Socratic Dilemma Dialogue

(A script writer sits alone in his home working on his next project his wife enters after a few moments)

Andrew Kauf: Why, can’t I just write what I want?
Morgan Kauf: Hun, what’s the matter?
Andrew: I’m having difficulties with my next script. I’ve never felt like I can write what I want, but this idea I have is good, really good! I know it, but no one would ever buy it.
Morgan: How do you know that?
Andrew: I’ve been in the business for 15 years, I know what they want.
Morgan: What exactly is it they want, and why does it make you so angry?
Andrew: What they want is the same trash I always write. They wish me to write about the bum next door, the wretch, the whore, the man without purpose. They only want me to write about man’s depravity.
Morgan: What is wrong with exploring such things? Don’t people need to see what is wrong with men? Isn’t it the best way for them to learn, to understand, to appreciate?
Andrew: Maybe for other writers, if that is what they wish, maybe someone even is helped by it; although I doubt it. I just don’t know if I can write about another bum. How will people remember me?
Morgan: You are correct in your assumption there, they will remember you from the one thing you have been able to do. But, my question to you my dear is why you are worried about how people will remember you?
Andrew: Isn’t that what the value of life is? How else should I live my life?
Morgan: What is life, Andrew?
Andrew: What kind of question is that? I am life.
Morgan: Just a thought experiment Andrew… Let me ask you, if you are life, does that mean I am not life?
Andrew: Well of course you are life as well. But, I am alive so I am life.
Morgan: You are running circles around me in this experiment, it seems. Let me try again. Is a plant alive? Is a bird? A rock? What is life?
Andrew: Ok, well these questions seem a little weird, but I’ll humor you. Of course plants are alive, birds, but not rocks! Life is all that which is alive.
Morgan: If life is that which is alive, are cells and atoms alive? What about the rocks? They are made up of matter, which could seem alive, could they not?
Andrew: Well yes, but I think this is self evident darling.
Morgan: If it is self-evident then it shouldn’t be hard to explain, correct? So, my questioning returns to what is life? You see honey, if we can determine what is life, we perhaps can determine the purpose of life, and if you are leading the correct purpose.
Andrew: Alright fair enough, I’ll play along. Life consists of all living creatures, plants and animals alike, which are able to be a part of this existence past, present and future. Life could probably be best described by things which can procreate, for it is the continuation of a life which is necessary for life.
Morgan: Wow, that is really good Andrew. So, if we say life consists of all living creatures, plants and animals alike, and that life is determined by the ability to procreate, then we can determine that all living creatures have many things in common, correct?
Andrew: That is correct.
Morgan: Great, now we’re getting somewhere. What then determines human life, how are we different then a muskrat?
Andrew: Ok, I know this one. We are different because we have languages, arts, mathematics, philosophy and more.
Morgan: This is true, but what is it that allows human beings to have developed a Socrates and a Victor Hugo?
Andrew: Their mind.
Morgan: That makes the most sense. They have a conscious mind and are able to use it more aptly then do animals.
Andrew: correct.
Morgan: Then what exactly is it that we have that is so different? I think we should specify this difference.
Andrew: Our ability to reason?
Morgan: precisely, but again what exactly does our ability to reason allow us to do?
Andrew: Understand the world we live in?
Morgan: I think you’re right there; I would go farther in that it allows us to form concepts, and more importantly broad abstractions, such as life.
Andrew: How can this help me determine how to best live life?
Morgan: That is a spectacular question! Now that we better understand what life is, we need to begin to question the purpose of life.
Andrew: Good.
Morgan: if life is being alive, and procreating, can we not say that being alive requires a certain flourishing of life?
Andrew: You mean it isn’t enough to survive, but we must also attempt to live the best and most prosperous life possible?
Morgan: Correct. Think of a tree and its roots. A tree has certain goals based upon its nature. As the good Hursthouse writes in On Virtue of Ethics that “a living things nature will dictate what is good for it by pointing us to its needs, [and] what living things do is live, and a good living thing is one that lives well. For humans, certain traits are virtuous because of facts about human needs, interests and desires, just as certain traits make for a good elephant because of facts about elephants needs, interests, and desires.” So the good and the purpose should be determined by what is good for the organism. So we should therefore strive for an enjoyable life and a morally upright life, as this is part of our nature. For what is good for us is to be morally upright. Also, it is good to enjoy the life we have, for these pertain to our goals of flourishing; for I dare say that humans seek to enhance their lives.
Andrew: In other words I should live the life best suited to my goals?
Morgan: Precisely.
Andrew: Then, I should write this screenplay if my goals in life are simply to attain money?
Morgan: Precisely, but I know you won’t because I didn’t fall for a person who stands for nothing.
Andrew: I guess you’re right. It’s not easy standing by what you believe I guess.
Morgan: Nor is it supposed to be.

Music is Reason

I was given a discussion topic in school about the Middle Ages and The Renaissance. Specifically in regards to music. My professor made the comment that people believe The Renaissance or 'rebirth' is the period that followed the Middle Ages or 'Dark Ages,' and that these terms can be misleading, because history tends to move continuously rather than by leaps and bounds. The disusion was to talk about the gradual improvement of music through these periods.

First it is necessary to disprove the statement “these descriptions can be misleading as history tends to move continuously rather than by leaps and bounds.” This is false. After the fall of the Roman Empire western world did not see many of the necessities Romans took for granted for almost one thousand years. It wasn’t until St. Thomas Aquinas rediscovered Aristotle in the 13th century that we began seeing the emergence of the Renaissance. When I say rediscover, I mean rediscover in the true context of Aristotle’s writings. The Greek language, culture and more was all but lost for a thousand years after the fall of Rome. The barbarians who destroyed Rome found they had nothing of significance to replace it’s splendor with. St. Thomas Aquinas was an Aristotelian, and fortunately, he brought back reason to our world. After the rebirth i.e. renaissance began, man was able to begin considering himself an individual. It would take hundreds of years for this to fully take effect, but eventually rebirth would give way to enlightenment. In enlightenment we see the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Polish-Lithuanian Constitution of May 3, 1791 and much more. For once men shrugged off the shackles of God and King, and realized his own greatness.

Next we must define what art is and what music is to our cognition. Art is a selective re-creation of an artist’s metaphysical value judgments, and, as such it is an indispensible medium for the communication of a moral ideal. Looking at a piece of art injects several abstractions; life, death, hope, love, hate, fear etc, and it is how we react to these things which indicates what our sense of life is. A sense of life can be defined as something that happens before our concepts, on a more emotional level, the way we react to art helps us to indicate what our sense of life is, but it does not define it. Our sense of life can be developed in two ways; by a conscious effort or be chance. We either choose what values we hold by deciding basic philosophical premises such as; where we are, how we know it, and what to do, or we evade such actions and come to these conclusions based off of our friends, family, or teachers. This latter method is very dangerous.

Looking at a painting can invoke certain emotions. The painting uses certain abstract and concrete concepts in order to fill the viewer with certain emotions. Music on the other hand does not have the ability to show anything, music uses different sounds produced by periodic vibrations of a sonorous body. Music works in reverse of a painting. It does not invoke images directly, but indirectly through your subconscious. While listening to a piece of music you may feel yourself seeing random images as if from a dream, but this is actually your subconscious at work and is not random but carefully selected. Let me give some examples: A piece of music can’t show you what it looks like to be about to kill someone, but it can give you the feeling. It cannot show you what it is like to be in love, but it can give you the feeling. It cannot show you a beautiful garden, but it can give you the feeling. Another great example of this is in the move “Immortal Beloved” where Beethoven tells a future servant of his that the music he is hearing is his frustration at not being able to get to his lover. As an aside, for great examples of music and the emotions they convey see the aforementioned movie. What is important to follow here, is that the emotion is conveyed by the composer whether that is happiness or anger, and how the person reacts to it are dependent upon their sense of life.

Now, looking into the middle ages, it is important to remember that the church pretty much had a monopoly on the arts for almost 700 years. During this time the main form of music was ‘Gregorian Chant’ a rather ominous and morose kind of monophonic sound. The art of the time was meant to convey a sense of uselessness. It was meant to keep the average person from realizing his or her own potential and condemn them to a life in fear of mystical leering gargoyles and an eternal hell. Going to church was not the celebration as it is to some today; it was as if going to mourning. They were mourning life. In “Music an Appreciation” by Roger Kamien he illustrates that many of the secular songs were about love. Note however, that the majority of these songs and illustrations weren’t predominant until the 13th century. This is not to say that there were no secular songs before then, just very seldom. Secular music and secularism in general began appearing more and more after reason was re-introduced.

For more on this read Ayn Rand’s The Romantic Manifesto

Why are students becoming philosophy majors?

I was given an old article from the New York Times that reffered to a large growth in the number of philosophy majors and minors in America. I was then asked the question why young 'practical' minded people (as the teacher called them) are becoming more interested in philosophy?

It is possible that young college students are becoming more enamored with philosophy simply because they are not satisfied with the abhorrent answers they normally get in the 'real world.' Some of these answers come from parents, teachers, bosses and even friends. The idea that everything is nothing may not bode well with some younger people who understand - on some level at least - that their life is something. They hear things like they are just a mass of protoplasm with no meaning. Young people are very impressionable, however, and I believe they do realize that their life is important to them: their future means something, and they wish to understand what is going on around them.

They see the giants of their world crumbling around them. They see the power of the presidency taken over by a man they helped put in to office, and do nothing but more of the same. They see pirates (yes PIRATES) hindering our trade as if we have returned to more primitive times. They understand that the majority of the country is against a war that is killing their friends, brothers, sisters, cousins; and yet their government heeds not their words. They remember hearing in history class and social studies that the government was set up as a system 'of the people by the people and for the people,' that there was supposed to be some semblance of morality, of reason, logic and so on. They see the rule of law being deteriorated around them, by such acts as imposing 'empathy' upon the judgements of judges. They see the erosion of property rights and wonder what is the 'principle' that backs property rights. They see the businessmen around them being punished, and wonder why. They don't understand why capitalism could have failed, they question, and hope philosophy will lead them towards the road of discovery. They wish to seek the best within themselves, they do not wish to allow the people of the world to condemn them for attempting greatness.

They possibly question things like socialized medicine. Why, they may ask, is it my duty to help others?

Some young men and women wish to bring back what they remember reading in their history books. 'Where are the great men who built this country?' They ask. There are some who wish to have something to look forward to. They do not wish to be infringed upon, they have a sinking guilt in the bottom of their stomachs at seeing neanderthals gyrating their bodies to the beat of a primitive drum claiming that 'we must leave nature alone!' spitting their fury at anyone who attempts the evil of living their life to the best of their ability.

Then there are those who wish to use philosophy to destroy the men and women I just described. They wish to use their greatest weapon against them, reason. They will twist reason to suit whatever needs they wish. And these young impressionable people can seek one defense; philosophy. If they do not understand the basics that philosophy teaches, such as, where we are, how we know it and what we should do once we know it, they will inevitably succumb to the gross ideology that is overtaking their world.

It is unfortunate that most of the people who are joining philosophy en masse are individuals who wish to destroy the best within others. They do not wish to be held to the responsibility of their own greatness, and seek to destroy what others wish to achieve. They use filthy language to impose guilt upon the aforementioned young people of the mind by saying 'they are greedy, they are selfish, they have no empathy.'

These young people who wish to understand why they see people condemning the great men and women of industrial power and still they don't go to their defense because they feel guilty; they are the ones who need to be taught; not Plato, or Nietzsche, or Kant but Aristotle. They are the ones who should understand that values are something achievable, that we live in a world of concretes and they can either abide and prosper, or evade and perish.

It is also unfortunate that these young people may never have the courage to question; they may not have the ability to admire, nor to take pride in their own actions. They can, if they discover the proper philosophy. If they learn not that reason can be some 'sublime' fantasy, but it is their reality. They all have the ability to change, as long as we are human we have volition.

It is volition which eventually led mankind to throw off the shackles of, God, King, and now we must throw off the shackles of 'society.'

I can only hope that it will be the people of the mind who will give sanction to the best within themselves. We already seem to be going down a road quite opposite to this idea, and it is each of us who are paying the price.

Review of "Crito" by Plato

This is a brief review of Socrates' reasoning as is shown in Plato's Dialogue entitled "Crito"


On Socrates’ reasoning

First of all, I must commend Socrates for his effective use of logic. Socrates has succinctly used and or created logical discussion. He first defends himself from Crito by using Argumentum ad Numerum or even Argumentum ad Populum. The first 'Numerum' is the fallacy perpetrated by an individual who claims something is more right the more people hold it as true. As Crito seems to be doing when he says, “but do you see Socrates, that the opinion of the many must be regarded, as is evident in your own case, because they can do the very greatest evil to anyone who has lost their good opinion.” This is also similar to 'Populum' which is appealing to the people; this fallacy is usually characterized by emotive language which Crito obviously uses. These defenses by Socrates demonstrate his ability to be steadfast to reason under any incoming fire. Based upon the antiquated reasoning of the time Socrates does seem to be holding true to his integrity. So, if we define integrity as an unfaltering holding to ones values, whether there are other's watching or not, then Socrates is most assuredly a man of integrity.

However, I believe Socrates makes a few fundamental and costly mistakes in his assessments of the state. For one, to assume the state owns him simply because of some arbitrary 'social contract' is ludicrous. It is true that Socrates agreed to live under Athenian law, but when these laws are set in place for the mere ability of allowing the polis to create criminals at its discretion, the polis and not Socrates has betrayed any 'social contract.' Socrates fails to understand what the state is. As Murray Rothbard explicates in Anatomy of the State:

“The State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly
of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it
is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary
contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion."

Furthermore, Socrates makes the preeminent mistake most individuals make, which is equating each individual person as 'a part' of the state. In other words saying 'we’ are the state.' In essence, 'we,' as the individuals who make up the state, are made equivalent to some unknown controller of violence. We are made to believe that as citizens of such and such society 'we' are all one, and 'we' must obey the laws and dictums handed down from on high. The fundamental error here is that we are individuals. Rothbard shows that if we are the state, than anything the state forces upon us is done voluntarily.

"Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not
murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the
government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the
government did to them was voluntary on their part."

Also, simply because we are all participating in our societies does not implicate us to their every action. As Williamson M. Evers from the department of political science at Stanford elucidates, "Mere participation is not enough for obligation. If a burglar lets you argue with him while he is relieving you of your valuables, it does not place you under an obligation to him."

Socrates also uses the argument that he has accepted the ‘gifts’ from society i.e. schooling. This is once again a fundamental error in reasoning. He uses the analogy of parents giving a gift to their child as equivalent to the ‘gifts’ from society. The problem lies in the conditions in which the gifts are given in the two scenarios. When a parent gives something to their child, such as room and board, there is only an obligation to the parents for as long as the child accepts the gifts. When the child moves away from home and stops accepting gifts from their parents, they subsequently disallow all ‘rules’ or edicts handed down from their parents. The difference with the state is that one can not merely ‘shrug’ off their allotted ‘gifts.’ These so-called gifts are imposed rather than something that is attached as a condition to a gift.

Socrates, while defending his position, accepts many irrelevant and counter-intuitive ideals that unfortunately lead to his early demise. While it is admirable that Socrates had the integrity to stand up for what he believed was right, his failure to come to more correct and logical conclusions deprived him of years of life.

Pajamas TV

Interested in a different news story. Check out Pajamas TV, dedicated to covering stories not always on your mainstream news station or radio. Pajamas also has a list of dedicated bloggers. Since the Blog world can be like the "Wild West," as they call it, they attempt to weed out some of the erroneous blogs and supply you with a fresh taste of excellent blogs based upon reason and truth. Their TV is informative, mostly free, and quite entertaining. Enjoy their commentaries on Obama's Healthcare plan, the right to life debate, the climate change debate, and much more!

http://www.pjtv.com/

Great Blog Roll

If you are the type to go from blog to blog to find your favorites, a great blogroll is available for you.
Visit http://www.condron.us/ to find see a list of blogs on their website. You may even add your own to their blogroll if you wish. You can determine the speed it runs through blogs, what kind of blogs you wish to look at and more. So check it out!

The Crucible

The Crucible

Faith and lies can twist and destroy lives. This is a basic premise of Arthur Miller’s wonderful play The Crucible, produced by the Arvada Center. The play, set in the 1690’s showcases the lunacy and terror that occurs when a society arbitrarily places faith in a higher power. Upon entering the world of The Crucible we are immediately confronted with one character’s consummate second-handedness. An important central figure to the play, Reverend Parris, is shown kneeling in front of his unconscious daughters’ bed. He is praying, most likely about the situation at hand. Before the start of the play the Reverend stumbles upon some of the local girls, including his daughter, dancing in the forest. In a place where god and law are one and the same, anything perceived as a moral wrongdoing is a punishable offense. Reverend Parris, a main representative of the mood of the play, is completely obsessed with the beliefs and perceptions of those around him.

Only a few characters in the play show their first handed ability to live their own lives dependent of other’s opinions. The main character, John Proctor, showcases the tragic story of The Crucible. A man who has only once told a lie, he takes on the whole town when finally pushed to the edge. Although, initially, he bides his time attempting to outlive his one dishonest moment, eventually he sees that truth is the only way and confesses his previous weakness with Abigail. The antagonist of the play, Abigail Williams, is a young lady infatuated with the striking John Proctor. Their affair, which ended in Abigail being fired by Proctors wife Elizabeth, was never known by the public. For once again, the public opinion is everything in a town based on faith.
Arthur Miller has done a great job in showing that lies feed other lies. When people are threatened they will seek any way out, even losing their integrity. This concept of integrity is integral to the plot and story of this play. For at the plays end, the upright man Proctor, refuses to implicate other people accused of being a witch. With his final testament that they can try and take his soul, but to leave him his name, Proctor comes close to some grander understanding of life. Miller shows us that men can be pushed, but no matter what, there is always choice.

The play almost seems to take on the format of an epic tragedy. With many characters, and the time taking place over several months, this almost is true. However, a closer look shows the climactic formatting of the story structure. It is true that the play takes place over a few months, but the location doesn’t really change in any meaningful way. The farthest we are taken is in John Proctors property on the outskirts of town, where he is confronted by many of the characters from the town, but this doesn’t seem enough evidence to allow this play to meander into the realm of epic tragedy.

John Proctor could be considered a tragic character. He is upright, a goodly man, who is willing to take his beliefs to their inevitable end. He may have his doubts along the way, but his unwavering integrity is crucial to the story of The Crucible.

The production elements were effective and to the point. A simple black box theatre, with a few easy to maneuver sets. The set, which included a vast arrangement of ropes as the backdrop, and a disproportionate (twisted) framing of the houses and court, fully captured the essence of the play. In Act III, the courtroom scene, Abigail begins to accuse Mary of bewitching her. The closeness of the audience to the stage allowed her to begin pointing over our heads shouting about a bird. This involved the audience (the voyeurs), almost making them feel uncomfortable at times. This is highly effective in twisting the audience’s mood to feel what the protagonist feels; frustration. We as the audience are completely unable to fix or alter others lies. Even though we are completely aware that Abigail is lying, because we see no bird, we feel helpless to do anything about it. As the protagonist (Proctor) also feels helpless. It is this that the production is most effective. After leaving the theatre with the twisted buildings and lynches littering the stage, we are unable to shake the feeling that others beliefs can one day effect our own lives. As it has done in our own recent history, much like the red scare did in America. It is this basic theme that has been so proficiently driven home in the mind of the audience. We may believe that people would not lie when someone’s life is on the line. But, as we were shown, faith can twist and destroy lives.

The Departed

The Departed
By Martin Scorcese
Produced by PLAN B/INITIAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP/VERTIGO ENTERTAINMENT
Review by Kirk Barbera

“When I was [younger] they would say you could become cops, or criminals. Today, what I’m saying to ya is this; when you’re facing a loaded gun, what’s the difference?” The antagonist of the film, a brilliant Jack Nicholson, is initially purposefully under lit, leaving his face always in shadow. As the audience is lead through a series of shots of Boston, Nicholson’s character Frank Costello goes through an explanation of what it takes to be a man in modern Boston, and how the Irish rose from peasants to rulers of the Boston underworld. Upon the conclusion of the “what’s the difference?” line we finally see Frank Costello fully illuminated, and this greatly elucidated moment propels the story into well planned out chaos. As Frank emerges and delivers the last segment of his line we automatically get the premise for the entire movie, for indeed the movie endeavors to satisfy an answer to that very question. The major meanings of this movie can be found in this opening statement. In modern Boston two moles on both sides of the law compete to out-lie the other, leading to an intermingling of deception, self, love, friends and family.

The story follows two men from the Boston State Police academy and their subsequent paths. Billy Costigan (played by Leonardo Dicaprio) is raised as a ‘double kid’ his paternal familial side is completely engrained in the southie (Boston) projects, while his mother apparently lives uptown. This juxtaposition of Costigan’s inner workings enables him to creep his way into Costello’s gang. In contrast to Collin Sullivan (Matt Damon), who is a sly and intelligent kid from the wrong side of the track who was able to embed himself into the state police, and work as a mole for Costello. A movie that could be characterized as a criminal drama, a thriller or a cleverly written character drama, the audience is amazingly shown the conflicts in these two characters’ lives. In this drama each character is trapped in a cocoon of his own deception, leaving the audience in utter wonderment as to what can be considered good or bad.

Several motifs run rampant throughout the movie. Some are a bit much at times, for instance the rat symbolizing… well, a rat, is quite unnecessary. Yet there are a few visual motifs that help to illuminate the underlying story and theme, as well as give credence to the two main characters. The first and most prominent of the motifs is the Boston state capitol’s golden dome. Collin Sullivan seems infatuated with this symbol from the onset of the script. This makes sense given what the film is attempting to say about Sullivan and modern times. For one, Sullivan is a gangster pretending to be a state police detective, and attending law school at night. Throughout the film we see his desire to ‘prove’ himself to his friends, his co-workers, and lover and to anyone who will pay attention including his father figure Costello. In the first date scene with Madolyn we are inundated with his sad attempt at pretending to be sophisticated, while he is obviously charming, he seems to fall short of the upper class he so desperately wants to be a part of. While Sullivan is attempting to prove himself, Costigan is attempting to find himself. Costigan uses many drugs to keep himself sane. This double life pushes these two characters to the edge and back again, making them unravel from the strain of maintaining identities antithetical to their true natures.

Another Motif that seems prevalent in the movie is the use of America memorabilia, everything from flags, and United We Stand Posters to the State capitol dome mentioned above and more. This visual theme is Scorsese’s way of including in the film the underlying theme of America’s uncertainty in contemporary times. As all the elements battle it out in the movie the idea that nothing can be known for certain is inundated on us over and over. What really is good, what really is bad? This theme is hammered home over and over again.

Scorsese illustrates his masterful ability to portray the underbelly of society, and how a countries lower caste often bleeds over into the other molds of society.

All in the Timing: Performed at the University of Colorado - Denver

All In the Timing
A review By: Kirk Barbera

A play about two universal truths important to us all: time and language. As we enter deeper into the 21st century we are still plagued with these two themes. Many nuances in our daily lives seem to be of the utmost of import, yet numerous individuals are caught complaining, they say things like: “I never have enough time,” or “If only there were more time, I could…” or “I never seem to be able to get my point across,” even in love “If only I had a tongue of silver, I could get her/him.” These ideals are commonplace in our lives today, as they were in the lives of most people everywhere at all times. The one commonality in everyone’s life is time. It doesn’t matter how much money you have, it doesn’t matter how far you can kick a football; everyone has twenty four hours in a day. You have twenty four hours, I have twenty four hours, and Albert Einstein had twenty four hours. The difference is merely what we do in those twenty four hours. This play and production succinctly illustrates the humor of our actions in regards to time and language.

The very first play, Sure Thing, is reminiscent of a Meisner acting exercise, in which one person attempts to sit next to another person while the other person attempts to read. The subsequent dialogue is, at least in the exercise, completely dependent upon the two individuals and their ability to listen and feel the other’s reactions. In the play it is used to great effect. And, for obvious reasons, it is David Ives’ most reproduced play. The ensuing effect on the audience is to connect to the individuals thinking to ourselves, “Well, I’ve done that!” As we see the progression of these two people attempting to battle it out in a Groundhogesque way the audience can’t help but feel attracted to these two characters. The stage itself, a thrust, is crafted both elegantly and meaningfully to allow the audience to really be a part of the action. Rooting for the man to say the right thing, than as the dialogue shifts to the woman attempting to win the man, we begin to root for her. It is a great play on emotions, made more prevalent by the enormous backdrop that shifts colors; literally elucidating emotions.

Next we have Words, Words, Words, while seemingly the least effective in garnering laughs, a rather insightful attempt to convey our societal attempt to re-create art of the past. The set design again simply explains the three ‘monkeys’ situation. Automatically, through music cues, swings, and acting, we understand that these three people are in fact monkeys. Seemingly not the most popular of plays this one can strike a chord with many writers in the audience. Words, Words, Words showcases the frustration that can sometimes happen when attempting to write.
Universal language, the third play of the night, and probably one of the more popular ones, mesmerizes an audience whether they are capable of keeping up with the funny tongue or not. No matter who the audience member is, it is seemingly impossible to keep up with all of the doubletalk. Yet, we are still left with a vague assurance that we have walked away with a meaningful experience on trust, love, language and some of our frustration at being unable to communicate effectively, and thusly fit in.

Everyone can understand living temporarily, or sometimes forever it seems, in a Philadelphia. You ask the drive-thru person for no onion, and you of course, get onions. On an attempt to print out your economics homework you subsequently fry your motherboard. It’s easy to connect with the poor sap that has seemingly fallen into a ‘Philadelphia.’ With that dear friend who seems to always be living that L.A. dream, juxtaposed together with ones misery, this makes for real comedy. Seeming to play on the concept of the way we act according to our situation. As some of us were told, you can’t control your circumstances, but you certainly can control the way you react to them. As Mr. L.A. is put up against a Philadelphia we all realize that although most of us go through these days, some people just can’t handle it.

Variations on the Death of Trotsky, depending on how one looks at the puzzle of this play, may actually be the crux of the whole thing. Explaining to us that ‘the victors always write the…’ Upon entering Trotsky’s parallel universe it is seemingly apparent of his unfortunate, yet humorous, predicament. As many in contemporary times read the history books, holes in the writing become immediately apparent. This one plays on this to great humorous effect. As Mrs. Trotsky points out, Mr. Trotsky has had a mountain-climbers axe embedded in his head, yet as she reads the encyclopedia (a 2009 edition, the play is set in 1940) they discover he is struck in the head one day, and dies the next. This is the imagined happenings of that ‘next’ day.
The last play of the night brings together all the plays and showcases, a little too easily, the point of the play. Time and language. The baker at one point even plays a clock. Although the play seems oversimplified, it is still a fun way to end the night.

Overall, the night can appeal to a hugely wide audience. Through the transitions of stages, all quite different, to the funny and playful plays themselves, almost everyone can get something out of this night with the University of Colorado Denver, Theater, Film and Video department.

Richard III

Richard III Play Review
By Kirk Barbera
Performed by The Denver Center for Performing Arts

The silliness of the latest production of a rather contemptible character is reminiscent of a man reaching into a bag of tricks to accomplish the unknown. Richard was played by an incredible actor, Andrew Long, who seemed to have a firm grasp of his role. It seemed however, while watching this mediocre play by Shakespeare, which was ruined and brought down to the level of a beginners understand of Richard III, by director Jesse Berger. The individual actor’s performances where grandiose and believable, the director’s haughty vision got in the way of a true Shakespearean experience.

First is needed a brief dissection of Shakespeare’s Richard III. Richard is a man deformed at birth, but born into royalty. A noble outcast. His desire to lead the life ‘given to him’ is what drives his morality, believing he is only living according to his nature. Richard Isn’t satisfied with wars ending; only the never-ending battle interests him. As he says in his opening soliloquy:
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover to entertain these fair well-spoken days, I am determined to prove a villain and hate the idle pleasures of these days.

It is apparent what his motivation is throughout the play, simply that of power. The major dramatic question I believe Shakespeare is attempting to bring up is what the taste of power does to a man, but more importantly it brings up the rather interesting inspection of a true unapologetically evil man.

The main error in Mr. Berger’s sad attempt to bring this play to life is his evident ‘dummying down of Shakespeare’ for a more modern audience. This was rather obvious with some of the choices the actors made, more than likely at the bequest of their director. The use of certain gestures to ‘help’ the audience understand what is being said on stage was rather insulting. Worst of all however, was the music used, the trite and overly dramatic music that played whenever another one of Richard’s victims was about to die was horrendously distracting. It was also very hard to get engaged by this supposedly ‘charming’ character when I only felt bad for the stupidity of the supporting characters. It is true that Richard was very convincing; it is also true that a person is a buffoon to be duped by a family member they’ve known their whole lives; this is like a woman who is surprised that her abusive husband beat her again.

There were some notably good features to this play as well. For one, the costumes were done beautifully. Especially that of Richard himself, his costume bellied his evil yet innovative nature. He did not need to apologize for his ragged limp and ugly deformity. He seemed to use it to his advantage. The knife on his left ankle was a clever way to convey to the audience this is a man underestimated, who knows very well how to take care of himself. The set design was also eloquently done. Personally there are two scenes I rather enjoyed: First was the scene when the people begged Richard to be their king and he is seen walking on the scaffolding above, showing his supposed superiority to everyone around him, and his subsequent refusal than acceptance of the position. That scene was ingenious by both the directorial choices and the writers’ choices. Secondly was the dream sequence. In this sequence the use of the lighting and music was incredibly on task. It truly shows the damage done to Richard’s mental situation. Although, he may have been a good natured child he seemed to have been changed by his environment, this sequence shows the consequences of those choices.

Overall, Richard III is a story of a man corrupted by power and turned to evil. The theatrical elements needed for this production were there. Unfortunately for us the director wished to commercial one of Shakespeare’s most famous, yet unworthy plays.

The Diviners by jim Leonard, Jr

Performed by: Metropolitan State College of Denver’s Theatre Program of the Department of Communication Arts & Sciences

In the tiny town of Zion Indiana an idiot boy charms a preacher and teaches the town how to appreciate what they have. Although, the story lacks much depth, the story of a handicapped child with the supernatural ability to sense water, and is thusly destroyed by it, can teach us all to choose to understand our surrounding on a deeper level. The play starts out with Buddy laymen using a divining rod to help him find water. After finding water the protagonist C.C. Showers (played by an incredible Ben Cowhick) enters the scene. C.C. a semi in depth psychological character seeks to escape the life he had. In the town of Zion he attempts to work as a mechanic and is hired during the great depression even without any skills as a mechanic. C.C. is hired by the father of Buddy Laymen and Jennie Mae Laymen which suggests the family is not quite as bad off as the rest of the town and country. After it is discovered C.C. was a preacher from Kentucky the whole town goes in an uproar. Zion has been without many of the common luxuries of the day, they spend the majority of their time fixing bikes, digging ditches, hauling hay and praying before meals. The towns’ womenfolk imagine that with a preacher in their midst they may be able to get the one thing small towns seem to love the most: church.

The water allegory, while done millions of times in the past, is actually quite well done in this Metro production. The stage, a black box, pulls us all right in with its simplicity and small town feel. The movement of the characters in the final scene in cooperation with the elegant sounds, lighting and the large backdrop was extremely memorable. Although many of the characters may be forgotten the moment you leave the school, C.C. and Buddy are most assuredly going to touch the audience’s heart

A story to turn some heads and remind us all that our current economic times are nothing compared to the travesty felt during the Great Depression. We can all learn from C.C.’s abandonment of a job in which he did not enjoy, and his attempt to start over. While the playwright seems to want to warn us of the dangers in attempting to lead meaningful lives, he makes the point that if we don’t learn to control our environment it can destroy us.

The Soloist

The Soloist
Directed by Joe Wright

Reviewed by Kirk Barbera

The Soloist is a movie about two individuals living in the same city, but seeming to live in alternate universes. Steve Lopez is a journalist for the esteemed L.A. Times. Mr. Lopez is at a point in his life where he isn’t sure how he feels about the direction he is headed, and where he has been so far. This includes his job, his seemingly wrecked marriage with a fellow journalist, and his relationship with his son. Right at what could be one of the lowest points in his life Mr. Lopez meets a very unusual character; Nathaniel Ayers. Nathaniel is a middle aged black American who went to Julliard. When Mr. Lopez sees him he is playing the violin and quite beautifully. Oh, there’s one thing about Nathaniel, he lives on the streets, and that violin of his only has two strings. The ‘two little pigs went missing’ as Nathaniel says. Nathaniel also has a mental illness most likely schizophrenia.

It would be hard to watch this movie and not see the directors’ viewpoint on genius. Nathaniel is completely infatuated with the great Ludwig Van Beethoven. Although, obvious differences between the two people and both individuals are separated by more than 100 years, they both were portrayed as being quite similar. Ludwig, for example, was mentally handicapped, or so many people thought due to his deafness. Both men were likely to erupt in fits of rage. They also loved music with a similar passion, explicating music’s ability to speak through everyday nuances; life explains itself through music they might say. But, most of all, they both were absolutely in love with Ludwig Van Beethoven.

Each shot of the movie was meticulously crafted to showcase how these two men would eventually become great friends who influenced each other heavily. As in the tracking shot of the cello which had been donated after Mr. Lopez’s article about Nathaniel. The shot tracks this cello from an elderly ladies home to the office of Mr. Lopez. This elucidates the beginning of their ‘friendship.’ Previously, Mr. Lopez had thought of Nathaniel as merely a guy to do a story about, but now he is getting personally involved and this will set off all the incidents throughout the movie. Another great shot showing their distance as two human beings but Mr. Lopez’s willingness to try and enter Nathaniel’s world is a shot in which Lopez is leaning against a large gate while Nathaniel is finishing playing or ‘making love’ as it seems to his two stringed violin. This funny scene starts off with Lopez not wanting to be rude and interrupt Nathaniel as he seems more intent on playing this broken instrument than Lopez has ever been with anything in his entire life. To Lopez, it would seem irreverent to interrupt this god-like infatuation Nathaniel seems to have with his music. It is something that throughout the story Lopez most admires about the estranged Nathaniel, and why he wishes to ‘help’ him.

In the end it isn’t just Mr. Lopez helping Nathaniel, he discovers it’s not his place to help him. Lopez realizes the importance of friendships or as Aristotle exclaimed ‘the importance of a perfect relationship between men.’ Lopez attempted to force drugs and psychiatric help upon Nathaniel, and it almost ended up getting him murdered by his friend. Nathaniel is one of the few truly independent souls in the country, and unfortunately his illness is portrayed as the reason – which it isn’t – Nathaniel can teach us all about how to live our lives for ourselves, no matter what others may think. Nathaniel wasn’t helped by Lopez, he helped Lopez. It may be argued that they helped each other, and in a way this is true, the relationship did seem symbiotic. However, by the end of the film it was apparent that Lopez, a man who lived based off of the opinions of others, was transposed after his encounter with the independent thinking man; Nathaniel Ayers.