The Stagelights Sonata of Beethoven Blatz

This review is so old that I think I saw a cobweb.

The CreComms were tasked with reviewing "The Moonlight Sonata of Beethoven Blatz," a romp through the unsexy sexy lives of Mennonite farmers.

The play, created by past CreComm CreWriting instructor Armin Wiebe, follows the drama of Obrum Kehler and his wife, Susch, as they bring a broken piano and the broken Beethoven Blatz into their home.

Things start getting a bit tricky, however, when Obrum leaves Susch and Blatz alone while he goes off to work. And Teen, Susch's best girl friend, makes things even trickier.

The play's low German inflected dialogue was engaging, funny and difficult. Blatz was irritatingly dreamy - quite the opposite of the down-to-business Teen.

Wiebe says that he had originally wrote the play to take place in periods of darkness, hence why Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" featured prominently throughout. The entire play, due to production decisions, was featured in the light. Makes good sense, but the audience is in for an eyeful.

Wiebe also noted that Beethoven originally wrote the sonata after overhearing a blind girl playing one of his pieces. When he went to see her, moonlight poured onto the piano as she played. The sonata writing, and Beethoven himself, are mirrored throughout the play through Blatz's manic episodes, composed sonata (written for Sonja, his true love, which is transferred onto Susch) and through the actual Moonlight Sonata, which plays throughout.

The play was successful and humorous, making biblical references, Mennonite cultural references (Brummtopp, anyone?) and musical references throughout. The only thing that bothered me was the ending, which I felt was cheery and ambiguous given the situation these characters find themselves in.

3.5 out of 5.

For more information on Armin Wiebe and his work, visit www.arminwiebe.com.

If I see another restaurant makeover show I will go on a hunger strike

So tonight was the Restaurant: Impossible premiere (although it's been airing in the US since January) and I have one word: yawn. The trend is half-baked and overdone. The British are coming! The British are coming!

I admit that I have had my months of Gordon Ramsay addiction issues, even enrolling in GRA (Gordon Ramsay Anonymous, something totally made up). He's like the guy who doesn't pat you on the back to find the best place to stick the knife, he stabs you first then goes out looking for a paramedic.

I get that entertainment is everyone's main priority and it gets the ratings and blah blah. Hell's Kitchen was fun, although he was too much of a prick at times. Then there's Kitchen Nightmares, basically a documentary on the atrocity that is British food.

Then Heston Blumenthal, the executive chef at Fat Duck in England, and my bald soulmate, took on Little Chef's menu (like revamping the British Smitty's).

Then Jamie Oliver started making over the British school system by revamping cafeterias (which is a fine thing to do, but who's going to trust that a millionaire is working in the country's best interests?)

Now Robert Irvine, our Canadian muscley friend from Dinner: Impossible, who is also British, is making restaurants over. We already have a slough of makeover shows plus the British ones, such as David Adjey's the Opener and Restaurant Makeover. Why not add another one for good measure?

The ultimate irony is that the problem with society isn't that there are too many bad restaurants; the problem is that there's too MANY restaurants. So instead of teaching us how to cook, you've replaced hours of valuable training time on the Food Network with gourmet chefs entering rookie territory.

If you want obesity rates to go down, quit replacing cooking shows with shows that showcase the industry. 80% of restaurants fail in the first 3 years of opening. Why? Because people rely on chains that make things 40% more fattening than if you had cooked it. Educate us on chains then, not some poor bastards trying to make a business out of something that wasn't their destiny to begin with.

I get that food is a necessity and that having lazy, untrained and uneducated locals in charge of your health is a nightmare in itself, because people put a certain blind faith into food that they don't into many other things. It's nice that Michelin star chefs want to pass along their success, but only 1-2% of chefs are at that level. Something that should be easy and fair trade and organic and local in theory (because they seem to think everyone has access to the freshest produce and proteins in the world at 4 am because they do) turns into a viscious expense for people who just aren't trained, educated or have the resources. French fries require little brain power and are cheap and reliable.

British invaders, I love you but start cooking again instead of showing off. It would be much more cheritable to drive the idea home that people should cook through cooking shows than to drive us to a revamped restaurant.

NYC

Last year in November I went to NYC by myself to meet someone I never met. He was from Jamaica. Everyone thought it was shady. I didn't.

I must be more brave than I give myself credit for. I booked the flight on a Thursday and was on the plane the following Friday. I went for 3 days, which seems like no time, but it's enough time to see things. There are people in NYC who have lived there all their lives and haven't seen everything.

People paint NYC as this glamorous place full of beautiful, artsy, rich people: like the rainier, colder, moodier L.A. But in all honesty, everything is so cramped and so many different messages are flying at you by the thousands that you miss things quite easily. There are just simply TOO many people and businesses to have one thing really stand out. Everything just starts to blur together. Everyone starts looking the same. But maybe after living there and seeing people, people and more people, certain people start standing out.

For those who have never been, NYC is basically millions of people living in tiny, cramped apartments that are built with weird angles. The kitchens are barely big enough to open the oven all the way. They are cramped together with a 2x2 rectangle of landscaping in the front, followed by a fence. You have to walk about 10 blocks to get to the subway station. The roads are like huge parking lots where you drive down the middle and cars are parked perpendicular to you rather than parallel. 90% of apartment buildings are walkups. It is NEVER ENDING apartment blocks. There are no houses that aren't duplexes. Everybody lives in an apartment. They take the subway or train to work in the morning and take it back home again, and that's really all there is to NYC. Get in, get out.

Manhattan is absolutely dead on Sundays because the city is built to ship people in to work and then ship them directly out again. When I say dead I mean streets were empty and I only saw a couple hundred people. But on weekdays it looks like a sea of heads and suits. Not sure what happened that Sunday: either they were in church, having brunch, or gone home. Maybe it was Thanksgiving around that time so nobody was out. The only people down there were the ones who were shopping or at the park. Manhattan is like an oasis after being in the other parts of the city, but people literally have to cut their limbs off and sell them to live there. There's no place to live. I didn't see any celebrities (obviously, because I barely saw any people in general).

Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx are brick after brick after brick after brick after water tower after water tower after water tower after garage after garage after garage after bridge after bridge after bridge. Nobody talks to each other in New York. It's lonely. And then you drive out to Connecticut, and the roads are nicer and the leaves are beautiful and there are outlet malls.

Every place is marked by its culture. In the Caribbean centers you can only find rice and peas and jerk chicken for blocks and blocks. Then you start moving into the Italian parts, where every building is a deli, an auto repair shop or a nail salon. The streets run at weird angles. But everything is available to you in every way. I just never seemed to be able to find anything.

All you hear are trains running over your head and you habituate to the brakes screeching. There are so many pigeons that people have to wash their cars every day. The roads run at weird angles.

I got a different (and accurate) perception of New York because of who I was with. No one had a gun, there were no drug deals going down, nothing like that. It was just how millions of people every day there live their lives.

There are many beautiful things in New York. The fact that they built it up to what it has become completely blows my mind. The bridges are beautiful (The Brooklyn Bridge is cliche but amazing). Little things, like seeing food in windows and constantly looking up until you're dizzy trying to see the tops of skyscrapers and the constant glare of neon signs are just different experiences. The subway system is an experience in itself because it's so well organized and fast.

Anyway, I'm naive so maybe others have great experiences. But I just seen it as a gigantic jungle of bricks with a big oasis in the middle. Or like inception, you know, like a dream within a dream.

I really liked the parks in Manhattan, especially after seeing nothing but massive apartment blocks for 2 days. I started seeing people there. People were out skating on little ponds that were made.

Anyway, my point is that you can't take a massive city and think it's all like Manhattan, because it really really really isn't. People want to live and work there because they think it's like Sex and the City, but it's far from it. I'm scared that if I lived there my mind would turn into a mash of schedule. Subway, work, work, subway, sleep, subway, work, work, subway, sleep. People go and stay in Manhattan and that's it, and those people are narrow-minded. I highly encourage people to go there and see as much of the city as they can. It is fascinating, massive, and lonely.

CreComm observations

So, like all CreComms, and I mean all, I've been trying my best and working hard. During the magazine project I put in some 18 hour days, last semester was running at a steady 12. Since the magazine is over I've been putting in around 8, and I haven't felt so guilty, lazy or useless in a long time.

Why should I feel this guilty for not putting in a 16 hour day? If I do anything fun, like go out for dinner or watch half an hour of TV, I feel awful. The whole life being balanced thing went out the window long ago. I stopped watching tv.

I'm glad this program gave me the guilt I need to be successful in life. Every rich person at one point put in 20 hour days 7 days a week. We don't even really have it that bad. Then I think of the people who have actual brutal jobs and this is really nothing. So then I feel guilty about feeling busy on top of feeling guilty for not being busy enough. What a cycle.

Anyway, this summer I might have to get 2 jobs to keep up the rhythm I am accustomed too. I'm scared I'll be done school and have Trainspotting withdrawal symptoms. Maybe I'll just start drooling uncontrollaby.

Oh well, it's been so far ok. Things I may have wanted to change but a good kick in the ass.

Best Mugshot Ever.

Shockport!

There's nothing shocking about Lockport, I just wanted to get your attention.

I went to Lockport today and everytime I go out that way I keep wanting to live out there. Lockport, Selkirk, St. Andrews...they're all my kind of places. I have come to the conclusion that I need to live by water in order to be happy, and those places seem to have an abundance of water.

I had a hotdog for the first time in 7 years today. One at Half Moon and one at Skinner's. I didn't eat all of each hotdog because I despise hotdogs, so there's still 3/4 of each sitting in the fridge, but they were actually good hotdogs! I finally understand that whole snap to bite ratio or whatever people keep talking about when it comes to good hotdogs. Still won't eat relish, though. I'm not sure if I can be a good judge of a hotdog if I can't eat relish.

I saw TFJ struggle down a hill, heard that there were lots of fish and that people were catching them by the minute, found out that Wet n' Wild closed down years ago (they should just call it Shockport because I was shocked about that). I had a good day! Abandoned water slides are creepy and depressing, almost like some remnant of Chernobyl. But they are really amazing to look at. Bryan Scott has a good picture of the creepiness that is abandoned water slides.

My only regret: that I didn't take a nicer picture of Wet n' Wild, in all it's abandoned glory. And that I had no idea it was closed. Now I know what to do for the future. Everything we do is learning!

This hotdog and I say "peace out."

Hey, TwitFace! Twitter vs. Facebook

It's a war of the worlds.   The online worlds.  And I am going to cover it.  Here are the stats of the opposing parties.

A) Facebook: Facebook is a blend of reality and a fantasy life.  Your friends and relatives are connected to you, you can share pictures with each other, you remain connected, and you have the control to share whatever you want (unless some jerk keeps tagging you in photos).  Your relationships with people are probably as strong as your real life relationships with those people. You might have 800 friends, but you probably only comment on, like, or look at 50 of those people's posts.

Because of this, you might have coworkers and acquaintances and close friends and relatives, all in the same clump.  You may write personal things intended for close friends that your acquaintaces shouldn't be seeing, or you may write something intended for your classmates that your relatives will end up seeing that might not jive with the personality that you've been presenting all along.

Facebook allows you to choose groups for certain posts so only certain people can see them, but if you're not saavy in anyway technologically you might screw that up.  Instantly your douchebaggery is broadcasted to your entire little inner world.  And, just like a real little inner world, it's difficult to not feel guilty when blocking people out of your life.  However, because there's no threat of immediate emotional response, it's much easier on Facebook and brings out your inner sociopath slowly.

Facebook has a lot of "keeping up with the Joneses'" going on, which, if you're smart or a total dumbass, can work majorly to your advantage or disadvantage.

Advantage: Any photos, status update posts or friends that you make are instantly marketing YOUR LIFE, and Facebook works just like any other cliquey place in life.  For example: wall posts about your excitement, followed by photos = instant jealousy by your followers.  Posts like "Mexico today!" on the coldest day of the year,  "Bought a house today"  and  "My boyfriend just bought me THIS" followed by picture of Tiffany's necklace = instant jealousy and suck up comments that make your followers feel like a loser or like they must bow to you. You haven't done anything to justify anyone deleting you and you haven't done anything to really brag, yet you have just marketed yourself as the one who has the life and all the goodness that comes from people who have lives.

Facebook posts work much like hypnosis - 3-5 words is the ideal.   The more casual you make your comments, the more it looks like this is just the way you live your life.  Don't be negative and switch it up.  "Going snowboaring today," "great workout this morning," "Beach Time!" "Great time with the girls," etc etc.  That stuff radiates.  Photographic evidence = more radiation.  Interactive posts = great.  Open questions, wishes, bucket lists get the comments.

Don't post too much, though!  If you post too much it becomes obvious that you don't actually have a life.

Disadvantage: What if you don't have a life?  But everyone has a life?  Not true.  Don't use Facebook to whine.  Talking about the fantasy life you want and presenting a misaligned one to your FBFs will backfire.  Writing big long essays = instant loser/annoying.  Never EVER use Facebook as a firezone; ie. don't use it to bully people.  People can see you're a jackass. 

Whining, frequent intoxication, general sadness = bad.  Half the people on Facebook don't know your drama and don't care.  Pick up the phone and talk to someone who won't use your information against you.  Toxic friends = toxic Facebook Wall.  Deleted!!

Getting attention with constant sad posts = shady.  Unless it's rare and legitimate, don't make sad posts. "Wall F*cking" on Facebook = gross.  Sometimes texting is better.

Selling stuff: Sell your blog, sell your perspective: everything you do on Facebook is selling your perspective on life, instantly.  But, like I said above, it works in the same way as your Facebook posts, photos, etc.  Make sure your perspective aligns with the person you're presenting yourself as.

In summary:  Facebook works like real life.  It's cliquey and it's a tough world to break into.  Don't try to be something you're not and don't be offended by people with fantasy lives because it's easy to market yourself in the same way.  I don't do it because I don't care, but that's how I perceive it to work.  DON'T SHARE THINGS ON FACEBOOK THAT YOU WOULDN'T WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW IN REAL LIFE.  Don't add people just to have a higher friend count because that's just stupid, and make sure that you figure out who's more important: your family or your friends.  Work accordingly.

Twitter

I love Twitter and I like it more than Facebook.  If people have something to say they only have 140 characters to say it with.  You get it out there without revealing too much (unless you say something STUPID, then everything can go wrong very fast.  Message absorption is more likely with Twitter than Facebook).  There is a lot more room for wit.  Pictures are instant and relevant with Plixi.  If I'm interested, I will click the link.  If not, no.

Twitter is fast, fast, fast, and I don't have to read through 85 "I'm so sad," or "Post this if you believe in love" essays to find information.  Unfollowing someone is much less personal than deleting someone on Facebook.  I don't notice if someone suddenly disappears and I don't particularly care (unless it was my best friend or something). 

Twitter is a total news hurricane.  I am so much more current with Twitter than I ever was with Facebook.  Facebook offers me nothing relevant unless it's keeping up with relatives that live far away or with friends or friends with babies who live far away.  Joining groups is becoming the way to go.  Other than that, Twitter trumps Facebook for me.  I'm not learning anything by creeping people I don't even know!  Facebook is a snake pit.  Who cares if I read far into a picture about someone and then relay gossip?  Not me.  At least I can relay other gossip that's not as personal.

Twitter: Not so great for keeping in contact with people you care about, but way better for getting information that's relevant to your life.  More impersonal, but if something goes wrong can become very personal, fast.