I'm So Tired... of Nat Topping's Blog

David Byrne/Brian Eno's New Album is Wonderful!

2008-08-20T16:01:00.004-05:00

For the last 3 days, I've had the songs from "Everything That Happens Happens Today" bouncing around in my echoey, vacuous mind. And there are a lot worse things I could be filling that void with.

This is an victorious, melancholy, funny and poignant album that once again finds David Byrne reveling and rejoicing in the faults and flaws of humans.

I've never heard "My Life In the Bush of Ghosts", the first Byrne/Eno collaboration, although from what I hear that was more of an Eno/Byrne collaboration, whereas this new album sounds more like a Byrne/Eno union, so I can't compare it. With the exception of some of the amazing singles and collaborations that DB has released in the last 4 years, the music on this album is the best album's worth of material he's put out since "Look Into the Eyeball" in 2001.

I'm still maybe too close for true perspective, but for a massive DB fan like myself, this is the most excited I've felt about one of his albums since "Feelings" in 1997. And for a DB fan like myself, it feels darn good.

Personal faves are "Life is Long", "Everything That Happens," and "One Fine Day", but you can check out my 4th favorite, "Strange Overtones" for free.

---

Oh, and by the way, for you Nat Topping "fans", his blog probably sucks today. It's about sports, so I refused to read it.

Nat Thinks He's Smarter Than The Olympics Admissions Officials

2008-08-14T18:03:00.003-05:00

Nat claims that he's known for years that Olympian He Kexin is younger than 16, making her ineligible to win the gold at this year's Olympics.

I give Nat's post today a rating of...

* * * 1/2 - So boring that my own blog is suffering as a result.

Nat's Been Lazy

2008-08-13T10:11:00.000-05:00

Okay, sorta-fans of Nat. I haven't reviewed the last 6 entries by "yours truly", meaning Nat, since that's how he sometimes refers to himself.

I've been on vacation and away from the Internet (yes, Nat, "Internet" should be capitalized), so I've been unable to educate and prepare you, the readers of Nat Topping's blog, for what awaits you at the so-called "Clever Title".

Well, if you didn't brave-up and check out his blog on your own, no worries. It's been almost completely not worth reading. So far this month, he's posted five (5) entries, three (3) of which are him going, "Oh, have pity on me, I'm so sorry I haven't bored you to tears with my lame postings very much recently. I just feel so sick. Or no, wait, I've been busy at work, yeah that's it! Really, I've had so many interesting things to write to you about, but I just haven't been able to get to them because I've been so busy and sick!" Well, to each of those posts, I give them a rating of...

* * = mostly awful

...because there's nothing worse than listening to a "grown man" (if Mr. Topping can indeed be categorized as such) grovel and whine and make us all feel better. Hey, faithful readers of this blog, I encourage all of you to mail Nat a paper envelope of chicken noodle soup so he knows we all "care about" him. Here's his address:

Nat Topping
c/o Enya's Assassin's lap
100 North Unfunny Lane
Boringtown, Delaware 52636 (spells LAME-O on a phone pad)

There was one post that was worth reading. I thoroughly enjoyed it and laughed hysterically, so much so that it is outside the bounds of the usual rating system, so I have to give it a star rating of...

negative * * * = Wait a second, are you sure this is that Nat Topping's blog?!

Bravo, Nat, this definitely makes the list of "Good Blog Entry" by Nat Topping. (Please notice the non-pluralized form of "entry".) See, I can be fair.

Nat Topping Wants to Engage in Battle

2008-07-30T11:12:00.012-05:00

Well, according to me, Nat's blog today receives a rating of:

** = Almost worth reading.

(But what do YOU think of Nat's blog today? Cast your vote in the poll to the left.)

Unbelievable. Evidently, Nat is the kind of "artist" who likes to engage the critics, because once again, for the second time since I founded this blog as a helpful internet resource on July 21, he spends his day today obsessing over me and my blog. I guess I should be flattered in some sick way, but I'm not. That's what separates me from Nat. (That and my willingness to brush my teeth and bathe more than once a month. I also make a banana coffee cake that Nat Topping could never dream of rivaling.) When I set out on my mission to provide the regular readers of Nat's blog with helpful tips for navigating his blog, I never anticipated it would be so much about me. But I guess this is one of those circumstances where "art" (if that's what you call Nat's blog) holds a mirror up to life, which then holds up another mirror, and so on. Here's a visual representation of what Nat's blog is beginning to look like...

A vast improvement, really, considering that the usual visual representation of his blog is usually this...

Today he criticizes many things about my last week of blogging, so it should be obvious to everyone that he is so insecure about his "work" that he checks constantly to see what other bloggers are saying about him. To go into depth about what he says would be pointless, since you can be sure it is all negative and petty. He has problems with my ground rules for this site, which is irrelevant because he is the one person on earth that this site is NOT intended to serve. If any of Nat's or my readers have suggestions for how I can better serve them, please, let me know in the comments section of my "Ground Rules" post.

The only reason I gave Nat a 2-star rating today is that, well, if you like my blog enough to read it every day, you might enjoy Nat's today since it's all about me.

Nat Thinks Non-Angry Robots Are Lame

2008-07-29T13:11:00.003-05:00

Nat's blog today gets a rating of:

* * - Almost worth reading.

The brilliance of Nat's post today is that it's mercifully short. Basically, there's a new robot that's been created to express 2 emotions, namely comfort and fear. Evidently Nat wants this robot to also contain rage, because he feels the world is not full enough of hate. This is a key example of everything that is wrong with Nat's blog, but it's so short that today's not a bad day to check out his blog.

I bet that this robot does actually experience rage, but only when reading "Clever Title" by Nat Topping.

Nat Shares His Feelings About "Metaluna", a Dada play by Joe Janes

2008-07-28T13:01:00.002-05:00

Well, I've been posting a lot today (see other posts below), but such is the case when critiquing such a prolific writer as Nat Topping. (What he lacks in quality he accentuates in quantity!)

I give Nat's blog entry for Monday, July 28 a rating of:

* * * = I puked a little, but it stayed in my mouth.

Today he left a review of "Metaluna and The Amazing Science of The Mind" a play he saw last night. Incidentally, I was at the exact same performance, within eye- and ear-shot of Nat himself, so my experience, if not my understanding of the show, was relatively similar to Mr. Topping's. I am thus in a unique position to criticize his current blog entry.

Towards the beginning of the review, he references another Dada play called "Soiree Dada" (which he misspells "Soire Dada"--to be expected given his intelligence level, but I'm not going to be petty by calling him out on every single typographical error.) He provides a hyperlink to "Soire Dada" [sic]. (WARNING! Click the hyperlink at YOUR OWN RISK! It links to another of Nat's blog entries that was written so long ago it's not worth my critiquing, although I remember reading it at the time and vaguely recall that it was slightly worth reading, but I guarantee NOTHING in this case!)

As Nat rambles on about Dada, the reader cannot help but think, "Hey, that's a lot like your blog! Random and seemingly without a point." But his blog is unlike the Dada I've seen in that Dada is consistently fun. It doesn't try to comfort you or make itself accessible, but despite any of its efforts to bother the viewer, it has usually been fun for me. I wondered if I might actually have enjoyed "Metaluna" even more if I'd come in knowing nothing about the show, but having only seen the intriguing and crudely-made sign out front. "Metaluna" was a visual feast, and often I had a hard time deciding what part of the stage to watch, because multiple equally-interesting things were happening. The show left me feeling both captivated and alienated (which may have been its intent). My brain wanted to make sense of what I was seeing, and there were so many [intentional] loops and threads and deadends in this play that you don't walk home with a clear idea of what happened.

Unless you're Nat Topping, apparently! He tells us that by the time he got home, he'd figured it out. But then he conveniently doesn't mention what he figured out. Hmmm...

He also doesn't mention when and where you can see "Metaluna", and although my job here is to criticize Nat's blog, "Metaluna" is so worth seeing that I will do what Nat did not and tell you how you can see this. You really should, too. Because plays like this do not come around very rarely. It is a simultaneously challenging and inebriating experience to see a show like this. The gorgeous set and costumes alone are worth half of the admission.

"Metaluna" runs Thursdays through Saturdays at 8:00p.m. and Sundays at 7:00p.m.
Runs through August 16, 2008
At the Red Orchid Theatre
1531 N. Wells St.
Chicago
TICKETS: $15.00 (Thu/Sun); $20.00 (Fri/Sat)

But I digress. Nat's blog sucks.

Nat is In a Richard Simmons Rut

2008-07-28T11:58:00.003-05:00

Nat's blog postings on Thursday, July 24 and Friday, July 25 both receive a rating of...

* * * * - Mostly awful.

Be sure to read the new "Ground Rules" for this site posted below. There is also a link on the right-hand side of this blog.

Well folks, I didn't critique Nat's blog on Thursday or Friday, but there isn't much to say. He goes on and on about Richard Simmons running for senate, and then he has a thing about Richard Simmons' dalmatians, which may or may not be based on something real. He is currently inviting his 3 readers to post questions to these dalmatians, presumably so that he can then write a letter back to the person and lie to them by claiming that the dalmatian is actually the one responding.

I'll try it out so that you don't have to. My letter to the "dalmatian" (aka Nat Topping) will be this:

Dear Richard Simmons' Dalmatians,

I'm in a bit of a pickle. Every day I visit Nat Topping's blog, but some days after reading it, I just feel awful, like someone has taken my skullcap off and covered the top layer of my brain with 2-day old, browning guacamole. What should I do?

Sincerely,
Craig Squendling

$50 says the reply either neglects to mention my blog, or slanders it in some way. This will be proof positive that the letter was not written by an enlightened trio of dalmatians, as this blog is already very popular in the dog community.

I'll keep you posted, of course!

Ground Rules For Critiquing Nat's Blog

2008-07-28T11:11:00.006-05:00

Hello former regular readers of Nat's blog. I'm happy to have you as regular readers of my blog now, and I hope my service is serving you well enough that you are only sometimes-readers of Nat's blog now. Since my service of ceaselessly scrutinizing Nat Topping's every blog entry is relatively new, I think it would be helpful if I establish some ground rules and outline my process a bit.

You may notice some big changes around here! Since finding my new life's vocation of tirelessly holding a microscope to Nat Topping's blog, the unfortunately named "Clever Title", it is time to give this blog a new birth.

Rating system. From now on, each of my entries will begin by reveal a star rating for Nat's entries. Since the norm for Nat's blog is that his entries are completely without merit, this calls for a slightly different ranking system. The rating system is below, and I think it's pretty self-explanatory.

* * * * * = Truly awful. Don't bother.
* * * * = Mostly awful.
* * * = I puked a little, but it stayed in my mouth.
* * = Almost worth reading.
* = So decent he probably plagiarized.

Time restrictions. Ordinarily, Nat posts early in the day. If he has not posted by 2:00 pm (CST), I will rightfully assume that he does not intend to post, and will feel free to criticize him regarding this. Should he decide to post later in the day, I will not rescind my admonishment, but will also chastise him for tardiness when I get around to my critique of the late entry.

If I do not post. This is an important item, because you need to know that I take this service very seriously. If I do not post, view that as the lowest possible rating ever. It means that Nat's blog is so bad on that particular day that it is not even worth commenting on.

I may think of additional ground rules later, and I will keep a link to this post at the top of this blog so that it can be easily referenced at any time.

As ever, you the potential readers of Nat's blog, are my first consideration, so if there are ways I can serve you better, please leave a comment on this post.

Nat Doesn't Appear To Be Posting Today

2008-07-23T16:52:00.002-05:00

Well Nat Topping's blog readers, Sir Topping does not appear to be blogging today. Perhaps he's taking some time to reflect on my post from yesterday. I really don't know what he does in his free time, and frankly, I don't want to know.

So to cut to the chase, Nat's blog is definitely not worth reading today.

Nat Topping Thinks I'm a Jerk!

2008-07-22T12:42:00.004-05:00

Well, we've reached day two of my endless critique on Nat Topping's blog, and already we've hit a milestone--the day Nat was finally compelled to publicly acknowledge my dissent. Today his blog was all about me, and unfortunately he reduced himself to petty name-calling. I should probably re-read my own posting from yesterday before saying this, but I never got personal. I was merely critiquing his writing. Let's take a look at what he says...

---

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Some People Are Just Jerks...
...you know what I mean?

It's come to my attention that someone in my comments section took issue with yesterday's post and decided to write a whole blog about my blog.

I guess when your last post was June 3rd and it was about hand puppets you must be grasping for things to write about.

Normally, I wouldn't take time out of my busy day to bother responding to this kind of trash blogging, but today I'm actually not so busy. So let's take a quick look at his post, cleverly titled "No, Nat's Batman!" No need to click on the link, as I will save you the pain of sifting through his tedious scribbling by posting the only pieces worth reading.

Basically, he rambles for a little bit about who I am and why he reads my blog all the time. Then he reposts my entire post from yesterday - real original - and then adds this little gem onto the end:

"Hey, big spoiler, Nat said something really unique that no one else has said
and that no one will ever say again, and that's how great Heath Ledger is as the
Joker. Whoa! Can you believe he stepped out on a limb like that and gave such
laud and honor to Heath Ledger? Gee whiz, I sure hope the whole world listens to
Nat on this one so that everyone will stop talking about how awful Heath Ledger
is in The Dark Night!"

I can't tell if he's being sarcastic because he never writes in his blog so who knows what he's actually like?

But supposing he is trying to be sarcastic, then how original, "GW!" Way to take my statement and really turn it around by saying that I'm not saying anything new (yes, this is sarcasm). Is that all you got? Guess what? By reposting what I already wrote and then writing that other people wrote the same idea, you're not writing anything new either. TIMES TWO! Oh, and guess what? Heath Ledger's dead. Way to be insensitive, prick!

Then, he has the gall to write this:

"If you want my humble opinion, don't waste your time reading his blog today if
you're planning on seeing the Batman movie anyway. Don't rely on Nat Topping to
feed you your own opinions about this movie."
Humble opinion? Really? By 'humble' do you mean 'stupid?!' How about I feed my opinions to your face?! Using my fists like they were forks?

I did not want to do this; I never wanted my blogging to come to this. I always said I was going to stay above the fray of petty bickering, but sometimes you get these big jerk faces who come in here and want to rip on your blog because they don't have their own opinions and it just makes me so angry. If it's war he wants, then come get some.

If "GW" didn't have a baby-face and a smile like a golden rainbow, I would smash his teeth in.

P.S. Do me a favor. Go to his blog, I'm So Tired and leave him a comment letting him know how much of a jerk-faced a-hole he is.

P.P.S.
Whatever happened to Madge Fairwell?

---

Blogspot is causing me trouble when I try to insert my comments in the text above, so I will repost the things I want to respond to below...

I guess when your last post was June 3rd and it was about hand puppets you must be grasping for things to write about.

He makes a small albeit relevant point here. But the fact is I have been otherwise engaged to take the time to write in my blog, until I realized that Nat's blog is something I could critique in a public forum, which is why I am suddenly inspired to write again. He assumes that all of my posts will be negative, which is why his entire post takes on a very angry, bitter tone. A lot of people involved in theatre just can't take the bad reviews. But that doesn't mean the critics are wrong. Nat Topping is exactly this kind of person, which is why I won't discuss this with him one-on-one. Instead I choose to tell the public, who has the right to know which of Nat's blog postings are worth reading.

I can't tell if he's being sarcastic because he never writes in his blog so who knows what he's actually like?

I apologize if any of my readers were also as clueless as Nat was about my intended tone. I had indicated in brackets "<>" that the tone was indeed sarcastic, but Blogspot thought I was trying to type in code and left that paragraph blank. Evidently Blogspot does not have a way of visually representing "", and so it chose to ignore my text.

By reposting what I already wrote and then writing that other people wrote the same idea, you're not writing anything new either.

He then proceeds to say that I am not writing anything new in saying that he is not writing anything new. His logic is flawed here. If he can find me one other blogger who has commented on how Nat Topping wasn't saying anything new when he talked about how great Heath Ledger was, then I will back down.

"Don't rely on Nat Topping to feed you your own opinions about [Dark Knight]."

That was actually him quoting me, but I still thought it was a good point.

He then makes threats against me and my livelihood, but then seemingly rescinds them saying that I have a "baby face and a smile like a golden rainbow". This is either a genuine compliment, or is a veiled threat, because only me and my family is aware that this phrase is printed on my birth certificate because the doctor felt compelled to describe my beauty officially. So Nat's comment could just imply that he is in possession of my birth certificate and intends to rob my identity. By putting his threat out in the open, I am hoping to thwart any such attempts.

Either way, it was probably my favorite part of his post, because it was a compliment to me whether he meant it to be or not.

He ends by including a hyperlink to Madge Fairwell's blog. Madge is a good friend of mine, and I encourage you also to visit her blog. She was last spotted along the Nachez Trace attempting to buy a goat from a man who was not interested in selling it.

In summary, even if it is a tad pouty and reactionary, Nat's blog is entirely worth reading today because it's all about me, although one wonders how long he can sustain himself by simply lashing out at his critics.

I encourage Nat's readers who are tired of sometimes reading good stuff, and othertimes feeling like their time has been wasted, to come to my blog first everyday, and I will simply tell you if his blog is worth visiting on that particular day.

No, Nat's Batman!

2008-07-21T12:41:00.006-05:00

Hi everyone, it's been awhile, and I've had emails literally streaming in begging me to come back and asking what I've been up to. (No, I did not use the word "literally" incorrectly. The emails actually formed a literal stream, not of water, but of some sort of liquid electric plasma that would ooze out of my monitor and drip onto my desk whenever I check my gmail.)

The truth is, I've been spending most of my time reading Nat Topping's blog and figuring out what really makes him tick.

I was first drawn to Nat's blog because it is very similar to mine, in that it has a title that is not in the URL (Nat's blog is called "Clever Title" but it's at "ntopping.blogspot.com".)

The first thing you'll notice if you visit his blog, and I don't necessarily recommend that you do, you will see that he's basically a guy who writes about his thoughts and other things that are directly or indirectly related to him. Sometimes he talks about his life, making fake trees, buying clever panties, or pirates. Other times he talks about his opinions on theatre or films. Take for example, what he said today in his blog (reprinted below so that I don't inadvertently create extra traffic to his blog--make sure not to click on the hyperlink).

---

No, I'm Batman!

For all the hype that there has been for this movie, I don't think The Dark Knight is going to change anyone's life. As good as it is, The Dark Knight is not the perfect film, it will not send you to Nirvana, and it won't inspire transcendent epiphanies about the meaning of life. I mean, it's a superhero movie. It's based on a comic book that we've all either read or at least know about from it's nearly 80 years worth of existence.

That said, it's really freaking good. Not so good that I would wait in line for hours out in the rain to get tickets, but still the kind of good that makes a grown man want to gush about it with his friends immediately afterwards.

I don't want to talk too much about it because I don't want to ruin the experience for anyone. Basically, it was everything you liked about the last Batman movie - in all of it's dark, brooding, kick-ass glory - plus Heath Ledger as the joker.

Now that I think about it, the Heath Ledger playing the Joker thing actually does live up to the hype. He was great. That's really about all you can say. He was great.

Having seen all of the Batman movies, watched the cartoons and read a healthy portion of the comic books, this was the first time that the Joker has ever felt dangerous. In this movie, the Joker is the kind of guy whose craziness never really gets explained but in watching the way the character acts you know that there's an explanation buried somewhere. All of the nuances, the little character ticks, and the creepy moments that are still somehow funny make the performance so much fun to watch.

Also, let us not forget that the stunts and special effects were awesome. Combine that with some beautiful shots of Gotham (played by the city of Chicago) and you have some compelling movie-making.

The movie does include conceits about terrorism and power and the proper way of dealing with crime and violence. There's even a moment where we get to ponder whether or not it's morally just to spy on the entire city of Gotham using their cellphones (the answer is a 'yes, but only this one time'). There wasn't enough there to really develop a lesson, though and really this felt more like a framework on which to hang character motive and awesome action sequences than it did a definitive statement on society.

At the end of the day, it's a summer blockbuster. This is not a knock against the movie. I loved it. I may see it again. But people have been acting like it's the second coming of Movie and it's not. It's just a lot of fun.

Solid performances with solid stuntwork and solid storytelling. Go see it.

---

Okay, it's me, Greg again. If you decided to just skim the above post, basically he wrote about the new Batman movie and how it's mostly really good, but he didn't seem to like everything about it.

Hey, big spoiler, Nat said something really unique that no one else has said and that no one will ever say again, and that's how great Heath Ledger is as the Joker. Whoa! Can you believe he stepped out on a limb like that and gave such laud and honor to Heath Ledger? Gee whiz, I sure hope the whole world listens to Nat on this one so that everyone will stop talking about how awful Heath Ledger is in The Dark Night!

If you want my humble opinion, don't waste your time reading his blog today if you're planning on seeing the Batman movie anyway. Don't rely on Nat Topping to feed you your own opinions about this movie.

Sifl and Olly - Weird Day

2008-06-03T11:41:00.006-05:00

I love Sifl and Olly. Like all of my favorite things, I'm into them for awhile, then forget about them for awhile, then remember how much I love them, and on and on ad infinitum. It's why I haven't told you about them before. Please forgive me.

Sifl and Olly is the creation of Matt Crocco and Liam Lynch, friends since childhood. From my memory of having heard this story firsthand, it all began when Liam moved to England to study with Paul McCartney. While living there, the two would compose tapes where they would interview each other as different characters. The way it would work is like this: Using a four-track recorder, one person would record all the questions and reactions to the interviewee on one track, leaving pauses on the tape to allow time for the other person to answer. Then they would mail the tape to the other person. Then the other person would assume a character, without having ever listened to the tape before would sit down and improvise answers to the questions. The randomness of it all led to some very odd hilarity. (Incidently, this is a fun way of "writing" with friends.)

One day, Liam decided to act out some of the interviews using sock puppets, and Sifl and Olly were born. He mailed the tape to MTV and they said, sure, that looks like a show we'd produce (that particular week). It ended up running for two season on MTV, and a third un-aired season was released later on DVD. That 3rd season is the only season commercially available, but you can find many great clips from the first two seasons online.

Liam Lynch and Matt Crocco are an inspiring duo in that they create in their own spaces, and they just do what they find fun. If you've seen the Tenacious D movie or Sarah Silverman's "Jesus is Magic" film, you've seen Liam's directorial work. Both films got panned, but I'm a defender of the Tenacious D movie. They pulled off an impressive, classic rock musical that was true to form and filled with good music. Granted, the end felt too rushed. Still worth renting. Sarah Silverman is better enjoyed on her TV show and in viral videos, and I'm not blaming Liam Lynch over my not enjoying "Jesus is Magic."

I'm posting this Sifl and Olly video because (1) I'm smart and have just learned how to post videos, and (2) this video could pretty much count as a journal entry for me, since it's how I've felt at work for the last 2 days. The way Sifl stares into the camera is exactly how I've been staring into my computer screen. Enjoy.

Bring John Dillinger to Work Month

2008-05-29T15:52:00.044-05:00

For the last few weeks, the area right behind my place of work has been teeming with film crew from "Public Enemies", a film directed by Michael Mann and starring (among others) Johnny Depp and Christian Bale. The film is about John Dillinger, and since Dillinger was shot to death in the alley behind my work and Michael Mann likes shooting on location, this block seemed a logical enough place to shoot (both bank robbers and movies).

The film has obviously generated a lot of excitement a bustle around here, myself included, and everyone has so much to say about it. But to me the most exciting thing about it is the way they've completely redecorated the shops on Lincoln Avenue. It looks amazing and it feels like you're either walking around in 1934's Chicago, or in the John Dillinger quarter of Universal Studios, Florida. (Appropriate then that this is a Universal Studios production.)

Two nights ago I got an idea for a short video that can only be filmed in a circumstance like this. I busted my hump (I have one) to make it work, but ultimately it was just becoming too difficult to arrange, and the since the set is coming down this weekend, it will probably never see the light of day, unless they decide to film another authentic-looking John Dillinger movie on location at some point in the future while I'm living in Chicago.

Since I can't post links to hilarious videos that don't exist, I'll instead post the script I wrote below. I've included photos of the set as appropriate throughout the script. (The photos were taken over a week ago, so they are now a little out of date.)

----

“The Authentic Plot Against John Dillinger”

Cast of Characters:
Melvin Purvis – Federal agent, in charge of the operation
Agent Zarkovich – Federal agent
Agent Madella – Federal agent
Agent O’Neil – Federal agent
Hugh Clegg – Federal agent
John Dillinger – Bank robber
Woman in Orange Skirt – Bank robber’s date

Opening titles over film noir-style music:

“The Authentic Plot Against John Dillinger”

Starring: Cast

Directed by Greg Wendling

Production Design by Nathan Crowley (“The Prestige,” “The Dark Night”, “Insomnia”)

Scrolling title screen:

Chicago
July 22, 1934

After a crime spree that lasted 14 months, spanned 11 states, claimed over $300,000 in cash and 16 human lives, the whereabouts of John Dillinger are finally known. Federal Agent Melvin Purvis, working under the direction of J. Edgar Hoover, has assembled a crack team of special agents to ensure that John Dillinger, Public Enemy Number 1, eludes the hands of justice no more.

(Fade in on FBI Detective Merle Purvis who stands on Lincoln Avenue with Agent Madella. It is approaching dusk. The street is fully decorated for the film “Public Enemies”, but modern day cars and tourists are everywhere, getting in the way of the camera. Our cast ignores everything modern, and focuses on the “authentic” 1934 feel of the set design)

PURVIS

We’ve got him. We’ve finally got him.

MADELLA

So this is really the night, Agent Purvis? The night we bag Ole Johnnie Dillinger.

PURVIS

You got it. This night in 1934 will go down in history. Dillinger is in that theatre now with his girl. She tipped us off. Say, where are the other federal agents?

MADELLA

They should be here momentarily.

(O’NEIL enters. He is eating a banana.)

O’NEIL

Hey boys, so tonight’s the night!

PURVIS

Glad you’re here, Agent O’Neil. We’ve got to act fast.

MADELLA

Hey, where’d you get that banana?

O’NEIL

Over at National Food Store across the street. They’ve got all kinds of groceries there. See, look! Bananas, oranges, .

(Shots of the National Food Store.)

MADELLA

Sure is a wide selection for 1934.

PURVIS

We can’t think about food now, boys. We’ve got to talk about the plan tonight.

(Zarkovich enters, combing his hair.)

ZARKOVICH

Hey guys, we doin’ this or what?

PURVIS

Agent Zarkovich, glad you’re here.

O’NEIL

You look different. Did you get a haircut?

ZARKOVICH

Yeah, I just got out of that barber shop over there.
ZARKOVICH (cont)

See. They’ve got barber chairs, old lamps, old 1934 magazines...

MADELLA

The haircut suits you.

ZARKOVICH (to Purvis)

So what’s the plan, boss?

PURVIS

Hugh Clegg should be here any minute, and then we’ll go over it.

ZARKOVICH

Here he comes now, out of that bakery. Let’s go have a look.

CLEGG

Hello, gentlemen. I had to get a cake for my wife at this state of the art bakery. State of the art for these times anyway. 1934, that is.

MADELLA

They got a good selection in there?

CLEGG

Heck yeah. (Shots of the bakery display.) They’ve got all kinds of pastries, pies, cakes, jelly rolls... Look they have an angel food cake for 69 cents!

ZARKOVICH

Hey, the price is right! I’ll buy a cake.

PURVIS

Sure you will. Just after we get Dillinger. (to Clegg) He’s in the Biograph Theatre across the street.

CLEGG

What time’s he going to come out?

PURVIS

About 10:40 pm.

CLEGG

Well heck, we still got some time, fellas. Anybody mind if I do some quick window shopping at this haberdashery?

(PURVIS looks at his watch and sighs.)

PURVIS

Okay.

(The camera pans the window display at the hat store.)

PURVIS

Alright now gents, it’s 10:30. Time to get into place. I’m going to go stand by the Biograph Theatre. When I see John Dillinger, I’ll light my cigar, and then we’ll all get him. Got it?

MADELLA

Where are you going to get a cigar from, boss?

PURVIS

At this cigar shop. See, they have all kinds of old liquor, cigars, cigarettes, magazines…

(Shots of cigar store.)

ZARKOVICH

Sounds like a plan, boss.

CLEGG

Let’s head towards our posts.

BYSTANDER (off screen)

It’s Johnny Depp!

(The men all break character to look in the direction of Johnny Depp. It's a false alarm.)

MADELLA

Look at the attention to detail on these bricks. They look completely authentic to 1934. Because they are.

CLEGG

Yeah, just like those streetlamps. Or that phone booth. Things sure are modern these days, in 1934.

O’NEIL

I tell you, boys, I love this neighborhood. I’ve lived here my whole life, and I hate to see it soiled by the likes of John Dillinger. But after today, when I stroll down this street to get a loan at this Federal Loans place (Shots of Federal Loans), or look into some real estate at this Real Estate Office (shots of real estate office), or when I want to buy new furniture at this furniture store (shots of furniture store)...

O'NEIL (cont)

I want to always remember this day when we took down John Dillinger once and for all, and the street looked exactly like this.

ZARKOVICH

I hear ya, O’Neil. I’ve had many meals at this atmospheric restaurant (shots of restaurant)...

ZARKOVICH (cont)

and I’ve spent many a night as a transient in this hotel (shots of hotel)...

ZARKOVICH (cont)

and I’ve crossed these cobblestone bricks many times (shots of cobblestone) just to buy a newspaper from this newspaper stand (shots of newspaper stand). I guess tomorrow I’ll buy a paper here and read all about what we’re about to do tonight.

CLEGG

Stop jabbering, boys! Look! Purvis is lighting his cigar! Dillinger must be coming out of the Biograph Theatre!

(We see Purvis lighting a cigar and waving to the men.)

ZARKOVICH

Shoot him!

(They shoot in Dillinger's direction from across the street. Cars pass by, but we can just barely make out John Dillinger falling. The woman he is with, dressed in an orange skirt, runs away.)

JOHN DILLINGER

Oh no, you shot me. All I wanted to do was go inside the Biograph Theatre and enjoy the Iced Cold Air (shot of "Iced Cold Air / Cooled by Refrigeration" sign)...

JOHN DILLINGER (cont)

...and see “Manhattan Melodrama” starring Clark Gable, and William Powell, and Myrna Loy, and Leo Carrillo, and Nat Pendleton, and Isabel Jewell (shots of movie posters). A perfectly current film by 1934 standards.

(Dillinger dies.)

SECURITY GUARD (off camera)

Hey, you can’t lay down here.

PURVIS

For a manhunt that lasted so long, it was all over so fast. Something tells me that for years people will remember this night in 1934 when John Dillinger was gunned down here, at the mouth of this alley, just next to the Mee Wong Chop Suey, adjacent to Drake’s Jewelry...

PURVIS (cont)

across the street from that restaurant, that coffee shop, and that pharmacy...

PURVIS (cont)

...and just down the block from the Phoenix Building Society, Biograph Sweets, Maytag Appliances, Crosley Radios and Appliances, and Brilliant Laundry and Tailors, in 1934.

PURVIS (cont)

What a truly authentic day this is.

-- Closing Credits --

!!!More Unscripted Authenticity!!!

Dance! Dance-Dance!

2008-05-21T14:53:00.006-05:00

Above: My high school class dancing it up at Homecoming '95. (Theme: "Let's Get This Party Leo-started")

Nothing says warm weather more than the booming dance music one hears from the cars on one's block, driving by with windows down. Every summer comes with its own tunes, heaping more nostalgia on the brains of all of us. Of course, we don't realize how much nostalgia has been accumulating until years later when we hear the song again and are instantly reminded that in 1993 we got dumped in a Taco Bell drive-thru.

You can claim its the romantic songs that stick with you throughout your lifetime, but it's the dance song that trumps all other music in terms of its staying power. ("Love of a Lifetime" by Firehouse ain't got nothing on "3 a.m. Eternal" by The KLF) These are the loudest, the longest, and the most frequently played songs of our youths. They are the songs that the high school teachers let the DJs play at homecoming and prom to show they're hip. (Does "Paradise by the Dashboard Light" by Meatloaf count as a dance song?)

This summer's dance song is something very special. Not since the Cha Cha Slide Part II has a dance song been this danceable. It comes complete with instructions on what to do, moment by moment, so even someone like myself can dance to it. You can download this summer's song, "The Do-It Dance " by Tommy G and Kid Rasta, for free. Check it out.

"Wicked" - A (Fake) Theatre Review

2008-05-16T14:01:00.005-05:00

What: "Wicked"
Where: The Oriental Theatre, Chicago, IL
When: Ongoing
Wallet-Impact: $25 - $147.50

Such attention has been paid to details of this show that from the moment you walk through the doors of the Oriental Theatre, nay, from the very moment you purchase your tickets, you know you are going to see a show called "Wicked."

Whether you spend $147.50 online (plus Ticketmaster's convenient charge of $12.50 per ticket and the building fee of $2.50 per ticket) or $25 at the drawing that takes place every day before the show, one thing is certain: You're about to see a pre-quel to "The Wizard of Oz."

The story is as good as any other story I've heard or read, in that words were put together into full sentences and lines of dialogue that communicated to me the storyteller's intended message. For the audience's convenience, there is no reading that needs to be done: Instead, the lines of dialogue are said aloud by the actors who have either done a fantastic job memorizing them, or they have found a brilliant way to conceal the ink on the palms of their hands.

Occassionally, the characters break into song, at which point we can hear the music of instruments simultaneously, playing in accompaniment of the melodies being sung by the actors onstage. It should be noted that unlike the lines of dialogue, the songs often having nothing at all to do with the action you see onstage. For example, one song, sung between two of the characters on it's surface seems to be about how much they like each other, when in reality, the staged events preceeding and following this song seem to indicate to the contrary. It might not make a lot of sense, but if you enjoy watching two ladies, one of them green, sing songs and dance onstage, then you could care less. And so could I.

Susan Hilferty has done an amazing job at the costume designing. She has not forgotten for one moment that each actor needs to be wearing a costume, and indeed one cannot help but notice that they are all fully costumed. Furthermore, the astute among us will not be able to go a moment without thinking, "Oh my goodness! That's exactly what an actor who needed clothes like that for their character would wear!"

It must be noted that Ms. Hilferty's work is greatly enhanced by the artistic clairvoyance of Kenneth Posner and his exquisite lighting design. The lights serve, at all times, to light both the stage and the actors, allowing us to see their costumes and where they are standing in relation to the other actors. (And to ourselves, of course! This is live theatre after all!) While Kenneth Posner for the most part did a superb job, there were several moments when he must have accidentally bumped the light switch, leaving us in total darkness -- from memory this occurred at least 4 times, including just before the show began, right before the intermission, right after the intermission, and again just before the curtain call. Several audience members (myself included) shrieked, a couple women went into labor, and at least three others (that I could see) got pregnant. Still in all, it is a long play, and one can hardly fault Mr. Posner for falling asleep here and there. (I'm getting sleepy just thinking about it!)

If you ask your friends who have seen this show, those who are not familiar with theatre will mention the amazing special effects. Indeed, there are some illusions that make good eye candy for the masses, but I could not be fooled into believing they were actually magic. There's a big wooden dragon that appears to be trained to move its mouth and wings, but it's actually controlled by an actor who is torturing it with a series of ropes and pulleys, and there's also a scene where a floating bubble is clearly suspended from the ceiling with 2 massive pipes dangling from the flyspace (a theatre term for the crotch of my pants).

In conclusion, you don't have to be a laid-off factory worker to enjoy "Wicked," but it certainly couldn't hurt.

The Greatest Stories Never Told... TOLD

2008-05-05T15:53:00.002-05:00

Hey there, friends, I'm just spreading the word about a fantastic (literally) new show I'm involved in as a writer and performer. It's a fun show with lots of smart absurdity. It runs one more weekend -- this Saturday and Sunday (May 10 & 11) at 4:00pm at Gorilla Tango Theatre (1919 N. Milwaukee Ave -- just east of Western), right by the Western blue line stop. Tickets are $10. To purchase tickets call 773-598-4549 or visit www.gorillatango.com. Come one, come all!

The press release is below.

Robot vs. Dinosaur Presents
The Greatest Stories Never Told . . . TOLD!

Chicago, IL (April 2008): Robot vs. Dinosaur presents the world premier of their sketch comedy show, The Greatest Stories Never Told . . . TOLD! beginning April 26 through May 11, Saturdays and Sundays at 4 pm, at Gorilla Tango Theatre, 1919 N. Milwaukee Ave., Chicago 60647. Tickets are $10; to purchase tickets call 773-598-4549 or visit www.gorillatango.com.

The Greatest Stories Never Told . . . TOLD! is a whimsical look at stories of adventure, tall tales and fairy tales, blended together seamlessly into a unique piece that is a hybrid of sketch comedy and storytelling.

Three story lines are interwoven through the show as well as an eclectic mix of comic scenes that combined make for a multi-layered, engaging and fun theatrical experience. Audiences won't have time to blink as stories and scenes move from one fantastic world to the next, giving this show a more unified feel than a typical sketch comedy revue.
"We're trying to create a new kind of show here," says director Chris Othic, a five-year veteran of the Chicago comedy scene. "We tried to focus on story telling as a medium for our comedy writing. It's still sketch comedy, but we've written some fairly complex, narrative scenes and focused on the staging so that it feels a little more like a play. It's an interesting mix and I think audiences will love it."

"A large chunk of our material was performed in the 2007 Chicago Sketchfest, and we got a lot of positive feed back afterward," Othic said. "We've expanded on that material and we're really looking forward to bringing something new to the sketch comedy scene."

ABOUT ROBOT vs. DINOSAUR

Robot vs. Dinosaur originated in New York and was brought to Chicago by Joe Janes in 2007 when he assembled a roster of writers and performers that have a great deal of experience in the Chicago sketch comedy and improv scenes. The ensemble is a writer-centric group, whose goal is to write and perform original comic material that is eclectic, dynamically staged, and fun for audiences. Robot vs. Dinosaur members are Geoff Crump, Joe Janes, Joe Linstroth, Chris Othic, Nat Topping and Greg Wendling. To promote comedy writing in Chicago, Robot vs. Dinosaur also hosts Robowriters, a weekly writers workshop, every Saturday at 1 p.m. at Gorilla Tango Theatre.

MORE ABOUT THE CAST & CREW

Joe Janes (Artistic Director): Joe is the Improv Program Coordinator for and a part-time faculty member of the theater department of Columbia College. He is a founding member of the WNEP Theater Foundation, Teatro Bastardo, and Robot vs. Dinosaur - Chicago. For Second City, he has been a member of the national touring company, a director of the national touring company, Second City-Detroit and Second City-Las Vegas, and has taught for the training center since 1997. He is a playwright and an Emmy award winning writer. You can find out about him at www.biteandsmile.blogspot.com.

Chris Othic (Director): Chris is a graduate of the Second City Conservatory and Writing programs and holds an MA in Theatre from the University of Central Missouri. Chris has recently directed the up-and-coming sketch group, Cell Camp, in their shows Mixtape and Holding Out for a Decent Hero. Chris was a member of Teatro Bastardo and Corporation Inc. and his writing/performing credits include Life is a Joke, News Bites, The Assistant Director's Cut and various other shows. He is a founding member of Robot vs. Dinosaur.

The Greatest Stories Never Told . . . TOLD! is performed by Geoff Crump, Jill Fenstermaker, Tim Heurlin, Mike Johnson, Kate Lambert, Nat Topping and Greg Wendling.
For more information or to schedule a review, please email Joe Janes at joejanes1065@comcast.net. For more information on Gorilla Tango Theatre, contact Kelly Williams, kelly@gorillatango.com.

-----------

Gorilla Tango Theatre (GTT) is a year-round theatrical venue where audiences of all ages can consistently go to see a wide variety of talented artists. GTT exists to provide artists with an opportunity to produce their work in professional environment. GTT was created by Second City- and IO-Chicago-trained Dan Abbate and boasts an 88-seat performance space. GTT Chicago is conveniently located at the intersection of Western and Milwaukee in Chicago's Bucktown neighborhood. Easily accessible by public transportation, GTT is steps away from the Western Blue Line stop and the #49 Western, #73 Armitage and #56 Milwaukee buses. Street parking is readily available. With shows for both children and adults, all GTT performances are on a rating system, similar to the one used in movie theatres. As of August 15, GTT is no longer BYOB and will be offering a variety of affordable beer, wine and malt beverages for purchase. Consult the website for rating information, tickets, and details.

www.gorillatango.com
1919 N. Milwaukee Ave., Chicago, IL 60647 – 773.598.4549

Magic Chicago - A Theatre Review

2008-05-01T11:22:00.004-05:00

When: First Wednesday of the month at 7:30pm
Where: City Lit Theater, 1020 W. Bryn Mawr, Chicago (located in the historic Edgewater Presbyterian Church)
Website: www.magicchicagoshow.com
Wallet Impact: $20

This review is long overdue (not that anyone's been twiddling their thumbs waiting for it), but on April 2nd I saw a great magic show.

Like many kids, I was fascinated by magic. I loved it all and wanted to try it all: close-up magic, big stage spectaculars, the "anti-magic" of Penn and Teller. (I have a small scar on my right hand from a magic trick gone awry in which my partner stabbed me.) There was a pizza place called Abracadabra which, if memory serves, was like dinner theatre with both live or televised magic-magic-magic being performed at all times. I forgot about magic for a long long time, until I expressed an interest in having a roving close-up magician at my wedding reception. (Lora really didn't want this, however, so it was not to be.) For my birthday this year, Lora made it up to me by looking into magic shows in Chicago.

You'd think that in a world-class city like Chicago you'd have options. There must be 7 magic shows playing all over the city on any given night, right? Not so. It turns out magic has gone the way of corporate gigs, and even if you work for a company who forces you to attend some kind of annual retreat, the chances of seeing some magic, up-close-and-personal, is slim to none. In the end, Magic Chicago was the only public magic show we were able to find in Chicago, and it runs only once a month!

The lack of selection and the infrequency of the performances had me a little concerned about the quality of the event. I was bringing friends, and I felt responsible for entertaining them. It's location also concerned me, because when you walk into the Edgewater Presbyterian Church, you do not have a sense of walking into a peformance space. When you enter, you feel more like you're walking into a public school than a church. The City Lit Theatre is on the second floor of the building, and only after you've paid your admission and walked into the room do you feel like you're in a performance space. The theatre seats about 60, so it's intimate enough that close-up magic works well in it, but the stage is large enough to accommodate some larger props. Both kinds of performance were done on April 2.

Magic Chicago is the creation of Benjamin Barnes and Robert Charles, who were inspired by the teachings of magician Eugene Burger. Burger experienced magic in 1950's Chicago, which was apparently a golden age for magic in this city that ended in the 1970's when magicians packed their lovely assistants in magical boxes and disappeared.

The format of Magic Chicago, at least on the night we were there, is not unlike what you would expect at a (smoothly-run) amateur night at a stand-up comedy club. Producer Benjamin Barnes MC'ed and introduced each of the five magicians who took the stage. For some reason, he never performed, and I kept wishing he would. In comedy clubs, the MC usually does a couple jokes before introducing the next performer, why not have the MC at a magic show do a little magic?

Having been involved in sketch comedy in Chicago, for better or worse, most of the audiences my shows tend to draw include a large percentage of other sketch comedy writers and performers. As an "insider", this can be both frustrating and helpful. For "outsiders", I doubt they're aware of this fact, but I wonder if it would effect their perception of the show if they did. I believe Magic Chicago may be in a similar situation, as it was acknowledged that many magicians were present that night. This fact added an air to the evening that felt a little unrefined, a dynamic which I liked, but that, for someone looking for a pure audience/performer experience may exude something less-than-professional.

The featured performers on April 2 were Bill Koch and Steve Vaught, plus three organizing members of Magic Chicago; Joe Diamond (Stage Manager), Jeanette Andrews (Artistic Coordinator), and Robert Charles (Producer). The diversity in types of illusions and presentation styles of these performers was an asset to the evening.

The Magicians:

Bill Koch is a mature performer for an 18-year-old. His attitude is smooth and gregarious with a great sense of humor, and he wears a big grin throughout. At this point his magic is a little more polished than his patter, but this is probably more an effect of his youth than his capabilities. At the beginning of his straightjacket-escape routine, as a seemingly uncomfortable audience member tightened the strap between his legs, his mother (in the audience) reminded him aloud that she wanted grandkids. It's not a stretch to imagine Bill in 5-10 years wearing one of those headset microphones and pacing the stage like a motivational speaker in front of a captivated crowd of 5,000. Judging by his performance style, that seems to be the direction he wants to go.

One of the highlights of the evening featured Bill doing a card trick for one half of the audience, while Joe Diamond did the same trick for the other half. They both reached the "Is this your card?" part at the same time, and both were wrong. It was soon discovered that they had each picked the card for the other half of the audience. The effect was remarkable, as was the way the heads in the audience turned in opposite directions at the same time.

Joe Diamond had the most effective trick of the night, with a mind-reading illusion in which two audience members were each instructed to write the name of a random individual on a piece of paper they then folded up and held in their hand--one woman chose a celebrity, the other chose a personal acquaintance. Appearingly without looking at the paper, he was able to guess on his own (without seeing the papers) the name of each individual. The audience was audibly impressed.

Jeannette Andrews did a silent performance piece set to music, which she had recentlty crafted and was performing for the first time. It was a nice change of pace from the rest of the performances, but not all the kinks had been worked out, and there were a couple times when her magician's secrets were almost revealed. Also, some of the props she was working with were difficult to see from the back of the theatre. It was refreshing to see a female magician, however, and her concept was clever.

Perhaps it is his pleasant and unassuming demeanor, but Steve Vaught was the magician you could most easily imagine at a child's birthday party. He was the only performere who did more traditional magic tricks with rings and rope, but these familiar tricks were each done with a unique comic twist that kept them fresh and interesting. To explain the joke would completely kill it, but his take on the solid/linking metal rings was hilarious. Essentially he was doing smart and subtle comedy while the magic was happening in the background. Steve alone was worth the price of admission.

Whether you're into magic or not, Magic Chicago is a safe bet for an entertaining evening. But you only get one shot a month. I'll definitely be going back.

Chillax, Austria

2008-04-30T14:59:00.004-05:00

It's horrible. This case of the Austrian guy who forced his daughter to live in a dungeon for 24 years and fathered seven children with her.

But now Austria's all worried that this man is going to destroy their image? Wasn't Hitler from Austria? What kind of number has he pulled on the Austrian reputation?

Considering that Hitler is probably the most famous modern historical bad guy, Josef Fritzel's impact is on Austria's reputation is less than a $9.95 late fee for skipping a credit card payment on a $8,940 debt. Hasn't anyone told Austria that it takes two late fees before your credit card is cancelled?

I think Austria's concern about it's ruined reputation is more a sign of the Austrian spirit than the wrongdoings, no matter how awful, of one incestuous slavemaster. Look at all the crap that comes out of the United States. Do we ever worry about our reputation? (Let me rephrase that...) Does our government ever worry about our reputation? We're just business as usual here. With Austria up in arms about the national impact of the crime of one lone sick dude, they're starting to look like micromanaging control freaks. "Sie actions of sees man veel not deshtroy sie reputation of sie mahzhaland!" (Cough--fascists--cough.)

Austria, trust me, let this one slide. The dude abides.

Impeach Bush Now!

2008-03-04T12:18:00.000-06:00

Impeach Bush Now! Impeach Bush Now! Impeach Bush Now!

"I'm Not a Racist, But..."

2007-12-17T16:49:00.000-06:00

If you are ever on the cusp of uttering this phrase in conversation, you should probably hold it in like a bad fart and complete the following worksheet in your head before continuing:

Step 1:
Ask yourself:

Wait, am I a racist?

If the answer is no, proceed to step 3.

Step 2:
If you answered yes in Step 1… ask yourself:

Am I okay with being a racist?

If the answer is no, congratulations! You’re on the right track! But starting a conversation this way is most definitely the wrong way to begin. (If it’s black people you’re trying to not hate, I heartily recommend Nick Adams’ wonderful book, “Making Friends With Black People”.)

If the answer is yes, why lie to the nice people? They’re going to smell you whether you’re an SBD (silent but deadly) or a MOAB (loud and deadly). For a more comprehensive list of farts, please visit www.fartnames.com.

Step 3:
If you answered no in Step 1, ask yourself:

Do these people already know me well enough to know that I am not a racist?

If the answer is yes, then begin your interesting insight with a different disclaimer, or with no disclaimer at all. No need to apologize for a fart that doesn’t smell.

If the answer is no, go back to Step 1 and repeat. You were not accurate in one of the previous questions. Non-racists do not begin conversations with people they don’t know in this way.

----------

It’s perfectly acceptable and wise to acknowledge that there are lots of races and cultures, and that no two are alike. Differences should not be interpreted as bad; on the contrary, we can use each other’s cultural gifts to advance our species. Differences can also be the source of frustration or curiosity with one another. It’s okay to discuss them.

It’s also a good thing to acknowledge (as every honest, open-minded person does) that everyone is at least a little racist.

But if you have to begin a sentence with “I’m not a racist, but…” you are either talking to the wrong group of people, or you are a racist. Few people like you enough to hear your racist thought and then remind themselves, “Oh yeah, Eddy said he’s NOT a racist.”

Stated simply: If you are truly not a racist, you never need to use these words as a set-up. Because the only time you would logically use them is with a group of people who don’t know you well enough to know you’re not a racist. And if you’re talking to a group of people who don’t know you well enough that you can’t avoid starting a sentence that way, why bring it up at all? Bonding with a homogenous group of people over differences in other races probably puts you in the “racist” category. Bonding with a heterogenous group this way is also probably ill-advised, although on a certain level I admire your moxy. There are still better ways to enter the conversation.

Only by taking a look inward are we able to maintain the truism that keeps our lives in delicate balance: “A skunk smells his own stink first.”

Only Half-Dead

2007-11-13T12:21:00.001-06:00

Hello, my three loyal readers. I’m sorry I have left you alone for so long. I’ve been faking my death exclusively through my blog as a bit of an experiment, and no one seemed to notice. I suppose since I continued to live the rest of my life normally and did not cut off communication with anyone, except through my blog, it was only those who know me only through my blog that felt the impact, and as it turned out, none of those people cared or noticed enough to ask if I was still alive.

Well, friends. I’ve been busy. Don’t let my disappearance convince you otherwise. I found out on October 15 that I’m involved in two shows at Donny’s Skybox, both of which open this Friday, November 16. “Uh-Oh-7: The Year in Revue” and “Denise’s Friday Night Book Club.”

So the last 4 weeks have been a non-stop bustle of comedy.

You know that you love what you’re doing when you even enjoy the things that shouldn’t be fun. I get very little sleep, and I’ll say that I can’t wait till the show starts so rehearsal schedules will relax a little, but the truth is, as soon as the show is over, I’ll panic and wonder why I’m not currently doing any shows. This January, thankfully, I’m a part of two groups that will be in Chicago’s Sketchfest, so that’ll keep me alive until February.

So here’s some info about each of the shows:

The one I’ve been busiest with is “Denise’s Friday Night Book Club” which runs Fridays at 10:30 pm, November 16 – December 14 at Donny’s Skybox (1608 N. Wells, 4th floor). I co-wrote and co-directed this show with the talented Mr. Brian Crowley. We wrote and directed “Totally Not Gay” almost 2 years ago, and we’ve submitted the proposal for “Denise’s Book Club” at least two other times in those 2 years. Finally the Skybox decided that the libro-climate is right for a show with a light book theme. Apparently Americans are reading again now that The Secret has made it a worthwhile activity.

Working on this show has been an amazingly collaborative experience. Ordinarily on the sketch shows I’m involved with (except for Squendling Brothers stuff), all the writers own their own scenes. They may have received some degree of input from the other writers, but in the end, the writer owns 90-98% of the piece. On this show, I’d say that percentage is between 60-80%, depending on the scene, and there’s even a four-part scene where the percentage is exactly 50%, from the conception of the idea to the final draft.

Because Brian and I have a very similar comedic sensibility, I’m guessing most friends who see the show won’t know who wrote which scene. I’ll take credit for the ones they like best.

Our cast is brilliant, and they’re all new to us.

Matthew Mages
Kristen McLaughlin
Katie O’Brien
Megan Presslak
Josh Shuter

The other show is “Uh-Oh-7: The Year in Revue”, by Creepy Hug, and it runs Fridays at 7:30 pm, November 16 – December 28. Because of my major involvement in “Book Club”, I am primarily just a writer on this show. Creepy Hug is the same group who brought you “Your Favorite Kid is Ugly,” “Creepy Hug,” “Two-Thousand-Sux,” and most recently, “Friends Without Benefits.”

“Uh-Oh-7” is the second year-end show we’ve done, and like “Two-Thousand-Sux,” it is a show inspired by the events of 2007. The cast is stellar, and the show is a fun, high-energy romp through a bunch of crap we’ll be happy to put behind us in 2008.

The cast is:

Jen DiCiccio
Julianna Forlano
John Mahr
Ryan McDermott
Mike Tatar
Erin Terkhorn

Feelin' Bad

2007-10-08T04:11:00.000-05:00

I have been sick for 3 days, resulting in two absences from work, total absence from my blog, and a perfect attendance record in Mario World, which has led to its own mental anguish, as is evident in my phone call to the Nintendo hotline below.