The woman in this clip is Victoria, long-time bad guy in the WWF/WWE. Her character has always been a psycho bully, beating up the more popular women and never really being a fan favorite. She was never the most popular performer in the business, but she worked hard, made her opponents look good, and always gave the fans a great show. Last week, she retired. The clip below takes place during a commercial break, meaning that it wasn’t televised for the folks at home.
What you see here is one of the moments that only wrestling can do — and I’ll repeat that — ONLY wrestling can do this. This woman has played this character for years, and here, in her retirement, she drops her character to thank the fans and get a well-deserved moment in the sun. Important things to look for:
The “Please Don’t Go” chant that starts at about 1:07 — wrestling fans show appreciation like no one else.
The way she’s limping around the ring — the story of the match she just fought was that her opponent had messed up her leg, so she’s selling that injury, even in her one moment in the sun. She’s making her opponent look better, even though she’s not fighting anymore.
The brief interaction with the little girls at about 1:51 and 1:58 — there’s some true emotion in that, because you know that no matter how effed up the view of femininity that wrestlers have to present sometime, there’s pride in being a strong, hard-working woman, and to have a young girl thank you for it and tell you that she loves you or that you’re awesome — you win at life. Really.
And then, the moment, the killer, the thing that actually has my eyes all kinds of misty as I write this, it happens at 2:38 or so — she takes a long, deep final bow (something that you never really get to do in wrestling), soaks up the cheers, and then…at 2:45, she dives right back into her character, tearing at her hair, playing the crazy evil psycho one last time, but this time, instead of stirring up the crowd to hate her, to fear her, to want to see her lose…she stirs the crowd to applaud her career.
Baseball is awesome because it can go on forever. I understand that that is difficult when you’ve got pitch counts and limited rosters and it’s basically an exhibition, but still — runners on second and third? Really? REALLY?
Problem is, I can’t remember how to do such a thing. I’ve got the beginnings of two new plays, plus one that needs a pretty major rewrite, and I just can’t figure out what to do next. It’s a very tough period in the writing process. Some folks say to write everyday. I don’t really know how to do that. Hmmm.
My hope in writing this was that something would come to mind. It hasn’t.
…but I was irked by another little tiny part of a little tiny article today (on the heels of my displeasure with that one line in the Variety review of Taking Over):
I have friends, close friends, who are having a hard time with this, really struggling with it. They don’t understand why Bruce Springsteen is playing halftime of the Super Bowl. One friend calls it “a soul-crushing betrayal.” Another calls it “the ultimate sellout.” It should be added that these friends are all football fans as well as Bruce Springsteen fans — well, aren’t all football fans Springsteen fans?
Now look — I know that last line is just a throwaway, and I know what he’s going for with it, and well, maybe that’s the problem. (I should add here that I generally like this dude, especially when he’s talking about baseball.) But there’s an oversimplicity to that line (and to its intention, I think) that really rubs my the wrong way. The implication, I believe, is that all real football fans are working class kinda guys, which in this case, is read working class white guys, which means, of course, guys who like Springsteen. And that’s just sloppy. And again, I know it’s a throwaway, and it’s a joke, and it ain’t all that deep, but guess what? I know a TON of football fans who aren’t Springsteen fans (myself largely included), white and otherwise, and quite frankly, I feel a little dismissed.
Variety reviewed Danny Hoch’s Taking Over in LA recently. I disagree with a big chunk of the review (as you can imagine if you’ve read about my love for the play already), but was particularly digusted by this:
In the most affecting sequence, ex-con Kiko ambles over to chat up a film crew. Hoch and helmer Tony Taccone evoke the excruciating pain as an (unseen) P.A. pulls away from the man’s attempt to connect, even with an offer of free labor. Kiko explodes — “You understand what I’m sayin’ to you? You look. At me.” — but his abject apology and hunched-over frame clearly indicate he’ll be back in the joint real soon.
The Kiko section is indeed very powerful — lots of folks have told me that it was their favorite part of the show. It’s complicated and deep and speaks to that basic human emotion that we all feel when we want something so simple and innocent but are forbidden from having it for the stupidest and most intractable of reasons. all that’s true. But let me repeat that last line:
Kiko explodes — “You understand what I’m sayin’ to you? You look. At me.” — but his abject apology and hunched-over frame clearly indicate he’ll be back in the joint real soon.
Really? That’s what you take from that moment? The guy apologizes, holds in everything that’s bubbling to the surface in the face of someone coming into his neighborhood, taking from his neighborhood, not giving back to his neighborhood — this guy catches himself after an outburst of anger at the fact that someone, some lowly member of a film crew at that, someone that this guy is showing respect, someone who has the chance to make an impact on his life by bending the simplest of rules to allow the guy to save some face in front of his mother after getting out of jail and attempting to show that he’s getting his life on track — he does all this, and the moment breaks your heart — and you think that all shows that he’s destined to go back to jail?
I swear, there’s a massive cultural gap at play here, and it’s something that demands attention. Keep in mind who is reviewing the plays when you read those reviews, folks. Some people just don’t get what they’re seeing.
In October 2005, when Ms. Bernstein took charge of the museum’s technology department, administrators gave her license to experiment with Web-based technologies to better fulfill their mission: to build a bridge between the rich cultural heritage in the museum’s collections and the unique experience of each visitor. And in online communities across the Internet, from Facebook to Flickr, she put a face to the museum’s 560,000-square-foot, Beaux-Arts building nestled in Prospect Heights. The Brooklyn Museum was one of the first museums in the country to actively participate in these Web spaces, using them to communicate directly with members, to chat with artists and to allow visitors themselves to be curators, mostly for free, without infringing on the nonprofit museum’s budget. Over the last three years, Ms. Bernstein has turned the Brooklyn Museum into a model for 21st-century art institutions everywhere.
But this month, Ms. Bernstein is facing one of her most experimental challenges yet. On Jan. 3, with hopes of increasing revenues as well as the institution’s popularity, she and Will Cary, the museum’s membership manager, launched a new Web project: 1stfans, the museum’s first “socially networked museum membership.” For $20 a year, 1stfan members can mingle with artists and staff at a special event each month, view exclusive online content (like behind-the-scenes presentations and videos from artists and curators) and get access to the 1stfans Twitter Art Feed, which includes micro-blogging from artists and other fun stuff. It’s cheaper than the museum’s pricier $55 membership and offers goodies tailored specifically for the members of Ms. Bernstein’s community who have grown to love the museum online, and who hail from as far away as Vietnam and … Texas. So far, the museum has garnered 232 1stfans, in 14 states, nine countries and four continents.
Really interesting article about using technology to share art beyond your immediate circle.
I argue that we don’t know in advance what audiences want to see. Yes, A Christmas Carol will sell during the holidays but is this artistic decision-making? We have merged the money-driven, commercial mindset with the artistic risk and opportunity that should be central to the missions of all nonprofit theaters. Foundations and donors have become victims of this messy merger between the commercial and nonprofit because they don’t want to take away support from institutions that have been critical to the creative culture of a community and become the arbiter of what’s commercial theater and what’s not.
* It’s only in previews, but Will Ferrell has a hit. That shouldn’t be a surprise. Also maybe not surprising: Shrek is in trouble. Maybe not trouble, but it’s way down at the box office. It could be a very rough couple of months for that show.
*Brantley thinks that Hedda Gabler is almost historically awful. I didn’t think it was nearly that terrible, but I was certainly a little disappointed. Mary-Louise Parker is still kind of a goddess though.
*The Thriller musical. I think it’ll be a disaster. I don’t think it needs to be a disaster, but I think it will be. Everyone knows that while Thriller is the best video of all-time, Beat It and Smooth Criminal are better choices for musicals. Of course, the best choice for a video to musical is obvious.
every time you finish working on a play, you get this horrible feeling.
it’s like the day after christmas.
there’s been a ton of build-up, you’ve done your job, you’ve been celebrated.
and now…you’re back to the real world.
and you have to clean your house.
and you don’t have all that much money.
and no one is telling you that you’re awesome.
no one is catering to your needs.
you don’t even have a place to go in the morning.
Posted by Kristoffer 
Posted by Kristoffer 
Posted by Kristoffer 
