Having spent a lot of time in various theaters (on both sides of the footlights), I have come to realize that the average theater audience these days is, uh, below average. The common theater-goer nowadays, influenced by television and movies, has small idea how to behave at a theatrical performance. They must come armed with refreshments (alcoholic and non-alcoholic) which they bought at the refreshment stand in the lobby. (NOTE: most theaters depend on that refreshment stand to make up the difference in the plummeting ticket sales.) They come dressed in well-nigh anything; the days of dressing up to go to the theater are long gone! They begrudge the request to shut off their phones, as they have plans to record the whole show on said phone. And They somehow don't like the seats they are supposed to sit in. No sooner are they seated than they are trying to wheedle a better seat that happens to be empty. Or they stand next to the seat, as if guarding it, and block the aisles by gathering friends, chance acquaintances and total strangers in a group to talk about- nothing!
So here are some elementary etiquette tips for attending a theatrical performance.
(1) ARRIVE ON TIME. Yes, there are provisions for seating a late-comer, but (especially if your seat is in the middle of the row- as it usually is) you are inconveniencing the other members of the audience, and bothering the actors who are trying to get the show started. Yeah, they know what you're up to, even if they can't see you clearly in the dark. And as an addendum, don't hang out in the lobby until curtain time. You're holding back while you have one more drink, and, well, see the above comments on seating late-comers.
(2) IF YOU NEED TO LEAVE DURING THE PERFORMANCE, DO IT AS QUIETLY AND DISCRETELY AS POSSIBLE. That means going out the back exit, not walking down front by the stage where everyone sees you and ignores what's going on in the play in the meantime.
(3) WHEN THE PERFORMANCE IS OVER, SHOW YOUR APPRECIATION IN THE APPROPRIATE MANNER. Clap, whistle, or none of the above. A standing ovation is not automatically expected, unless it is deserved. Either people today are more easily amused by live performances, or they have developed a completely wrong idea as to what a standing ovation means.
(4) BY ALL MEANS, GO TO AS MUCH LIVE THEATER AS YOU CAN. My remarks should not be a discouragement or inducement to limit yourself to what you can find on television or DVD. there is something about a live performance that cannot be captured by a recording, no matter how good the performer.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Monday, August 22, 2011
Lets Talk
Almost consistently, when couples identify the primary issue they need to work on in marriage therapy, they focus on communication.Granted, they might mean numerous things by that; one spouse might be overly quiet and the other seldom stops talking (I call this a marriage between a turtle and a skunk); one person is so intimidating and even abusive that the other finds silence to be safer; one spouse is so self-involved and introverted that the other spouse might say or do well-nigh anything and still be unheard. Yes, there are many variations. These few barely scratch the surface.
But they share one thing: they recognize a need for improved communication.
As anyone might guess, the main issue is the nature of the relationship. When a couple has conflicting ideas as to what communication should consist of, that usually proves to be but one of multiple conflicting ideas and expectations.Granted, once a couple has learned basic communication skills, the relationship benefits. BUT: this is not a magic wand. It is a tool to be used to fix the broken parts of the marriage.
(QUICK SIDE COMMENT: All of the above may be true in marriage, but it also applies in each and every serious relationship anyone might have.)
So, how should we talk? Communication,actually, should not just be talking. Listening plays a major role as well. And listening does not consist in just shutting up and waiting for one's turn to say something. Listening means completely focusing on the other and striving to make sure what the other person is saying. (As Arthur Miller once put it, "Make sure you're talking about what you're talking about.") Don't act as if each of you has to defend yourself, jumping in to say "what really happened." Try to hear the other person, not just the words.
And when each does talk, make sure to talk about personal stuff, not what the other person was supposed to have said or done. (Remember that sign in my office: "Never face the facts.") No finger pointing or blaming or garbage dumping. (DEFINITION : "Garbage dumping": Referring back to past actions or words in lieu of dealing with present issues; usually past hurts which should healed by now.)
How long should one continue at this? Despite the old axiom, "Don't let the sun go down on your anger," it is not advisable to stay up and try to work something out when both are tired, increasingly frustrated and likely to simply give up. Set a time and place to continue. Agree not to go back to the discussion until then. In the meantime, work to be as open and caring with one another as possible. In other words, no guerrilla relating.
But they share one thing: they recognize a need for improved communication.
As anyone might guess, the main issue is the nature of the relationship. When a couple has conflicting ideas as to what communication should consist of, that usually proves to be but one of multiple conflicting ideas and expectations.Granted, once a couple has learned basic communication skills, the relationship benefits. BUT: this is not a magic wand. It is a tool to be used to fix the broken parts of the marriage.
(QUICK SIDE COMMENT: All of the above may be true in marriage, but it also applies in each and every serious relationship anyone might have.)
So, how should we talk? Communication,actually, should not just be talking. Listening plays a major role as well. And listening does not consist in just shutting up and waiting for one's turn to say something. Listening means completely focusing on the other and striving to make sure what the other person is saying. (As Arthur Miller once put it, "Make sure you're talking about what you're talking about.") Don't act as if each of you has to defend yourself, jumping in to say "what really happened." Try to hear the other person, not just the words.
And when each does talk, make sure to talk about personal stuff, not what the other person was supposed to have said or done. (Remember that sign in my office: "Never face the facts.") No finger pointing or blaming or garbage dumping. (DEFINITION : "Garbage dumping": Referring back to past actions or words in lieu of dealing with present issues; usually past hurts which should healed by now.)
How long should one continue at this? Despite the old axiom, "Don't let the sun go down on your anger," it is not advisable to stay up and try to work something out when both are tired, increasingly frustrated and likely to simply give up. Set a time and place to continue. Agree not to go back to the discussion until then. In the meantime, work to be as open and caring with one another as possible. In other words, no guerrilla relating.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Does this frighten you?
Yes, there are a few things that frighten me: bees, electricity, dangers to my personal physical well-being. That may not be all, but most other stuff doesn't faze me. I can remember, years agone, one of the times I was in London, coming in the midst of my wanderings to a small cobblestoned alley. It took a bit, but finally my companion convinced me it was not quaint and exotic, but dark, dank and smelly. My romantic side gave in to my practical side, and we missed out on what might have been a marvelous adventure. (Or maybe a mugging.)
No, there is nothing wrong with fear; we are born with it as a primal survival instinct. If it weren't for such human reactions, we would take all kinds of risks. But wait, don't we risk such things regularly: roller-coasters, scary movies, dating? Maybe we want the frightening things to be really under our control; the roller coaster ride ends, as does the movie. The dating, well, okay, bad example, but even there we can know it can end.
It is the other things we get scared of, the things which seem out of our hands, the things that media and other authority figures push at us and yell BOO! People who are from certain ethnic backgrounds or have a different skin color or speak a different language. People who have been labelled; the mentally ill, the handicapped, those with a particular sexual orientation. It seems to not be enough to feel superior to such people. Now we must make them into our modern culture's version of ghoulies and ghosties and things that go bump in the night.
One could almost excuse some media for their scare tactics ("Is there a child molester living next door to you? Details at 11!") because it makes people tune in, even if there's nothing to be scared about. But we seem to be living in a society that seeks out the ghost story, that accepts the frightening innuendo at one gulp, unable to be reassured that there is not, in fact, a monster under the bed.
We might try to laugh at our fears, whistle past the graveyard, scoff at someone else's superstitious precautions. But ultimately we are stuck sorting out the fake fears from the real. Yes, as I said above, there may be authentic things we should protect ourselves from. But that dark shape on the floor at night proves to be shoes in the light of day. That person with the different clothing and headgear proves to be delightful and well-spoken. And walking down that alley proves to be mundane with people's laundry overhead and children running up and down as mothers call them to come for tea.
No, there is nothing wrong with fear; we are born with it as a primal survival instinct. If it weren't for such human reactions, we would take all kinds of risks. But wait, don't we risk such things regularly: roller-coasters, scary movies, dating? Maybe we want the frightening things to be really under our control; the roller coaster ride ends, as does the movie. The dating, well, okay, bad example, but even there we can know it can end.
It is the other things we get scared of, the things which seem out of our hands, the things that media and other authority figures push at us and yell BOO! People who are from certain ethnic backgrounds or have a different skin color or speak a different language. People who have been labelled; the mentally ill, the handicapped, those with a particular sexual orientation. It seems to not be enough to feel superior to such people. Now we must make them into our modern culture's version of ghoulies and ghosties and things that go bump in the night.
One could almost excuse some media for their scare tactics ("Is there a child molester living next door to you? Details at 11!") because it makes people tune in, even if there's nothing to be scared about. But we seem to be living in a society that seeks out the ghost story, that accepts the frightening innuendo at one gulp, unable to be reassured that there is not, in fact, a monster under the bed.
We might try to laugh at our fears, whistle past the graveyard, scoff at someone else's superstitious precautions. But ultimately we are stuck sorting out the fake fears from the real. Yes, as I said above, there may be authentic things we should protect ourselves from. But that dark shape on the floor at night proves to be shoes in the light of day. That person with the different clothing and headgear proves to be delightful and well-spoken. And walking down that alley proves to be mundane with people's laundry overhead and children running up and down as mothers call them to come for tea.
Monday, August 8, 2011
What's a NASDAQ, daddy?
There are many out there, I would assume, who would be glad to explain to me the terminology and psychology of Wall Street. (For those of you who came in late, "Wall Street" is a general term for all those players, large or small, who accumulate wealth that isn't really there based on promissory notes known as "stocks" or "bonds.) Depending on how many of these are bought or sold, and for how much, the boys and girls playing on Wall Street look to a mysterious number from a mysterious source, called the Dow-Jones average, to measure the economic health of America and beyond. No, I don't know who Dow or Jones are, and why anyone would care about this number they come up with.
But I am more fascinated by the psychology of this group of men and women who, I assume, have some intelligence and self-awareness. But reports of Wall Street reflect either a high-anxiety group which spooks at the slightest shift of the wind, or a group living in its own little world where, when the economy improves for everyone else, they act as though the sky were falling.
This sort of behavior reminds me of a librarian I used to know. She would keep a rigid record of how many books had been borrowed from that library, inasmuch as that is the way libraries measure their productivity. At the same time, she begrudged every book that went out, as though each one were her personal treasure and she suspected the book would not be returned in time or in good shape.
So what I'm suggesting here- and those of you who know anything about this, please let me know- is that these stockbrokers just hate to see others doing well. See, they think there's only a finite amount of money, and when others get their hands on some of it, there's less for them. So when the fecal matter hits the cooling device, stocks go up.
But I'm probably wrong. I hope I am.
ADDENDUM: No, no one has yet told me how full of it I was, although not all the votes have been counted yet.. But I did get one fascinating insight: we are talking here about financial people, bean-counters. bottom-line types. As such, they have two major obsessions: numbers and change. Nothing will scare 'em more than any sort of serious alteration in the status quo. ("Serious" being a subjective but important word.) If that mystical number that Dow-Jones or any other self-appointed guardian at the gates comes up with is too high or too low, chaos ensues.
Because that means serious change is necessary, something between throwing everything out and starting from scratch, versus merely rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic. And when faced with something in-between, they freeze up. Two must two must equal four, or we are all doomed! No, twenty-two is not an option.
But I am more fascinated by the psychology of this group of men and women who, I assume, have some intelligence and self-awareness. But reports of Wall Street reflect either a high-anxiety group which spooks at the slightest shift of the wind, or a group living in its own little world where, when the economy improves for everyone else, they act as though the sky were falling.
This sort of behavior reminds me of a librarian I used to know. She would keep a rigid record of how many books had been borrowed from that library, inasmuch as that is the way libraries measure their productivity. At the same time, she begrudged every book that went out, as though each one were her personal treasure and she suspected the book would not be returned in time or in good shape.
So what I'm suggesting here- and those of you who know anything about this, please let me know- is that these stockbrokers just hate to see others doing well. See, they think there's only a finite amount of money, and when others get their hands on some of it, there's less for them. So when the fecal matter hits the cooling device, stocks go up.
But I'm probably wrong. I hope I am.
ADDENDUM: No, no one has yet told me how full of it I was, although not all the votes have been counted yet.. But I did get one fascinating insight: we are talking here about financial people, bean-counters. bottom-line types. As such, they have two major obsessions: numbers and change. Nothing will scare 'em more than any sort of serious alteration in the status quo. ("Serious" being a subjective but important word.) If that mystical number that Dow-Jones or any other self-appointed guardian at the gates comes up with is too high or too low, chaos ensues.
Because that means serious change is necessary, something between throwing everything out and starting from scratch, versus merely rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic. And when faced with something in-between, they freeze up. Two must two must equal four, or we are all doomed! No, twenty-two is not an option.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Compromise
People seem to have lost any understanding of compromise. (For Exhibit A, see: the mess in Washington.) Compromise does not mean giving in so the other side will stop attacking you. Compromise does not mean simply taking pieces from either side and trying to cobble together something that won't be too offensive .
Compromise should be a third option. Too often people will get so adamant that they are unable to look around for an alternative to one way or the other. Sometimes both sides are aware of another possibility sitting there in plain sight, but they get so afraid of losing or the other winning that they assiduously ignore the elephant in the room.
Compromise means looking beyond the current offerings and that means considering even the most repugnant ideas. (Sacred cows, I am told, make good hamburger!) Only when we can let go of that death grip we have on our point of view will we find new ways of considering things.
This is not meant to suggest it will be easy. It can be very painful, but it should be painful for all concerned. But it would be a different sort of pain from that of compromise by concession, mistaking this for a win-lose situation.
Compromise should be a third option. Too often people will get so adamant that they are unable to look around for an alternative to one way or the other. Sometimes both sides are aware of another possibility sitting there in plain sight, but they get so afraid of losing or the other winning that they assiduously ignore the elephant in the room.
Compromise means looking beyond the current offerings and that means considering even the most repugnant ideas. (Sacred cows, I am told, make good hamburger!) Only when we can let go of that death grip we have on our point of view will we find new ways of considering things.
This is not meant to suggest it will be easy. It can be very painful, but it should be painful for all concerned. But it would be a different sort of pain from that of compromise by concession, mistaking this for a win-lose situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)