Am I that transparent?

It's my blog. Let's talk about me for a second.

No really, though, let me ramble a little bit on what I want, what I believe, and where I'm coming from. Because there may be some confusion.

Don's got me pegged (sorry to single you out, Don -- well, a little sorry; these things are good for my readership, dontcha know): from the comments on my last post:

"I get where you're coming from - "Leave me alone to do MY thing, man" and as far as any of this is concerned, no one seems to be stopping you from doing just that..."

And, in a comment from his blog about actors jumping ship on shows, also dated yesterday:

"Bottom line, PR, you couldn't give two shits about any of this and just wanted to put on your rebel-hairshirt and cry "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!" I get that - my rebel-hairshirt is worn and likely older than you are."

Now, I'm not posting this to prove myself to Don, or to anyone for that matter, so much as to get incoherent streams of what feels true to me onto paper (cyberpaper, that is). This is really the only appropriate place to do that.

*knuckles cracking*

When you boil me down to the very simplistics as an artist, the first things that get stripped away are the outside concerns - commercial, social, economical, environmental, anything that is outside the form. I create because there are things in my head that I want to see that I have as yet been unable to find elsewhere. It's as simple as that. Not everything that I have been unable to find is something that I want to see and not everything thing that I want to see have I been unable to find. As an artist, I'm not concerned with those two sides of the Venn diagram. What I revel in is where Column A and Column B meet.

It never fails that the first question I get asked when talking about a project boiling around in my head is some variant of "Why?". And everyone gets asked that question. Endlessly. I realize I'm not alone, but no three letters bristle me more. The why is irrelevant. Why implies a greater purpose. Art requires no greater purpose. Art is a greater purpose. Why do I create what I create? Because it doesn't exist and it should. Why should it? Because it will be good. Why will it be good? Because I and doubtlessly at least a few others will take pleasure from its existence. Why should others care? What else can I say but because it will be good, because it will be something that they have not experienced before, because it will be a more expansive choice than not caring?

My art likely isn't going to feed starving children in Ethiopa, provide world peace, change a Bears fan to a Brecht fan or sell more laundry detergent. And if it does do any of those things, it still doesn't matter, because that's not its purpose. Art is art. Art needs to exist, and only needs to exist. There's no reason to expand beyond that. That is gift enough. And I have art in my head that does not exist. My mission statement, and my only mission statement, is to change that.

And so I can't get passionately behind all of this up-with-theatre social action on the blogosphere. I'll support it, sure, but it all mumbles together for me. And while I am in a similar position as Bob, it's also not the same call that he's making -- it's not that I want to see less talk and more action. The whole shebang just seems superfluous to me. On the one hand, art and its effects on us are inexplicable, but, at the same time, it seems to me that we're making the process more complex than it needs to be. Making art is a one-step process. In fact, Bob, here's my recipe for your collection:

A Recipe to Make Art

Step 1: Make Art.

That's it! It's that easy! Yeah, if one has other goals, then the process is a little more complex. But then it's about the other goals, not the art. And there's my problem, I guess. I'm not interested in these other goals. Artistically, I'm mainly concerned with art.

Everything else on here, as Don would say, it part rebel-hairshirt. But only part. It's also part philosophy. Most discussions I have on the blogosphere don't have much of anything to do with art, as far as I'm concerned. I'm cool with that -- I also enjoy challenging thoughts and having my thoughts challenged. That's one of the greater purposes of the blogosphere for me. But everything I argue I truly believe. Contrarianism is only a fault if it is a goal. "I meant what I said and I said what I meant" -- Dr. Suess knows his shit.

There. Make of that what you will.

P.Rekk
2008

Value for who?

When you speak of the value of theatre, are you talking about intrinsic value? The value it holds for you? Its current value within the artistic spectrum? Its current value within the world as a whole? Commercial value?

On the one hand, I want more specificity from this discussion. On the other, I'm already half bored and specificity will likely make it worse.

When did we decide to unify? And why does it have to be such a dour, introspective process? Can't I do what is important to me and you do what is important to you and we both acknowledge that what we are doing is both connected and variant and understand that we are part of one community while chasing different dreams?

And can't we do it now, without months of blathering about doing it?

P.Rekk
2008

Once again breaking the silence...

Since the rest of the theatrical blogosphere is having a collective pow-wow, why not? On theatre and the value of:

As an audience member, I value good theatre no more than I value you good music, good film, good visual art, good dance, good literature, good art. Why? Because I enjoy the product, not the form. I also assume that the value I place on good theatre is no greater than the value that a Cubs fan places on a good game. While appreciative of any Cubs fan who comes to see a show of mine, I in no way wish to replace their baseball with my theatre. My theatre is intended for me and others who will enjoy it or come to appreciate it as I do, not to convert those who live with a different world of values and interests.

As a creator, I work primarily with the stage for a number of reasons. As an actor, it allows me to tear open an instinctual hole and allow bits of me free that don't otherwise see much daylight. Not quite therapy, at it's best it's more of an ear-to-the-ground interconnected primalism thing. Purely in it for the adrenaline. As a director and writer, I choose the stage because I envision productions beyond the horizon of what is currently available in Chicago theatre much more readily than other art forms. I've often thought that I have a musical heart and a cinematic soul, but my mind is theatrical - that is where the ideas lie.

The value I place in theatre as a creator is simply the value I place in my ideas. I'm unapologetically Wilde-ian in my view of art. The community will embrace what the community enjoys. I will embrace what I enjoy. My version of embracing also includes creation. I don't make theatre to express the value of theatre, I make theatre to express the value of what I want to express. The form is merely the means.

Universally speaking, theatre is no more important than any other art form, and I use that in the absolutely loosest sense possible: including not only film and music, but food and politics and sports and business and science and humanitarianism, all of which can transcend at times and devour at others. On the reverse, this also means that theatre is no less important than any of the above.

Why theatre, then? Because it's what I choose. And for anyone else? That choice is theirs.

Also, come see Faster.

P.Rekk
2008

As if any eyes are still wandering over here...

Quick update: We open the Midwest premiere of Adam Rapp's Faster this coming weekend. There's a free preview on Friday and opening is Saturday. More details to be found over there (---->) and at http://www.thesideproject.net/.

I'm tres, tres excited about this show. It has vaulted to the top of the "Work I'm proudest of since moving to Chicago" list as well as the "Work I'm proudest of. Period." list. We run March 8 - April 6, Thursdays-Saturdays at 8 pm and Sundays at 7 pm. I encourage all Chicago folk to come out to see it. Hell, I encourage all non-Chicago folk to come out and see it. And if you do, stick around after to say hey. I'm a social guy, I swear!

Also, online industry tixx for $10 for any performance through March 23. Just making sure all is aware.

P.Rekk
2008

So this is the new year...

He's back! And his blog is now ochre!

Call it a new year's resolution or restored faith in life, but I'm here again. I'm about to embark on what hopefully will be an extremely productive (and busy) spring, so the blog is taking on a slight shift (beyond the new hue, even). I'll be back in action in comments and discussion of the world of Theatre, capital 'T' on the usual suspects' blogs, but my own is going to become an ongoing interactive production diary of sorts for everything I've got coming up. This is the table of contents.

After having my foundation shattered (in the best of all possible ways) by the 500 Clown class, I have been continuing my foray into clown, both through somewhat-weekly clowning sessions with some others from the class and through the intermediate 500 Clown class, which will be kicking my ass and freeing my soul the end of this month.

I've also accepted what is easily the best role I've had since I've moved to Chicago. I will be playing Stargyl, a mute 17 year old in the midwest premiere of Adam Rapp's Faster at The Side Project. The run is from March 8 to April 6 and I will definitely be keeping the blogosphere updated.

And, in perhaps the most exciting news this side of the Mississippi, Per Diem is off the ground! Our first production will be an evening of three radio/radio-esque plays: Samuel Beckett's Words and Music, Paul Rekk's Peculiar Way, and Jean Cocteau's The Eiffel Tower Wedding Party. Both the Beckett and the Cocteau will be directed by yours truly and my own piece will be directed by either Bil or Lance, to be determined by Bil and Lance. Dates and location are still being set in stone, but we're looking at a tentative four-week run in late May/early June.

Per Diem productions numbers two and three, respectively, will be This American Wife, written and directed by Bil Gaines, and an as-yet-untitled ensemble piece workshopped around the life and works of the poet William Carlos Williams, as directed by Lance Hall.

Naturally, as a baby company, we're constantly a bit overwhelmed. And we're more than ready to take any suggestions/recommendations/advice/assistance/names/numbers that anyone has to offer to a new company about the hurdles we are/will meet. And more immediately, we're also looking for anyone who would take an interest in being a part of the first production. If you have the slightest possible interest, in any aspect (acting, design, technical, choreography, marketing, front of house, etc.), just drop me a line and I can get you plenty more details on what the production's all about. We'll chat. It'll kick ass.

Most immediately of all, as my own Peculiar Way is going to be a part of this, I am going to be holding a reading/discussion of the piece to get plenty of feedback before we start to put nuts to bolts on this thing. The reading is going to be on Tuesday, February 5 at 7:30 pm at my lovely home. I will be providing some drinks and snacky-type foods in exchange for your ears and maybe some opinions. Of course, since it's at my home, you're going to have to RSVP to get the address. (The internets is a scary place, kids.) But I look forward to seeing anyone who can make it.

And one further request: the final course on my plate this spring is helping my roommate work out a schedule for a Butoh workshop he's long been thinking about putting up. He most likely will not be in Chicago come the fall, so now is the time. Lloyd has received most of his training from Jerry Gardner, founder of RaKan Butoh, and has also studied with some of the original Butoh masters. What I'm looking for right now is an gauge of interest in the Chicago area for a Butoh workshop -- either in the form of a one-day intensive Introduction to Butoh or a longer (once a week for six weeks?) Butoh class possibly culminating in a showcase of sorts.

Go ahead, check it all out and then get back to me on any- or everything. I'm at p.rekk (at) hotmail (dot) com. Awesome. It's good to be back.

P.Rekk
2008 (!)

The hiatus will not be televised.

Nice of me to let you know before I go on a damn near two week hiatus, wasn't it? Sorry 'bout that (if there's even anyone out there still checking this guy after two weeks of radio silence). It turns out, contrary to what I had assumed, that unemployment is not leaving me tooling around the internets to no end. As a result, the blog fell into a short lapse, that we (we being I) hope to turn back around quite shortly.

Of course, as it goes, the moment I have some free time, it quickly starts to fill (albeit with less profitable tasks). The Magician is still running, and I've also been charged with the task of going on as a replacement opposite Annette on Thanksgiving weekend. The show is (aside from one scene) a two-hander, so while Annette's the lead proper, I've been given a large part to learn in a very un-large amount of time. We'll see how it goes. I started NaPlWriMo, and then promptly gave up. That's a lie; I didn't give up so much as concede that I'll never finish in the allotted time, now that this replacement role has decided to eat up my free time. So instead I've gone back and taken a quick second look at Peculiar Way, which I'm now deeming is on draft 1 1/2. I have to have it done and copies available on the 19th for our next Per Diem meeting, so's I can offer it up as a potentiality in the first three shows, which we will be deciding upon that evening. I'm having trouble prioritizing my choices -- along with Peculiar Way, my own Consent is also fresh on my mind, but I'm also getting pulled in a million different directions by Beckett, Cocteau, Arrabal, Shakespeare (yes, Shakespeare -- and fuck you if you don't think I can bring it original-style), Bogosian, Jarry, Adamov, and more that I can't even remember right now. We'll see what happens.

Announcements are pending.

So is reflections on 500 Clown, which has now ended... sort of... (honest, Paul, it's coming)

Now I need to memorize lines. I'll be back. And soon. Promise.

P.Rekk
2007

Serendipity

Two days after I find my Gide quote, Joshua James vents his frustration with what he perceives as a lack of respect for the playwright in today's theatre world.

I agree with some, I disagree with some.

But the one thing I keep seeing come up in the comments as well is this wrath against people telling playwrights what their play is about. So Gide gets a repeat performance right quick:

“Before I explain my book to others, I expect them to explain it to me. To claim to explain it first is to immediately narrow down its reach; for if we know what we intended to say, we do not know whether we said only that. - One always says more than THAT. - And what interests me most is what I put in without knowing, - that unconscious share, which I would like to call God’s share.”

When working with one of my scripts, I either want complete control or no control at all. If the idea is to put up the show just as I intended it, I might as well direct it, too. Otherwise, I wanna see what others take from it. By all means, production team, let me know what you're doing. If there's anything you feel might be particularly contentious, sure, ask me for my input. But I don't do this to beat my message into other people. I've said what I wanted to say -- it's there on the paper. If people (audience and artists alike) take that out of it, awesome! If they take something else out of it, even better! If a director (or a "snot-nosed kid with an MFA") gets a feeling so strong out of my work that they want to put it up, who am I to say they're doing it wrong? I don't let people tell me I'm writing wrong.

So please, tell me what my play is about. Because I'm probably not going to tell you.

P.Rekk
2007