Planet Houston!

A Critique of Critiques: A Short Primer

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:24:00 -0400

While working on something else, I ran across these "official" critiques of a script I submitted to a contest a few years ago:

"This appeared to be a different take on "Ghostbusters", but it really did not work. The story goes all over the place, so there's no direction and we aren't engaged as there is no reason to care about characters or situations."

"Have you thought about changing the main characters to kids and making this into some type of cartoon for Nick or some kids network? I think the kids would seem cool doing the same thing that adults are boring at and because they're kids, the actions would seem more believable. Right now, the story is flat with no place to go and the reader ends up disinterested."

To be fair, this was a script I threw together on the fly, and while I liked it, I never really beat it into super fine shape or anything. I did some editing, gave it some space, then decided that I liked it well enough to leave it alone.

Now, I can't say whether the criticisms are valid or not. I'm sure they came from two different people, to be sure. But somehow, it's always thrown me that the two different approaches to this were so... different. One person is all, "This didn't work. No one cares." As far as I'm concerned, that's a pretty heavy handed critique. It's just one slam short of being a Simon Cowell dismissal. And hey, I would almost expect as much from some random screener in some contest that probably got hundreds (if not thousands) of submissions.

But on the other side of the coin, the other reviewer thinks it might be cool if kids did it? Really? It doesn't make sense or kick if adults do it, but a bunch of kids might make it more compelling? I actually spent time pondering a rewrite for a day or so before it occurred to me that the kid suggestion was ludicrous and I should just let it go. I can't fathom a world where a child doing something is more entertaining than an adult. The only example I can think of is when people deliberately misplace kids into adult roles, and that's a one-trick pony of a joke that gets tired quick.

Lesson being, it's okay if people don't love your work. But you can't let them get too into your head along the way. Take some criticism. Apply it if you can. But if you can't, then don't lose any sleep over it. I hardly doubt that my submission was Academy Award winning work, but at the same I certainly didn't get a lot of enlightenment from the people that chose to give feedback on it. This is probably why I don't bother with paying extra for feedback when I submit to contests and the like. Sometimes, it's just not worth it.

My Letter to Possibly Nobody

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Sat, 5 Oct 2013 07:55:00 -0400

Because talk is cheap and people always say that they will but often don't, I decided to actually attempt to contact my local legislative representative to express my opinion. This took a great deal of time and personal introspection, as I wanted to express my opinion without sounding overly rude or disrespectful. After all, it makes no sense to share your thoughts if they end getting dismissed as insane ramblings.

That said, here is the finished draft of the e-mail I shuffled of to Rep. Jack Kingston. I share this not to toot my own horn, but because after almost a week of trying to find the right words to express how I feel about this situation, I think I found quite a few of them here:

Dear Mr. Kingston,

I am writing with regard to the current shutdown that is taking place in our federal government. I am not sure exactly why I am writing this, except that I do sincerely feel that you have the right - no the duty - to hear my opinion on current matters.

I have been a citizen of Savannah, Georgia and thus this Congressional district for practically all 37 years of my entire life. I have lived with many things, and seen many legislators come and go. Rarely have I thought to express myself directly to them (or to whomever chooses to monitor things in their proxy), but I feel that this is an important issue, and that it is time.

While I understand the position(s) of you and your party with regard to the Affordable Care Act, I cannot support the actions you are currently taking. As part of the legislative process, I would expect you to respect the process which put the law into place enough to use the systems provided in a positive way. Using a procedural loophole to hold thousands, possibly millions of people's jobs and well being hostage while you jockey for leverage against this law is, frankly, beneath any legislator, especially one as experienced as you.

If you genuinely cared about the many people that are currently without the jobs and/or financial support that they would have if not for your porturing, then you would pass a rider-free resolution to approve a budget for everyone. You ask why your opposition would refuse a piecemeal bill to help sick children. I ask why you feel a handful of sympathetic interests is more important than the good of everyone. The sick children and so many others will be helped when you start the government again, so why won't you consider them as well? Or does it even matter to you?

I have seen several of the posts and images produced by and for you on your Facebook page. And I know that many people will consider you a "hero" and a "patriot" for what you are attempting to do. But respectfully, sir, you are neither to me. I do not support this, and I do not support you. In this regard you are not representing my personal interest, the interest of so many of my friends and family members that have and will continue to be affected by this shutdown, and the common interest of the country in general.

I am embarrassed to have your name associated with representing the interests of my region on a national scale, and come next election cycle, I will do everything in my power to make sure that you do not continue to do so. If every voice counts, then consider my voice counted against you.

Good luck to you, sir. God bless you, sir. And God save us all from the cycle of ego and insanity that you currently find yourself surrounded in. I do not envy the task that you have before you, but I do expect better of you.

Sincerely.
Thomas Houston

I'm unclear whether anyone will actually see it, but I feel better for having tried. I strongly encourage anyone who has an opinion, one way or the other, to do the same. The people who represent us do deserve to know how we feel about them and what they do. And you'll feel a little better for having made the effort.

Surviving the Big 2-4: Writing in Short Order (with commentary)

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Fri, 13 Sep 2013 07:00:00 -0400

(Once upon a time -also known as last year - I wrote a series of articles outlining what I thought were interesting observations and tips for surviving a 24 hour play festival. In honor if the upcoming Late Summer Night's Play Festival, I've decided to revisit them by reposting them again here. Of course, I have some new thoughts and perspectives to add this year, which I will note with groovy purple text.)

So you want to write a play, do you? How long do you want to take? A year? Few months?

Oh. A day. You’re insane.

Oh, not a day. Half that time? You’re even more insane. But you are perfect material for a 24-hour play festival like Winter’s Tales. But before you get your laptop cracking and begin a steady infusion of caffeine, let me give you a few pointers to get you going.

Your real reward will be seeing your work take life at the end of the cycle. Your best chance for reaping that benefit is to make sure that you build the proper framework for the rest of the participants to work with.

Know Your Limitations – Time! Part 1

There are two time constraints to keep in mind. The first is a real time barrier of roughly eight hours. That’s how long you’ll have to plot, write, edit, and submit your script. But also keep in mind that that given time frame is overnight during the first day of the festival. So unless you’re a natural night owl (or you just have an out of whack metabolism), consider that you will have slightly less time than that as your body begins to slow down over the course of the morning.

What this means is that your best bet for success is to come up with all of your major ideas and plotting as early as possible. I’m not big on outlining, but if you need it, then go ahead and do it early. I’ll go a further step and suggest that you script several possible ideas/outlines in the first hour or so. Because if an idea goes south on you, you don’t want to be sitting around at 1AM in the morning with no idea of what to go to next.

(I don't know if I can stress enough to first time writers how important an early start is. If you get a good jump, you can be done in a few hours. If things go badly, you'll be sitting up the rest of the morning banging your head against the wall to finish. Having survived this process for several years, I feel comfortable saying that fatigue will definitely become a factor if you don't come prepared for it...)

Know Your Limitations – Time! Part 2

Your second time constraint is a writing barrier. The desired length for your written show is 10 minutes. That translates to about 10 pages of scripted text. I would strongly suggest that you use a piece of formatting software to write your script. That will help put the pieces into proper perspective, make them easier to read for others, and help give the proper spacing/format to actually pan out to ten minutes. There are several free options available if you ever want to make use of them (I’m somewhat fond of Celtx, myself).

(Not much more to say here. Except please try to format and write for under ten minutes. Seriously, as a performer, it is a nightmare when your "10-page" script ends up being a 15-minute marathon. If you are using lengthy or heavy exchanges, consider dropping your page count by a page or two to compensate. Just saying.)

Find Your Comfort Zone

Every writer will occasionally feel the need to challenge themselves creatively. I will suggest that you pick another time to do so. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that your piece cannot be thoughtful, inventive, or even abstract. But if that’s not your wheelhouse, this is probably the wrong time to indulge that whim.

I know the feeling well. I thought, foolishly so, that it would be a good idea to go with an abstract concept for my writing last summer. How did it go? How many times have I mentioned dumping my first concept, again…? (Okay, it occurs to me that I haven't said it in a while. The first time I tried writing for one of these, I had set in my head to create some sort of meta-physical, birth to death, transformative piece that ended up being too meta for its own good. It took way too long to try to write, and no one was going to get what I was shooting for, anyway. So I ended up ditching the idea around 1 AM an starting from scratch. I do not recommend this...)

Just keep in mind that with only hours to work and several other constraints to consider, choosing to right outside of the box is just giving yourself one more handicap. And speaking of other constraints…

Consider Your Directors – Setting the Stage

Naturally, your script should not detail things that will be difficult or impossible for someone to create in under a day. That doesn’t mean that you can’t use certain settings; it just means that you need to consider the environment.

Directors will have access to limited space and resources. Yes, this is their problem to sort out (which I will get into later…), but it can only help them when you don’t start digging them a larger hole to work out of.

It is a simple matter to set the stage without setting the stage, so to speak. You want a scene in a laundromat? That’s fine. But if you want the scene to include an actual washer or drier, you better check and make sure that there’s one available. Yes, there are cheats that can be used, but it’s simpler if you try to keep the workspace in mind. Which brings me to my next point…

(After the mini-chaos of the first few events, the constraints put on writers have been adjusted to make this considerationa lot easier to manage. In short, if the item(s) for your script aren't at the theater, then you can't use them. It's just simpler that way. And honestly, you shouldn't be weighing down directors and actors with these things to begin with...)

Consider Your Directors – Making the Moves

My favorite part of any script is the dialogue. It’s probably the thing that most clearly reflects itself in my head as I think up ideas. But even with that, I recognize that a script does need some stage directions. This is less a play-by-play of each and every action a character will make and is, again, a framework for the director and actors to work with.

When considering what actions to include and exclude, I tend to ask myself the question: “Is this action important to the scene or my vision?” If the answer is yes, then that action goes in with as much detail as necessary. If not, then I tend to leave it open. The trick is in balancing making a clear picture with tying a director’s hand with lofty descriptions.

(Add to this that your technical directions will also need to remain simplified. Plays will need to be be lights up, lights down with very little if any technical work in between. In fact, plan for having no major tech work in your show. Again, simpler is better.)

Consider Your Actors – Casting Call

If history is any indicator, there will be limited resources with regards to performers. Even if there is a wide berth of performers to choose from (and here’s hoping that pans out…), you still need to keep in mind that directors will be making the casting choices. So don’t go too crazy trying to pen a part that you feel would be suited for one particular person. That person may not be available, and on top of that it’s not your job to make a choice like that.

Now that isn’t to say that you should feel limited in your ability to create characters. People play above and below their age ranges, do accents, etc. all of the time. Feel free to create any characters you want in whatever standing you see fit. It will, however, smooth things over if you give your characters a little bit of leeway. Speaking of which…

Consider Your Actors

This one is kind of a no brainer, but it bears saying. Don’t go crazy when it comes to what characters say or do or how they interact. My main, major general rule of thumb (and a solid suggestion) is to steer clear of heavy romantic interactions. Hugs are pretty safe, but anything beyond that should be left up in the air (or just left out). Seriously, no one is signing up for this expecting a love scene, and those types of actions take weeks (or longer) for actors to develop a comfort level in. Try not to make the performers have to do anything that’s going to leave them with emotional scars.

To Make A Long Story Short (Too Late)…

I would never want anyone to feel limited in their ability to tell a story, paint a picture, or express themselves. But in this particular endeavor and in this environment, it is important that the writer realizes their role. You are making the blueprint for what everyone else is working with for the next half of the festival. And to a certain degree, how well you do that will eventually affect how hard or how easy that task will be.

(It can be tough to balance nursing an idea into a fully realized script, dealing with your limitations, and somehow fighting off late night fatigue. But the better a job of streamlining you do, the more likely it is that the end product will resemble what you envisioned it to be.)

(Next time, my (most likely much shorter) advice for directors. Yes, I’m going to tell you how to do that job that I never actually do. I’m like Dr. Spock that way…)

HouseTV: Under the Dome : Pre-Game

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Mon, 24 Jun 2013 12:27:00 -0400

Under the Dome. I have to admit that when I first heard about it, I assumed that it was some reality show that was a weird variant of Big Brother (as if Big Brother wasn't weird enough on its own... bleh).

Anywho, I eventually learned that the show was a pseudo-scifi drama. And I learned this because CBS has not shut up about it. Seriously, if you've watched Senor Eyeball for more than ten minutes over the last two months, you've heard about Under the Dome.

This worries me. In part because it just feels like they are trying too hard. Honestly, they've shown so many different little scenes and things. I'm a fan of bells and whistles, but it really irks me when they're used to pimp a show that likely won't have a lot of bells and whistles.

This is not a new thing. The networks have a bad history with promoting scifi. Granted, their options have been limited, as they have shown some really middling to subpar scifi. The last big show was NBC's Revolution (which I guess someone is watching... maybe...), and that show has plots you can drive a Mack truck through (as opposed to into... again, thank you CBS, for spoiling that visual effect). Before that was NBC's The Event, which had its faults as well, but seemed a little more forgivable. I will at least give NBC a nod for not using excessive spoilers at all in promoting either show, which built the mystery of the premise. But I digress.

Under the Dome has peppered us with a pitch that promises everything: mystery, crime, sex, death... maybe all at the same time. We don't know. But should we care? By trying to appeal to all facets at once, they have created a mishmash that really appeals to none. Or at least not to me. Don't get me wrong. I'm checking it out for perhaps the saddest reason of all: there just isn't an abundance of scifi offerings on network television.

So I'm willing to give it a shot. And honestly, for better or worse, I'll probably ride the train all the way to the bitter end. But a bad showing will just be another opportunity to claim that science fiction has no proper place on a major network. Which isn't true. It just needs to be good science fiction.

Living La Vida Loca...

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Tue, 14 May 2013 11:46:00 -0400

Happy Tuesday.

An Odd Sort of Thing

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 04:30:00 -0500

An odd sort of thing happened to me last month. I wasn't going to mention it, but I felt like maybe it was something important to explain.

I was grabbing my keys to go out just like normal. I've done it hundreds of times without incident, but on this particular occasion, something out of sorts happened. My key chain fell off of my key ring.

Now, I'm sure that it has happened before. Several times, in fact. It only makes sense that every now and then, the metal would come a little bit loose and it would fall off of the chain. And each time, I'm pretty sure that I've just put it back on and gone about my business. But for some reason, this particular time, I put it off. I think at the time, I was on my way out the door and didn't really feel like being bothered with putting it back. Also, I told myself it was concern about breaking the metal by trying to bend it for the umpteenth time. And that did pop into my head. But then I had another thought, a different thought.

See, this particular loosening of said key chain occurred right during the first part of December, which just happens to be right around the time that my father passed away. And this particular key chain just happens to be one of the last things of his that I've held onto.

I can't properly explain how it happened. I was in his house sometime after he died. A week, a few weeks... I honestly don't remember. And there were probably a dozen things I could have taken or claimed (I honestly ponder why I left a few things unmoved, but whatever... I was a loss-stricken teenager, after all). But I remember this: a single, simple key chain. It was sitting on a back shelf or the corner of a table or somewhere.

I want to tell you that I put a lot of thought into it. That I had some strange epiphany about finding something to hang onto. And in truth, maybe I did. Maybe I did make some conscious decision to grab it because it represented something. It was a gift from his job. A symbol of a major accomplishment made by the organization that he had worked at for so many years. A silly little ornament, to be sure, but it seemed cool enough at the time. And, at the end of the day, it served a practical purpose: I did need a key chain.

So of all of the things that I could have claimed or taken possession of, I took a simple little key chain and pocketed it.

I don't think that it ever occurred to me that it would have any real significance beyond that until I had to change key rings. I remember at the time wondering if I should keep using it. Time had not been kind to it, and even though it was still solid, it had gotten cracked and worn over the years. I think maybe I always assumed that it would eventually fall apart. The base would crack, the metal inside would drop out, and that would be the end of it. Still, it wasn't particularly damaged, and I realized that I had put a certain sentimentality into keeping it.

And on thinking about it, I do remember the first time that it fell loose from my key ring. Because I had a similar thought about the metal possibly breaking if I put it back on and tried to squeeze it tighter. I also had a thought about leaving it be then. But I went ahead and put it back on. No point in rocking the boat, I imagined. And again, I had grown a little attached to it.

So I'm not completely sure why this time was so different except for the one detail: the timing. I had honestly spent some time pondering my father's death this year, much in part to it having been exactly 20 years ago. It seems like forever now, even though I can still remember every single detail if I really focus.

And maybe that's part of the point. While the memory and the loss are still there, they feel far more distant now. Like the kind of small print you have to squint to see on a bottle of old familiar pills. It's there, and it's important, but it's not necessary to check on it every day. Just often enough to make sure that it's still there and still the same.

And I'm not one for symbolism or messages from beyond - not always - but I couldn't shake this feeling that it was more than a coincidence. I had gone most of the day without really noticing that it was gone (why would I? it would normally be in my pocket anyway). So clearly, I wasn't that attached to it. At least not anymore anyway.

So after taking a day or so to mull it over, I decided to leave it be. It sits now on the corner of my entertainment center. If I get so inclined, I may move it to someplace more relevant or less cluttery. The thought of tossing it out has never once occurred to me, but at the same time, I'm not quite sure that it's important enough to store away as a cherished memento. I've never really been one for that. Perhaps it's served it's purpose, a simple little key chain that has gone on to retirement but not quite to a better place. Wherever key chains go.

As for me, life goes on. I want to tell you that it was part of some life altering experience, but really... it was just a thing. An odd sort of thing that, through opportunity and timing, made me think about some things I hadn't thought about in a while. Not that that's terribly good or bad, or terrible at all, really. Just a thing that happened.

Also, I might be on the lookout for a new key chain soon. Just putting that out there.

Every Streak Must Die Sometime...

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:31:00 -0500

Guy and gals, I have an announcement. It is not a sad announcement, so don't be sad. But it is this: Nanowrimo is over for me this year. And while normally, that would be a "hooray" sort of moment, it is slightly less so this year. See, I've just decided to abandon the quest for now. Or at the very least to suspend it until another month.

Well, I still plan to write. I enjoy short stories and backgrounds and the like, and I was already trying to do more of that more often. But I have a lot of things going on in my life right now, and I just can't balance out the time I need to get it done. What's the point of reaching the goal if it is literally sapping my joy of writing from me?

And I do still love writing. I have some script stuff I want to work on. Several projects, actually, and things that I simply cannot wait to get up and moving. But I've had to basically suspend that effort for the month, because I can't work on those while trying to write novella.

And yeah, I just haven't been feeling it. I liked some of the stuff I was writing, but the effort to beef it up was just taking too much of a toll. It was more of an obligation than any kind of fun. And I need some fun in my life. Not "satisfaction of getting the job done" fun, but some "haha fun fun 'til my eyes bleed" fun. Well, some type of fun other than the first one.

But I will still be here. I will still write some this month and end with a final word count. I may even just set a smaller goal and shoot for it instead. And as always, I am more than willing to encourage others that are still working to wards the big goal. So don't think of it as going away forever. Think of it as Cal Ripken taking the night off. I'm still here. It's still groovy. And more than anything, I'm quite content with my decision.

Grow Up.

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Wed, 7 Nov 2012 12:25:00 -0500

Seriously. Grow up.

I said it a few days ago, and I stand by it. It's the only way that we will ever get anywhere as a country. Assuming, of course, that people actually want to go forward as a country.

We have all sat through the most derisive, divisive, and outright sickening campaign of modern history. Or maybe it was just the most transparent one. Who can really say?

But the reality is that no matter what party or ideal you support, as an American a person who opposes your ideals has been in office almost half of the time the country has been in existence, if not more. And you know what? The country didn't die.

Despite treating minorities and women as second class citizens for years, we're still here.

Despite dipping as close to financial ruin as perhaps is possible without actually breaking in half, we're still here.

Through all of the adversity and terror that would seek to tear us apart, we are still here.

And we will be here tomorrow. And the day after that. And the next day. And a year from now. And so on.

So no, the election... the re-election of one man for a four year period does not spell the end of modern civilization. God has not abandoned you, or at least not for that specific reason. The sun will continue to rise in the east and set in the west.

Now is not the time for the garbage that got us into this horrible place. Now, more than ever, we need to look at how to play nice and work together. Neither side overpowering the other is going to get us where we really need to be, and that was never what the Founding Fathers intended.

Despite signs that things will return to status quo, I still hold onto the fragment of a belief that we can find a way to make this thing work. The first step is to stop acting like immature children who didn't (or did) get the toy they wanted and to look ahead to how to make the country the best it can be.

Regardless of party or affiliation, we are all Americans. And it's time we sucked it up, took some responsibility, and made a hard choice or two. And if you're too busy feeling like the country is completely mismanaged to do it, then seriously... grow up.

To All Voters, Great and Small...

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Mon, 5 Nov 2012 19:09:00 -0500

All right. Time to lay it all down. Here are my various thoughts to various people concerning the impending D-Day of the election:

To Democrats (or those inclined to vote that way): You already know what you have to do. Your path should be obvious, but don't for one second be complacent. We already know that there are people out there willing and able to cause dissension in the voting effort. Sheer force of effort and numbers is the only thing that will offset that. Stand strong and finish the job you started.

To Republicans (or those inclined to vote that way): I... I understand that you are inclined to vote for the more conservative candidate. It's an ideological choice moreso than an endorsement of Gov. Romney. But... really? That's what you want? And is this how you want it? Regardless of how this election pans out, you as a party need to take a serious look at how you allow things to be run. Your platform is hardline and uncompromising, which effectively alienates any of the groups that you might eventually woo.

And your presidential campaign advisers have played every dirty card in the deck, and even bought a new deck. Four years ago, I made the observation that I could not abide by people willing to make use of these tactics. I still stand by that. The future survival of your party lies not in doubling down on the crap that's sort of worked in the past but in finding new ways to rebuild the many bridges you have burned the ground. Sadly, that's all that I can offer you.

To Third Party Candidates (and those inclined to vote for them): I get where you're coming from. I really do. And I feel like you have a real chance at building strength and becoming full on threats to occupy all offices and positions. But this isn't your time. Not for me. Maybe after the continuing implosion of the Republican Party, there will be more space for you to make a foothold. But for now, I feel my time and effort is better served supporting a candidate that deserves a chance to continue. Four years from now, though... who knows? Keep fighting for it.

To Everyone (voting or not, regardless of who you support): we need to grow up. I say we because this affects every single person in this country. Much like four years ago, we have faced some of the most divisive, underhanded, and downright deplorable tactics during this presidential election cycle. And while neither side is completely innocent, one side is more blatantly guilty than the other.

If you think there's a personal bias there, you're right. I am completely biased towards the truth, towards reason, and against playing towards people's base fears. That anyone in any party would try to do such a thing is disgusting, but there's a clear, simple reason why they continue to do it: on some level, it works.

Which brings us back to us. We, as a nation, as individuals and collectively as a people, have got to step up our diligence.

We have to stop hearing only the things that we want to hear; the things that make us feel better about ourselves. We have to stop acting like there are easy answers. Like there is someone out there that has some mysterious plan that is destined to work perfectly, and accept that there may be stumbles along the way.

We have to stop holding one person accountable for our status in life and look towards larger, fuller pictures. A president can help affect change, but he/she needs support. Not through some super majority that was an illusion to begin with, but through true, bipartisan efforts.

No one that has any vein of sense can say that the Republican party has done anything other than attempt to undermine the efforts of the President or Democrats these past four years. They said as much, in public and out loud, and a large group of people would celebrate the blind ignorance that sent the GOP against the public interest and against policies that they themselves endorsed before they opposed them. No one wins when we become so focused on winning that we're willing to destroy what we're intent on getting in order to do it.

But I'm not going to get into the heavy again. Again. No, I'm going to dial it back and say what I said four years ago. We are all people of fair reason and moderate conscience. Search your heart, focus your mind, and look through the lies to see the truth. Then vote with all of that in mind.

I can't tell you which way you should choose, but I can say that when it's all said and done, I believe that our President has done enough to warrant another four years in office. I also believe that his opponent has promised little aside from being "the other choice" and even then, the ideas that he does endorse are counter-productive to what would make this country thrive.

And like four years ago, I believe that Mr. Romney has had the worst possible supporting system and advisers during his campaign. I refuse to support anyone that uses them and their tactics, especially if might allow any of them access to some sort of office or Cabinet position.

So there it is. Way too rambley and probably ignored. But I felt like I needed to get it all off of my chest. Good luck, godspeed, and happy voting.

My Not So Subtle On Voting Issues

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Mon, 5 Nov 2012 13:49:00 -0500

If you want to be that "certain type of person" that manipulates facts or just outright lies to try and get your way during the campaign, then that's fine. Okay, it isn't fine, but it's on us as a people and an electorate to stay informed (self-informed, even) and expose lies. But when it is time to vote, your time is done. The whistle has blown. Your case is closed. Like the oh so many cooking shows on, it's hands-up and no more working.

When I say that everyone should vote, I mean it. I mean that even the ignorant, the ill informed, and dare I say it, those who simply disagree with me should be allowed to vote. It is their duty, but more importantly it is their right.

Sorry if I get a little soapbox-y about it, but it means something to me. People fought and died, literally, so that people that look like me might have a chance to vote. So that all people could. It wasn't the beginning of that fight, and it likely won't be the end.

So it's not some game to manipulate an outcome when you do or say anything that might affect that right. It is a mockery of those people that put their lives on the line not so long ago. It is a mockery of the foundation upon which this country was founded. And beyond that, it is insidious and the lowest form of deceit. It is nothing short of treason. It is the very fundamental alteration of national politics and policies that certain people swear their opposition are trying to perform in office. And yet, it is the game they play.

Except it is not a game. It is not. It never was.

So go out and vote. Don't be dissuaded. Stay in line. Do your part. Speak your voice. Don't let those that would treat you as less than a person get away with it. Do... something. You have that right. You have that duty. And no one, try as they might, can take it away from you.

HouseTV Review: Arrow - "Pilot"

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 07:00:00 -0400

Coming into Wednesday night's premiere of Arrow, the big question was: can the CW's new hero series carry the same success as its previous entry Smallville, or will a show about a nonpowered vigilante fare as well as their last attempt, Birds of Prey. Do you remember Birds of Prey? No? Lucky you.

Let's be honest here. Despite not being a perfect replica of DC Comic's iconic Superman, Smallville did offer the core of the character and (eventually) a hearty helping of his supporting cast that we know and love.

And realistically, the character Green Arrow has never had the same appeal to the average fan as Superman. Who does, really? Yeah, yeah... Batman. But you know you aren't getting a TV series based on him anytime soon, so deal with it. Ironically enough, though, Green Arrow's best showing may have been during Smallville's run, where Justin Hartley played the character as a "Batman-lite".

So too does Stephen Amell (Oliver Queen), showing us the hard-edged, driven side of the "Arrow" in this first episode. We arguably don't get to see much of Oliver Queen's softer side during this episode, but that's mostly because a great deal of it focuses on Oliver setting up his new base of operations. We do get to see a little of Oliver building his "reckless playboy" alter ego, though, with varying levels of success and what are sure to be pretty intersting repercussions.

As for the story? Well, purists will find it odd to find that Oliver has a few extra family members floating around among other changes, but fans of ye old Smallville know that shows like this normally take certain liberties with respect to their character history. And at least in Arrow's case, Oliver's history isn't so popular as to agitate too many people. Without giving too much away, I would say that the show seems to have created a cast that will leave comics fans anticipating what is to come while still leaving a bit of mystery.

And speaking of mystery... there are quite a few mysteries put into play in this pilot. But unlike some shows which seem outright confusing by juggling a ton of plot points, there's a certain streamlining that seemed to take place here. The story rolls like a well oiled machine, and even a popup reveal still feels like it was all part of the larger scheme.

The main thing I took away from the show was that it knew what it was doing. Yes, it might be a little darker than some might prefer (Oliver Queen most certainly doesn't carry Clark Kent's moral compass, and it shows heavily here). But it created that darker, grittier world and then went with it. It's the world that Oliver belongs in, at least for now, and it works.

As pilots go, this was pretty solid. It did what it was supposed to do, creating the origin and backdrop of the character while also managing to tell a story, and a pretty good one at that. I went into this show with very low expectations, but after just 20 minutes, I was floored by how drawn into it I got. And I'm definitely looking forward to seeing where its going.

Rating: 9/10 (An excellent start to a series that shows surprising potential. Now if only it doesn't find a way to muck it all up...)

"Debate Night! Woo! Finally-Zzzzzzz...."

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Wed, 3 Oct 2012 18:59:00 -0400

My prediction for this debate:

The President will be clear and a little wordy, but only so much as he needs to be to explain things in realistic terms. His critics will pan him for the same illusionary issues they always do, disregarding any common sense that he might apply in his answers in favor of pinpointing miniscule, entirely reasonable errors and inflating them into monumental "game-changers" ("That word... I do not think it means what you think it means...)".

His supporters will (of course) accept any missteps as practical ones. The President's campaign will continue on almost like normal, since they never planned to treat the debate as something that will overtly change their current strategy. Okay, a stump speech or two will probably have some editing to reflect some comments. Fair enough.

The Governor will make a valid point and a half before side scrambling into talking points and catchy phrases. He will inevitably drop one of the various "zingers" he has been working on using. If he does it more than once, at least one of those attempts will fall flat or blow up in his face.

Not that it matters much anyway. His critics will pan him as being evasive, which he will be because... well, with the campaign he's been running, he has no other alternative. Truth and reality have oddly become his enemies at this point, and I hardly see tonight as the time that he reins it in.

Meanwhile his supporters will celebrate his "aggressiveness", even if it isn't backed by any sort of logic or facts). Because in business terms, aggressiveness is celebrated over getting actual results. You're a Man/Woman of Action, and that's to be respected. (It's the reason why anyone has ever listened to Donald Trump about... well, anything. Because he acts like he knows what he's doing.)

The Governor's campaign will run around for the next week citing some sort of moral victory, despite the fact that said words or phrases or factology in no way denote anything either uplifting for the Governor or damning for the President.

At the end of the day... week? Nothing's really going to change. Even if the Governor gets a slight bump by pressing a few issues, those numbers will revert as soon as he starts running his mouth in public again. And even if they stick, he's still behind the curve that he needs to be ahead of at this point.

The President, however, is not really looking to change the game. So a wash is just fine in his book. He's unlikely to go for a "knockout punch" in fear of somehow making an exploitable misstep. So he'll cruise through the debate, then go on about his business as if it was just another Wednesday.

Having said all of that, that's just my take on it. Any given moment can shake up even the strongest prognosticator's plotting. So happy debating, everybody. For people who have no gumption for political rambling, have fun ducking and covering. I'll see you when the dust has settled again.

Of Mice and Men (and Replacement Referees...)

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:06:00 -0400

Oh, look. It's the news. I promised not to watch too much of you, because you make me so very angry sometimes. But I'll check you out and-hey, what's this now? What are people making such a big hooplah over? Oh. Football. Really?

So what I'm gleaning from the stories I'm seeing is that sometime late last night, the greatest tragedy in the history of professional sports occurred. People are talking asterisks and malfeasance and pitchforks and boiling lead and other, less reasonable things like actually getting the officials that are on strike back to work so that these types of missed calls don't happen anymore.

Yeah. Right.

Now by no means am I saying that it's a good thing for refs to get a call wrong (replacement or otherwise). But I will say the same thing I have for years on the subject of a referee "robbing" a team in the last seconds of the fourth quarter: if you're ahead by the margin that you should be at that point, then you can't have anything taken from you.

In short: don't want to lose? Be up by 10 points. Boosh.

Now, if you want to argue that officiating during the game kept you from being up by said 10 points... well then you may have a stronger argument. But I will probably then play the card I like to call "It's a motherlovin' game! It's football! Don't you have more important things to worry about? (And yes, Wisconsin, I'm aware that you don't think that you do for 48-72 hours a week, but I assure that you do.)

I get that football is a part of our American heritage. But no matter what strange injustices might occur, we have to embrace the fact that they just aren't really that big of a deal.

But anyone can feel free to point out that I said this a few months from now, sometime shortly after I scream the sentence, "How?! How could this have happened, Atlanta?! You were 3-0! This is the worst tragedy in the history of America...!"

That's only fair.

"An Inelegant Truth"

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 07:00:00 -0400

By now you've heard eight shades of why Mitt Romney's infamous "47 percent" comment bothers people. Let me explain in some part why it bothers me personally.

First, let me play a little devil's advocate and say that any statement can be taken out of context. It happens with people of all walks and statures, and over things that are both trivial and significant. Heck, you can even build an entire convention around it (not that I give the GOP any real credit for creating such a crapstorm over the President's "you didn't build that" comment; their dog and pony show was a pretty silly thing to do...).

Having said that, let me be clear: there is nothing about what Mitt Romney said that I like. There is no spin to be placed on it that makes me feel any better about it.

Because what you have to understand about what he said is that it isn't a new thought. A lot of people have gone through life aware of the fact that people with money, regardless of how they may have acquired it, have a problem with it being used to help less fortunate people. They perceive it as giving the lesser fortunate person a "handout". And furthermore, the more fortunate person perceives the world as owing them something for taking care of these less fortunate people.

As such, they view those other people, the less fortunate ones, exactly the way that Romney portrays them. In their minds, they are not only dependent on the government for assistance, but these poor souls feel some sense of entitlement to government funds. They deserve to be taken care of, like it is owed to them or something.

Except in some cases, this is entirely true. The elderly, the disabled, soldiers who have fought overseas... these people are quite entitled to benefits from the government. Alternatively, there are countless others who are just down on their luck and need some temporary assistance. These people also need a little help from the government, if only for a little while.

The continued notion that not only a significant amount but also the majority of people who have little to no tax obligation (and by that we mean income tax; other taxes are paid in various ways) are somehow a bunch of self-entitled freeloaders is not only incorrect but a little insane. It's the type of self-delusional tripe that rich people feed themselves so that they don't feel so bad about getting over on the system through their own dodges and tax breaks.

And that's why what Mitt Romney said strikes such an ugly chord with me. Because it bothers me that he can speak those inaccurate numbers so dismissively. It bothers me that he can say what he said about almost half of the population of my country to a room full of people and not have that room of people have an issue with it. It bothers me that he said it not just because it was a personal opinion of his, but also because he knew that was the type of thing that they wanted to hear.

There is no greater truth to it. As political strategy, it's suicide. And to paraphrase Bob Schieffer, there is no fathomable reason that a candidate running for high office should say something like that. Unless, of course, you have the poor judgment and lack of character of a Mitt Romney.

That same lack of character, for the record, allows Romney to attack President Obama using excerpts from a speech the President made over a decade ago. And, as is par for the course, taken just out of context enough to be warped into the Republican's own sense of reality.

That's what we've come down to now. We've reached the point where people can twist less damning phrases out of context to build their monsters, all while spinning their own miscues into "harsh, inelegant truths".

Tuesday night, the President let Romney off the hook by admitting that everyone can misspeak sometimes.

Less than 24 hours later, the GOP couldn't help themselves from going on a witch hunt with footage that's over a decade old.

Because really, you should hold everyone's words, every single one they have ever spoken, against them. No matter how inelegant. Isn't that right, Mitt?

Flashback Friday: "You call these grapes..?!"

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:22:00 -0400

"They taste like Fresno!"

I was far too young to understand the subtle in-joke of those fateful words, but even then they stuck with me. The line, of course, is the last thing spoken before the opening credits rolled in the 1986 CBS mini-series Fresno. I feel like this is one of those things that got swept under the rug way back when, but maybe it has a fan or two that I'm not aware of.

The five episode series highlighted the conflict between two rival raisin families. Sounds silly, right? Well, that was the point. Fresno was a spoof of nighttime soap operas like Dallas or Dynasty (in fact, the intro bears strong resemblances to both). In fact, Fresno was ground-breaking in that it was the first comedy mini-series ever created.

Of course, one could argue that it was also the last comedy mini-series ever created. I can't recall of anything else in the genre appearing after Fresno premiered. Granted, this was back when everyone and their grandmother didn't go running to copy something as soon as it came out. But I can't help but think that, despite its cult status and fond place in my heart, the series was never overly popular or successful. Its few Emmy nominations were in completely technical categories, and the relative silence I've heard of it in the past few decades would seem to bear that out as well.

Still, there is much to take from Fresno. It packed a cast that at the time would make the term "star-studded" seem like an understatement. With Carol Burnett and Dabney Coleman at the top of the bill, Charles Grodin and Teri Garr in supporting roles, and a ton of other then (and still) TV stars filling out the lineup, you'd be hard pressed to call it anything other than a strong ensemble.

But I think the main defining fault of Fresno was that it was ahead of its time. As groundbreaking a concept as a comedy mini-series was, I think the nuance was lost to the audience at the time. A laugh track was adding to later airings, no doubt a sign that some exec thought that people needed help figuring out that this was "ha-ha funny". But doing that arguably took away from the subtlety of the parody, and in my opinion dumbed down what was probably a series about a decade ahead of its time.

I seriously can't remember much of this series. An opening joke. A ridiculous court case. A much more ridiculous hoop dress worn by Carol Burnett with hilarious consequences. But the fact that I remember it at all means that it had an impact. And really, that's good enough for me.

Why I stopped Spreading Joy (Sorta).

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:00:00 -0400

Happy Birthday.

I admit that it's not a difficult thing to say. Heck, typing it doesn't take much effort, either. And you can pretty much program an app or two (or seven probably) to wish your friends a good one on their special day. So why then did I abandon the practice of wishing my friends a happy birthday on Facebook?

Well, that's a good question. The answer is just a little complicated, but not really so.

First, it's not for lack of noticing. It's fairly impossible to be part of a social networking environment and not see that someone's special day is happening. Either the system tells you its their birthday, you see someone (possibly the birthday boy/girl in question) mentioning it themselves, or some combination of the two. So it's never as simple as "I didn't know".

And as anti-social as I can be at times, I am not opposed to giving people greetings. People that know me know that I will, at times, go above and beyond to send heartfelt sentiments their way. And therein lies the problem.

See, way back when, I really liked wishing people a happy birthday. It was fun for me to come up with some little wish or comment to put onto their wall. But I'm a prideful person. It’s important to me that I actually exert the effort to be sincere and heartfelt. I want each person I give a greeting to feel like it was something unique and personal to them.

And honestly, I just haven’t had the time. It worked just fine when my friends list was just over a hundred. But now that it’s several times that number, I see that it’s someone’s birthday almost every day. Sometimes multiple people. And I’m not online 24/7 (and have no desire to be), so all it would take is a lapse or two and I’d have forgotten someone.

I’ve thought about alternate solutions to the problem. I considered only sending well wishes to people I was pretty close to, but I didn’t want to have to go through the grueling process of evaluating my friends to see who would be “worthy” of my time versus who wouldn’t. Likewise, I didn’t want anyone to feel slighted just because I didn’t get around to them while I was mulling over whether I would get around to them.

So I took the rather draconian approach of not sending birthday wishes to anyone. Save my girlfriend Danielle, which we can all agree is a wonderfully appropriate and loving thing to do. I’d rather just spare myself the drama, even if it comes at the expense of doing something I genuinely used to love.

So if your birthday happens to roll around, and in sorting through your messages you find mine absent, please: don’t think too much ill of it. I’m honestly happy that you’re a year older. I just didn’t get around to saying it, is all. Which, believe me, is sadder for me than it is for you.

(Spoiler-Free) Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Thu, 5 Jul 2012 13:09:00 -0400

Okay, here's the deal. I'm going to tell you a bunch of things that will make you think you know how I feel about this movie. And then, I'm going to say something that makes you wonder what the heck I was talking about.

Amazing Spider-Man is the story of... well, let's face it. Between the character that has three films released already and the obvious geek status of everyone that bothered to click the link here, you should know the story by now. Kid gets bitten by radioactive spider. Learns about power and responsibility the hard way. Profit.

So my first gripe is a nitpicky but necessary one. As a reboot, the movie has to take you through the origin of the hero. This isn't so terrible. Honestly, it's been over a decade since the Raimi movie took us there. Still, the part of me that knows this story, that has seen it a dozen times in a dozen different formats, does tire of having to travel that path again.

Still, it tells a very tight, compelling version of that origin.

Next on my list: character issues. Okay, one character in particular. I like Andrew Garfield, even if I can't get past the fact that he seems to have a certain... Tennant-y quality to him. And I like what his character does in the film. But (and I openly admit that this is really a personal issue of mine) I've never been a fan of Peter being a character with an attitude problem. I get it, he gets picked on, he pushes back. But that's never seemed to be the way I remember him.

Likewise, Spider-Man comes off at times as being a little too crazy. Again, this is my personal taste showing here. There are quite a few writers that write Spider-Man as silly, bordering on insane, and having an issue with authority. Brian Michael Bendis, I'm looking in your general direction.

But for me, there's a fine line between finding Spidey's comic side and making him into something that he isn't. Remember that regardless of whether the police or the press try to villainize him, he still has to appeal to the general public. So yeah, there are a few parts where I think they went a little too silly.

Now, having said that, here's where I say the most important part: I really liked this movie, and you should go see it.

Yeah, you can reread that, because I'm sure that isn't the way that it felt like this review was going. But here's a few things to keep in mind.

One, despite the origin hangups, it's still very solid storytelling. Yes, some plot points get forced a little faster than I'd like, but I'm willing to accept that conceit if it keeps me from having to wait 2-3 years for certain things to happen. I've never been a big fan of story decompression anyway.

And two, I did enjoy almost every character in this story. There are a few noted absences, but they hardly detract from the movie's story (and may well have derailed parts of it trying to squeeze them in). Lizard made for a wonderfully compelling villain all on his own, and each of the other characters had their own little moments that helped highlight just exactly what their characters were all about.

And even though I had my own minor issues with Garfield's portrayal not being my Peter Parker, he does a solid job of portraying a Peter Parker. If this is what the revamped, retooled version of Peter has to be, then I'll take it over any other train wreck it could be.

And of course visually, it was stunning at times. Granted, a huge chunk of the action was CGI madness, but it was neat, clean CGI madness. And for a film that had a ton of night scenes, the visuals managed to stay crisp and bright. (And a big nod to whoever buried the shaky-cam before shooting this one; good call, bro...)

My only other real issue with the film involves the ending. I won't spoil anything that happened except to say that people familiar with the history of Spider-Man may find the conclusion a little foreboding. Well written and appropriate, yes, but perhaps a little more depressing than was intended.

Aside from that, I heartily recommend giving it a watch. Once you get past the "been there, done that" moments, there is a really solid, witty action-adventure flick to be seen.

Rating: 8/10 (A few spotty character issues don't detract from solid performances and a well told story.)

Blast from the Past... ish.

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:20:00 -0400

Okay, so I've dropped the ball when it comes to Flashback Fridays. Or Heavy Nostalgia Thursdays. Or whatever the heck I was calling these little trips down memory lane to shows I remember from my younger days. But in my defense, I've dropped the ball in so many other places when it comes to this blog.

Not exactly an award winning mea culpa, I know.

Anywho, I wanted to take a moment to talk about this particular show, which was notorious for being memorable in one exact way. I speak of course, of Hi, Honey I'm Home!, a short lived sitcom of the early nineties with a relatively straightforward premise.

The show was based around the misadventures of the Nielsen family (as mentioned, the show rarely beat around the bush with its references). The Nielsens, after being canceled from their network TV show, enter a sitcom relocation program. No, seriously. That's exactly what happens.

Now stuck in the "real world", the family has to try to fit in and not blow their secret identities as a TV family while hoping for a possible revival of their show on the network. In most respects, the show was a one trick pony, relying on every "fish out of water" bit it could muster in a half hour. Not that I always mind that. After all, I did manage to sit through season upon season of Small Wonder.

But as I said, the show had a memorable facet or two. Firstly, the show featured a small army of guest cameos from famous sitcom stars of the past. It was effectively a classic sitcom reunion tour, and as such gave people an opportunity to see old TV favorites one more time.

Second, the show featured what they referred to as an Instant Rerun. The show would air on Friday night on ABC, then a repeat of the show would air on Nickelodeon the following Sunday night. When the show was eventually (and quickly) canceled on ABC, Nickelodeon took up the reins and aired the remainder of the new episodes on its network. Granted, this sort of thing has become incredibly commonplace in the modern day environment of eight thousand channels and obvious media monopolies. But at the time, it was considered a pretty innovative step.

But the last thing (and to me, the most notable item) of significance was the theme song. It was catchy as all get out. No lie, when I was trying to remember the name of this show, I kept drawing a blank. And then finally, I got the theme song's end floating in my head. And of course, at the end of the song is the title of the show.

I dare you not to get this stuck in your head. Dare you...

So thank some random song writer somewhere for making a tune so catchy that it made me remember a fairly forgettable show from the 90's. Remember kids, not every single show on TGIF was a bonafide, out of the ball park hit.

(P.S. I know a few people might have also noted the presence of a young Julie Benz in this series as notable. I like her, and I'd totally forgotten she was in this show, but I don't see it as being anything overly significant.)

Planet Houston Podcast - Episode 302: It Happened Again

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:57:00 -0500

Download this episode.

So yeah. This show. Totally happening again. And it's just as horribly formatted as it ever was. But hey, there should still be fun to be had by all. So enjoy this decidedly more rambley, definitely less interviewy, episode of Planet Houston Podcast.

Surviving the Big 2-4: Taking the Stage

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Fri, 3 Feb 2012 18:03:00 -0500

Okay, let's face it. When it's all said and done, you're the ones being put in the line of fire. You're the ones that the audience will see, and inevitably the success or failure of the writing and direction of the show falls squarely on your shoulders.

And you wouldn't have it any other way.

But still, let's not kid ourselves here. You've got an uphill climb, and here's a few of the reasons why:

Flying Blind

You have no idea what you're getting yourself into. Literally, that is. Your first chance to see a script will be the morning that you show up to work on it. Unlike a normal audition, you're pretty much getting placed into a show blind. They'll be no extra time to read the show early. No opportunity to Wiki a synopsis of the show. It's you and whoever else gets picked for ten minutes.

But on the bright side, it's just ten minutes. It feels a lot longer than it acutally will be. And ibefore you know it, it will be all over. But until then...

Manage Your Stress

One could argue that the ticking clock will impact the actors the most. Yes, your director will feel for you, but in the end you'll be the one feeling the pressure of being off book by the 8PM deadline.

The easiest way to wreck your fun and ruin your day is to get into a panic over time. Try to find moments to relax and unwind. Take a break from your script and just hang out. Not for hours on end, mind you. But take breaks to keep your head screwed on straight. Your brain will be better prepared to memorize and function if you do.

Get the Gist of It

The end goal is to have a perfectly learned and executed script. Believe me when I say that the goal is rarely met, and even then roughly so. The ultimate survival tactic is one of last resort. If you can't hack all of the lines word for word, then try your best to keep the spirit of them intact. Work with your fellow actors to prevent the one thing that will derail any stage performance: getting lost in the woods.

So long as one person on stage has an idea of what's going on, all is not lost. No matter how badly you think that things might turn out, there's always someone that thinks that things will be worse.

Manage Your Nerves

Last summer, everyone was on edge. Every single performer. Not one person was calm, and if they say they were, then they're a liar. I'm usually as cool as a cucumber, and I was edgy. It's probably the most on edge I've ever been before taking a stage, and (God willing) I will never be that on edge again.

But the entire cast and crew are pulling for you. Not just from your show, but from every single show going on. Every single person in every single show, every single writer, every single director, every single techie and stage manager, and (most importantly) every single audience member.

They're a forgiving group that will respect you giving your best effort and appreciate the work that you put into it. So worry less about your performance being perfect and focus on doing your best to get the show at its best. Everything else will work itself out.

So that's it. Everything is about to live in a few hours. I'll be no doubt stressing over it in short order, and the rest of the group will be under the gun soon enough. Godspeed and broken legs to everyone participating, and please remember to come out and support the effort by seeing the performances Saturday, Feb. 4th at 8PM.

Surviving the Big 2-4: Finding Direction

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Fri, 3 Feb 2012 17:36:00 -0500

Direction is a sometimes thankless job. But anyone that says that directing is easy has never either never tried it or did it poorly. A director is the bridge between what the writer creates and what the people see. They carry the vision forward, and then add their own touch while still retaining the core of the writer's vision. They lead the actors in the direction of this overall vision into a performance that will enlighten and entertain.

So, yeah. That's easy, all right. And good luck with doing it in twelve hours.

Directors during the play festival will have all of the normal challenges of directing with the added burden of being on the clock. Because of that, there are some special items they should consider. I openly admit that directing is the one aspect of theater that I have the least experience with, but I also admit that, having worked with different directors over time, I should have some sort of insight on how this works.

Keep It Simple, (Not So) Stupid - Setting the Stage

It goes without saying that no one expects a miracle out of you. If you get the show on, you've pretty much done your job. Your best bet for doing this is making the goals you set for yourself be believable ones.

Every director that I've ever worked with starts with a vision of what they ideally want. Then slowly over the course of time, they pare that vision down into what is possible. To survive the play fest, you should embrace the "what is possible" phase as soon as possible, if not immediately.

You're going to have limited resources. Basically, all you have on tap is what may be at the theater itself and what you can grab or pin down within the course of a few hours. It's not all bad, though. The modern age provides you with access to the internet, and through it any of a number of music and audio clips to make use of.

Although again, I would say to keep it simple. The fewer sound and light cues you have, the easier everything will manage to be.

The same principle will work with regards to set pieces. Again, less is probably more. Your best bet is to rely on the basics of tables, chairs, small props and assorted coverings. If you're lucky, your writer(s) will have given you enough slack to make this stress -free. If they haven't, then you're going to have to make the call on how much of a hoop you plan to jump through for them. Again, my personal opinion is that less is more. Let you actors help you paint the scene. Speaking of which...

Keep It Simple, (Not So) Stupid - Managing Your Peeps

I'm not going to say that you should be hands off with your actors. There should be enough time to manage blocking and giving some motivation/direction notes if need be. but I will say that you do need to be aware that they too are under the gun. If your actors get their lines remotely down and can manage to add anything beyond that, then more power to them.

Do not make the mistake of trying to micro-manage your performers. Know when to wrangle them in, and then know when to give them space to work on their own. And believe me when I say that you'll have plenty of other things that you can focus on in the meantime.

Planet Houston Podcast - Episode 301: ...Mehhhh...

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Thu, 2 Feb 2012 13:57:00 -0500

Download this episode.

For anyone that's noticing, the show is back now... sort of. As you will see, it's still a little rough around the edges, but the good stuff is still there. Today's installment isn't particularly segment heavy, but you don't want to miss out. Highlighting the show is an interview (... yes, I said interview) with Upstart Theater Company's Timothy Reynolds. You might know him from other stuff. Join us as we talk about the upcoming event Winter's Tales. So strap in, plug up, and brace yourselves. I'm apparently just bored enough to start the crazy train again. And you're welcome.

Surviving the Big 2-4: Writing in Short Order

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Wed, 1 Feb 2012 09:13:00 -0500

So you want to write a play, do you? How long do you want to take? A year? Few months?

Oh. A day. You’re insane.

Know Your Limitations – Time! Part 1

Know Your Limitations – Time! Part 2

Find Your Comfort Zone

Consider Your Directors – Setting the Stage

Consider Your Directors – Making the Moves

Consider Your Actors – Casting Call

Consider Your Actors

To Make A Long Story Short (Too Late)…

(Next time, my (most likely much shorter) advice for directors. Yes, I’m going to tell you how to do that job that I never actually do. I’m like Dr. Spock that way…)

Surviving the Big 2-4: Part One: Making the Choice

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:31:00 -0500

This February will mark the second 24-hour play festival to grace the local area in the past year. These articles serve as a guide for those returning or those new to the experience. These are my personal reflections, opinions, and offers of advice. Take or use them at your own discretion and/or peril.

So, you've heard they're holding a play festival. Boy, you wish you had caught the auditions for that one so you could have... Wait a minute. It's a twenty-four hour play festival? So there's still time for you to get involved! But should you? Keep these factors in mind when making the choice on whether or not to participate.

What it isn't...

It's not easy. At some point during the experience, not matter what facet of the festival you end up participating in, there will be stress. Either the pressure of creating a new work under tight constraints, the pressue of managing people, stage space, and time with limited access to all of them, or the sometimes lofty task of learning an entire scene(s) on short notice (I will expound on each of these in more detail later).

It's also not a personal showcase for yourself. You will at times be dependent on others to survive the experience. Input, feedback, and direct assistance will no doubt be required at varying points in time (not to mention coffee). It is not nor will it ever be about your glory. You should remember to stay humble. It won't be too hard; you'll be crippled and debilitated on an hourly basis.

What it is...

In many respects, it is exactly what it sounds like. The event takes place over the course of a single day. It runs from Friday evening (when the participants meet and get to know each other (or know each other better or shoot the breeze for the umpteenth time... you get the idea) on through the night (when the writers hammer feverishly away at their keyboards and their foreheads in frustration) and all through most of the following Saturday (when the directors try to squeeze weeks of rehearsal time into 6-7 hours).

What else is it? Well, it's also fun. If you have any creative talent or even aspirations, meeting the challenge of a festival like this will (hopefully) have as many fun moments as there are frustrating ones.

And speaking of fun, you get the benefit of hanging out and/or working with a huge cross section of the local theatre community. I'm not going to lie and call it an excellent networking opportunity, but it can't hurt to touch base with a person or two.

So the short version is...

I won't lie and say that you should definitely do it. In the end, it will be a personal decision based on your courage, time, patience, and desire. People will no doubt have any of a number of reasons why they can't or shouldn't do it.

I can only tell you that last summer was a mad, crazy, frustration-inducing, joyful, chaotic whirlwind of a spectacle. And I wouldn't trade the experience for anything. If you're thinking about it and are on the fence, I'd say go for it. But don't blame me if you have a bad time. it will be what you make of it. But what you make of it can be a very great thing.

(Tune in next time, when I give the brave and bold writing corps some friendly advice on how to pull an all nighter. Because yeah, I'm really good at that...)

... Another Door Opens.

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Houston) — Mon, 2 Jan 2012 20:21:00 -0500

Welcome to the first of what will (hopefully) be many new posts and updates at what will (again hopefully) be the new Planet Houston.

Over the upcoming days, I'll outline exactly what the plan will be for the site. It will, in most likelihood, resemble your average run of the mill blog. Links, articles, and other assorted silly things to keep you amused. Audio and video (not necessarily my own, but not ruling it out) are bound to follow.

I don't want to jinx things by setting the bar too high, but I do want to say that I intend to try my very best to make sure that I meet my personal goal and commitment: an expression of self that I share with others.

Because yeah, I never, ever do that in any other form or format.

See you in a few.