i [heart] passive aggression

I've noticed that Bea seems a bit more disgruntled in the Ben and Jen scene... or at least more vocal about it. She makes these very passive aggressive attempts to show her displeasure over the situation. Is this a correct observation? I like Bea's passive aggression... well, I don't LIKE her passive aggression, but it's fun to play and it makes her make more sense.

Here's a little story for you, Janice:

This happened a few years ago, at a bank. It was just after work when regular folk wind down for the day to eat dinner and watch their favourite TV shows. I was using one ATM and another fellow was using the other ATM in the foyer of a bank. A second gentleman (although, he doesn't deserve the title after this incident...) was waiting in line. I guess the fellow at the ATM and myself were not specifically using our machines, but instead we were both standing, looking at our bank statements... After a few seconds, the gentleman shrieked, "Are either of you using your fucking machines?" It was seriously the most grating, shitty moment of my week and I was NOT impressed. The fellow looked blankly at the gentleman and left. I looked at the "gentleman" and said, "Woah, negative!" I spent the next two hours thinking, "Woah, negative? Woah, NEGATIVE?? What the fuck was I thinking to say, 'Woah, negative' What the hell is my problem? I'm given one chance to stand up to some arrogant prick and that's all I can come up with? I give up." I'm going to explore a bit more of this side of Bea and see where it takes me. The ineffectual fighter. The girl that wants to fight back, but can only say, "Woah, negative" or "Are you two born again or something?" or "Bea?" (while cleaning up the sandwich)

Anyway, this is where my brain goes after this draft!

parade epiphany

So I had an epiphany of sorts this weekend. It's totally an idea epiphany, not anything that I've thought about practically for this production, so please let's talk about the feasibility of it here.

So. Here goes.

It occurred to me that the parade should be a devolution of the previouly seen characters. It should be a point where the characters devolve into random committers of violent acts = Americans.

So.

I could correlate all of the previous characters with the parade characters. For instance: the boyfriend/girlfriend become bride and groom; the attractive woman with a cell phone becomes attractive yuppie with a cell phone and dispicable politics; set designer becomes the obese person; costume designer becomes the bum... etc... and so on so that every character in the parade is recognizable as a previous character and Bea is watching the world get progressively more violent.

I think this could be the layer that ties the themes together and makes it more of a play than a dream.

Thoughts on this? On how to approach this?

Also, I have a new draft which I've sent to Ottillee. It doesn't include these changes but it does include some significant other ones... the biggest being that the Director at the end is actually Bea who after the punch becomes the director. It'd be awesome if we could talk about those changes here as well. I'm really curious as to what you will all think about those.

Please feel free to email me (jcraft14@aol.com) about script thoughts as well.

janis

Another Thing

The enemy is everyone. The enemy is Bea, the smoker, the fat guy, Starbucks, skyscrapers, CNN, dirty sidewalks, that asshole who won't move his lawnchair, that jerk arguing with the A&W employee over his order, your boss, "the man", your friends who didn't vote, politicians, advertising, banks, but especially YOU AND ME. Everyone in RAOVIA is the enemy, but especially Bea. In my own experience... I blame music videos for depicting women as objects and "bling bling" as a way of life, yet I sit and watch it and love it. I get mad at reality shows, yet I know who won "Manhunt: Search for America's Top Male Model" I hate MacDonalds... I mean, I'm so informed, I've even watched "Life and Debt" - a movie about Jamaica's debt to the World Bank and how MacDonalds & Friends have taken over the island. But I LOVE their fries. I know what's going on in the world and I'm too self-absorbed to do jack-shit about it. So I'm the enemy too. Even if I feel like the anti-hero.

Monkeys and Birds and Humans

Maybe she is a hero. Maybe she's one of those pathetic vonnegut style heroes that causes a revolution without realizing it because she is so simple. She's simple, but she stands out because she's over-sensitive. In many situations, it's the over-sensitive that die first: the over-sensitive kid at school gets beaten up, the over-sensitive soldier cannot keep his cool, the over-sensitive employee quits his job - and returns the next day with a gun. Maybe she'll have an amazing lawyer who will use "Random Acts of Violence in America" as his defense... "The pressure of a decaying world".... "Insecurity over her future".... "Feeling angry over the state of the state" She'll still be found guilty, but for a week CNN-watchers will think about stuff. In reality, Bea is an animal. And animals, especially monkeys and birds and humans react strangely when in a state of extreme stress. They will lash out and eat each other. Everyone in this play is an animal.

Stirring Stiv

Where is the idea that Bea should be alternative or punkish?

I have never seen her that way.

I've never seen her obedience in the rehearsal hall, her tolerance of her father's condescension, her inability to speak out against small inconsiderate acts,
or her overall silence...
as anything more or less than the desire to be
a good girl.

She wants to please. She doesn't want to offend. She doesn't want anybody to be offensive.

There really isn't anything given in the play that is specific about whether she's pro-pot, anti-choice, revolutionary, counter revolutionary, born of woman, raised by wolves, supreligious, white, black, yellow, red, green, prep, punk, suburban, street, christian, jew, arab, carnivore, herbivore.

I suggest she should be painted as one who doesn't want to rock the boat. She should be painted as if the last thing you would expect of her is to punch anybody, much less a pregnant woman. I don't think she should be painted as a fighter, an amazon, an angry feminist dyke protest queen, a punk, a goth, a woman wearing man's skin, an Hilary, an Oprah, or someone with any agenda other than
one who wants to finish school and someday... one day... to be the one in charge... a director...
in the mean time she's a "suck-it-up" princess. She'll suck it up, all those tiny insensitive acts. She shouldn't look capable of exploding. She should look the opposite. More like Lil Red Riding Hood, less like Pippi Longstocking.

The blow to the belly should be a complete surprise.

If I had a guess, I'd say that she has never voted. That she's not particularly smart. In fact, she's probably quite dumb. Individuality is not her strong suit and that if she does have a smart suit then she probably copied it from Rachel on "Friends". She'll never make it as a Director unless she plans on directing a production of "Stomp" while she's in prison which she more than likely will be if this punch to the stomach is as intense as I think you guys want it to be.

On the issue of consequences... if this punch is, as the context suggests, on the street, in broad daylight, with many witnesses about... then...

she will be found guilty. She will go to jail.

If the punch is hard enough, if the frustration is that built up and intense so as to dislocate a fetus from its placenta,
then the baby will die
and she will not only be found guilty in court, she will be found guilty on CNN
she will be famous
and she will be murdered in jail.

It's easy to think of Bea as the victim in this play. And to advocate for her to fight back. And by extension for "art" to fight back... but fight back against who?

Against who??? Who's the enemy?

People who work at Starbucks? People who eat at McDonalds? People with cell phones? People that make practical use of the fruits of reproductive biological research (which by the way would include birth control pills)? People who throw food when they're frustrated? People who smoke?

Bea is no different than any of the other characters in the play. She is not made of different stuff. She is not our hero.

the punching bag is not a symbol of anything. it's just a punching bag. it does not represent the United States' military industry, or FOX News, or a skyscraper, or the way in which blah blah blah

it's a punching bag. it has a sign on it that says "punch me"


trench coat mafia

the child has a balloon.

meat grinder

nice organ winder how else, Rose elegant

ask not what your country

for beautiful for spacious



sit
sit by me
watch the parade

excuse me, would you mind not putting your lawn chair quite there, the child can't see the...

nevermind... let's sit on the curb.. and we'll watch the...

sorry, i don't have any change. not today. sorry

look, here comes the clowns.

POP

My brain has just gone, "Blaugh!"

Observations after first read-thru -

I just had a thought about Chekov's theory of rising frustration over a weapon that is onstage and never used... It comes from the fact that the weapon could be employed at any time. Does that make sense? For example, if there is a gun or a machete on stage, but it is just sitting on a mantle, or hanging on the wall, it is simply part of the set. If someone picks up the weapon, or specifically refers to it, then its use is expected. Within Random Acts of Violence in America, I feel that the bag should be a huge part of Bea's (and everyone else's) reality, but never used - an overwhelming presence, a constant reminder. Same with her inability to act... During the read-thru, I kept thinking of a simmering pot that has the potential to boil over, but doesn't... The lid keeps getting tighter and tighter until... WHAM. Violent explosion that is unexpected and completely necessary. It feels like if Bea didn't punch that pregnant woman... She would implode, fall over and die. I see her as a pretty pink volcano. There is the idea that Bea should be a bit alternative or punkish... What if Bea was impeccably put together... Almost like Reece Witherspoon from "Election", but not as extreme... "Normal", kind and dutiful girl, who has an artistic streak that her friends and family think is "cute". It seems like she swallows a lot of bullshit, but has become accustomed (as many of us do) to turn the other cheek and be "pleasant" Another character she reminds me of is a young version of Annette Benning from "American Beauty" I don't know... Am I totally off track with this? I identify with her inability to cause a stir - picking up the sandwich, placating Dad even after her bad day (to a point!), taking the picture for Ben and Jen, trying to take care of the "child" etc etc until she completely LOSES IT.

Also with the punching bag... I love the fact that the punching back seems to be a higher status element of the play, even though a punching bag's purpose is to be beaten on... Completely at the whim of its owner. The bag is the one beating on Bea and the rest...

Anyway... I am pumped. Especially with so many creative minds on this project. It's gonna be wild.

Physical Violence May Not Be The Answer...

... but it might be.

It depends on what the question is. What's the question?
I am not advocating for the elimination of the punching bag. I am pushing for an upgrade in ideas. The punching bag (like Rose) just suddenly appears in the mind of the play and the reality of the stage out of nowhere at practically the plays' end.

This big punching THING. It's a good THING. This big THING intended for punching. Tis a good image to have and the idea that this irrational chain of events that is the play and the parade is leading us
to a woman (does it have to be a woman?)
waking from a terrible dream
putting on her boxing gloves,
preparing to punch this THING that was built to be PUNCHED
as an example of how somehow we could have avoided the situation of
a pregnant woman being punched in the stomach
and
for that PUNCHING BAG to not be PUNCHED
well that's good.

The PUNCHING BAG SHOULD BE PUNCHED. that's what it was made for. Just as theatre was made to show us our foibles and atrocities, punching bags were made to be punched.
The fact that it is NOT punched in this play is GOOD good god that is GOOD.... but what would make it better
to my way of thinking
is that if we get to see Bea NOT PUNCH it... often...
because if she did
uptight director PUNCH BACK
petulant designer PUNCH BACK
chicken salad sandwich PUNCH BACK
starbucks PUNCH BACK
if she did PUNCH BACK
that THING that's meant to be PUNCHED, than impersonal THING designed to abosrb that shock
then she wouldn't PUNCH what is not meant to be PUNCHED

but if that THING is non-existent in the mind of the play up until that point... then the audience doesn't get the experience of
"when is somebody going to punch that fucking thing?"
instead what they get is
"oh a new thing on stage"

I am pushing for that THING to be present. For it to be addressed. If the Chekhov cliche is that if you introduce a gun in act one then you have to use it by act three... well then you need to introduce the gun in act one. So if you want the image of a punching bag in a spotlight at the end of this particular play... then I push for you having the image of a punching bag in a spotlight at the beginning of this particular play.

It is addressed once
MOMMA SAID KNOCK YOU OUT
and then
DO THE RIGHT THING
ignored.
It is not woven into the fabric of the play. It's tacked on. Weave it in.

balloons

pop

put 'em up

Put 'em up put 'em up comp 'em tup pute 'em pup comput'em up

The Punching Bag

Defend it.

It's the gun that doesn't get used. So what? You can put a thousand things on stage and not use them. It's a coy image right now. Coy and annoying. Justification for its presence is vague.

Yet we have a punching bag down in the lobby. It's big and red like a clown's extremity.

What is it? Where did it come from? Ether?

I haven't yet heard nor can I conceive of a convincing masterful argument that articulates the absolute need for a 75 pound bag of fist magnet to be suspended over that stage.

But if that thing is going to be there... and i'm not saying it shouldn't... IT SHOULD BE THERE. it shouldn't just materialize with no explanation at nigh to the end of the play so that it can not be used.

it should be part of the play within the play and the play over and under and over and the world and the street

or it shouldn't be there at all

and if it isn't to be punched then we should see it not be punched often... not punched by obese smokers, not punched by dancing cops, not punched by bea, not punched by rose, not punched by ottillie, not punched by steve, not punched by janis, not punched by a giant invisible rabbit... over and over an accumulation of a punching bag not being punched. frustratingly often

JUST PUNCH THE FUCKING PUNCHING BAG THAT'S WHAT IT'S THERE FOR.

otherwise, it should be punched fucking hard. fucked by a parade of fists. but it shouldn't. it shouldn't be touched. and it shouldn't be touched often.

because if its' going to be there... it's got to hang over the stage like the punching bag of damocles... constant perpetual threatening

Big
and
Red

hey j yo j

what's with the punching bag? where did it come from?

insquirming minds want to know?

trepanation