Category: Uncategorized

The human mind likes to put things into categories. It makes life much easier when we can separate and compare. It allows for very complex systems to be simplified into manageable pieces. We turn the gradience of the universe to be transformed into parts we can comprehend. It’s a beautiful system, but it is inherently flawed and nothing is more flawed or beautiful than the concept of the dichotomy.

Dichotomy and true opposition essentially doesn’t exist in our world. The only time we can see the idea working is the dichotomy between existence and nonexistence, everything else is much too complex to be described by two opposites. Even with this general truth, we still force ourselves to see the world through opposing lenses. This could just be an extension of our categorization, but why is two our magic number? A lot of nature functions in twos and a lot of aesthetic functions the same. Equal and opposing, but as described before, dichotomy doesn’t really exist as we define it. The world couldn’t work through opposites, it works through gradients. Colors flow into one another, numbers are infinite and indiscreet, and languages are variations of a universal grammar, but we force our perception into seeing these in distinct categories. This happens with almost all of humans’ discoveries. We must make categories, we must make opposites, we want our world to be dichotomic or classified and this can be helpful or harmful.

Let’s look towards politics. In America, politics is the one of most polarizing subjects we have and we are too often forced as a society in to the two directions, left or right. The issue arises that political topics are extremely complex and there is almost never two distinct answers to the problem. Unfortunately we force ourselves into these molds and that seeks to simplify discussion and pacify our need for debate. There is no gray area in politics, you are either liberal or conservative and we judge those labels harshly, but the truth is that if we truly looked at every single area of debate and look into ourselves for our answers, most of us would fall much more closely to the middle. A large portion of society already does that, but scorn them and refuse their participation. Instead, we like the fight. We like have an opposite and fighting against them. There may not be only two answers, but we will choose only two and position ourselves along the line and throw insults to the other side. You don’t hate the other side, you hate the chance of your position being proved wrong and the dichotomy falling apart. You need your rival, otherwise it becomes too much to handle. In our political system today, our government thrives off of this. This is how we win elections and stay in power, by being on your population’s side and fighting for the dichotomy to still exist.

Now we can look at the other side of dichotomy. There’s the saying about “too many cooks in the kitchen” and dichotomy lessens those cooks to just two. We need this in our everyday lives. To lessen our decisions to just two options, we can make the right choice for ourselves. This is another situation where there are often a lot of more options than we choose to realize, but if we were to debate every single one, we would remain comatose. Sometimes we need the dichotomy in order to advance. More often than not, our questions are complex with many answers and we need to lighten that weight for us. “What class should I take?” gets boiled down from the entire course guide to “Linguistics 111 or Anthro 101?” We need opposition and categorization in our everyday life because it would be impossible to live in the gradient, seeing infinite possibilities and debating amongst them all.

Categorization is necessary, but harmful. It is too powerful a tool to use and too powerful a tool to not use. We should keep the dichotomy in our everyday lives, but expand to the gradient when get to the general public. Our society should not be forced to choose between only two options and the individual should not be forced to debate an infinite number of options. We need this concept, but we use it far too often for our own good.

Imagination is a beautiful thing. It’s the same thing that has allowed people to come up with the most advanced technology and art. Had Steve Jobs told people from the 90s about what future cell phones could look like, they probably would have thought he was insane, but his imagination and innovation led him to do amazing things for our generation. I firmly believe that this form of imagination is no more valid that that which allows young minds to escape into the fantastical worlds of television, though these worlds don’t abide by the same rules as our world. So, in honor of this (and because I know my last few posts have been pretty text heavy) I have decided to dedicate this post to the top five things from my favorite childhood TV shows that I wish were real.

1) Socko Socks from iCarly

Okay, I admit I was probably too old to be watching this show, but Spencer’s socks from his mysterious pal Socko always had the coolest patterns. A lot of times, they even lit up. I’m sure this type of technology is not beyond us, so someone please tell me where I can get a pair of these.

2) The Out of the Box Clubhouse

If you’ve never seen this pile of boxes transform into the coolest clubhouse ever, it’s imperative that you click this link right now! Did you watch it? Okay, good, then we’re on the same page. When I was a kid I wanted nothing more than to turn boxes into magic like this, but my endeavors never turned out like this.

3) The “Let’s Watch a Disney Channel Movie” Filmstrip Roller Coaster

This blurry picture leaves much to be desired, but it captures the essence of how amazingly cool this was. Again, if you’ve never seen it or don’t recall the glory of this, please watch this video. Personally, I thought this was the coolest part of whatever movie they were about to play. The filmstrip roller coaster is awesome for two reasons. One, it would be the coolest most thrilling ride ever at any theme park. And two, can you imagine doing back flips and other gymnastic feats in the middle of space, sometimes jumping through a gooey neon strip of film? No. You can’t, because it hasn’t been invented yet.

4) Krabby Patties from Spongebob

Let’s be honest, if real burgers looked like this, I probably wouldn’t be a vegetarian.

5) The Blues Clues Jump of Wonderment

Imagine with me for a moment that a little wiggle of the hips and a jingle could transport you into your favorite Renoir or Picasso. Then, once you’re there, you could actually speak with the people and objects in the painting and they’ll not only speak back, but give you direction on your quests. Magic. This day must come or I will lose all faith in humanity. I don’t need an iPhone 8S, I need to be able to jump into pictures.

On the last Tuesday of the month, the Ark hosts Take a Chance Tuesday. This event allows the general public to risk attending a concert of a relatively unknown artist without the commitment of a ticket and the price of admission. While this event has appeared on my calendar for at least a year now, I had yet to attend until I discovered that on January 27 Elle Casazza would be playing.

Though Elle Casazza (or Beth as I know her) went to the same high school as me, we first got to know each other when we were counselors for Choir Camp at Interlochen. After graduating from Chicago College of Performing Arts with a degree in Vocal Jazz, Beth became Elle and she has been playing gigs around the Chicago area ever since. For two summers I have desperately tried to see her perform – a seemingly simple task as I was living in the same city as her. The first summer I failed because somehow ever single gig turned out to 21+ and I was solidly 20 years old. Last summer I just failed. Either the gig was out in the suburbs or I already had plans or none of my friends wanted to go with me, so I missed out on ever single concert, and there were a lot of them! So when I received a notification that Elle Casazza would be performing in Ann Arbor I knew I had to be there.

Tuesday night I was there. 2nd row front and center waiting to hear the music I had been trying to hear for almost 2 years now. I didn’t know what to expect. Yes, her recordings were good. She has a good voice and good stage presence. But what worried me was the cliché “it” factor that prevents everyone in the room from taking their eyes off of you; that thing that differentiates between good and great, and which makes a live performance rife with flaws more powerful than a pristine recording.

Turns out I worried for nothing (would I really be writing about her now if it had been terrible? Or average? Or good but not great?). Elle Casazza is one of those rare artists whose recordings, while good, pale in comparison to her live performance. With an infectious smile and soulful voice she is the definition of stage presence with the musical chops to back it up.

From last night I learned two things: first, there is no excuse for me to not see Elle Casazza perform this summer when I am back in Chicago. Second, if this is the quality of the free monthly concerts at the Ark, I need to start making my attendance a priority.

I’ve started writing my next screenplay. So I’d like to devote a post to some reflections I’ve had on dialogue. Playwrighting and screenwriting are two means of creative expression which present the majority of their plot and action through dialogue. At the level of the manuscript, at least, the writer lacks the psychological interiority writing a novel might provide – the only insight into character is through the words they speak. Moreover, the writer cannot rely on narration as a means of progressing the plot – plot in plays and movies is dialogue driven.

Therefore, writing good dialogue is essential to writing a memorable script. Yet doing so is easier said than done, because writing dialogue is the ultimate balancing act. The writer must oscillate between the poles of contradictory demands. On one hand, each character needs to sound unique, but on the other, every character’s dialogue must reflect the overarching style of the film. Characters must sound natural, but all the boring details of real life conversations must be truncated and stylized. I’d like to study some iconic examples, new and old, of impressive writing which meets the challenge posed by dialogue.

I have revisited Shakespeare, despite his archaic language, because his technique still presents valuable lessons. Looking at the opening lines from the three witches:

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the caldron boil and bake;

This dialogue at once establishes the witches as twisted, perverse characters, present a compelling metaphor – the contamination of boiling water with adulterants. Moreover, the use of a tight meter develops a distinct rhythm to their speech while also establishing a pace for the overall story.

 

Paul Schrader’s Taxi Driver is often cited as one of the best uses of voice over, and a rare case of extreme interiority into the protagonist’s tortured mind. ItThe stark contrast between DeNiro’s repetitive speech patterns diary-like monologues and his staccato, incomprehensible attempts to strike conversations with other characters which develop an interpersonal chasm and sense of isolation which capture the mood of the film and create an iconoclastic and memorable character.

 

Recent independent film sensation Whiplash gained critical appeal for its passionate and compelling protagonist and his perpetual conflict with an unusual cruel and unforgiving mentor. Protagonist Andrew’s anti-social, obsessive banter about legendary success pits against the demeaning, volatile verbal assault from an unrelenting Professor Fletcher.