tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-54422980385611047302024-02-08T17:23:08.953+11:00The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve JobsRichard Pettiferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00916298496154973547noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442298038561104730.post-41659700464996176092012-07-30T17:51:00.001+10:002012-07-30T17:52:37.654+10:00Money to be donated to SACOMAfter some agonising, I have decided that all profit from performance of Agony/Ecstasy will be donated to SACOM in Hong Kong.<br />
<br />
SACOM is an activist organisation of students and academics which struggles for the ethical and moral rights of workers in China. They continually release reports and research on labour rights, and are particularly focused on Foxconn (key supplier for Apple) as a huge employer continually violating these ethical and moral standards.<br />
<br />
Their website is <a href="http://sacom.hk/">here</a>.Richard Pettiferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00916298496154973547noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442298038561104730.post-68148250361717663512012-06-28T02:44:00.001+10:002012-06-28T02:46:16.808+10:00Photos<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1lNO8Xi4QMXVRFjOsqqM471z68u_JU_tudq0yubFzUEZOyjYG9jLNIyxa0ccuufaIkFMmDBDs4_I-dOrmeitt1FIQhue6wJfxT_lgevjxTKCvk6EtFtDgVC9-kZ8OucXc85yMt6Mib6k/s1600/533275_10150874462006105_1943424780_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1lNO8Xi4QMXVRFjOsqqM471z68u_JU_tudq0yubFzUEZOyjYG9jLNIyxa0ccuufaIkFMmDBDs4_I-dOrmeitt1FIQhue6wJfxT_lgevjxTKCvk6EtFtDgVC9-kZ8OucXc85yMt6Mib6k/s320/533275_10150874462006105_1943424780_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvXymMrwMa-lDEeZZhKby0zLwz0otJPf25BcwZWiRHvjyC8p3l6Phe2A5XlrIfiwrKTdxjsPAC7XRqxeetbZNx9n4OsqA9qz9EGcsPsWESsvh4yy9pmSt0V6eBPohrTdOcV2XI4ZIwJ7c/s1600/486562_10150878381436105_103419155_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvXymMrwMa-lDEeZZhKby0zLwz0otJPf25BcwZWiRHvjyC8p3l6Phe2A5XlrIfiwrKTdxjsPAC7XRqxeetbZNx9n4OsqA9qz9EGcsPsWESsvh4yy9pmSt0V6eBPohrTdOcV2XI4ZIwJ7c/s320/486562_10150878381436105_103419155_n.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFuCnAvLvWkiZS2rpvnTsCxMUEI1XRjHVwayRdz5XwhvAMUzIHXCc01Q-IZqN52vL7djwFzNr52VlkCe-vSzmvQXF_FRJTdrRlMe04k3iL7h48V2HnG8htAlZtczG6JcAJzU6sFeL31Ds/s1600/181341_10150878381646105_1034183817_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFuCnAvLvWkiZS2rpvnTsCxMUEI1XRjHVwayRdz5XwhvAMUzIHXCc01Q-IZqN52vL7djwFzNr52VlkCe-vSzmvQXF_FRJTdrRlMe04k3iL7h48V2HnG8htAlZtczG6JcAJzU6sFeL31Ds/s320/181341_10150878381646105_1034183817_n.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg8DK-whKxuqsQfoeYZ8kgb72-T-BqGuSRgFfmQS-O1tZDxK_Uhz_I-PeIttN8gng1UrFSlyAyPZWmU9OqtgMhXphyphenhyphenMzAfaBHJM-F7UAddQsSVvTgwWQXV8Z27J3r72I4qH7XhFCj2Wbg/s1600/532395_10150878381186105_1755134901_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg8DK-whKxuqsQfoeYZ8kgb72-T-BqGuSRgFfmQS-O1tZDxK_Uhz_I-PeIttN8gng1UrFSlyAyPZWmU9OqtgMhXphyphenhyphenMzAfaBHJM-F7UAddQsSVvTgwWQXV8Z27J3r72I4qH7XhFCj2Wbg/s320/532395_10150878381186105_1755134901_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirOXnGxdge42-JgjtYDS0q51o1gI4v2wNKXB0mGzvQPdGqKgIRzync-wjAW44A6bnMlo0Gvjdq73naEjBvomAc4PP8RXpt9hQ6_PoWCZa2AXcPIvDutEv4FPXCmGkH8W5PkZRLSRUQCXg/s1600/555768_10150878381761105_503849191_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIR9Ky46uPTb7ooLtT_E77XJOebHCHlL5Ykf-7pGk97ZpfRloyjNdKuKCa_X8zI3CnK2wQAnLxbk1OLbQa9TLQa_lONgTp68jPIAI-fHYyVkzzQHaAK25m3CQKs4YoNozZX-YAst5sQ2I/s1600/555768_10150878381761105_503849191_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIR9Ky46uPTb7ooLtT_E77XJOebHCHlL5Ykf-7pGk97ZpfRloyjNdKuKCa_X8zI3CnK2wQAnLxbk1OLbQa9TLQa_lONgTp68jPIAI-fHYyVkzzQHaAK25m3CQKs4YoNozZX-YAst5sQ2I/s320/555768_10150878381761105_503849191_n.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
<br />
Thanks to photographer James Tresise <br />
<br />Richard Pettiferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00916298496154973547noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442298038561104730.post-64384226785133199392012-06-10T02:24:00.000+10:002012-06-10T02:34:22.280+10:00Mike Daisey Analysis by Andrew FuhrmannI like Andrew's work. Along with <a href="http://guerrillasemiotics.com/">Jana</a> and <a href="http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com.au/">Alison</a>, they are the ones I
read. They are educated (partly by institutions but mostly, I think,
off their own steam), intuitive, they are developing as they write each
crit, they provoke your work and move it in different directions, they
are interested in writing first and theatre second, measured (but
sometimes delightfully biased), and most importantly I think,
independent and even democratic (probably as much as a writer could be).<br />
<br />
Recently all of
Neandellus' reviews were taken off the website, probably by him (including his
dissection of my No-Show, which I have <a href="http://noshowlamama.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/andrew-fuhrmanns-revew-part-1-no-show.html">preserved in violation of his copyright</a>). By and large, they can no longer be read.<br />
<br />
<br />
Andrew interviewed me prior to the first performance of The Agony
and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs, and his article, which was published
today over at Artshub, is <a href="http://www.artshub.com.au/au/news-article/opinions/arts/true-lies-and-fake-drama-189791">here</a>.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Neandellus was original and creative reviewing, not
the standard "this is how your show matches with what audiences expect",
but an exploration using what theatre is built on, namely: dialogue.
The conversation that surrounds theatre exponentially increases
theatre's capacity to affect people. The art world is leaps ahead of us
here, often the work that's made is deliberately targeted at creating a
certain dialogue, and criticism responds.<br />
<br />
Theatre artists often attempt to control the dialogue, to manipulate it to their will. In
short, they turn criticism into a P.R execise. Or a company does it for them.<br />
<br />
Because Neandellus was ambiguous,
it opened up possibilities as to how it might be read, as well as
opening up possibilities for how the theatre texts themselves might be
read. Not only did Neandellus explode your work, it literally cuts off
its own authority as well, leaving the reader with only threads for their own contemplation.<br />
<br />
The fact that Andrew's blog was not championed by those in the
theatre world - to my understanding gathering precious little more than a cult following, certainly not support from any institutions - says much, I think, about our fear of work
that destabilises notions of Art or, in this case, criticism, and how
creations that should attract the spotlight are pushed to the
margins.<br />
<br />
Should artists criticise critics, or praise them? I couldn't give a shit about that question. But I care about good criticism. <br />
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<i>Postscript: Neandellus seems to have had a slight resurrection the other day - what appears to be an R.I.P post can be read in all its WTF mind-bending glory <a href="http://neandellus.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/essay-on-criticism/">here</a>. </i><br />
<br />
----<br />
<a href="http://www.artshub.com.au/">ArtsHub Australia</a><br />
<div id="newsArticle">
<h1 class="articleTitle">
True lies and fake drama</h1>
<div class="author">
By <b><a href="http://www.artshub.com.au/au/news-article/opinions/arts/true-lies-and-fake-drama-189791#contrib">Andrew Fuhrmann</a></b> <b>artsHub</b>
| Friday, June 08, 2012
</div>
<div id="tools_container">
<div id="tools_menu">
<a class="iconAnchor" href="http://www.artshub.com.au/au/news-article/opinions/arts/true-lies-and-fake-drama-189791#" title="Print this page"> </a></div>
</div>
<div id="newsImage">
<img src="http://www.artshub.com.au/au/displayContentImage.asp?contentId=189791&size=m" />
<span id="imageCaption"> </span></div>
<div id="newsImage">
<i><span id="imageCaption">Mike Daisey in The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs. </span></i></div>
<div id="newsImage">
<span id="imageCaption"> </span>
</div>
<div id="itemContent">
“What matter who’s speaking, someone said, what matter who’s speaking.”<br />
Text for Nothing, Samuel Beckett)<br />
<br />
Last Sunday, at La Mama’s Farrady Street Theatre, it was Richard
Pettifer who was doing the speaking. He described, in the first-person
singular, a journey to the industrial city of Shenzhen, China, where he
observed firsthand the working conditions at the sprawling Foxconn
factories where Apple’s range of iProducts are manufactured. He’ll be
doing it again, speaking, that is, <a href="http://lamama.com.au/now-showing/other-events/the-agony-and-the-ecstasy-of-steve-jobs/">this coming Sunday</a>, and Sundays through to June 24.<br />
Except that Richard has never been to Shenzhen. The closest he’s
ever been is a layover in Hong Kong, where he ate overpriced dumplings
at a restaurant in Mong Kok. The story he’s telling is not his own. It
is, of course, the controversial <i>The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs</i>, written by the American monologist Mike Daisey.<br />
<br />
Chances are if you have an internet connection and even the
vaguest interest in theatre, you’ve already heard about the Mike Daisey
scandal, about his dramatic denunciation by Ira Glass on <i>This American Life</i>. If you did manage to miss it, I suggest you point your browser to the Guardian’s <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2012/mar/23/noises-off-mike-daisey" target="_blank">theatre</a> blog or <a href="http://www.superfluitiesredux.com/2012/03/17/suspension-of-belief/" target="_blank">Superfluities Redux</a> for concise summaries, or Scott Walters at the Huffington Post, parts <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-walters/mike-daisey-this-american-life_b_1399707.html" target="_blank">one</a> and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-walters/mike-daisey-foxconn_b_1424629.html" target="_blank">two</a>, for something more in depth.<br />
<br />
That should cover the basics, but for those who are really keen –
and have the time – you can now go all the way back and read Daisey’s <a href="http://mikedaisey.com/Mike_Daisey_TATESJ_transcript.pdf" target="_blank">original script</a>, then maybe check out the <a href="https://rapidshare.com/files/2843471479/This_American_Life_454__Mr._Daisey_and_the_Apple_Factory__file_retrieved_2012-03-18.mp3" target="_blank">original episode</a> of Ira Glass’s <i>This American Life</i>, then the <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/460/retraction">retraction episode</a> where Daisey’s “fabrications” were exposed, then read Daisey’s <a href="http://mikedaisey.blogspot.de/2012/03/statement-on-tal.html" target="_blank">several</a> <a href="http://mikedaisey.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/some-thoughts-after-storm.html" target="_blank">reactions</a> to the ensuing controversy, then <a href="http://soundcloud.com/mike-daisey/georgetown-talk" target="_blank">listen</a> to him discuss it as part of a panel, then browse the <a href="http://mikedaisey.blogspot.com.au/" target="_blank">myriad</a>
links to comment across the web that have been posted on his own blog,
and, finally, to get a sense of just how crazy things have become, read
this two-page(!) exposé in the <i>Washington Post</i>(!) <a href="http://wapo.st/ISNQ0W" target="_blank">on the “exaggerations”</a> of the otherwise innocuous American humourist David Sedaris, who, like Daisey, is a contributor to <i>This American Life</i>.<br />
<br />
Daisey released the script into the public domain <i>before</i>
the proverbial hit the fan, encouraging artists from around the world to
give their own creative interpretation to his adventures. Now, in the
light of <i>le debacle du Daisey</i> and the broken heart of Ira Glass, theatre makers such as Pettifer are offering a <a href="http://www.insidecostarica.com/dailynews/2012/may/20/costarica12052005.htm" target="_blank">variety</a> <a href="http://t.co/0c6tOXH3" target="_blank">of</a> <a href="http://www.toronto.com/article/726153the-agony-and-the-ecstasy-of-steve-jobs-staged-in-toronto" target="_blank">interpretations</a> that attempt in some way to confront the thorny problem of Daisey’s moral culpability.<br />
Daisey has since “cleaned up” the script to address the
accusations, but Pettifer makes it clear that his interest lies
primarily in Daisey’s reputation post-retraction.<br />
<br />
“I’ll use the old version, complete with the lies,” says Pettifer.
“It’s Mike’s prerogative to rework his own script but in my opinion the
lies are important, and it sort of acts as a historical document
post-scandal.”<br />
For his performance, Pettifer wears a black sweatshirt with the
word LIAR printed in bold, white letters across the chest. Over this he
wears an open Hawaiian shirt. The shirt is classic Daisey, but in case
you still don’t get it, Pettifer also stuffs a pillow under the
sweatshirt. Daisey is what you might call a husky man.<br />
Without doubt, Daisey lied to Ira Glass and his producer while they were preparing an excerpt of <i>The Agony and Ecstasy</i>
for broadcast. He deliberately got in the way of their attempts to
fact-check the details. Whether you think it’s useful to extend the
meaning of “lie” to cover the elaborations and inventions in the
monologue itself depends very much on the particular barrow you’re
pushing. Daisey himself has equivocated on this point, at first
hesitating to describe anything in his monologue as a lie, then
declaring, rhetorically, that everything anyone ever says is a lie.<br />
<br />
In Australia, there hasn’t been much barrow pushing. Except for
some murmurs on the blogs and one confused pro-Apple missive in the <i>Sydney Morning Herald</i>
from an American-style think-tank, the debate over whether Daisey’s
offences are venial or capital, a debate still raging fiercely in the
US, has not aroused much local interest. In some ways this is surprising
given that Daisey toured his show to the Sydney Opera House last year,
and that Apple has achieved a stronger market share for its iPhones in
Australia than almost anywhere in the world.<br />
<br />
But the lack of interest is also kind of understandable. It feels
right that Pettifer should be performing this monologue in the character
of an American, complete with serviceable East Coast vowels, rather
than trying to transplant it, because the bitterness of the controversy
over Daisey’s behaviour really only makes complete sense in the American
context.<br />
<br />
Americans, generally, have a profounder respect for the processes
of public debate than we do here in Oz. America is a country with an
impressive, almost classical tradition of political oratory; it's a
place where powerful arguments artfully framed have been credited with
changing the world. It is this tradition, I hazard, and the consequent
respect it implies for the power of words, which explains the perpetual
American contest over civic propriety – a peculiarly American ethical
notion, as Henry James understood. In short, Americans are perhaps the
most sensitive people in the world when it comes to mixing fiction into
news.<br />
<br />
This is not the place for a full anatomical, but, in brief, we
might say that Plato’s war against the poets is still being keenly
fought right across America. It’s a battle that cuts diagonally across
the more visible fault line between conservatives and liberals, though
in many ways it is a deeper and more consequential divide. The poet here
is anyone who uses what Mike Daisey calls the “context of theatre” to
leverage the feelings or beliefs of others into action. Colin Powell’s
WMD speech, for instance, is a particularly despised example of
“poetry”, and a key reason why liars like Daisey are denounced so
ferociously.<br />
<br />
To get a feel for just how sensitive the American polity is post
the WMDs-that-weren’t calamity, and just how intolerant certain parties
are of any falsehood that might slip into the civic domain, glance over <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/17/mike-daisey-this-american-life" target="_blank">this</a> indignant rant by American broadcaster Bob Garfield in <i>The Guardian</i>,
in which he lumps Sedaris, Daisey and the architects of the Iraq
invasion all in together. As he says, apparently exasperated, “Mike
Daisey may be no Dick Cheney, but how do I know?”<br />
<br />
But enough about America. This is Australia, where the government
never felt it essential to convince us of the need for war. Elections
here take care of themselves. Same with iPhones and consumer
responsibility. Takes care of itself, right? Words are less feared. Art
is less feared. Art, as Pettifer will <a href="http://agonyecstasymelbourne.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/if-no-one-knows-you-you-dont-exist.html" target="_blank">readily tell you</a>, is generally ignored.<br />
<br />
From interviewing Pettifer – who, perhaps against his own
expectations, makes an excellent fist of this performance, fluently
rehearsing the more than ninety minutes of monologue into an
entertaining provocation – I think it’s clear that he at least is
motivated by something like the passion that fuels the American debate;
but it is hard to translate that passion. For me, his performance was
more reflective, and conveyed a sense of just how distant we are from
the intensity of feeling evident in the US.<br />
<br />
Occasionally our local tabloids will gin up a brief bit of fury
over how much public money is “wasted” on the arts, or whether it’s
right for art to “exploit” a real-life tragedy, but such controversies
are mere filler, so predictable that they all seem scripted by the same
model Hackbot 3000. In fact, there are only two ways that an artist – or
let’s say “poet” in the broadest possible sense – can inspire
Daisey-esque levels of pique in Australia. One is by working with
children. Sooner or later, someone is going to cry “abuse”. Indeed, this
is the only issue where the Australian public appears genuinely
intimidated by artists: their mysterious ability to "steal" childhood.
Unfortunately, that fear never leads to actual debate, something cannily
picked up on by Robert Reid in his latest play, <i>On the Production of Monsters</i>, on now at the MTC.<br />
<br />
The other way is by subverting our expectations of authenticity, and this is where it seems to me that Pettifer’s performance <i>in</i> character, <i>as</i> Daisey, is particularly interesting.<br />
<br />
Every modern culture worships the first-person narrative, and
Australia is no exception. Why? Well, once upon a time, so it is said,
cultural artefacts had an “aura” to them, a captivating sense of
authenticity that stemmed from their absolute uniqueness across time and
space. That age has passed; cultural objects are now transient,
replicated, retailed and inferior. But we still yearn for that age, the
age when our stuff was authentic stuff and when our art had authority.<br />
<br />
Fortunately, in the case of art, after much casting about, we have
discovered in the narrative mode of autobiography a new kind of sacred
aura. Why it should be so is anyone’s guess, but it does seem about
right that as a society which values the individualised, bespoke
experience above all things – millions of pale Heideggerarians all
striving to make their selves as authentic and original as possible – we
should kneel before the tyrannical power of the subjective in art.<br />
<br />
So it is the “I” – whether explicit or encoded – that we exalt as
the truth and beauty of a work, and to offer the public a falsified “I”
is to invite the rage of Dorothy, who upon discovering that the Wizard
was no wizard declared, “You’re a very bad man.”<br />
<br />
In Australia – where civic propriety is only ever of marginal
interest – there is nothing more important to an artwork’s success than
this aura of autobiographical authenticity. Take <i>The Seed</i>, for
instance, by Kate Mulvany. There can be few if any Australian plays
written in the last ten years that have been revisited as often as <i>The Seed</i>,
and certainly none of Mulvany’s other nine plays. It is a fascinating
and powerful piece of theatre, but what is the source of this
fascination and power? Certainly not its writing or dramatic
arrangement, which, though promising, are not fantastic, something
consistently pointed out in the reviews. No, without doubt the
audience’s fascination with the work comes from its confident fusion of
fiction and autobiography.<br />
<br />
As Anne-Louise Sarks, who directed the most recent MTC performance, <a href="http://www.au.timeout.com/melbourne/theatre/events/1793/the-seed" target="_blank">says</a>,
“I think it just changes an audience's perception of a work when they
know it's real. They can't just sit back and say, ‘It's only theatre.’
This is someone's story.”<br />
<br />
We crave that kick of the “real”, the hit of authenticity, the
sacred thing that makes us care. Even where the real is revealed as a
fake, we go on digging for it. Thus our obsession with the mythology of
literary hoaxes (on display most recently with Rick Viede’s <i>A Hoax</i>, <a href="http://www.griffintheatre.com.au/whats-on/a-hoax/" target="_blank">just closed at La Boite</a>,
but opening again in July at Griffin). In our passion to establish the
motivations and circumstances behind a hoax, we seek to recover
something of that lost sense of authenticity. By dissecting the life of
Helen Darville, for example, we hope to find some deeper truth about the
ghost-figure of Helen Demidenko.<br />
<br />
Given this, it is interesting for us to ask why Daisey should have
been so determined to frame his story as a personal recollection. Yes,
he wanted people to care about where their electronic products come
from, but why first-person singular? Why does matter whether the
playwright’s higher truth is framed as authentic testimony or not?<br />
<br />
In the words of another local playwright, Declan Greene, <a href="http://www.au.timeout.com/melbourne/theatre/features/321/declan-greene-on-moth" target="_blank">discussing</a>
the interviews he conducted with high-school kids in order to nail down
the authentic patois of his teenage characters, “authenticity is an
entry point”. It encourages the audience to engage. But it can also
become a fetish, something that overwhelms the project, something which,
as in the broadcast version of <i>The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs</i>, becomes essential to the synthesis of the argument and the moral.<br />
<br />
Seated behind his desk, <i>a la</i> Mike Daisey, the word LIAR
stands out brightly on the chest of Pettifer, not just against the black
of the sweatshirt, but against the black walls of the La Mama theatre.
It’s a simple gesture, and it sounds crass, but it is surprisingly
impressive. Somehow it doesn’t get in the way of our enjoyment of the
story. The lies that theatre makers tell aren’t supposed to. The word
just kind of hovers there in our peripheral vision, small and white, but
always there. Some would say that a subtler version of this sweatshirt
is what Daisey needed all along, a reminder to his audience that they
were in a theatre, a place where lies are inevitably told. Pettifer is
the first to say that this is a modest project, and he doesn’t offer any
answers, but it is a performance that helps frame one of the great
problems for artists working in this country: how much real do you
really need?<br />
<br />
---end article--- </div>
</div>Richard Pettiferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00916298496154973547noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442298038561104730.post-47481832753335654782012-06-05T20:17:00.002+10:002012-06-10T02:50:01.388+10:00Why do you hate on the Media so bad, Richard?Some more rigourous self-examination leads me to again consider the question of: why did I want to stage Mike's work?<br />
<br />
Some revelation came in the family car when a rendition of "Pumped Up Kicks" slopped out from the radio and arrested me from my exit across the road to Benalla's fantastic second hand bookstore, which I visit every time I come home.<br />
<br />
I love this song because it is the ultimate in ironies, a song from the perspective of a schoolyard killer that has somehow become a hipster anthem, now active in selling XXXX's new Summer Ale.<br />
<br />
As I swim through the emo-painy ecstatic half-melody, entering the blissful state of moral and ethical collapse it demands, I think about how shit get appropriated so much nowadays. How those few bastions of resistence (against what? why?) are swallowed up by commercial interest, how those who champion something are so seldom rewarded unless their championing serves some "safe" cause, how those things which sit awkwardly or are only championed by a handful of people as far as I can see, and the world's survival seems dependant on those few individuals continuing their struggle, continuing to sacrifice the mobility, possibility, pleasures for the sake of a humanity they surely have become too cynical to believe in any longer. All of this is blindingly obvious, I knew its politic when I was 8 years old. We all know it.<br />
<br />
But doesn't it seem unfair to you? That a handful of people, these "renegade" figures, should shoulder the burden for the rest of us, that they should be bastions of truth and justice while the rest of us simply comply with whatever it is we are told, or jump on a skeptical bandwagon when it presents itself? <br />
<br />
It's a staged binary - but doesn't it sound familiar? A hero narrative - resonant, but so obviously flawed. It describes perfectly our existence. It is fed by the media, it is fed by individuals following its line, it is fed by this fame-drug we seem to all be on nowadays. As if surrogates can fulfill all of our fraught desires, and we can appreciate them from an armchair.<br />
<br />
And it begs the question, if its resonance is any indication of its truth: <i>Shouldn't the rest of us take some fucking responsibility as well</i>?<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Out here, in Benalla, the media literally create the global context. There are no people from outside coming through, and everything happens far away. Information comes via the local Video Ezy or one of the daily papers, or if its about the weather - the locals.<br />
<br />
The people here are completely reliant on media for their political information, which makes them ripe targets for manipulation. Sure enough, you can't walk far without being hit in the face with a big multi-national chain, giant monstosities creating an absurd connection to foreign without any actual information. Ad after ad pummels the screens with stock occer tradesman figurines and problematic gender stereotypes. But you can't NOT watch, what the fuck else is there to do? Apart from the wonderful placebo that is footy.<br />
<br />
And if the media get it wrong... if The Age or the Herald Sun engage in some selective reporting (as if they don't constantly) or heaven forbid, an <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmiB1t7KD48">Ad tries to commercially exploit a cultural or gender based stereotype</a>, (only to be <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8hmv_ut8r0">mimiced by kids</a>), or Carrie Bickmore naturally laughs off a scripted suggestion that if she attached her keys to her bra she would jingle jangle as she walked around, well, the aftershocks are catastrophic, and its results are felt at dinner tables everywhere.<br />
<br />
The reality for people in rural Australia is that the most information they get is from their environment, and their environment never really changes (except slowly, almost unnoticably). They feel left out of conversations which happen in the city because they have no handle on where to begin. And when you're out here, it's not hard to see why. Given the amount of manipulation which goes on, the amount of fabrication, the bullshit, it leaves one with almost nothing true, except the landscape. How easy it would be to retreat to that sanctuary, that true bush.<br />
<br />
But no. We live in a global world, as Barnaby Joyce said on Q+A last night. This global world affects people everywhere, as Mike points out in his monologue. But their reliance on the media is a killer, because the media have long since abandoned them.Richard Pettiferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00916298496154973547noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442298038561104730.post-34800995548587075512012-05-29T19:41:00.001+10:002012-06-08T10:42:25.539+10:00Elly Varrenti's ReviewToday the action I am making received its first piece of formal criticism.<br />
<br />
I have been reading The Age since I was a kid and it used to come every day to our breakfast table. So how strange to see my name in it, in the place where others have been thousands of times. Here is the review and then I talk about it after.<br />
<br />
<h4 class="cN-headingPage articleHeading prepend-5 span-11 last">
<i>The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs
</i></h4>
<div class="push-0 span-11 last">
<div class="cT-storyDetails cfix">
<h5>
<i>
Elly Varrenti</i></h5>
<i><cite>May 29, 2012</cite></i>
</div>
<div class="articleBody">
<i><b>La Mama, June 3,10,17 & 24</b></i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>(3 stars)</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>AMERICAN
writer-performer Mike Daisey - a kind of Mike Moore meets Spalding Gray
- created a furore recently when it was discovered he'd taken poetic
licence in his investigative expose of substandard working conditions
at the factory in China where 50 per cent of the world's electronics
are manufactured - in particular, a large chunk of Apple products.
Sprung bad, Daisey delivered a retraction on American Public Radio's </i><i>This American Life: presenter Ira Glass calling Daisey to account for his major ethical stuff-up made for seriously compelling radio.</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>Agony & Ecstasy is not really about the
''techno libertarian hippie'' and Apple founder Steve Jobs, but rather a
first-person monologue-cum-call-to-arms charting Daisey's obsession
with Apple technology: ''I am a worshipper at the cult of Mac''. Daisey
goes on a pilgrimage to Shenzhen, where he witnesses Apple's underbelly
and interviews traumatised Foxconn factory workers (some made up, it
turns out).</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>Melburnian Richard Pettifer delivers Daisey's
intermittently fascinating monologue with a tokenistic nod to the recent
scandal: we hear an excerpt from the now-famous on-air retraction and
Pettifer sports a T-shirt emblazoned with LIAR. He does a decent enough
job imparting the text, although reliance on notes interrupts the flow
and overall, the presentation could have done with a bit more sculpting.
Pettifer's take on Daisey's story, given its controversy, is
underdeveloped. As theatre, it lacks coherence, but if you're not
familiar with Daisey's brand of theatre-as-weapon, it's well worth a
look.</i></div>
</div>
<br />
Read more: <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/theatre/the-agony-and-ecstasy-of-steve-jobs-20120528-1zf3w.html#ixzz1wFEwPbAg" style="color: #003399;">http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/theatre/the-agony-and-ecstasy-of-steve-jobs-20120528-1zf3w.html#ixzz1wFEwPbAg</a><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
I was disappointed about some things in Elly's review. Initially they were the usual feelings artists have when their work is criticised. The reviewer did not understand my intention. They misrepresented me. They did not research properly. They have been careless in the words they have chosen.<br />
<br />
Art is fragile, often it involves people in a vulnerable state, and this is why passions can run high when you get reviewed. Likewise, criticism is often a lonely and painful art. You only have to look at Cameron Woodhead standing alone by himself outside of a foyer to understand how isolating it can be. But actually my concern reading Elly's review is that the criticism she has created doesn't try to say great things. I would really like to be spurring criticism that tries to say great things. I consider criticism as separate to my work, in some ways it's nothing to do with me at all. But on this occasion I take the chance to respond, with the motive of an improved conversation. I do not see this (and hope this is not seen) as arrogance or interfering with the critic's work - I see it as being accountable.<br />
<br />
To me, the review frames everything I attempt within the rules of entertainment and treats its success or failure as either confirming or denying this idea. For example, the use of the LIAR t-shirt and the excerpts of the Retraction are tokensitic only in terms of their stage-time - they lift this version of the monologue from the pre-scandal context, and they also create a crucial distance. Likewise, the idea that the presentation could have done with more sculpting belies its ambition to present the monologue to the community a.s.a.p as an artifact for consideration, one which draws its relevance from the context and timeliness. It could equally be argued that, if anything, the performance has <i>too much</i> sculpting, as has been suggested to me: the neutrality of the performance - it's "blankness" - could be integral to its providing a canvas for conversation. However I made a decision that it more honest (and, I admit, less boring) to try and replicate as best I could Mike's performance style. This brassy American style is part of the text, and necessary information for evaluating it. Therefore the fact that it is controversial has no link with its lack of development, or possibly points to the lack of development being a positive. Making a 'bad copy' as I have specified as an objective previously, is one way of allowing the audience to consider it from a distance (as is running a blog). Within this new framework, the idea that as theatre it lacks coherence is also untrue - it can't help but be coherent within the logic that I have set up for it. The only way it could be incoherent is if I modified any of the monologue to achieve fluidity or deliver the text in a more digestible fashion, with an idea to create something more entertaining. If I had used an actor, for example. That would have been false, and so as a theatrical arguement, incoherent.<br />
<br />
Rather than treat this crisis as performance failure, I prefer to see it as generating opportunities for 'other' thought. As I think wearing a big LIAR t-shirt suggests, it is the conversation the work raises which interests me - not its theatrical power to affect (except in as much as this is part of that conversation). All of the arguments the review makes Against this work are actually arguments For - I did refer to my notes, but that's because I am not an actor and I am simply a bloke who felt moved to go on stage. (Besides, Mike uses notes!! In fact, he uses exactly the same A4 yellow paper). This work is not about sitting back, relaxing and being entertained. In fact, if anyone is going to review my work simply within this frame it is always going to fail them - particularly so here. If the work is attended with this expectation, it will disappoint. <br />
<br />
With this in mind, it is possible that I have presented this work too much as an attempt at entertainment. It does not fail hard enough. It is not "shit" enough. I think this is too simple an explanation, but it does give me something else to ponder and I will take into my next performance on Sunday.<br />
<br />
And of course, perhaps above all that I have said here, thanks to Elly for taking the time to attend and give attention to this work.Richard Pettiferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00916298496154973547noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442298038561104730.post-86531674913523070342012-05-27T19:55:00.000+10:002012-05-28T00:22:30.904+10:00Technology Infiltrated the TheatreToday someone tried to enter the theatre late, during the performance.<br />
<br />
I realised later during a conversation with Andrew and Andrea that I should have just let them in to come and sit down. Why didn't I do it? I thought to myself. I realised that the idea had not even entered my head. Which was weird. I mean, they are human beings. They are trying to see theatre (unless they were just coming for rehearsals or something). I love people who try and see theatre. I mean, they have left the house, gone out into the cold, they have tried and failed to make it to the theatre on time. They wanted to engage with an age-old tradition of a small group of people under lights trying to say something of importace to a larger group of people in darkness. More people should try and see theatre. And I especially love anyone who tried to come to some action which I have made, because I feel honoured.<br />
<br />
And then I realised something else.<br />
<br />
My laptop was on.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>There are two times when my laptop is on. One is at the start of the show, and one is at the end of the show. It plays part of the Retraction episode of This American Life, which I put in to give context to Mike's monolgue so people wouldn't just accept it at face value. I can't play the whole thing because it's too long and people are there to see theatre, not listen to the radio.<br />
<br />
The rest of the time, things are completely at my control. I can stop the show, I can change direction, I can do something completely different. But for these two moments, <b>I am a servant to the technology</b>. People have to hear the sound eminating from the speakers, it's "part of the show". So for these two moments we all must serve this little screen in the corner, spewing sound.<br />
<br />
The fact is that these people arrived at only one of two moments when I do not have the power to stop the show. Normally, their humanist action, coming to see a show, would have been returned with my own humanist action, inviting them into the theatre. But not at these moments. The machine prevented it.<br />
<br />
This bothers me. I am sorry to you, people who tried to enter, if indeed you were trying to see the show I have made. Or, I guess, also if you thought the space was free for rehearsal.<br />
<br />
But it also says something louder about the way technology infiltrates moments even when we are trying to erase it. This has something of a relationship with Mike's text, and so I am writing this post.Richard Pettiferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00916298496154973547noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442298038561104730.post-84615361743641373212012-05-24T02:18:00.000+10:002012-05-25T07:28:28.576+10:00The Un-ReviewableI have (again) tried to make something critic-proof. <br />
<br />
I have had a hunch for a while that Un-Reviewable theatre was probably good theatre.<br />
<br />
It sometimes feels like critics rock up to something, they watch it, it appeals to certain terms of reference and doesn't to others, then they go home and write about it, and they often feel a bit shit about themselves because they have to say it sucked, mostly because it didn't break new ground. Or if it happens to have the resources and/or the nouse to successfully sit on the cutting edge of contemporary theatre, they can review it positively because it sits in the space where "progress" lies. And then they're like "<i>thank god</i>".<br />
<br />
It should be no surprise that within this admittedly bullshit binary a good idea to look for a third option, as the first is not good for anyone and the second only really works if you're the latest wunderkind, or trying to be.<br />
<br />
Therefore to try to create Un-Reviewable theatre is both to try to protect oneself from that shit feeling when you get a bad review, and also to operate outside of convention.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>The <a href="http://noshowlamama.blogspot.com.au/">No-Show</a> which I did last year was like this because I honestly did not care at the time what critics, or to a degree audiences, thought, beyond a certain humanism that didn't want the experience to be painful for anyone. This was because No-Show was a real event and I was living it at the time. So it's defense against criticism was that it wasn't really theatre, it was just reality. How do you criticise reality? You can't. You can only criticise falsity. To criticise reality is kind of like criticising a bee. It's just buzzing away. It doesn't even know you're there. Criticising it makes you look stupid. <b>Critic</b>: Why did you fall over on stage, Richard? It looked stupid. <b>Richard</b>: Because I tripped on a cord. <b>Critic:</b> Oh. Ok. Um, sorry.<br />
<br />
I think there are probably two types of un-reviewable theatre. One exists outside of any critical framework. The reviewer throws up the hands because "it was a mess" or "no-one could understand it". The other refutes critical ideas. It is this other one that I am interested in (because it is obviously better, and because good critics are very, very valuable and very worth listening to).<br />
<br />
In post-world, we have seen everything, supposedly. This means we have a critical framework for everything. But of course we don't, and we haven't. Before there was post-modernism and timespace "shat itself" (Jameson) there was this idea that each moment that passes is one that has never been lived before. I.e it is not only possible to make new stuff, it's <i>all </i>new stuff. We are on a journey through time and space and that journey is most defintely linear - begins with birth, ends with death, and there's crap in the middle.<br />
<br />
In this case, I do not care what you think of my performance. I am not an actor (see entry "<a href="http://agonyecstasymelbourne.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/anti-acting.html">Anti-Acting</a>"). I do not pursue it, I do not practice it, I am "bad" at it. Because of this, I have a certain freedom on stage. The pressure that actors usually feel, about their careers, or about their ticket sales, I don't feel. Performing for me is kind of like farting in public - there are times when I have to do it, so I just do it, and I kind of hope no-one notices, and I kind of hope they do so I can feel proud/ashamed of it, and because then I will definitely exist.<br />
<br />
I have set myself the <i>horrible</i> but <i>totally acheivable</i> task of remembering this monologue, which is 90 minutes long and I have learnt over the course of 4 weeks, and that is really the only task that I have. If I succeed at this, I have succeeded.<br />
<br />
And so here's my challenge to you, critics - defy me. Find a way to hurt me. <i>Go on</i>. It's not <i>my</i> text, so if you criticise the text you are criticising Mike Daisey. I ain't no performer, so any criticism you make of my performance I can brush away by pointing that out. There is not really any props, I suppose you can criticise the water bottle I have with me or the yellow writing pad or the desk... but that's just how Mike sets his desk up. There is no stagecraft, apart from the couple of radio clips I've put on it at the beginning and the end, which you can criticise for being too long or too short... and I'm wearing an eco-friendly T-shirt that says "LIAR", but criticising all that's going to feel a tad heavy-handed given that the material is neccessary to give context to the monologue.<br />
<br />
In fact, the only way you can criticise this happening negatively is to say that the whole thing was a waste of time, and to do that you have to engage with its ideas, you have to read up on Mike and the Chinese labourers, and the entire scandal, you have to work out what I intended by staging it, and by the time you've done all that you have engaged fully and completely with what the happening, <b>which is exactly what all this is designed to acheive</b>.<br />
<br />
And then, in order to declare it a waste of time, you have to compare whatever time you've wasted to <i>my</i> time, which has been nights staying up until 5am posting on blogs in America, countless discussions with people in theatre foyers and on the street, days upon days of script-learning and commiting to memory, and wasting the time of work collegues, housemates, family, Sonja, anyone around me who has an ear as they have to listen to it... the time of Felix Ching Ching Ho who was incredibly busy but nevertheless manufactured time like they manufacture the iPhone, time I spent and asked for because I'm pretty sure all this is important.<br />
<br />
So yeah. Chookas.Richard Pettiferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00916298496154973547noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442298038561104730.post-27170052820262926392012-05-19T14:51:00.000+10:002012-05-25T17:55:27.383+10:00If no one knows you, you don't existPeople are ignoring this blog.<br />
<br />
I know. I have a hit counter there which tells me so. If people are ignoring the blog, they are probably ignoring the show. It doesn't seem to have gained a significant traction with La Mama, and I don't think Pippa or Becc or anyone else really know what it's about. (explanatory edit: Most people I have spoken to are unaware of the scandal or have only a scant consciousness of Mike's monologue, apart from a few select people who happen to listen to TAL or follow Mike Daisey's work) .Possibly it will sink without a trace.<br />
<br />
So, I must live with that. Someone takes action - they of course have to live with the consequences that they may be ignored. My work may be for nothing. It's not a new thought. I'm also not the first person to have had this thought, and it is not limited to the field of the arts.<br />
<br />
In some ways, it's easier to have this thought when other people are there with you, and you can share it. If this was a two hander, at least someone would be there to talk to about it.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Being ignored brings into perspective the battle for significance faced by an artist.Often in the theatre, we do not experience this, because usually we are working with other people. <br />
No doubt Mike experienced this same feeling. "People have to hear this story. They have to listen. I'm going to keep working until they listen..." it's this kind of self-belief which carried him through, which made hims significant.<br />
<br />
And likewise, he is also ignoring me.<br />
<br />
Is all this work for nothing? <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="bodycontainer">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr height="14px">
<td width="143"><img alt="Gmail" height="59" src="http://mail.google.com/mail/help/images/logo1.gif" width="143" />
</td>
<td align="right"><span style="color: #777777;"><b>
Richard pettifer
<rpettifer@gmail.com>
</b></span></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<hr />
<div class="maincontent">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><b>Re: melbourne performance</b><br />
<span style="color: #777777;">2 messages</span></td><td><span style="color: #777777;"> </span>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<hr />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="message">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Richard pettifer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rpettifer@gmail.com" target="_blank">rpettifer@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px #ccc solid; margin: 0 0 0 .8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hey
Mike and Jean-Michele, I'm gonna do your mon. not sure what theatre or
when yet but it'll be fucking soon I reckon. Will keep you posted ok
cheers Richard, Melbourne Australia</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 8:54 PM<br />
<b>Richard pettifer
</b>
<rpettifer@gmail.com>
</td>
<td align="right"><br /></td></tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"><span class="recipient">
</span><br />
<div>
<span class="recipient">To:
agonyecstasy@mikedaisey.com
</span></div>
<span class="recipient">
</span>
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"><table border="0" cellpadding="12" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Hi Mike and Jean-Michele,<br />
<br />
I have confirmed a
theatre for one-man performance of your play 'The Agony and Ecstasy of
Steve Jobs', it will be at La Mama theatre Melbourne for a season of 6
performances over 6 weeks, beginning 20th May. It'll be on Sunday arvos
at 2pm, sort of a Sunday forum feel. It's only a 40 seat theatre.<br />
<br />
I'm not a performer, I'm a director. I think I will be honest and
create a bad copy of your performance persona, and generally the
performance will be not of high acting quality, because I have only ever
studied acting from the outside. I will however undertake a close
examination of your performance style and the text. I will take your
performance and the text apart, analyse it, and put it back together for
re-performance, (sort of like one of your American soldiers would take
his gun apart and clean it before putting it back together ;)) The
result will be a performance that employs Brechtian ideas to encourage
the audience to reach their own conclusions and to investigate for
themselves their own truth. Therefore I want to salvage your show as an
example of an authentic individual investigation and of interest is the
subsequent massacre by media interests, which include Ira, who champion
an idea of truth which has at its heart a disempowerment of the
powerless individual.<br />
<br />
I will be assisted by Felix Ching-Ching Ho who is from China, and
will serve as my director and operator and she will also refill my water
at some point during the performance.<br />
<br />
I want to do the
performance in a t-shirt with LIAR written on it and in a Hawiian shirt
with a pillow stuffed down my front - do you think this is ok? I know
it's satirical, but I think your actions must be put under the
microscope, and you have been branded a liar by many, there is no
escaping this. Although you must know I am sympathetic or I wouldn't
act. I have commented in various internet locations under "Richard" or
my alias 4coffins, especially on the blogs of George Hunka and Alison
Croggon. My opinion evolved over the course of events subsequent to the
This American Life retraction.<br />
<br />
Hopefully you are very well and still responding okay after the last
few weeks. Congratulations on your decision to release the text, it is
brave but will eventually reward everyone.<br />
<br />
Kind regards, Richard Pettifer, Melbourne<br />
<br />
<br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<hr />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="message">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><b>
Richard pettifer
</b>
<rpettifer@gmail.com>
</td>
<td align="right">Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:38 PM
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"><span class="recipient">
</span><br />
<div>
<span class="recipient">To:
agonyecstasy@mikedaisey.com
</span></div>
<span class="recipient">
</span>
</td></tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"><table border="0" cellpadding="12" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Hi Mike and Jean-Michele,<br />
<br />
Feels a little like I'm
screaming into a void at the moment... I know you're probably very busy
but if could spare me a line it would make me feel better about doing
this entire thing. I'm only 10 days out from first performance now.<br />
<br />
I'm writing to you because I have encountered an ethical problem,
which is what to do with the money earned. I don't believe in giving my
work away for free but I also don't believe in pocketing profit from a
show like this. I was thinking about making a donation to Foxconn, but
acting like a kind of World Bank, so that I would donate the money only
if they were contractually obliged to use it to improve the rights of
workers. The subsequent legal and contractual headache would be an
interesting piece of satire. My girlfiend Sonja was really angry about
the idea, she doesn't think I should be lining the pockets of such an
evil company. And anyway they haven't replied.<br />
<br />
That idea came from the thought that it would be good to donate the
money to an organisation in China which helps the rights of Chinese
workers, but I don't know if such an organisation exists legally.<br />
<br />
I thought you might have some ideas about where to donate the money to.<br />
<br />
Also, the La Mama website is up <a href="http://lamama.com.au/now-showing/other-events/the-agony-and-the-ecstasy-of-steve-jobs/" target="_blank">http://lamama.com.au/now-<wbr></wbr>showing/other-events/the-<wbr></wbr>agony-and-the-ecstasy-of-<wbr></wbr>steve-jobs/</a> and I'm keeping a blog at <a href="http://agonyecstasymelbourne.blogspot.com.au/" target="_blank">http://agonyecstasymelbourne.<wbr></wbr>blogspot.com.au/</a><br />
<br />
This is Sonja's artwork for the show.<br />
<br />
<img alt="Inline image 1" src="http://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=e9f9f1b10e&view=att&th=137349d04418230f&attid=0.1&disp=emb&realattid=ii_137349c08baed7b6&zw&atsh=1" /><br />
<br />
Cheers, Richard<br />
<div style="padding: 5 0;">
<span style="color: #888888; font-size: xx-small;">[Quoted text hidden]</span></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
</div>Richard Pettiferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00916298496154973547noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442298038561104730.post-31111958598742501152012-05-16T14:10:00.001+10:002012-06-06T04:14:17.512+10:00PrecariousnessI wonder if this project is pointless.<br />
<br />
It doesn't feel artistic to be just replicating Mike's performance. People don't seem to be very interested in what I'm doing. And also La Mama changed venues on my yesterday because a children's theatre doesn't feel like they can perform on a set which will be very difficult to perform on. So we changed venues.<br />
<br />
Of course, I am ok with this, and La Mama has given me too much for me to go around whining about it. But art is sometimes so fragile that something very simple can undermine an artist unintentionally.<br />
<br />
It opened up another couple of wounds which have been festering... like why the hell haven't I heard from Mike?? Can I really put the show on without hearing from him? Is it ok to charge for the show? is $15 too much? <b>What should I do with the money???</b> WHO THE HELL DO I THINK I AM PERFORMING WHEN I AM NOT AN ACTOR???? I can't remember lines!!!! I'm rehearsing at the moment... staring into the darkness... paralysied with fear about the moment when I will be truly lost, where I won't know where I am or where I'm going....<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>All of this amounts to me feeling like I just don't believe enough in what I'm doing anymore.Why is this conversation important anyway? Let people go on living their lives, why is there a need to interfere? What do people care about truth and art and journalism? People care about their standards of living, they care about holidays, they care about getting pizza cheaply, they care about protecting their shit. They don't care about some quasi blow up that happened in America. They don't give a shit where there Iphones comes from, as long as they keep coming.<br />
<br />
Anyway, by the way, for those of you coming on Sunday, the performance will now be in the Courthouse, which is at 349 Drummond Street.Richard Pettiferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00916298496154973547noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442298038561104730.post-27520711913894738162012-05-13T10:30:00.002+10:002012-05-24T02:26:49.692+10:00Martyrdom, or the challenge of trusting the untrustableThe word "martyr" in its original Greek form, means "witness". We think about a martyr more like participant. The stereotypical image today is one of bombs and carnage.<br />
<br />
There is not much available which Ira has said about the interview. However, there's an interesting interview <a href="http://www.wbez.org/blogs/alison-cuddy/2012-04/ira-glass-mike-daisey-and-retraction-episode-american-life-98345">here</a> where Ira is asked whether he has conducted a shaming. To which Ira replies "I haven't listened to the show since we did it". The journalist is following a particular line here. But it's a worthy question I think.<br />
<br />
Was it a shaming? If so, why?<br />
<br />
And also why hasn't Ira listened to the interview? That seems weird. And it seems like he probably feels a bit jumpy about it.<br />
<br />
We could say the This American Life thingo as a shaming in which Mike is placed on the mantle of sacrifice in order to correct a cultural schism that Daisey has created. If we are to listen properly to Mike, we must review completely our consumption of products and the systems in which they are made. Isn't this an anarchist proposition? If you were to look hard enough at this in your own life, you would have to throw out most possessions.<br />
<br />
This makes him a ripe target.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
I think whenever Ira and Schmitz ask Daisey a question, the politics behind it is always about reinforcing status quo and denying activism.<br />
<br />
That's why I believe Daisey more now than I did before, and perhaps why I'm doing this show. It's a challenge to believe him now, knowing that his speech comes from a place of art and activism and not journalism. It's a challenge to throw out your emperical knowledge and to just believe.<br />
<br />
From the actions of Mike, especially the way in which he handles the Retraction interview, I believe Mike in a way that sort of circumvents empericism, and becomes pure belief.<br />
<br />
Sort of like a religion.Richard Pettiferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00916298496154973547noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442298038561104730.post-43656519616083077582012-05-10T12:05:00.001+10:002012-05-24T02:27:04.307+10:00Engaging AmericaAmerica is an actual country.<br />
<br />
This came as a surprise to me a couple of years ago when I relised it. Over time, we become so saturated with America that it is not so much a country as the entire world.<br />
<br />
The specific moment came when I was on a tram a couple of years ago with my then-girlfriend and going past the MCG. For some reason I was pretending to be American (various comments like "Is that the Cricket Ground?" "I hear it's one of the biggest in the world"). A lady overheard us talking and chimed in with some facts about the MCG. Then she started asking about our home...<br />
"So, you're from America?"<br />
"Yes", I replied.<br />
"Which part?"<br />
Sweating, I replied "New York"<br />
Then came her next question: "New York City?"<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
At the time, my brain went into meltdown mode: What do you mean, New York City? Why would you ask that question? I'm from New York, for fuck's sake. There's only one New York.<br />
<br />
Confused, I spluttered out a curt "ya". It was only later that I realised that New York is a state, which is why you hear Americans say they are from "New York City".<br />
<br />
What interested me about this is that after so many years of being saturated by America, I actually had not idea that New York was in a state.<br />
<br />
The lady got off the tram, a couple of question marks lingering in her head.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
One of the things about Mike is that he is a fat American, and therefore almost a cliche. The sensational nature of his delivery, which probably seems normal to him, jutts out completely for me. How could you make a piece of theatre so sensational, about something so precious?<br />
<br />
But as usual, it's the little things which stick out. Like, what the <i>hell</i> is Kinko's?<br />
<br />
<br />Richard Pettiferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00916298496154973547noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442298038561104730.post-11386650778182711042012-05-08T12:59:00.001+10:002012-05-28T00:25:08.345+10:00Some good Daisey linksI have been working on a timeline of my experience of the Agony/Ecstasy affair, but it's taking too long so for those interested it would be good to have something up which is a bit shorter and more succinct.<br />
<br />
1) <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/460/retraction">Retraction</a>. The retraction episode of <b>This American Life</b>, where they, in highly dramatic fashion, massacre Mike Daisey.<br />
<br />
2) <a href="https://rapidshare.com/files/2843471479/This_American_Life_454__Mr._Daisey_and_the_Apple_Factory__file_retrieved_2012-03-18.mp3">https://rapidshare.com/files/2843471479/This_American_Life_454__Mr._Daisey_and_the_Apple_Factory__file_retrieved_2012-03-18.mp3</a> *. Extract from the performance by Mike Daisey. Focuses on Mike's visit to the Foxconn factory in Shenszen, where the Ipad and Iphone are made. This is surprisingly not available any more. **Note: interestingly, this material is no longer legally available for free. I am sharing a copy I have obtained legally, (it was initially available for free download) and this, for me, falls under the category of "fair dealing" under Australian Copyright Law because "I, myself am making the criticism or review" i.e that this material falls under the collection of material which I am reviewing as part of my performance. If you would like to sue me for this, instead go and "flush your head in the dunny". The author of this work is Mike Daisey <a href="http://www.mikedaisey.com/">www.mikedaisey.com</a>, and This American Life <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/">www.thisamericanlife.org</a>, whose latest piece of journalism is <i>'In Dog We Trust' - </i><i>Stories of dogs and cats and other animals that live in our
homes. Exactly how much are they caught up in everyday family dynamics?
We answer this question and others.'</i><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>I'm glad they upheld their moral journalistic crusade so that they could answer the big questions. Woof!<br />
<i> </i><br />
3) <b>George Hunka</b> gives the best analysis of the thing at <a href="http://www.superfluitiesredux.com/2012/03/17/suspension-of-belief/">http://www.superfluitiesredux.com/2012/03/17/suspension-of-belief/</a> (I post under an alias <i>4 Coffins</i>)<br />
<br />
4) Further information and links round-up are available <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2012/mar/23/noises-off-mike-daisey">www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2012/mar/23/noises-off-mike-daisey</a><br />
<br />
5) <b>Alli Houseworth</b>, one of the former publicists of the Wooly Mammoth theatre, Washington D.C, which was the theatre that initially supported the development of the work, gives a wounded outburst at <a href="http://www.artsjournal.com/newbeans/2012/03/this-is-a-work-of-non-fiction.html">www.artsjournal.com/newbeans/2012/03/this-is-a-work-of-non-fiction.html</a>, just one of many people who felt betrayed. (I post on this blog as <i>Richard</i>)<br />
<br />
6) <b>Scott Walters</b> posts a good defence (which is subsequently massacred) of Mike on the Huffington Post. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-walters/mike-daisey-this-american-life_b_1399707.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-walters/mike-daisey-this-american-life_b_1399707.html</a> <br />
(part 1) and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-walters/mike-daisey-foxconn_b_1424629.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-walters/mike-daisey-foxconn_b_1424629.html</a> (part 2) (I post under <i>Richard</i>)Richard Pettiferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00916298496154973547noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442298038561104730.post-72472787903840986732012-05-06T02:50:00.001+10:002012-05-24T02:27:32.347+10:00ImageMy close close associate Sonja Hornung has come up with this image to try to imagine the work to you:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZANNWzqmbUgw5eNT-8a2BIJdpv_tlTxuO6_teiBEMR4BkWhY-ByayMogsFnnCl2Q0eeV6xdf251AbVlfiVtnZoXXLXBJp-WDLAA508v-69UCtANrvwMv4AciclIfJB9PtkumQVN4OiOo/s1600/Agonyecstasy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZANNWzqmbUgw5eNT-8a2BIJdpv_tlTxuO6_teiBEMR4BkWhY-ByayMogsFnnCl2Q0eeV6xdf251AbVlfiVtnZoXXLXBJp-WDLAA508v-69UCtANrvwMv4AciclIfJB9PtkumQVN4OiOo/s400/Agonyecstasy.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
If you're interested in Sonja's work, her Future Library Project is entering "prototype phase" at time of print and will be installed at Flinders Street Station, Melbourne from 8-29th June <a href="http://www.futurelibraryservice.com/">www.futurelibraryservice.com/</a>Richard Pettiferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00916298496154973547noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442298038561104730.post-24472095877135327082012-05-02T14:28:00.000+10:002012-05-24T02:27:42.749+10:00"Truth"Truth doesn't interest me anymore.<br />
<br />
Which itself is interesting. Because I acknowledge that truth is very important, very powerful. I just know how flimsy it is, and how easy to manipulate. For example, everything that I do could be discredited by pulling the above statement out of context and putting it in an article.<br />
<br />
From my years studying the media, I have noticed, by myself and at the provokation of certain theorists, that the media are mostly full of shit. Mostly, they hold onto this idea of "truth", and nothing else. When you do this, you are able to both proclaim your honesty and authenticity, and manipulate reality however you want. Create the headline first - then write the article.<br />
<br />
I will create an example.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
Let's say there's rumours circulating about some sort of scandal. It's blurry. It's heresay. But let's say the rumour is someone has been sleeping with a prostitute. Let's say its a high-up minister.<br />
<br />
Now, the journalist hearing this is faced with a certain dilemma. He/she can report the details, or not. There's no real justification for reporting the details, the matter hasn't even, for example, made it to the courts yet, and prostitution is itself not illegal (in my home state of Victoria, anyway). But obviously, people frown upon it, so it will have a political effect.<br />
<br />
There are two ways the journalist can look at this:<br />
<br />
1) The facts of the case, being a legal, private act, do not justify them being published. Therefore, I'll wait until more details emerge before I publish anything, if at all, or I will investigate the matter and see if there is any breach of his public duty.<br />
<br />
2) I will publish the rumours. Obviously, they will create a sensation and sell more papers. My work now is to find a reason to do so.<br />
<br />
Method two is becoming increasingly popular, as the publication sells more advertising. It's a kind of working backwards: you settle on the desired result, and then you work back towards finding reasons for doing it. In other words, it's "ends first, means are secondary". Readers have created this mentality by buying media which is sensational. Or for theatre, seeing shows that participate only in entertainment, or not considering the means of production and its consequences.<br />
<br />
Now, here's a quote from a famous recent American strategist, and key George Bush advisor, Karl Rove, who is speaking to a journalist:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The aide (<i>Rove</i>) said that guys like me (<i>the Journo</i>) were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."</blockquote>
<br />
This denotes an action and speed as being the key to power, and discussion as powerless and futile.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img height="240" id="il_fi" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNoVIwDxS3HeYgooJ9wb3sGzn3-le76Vq3dasVJ4JVZ6AjOWMYGUHqybTStFzQYYA0C-cMAIrqQhL8ttoxCsgtKVa5aiE6_yjk2Gp5r48pkC2VZZqRwOqM5umjHG7_G-AG3DhZ7arW4nw/s320/Karl+Rove.jpg" style="padding-bottom: 8px; padding-right: 8px; padding-top: 8px;" width="320" /></div>
"Accountability" is the opposite to this. It denotes the individual as being responsible for his/her own actions, and re-states moral and ethical codes. It suggests that our existence has consequences, and that our mission is to pursue understanding of those consequences, and act accordingly.<br />
<br />
Put in these terms... which surely few are following in the age of Guns, Ganja, and Gaga - so much of our action now is unjustifiable that it's almost overwhelming.<br />
<br />
Bringing this back to Mike, my key question, which I cannot properly answer, is whether or not his actions were justifiable, whether they were "accountable".<br />
<br />
My thoughts on this at the moment, as I go deeper and deeper into his script, into his philosophy, is that this problem, the problem of accountability, is so significant in our current context, and likewise the forces that hide it are so powerful, that any attempt to address it is a noteworthy act of resistence.<br />
<br />
He made mistakes, but I believe his work is largely accountable to the people it talks about, and the issues.<br />
<br />
What do you think?Richard Pettiferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00916298496154973547noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442298038561104730.post-70430358036115853372012-04-29T17:35:00.000+10:002012-05-24T02:27:56.358+10:00Program note maybeThis is something I wrote last week. It could be a program note.<br />
<br />
--- <br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
I am lying to you.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I know that my performance is a bit shit. I’m not a trained
actor like Colin Friels. I don’t like acting, I find it embarrassing. But I
love theatre. I think that’s because other people hate it, because it’s so
UnAustralian, like a dark anti-beach. Sometimes things happen in the world
which I take personal, and then I go kind of nuts, filled with rapture or
whatevs. Then it’s time to go on stage.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I encountered Mike’s story after it was published on a blog
called Superflueties Redux which is written by a blogger called George Hunka, I
think he lives in Vienna but not sure. He talked about the ‘scandal’ that had
unfolded with Mike’s confession on This American Life and the retraction which
the program had to make, some of which is V/O at the start of the show today. I
became interested about this. It seemed that this Mike Daisey guy, this fat
American storyteller, had lied for some reason about the working conditions in
China, which seems like a weird subject to lie about.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When I listened to the retraction episode, a bomb goes off.
I understood exactly what Mike had done and why, and I understood exactly what
the media were doing and why, I knew COMPLETELY what was going on, which
doesn’t often happen to me in my world (often I don’t understand very much at
all. Like, how come we mine coal even though the ice caps are melting and 90% scientists
agree we’re fucked? How come I can’t seem to get any directing gigs even
thought I am the best director? Why is it that I’m rewarded when I behave selfishly?
And etc.) And when I say that, I mean that I have completely no idea about what
was going on, and if you ask me to explain it in words I will not be able to
tell you, I just KNEW, I just KNOW.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I knew in the same way when I caught my otherwise professional
year 10 teacher tell herself off by muttering her own name in the classroom, I
knew in the same way I knew when I laid a huge tackle on the footy field and
some kid I think he was called George screamed at me and called me a psycho, I
knew in the same way as when I showed my Dad the motorized scooter I had
secretly bought in an underground car park.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My point is that occasionally emotional, sexual and
political understandings collide into some form of clear sublime for an
individual, and that when this happens it’s important to take advantage of it
because in that instant there’s a small window where you will be able to create
art and hopefully transmit this by accident, and it will be good to watch. And
although there is a world of stuff caught up in this play I perform today, the
most important thing is probably that it’s personal, and that I approach it
hard with all of my might. (Both an excuse for its amateurism and a preparation
for it to take you by surprise).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So what’s the truth? Dunno. But please figure it out for
yourself. Do your own research, and please help me do mine. If you expect me to
explain things to you I’m sorry but I can’t. I’m not an authority, I’m a
witness. But maybe we can work together? Anyway that should be the media’s
role, so if you have a problem, talk to them. Please talk to them . They are a
joke.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If I have to speculate… this is about <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Accountability</b>, a blanket term which takes in Greece bailouts,
Freddie and Fannie/Enron, Climate Change, Tiger Woods, The Stolen Generation +
Other Stories, and I suppose generally the fact that shit is happening
elsewhere that you are causing but take no responsibility for, precisely
because it’s invisible and blah blah blah you’re either tuned out or shaking
your fists by now. Mike went to Shenszen in an attempt to become accountable
for his Apple obsession. He wrote the Steve Jobs stuff to try and make the guy
accountable for the monstrous company he’d created. He did the TV interviews to
be accountable to the people who he saw working in the factories in China. Ira
Glass perpetuated it for the same reasons, then retracted it to be accountable
for This American Life’s journalistic standards, and in the process painted
Mike as un-accountable. The media, with regard to which I am a total hater now,
‘re-tweeted’ it to point out that at least THEY were providing accountable
journalism, and so that they had a scapegoat to hide the fact that mostly they
just provide Journo-tainment or re-tweeting.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And why am I performing it? Because, folks, we aren’t
accountable. As a director, albeit one who now consistently and repeatedly
directs no work, I am rarely accountable to audiences, except when my show
failed last year and I went onto the stage. We are complicit, and we are not
accountable. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let’s talk, and act, about that.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
:)/:(</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Richard</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Artaud – “There is no cruelty without consciousness, without
the application of consciousness, for the latter gives practicing any act in
life a blood red tinge, its cruel overtones, since it is understood that being
alive always means the death of someone else” (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The theatre and its double</i>, “First Letter” p. 80)</div>Richard Pettiferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00916298496154973547noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442298038561104730.post-11912854388366522432012-04-25T03:11:00.001+10:002012-05-24T02:28:07.454+10:00Anti-ActingIn my current sphere, acting in an artform that is treated with dual suspicion and fondness by the "public", this grouping created by the theatre artist's removal of his/herself from others, for whom both feelings happen at the same time. So when you tell someone you are acting, the conversation generally follows a certain line, the assuption being that you are acting to be more famous. They start at Heath Ledger, and work downwards. "Are you in TV? Oh, the stage. Musicals? Oh, theatre. Which theatre? Oh, a small one. And what are you doing? Oh, it's a play. How interesting. I'd come, but..."<br />
<br />
You can break this conversation, and I do, by telling people that you don't like acting. Which I don't. I find the scrutiny excruciating. It's not a journey I'm interested in. And from hanging out with actors, and seeing some of them act, I know that I'm also not good at it.<br />
<br />
When you tell people you don't want to act, it raises a conundrum, due to the fact that embedded into the assumption that you are acting to become more famous is the desire to act. There's no such thing as a RESPONSIBILITY to act. Theatre; art; is optional. If you don't want to do it, just... don't do it. Go to the beach.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
Likewise dismissed, my premise for this characterisation, that I will create a "bad copy" of Mike Daisey, that I will study his performances closely and try to replicate it, undoubtably failing, as a child does when it tries to imitate the father. Why choose this approach, if it is so doomed? The answer is in the difficult question of honesty.
The question for the artists is always "What is the way I can be most honest?". The answer is not always clear. Often it begins with an admission that you do not know, and then proceeding to lie until the truth is accidentally found. Lie properly, lie well, and hope that the truth happens by accident.<br />
<br />
And so I will go on stage becoming Mike Daisey, and there will be no method acting. There will be just me, wearing a t-shirt that says LIAR, with a pillow stuffed up it, and a Hawiian shirt.
It is all a lie, but it will have to be transparent enough to put some distance between an audience and Mike's seductive words.Richard Pettiferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00916298496154973547noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442298038561104730.post-24981625196738435462012-04-12T23:46:00.002+10:002012-05-24T02:28:15.576+10:00The UndertakingIt has been many nights awake until sunrise following the unfolding of the Mike Daisy saga, not knowing why, not knowing at all why. <br />
<br />
Pulled by some mysterious force etc. <br />
<br />
Some elusive idea is tugging at my subconscious etc. <br />
<br />
It's like I'm drawn to it etc.<br />
<br />
The artists journey. Mike felt it and it pulled him to Shenzhen. Unlike everyone else - he chose the extraordinary path. Not to say that he was extraordinary or superior! He just chose the path.<br />
<br />
Not to say I am extraordinary or superior, either. But I am going to perform Mike Daisey's molologue, The Agony and the Ecstacy of Steve Jobs, for which he has recently been exposed to an absolute media shitstorm, at La Mama Theatre, for six weeks of Sundays, beginning on the 20th of May, which is in 6 weeks time.<br />
<br />
I hope that people will be encouraged to take the extraordinary path.<br />
<br />
I will begin and end with an analysis of the material at hand.<br />
<br />Richard Pettiferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00916298496154973547noreply@blogger.com0