey; bought Gidfrey plastic ukulele; learned to play is with Godfrey book; attended his radio show until was asked to leave, possibly for being inappropriately excited
  • Switched to guitar for a while, and began to attend parties, playing guitar
  • Was invited to the parties, often by strangers, to amuse guests
  • Used name "Larry Love"
  • Performed at an amateur night; didn't use high voice, but did a song where he would cry and tear and bite at himself
  • Obsessed with "classic beauties"; went to parties just for the chance to search for girls he thought were classically beautiful
  • Began wearing makeup and perfume at this time
  • Began obsessively dieting: Bernarr McFadden diet of wheat germ, honey, bananas, etc.
  • In 1954, saw picture of Rudolph Valentino with long bangs; experimented with that and eventually grew all his hair long
  • Father was so angry by his appearance and his late hours that he smashed guitar across Tiny Tim; Tiny patched the guitar and continued to use it for years
  • Tiny was also occasionally physically violent: omnce attacked and choked his father


More plays of Max Sparber: Tulip!

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: TULIP | IN OPPOSITION TO JUKEBOX MUSICALS

9:18 PM Reporter: Max Sparber 1 Response
I AM SURE that if Tulip, my play about Tiny Tim, ever gets mounted, people are going to expect to hear "Tiptoe Through the Tulips" during it, as that was Tiny Tim's signature song. However, this won't be happening, and I have a few reasons why

Reason why number one:



Reason why number two:

God Bless Tiny Tim: The Complete Reprise Records

Reason number three:

LISTEN TO THE SONG NOW:









We are at a rather unique time in history. At this moment, thanks to digital media, if you want to hear or see a recording of the actual Tiny Tim actually performing "Tiptoe Through the Tulips," you could hear or see that at any moment you wanted to. For one hundred dollars, or thereabout, you can personally carry a digital jukebox of almost every Tiny Tim recording, and every Tiny Tim video, and every movie that Tiny Tim made, all in your pocket. There is absolutely no need for a stage show to fulfill the function of being a jukebox -- and, since what you will be seeing onstage will necessarily be an impersonation, it will be a fairly poor jukebox at that. I suppose there is some theatrical value in having a performer who can provide an eerie simulacrum of an original performer, but, if that's to be the case, I think the theme of the play must necessarily be impersonation, as with Little Voice. Imitation is necessarily interpretation, and interpretation must be addressed.

But there is a genre of theater out there, and it is an especially popular (and, I would say, pernicious) one, that is literally called the Jukebox Musical, and I can't stand them. Some of them do have the quality of commentary, such as it is: The four dead performers in Forever Plaid are aping a style of music (specifically, 50s close harmony pop), rather than impersonating a specific performer, so it's a jukebox of cover performances, rather than impersonations. But the play's commentary is very light, and, like most jukebox musical, its stock-in-trade is primarily nostalgia.

An increasing number of Jukebox Musicals pass themselves off as biographies. I have a larger critique of stage biographies that I will detail at another point (although one of my complaints is similar, and it's this: You want a bio of Tiny Tim, here you go). These musicals primarily use biography as a frame for hanging a series of impersonated hit songs. Jukebox Musicals not especially good as biography, and they are entirely redundant as performance, and I think these two things are deadly to theater. I know there is a market for nostalgia, and I know that the graying audiences that make up the majority of American theatergoers love to revisit the popular hits from their past, even in the form of mediocre impersonations wrapped around contrived structures. But I don't think this makes for very good theater, and I won't participate in it.

There's nothing inherently wrong with nostalgia -- any play set in the recognizable near past is going to have to address nostalgia as a subject. But the feeling of nostalgia is one of yearning for something that no longer exists, and I think the popularity of Jukebox Musicals is that they simply pander to that desire, rather than examine it. What we are seeing when we see a Jukebox Musical is a modern version of a spiritualist act, where the past -- or an idealized version of it -- is dragged out of the grave to live again for us, very briefly. (This is, in fact, the very theme of Forever Plaid.)

I think what theater does especially well is problematize the world -- that is to say, it is especially good at confronting our shared assumptions about something and presenting those assumptions as a problem. Doing this forces an increasingly complex and subtle understanding of the world. But nostalgia doesn't seek subtly or complexity. Instead, it seeks to reinforce assumptions. Let us look at Grease, which can't be called a Jukebox Musical, as it features an original collection of songs, but nonetheless trades in nostalgia. The world of Grease, in which pompadoured rockers drag race each other during the afternoon and dance at sock hops at night, is a fabrication. It's a mythologization of the past that continues the work that the band Sha Na Na did in inventing a period of time that we now nostalgically look back on as being a shared history -- something we call the 50s. (For a further look into how art, coupled with nostalgia, can simplify and caricature the past, read the essay Sha Na Na and the Invention of the Fifties).

But at least Grease had a plot. Many Jukebox Musicals barely have that, instead selecting a series of popular songs and then awkwardly writing a book to bridge from song to song, in the same way that the function of a script for a pornographic film exists merely to invent a bridge between one sex scene and the next. The function of most Jukebox Musicals is not to tell a story, but to move from song to song in as brisk and businesslike a manner as possible. At least in porn films, when they finally get to coitus, they are not impersonating a sex act that occurred three decades ago.

I am interested in the Tiny Tim story because there are questions his story raises for me, and I am interested in exploring those questions dramatically. I am not doing the show because I know there are some aging Baby Boomers who have a strange nostalgia for a man, and this seems like a fast way to separate the Boomers from their ticket-buying dollar, in the meanwhile reassuring them that their memories of Tiny Tim are correct and worth remembering. I don't think theater does that well, I don't think Jukebox Musical do that well, I don't think it is a worthwhile theatrical goal, and I know I couldn't do it well. So you won't be hearing "Tiptoe Through the Tulips" in this show, and that shouldn't be a problem, as you can hear it anytime and anywhere you like.

One final complaint: Years ago I read a book about starting a band and finding local venues to perform in. The book was absolutely adamant that, if you want to be able to make a living as a musician, forget writing new music. Bars want cover bands, the book informed us, and they're not going to book people who play original music. Additionally, you should try not to make your cover too distinct from the original recording, because people don't like that.

This may have been good business advice, but, ultimately, somebody has to write new songs, and somebody has to provide a venue, or we wind up with no new music at all, and culture stagnates. And I think Jukebox Musicals tend to be the theatrical version of cover bands.

I don't write plays to make money. I write plays for the same reason I do a lot of creative stuff. I feel like culture is a collective undertaking, I feel responsible for adding to it, rather than just drawing from it. Otherwise my experience of the arts is defined by my consumption, rather than my creation, and that is not how I wish to define myself.

But making a Jukebox Musical seems to me more the act of programming somebody else's creation than creating something of your own -- you're not the maker of art, but rather the editor of somebody else's art. You end up being a cover band, and if that's all people want to see, and all that theaters want to stage, then who is making the new songs, mixaphorically speaking. And where can they be heard?

More plays of Max Sparber: Tulip!

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: TULIP | SONG : PICNIC IN FAIRYLAND

10:09 AM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
ANOTHER SONG for my one-man show about Tiny Tim, Tulip.

"PICNIC IN FAIRYLAND" LYRICS

Let's take a picnic in fairyland
Sneak away with me tonight
It will surely be a merry land
With friendly imps and sprites
The soda rivers are falling
The gumball trees they blow
Let's take a picnic in fairyland
I for one won't stand to hear no

Take a trip with me to Falderal
Let's lunch there in the shade
Let's take in a show at Gnomish Hall
Then let's watch the Elf Parade
The Oberon army is marching
Can you hear their fifes and drums
Let's take a trip to Falderal
Don't tell me you won't come

LISTEN TO "PICNIC IN FAIRYLAND":









DOWNLOAD "PICNIC IN FAIRYLAND."

More plays of Max Sparber: Tulip!

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: TULIP | NOTES FROM HARRY STEIN'S TINY TIM, ONE

11:27 PM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
NOTES FROM Harry Stein's book Tiny Tim, drawn from chapter one:

  • Tends toward disarray and clutter
  • Adores National Enquirer and National Tattler
  • Uses the phrase "thankgodtoChrist" -- spoken as one word -- frequently
  • Never leaves his room
  • Showers five times per day, including taking showers every time he uses the toilet
  • Always eats alone
  • Often makes phone calls to businesses using fake voices and names
  • Believes women exist to please men with their beauty
  • Gives out trophies every year to the girls he thinks are prettiest
  • Compulsively considerate
  • Authority on forgotten pop music
  • Will not share a bed with his wife
  • Doesn't believe in birth control
  • Tends to just talk about whatever he believes, with little prompting, even if he looks foolish as a result
  • Crazy about the LA Dodgers
  • Jewish mother, primarily spoke Yiddish
  • Father was Lebanese Catholic
  • Fan of comic books when a boy
  • Grew up singing Jewish songs
  • Listened to old music obsessively in his room
  • Academically unmotivated
  • Dropped out of school
  • Couldn't keep a job
  • Passionate crush on Liz Taylor
  • Grew his hair long in 1953
  • Wore cosmetics
  • Became very religious Catholic in late teens or early 20s
  • Stopped swearing
  • Calls all men Mr. and all women Miss
  • Reads self-help books
  • Parents tried to commit him when he was young

More plays of Max Sparber: Tulip!

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: TULIP | TINY TIM BY HARRY STEIN

8:57 PM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
HOWEVER WEIRD YOU MIGHT THINK TINY TIM WAS, in life, he was far, far weirder.

Or, at least, that's the case in Harry Stein's 1976 biography of the performer, titled, simply, Tiny Tim. The book bears the Playboy Press imprimatur, and several chapters detail Tiny Tim's sexual life in no uncertain details, and the book calls itself "unauthorized," but this isn't the cheap and gossipy smear piece you might expect. The tawdriest tales come from Tiny Tim himself, who apparently consented to 20 hours of interviews (and I have yet to locate anywhere where he refutes anything ascribed to him in the book; additionally, flipping through old magazine interviews with Tiny Tim, he often says things that are substantially similar to what he is supposed to have told Stein). Additionally, Stein is careful enough to track down and interview a large number of the people from Tiny Tim's life, including his mother, his former producers and agents, and his estranged wife, Miss Vicki. I suspect the book's "unauthorized" label stems from this, as many of Tiny Tim's past acquaintances tell stories of Tiny Tim that are at odds with the performer's own version of his life

The resulting book is terrifically complicated as a result, and I will be going through it, chapter-by-chapter, to jot down notes for the play, although Tulip will not be a stage adaptation of Stein's book, and the book will just be one of many resources I make use of in assembling anecdotes and character details for the play.

Stein does provide a superabundance of these, however. Reading the book, it is very tempting to assign an undiagnosed mental illness to Tiny Tim, such as Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder, especially when you learn that he would shower after every time he used the bathroom, sometimes for as long as three hours. And I think it's impossible to escape the conclusion that he wasn't merely an eccentric, but would have benefited from a proper psychiatric evaluation and diagnosis.

But Stein also presents a fascinating portrait of a sort of squalid theatrical demimonde -- a New York in the 50s that was crawling with predatory 'agents" and "managers" who would hitch their wagon to anybody who seemed remotely profitable, insist they sign multi-year contracts, and then sue the ones who did actually make it. Tiny Tim roamed this world more than a decade before he was discovered, working in sideshows and lesbian clubs, and so, when he experienced his brief moment of national success, he was instantly beset with lawsuit after lawsuit by these bottom feeders.

Stein also gives us a portrait of a man who was wholly unprepared for any sort of success, and so quickly alienated the very people who championed him (often at the risk of their own careers) while engaging in maddeningly profligate spending and a pursuing bizarre (and somewhat pederastic) interest in very young girls.

It's hard to like the Tiny Tim of Stein's book. Not because he was an oddball -- and, as I have mentioned, and as my noted will reveal, Tiny Tim was almost totally defined by his strangeness -- but because he doesn't seem like a terribly nice man. His views about women are reactionary and studiedly sexist, his politics are stubbornly and stupidly conservative (and , by this, I don't mean there is anything inherently stupid about conservativism, but, instead, that Tiny Tim was reflexively and rabidly conservative for no reason that made any sense at all). He was also a man that lacked much compassion -- when his wife miscarries, he can scarcely be bothered to concern himself with it, although his stubborn and often incomprehensible religious view cause him to bury the child; he tells the preacher the baby's name is "it.") The Tiny Tim of this book didn't seem to have an ounce of self-awareness, and could be monstrously conniving and petty, all of which guaranteed he would never be seen as anything more than a freak.

The shame of it is, if it is hard to like the Tiny Tim of Stein's book, you come away with a real respect for him as a performer. Everyone who worked with him discusses Tiny Tim in terms of his huge and unique talent, and how he squandered it. He was working with a group of people who knew how to niche market him -- although they had different ideas about how that might be done -- but Tiny Tim had a niche of his own that he insisted on remaining in, and that was as a comical weirdo. Unfortunately, that's not an enormously marketable niche, and, as a result, Tiny Tim's career floundered almost as soon as it started. The book ends with Tiny Tim, broke and living in his mother's house, babbling nonsensical plans for regaining success, such as starring in an erotic film, and it is a grim, pessimistic end to the book. And the truth is, Tiny Tim would remain an artifact, touring constantly for very little money and performing for people whose interest was limited to nostalgia, perverse fascination, or whose politics or religion aligned (as much as it could) with Tiny Tim's. He's never really gotten any sort of appreciation as an artist, and Stein makes it abundantly clear that the fault for this lies with Tiny Tim.

More plays of Max Sparber: Tulip!

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: IVAN THE DRUNK | REVIEW BY JOHN TOWNSEND

12:25 PM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
JOHN TOWNSEND, one of the great champions of Twin Cities theater, has provided this dense, fascinating, and explicitly political take on Ivan the Drunk (Scroll down in link for review):

Though the context is Soviet, the production, co-directed by Herwig and Jennifer Ilse, evokes a timeless void that could apply anywhere at anytime. The set seems transient just as life and time themselves are transient and of course, war always ramps up that already awful inevitable transient feeling. Americans in the shadows of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan will tend to categorize Ivan’s derision as post-traumatic stress, which it surely is. But text writer Max Sparber’s miraculous and moving use of language comes from the depths of the soul and not once from psychobabble. Every single word is connected directly to the heart and/or the gut. You will be confronted wherever you’re coming from.

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: IVAN THE DRUNK REVIEWS BY BLOGGER SHEILA MCMAHON

11:27 PM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
A THOUGHTFUL REVIEW of Ivan the Drunk by blogger Sheila McMahon

The set is beautiful and cleverly transforms into layer upon layer of dream-like sequences and settings that Ivan recalls from life and returns to in his memory. The memories are surreal – it’s not a strictly linear play – and the interaction between the music, setting, and acting/dancing are evocative of intense emotion, often with no words for minutes at a time. Some of the scenes are nightmarish; but it is always clear that they are based on events from his life. At no time does it seem completely random – the action is grounded in a reality, even though we as audience members only have a minimal sense of the reality, it’s clearly there.


More plays of Max Sparber.

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: TULIP | ABOUT THIS PROJECT

9:34 PM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
I'M BLOGGING the entire process of creating this play, Tulip, based on the life of Tiny Tim, and there are a few reasons why. This seems like a good time to take a moment to explain myself a little, although this project is somewhat experimental in approach, and I may revise or revisit my approach throughout. But, for the moment, here are my thoughts.

EXPLORING THE PROCESS OF MAKING A PLAY
Firstly, I am increasingly interested in coming up with alternatives to the way we present theater nowadays, in which the process is completely buried. When you go see a show, you see the outcome of months or years worth of work, and a lot of that work is actually designed to hide the work that was done. Many plays are supposed to seem like they just happened, spontaneously, on the stage. This is certainly a legitimate approach, but it doesn't interest me very much. In many cases, I think it is a pity to hide the process, because many of the most interesting things that happen in theater happen during time when the play is being created.

I am very interested in the decisions that go into finalizing a play, because, just before those decisions are made, a play has a fairly limitless number of possibilities, and the act of making those decisions is the act of limiting the play. This is necessary, of course, but nonetheless, I like the idea of presenting an audience with an idea of the possibilities that might have been pursued. Additionally, it is during the process of developing a play that the play is discovered, and when it is mounted the big discoveries have often already been made, and we're left with subtle and more nuanced discoveries that the actors themselves might make on stage. Those discoveries are worthwhile and are the product of living with a text for long enough to really dig in, but, having been through the rehearsal process many times, I always feel like it is a pity that the bigger, defining discoveries are hidden from the audience. I suspect this may be something very idiosyncratic about me, as I also seem to prefer buildings when they are just a framework, and am always disappointed when the facade is added and find the completed building much less interesting. But it's sometimes a good idea for writers to indulge their idiosyncrasies, and so I shall.

I haven't yet figured out how to embed the process of creating a play into a completed play, and I suspect this will be something I will explore for quite a while, but, for the moment, it is very easy for me to document the process of creating a project, step by step, so, even if those moments of discovery and invention aren't contained in the final product, they will nonetheless be available to anybody who is curious.

RADICAL TRANSPARENCY AND WHY IT INTERESTS ME
This relates to a longstanding interest I have had in something called radical transparency, which, at best, was a short-lived management vogue, in which all decisions are made publicly. There were also experiments in applying this technique to publishing, and some of those experiments continue -- I recently heard of an author, whose name escapes me, who publishes all of his first drafts online. I have been experimenting with this, in one way or another, and find it suits me. I enjoy creating things and throwing them up on the Web in an imperfect form. I enjoy having a map of my own progress, and a sense of how I made decisions. I am not especially private, and I don't share the embarrassment many people feel about showing an imperfect creation. I often prefer the imperfect, as there is something touchingly human about it. Sometimes, when I see plays, I get the strange feeling that I am at the waxworks. The cast onstage is striving to create an idealized version of the show they are in, and, in some cases, struggling to recapture something that happened spontaneously in rehearsal, so we are, at best, seeing an imperfect recreation of a hoped for perfect play, comprised of a thousand little moments that never existed in any single performance. This is an impossible and unsatisfying goal, but it is the goal of many theatrical productions.

I heard Tony Kushner speak a week ago, and he pointed out that one of the defining qualities of theater is its imperfection. Much of the other media we consume has a superficial perfection, but is dead, in the sense that it has already been finished, and will not significantly change from viewing to viewing, and will not be affected by the viewer. This is not the case with theater, where a show can be dramatically different from night to night, and where the reactions of the audience can significantly alter the experience of the play. This doesn't make theater imperfect, in my view; it makes it living. And, as Kushner also pointed out, it makes it human, because we are likewise imperfect and constantly changing.

APPLYING BLOGGING TO THE TELLING OF BIOGRAPHY
Finally, this project is an experiment in form, in that I am using the process of creating a blog as an influence on the process of creating a play. Actually, that's not quite right. I am creating this play in exactly the way that a blog is created, as a series of discreet entries online, but then with the added step of editing it all together, although that will also be done online.

I sincerely think that the process used in creating a piece of theater contributes significantly to the shape of the piece -- it is a product of its process, which is another reason I am interested in documenting the process. I am intrigued by how using the techniques of blogging to create a play might effect the shape of the play -- I suspect the resulting play will likewise be composed of fairly discreet units, unified under a single theme and edited so there is an overarching sense of story. But I doubt the resulting play will be a story in the way they are often told, in which one scene necessarily and logically leads to the next, and each scene pushes the play forward to a surprising but also inevitable plot.

Don't get me wrong, that is a very fine form, and there is a reason it has been the dominant storytelling form, on and off, for the entire history of Western storytelling. But it is, nonetheless, just one form of storytelling, and is an artificial construction, like all other forms of storytelling. I consider blogging to be a form of storytelling, in which the story isn't a clear narration, but instead an assemblage. Blogs are, generally, an often patchwork creation consisting of autobiographical tidbits, reblogged images or videos, random thoughts, and other assorted miscellany of a person's day-to-day life. Some blogs have rather rigid structures, focusing on just one or two subjects, but even these are generally more random in construction than a formally authored monograph on the subject. I like that blogs are loosey goosey, and think this is a quality that would not hurt theater, even though the creators of theater often would prefer a certain neatness and clarity. I don't think I would. As I have already mentioned, every play is an infinite number of potential plays, and, although we choose to present just one of these, I would like to include hints of what else the might play have been. These loose ends hint at other stories that might have been told, and I find it sort of a pity to cut them out entirely. And that brings me to the subject of blogs.

I have been a blogger for quite some time, and I find myself coming to the conclusion that blogging is an unusually good form for autobiography, albeit of a largely accidental sort. Biographies generally focus on events from a person's life, and try to force it into a meaningful, logical series of events. But out lives aren't like that, not really. They're messier, and we are defined as much by what we think, and what we view, and what we buy, and what makes us curious, and the conversations we have, and a million other temporary and individually insignificant things, as we are by what happens to us or what we create. Blogs preserve that, and so they give a broader sense of who a person is than can be found in a traditional biography, or even a traditional diary or journal. In fact, I would go so far as to say blogs are inherently autobiographical, in the sense that they are a document of the thoughts and the interests of their creators. And so the blog seems an especially interesting form to use in approaching the telling of biography, and, the truth is, creating plays are fundamentally the act of telling biographical tales, even if they are fictional.

More plays of Max Sparber: Tulip!

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: TULIP | NEW SONG : THE DOWNTOWN DOWNS

9:32 AM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
ANOTHER SONG for my one-man show Tulip, based on the life of performer Tiny Tim.

I should explain how I write these songs, in part so you know what you're listening to. I literally compose these songs as I am recording them. In this instance, I started with a chord progression and a basic melody I liked. I recorded the chord progression into Garage Band, and then wrote some lyrics, and then recorded them over the chord progressions. Then I came up with a chorus, added the chords, and then added the vocals. Then I copied the chord progression for the 1st verse, wrote a second verse, and recorded that. And so on. If these recordings sound rough, that is why -- you are, in many cases, hearing the song recorded as close to the act of creation as I can manage.

My first goal here is simply producing a large quantity of songs -- perhaps 15 or 20. In the end, I imagine I will end up using less in the final show, but I want a nice collection of music to draw upon. And so, when the mood strikes me, I will write a little ditty and upload these really rough scratch demos. Once I have selected which songs I want for the show, I shall go through and practice them, and make a better recording, and, hopefully, by then be able to do it in something that sounds more like a Tiny Tim voice, although, since I shall be playing him at the end of his life, when he is dying of heart failure, I think a little roughness is appropriate. Although, in this instance, you're hearing a song I barely know how to sing. For this part of the process, I am fine with that.

"THE DOWNTOWN DOWNS" LYRICS:
Shall we speak of fame?
Times of great renoun?
I've been up and I've been down
On the whole I prefer down
Shall we talk of luck
My fortunes come and go
There are good times and there are bad
It's the bad times that I know

Ooh the times you know
They're the times you know

Oh when on I'm my up
And fortune seems to smile
I hobnob with the uptown swells
And linger on awhile
And soon I'm on the outs
And fortune seems to frown
I shake hands with my dear old friends
And join the downtown downs

Ooh the times you know
They're the times you know

Shall we talk of fame
Brother I've had some
I signed my names to pictures then
And now, well, I sign none
Does it matter, eh?
It means not a thing at all
I'll always have the downtown downs
At the end of my inevitable fall

Ooh the times you know
They're the times you know

LISTEN TO "THE DOWNTOWN DOWNS":









DOWNLOAD "THE DOWNTOWN DOWNS."

More plays of Max Sparber: Tulip!


Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: TULIP | NEW SONG : NO SUNNY SKIES

6:29 PM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
A SECOND SONG for Tulip (formerly Tiny), my one-man show about entertainer Tiny Tim. I cannot yet sing like him, and sound like Martyn Jacques of the Tiger Lillies when I try.

"NO SUNNY SKIES" LYRICS:
No sunny skies now
No time for feeling gay
Clouds are all above us
Where is our sunny day

Let's say goodbye storms now
Let's banish gloom
There are sunny days yet
There are endless Junes

Ooh sun's gonna shine
Ooh rain won't fall
Ooh trade your days for mine
My days are glorious all

Let's say goodbye storms now
Let's banish gloom
There are sunny days yet
There are endless Junes

LISTEN TO "NO SUNNY SKIES":









DOWNLOAD "NO SUNNY SKIES."

More plays of Max Sparber: Tiny!

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: TULIP | THE LAST DAYS OF TINY TIM

12:30 PM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
AS PART OF MY RESEARCH regarding Tiny Tim, I visited the various sites connected with his stay in Minneapolis, and his eventual death here. I made a short movie about these locations, as well as plotting them on a map. Most of this information comes from Findagrave.com's entry on Tiny Tim.



A map of the locations mentioned in this video.

More plays of Max Sparber: Tiny!

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: TINY | SONG : SO STRANGE

5:49 PM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
THE FIRST SONG for the play Tiny.

Note that while I am singing falsetto throughout this song, it should not be understood as an impression of Tiny Tim. At this moment, the goal is to write between 15 and 20 songs, in the style of popular music that predates the rock and roll era, inspired by themes from the life of Tiny Tim.

"SO STRANGE" LYRICS
I am not as strange as all that
I am not so strange
Why do people stop and stare so
Why do they treat me so strange

You were once my turtledove
You were once my gal
Then the people started to talk
Now I don't see you at all

O Miss Jenny
Why did you have to go?
O Miss Jenny
There's something you should not

I am not as strange as they say
I am not so strange
People they like to talk a lot
But I am not so strange

LISTEN TO "SO STRANGE":









DOWNLOAD "SO STRANGE."

More plays of Max Sparber: Tiny!

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: TULIP

8:58 AM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: TINY | BEAUTIFUL THOUGHTS

7:59 AM Reporter: Max Sparber 1 Response
IN 1969, Tiny Tim wrote a book.

No, that's not quite right. Beautiful Thoughts is barely a book. Beautiful Thoughts is probably not more than 1000 words total, which barely qualified as a short story, much less a book. And, as the title suggests, Tiny Tim's book is a collection of aphorisms from the performer. It might be possible to describe this as "The Philosophy of Tiny Tim," but to do so would be cruel, as many of this aphorism are insipid. Admittedly, this was true of Andy Warhol's The Philosophy of Andy Warhol, but there was something knowing and satiric about Warhol's insipidness, and there was great wit to it. When Warhol writes "My ideal wife would have a lot of bacon, bring it all home, and have a television station besides," there's a lot going on there. When Tiny Tim writes "If you're not on time, you're not worth a dime," there isn't.

That being said, it's a fun little book. Firstly, it's illustrated, or, perhaps more properly, designed by Frazier-Hauge, a design team from the 60s who did a lot of album covers, and created a series of Peter Max-style pages on which Tiny Tim could embed his piquant utterances. So when Tiny Tim tells us "Whenever I hear the Star Spangled Banner on television before a ball game or even on the radio, I stand up," Frazier-Hague embeds this nugget of unexpected patriotism into a yellow and orange image of a television set filled with an abstracted American flag before which a red and white striped silhouette of a man stands.

Let us put aside these eye-dazzling and frequently twee illustrations for a moment, though, and look at what we can discover about Tiny Tim from the book. Firstly, he is quite fond of hokey show business-style apothegms, such as "If you can't take it you can't make it" and "If you are playing a part, be perfect." Secondly, he has a creaky, old-timey love of the cliches of early American popular music: "Moonlight & love songs are never out of date," he tells us, and quotes the first stanza and chorus of a 1917 song "If You Had All the World And It's Gold." Finally, he seemed to have a decidedly conservative streak -- which is not so much about politics as it is affecting the tone of a scold. "When did you write your mother last?' he demands to know, and then warns us "Don't investigate dark passages."

And that's about it. The book is so slight that it is impossible to suss out much about Tiny Tim, except that he is a man in love with the past and has distilled it down into a series of cornball platitudes, and that this has informed a vaguely reactionary worldview, in the sense that once in a while Tiny Tim is going to act like your busybody aunt who thinks your manners are just terrible.

Strangely, this doesn't feel hugely out of place for a publication from the late 1960s, despite that decade's reputation for consisting of a radical, epochal break from the past. Particularly in regards to pop culture, the 1960s had an obsession with the past that mirrored Tiny Tim's own. The title song of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, for instance, was a masterpiece of ersatz-Victorianism, and the cover of the album consisted of an inventory of early 20th century countercultural heroes. It's a little remembered fact, but one of the early communally inhabited Victorian mansions in Haight-Ashbury was filled with young men who dressed in straw boaters and raccoon coats, as though the 1920s had never ended, an obsession with an era shared by Robert Crumb, the father of a burgeoning underground comix scene.

I think part of Tiny Tim's success was that he was both a freak and somewhat out-of-time at a moment in America when a lot of people were feeling freakish and out-of-time. His strangeness, which would have made him, at best, an outsider artist in any other era, made him something of a folk hero to the counterculture of the Sixties, even though his resemblance to them was accidental.

More plays of Max Sparber: Tiny!

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: IVAN THE DRUNK REVIEWED IN MINNPOST AND SINGLE WHITE FRINGE GEEK

8:15 PM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
TWO LOVELY REVIEWS for Ivan the Drunk from MinnPost and Single White Fringe Geek.

FROM THE MINNPOST REVIEW:

There’s always something miniature about Off-Leash Area’s riveting movement-theater productions. Yes, they’re often produced in small spaces, including the garage of co-artistic directors Paul Herwig and Jennifer Ilse. But it’s also the way in which Herwig and Ilse compress, hone and embed the major events and existential issues of human life (birth and death, being and meaning, parenting and family, abuse and mental illness, war and peace) into singular characters as finely wrought as figures inhabiting whole worlds painted on a thimble.


FROM THE SINGLE WHITE FRINGE GEEK REVIEW:

“Ivan The Drunk & His Terrible Tale of Woe” is spectacular – in the old school theatrical sense of the word spectacle. Off-Leash Area takes five actors and the basic building blocks of story-telling and carefully, very precisely, creates something amazing and funny and strange. Space, sound (and its opposite, silence), the human body (and inhuman props), light (and its opposite, darkness), music, voice, dance, and imagination – rarely have a seen them all better used, and even more rarely all in the same production.


More plays of Max Sparber.

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: NSFW | SONG: WT FUCK

8:48 PM Reporter: Max Sparber 1 Response
A SONG about seeing something on the Internet that you wish you didn't. Additional vocals by Coco.

"WT FUCK" LYRICS:
What's this thing that's keeping me outta my bed
It's come off of the online and got into my head
I can still see it even though I blink blink blink blink
There's a whole lot of fucked up from hyperlink
WT Fuck WT Fuck WT Fuck

Ain't no use in trying to forget that fucking thing
Some things can't be undid some things can't be unseen
There's a whole lot of nasty lurking on the Internet
And if you ain't seen it well you just ain't seen it yet
WT Fuck WT Fuck WT Fuck

Lately I've been trying to find it again
Or maybe something like it or something that will then
That will give me the same feeling of shock and dismay
So I click click click click click click click click click click click all day
WT Fuck WT Fuck WT Fuck

LISTEN TO "WT FUCK":









DOWNLOAD "WT FUCK."

MORE NSFW!

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: IVAN THE DRUNK REVIEWS IN CITY PAGES AND METROBLOGGING

7:20 PM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
IVAN THE DRUNK was reviewed in both City Pages and Minneapolis Metroblogging.

THE CITY PAGES REVIEW:

To say that the journey there is heavy and hard is an understatement. Ivan evokes moods aplenty, all of them tainted with bitterness and a sense of the horror we routinely inflict on ourselves, and those of other tribes. The beauty, when it comes, is so strange that we struggle to identify ourselves within it. It's life and history, undeniable and awfully jaundiced.


THE METROBLOGGING REVIEW:

For being such a dark, sober (heh) story, Ivan the Drunk does not take itself too seriously. Which is to say it took itself just seriously enough. I’ve seen reviews that use phrases like “full of laughs” or other euphemisms for funny, and that’s not it, exactly. There are a few truly absurdly funny moments—and you should not feel guilty about laughing at them—but this play isn’t funny.


More plays of Max Sparber.

Read more...

THE ARTS WRITER: THACO

8:24 AM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses


THERE'S A TERRIFIC INGENUITY to Bill Stiteler's locally lensed film THACO. In some ways, it's not much of a film. THACO hasn't got a plot so much as an obsessive collection of minutely detailed in-jokes about the world of role playing games and the sorts of adult men who still play them. The writing is sharp, if you're a gamer, and potentially incomprehensible if you aren't. Fortunately, Stiteler also focuses his attention on the strained friendship of four men, one played by Stiteler himself, who are well into adulthood, and whose relationship with the sometimes obsessively juvenile world of gaming has begun to change. One of the funnier jokes in the film, repeated throughout, is that the characters are so nerdy that they annoy each other; the joke becomes poignant when it starts coming out that these characters are a little exhausted by their own nerdiness, too.

But I'm not interested in reviewing THACO, as I think a lot of the sort of stuff critics discuss, such as the quality of an actor's performance, or the technical proficiency of a film, are both beside the point and rather uninteresting here. I was more interested in the fact that Stiteler originally created THACO as a Fringe Festival show and then decided to film it -- something I think we're going to start seeing a lot of -- and how carefully he has crafted a niche for this project. It really is a film that is almost exclusively by gamers and for gamers, and that is the market Stiteler is primarily targeting.

Stiteler has done something that I think is really extraordinary: He has cheaply and entertainingly documented a small but very active subculture -- one that is engaged enough and active enough to have, essentially, developed a lot of their own language and history (THACO, for instance, means To Hit Armor Class 0, something pretty meaningful in the world of gaming -- and a subject of discussion in the film -- but meaningless outside it). And he made the film entirely in the idiom of that subculture, which is so specialized he might have well made it in Yiddish.

This is the sort of opportunity that the digital revolution has created: The chance for people to cheaply make highly personal, idiosyncratic projects about their own experiences. This would have been impossible a few decades ago, because the cost would have been too high and the opportunity to find an audience too limited. Thanks to the Internet, which has shown itself to be remarkably good at building communities based on common interests, Stiteler can market his film directly to a highly specialized niche audience.

I interviewed Stiteler about the film via email:

Bunny: Tell me about how the project got started.

Bill: I wrote THACO in sort of a do-or-die scenario to see if I could write a play. I'd always told myself that I was a playwright, but beyond some short sketches and adaptations, I'd never done anything of my own, an original work.

It's hard for me to express how really depressed I was: I hadn't done any theatre in a year or so--I mean, I wasn't even auditioning--just sort of drifting, and it suddenly hit me how much time I was wasting. So I decided to sit down and write My Play, a play that I would go see. I picked role playing games because they were something I knew a lot about, knew the characters of that world, and the funny things that happened.

The other side of that is that I wanted to document what me and my friends were really like. You see nerds portrayed as social misfits who live in their parents basements and are terrified of girls, even into adulthood. But the nerds I know are married, have jobs and careers, and most of them own homes. And it bugged me, not just because it's a cliche, but because the truth of being a nerd, the way it reprograms your brain, is a lot funnier and a lot weirder.

All of the characters started out being based on me, and different aspects of my personality: in fact, in the play the characters are named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John because I needed to come up with names for four guys who should really all have been named "Bill." As I got into revisions, I started thinking about the guys I knew who were both actors and gamers, and started shifting it to their personalities. Once the play was finally cast and we started rehearsals, every one would pitch in ideas and stories from their past, a lot of which made it into the production. Eventually the characters would up reflecting aspects of themselves to the point where I told them that if they ever forgot a line on stage, they should just start talking normally and the audience wouldn't notice.

I consciously wrote this play for gamers, and made no real attempt to make it accessible to outsiders. I did all the marketing backwards, on purpose. The name of the play is obscure enough, but the only picture I used to advertise it was a twenty-sided die. One of my friends was reviewing shows for the Pioneer Press and I told her *not* to come, because since she wasn't a gamer, she wouldn't get it. She ended up mentioning how weird it was for me to do that, so I got the press anyway.

When we finally did the play, I expected half-full houses (we were in the Acadia, which seated around 88 maximum, as I recall). The first day we were half full, the next night (Sunday at 10 p.m.) we had about 20 people, and both shows they laughed their asses off. And I thought, "okay, I'm happy with this, I did what I set out to do. If this is all I get, that's enough." Then we sold out all of our remaining three shows. The last performance they were pulling tables out so that they could get more people in. It was insane: an act of raging egomania: writing, directing, and acting in a show I wrote about role playing gamers and we sold out three shows. It wasn't supposed to work like that. Freaked me out.

Bunny: What prompted the idea to film the show?

Bill: We had been kicking around the idea of filming the play not long after the Fringe. Halfway through the production one of the actors told me that was actually a market for geek films, and that another one had been pretty successful.

What finally drove me to get off my butt and get started on it (I have a problem with inertia) was that CONvergence, the big Minnesota science fiction/fantasy convention, was having their 10th anniversary and one of the organizers asked if we'd be interested in restaging THACO for their main stage. As I was talking to the actors about it, the idea of doing a DVD came up again.

The big thing that made it happen was that my friend Amanda asked if she and her fiancee TJ and their friend Ry could be part of the crew. They really wanted to work on a film, loved THACO, and had access to some really nice gear. I said yes immediately, which was one of the smartest things I've ever done because before that, I was planning on doing the whole production myself: shooting, sound, and editing. Looking back over the whole process, I probably would have ended up killing myself.

I knew that if we did a film version, I didn't just want to film the play. I wanted to get them out of the house, move them around, because films based on plays can be static enough, but a play about four guys sitting around a table could be death. I thought of a couple of locations we could probably get: a gaming store, a coffee shop, and wrote new material for them, some of which came out of funny stuff we'd thought of during the play, but couldn't find a way to put it on stage.

Bunny: Would you share the details of making the film?

Bill: We shot THACO on weekends over the course of about five months. Everybody worked for free: our budget was spent on MiniDV tapes and pizza for lunch. All the gear (camera, mic) was lent, and TJ (our cinematographer) bought some construction lights from Home Depot to light it. I had been reading Robert Rodriguez's "Rebel Without A Crew" and took his no-budget message to heart: we didn't spend a dime we didn't have to. There's a scene where you see Duck as if he's in jail, light streaming on his face through bars. We shot that by cutting up a pizza box and putting a floor lamp behind it.

Most of the movie was shot in the basement of Duck's house. We brought in our own gaming stuff to dress it. We shot the game store scenes in The Source, which is in Falcon Heights and they were super nice about letting us shoot during business hours--the customers didn't seem to notice us at all! The coffee shop was in a store owned by TJ's dad.

The big lesson out of this for me was: Ask. I'm not cofortable asking for things, and I was absolutely astonished at how generous people were with their time, gear, and locations. People *wanted* to help.

The other big lesson is just how hard it is to make a movie. You have to pay so much attention, it's like making a mosaic out of grains of sand. Someone--in our case, Amanda, who was the patron saint of the production--has to sit with a script and mark down every bit of dialogue to make sure it gets filmed, and where it is on which tape. I can just about wrap my head around a theatre production, where one bit flows into the next, and if you miss something, you can just go back and rehearse it. With a film, you have to think not just about the content, but the transitions and how things will look visually when you put it together.

We premiered THACO at CONvergence in their movie room, Cinema Rex, which is an amazingly curated show. Those guys love movies, and it shows. They show major motion pictures, the Matrix, Star Wars, things like that, but also do personal choices you might not expect, like Moulin Rouge. Now they also show indie films and fan films, and let me tell you, I stopped in to watch a Star Wars fan film and the quality was so high that I just about killed myself: music, camera work, special effects, everything. I'm very proud of THACO, and I think everyone worked their asses off to make it look amazing, but some of these fan films look like pro films.

So, again, I was nervous about how my little film, the first film for *everyone* involved, was going to play. I went in to Cinema Rex for the film before it, and it was full. The film ended, and nobody left. More people came in. Then more people came in and I got this idiot grin on my face. They loved it, laughed all the way through it. At the end of the convention, they do a "dead dog" screening: people vote for a film to be shown again on Sunday, and THACO got the votes, and it was another SRO screening.

As for what happens next, we're going to be screened 4 times at Origins Game Fair, which is a huge RPG convention in Columbus, Ohio, and we're waiting to hear back on our application to be in at DragonCon in Atlanta, which is another biggie.

Bunny: It seems like much of the script is defined by jokes that you would have to be a serious gamer to really appreciate; was there any concern that this might limit the audience for the film, or were you specifically targeting that audience?

Bill: When we did THACO at Fringe, I showed the program to my old boss, Dean J. Seal who taught me more about producing and promotion a show than 6 years of college. He said THACO was a terrible title because nobody knows what it meant. And I said, "It's not for everybody. It's my play for my people in our language. It's my version of Yiddish theatre." And Dean laughed and agreed.

I actually had a director's note apologizing to anyone who wasn't a gamer who got dragged to this show, but I was really surprised to find out how many people who weren't into RPG culture enjoyed the show: some of it you can pick up from context, I guess, and if you're in a relationship with a gamer the things they do in the show, the really nerdy things like dropping a die and *having* to check what it rolled are things they can relate to.

There's a scene where we just rip on every game we can think of for ten minutes, which is what happens when you're trying to figure out what to play. Someone always hates a game for some reason and they have to spell out for you why it's the Worst Game Ever. My favorite response is always that after the show, someone will come up to me and be mad--not that I made fun of their game--but that I left their most hated game out. That scene could go on for an hour.

Bunny: Let's talk a little about the business model, and the cost of doing the project.

Bill: Financially, my goal was to spend absolutely nothing on this film if possible. I'd heard horror stories of people who had spent their life savings on indie movies and ended up not finishing them. So like I said, I bought tapes to record it and pizza so that the cast and crew would have something to lunch on. Every weekend Lund's had two-for-one pizza deals on a different name brand pizza (I wasn't going to feed them crap), and every weekend I bought a large pizza and got one free. So that was the budget for filming.

When we finished making the movie, we thought about sending it to a duplication house, which would have cost us several hundred dollars. And I thought "this is insane." Why should we go off and make this movie--which we were all proud of but hadn't put in front of an audience yet--for next to nothing, then pay some stranger a lot of money just because that's how it was done. I made a deal with the cast and crew to give them a percentage of the profits, after the cost of making the DVDs, so I wanted to keep that cost as low as possible. Each of us owned a computer with a DVD burner, so we all burned a stack of DVDs, which we bought in bulk, 100 for 15 bucks, and made a bare-bones DVD to sell at the convention. After we saw it in front of people, we did a few tweaks and made a "deluxe" DVD with commentary tracks, subtitles, and deleted scenes. That's what we have on sale now, and I hope to sell a lot more of them and get some word-of-mouth going at the upcoming conventions. Our only ongoing cost is buying bulk DVDs and keepcases.

We didn't have a disc printer then, so we bought DVD labels--something I didn't want to do, but we couldn't buy a disc printer in time. After I printed off the labels, there was a bunch of extra stuff left on the label sheet: the middle of the disc, labels for the edge of the keepcase, that we weren't going to use. So I ran the label sheets again and made them into promotional stickers for the film, and passed them out during the convention.

As for telling people that they can share the discs, that's simply a fact of life. You can't stop people from duplicating discs, for one, and to steal a line from Neil Gaiman (who has a cameo in the film), my problem isn't piracy, it's obscurity. I need as many people to know about my film as possible, and the best advertising is still word of mouth. I want people to share my film with their friends, and I'm talking about *lending* here, but I'm no fool. The best I can do is to ask people to watch the film, and if they like it, buy their own copy. The only marketing I'm doing at this point is applying for film festivals. Once that's done, we'll see what kind of word of mouth we're generating.

Our goal was to have fun while making a movie. And everyone had a great time except me, because I was so stressed out making sure everyone was having fun. Getting up at 9 am on a Saturday, in Minnesota, in winter, for five months, and everyone kept telling me what a great time they were having.



More from The Arts Writer.
 Subscribe to The Arts Writer!

Read more...

BUNNY CHARM SCHOOL: EYE CONTACT

8:10 AM Reporter: Max Sparber 1 Response
I DON'T KNOW that it has actually been established that Minnesotans are, as a rule, made uncomfortable by eye contact. We sometimes have a reputation for it: In this forum, for instance, there seemed to be a general consensus that Minnesotans are aloof, hard to get to know, and refuse to make eye contact. "We are notorious for not making eye contact, or speaking directly," says a commenter here. It's a subject of occasional jokes; as I understand it, the current Brave New Workshop show has a line in it about eye contact being a sort of extreme intimacy of Minnesotans, and that's a pretty typical joke, and Howard Mohr's How to Talk Minnesotan described a pretty typical scene of two Minnesota men talking to each other: the face away from each other, staring thoughtfully into the distance.

I can't find any absolute confirmation that Minnesotans, as a rule, are bad at eye contact; perhaps it's just an unfair stereotype about us. But I can tell you this: I am bad at it, and have conveniently used my heritage as a Minnesotans to justify it. I do this despite having rejected other Minnesotans affectations. I strive not to talk like a Minnesotan, and will backtrack in my speech if I hear myself make the typical Minnesota "o" sound, which is some sort of strange Å“ dipthong in which the two sounds have been contracted into one noise that sounds a bit like cattle lowing; that sound will not emerge from my mouth. I do not now, nor have I ever, called casserole "hotdish." And, thanks to some time spent in the very friendly south, I know longer immediately assume a stranger who suddenly decides to talk to me at a party or a bus stop is insane and probably fingering a knife. I have had some very pleasant conversations as a result of this, and have only been stabbed once.

And yet, when I remember that I have a hard time making eye contact, I simply shrug and say, well, I'm a Minnesotans, and that's just how we do things.

Well, that's not the way most Americans do things, and it's awfully hard to be charming when you're acting distant and shifty eyed, which is how most Americans interpret a lack of eye contact. (It's not the same elsewhere: many cultures have taboos regarding eye contact, but I am not addressing myself to the subject of multicultural etiquette just now.) Interesting, while a strong gaze is generally interpreted as an expression of interest, a too-strong gaze can be a little creepy (this site recommends making a little triangle around the face, from eye to eye to mouth, shifting about every five seconds.) Eye contact can also be bullying: this Esquire author discusses at length how he used eye contact to cow people into submission. That is, of course, not my goal. My goal is to use eye contact to express my interest and regard for the person I am talking to (although, rather perversely, eye contact can have the opposite effect, in that gazing into somebody's eyes can cause a sort of mental overload, in that we end up trying to process too much information based on the other's behavior, and that, for some sorts of comprehension, it might be helpful to look away. Wikipedia discusses this.)

I have been trying to get into the habit of making eye contact with people when I meet them, and to look directly into the eyes of whoever is speaking to me. It's not a habit yet, so I often forget and revert back to my typical behavior, which is to have my eyes dart around the room, or fix on some distant spot. I have been trying to imagine other people as having magnets in their eyes that are activated whenever they speak, forcing my eyes to lock onto their. I don't know that this visualization is very useful, but I find it funny, so I am sticking with it. I think I will also start taking a few minutes every day to watch television specifically for the purpose of practicing eye contact, by ignoring what is being said and simply focusing on the pupils of whoever is talking on teevee. It seems a safer way to practice than to just try it in the field, where I run the risk of unnerving people with my unpracticed and owlish gaze.

This is going to feel a little forced for a while. But that's just how it is when you develop a new habit. At first it feels like you're putting on some obvious and embarrassing performance, and then, after a while, you just start doing it without thinking about it. And, frankly, at this moment, I'd rather be thought of as a guy who seems a little awkward when he makes eye contact than be thought of as the sort of adult who is incapable of making eye contact at all, and resorts to shifting his eyes around manically, like some sort of cartoon schemer. Who does that? Autistics, famously, apparently because they find eye contact excruciatingly intimate. So autistics and who else?

Oh yeah. Minnesotans.

More from the Bunny Charm School.

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: IVAN THE DRUNK | REVIEWS FROM TWITTER

6:06 PM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
TWITTER USERS REVIEW IVAN THE DRUNK:

Ivan the Drunk may very well be one of the most brilliant theater productions I've seen in the past 2 years. --@purplesquirrel1

Saw "Ivan The Drunk" tonight. Brilliant. Hung out with @maxsparber and @edacherry afterwards for lovely drinks and convo. See the play. --@jonnyhunt

Saw Ivan the Drunk last night at @purplesquirrel1 's suggestion. It was a fantastic, powerful show with everything going for it. A+. Wow. --@mplstheatre

More plays of Max Sparber.

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARER: IVAN THE DRUNK REVIEWS

12:49 PM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
IVAN THE DRUNK received reviews from both the Star-Tribune and the Pioneer Press today:

The Star-Tribune:

This war story is profound, fantastically strange, sometimes sprawling in scope, and, of course, hellish.


The Pioneer Press:

As are most Off-Leash Are productions, this is a movement-heavy show, and the rest of the company — Karla Grotting, Judith Howard, Jennifer Ilse and Kym Longhi — assume various personas ranging from Ivan's mother to the fever-dream specters of his mind. But while the movement is evocative, it too often exists for its own sake rather than for that of the story.

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: INTERVIEW IN THE MINNEAPOLIS EXAMINER

7:00 PM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
ZACH CURTIS, whose work as an actor and director was a frequent topic of my stories for City Pages, turns the table by interviewing me for the Minneapolis Examiner regarding Ivan the Drunk.

The way I work with Off-Leash Area is complicated, in that I am one of a group of collaborators, and, ultimately, I am working on the play that the company wants to produce, rather than my own script. They are a physical theater, and so have a lot of ways to express themselves besides relying on text. Sometimes I would turn in a scene that was written as you would a traditional scene, and, when I would see it rehearsed, they would have cut out all but a few words. I don't mind this, as, in many cases, everything I wanted to express in text was being expressed anyway, and I tend to overwrite, because it is easier to edit down than to try to add text. But it is a very different way of working from traditional playwrighting, which is just fine with me, as theater is a collaborative art, and the traditional approach to playwrighting, in which a playwright types up a script and then sends it off to a theater to get produced, tends to leave the playwright out of a lot of the process, and limits a theater company to interpreting the words of a distant author.


More plays of Max Sparber.

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: IVAN THE DRUNK ON 3-MINUTE EGG AND TC THEATER CONNECTION

12:55 PM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
IVAN THE DRUNK was featured in a piece by 3-Minute Egg and in a podcast on TC Theater Connection.

WATCH MY INTERVIEW ON 3-MINUTE EGG:


LISTEN TO THE TC THEATER CONNECTION INTERVIEW WITH PAUL HERWIG AND JENNIFER ILSE:










Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: WHY I STARTED A FACEBOOK GROUP

10:19 AM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
I STARTED A FACEBOOK PAGE for my plays.

No, let's backtrack a bit. I spent the last week at the Great Plains Theatre Conference, my second time attending in the conference's four years. I had a play read, and responded to a large number of other scripts, all which had their own staged readings. It was a strange experience for me, as I have become increasingly pessimistic about the possibilities that are out there for new works by unknown playwrights, as people reading this blog may know.

Let me articulate the reasons for my pessimism in a bullet list, just to make short work of it.

  • Many theater companies are not looking to produce new scripts
  • Those that are are inundated by scripts
  • The process many theater companies use to select script, which often involves volunteer or hired readers, is not a very good one for determining the potential of a script
  • Already produced scripts with a good track record are going to be read first
  • Unproduced scripts by well-known writers are going to be read next
  • Scripts by writers with agents are going to be read after that
  • Agents are hesitant about taking on clients, as most playwrights are going to make so little money writing plays that it is rarely financially worthwhile to represent them
  • Theater companies that produce new work often have a lot of playwrights they already work with, and don't often look outside that group

I could go on, but there really is no need to. For a million and one reasons, if you're a playwright, especially a rural playwright, and you do what playwrights historically have done -- that is, sit down and write a script and then mail it off to agents and theater companies -- it is exceptionally unlikely that you are going to get produced.

This made attending the theater conference a bit frustrating. There were, by my count, about 56 plays that received staged readings. I thought the conference was pretty darn good for what it was attempting, which was to ferret out some really good or promising scripts and give some solid feedback as to how they might be made even stronger. (I am going to note one play here that I especially enjoyed called Charlie Moose Makes His Move by Jessica Jill Turner, a play about an unlikely friendship between a troubled young boy and a morbidly obese and bloviating adult man that managed to be both exceptionally daffy and quit accessible.)

But the question I had throughout the festival was "What is going to become of all these plays?" And the answer is, for the most part, nothing. I know this to be true. I am a pretty successful playwright. I enjoy between one and three productions of my plays every year, and, in fact, will be attending the opening of a play I scripted on Thursday. But I have written twice as many plays as I have had produced, I cannot get an agent, I have a very hard time getting theater companies even to respond to query letters (much less read my scripts), and I was the very first featured playwright at the abovenamed festival, with a script I consider a very good one, called Buddy Bentley. Buddy Bentley has never been produced.

What does any of this have to do with a Facebook page?

Well, I wound up interviewing Polly Carl of the Playwrights' Center (and, soon, the Steppenwolf Theatre) Monday; I will be editing and posting that interview later, but, for now, I want to mention one part of the discussion we ha, which was specifically about the difficulties about getting new plays produced. I wondered if playwright's themselves might be part of the problem, in that we tend to be what Carl calls "outliers," in that we have a habit of being the sorts of people who sit at home and write and then send off our scripts through the mail, but otherwise can be a little disconnected from the making of theater. She thought I might be onto something there, and is of the opinion that playwrights need to start infiltrating theaters and theater companies, which sounds very exciting and spy movie, and is something I will think about.

But she also agreed with me that perhaps it is time that playwrights took promotion out of the hands of theater companies and began doing it themselves. I have in the past -- almost every play I have ever done with the BlueBarn in Omaha, I took on a big chunk of the promotions. But that was audience building for specific plays, and I have started thinking that we playwrights have to expand that. We need to start promoting, and developing an audience, for our work as playwrights.

I compared it to newly formed rock bands. They'll go to bar owners and hand them a demo tape, and hope they get a slot every now and then opening for a more established band, and they can keep doing that for years. But if you form a band and develop an audience for it, and go to a bar owner with a demo and also the assurance that every time you play, you will bring in an audience of 100 people -- well, most bars will book you on the spot. And this is because bars are not in the business of promoting new bands. They are in the business of selling alcohol.

Theater in America is not in the business of making new art, or expanding their audience's minds, or fostering community, or whatever it says in their mission statements. That's not to say they don't do any of those things -- they do -- but the bottom line for theaters is something far more quotidian.

They are in the business of selling seats. This is why they give priority to established playwrights and established plays. And they are most definitely not in the business of turning you into an established playwright with established plays. For the most part, they would rather that work be done by somebody else before you ever get to them.

Now, a Facebook page isn't going to make anybody famous. But it is a good tool for audience development, as is having a Twitter account, and a blog, and the various other tools modern technology has given us to promote our work. So I've started a Facebook page, and it is one of a number of techniques I plan to explore over the next few months to develop an audience specifically for my work, so that when I go to a theater, instead of saying "Hey! Look at the things that I wrote," I can say "Hey! Look at the audience I bring with me."

We'll see if it works. Maybe it won't. But, between the development of new technology and the seismic shift that may be coming to American theater due to the economy and the aging and dying off of a previous generation of American theater audiences, this seems like a good time to experiment.

More plays of Max Sparber.

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: THE OLDER GENTLEMAN STAGED READING

7:40 AM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
A STAGED READING of my play The Older Gentleman, performed at the Great Plains Theatre Conference on May 26, 2009. Many thanks to Tim Siragusa, who directed the reading and reads the stage directions, and to the cast.



More plays of Max Sparber.

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: TINY | INTRODUCTION TWO, CHECKING OUT THE WEB

2:17 PM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
BEFORE YOU BEGIN A SHOW, it's usually a good idea to make certain you are not duplicating what has already been done. With a subject that is both as strange and as popular as Tiny Tim, it seemed likely to me that he would have had his life revisited in the form of a stage play at one time or another, and, indeed, he has, on two separate instances that I can discover.

There is an unproduced script out there called Tiny Tim in the House of Freaks that sounds rather interesting. The author is one TK Light, and the play revisits a time early in his career when Tiny Tim worked in a freak show. Then there is God Loves Tiny Tim, a one-man show by Spats White, who apparently knew Tiny Tim, which sounds exactly like what you might expect a Tiny Tim show to be like -- an assortment of the singer's recorded songs coupled with a biographical sketch of the man, told in first person.

I will not be using either approach in my play, so I think I can safely proceed without feeling that I am redoubling my efforts. I can absolutely tell you what this will not be: It will not be what has come to be called a Jukebox Musical -- which is what God Bless Tiny Tim sounds as though it was. No. Here is what I am thinking the title of this play shall be, and that will give you a sense of what I want to do with it:

Tiny, or a Meditation on Themes Inspired by the Life of the Performer Tiny Tim, Also Known as Herbert Khaury, Retold with Original Text and Music and Accompanied by a Ukulele.


So, to clarify, this will not be a stage biography, and will absolutely not contain music by Tiny Tim -- and particularly will not include "Tiptoe Through the Tulips." The script will include details from Tiny Tim's life, but will not be bound by chronology, and will not attempt to create a hagiography of the man based around significant moments in his biography.

The songs will all be original, and I think I can justify that by the fact that Tiny Tim himself was not really a singer-songwriter, but instead something of an amateur scholar of the popular music of the 20s and 30s, and so most of what he performed were covers. Every song in this play will be presented as though it were a cover of a very old song, but, instead, will be a new song in the manner of popular jazz, also inspired by themes from the performers life.

Here is one of the themes I am thinking about. I'll add more as I become more familiar with his biography.

Tiny Tim was a strange man -- far stranger than his already peculiar public persona let on. I agree with playwright Mac Wellman, who, this past week, discussed the idea of allowing the alien to be alien in theater, and so I will make no efforts to disguise Tiny Tim's strangeness. Neither do I wish to highlight his oddness for the sake of reveling in freakishness. What interests me is that he was a creative oddball, and the way in which, once in a while, the pendulum of public tastes swings far enough one way that someone as utterly distinctive as Tiny Tim can find an appreciative audience.

More plays of Max Sparber: Tiny!

Read more...

THE PLAYS OF MAX SPARBER: TULIP | INTRODUCTION PART ONE, FROM GCHAT

12:25 PM Reporter: Max Sparber 2 Responses
A REDACTED conversation from gchat from earlier this morning, edited slightly:

me: Oh my God. My entire next play just came into my head, completely formed.

Courtcakes: NICE!
That's wonderful!

me: A one-man show about Tiny Tim.

Courtcakes: The ukulele guy?
Sounds doable!

me: At the end of his life, living in Minneapolis, he would respond to fan letters by speaking into a portable tape recorder and singing songs, then mailing them off to the people who wrote them.
That's the entire play.
Tiny Tim doing these audio letters in a small room. All the songs are going to be in the style of 1920s music, but they will all be new, and they will all comment on Tiny Tim's life.
And, at the end of the show, I will sell the audio recordings made during the show.

Courtcakes: Wow.

me: I am going to document the entire process of making the play on my blog, including writing all the songs.
But first I must visit Tiny Tim's grave.
You are welcome to come.
I will call it Tiny.

Courtcakes: LOVE.

me: I will start by writing the songs, which I will add, one by one, to my blog, as I research his life.
Then I will compose the letters, one by one, and add them to my blog.
And then I will edit it all together.
Then I will do a staged reading, which I will film, and add that to my blog.
Then I will see where I can perform it.

Courtcakes: You rule!!

me: If you don't mind, I am going to cut and paste this conversation into my blog. I will edit it down to the basic points, of course, and cut out you shouting YOU RULE, as much as I appreciate the comment.

Courtcakes: Ha ha
That's cool


More plays of Max Sparber: Tiny!

Read more...

AMERICAN BADASS: DEVELOP A CRUSHING GRIP | A WEEK OFF

10:48 AM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
FOR THE MOST PART, I decided to forgo my grip exercises last week; I used them once, on Tuesday. I have repeatedly exercised my hands to exhaustion, and it seemed like it might be a good idea to give them a little time to repair themselves.

As it turns out, I was right. When I squeezed my Level 1 grippers yesterday, I was able to get them far closer to closed that I ever have before, although I am still a fair ways away from closing them. In the meanwhile, closing the trainer model, which was once impossible, has now become quite doable -- I managed to close it with my right hand about 10 times in a row, and maybe five times with my left hand.

I suspect my status reports will be like this from time to time -- a reader warned me it might actually take several years before I can close the number 3 gripper. And so I'll check back in occasionally to report my progress, particularly when something significant happens, such as me being able to close a previously impossible gripper, or moving up a level, or whatever. I also plan on doing several grip-related interviews when I can, and will post those when I do.

Read more...

AWAY FOR A WEEK

8:49 AM Reporter: Max Sparber 0 Responses
I SPENT THE PAST WEEK, more or less, away from the computer. I didn't blog at all, which felt strange to me, as I have been producing between one and two blog entries per day for several years, with almost no break. But I was at a theater conference, and it was very busy, and so I decided it was time for a break.

Breaks like this can be instructive, although I am not, at the moment, certain was was instructed. Nonetheless, I spent the week ruminating on theater, and, somewhat inspired by that, ruminating on creativity in general. As a result, I may be starting up so new projects on this blog, and may be changing up older projects somewhat. I will certainly be revisiting This Is Hollywood; I had written a number of songs and then just wasn't sure what to do with them. I now have the makings of an idea, and I will explore it further.

It was strange being away from Minneapolis for as long as I was; I don't recall the last time I had a break this long. I do not ordinarily think of myself as an especially social fellow, but I was both quite happy to spend time with my Omaha friends and found myself missing my Minneapolis friends quite a lot. This was the second time I have attended the conference in four years. My experience of it was dramatically different this time, and I think the various projects on this blog had a lot to do with that. I will detail that more in a later post.

Anyway, it is good to be back, and to get back to blogging. More later.

Read more...

Archive

Recent Posts