commas and ampersands

Colin and I don't fight all that much. At all, really. We argue occasionally and disagree about some things, but neither of us are fighters. We don't name-call, throw accusations, or have big tempers, and we're really good at talking it out, being respectful, and not walking away from an argument before it's resolved.

But even when it comes to arguing and disagreeing, it's pretty rare that it's about the big, important things. We're pretty much on the same page when it comes to major life decisions, finances, ideas about marriage and family, faith, and all those big-picture things, but every once in a while, we get into the most ridiculous arguments about the most random things. We're both stubborn enough that we'll stick to a position and not budge, but it's definitely fun to make the other one try. And really, those kinds of "arguments" are the best kind. A lot of the time, they actually end up being kind of fun, and if nothing else, it's good practice in debating and being persuasive.

Last month, we were driving down to High River for Thanksgiving dinner, and Anne of Green Gables came up in conversation as we drove by a "lake of shining waters." Colin made a comment about not having seen the movies or read the books in quite a while; I commented that I hadn't read the books in a while, but while I think that Megan Follows is the one and only Anne, I'm not a big fan of the movies, particularly The Continuing Story. That movie bothers me on so many levels, mainly because the books are set 30 years earlier, and the film plays with the timeline in a way that's unacceptable to me. World War 1 was the war that affected Anne's children. Rilla of Ingleside is the book set during that time period, and the main character is Anne and Gilbert's youngest daughter. The orphaned baby was taken in by Rilla, and it was Anne's sons who fought, not Gilbert.

Anyway, I made all these points about the books, and the thesis of my argument was the fact that it's impossible for a viewer of a movie (based on a book) to fully appreciate the movie without having read the book.

And then the argument started. :)

For the next hour, Colin stood by his point that the viewer can have a complete, full entertainment experience by only watching the movie. I stood by my statement that a reader can have a full experience of the author's original intent by reading the book but not watching the movie, but not vice versa.

The funny thing is, I don't think we entirely disagreed with each other. I think that a movie-watcher can have a complete entertainment experience with the movie alone; I just don't think that it's possible to experience the fullest world of the story the way the author intended. Watching the Anne movies may be an entertainment experience in and of itself, but it's not the story experience that L.M. Montgomery intended. In this case, it's not even the same story, but even if it was, I still say that the story and experience is incomplete.

I used the example of the Harry Potter books, too. Aaron refuses to read the books, and I stand by my claim that he's robbing himself of J.K. Rowling's full story. The movies are an adaptation of a written story, and without reading the story, the visual story is incomplete. She may have put her stamp of approval on the screenplays, but by the very nature of an adaptation, there are things that had to be cut and sacrificed; therefore, the representation of the world she created is not complete, no matter how accurate the pieces may be.

Colin held to the position that it's possible to fully enjoy a movie based on the book without having read the book. He stood by the fact that he separates the book and the movie; for instance, in the case of Anne of Green Gables, he's fully aware that the movie is not the story of the book, but he looks at them as two separate pieces of entertainment that are only partially related to each other.

Because film and literature are two distinctly different art forms, they can't be judged the same way. A story told on film and the same story told on paper are two different artistic experiences--the story on film fleshes out the visual narrative in a way that the story on paper is unable to. In that way, he argued, it could even be said that the film completes the story of the book in a way that makes the reading of the book an incomplete rendering of the artist's original vision.

He also used the Harry Potter example to differentiate between casual and obsessed fans. He claims that someone could be an obsessed fan of the movies without ever having read the books; I claim that someone who is truly a fan of the Harry Potter world would never claim to be so without having read the books. A person (like Aaron) can be a fan of the movies, independent of the books, but I would argue that he can't claim to be a fan of HarryPotterTheGlobalPhenomenon while steadfastly refusing to partake in the original manifestation of the characters and plotlines.

Colin said that's discriminatory towards people who don't enjoy reading; I say so be it. Being a "fan" in the most obsessed sense of the word (and I'm not talking about being a casual fan/appreciator of the work) includes being familiar with all its facets. I enjoyed Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, but I'm fully aware that my knowledge of the source material is spotty at best, and because of that, I couldn't consider myself a "true" fan, no matter how much I enjoyed the movies.


Now, a few caveats: I'm not saying that books are necessarily a superior form of entertainment to movies. Movies, both originals and adaptations, are an art form in and of themselves. I would never say that film is a lesser art form than literature or theatre. Each one is a different storytelling medium, and I'm not making a judgment of value on their relative worth.

I'm also not saying that an adaptation can't be entertaining without having read the book. There are many, many movies that I've watched without having read the books, and I can appreciate the filmmaking and acting and story, but I'm also fully aware that I'm not getting the full experience. I can enjoy it for what it is, but I know that "what it is" is less than 100% of the author's intention.



And just to top it off? My proudest moment in that whole argument was the fact that Colin got so frustrated that he actually growled at me. Ha! In the middle of a sentence, he actually growled in his throat, and it cracked me up so much that I had to pause the discussion and laugh really hard before I could resume.


So, friends, what do you think? What is the relationship between a book and its film adaptation? Is it possible to enjoy one without a working knowledge of the other?

I was browsing through some random websites earlier this week, and I came across a site was full of "evidence" of how evil Walt Disney was (and Disney as a corporation is). It had some of the more common stories, but the one I found most amusing is that "Walt Disney was evil because he chose music by dead composers for Fantasia so that he wouldn't have to pay for the music."

While it's true that Disney (as a company) has an incredibly powerful legal team that understands the inner workings of copyright law better than just about anyone else anywhere, it makes me laugh that using public domain music is evidence of evil. How is it not an artist's prerogative to choose to either have new work commissioned, support currently established composers, or reintroduce the public to classical works? Any of those three options, especially with the scope of Disney's influence, had the potential for significant ramifications within the artists' careers (if new work had been commissioned or contemporary work used) and the public consciousness and awareness of the music scene, even though the film was originally not as well-received as hoped.

Most artists have at least some understanding of public domain, even if they don't understand copyright law as a whole. In general, with written works, at least, once the author has been dead for 70 years, the work passes into public domain, meaning that royalties are not paid. Therefore, royalties are not paid on a Shakespeare play, for instance (unless it's an adaptation or translation, in which case, royalties are paid to the publisher of the translator).

I have no doubt that fiscal choices informed part of Disney's choice of music for Fantasia, but the fact remains that by using classical music as the score for the movie, a younger generation was introduced to music that they may not have listened to otherwise, especially when the scope of the work is taken in the context of 60 years. Much of the music used may be the most popular classical music, but the fact remains that it's classical music, and anyone with any sort of musical interest and/or training should have a working knowledge and recognition of those pieces. There's merit in perpetuating the knowledge of the roots of modern music history and style, and in using public domain music, Disney allowed that.

This website (and I really can't remember the address) was obviously out to prove that Disney is eeeeevvvviiillll and is out to destroy the world. Eh. I like Disney. I also like emerging, independent art. The two are not mutually exclusive.

However, if they really wanted to talk about Disney and copyright law, they should have mentioned this: Copyright laws are radically changing with digital technology. The entire art world works differently and sources material in different ways than it used to, and that radically changes the way copyright is viewed. While it may seem that a "hard" copyright law is best for artists, in many ways, that's not the case. However, every few years, the parameters for work in the public domain changes. One of the reasons why? It's revisited (with pressure from Disney's legal team) every time Mickey Mouse and Steamboat Willie are about to enter the public domain.

In my opinion, if the author of that website was looking to tie Disney into copyright law, this is a much more compelling "Disney is evil!" argument than the fact that Fantasia uses public domain music.

(Also, this is one reason why many support a dual-layered approach to copyright. The challenge is finding a middle ground where independent artists who are hampered by a hard copyright law are allowed freedom and protected within the flexibility of such a stance, and yet the large corporations with instantly recognizable symbols [like Mickey Mouse] are protected from the soft copyright that many artists are pushing for.)

The highlight of my weekend was taking a really good nap.

I love getting the chance to take a real nap, with no time limitation. This is no cat-nap, no power nap, no quick refresher--no, this kind of nap is the real thing. For me, it's almost always 3 hours long, which is, I suppose, one full REM cycle.

A good nap involves real blankets and a real bed. It's not the same thing as curling up on the couch for 20 minutes, and it's not just lying on top of the covers with an afghan. No, a real nap goes under the covers and pulls up a quilt.

A real nap is fully clothed. Taking a nap is not the same, psychologically, as going to bed. There may be a change of clothes (think: Sunday afternoon nap after church), but it's not a change into pyjamas. There's a psychological difference between taking a nap and going to bed, and attire plays a big part in that.

Getting into bed fully clothed, pulling up the covers, and snuggling in while it's light outside feels wonderfully decadent and slightly delinquent, in a very "I'm a grown-up" way. (Because really; when was the last time a 3-year-old rebelled by falling asleep?) It's even better if you can pretend that you're getting into bed to read, knowing that you'll fall asleep and the book with fall on the ground within 3 minutes flat.

Waking up is almost as good. Because it's not actually time to go to bed for the night, three hours is enough, and the body drifts out of sleep slowly, stretching and waking one limb at a time. There's no alarm, no sense of having to get up and hurry; it's like sleeping in on a weekend morning.

(Not to mention that my dreams are more vivid and weird when I nap, and sometimes, those are more fun.)

All that to say that I got to take a Sunday afternoon nap, and that was the highlight of my weekend. Except for the part where I realized that the $22 plane tickets between Calgary and L.A. were just a dream.

We also got our digital converter for our TV this weekend, so retroactively, that may be the best thing to come out of this weekend, but since I haven't watched any TV since it was set up, the nap still wins.

So... thesis. Let's discuss, shall we?

Because this is CalArts and we tend not to do things the "normal" way, there's no prescribed format for my thesis. I'm not writing a traditional research-based thesis with a dissertation defense and all that stuff... I get to choose my project's format and do what works for me.

Some disciplines have more prescribed theses: MFA3 directors, for instance, do a thesis project, which is one of the shows in the season. MFA3 playwrights also have a show fully produced in the season. MFA3 and BFA4 actors do their grad showcase in New York and L.A. as a showcase for agents and managers. Producers, though, get to do whatever we want. Kind of.

I could direct a show, if I wanted. I could put together a project and try submitting grant proposals to get money for it to happen. I could write a traditional thesis. I could develop a website to draw together a community of a certain subset of the theatre world.

In terms of a project-based thesis, the main thing that I'd want to do would be to try to run a pilot program of my theatre company. I'd want to try and get the money and the people, put together a one-year project, and then evaluate it at the end. That would, ideally, be a terrific thesis project for me. Unfortunately, it's also somewhat time- and cost-prohibitive. Grant applications generally have to be happening at least 18 months in advance, and since my estimated project budget (including salaries, since I couldn't ask people to volunteer that much time) is close to $40,000, I can't really go forward with it in this format without having time to pursue some sources of financing.

So, I started to explore some other options. I didn't see a lot of value in directing a show for the Coffeehouse (our student-driven performance space). I know that I can direct, I've had training as a director, and it's not my major, so while it would be fun and I could present a show that deals with subject matter that interests me, it doesn't have a lot of long-term benefit. Same with writing a play, which was another option presented to me. It would be a personal challenge, for sure, but I don't see it benefiting my career in the long run.

Instead, I started examining the various aspects of what I want my theatre company to be. While I'm interested in youth-oriented, mentorship-driven theatre, I feel like there's a lot of information out there about that kind of stuff already. There has been a lot written about educational theatre, and the idea of using mentorship as a teaching tool is nothing new. I'm interested in that, but I feel like delving into it would be really reinventing the wheel, to some extent.

That leaves faith-based theatre as the last, most interesting, least examined piece of the puzzle. People are doing it, and there are organizations (like CITA -- Christians In Theatre Arts) that are based around it, but I don't know as much about it. I want to know who the key players are. What companies are delving into faith-based work? What non-faith-based companies are exploring works that deal with faith, and why? What are other faiths besides Christianity doing in the field of theatre? What's out there educationally? Who is recognizing and supporting this work? How does faith-based theatre differ from theatre within the church? What does the next generation of faith-based theatre artists look like?

That's a lot of questions, and it's a very broad field, but I'm planning to spend the next year interviewing as many people as possible to find out what's out there. I envision the interview process being very much a game of six degrees of separation, asking people who they work with and who their influences are, and going on to those people, and so on. Even before that, putting together a preliminary list by doing online research, linking directors, actors, and designers through the different companies that they're working with.

I think it's going to primarily focus on Christian faith-based theatre, although I want to get a sense of what's going on in other faith communities. I can see that being a slightly more peripheral part of my research, though. I want to know how the communities are interacting with each other and influencing each other, but I can't focus on everything in great depth, so I'm going to focus on Christian-based organizations and artists, for the most part.

When it comes to presenting the work, I want to write it as a book. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'll pursue publication, but I want the format and style to be a reader-friendly, informative, challenging manuscript that could be published as a book on the arts, rather than an academic thesis. Part of what I want to do is to compile as comprehensive a list as possible of the faith-based theatre companies and artists that are operating in Canada and the U.S. today, and the other part will be... well, we'll see. It'll be some sort of exploration of faith-based theatre, its origins, its relationship with both the church and the artistic community, and... who knows what else. Or whether all of those things will be in there. Like I said, I know that's very broad and it doesn't really have a distinct "thesis" in the traditional sense, but I want to go with the interviews first, and then extrapolate the discussion and conclusions from there.

In terms of a timeline, I'm looking at immersing myself in this for the next year. I'm still planning to finish up at CalArts a semester early, which means that I'll be finishing up in December 2009. Right now, I'm doing some of the preliminary research and trying to get myself set up in some of the more practical ways, so that I can start digging in as of January. Hopefully I can get as many of the interviews and conversations as possible within 8 months, and then spend the fall semester next year writing. Maybe I'll use NaNo 2009 as my big push to get it all finished. :)

So that's where I'm going with it. It'll define itself more clearly as time goes on, I'm sure, but it's gotta start somewhere, right?

And now, if you'll excuse me, I have a budget meeting to go to.

It's exciting to watch history being made, regardless of where I stand on the issues. On more than one decision, I was undecided until fairly late in the game -- a political stance is not always the same as a moral stance, even though the latter informs and influences the former, and for now, that's all I'll say about who/what I voted for.

I am, however, ready for this election to be over (and not just because I'm tired of the commercials, although that's a big part of it). It's a disheartening thing to lean towards the more conservative end of the spectrum in a state and city that is very liberal. It's not because I disagree with the people I'm in close contact with, because that doesn't preclude or negate friendships, respect, and effective working relationships, but because there's been such a sense of "conservatives are stupid, unintelligent, uninformed, biased, prejudiced, fundamentalist, bigoted..." (and it seems to go on).

I've heard ads stating that people who vote for [fill-in-the-blank] are obviously not thinking, because if they were, no one in their right mind would vote for it (and while the sentence as a whole may be a paraphrase, the last phrase is not). I hear--constantly--the put-downs and perceived stupidity of conservative voters.

And yes, I realize that it's not limited to the conservative side of the political spectrum, but around here, that's what I hear most, and I'm tired of it. I realize that it won't completely go away after the election, but I hope it dies down. For all the people who contribute to the perpetuation of the stereotypes about right-wing fundamentalists' narrow-mindedness, there is, in some people, just as much unwillingness to recognize that conservatives (and particularly evangelical Christians) can be informed, intelligent, critically thoughtful, and socially conscious -- and yet come to an opposite conclusion.

I expect that the derision will get worse for a few days before it gets better, but my philosophy throughout this election has been to lay low and not pick fights. I've discussed my stances and my struggles with both sides of the issues with anyone who's asked (ask Mariah, if no one else; I'm more than willing to discuss my thoughts with someone who disagrees with me on almost every issue), but I generally haven't volunteered the information. I'm not ready to fight those battles on a larger scale.




(And on a totally separate note, Colin and I were supposed to have a good, long phone conversation tonight, but he lost a power adapter for a piece of equipment that's integral to a project he's working on, so what was supposed to be an hour-long project turned into a long search of the basement for the cord and a partially-finished project [I'm assuming, since I haven't heard whether he actually found it or not], and we didn't get a chance to talk. Stupid power cord.)