Leonard Cohen: Renaissance Man

The living legend that is Leonard Cohen--Canadian singer-songwriter, novelist, poet, and now visual artist--currently has an exhibition of his drawings in Vancouver. They were previously shown here in Toronto during the Luminato Festival. His son, Adam Cohen, talks about the exhibit and his famous father in this sweet article in The Globe and Mail.

The exhibit is at Linda Lando Fine Art, 2001 W. 41st Ave., Vancouver, from Friday until Dec. 31.
See where diversifying could lead some day?

Fighting Back Through The Magic of Song and Dance!

This is quite possibly the greatest thing I've seen all week. Better even than the Bad Sex Lifetime Achievement Award. Not possible, you say? Oh, but wait...

I found this on Perez Hilton (my guiltiest of all guilty pleasures). I have to say, it's pretty brilliant. It originally came from Funny or Die. What is it? You really should click the link to find out...

Okay, but I'll still tell you. It is Proposition 8: The Musical.

In case you've been living under a rock, Proposition 8 was the ballot initiative that just squeaked by in California, effectively writing discrimination into the state constitution. While the US took a massive step toward equality as a country in the recent November election (they Ba-rocked the vote, if you will), California banned gay marriage. This sparked mass outrage and became a hugely divisive issue...just as the country was on the brink of some sort of unity.

Anyway, I won't go totally political, but the video--a star-studded affair with Jack Black, John C. Reilly, Neil Patrick Harris, Maya Rudolph and many more--is hilarious. And, spoiler alert, basically says that gay marriage is the answer to the current economic crisis.

Funny or Die just keeps getting better.

Gerald Schoenfeld

Gerald Schoenfeld, 84, died November 25, 2008 of a heart attack. He was the chairman of the powerful Shubert Organization. He was a force on Broadway and on theatre for many years and helped to shape American culture in many ways. There is a very well-written obituary in the New York Times.

Coming Soon: Beer

Apparently two Cineplex Odeons in Toronto are going to start serving alcohol. It will be available only in specific screenings/theatres where everyone must be of legal age. This move is part of a pilot program that ends next November. While I certainly think there are some movies out there that would be much better viewed with a few beers, I'm pretty sure this puts film about on par with major sporting events. Although it would be wrong to classify everything Hollywood releases as film. More here.

Turns out, Canada can dance. And better.

Ok, I have to admit that I'm totally addicted to So You Think You Can Dance in all its incarnations, the latest being So You Think You Can Dance Canada. As a rule, I have no use for reality TV, but I can appreciate shows like Dance or like Project Runway where it's more of a competition and you have to be some kind of talented in order to be on the air. No, MTV, binge drinking is not a talent.

Anyway, turns out, So You Think You Can Dance Canada is a hit. A big hit. And, according to this article in the Toronto Star, a better hit than its American predecessor. The Star cites several reasons for this but I think the most important one to recognize here is the incredible wealth of talented dancers here in the Great White North. I've watched the American version and I've seen some amazing things, but the Canadian dancers are phenomenal. And innovative. I have seen far more interesting things on the Canadian version.

I also like that this show is crowning Canada's favourite dancer, not its best. I think that's an important distinction. Winning a reality TV show where the audience gets to vote doesn't make you the best at anything, except for maybe reality TV and popularity contests.

The epic finale is airing tonight on CTV starting at 8. All of the final four are incredibly talented dancers and it is going to come down to personality and popularity, not skill. So tune in, it may be TV worth watching.

Dwight Says Keep It Real, Weirdos.

"As an actor, instead of a paintbrush, your medium is yourself, so the more you work with yourself and the more trust you have in yourself, the further you'll go. But sometimes with actors, the last thing they work on is themselves. There's never been a bunch of more needy, approval-seeking, insecure weirdos than actors."

--Rainn Wilson (AKA Dwight Schrute of The Office)
On getting more work by being himself

Art and Justice

Critically acclaimed film director Roman Polanski, 75, has requested that the charges against him be dismissed because of "prosecutorial and judicial misconduct." Polanski was charged in 1978 with having sex with a 13-year-old. He entered a guilty plea and then fled the country before sentencing. There is still an active warrant for his arrest. He has been living in voluntary exile ever since, also avoiding any country that might extradite him to the US. Apparently, the victim also wishes to see Polanski go free. More details can be found here.

Really, my interest in this story is how it relates to the things we, collectively as a society, let celebrities get away with and why. If he were any other individual, Polanski's request would be laughable. He would be summarily dismissed as a child molester and no one would even think twice about it. If he were any other individual he most likely would not have been able to flee the country and live in exile for thirty years, either. And if he were any other celebrity, I might suggest throwing him in prison...he faced life behind bars at the time of his flight. I am really not one for letting celebrities off the hook (especially those who drink and drive, they especially should be dealt with), but I find Polanski to be a difficult and fascinating case...

Roman Polanski is a celebrity of sorts, yes, a famous director. But he is also an incredible artist. He has made some phenomenal films in the years he has spent in exile; he has made great artistic contributions to society. He even won an Oscar in exile for The Pianist. So, while I don't think his status as "celebrity" should excuse him, should his status as artist? Would we be worse off as a culture for the loss of his contributions? Well, there would have been no Adrien Brody-Halle Berry smooch at the Oscars. The question, really, is are his contributions enough to constitute repayment of his debt to society?

It's very shady territory...and I don't think I really have a good answer.

I do not believe that art, even great art, should be a get out of jail free card. Especially when no one could have known what would Polanski would produce artistically post-1978. In hindsight, perhaps it would have been a crime against culture to send him to prison all those years ago? So what do we do now, 30 years later? Fortunately, it isn't a decision that I have to make. Especially as I gather there is more to this than just what I know--his claims about "prosecutorial and judicial misconduct" may have grounds. But he admits having done it, that much is clear. And since the aim of art is generally some kind of truth (as I'm not sure I believe in art for art's sake...though I could, I played a lot of cell phone Tetris during that class), isn't it hypocritical of us as artists to turn a blind eye? Aren't we, especially as film and theatre artists, here as a voice for the voiceless?

History has let artists commit similar sins while looking the other way. And we have been wealthier, culturally, as a result. Sometimes I think we let celebrities get away with things because we like to watch a train wreck--chances are that if they've done one outrageous and illegal thing, they are bound to do more. All this keeps us "entertained" and makes excellent fodder for tabloids and celebrity magazines. We're willing to let one person's life spiral apart so that the masses have something to talk about. But there is always collateral damage--nameless, faceless victims--that we don't consider.

Where do we draw the line?

The Well-Rounded Theatre Person.

J. Kelly Nestruck posted this piece to his blog on The Globe and Mail today. It's about whether or not theatre critics should moonlight in the theatre. An interesting question...

The argument against it is basically that moonlighting impairs objectivity. How can you be objective in your review of someone's play if you might be auditioning for them the next day? It is somewhat of a dilemma...but only if you allow it to be. First of all, I'm not sure "objectivity" really exists anyway, it's more like points on a line--more objective, less objective (or more subjective and less subjective, depending on how you see the cup), etc. I think it is possible to maintain some sense of objectivity regardless of your relationship to whatever it is you're reviewing (and the reality is that even if a critic isn't moonlighting, if he or she has been covering theatre for any length of time, there are bound to be relationships there anyway). It just takes a very specific kind of person to be able to do both and do them well; you need a thick enough skin to not care what the backlash of a scathing review (when deserved) may be on your moonlighting career.

Part of the argument for critics playing other roles in the theatre, whether on stage or behind the scenes, is that it encourages them to "get their hands dirty." This idea is sort of in keeping with my training--that in order to do one thing well in the theatre you have to know how the whole thing works. I learned film crew stuff, tech crew stuff, theatre history, theatre theory, the construction of theatres, the business of theatres, etc. etc. etc., and, you know, it did make me a better actress. So, shouldn't working in a theatre in some capacity make a critic more rather than less capable of writing a review?

We should all hope to have critics who moonlight in theatre reviewing us because at least that means they have some idea of what it is that we do and of what it is we are trying to create. Perhaps this will make them more forgiving, perhaps less so, but what's more important is that it gives them greater knowledge of how theatre works. I guess what I'm saying is, better to be reviewed by the person who auditioned after you than by some pseudo-intellectual critic who has no interest whatsoever in the theatre world. The disclaimer being that there are, of course, critics who don't moonlight but are still good critics. Although, maybe they'd be even better with a little stage time? And maybe some theatre artists out there could moonlight in writing reviews...It's all about diversifying, after all.

This Blog Needs More Pictures.

This is a picture of the Thames in London. I took it the last time I was there (New Year's 06-07). You can see the London eye, Big Ben, etc. London is one of my favourite cities and certainly one of the best cities in the world for theatre. I saw more theatre in my time in London than ever in my life otherwise. I also went to school there for a while. At RADA. More on that another time. Just enjoy the picture.

Ted Rogers

Ted Rogers, 75, passed away today. The media and communications magnate was CEO of Rogers Communications, Inc. He lived quite a life and found success through many struggles, including bankruptcy. He was something of a pioneer here in Canada. The whole story is in The Globe and Mail. He suffered from congestive heart failure.