Haskell

I took one of them Internet quizzes on “what programming language are you?” and was told that I am Haskell, a polymorphicly typed, lazy, purely functional language. Looking at the site makes me think it’s pretty cool — I had never heard of it, which is unsurprising. I know the amazingly cool Manu is a programming language h4xx0r, but just reading up their propaganda on why they are so cool was pretty interesting. Since the most complicated coding I really need to do is in MATLAB, I don’t know what I would do with Haskell, but I actually considered making it a project to learn it. Hooray learning! Of course, I have no time, so bollocks to that idea.

Experimental Theatre from Stanislavsky to Peter Brook

by James Roose-Evans. This is an old book, and so misses out on any real developments from the 80s on, but it does a nice job of contexualizing and describing the genesis of different avant-garde theater movements. It is restrictive to talk about Theatre rather than Performance, but he doesn’t give short shrift to other modes of performance — instead he describes how they influenced works that grew out of the theatre. A notable exception is Martha Graham, who he talks about in depth, which was fascinating.

For someone who’s read bits and pieces about the Open Theater, Peter Brook, Grotowski, Barba, and Artaud, this book is a short read to tie it all together. I felt like I lacked the big picture view of theater, and now I don’t. Now I feel like the techniques used by these different artists should enter more mainstream productions. A familiarity with different approaches to the theatrical is not just a way to learn some jargon. Many of the ideas of the avant-garde can help to create a more immediate theater, to find ways to make theater relevant to the audience in a way that changes them rather than one that follows blindly the old tropes into the graveyard. More on this to come.

The War Boys

by Naomi Wallace. This is a play about three kids who go down to the US-Mexico border to spot illegal crossings — they get a bounty for each person they help the border patrol catch. I don’t have too much to say about this play, except that it manages to accomplish two things on stage that I have so far failed to really get — how the worship of charisma can make people go against their nature (c.f. my one-act Young and Healthy), and how people escape into fantasy to avoid their problems. These three boys, the War Boys, joke with each other, but their kidding borders dangerously on their own pent-up rage and insecurities.

In the end, the play didn’t work for me, although some of the moments are beautiful — Wallace is a genius at finding something in people talking across each other, in having one character lose themselves in their own fantasy while the others join in, but in a way that comments on, rather than reinforces. And then she lets us get caught up in the beauty of a terrible dream, a terrible story, only to yank the rug out from under us — it was all a story.

It is a play worth reading for its themes and for its specificity of location. But in the end I found it more wooden than her other works.

La Ronde

by Arthur Schnitzler. Since this play was originally written in German (its title was Der Reigen) I’m not sure why the common English title is in French. This play, dating from 1900 and set in fin de siècle Vienna, examines the (hetero)sexual relations across social classes in ten interwoven scenes. Each scene has two sections, pre-coital/seduction and post-coital. The two are separated by a set of dashed lines. In the original production, the orchestra played a waltz, which censorious critics denounced as an attempt to arouse the audience by mimicking the rhythm of the sex act. I’m not sure how modern productions would negotiate the passage of time — possibly with a light cue.

Each scene is played by two actors, a man and a woman, and they form a chain, so that the first scene is between the Prostitute and the Soldier, the next between the Soldier and the Maid, the third between the Maid and the Young Gentleman, and so on. The scenes work their way though the social layers until we have the Actress and the Count, followed by the Count and the Prostitute again, so that we go full circle. The characters have names, but the script names them by their position, which suggests something of the social commentary of the play. I find that the overwhelming message is that people are cruel and maniupulative in their pursuit of sex, regardless of gender, although men are implicated more than women.

It is important to note that this is not a play about sexually transmitted disease, and I think any attempt to direct it as such would be doomed to heavy-handed soapboxing. Instead, we are treated to some true awkward situations — once the passion wears off, where are we left? He realizes it would never work out, she realizes nothing can be gained from him, and they part ways with insincere promises to see each other again.

There is a modernization of the play by David Hare called The Blue Room, which is meant to be played by two actors doing all the roles (originally starring Nicole Kidman). I haven’t read it, but I think it could be interesting. Schnitzler, shocked by the negative reaction the play received in Vienna, wrote that he hoped it would never be performed again. Of course, he also wrote that it was not a play to be performed in its own time, but rather could serve as a window into the social life of Vienna a hundred years later. So here we are, 100 years later, and it does provide an interesting window to the past.

The play’s main strength and weakness is its rigid structure. Each scene is quite nice in and of itself, but the play’s message might be too simplistic when all the scenes are put together. It would take a deft director to make this work without making the audience hate itself, go into denial, and turn its brain off. The writing is too charming, funny, and true to allow that to happen.

hooray beer

I just watched the Red Stripe’s Hooray Beer campaign, which is pretty damn funny. Since I don’t watch TV I hadn’t seen any of these, although I saw the Hooray Beer coaster in a pub on St. Patrick’s Day. They’re worth a watch, especially the one about being ugly. It’s sad that I go on the Internet for the ads that air during the shows that I don’t want to watch. Maybe I should get a TiVo to record the ads…

I read dead people!

Another juicy link via MetaFilter, this time on famous wills made available by the Public Record Office in the UK. The site is very slow, and you also have to pay to read all of them except for William Shakespeare’s. Who, by the way, had terrible handwriting. I know someone in the Classics department here who has to take a class in reading manuscripts — that’s a skill that would come in handy right about now.

the battle of algiers

I’ve been meaning to write about a movie I saw recently, The Battle of Algiers, at the Castro Theatre. I took the day off to go to San Francisco because I really needed a break, and saw this movie with my friend Sarah after munching on some cheap sushi. When it came out in 1966 in France it was censored, and the reviews called it “the most controversial French film of all time,” a distinction which I felt may have been deserved. It tells a story of the independence/resistance movement in French Algeria and how the French responded. The action of the film is eerily familiar in today’s world of suicide attacks and vicious retaliation.

The film opens with the French Army raiding the hideout of Ali La Pointe in the Casbah. It then flashes back to the beginnings of the resistance and how Ali joined in after being imprisoned for attacking some French kids. Within a few minutes we are shown a prisoner being led to the guillotine (yes, they still used the guillotine, even in 1956), shouting “allahu akbar” and other inflammatory statements. The resistance was an Islamic movement — through violence and intimidation they sought to end prostitution and substance abuse in the Casbah.

The French decide to bring in the military to deal with the insurrection. Headed up by Colonel Mathieu, a hero of the French Resistance in WWII, his eloquent if terse justification for the brutal techniques used by the military helps to temper the anti-French bias in the film:

The problem is: the NLF wants us to leave Algeria and we want to remain. Now, it seems to me that, despite varying shades of opinion, you all agree that we must remain. When the rebellion first began, there were not even shades of opinion. All the newspapers, even the left-wing ones wanted the rebellion suppressed. And we were sent here for this very reason. And we are neither madmen nor sadists, gentlemen. Those who call us fascists today, forget the contribution that many of us made to the Resistance. Those who call us Nazis, do not know that among us there are survivors of Dachau and Buchenwald. We are soldiers and our only duty is to win. Therefore, to be precise, I would now like to ask you a question: Should France remain in Algeria? If you answer “yes,” then you must accept all the necessary consequences.

I don’t think I agree with his argument here, but he poses the problem as one of having your cake and eating it too, which I think it a fundamental problem in the process of releasing an Empire. They showed this film to US soldiers before they went to Iraq, perhaps to prepare them for techniques of resistance that would be used against them. I find the analogy imperfect. In Iraq, we there to establish a new empire, not to preserve the existing regieme. It seems hard to draw the parallels, because I doubt the majority of the Iraqi people really hate the occupying force with as much passion as the ghetto-ized Algerians hated the French. Of course, I’m not there, so I can’t be sure of this.

The movie is eerily documentary-like, although not one frame of documentary footage was used, according to the advertisements. It is in this, its verité uninterrupted by the tricks of the cinema, that the power of the film truly lies. A film entirely shot hand-held to give the impression of immediacy seems fake to me because my memories of things are not as jerky or grainy. Here we get a combination of narrow shots in the tight alleys and multistoried houses of the Casbah as well as panoramas from the rooftops that are clearly constructed but don’t feel fake or over-edited.

The film is certainly more powerful today because of the current climate of Islamic intifadas and the techniques of bombing cafes, buses, ambulances, and so on. The historicization of these themes works both on the level of Brecht to distance us from them and judge the more objectively, but also reminds us viscerally of how little some things have changed in the last 50 years.

The screenplay is freely available, which is where I got the quote. It does not appear to be available on DVD, but if you still have a VCR you can probably rent it from your local not-Blockbuster store.

Destino

Market and Laguna. This is a nice small Peruvian restaurant that is usually quite busy on the weekends, but if you go at off-times you should have no problems getting a table. I had never had Peruvian food before, and I have to give it two thumbs up, although the service here is a bit spotty and can take away from the experience. If you avoid going during happy hour you should be ok. On the drinks menu, the cocktails are exotic but nothing special, the sangria is less than robust, but the pisco drinks are quite good.

The menu is divided into small plates and larger plates. The large plates are pretty big, and the small plates are not tiny, but not generous, to say the least. My number one favorite dishes on the menu are the beef heart skewers, the cebiche with tuna, and the arepas, which are a sort of corn pancake with fresh salsa on top. My mother particularly enjoyed the stuffed squash, which is a larger dish. Be sure to be on the lookout for their specials, which have always been good when I’ve gone.

Gregoire

Cedar and Shattuck. This is, hands down, my favorite lunch place to eat in Berkeley. It’s a sort of nouveau-French place (with real French people) with a lunch menu priced just right at $6-$8. The menu rotates every month to take advantage of the fresh veggies for the season — you can download it from their restaurant. Their distinctive octagonal cardboard boxes can be reused for a discount on subsequent visits, but I’m sure that the more creative can find new uses for them.

The appetizer list doesn’t change every month — I recommend the potato puffs, which are small scoops of dry mashed potatoes deep fried with an aioli. Delicious! And for dessert (if you want to splurge), go for the bread pudding. It’s heavenly.

I can’t recommend this place enough, so go already!

the old teahouse

Durant and Telegraph. This is a new-ish Chinese place on southside with a lot of rice and noodle plates and a stunning assortment of boba (bubble tea). Tthe food here was greasy and just hits the spot for around $6, but you’re better off going with a few people and splitting a few things. Nothing is exceptional here, but there’s a lack of Chinese places on southside worth eating at, so if you’re hankering for some Chinese, this place is your best bet. I recommend some of the chow fun and also the sizzling hot plates, although someone with more authenticity cred might be able to suggest better things.