In an ABC’s 20/20 exclusive interview with Barbara Walters in September, 1997, Michael Jackson discussed with Walters the paparazzi Hollywood epidemic shortly after the tragic death of Princess Diana. In this interview, when asked his feelings on the nicknames the press had bestowed upon him in the tabloid magazines, the late King of Pop said, “I have a heart and I have feelings. I feel that when you do that to me. It’s not nice. Don’t do it. I’m not a “wacko.” I don’t want the paparazzi, really. But if they come around, be kind. Write the right kind of thing to write.” Of course, Barbara Walters, hard-hitting, razor tough journalist that she is, questioned Jackson’s perception saying, “Is it the journalist’s role to be kind?” This question has been haunting me since Jackson’s untimely death on June 25^th.

            It is perhaps ironic that since Jackson’s death, I have been spending most of my time surrounded by four to six year olds, as I’m teaching theatre camps to students at Neptune Theatre School in Halifax. My super-indelible cohort in the Neptune madness, the incredible Jessica Barry, and I try to infuse our students with strong values and we do not take lightly the responsibility that comes with the power of being teachers, role models (and sometimes idols and heroes) to some of the shortest and most impressionable members of Canadian society. We teach the children the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have done unto you. We stress the importance of caring and of being kind. As individuals these basic principles, which are entirely secular, form the foundation of our children’s education, and yet, as a society we seem so quick to toss them out the window. Kindness. Caring. Genuine, unselfish sympathy, understanding and compassion. In our world of reality shows like Big Brother, websites like TMZ, and Perez Hilton and of course the countless tabloids and magazines, our society is continually pitting people against one another and themselves, creating scapegoats to divert the public attention from massive global epidemics like famine, poverty, natural disasters, and war and building up idols and superstars only to wait in anticipation for the right moment to tear them back down. Michael Jackson’s words may seem simple, they may even seem infantile or inane, but in fact, they are quite astute, and quite wise. Why shouldn’t an adult, a professional grownup, have to abide by the same rules as a four year old in a preschool classroom? Be kind. Be considerate. Care.

            Of course, one must ask difficult questions at times, and Michael Jackson’s intricate life is fraught with examples of the press digging and searching for the truth, which at times appeared like a dark, twisty, mysterious, elusive thing. Yet, are we not taught as young children the appropriate way to ask questions? The appropriate way to approach problem solving? Are we not taught that resorting to lying, name-calling and overt, hurtful, unfounded judgements are detrimental to the well being of other human beings? Do we not learn in seventh grade that gossip alone can leave scars that take years of soul searching to heal? Did we not learn throughout those painfully awful years between age twelve and seventeen that viciousness and maliciousness are a sheer waste of our time and energy and that it always comes back to bite us in the end? If this is the lesson we wish to teach the teenagers of the world, how do we justify condoning the very same behaviour by adults who make their living spreading lies about celebrities and viciously and maliciously creating havoc in order to sell and advertise products that make us lazier, fatter, and less compassionate people?

            Michael Jackson issued a challenge to the press in 1997 which went entirely ignored, “write the right thing.” Recently a Facebook friend of mine who was on a very popular, successful American sitcom when he was a child from the mid/late eighties until the early nineties had a status that jumped out at me. It said, “Got so scared yesterday when someone said, “Hey, you’re on TMZ.” As a society we seem to forget that acting is a profession. I’ll be the first to admit that it’s a strange one, but it is still a profession. Yet, the more “successful” one becomes, the more this profession morphs into a celebrity circus and human beings become targets, as my Facebook friend exemplifies. Without even looking at the website, this actor was afraid because he knew that the attention that would be lavished upon him given his celebrity status on this website would undoubtedly be negative and unkind. Perez Hilton recently got into an altercation with someone who was frustrated by the blogger’s unkindness and lack of empathy and consideration for celebrities’ feelings. Yet, we cannot blame Perez Hilton alone, for if there was no market for his product, he would disappear. Society clicks and surfs and looks to throw celebrities to the wolves and the Golden Rule asunder.

            What does this have to do with theatre? What does this have to do with me? I recently read an old quote from Toronto Life where Albert Schultz, Artistic Director of Soulpepper Theatre, criticized a theatre critic in Toronto saying, “I have told him that I sometimes find his approach bitchy, mean-spirited and personal, and I know I'm not alone in this assessment.” Therefore, it is not only in Hollywood where our society seems to relish in tearing others and their accomplishments apart. As artists we are encouraged to express our innermost selves, we are continually struggling to be brave, and to be open to inspiration, to our most creative impulses, to push the boundaries and to be personal. As artists we are encouraged to share. As children we are told to share our talents as "gifts", and as adults we try to nurture and foster the emerging creativity, zeal, passion, love and sense of fun and play in the children we care about. How then we can turn around and attempt to tear artists apart for sharing their gifts-- for giving us some of the most candid expressions of the human spirit? Can’t we only speak about how this gift impacted us on a personal, individual level? Can’t we only speculate from our limited experience with this art how successful we feel the artist was in conveying what we assume may have been her or his intention? There will be those who will thrive on the adversity and will muster every ounce of ambition to prove “those bastards wrong” and some will. There will be those who don’t take anything personally, and continue along their artistic path relentless in their own pursuits. Yet, how many dreams do mean-spirited, bitchy, personal “critiques” squash? How many artists with the potential to be great become disheartened and choose a safer path? Is this a necessary weeding out of the weak? A strength-testing challenge? If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen?

            I disagree wholeheartedly with the argument that to be kind somehow devalues criticism, and that everything becomes wishy-washy and painted with the same mediocre brush. When we teach children, we guide them and encourage them and treat them with respect and kindness. And yet, their natural strengths still shine through brightly, and I believe, even brighter than they would if the children were treated with harsh judgement and criticism for the things that they struggled with or were still learning and figuring out. We will create an atmosphere conducive to learning and to excelling if we are encouraging, kind, compassionate and empathetic. If it works in kindergarten, it will work everywhere.

            Michael Jackson tried to elevate his life to a higher purpose, above the petty turmoil of Hollywood. He donated passionately to charities and he was devoted to shining the limelight on the plight of the people in Africa. For all his scandals and the misconceptions about his life, and the speculations about his tragic death, Michael Jackson wanted to create a better world- one that resembled the UNICEF posters in Elementary Schools with children of all colors, creeds, religions, beliefs and languages of choice, all with happy smiling faces, holding hands all around the globe. Again, this may seem infantile, it may seem precious, or impossible, but as lofty as it may be, shouldn’t the happiness and peacefulness of everyone be a priority for the citizens of Earth, the only planet that can sustain life in the Milky Way and maybe even beyond?

            For children, adults tend to break things down into manageable chunks, and I’ve found this advice is pertinent for adults prone to feeling overwhelmed as well. I may not be able to save the world in one fell swoop, but I am entirely in charge of this blog, and as the great playwright Brad Fraser reminds me, with power comes responsibility, and that is something that I hold solemnly in my heart. This blog seeks to help heal the world. This blog seeks to create a better Earth in whatever small way it can. This blog seeks to be a place of care, of compassion, empathy and kindness. This blog seeks to say YES. YES, Barbara Walters, the press can be kind and still maintain its journalistic integrity. “There are ways to get there if you care enough for the living. Make a little space, make a better place. Heal the world.”

 

Soulpepper’s Production of Glengarry Glen Ross has proved so popular that Albert Schultz has announced that it will be extended to May 16^th. You can read a review I wrote about the show here. You should also check out Soulpepper’s website, not only to book your tickets to the show, but also to check out the new, fun, full-length photos of the Founding Members and the Actors in the Company this season. They are snappy!

 

                There are few plays the capture the essence of desperation quite like Glengarry Glen Ross. David Mamet is a genius at expressing the richest of human emotions in the simplest, most spare and concise bit of vernacular poetry. As David Storch (director of the production currently playing at Soulpepper Theatre) observes in the programme notes, “Mamet mined all the issues of that terrible recession in the early eighties and the desperation and frustration of that era has come full circle.” It is a perfect choice for Soulpepper to produce this play (about real estate agents clawing their way to the top of the board) now because its themes are entirely relevant to the world we live in, but the play is so captivating and sharp and saturated with power, greed and testosterone that it refuses to allow us to wallow in our own despair- the pace is so quick, if your mind wanders for a moment you’re screwed!

            The man sitting next to me in the theatre was a huge Glengarry Glen Ross fan and he kept providing extra insight for the woman he was with, which I happily soaked up as well. He described the interactions between the characters as, “two fencers exchanging light taps.” The language is so succinct that it must be delivered with the utmost precision and proficiency. There’s no fucking with Mamet, so to speak. Of course, Soulpepper is home to some of this country’s most proficient actors, and this production is definitely no exception.

            The two most mesmerizingly brilliant performances in this show were that of Eric Peterson as Shelly Levene and Albert Schultz as Richard Roma. Peterson’s vocal rhythm from the moment he opened his mouth in the first scene until the curtain call was breathtaking in its ability to sound so poetic and yet so natural simultaneously. He elicited empathy from the audience so subtly, it was almost sly, and saturated every word he said with such context without being at all didactic or drawing any attention to it. In all, it was such a concisely perfect performance, that in hindsight I find myself so aware of how finely crafted Mr. Peterson’s art is. I stand in awe of him. Albert Schultz was a perfect complement to Peterson, which made the scene they shared like watching a really fantastic tennis match. Schultz played Richard Roma as the essence of the crooked salesman, with his seedy underbelly exposed, continually changing his tactics and building the momentum and intensity for the audience. Like Peterson, his art is so finely tuned; it is impossible not to admire that kind of skill. In both cases, they are two performances that I feel very fortunate to have seen.

               Jordan Pettle is also particularly outstanding as John Williamson, the young office manager who the real estate agents despise. He has a quiet smugness and continually keeps his cool amid the ongoing chaos. Pettle masters Williamson’s subtlety magnificently.

            As I exited the theatre I heard impressed audience members commenting on the production and the words that continually cropped up were “crisp,” “quick” and “fast paced.” The Intermission snuck up on the entire theatre, and everything flew by in a whirling blur of captivating exchanges, yelling, and profanity. This is all thanks to David Storch’s clean and sharp direction, which was as succinct and precise as the playwriting and the acting.

            This is a play that I think even people who maintain that they don’t enjoy live theatre will like. It has all the features of a really well-made television program, with three times the intensity, adrenaline, and urgency. You can’t fake Mamet, which makes it even more apparent that the great men working at Soulpepper Theatre are indeed the real deal. Glengarry Glen Ross runs until May 9^th, 2009, for tickets and more information, please visit their website or call 866-8666.

            As an aside, the programmes they give out at Soulpepper are packed with all sorts of fun tidbits, and this season, Albert Schultz (Artistic Director) has gotten different members of the cast to write little introductions to the plays in there. I think this is an absolutely brilliant idea, and something that I would love to see more of in the future. I would like to share with you a little note from Stephen Guy-McGrath who plays Detective Baylen (with much gusto) in Glengarry Glen Ross. I quite enjoyed it, I hope you do too.

            “Last fall I was installing a friend’s dishwasher (this is the kind of thing actors get up to in their down time). I got a call asking me to be in this production of Glengarry Glen Ross. At first I thought there must have been some kind of mistake.

“Glengarry Glen Ross?... The Glengarry Glen Ross?... David $@#^&% Mamet’s Glengarry Glen Ross!?”

This play is iconic for actors. It allows us to play in a rough and tumble world of unashamed, unchecked and often unflattering, raw, masculinity. It is literate and poetic in the decidedly terse vernacular of the American Midwest. It is arguably the pinnacle of its playwright’s cannon.

Glengarry Glen Ross is a play that actors long to do, they dream of doing it. Sometimes they do it when they shouldn’t. I’ve seen it many times: in French, with high school students, on film, in an all-female version, with university students, even with Scottish accents (?).

Actors love this play and will do almost anything to be in it. Everyone I talk to—friends, family, other theatre professionals, my dentist, the mustard guy at the market—they all know and love this play. Most of them say that it is just like their office which makes me glad I’m an actor!

Surely if Soulpepper is doing Glengarry Glen Ross they will have their pick of the acting litter. Schultz, Webster, Bundy, Donaldson, Peterson, Pettle and Simpson. That is the pick of the litter—with Storch directing to boot. And I was being asked to be a part of it. Yes, yes and @#$! YES again!... just let me finish these dishes and I’ll be right there”

-          Stephen Guy-McGrath