Breathing

Today, in my May Term class that I'm auditing--Symbols and Imaging--we watched the movie Signs, directed by M. Night Shyamalan. Obviously it seems to make a good deal of sense, watching a movie called "Signs" in a class called "Symbols and Imaging."

I actually have a little bit of history with this movie. Signs was released in 2002--I would have been eleven years old. I watched it for the first time at a friend's birthday slumber party when I was in sixth grade. Unfortunately, my apparently highly impressionable mind proceeded to have nightmares for the next four months or so. Not that Signs is a particularly scary movie, but I had, at that point, not been exposed to any truly scary movies, and so this one proved to be rather traumatic for me. Happily, since then, I have watched the movie a number of times, and it has actually become one of my favorites.

I've been in a couple of youth groups and Sunday School classes where clips of the movie were used as an illustration. Every time it was the same clip: the clip of Mel Gibson's character, Graham, talking to his brother Merrill (played by Joaquin Phoenix), about the lights that have appeared in the sky that they know are most likely the lights of extraterrestrial ships hovering over earth. Graham says:

"People break down into two groups. When they experience something lucky, group number one sees it as more than luck, more than coincidence. They see it as a sign, evidence, that there is someone up there, watching out for them. Group number two sees it as just pure luck. Just a happy turn of chance. I'm sure the people in group number two are looking at those fourteen lights in a very suspicious way. For them, the situation is a fifty-fifty. Could be bad, could be good. But deep down, they feel that whatever happens, they're on their own. And that fills them with fear. Yeah, there are those people. But there's a whole lot of people in group number one. When they see those fourteen lights, they're looking at a miracle. And deep down, they feel that whatever's going to happen, there will be someone there to help them. And that fills them with hope. See what you have to ask yourself is what kind of person are you? Are you the kind that sees signs, that sees miracles? Or do you believe that people just get lucky? Or, look at the question this way: Is it possible that there are no coincidences?"

I do like this scene, and I see how it is very applicable, especially for a Symbols and Imaging class. A basic definition of "sign" is "something that stands for something else." To group number one, the lights were something that stood for something else--they stood for the higher power watching over them and let them know that they were not on their own.

But, despite the lessons and philosophy that can be gleaned from that clip, it is not my favorite one in the movie. My favorite scene comes when the family--Graham (a reverend whose wife's death has caused him to question his faith), his two kids Morgan and Bo, and his brother Merrill, have locked themselves in the basement of their house to escape the extraterrestrials that would undoubtedly kill them on sight. In a moment of panic, Graham's son Morgan barely escapes the clutches of a frightening clawed hand down the coal chute in the basement. The scene plunges into darkness momentarily but we then see Merrill, blocking the chute with a big pile of bags of dog food. The audience breathes a sigh of relief, until the camera shifts to show us Graham, holding his son Morgan to him. Morgan is suffering an asthma attack, and his inhaler and asthma medications are all unreachable, still up in the house. The scene that follows is, to me, the most beautiful in the movie:

This scene isn't just about Morgan overcoming his asthma attack. It's a bigger metaphor. 

"Feel my chest. Feel it moving in and out--breathe like me. Stay with me. I know it hurts--be strong, baby. It'll pass. It'll pass... Don't be afraid, Morgan. Feel my chest. Breathe with me. Together. We're the same. We're the same. We're the same."

This scene isn't just about Morgan's struggle to breathe, to me. It's also a metaphor for the family's struggle for survival and their fight with their fear. And perhaps most poignantly, it's also a metaphor for Graham's struggle with God. And in his struggle, I can see my own.

Since his wife's death, Graham has questioned his faith and questioned God. Graham talks to God in this scene, pleading "Don't do this to me again. Not again," and then finally hisses, "I hate you. I hate you!" echoing his own son, who said those very words to him not even an hour before at dinner.

This scene is a vivid visual representation of how I have felt at times in my life. In the times when I feel like I am drowning, or in the times when I feel animosity toward God, or in the times when I am afraid and doubting, this is exactly what God does with me. "Feel my chest. Breathe with me. Together." 

Maybe that doesn't make any sense to anyone but me, but I can't help but leak tears every time I watch this scene.

In Symbols and Imaging, we talk about the act of (re)signing--the process of taking something that means one thing and changing it--(re)signing it--to mean something new. Jesus did this with the Jewish Passover meal--he took the bread and the wine and (re)signed them to have new [sign]ificance--they were now a sign that stood for his body and his blood. The movie Signs used to give me nightmares, but I've (re)signed it. Because now it reminds me of how I'm loved.

An extension of this morning's post

A couple of other posts worth considering:

http://rachelheldevans.com/win-culture-war-lose-generation-amendment-one-north-carolina

http://www.danoah.com/2011/11/im-christian-unless-youre-gay.html

From Rachel Held Evans:

"And when it comes to homosexuality, we no longer think in the black-and-white categories of the generations before ours. We know too many wonderful people from the LGBT community to consider homosexuality a mere 'issue.' These are people, and they are our friends. When they tell us that something hurts them, we listen. And Amendment One hurts like hell."

From Dan Pearce:


"No, what makes somebody love, accept, and befriend their fellow man is letting go of a need to be better than others.
Nothing else.
I know there are many here who believe that living a homosexual life is a sin.
Okay.
But, what does that have to do with love?
It has nothing to do with encouraging them in their practice of what you or I might feel or believe is wrong vs right.

It has everything to do with being a good human being. A good person. A good friend.
That’s all.
To put our arm around somebody who is different. Why is that so hard?"

"Loving to a Fault"

I just read this article, and if you have a few minutes, I think you should too:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/derek-flood/jesus-homosexuality_b_1442195.html

It's a commentary on what a Christian's stance should be on the issue of homosexuality that I profoundly agree with. Considering the decision made in North Carolina just in the past 24 hours, I thought it was extremely appropriate and timely. I hadn't heard of Derek Flood before, but I'm a new fan, and you can bet your boots I now follow him on Twitter.

I think that one of the things I love most about the article is that he never shares what he personally thinks about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality.

"Now you may have noticed that I didn't ever say what I thought about whether homosexuality was wrong or right. I didn't say because this is not about me and what I think. It's about us as Christians learning to care about what Jesus cares about."

My personal views on homosexuality have been in constant change ever since the first time I confronted the issue. And my views are still changing. Like Derek Flood, I think that, for now, I'm going to forego sharing my views on the subject in favor of sharing what I will strive for my actions to be.

"If we want to follow Jesus, then we need to have that same reputation of loving to a fault. We need to be so radically accepting that we are misunderstood and judged like Jesus. If we really do love Jesus, then we need to love like he did, so much so that it seems "scandalous" in the eyes the religious folks of our day, just like it did in his day."

Amen. Amen amen amen amen. AMEN.

Unidentifying

I guess what I'm wondering today is this.

When talking about Christian celebrities (whether they claim to associate themselves in some way with the Christian faith or whether these beliefs are attributed to them), many Christians dismiss certain ones. Let me know if this sounds familiar to you:

"Well, [insert celebrity's name here] isn't really a good example."

"[That celebrity] probably isn't really a Christian. He/She can't be. He/She [insert sin here]. He/She claims to be a Christian but his/her life shows otherwise."

And so we have people like the Catholic Mel Gibson, who has given us such work as "The Passion of the Christ," but we have no desire to associate ourselves with him because of comments he made publicly, his highly publicized divorce, alleged affairs and the list could keep going.

I also think of Jon Gosselin - the reality television star parent of eight children with his wife, Kate. People referenced the couple's faith frequently until it was made public that the couple was filing for divorce and, subsequently, stories began coming to light of Jon's alleged affairs and relationships with other women.

I'm not condoning their behavior. I am not advocating looking to celebrities as role models, but I am also not saying that it should not be done. I am not saying that these celebrities should be role models. I am not saying that they should not be. All I am wondering about today is this.

Why do we vilify them? Why are we so quick to turn our backs and unidentify ourselves from them? What gives us the right to question whether or not they have faith or what their relationship with God is like?

Maybe I'm completely off base. But that's what I'm wondering about today.

Destination: Staunton

My plans for this summer are closer to being finalized!

I had five potential options for the summer by the time February rolled around. As a theatre major, I started to realize during my sophomore year that my summers during college were going to be extremely valuable, and that I should use them in the most effective way possible while I had them. They're a time when I'll be able to do theatre-related things without necessarily having to get paid (in real money) just yet. Once I graduate I'll have more pressing matters to deal with, like paying for a place to unpack my suitcase and maybe cook some Ramen noodles. Not to mention finding some way to be able to pay for clothes to go in the suitcase and for the Ramen noodles.

But, during my summers in college, it's a little bit of a different story. I don't have to worry about supporting myself independently just yet. Meaning that I can do things like internships for credit. Granted, it would be awfully nice to do something to further my career that also pays real money, but that didn't seem to pan out for this summer.

Before Christmas, I applied for internships at the Goodman Theatre and the Lookingglass Theatre in Chicago, and the American Shakespeare Center in Staunton, Virginia. All would be unpaid internships completed for academic credit with IWU. Only one internship is required to graduate and I actually already completed my internship last summer, stage managing for Minnetrista. But I am allowed to do up to two.

After the auditions in February, I ended up not getting an offer from Great River Shakespeare Festival in Winona, Minnesota. I did get an offer for employment from Missoula Children's Theatre in Missoula, Montana, but I decided that my second choice would be the American Shakespeare Center instead because 1) Missoula, while it would no doubt be fun and memorable (and would pay me), probably would not do a whole lot for my career and 2) I'm fairly certain I want to apply for the Shakespeare and Performance MFA program at Mary Baldwin College in Staunton which has a partnership with the ASC, and this seems like a good way to get my foot in the door.

Long story short, I got an offer from ASC, accepted, and turned down Missoula. I did a phone interview with someone from Lookingglass and they said they would get back to me the next day but I still haven't heard anything back from them, so I doubt that's a positive sign. I haven't heard anything at all from Goodman, which is fine (and not wholly unexpected).

Last week I got a call from the ASC outlining what my internship would look like and discussing possible dates. I was named Production Assistant for their upcoming production of "Two Gentlemen of Verona," (and one of my responsibilities will be some dog handling! I don't know why but I found that exciting), and then was also told that the second part of my internship would consist of helping the ASC develop a program to market their theatre on college campuses. The Production Assistant position will go be from June 11-July 13 - the rehearsal period for "Two Gents," but I've set my tentative dates from June 11-July 25, probably heading down a few days earlier to get my bearings, and then leaving about 12 days or so after the Assistant-ship is done to work on the marketing.

I'm excited! I think it'll be a great experience. And it won't be the entire summer, which is nice, and should leave me at least a little time to work on Rachel Corrie.

Auditions this week for Much Ado About Nothing next fall - we'll see how things go.
My costume pieces have been pulled together and distressed for my creation of Eliza Doolittle from My Fair Lady. I had a very interesting day with mud and a cheese grater.
Advanced Acting Shakespearean scene performances this week - my scene partner and I are performing Helena and Hermia from A Midsummer Night's Dream.
And, most pressing, I have a critical essay/research paper on Merchant of Venice due tomorrow that I've started on but still have a way to go. It could be a long night and day tomorrow (and I may or may not end up skipping a class or two).

Yo ho, yo ho, a thespian's life for me.

Deborah Brevoort, Playwright of "The Women of Lockerbie"

Listening to the playwright of "The Women of Lockerbie" talk in Script Analysis class today, here are some things I learned and some quotes I took away that I never want to forget:

• Lockerbie was the first terrorist attack on American interests - a defining moment in American history
• The terrorist bomb was implanted in a Toshiba radio
• There were 38 women of Lockerbie
• The laundry project of washing the clothes took about 9 months to a year to complete
• She first heard about/started thinking about the laundry project in 1998, ten years after the incident

Regarding the laundry project: "I couldn't believe I had never heard about this, that I thought was one of the most breathtaking gestures I had ever heard of."

"I wrote the play because I was so moved by the story."

Regarding: "why I write, how I write" -

"It's an exploration of something I don't know, something I don't understand."

"I don't begin with any kind of agenda at all."

"When I go to the theatre, I like to encounter a story and figure out my own meaning to take away from it, so that's the way I write."

"I don't write what I know; it would be boring for me to do that."

"I wanted to find out how you go through something like this and not be broken."

"If writers don't surprise themselves, they can't expect to surprise anyone else."

On Greek tragedy -

"I was seized by the idea of writing this story as a Greek tragedy."

"I had a hunch that the Lockerbie story was well-suited to this form."

• It took her 4 years and 25 drafts to write "The Women of Lockerbie."

Greek style:

1) Episode

2) Dialogue

3) Ode

"Stories like this are hard for an audience. Greek tragedy gives us a format for us to get through them."

• An episode contains the uncomfortable material - the stuff it's hard to get through.
• The dialogue is like a cooling device - the chorus reflects on the hard stuff.
• The ode is a song - a release. It cleanses the heart.

"Greek theatre was designed to tell the horrible stories."

"One of the struggles I kept running into was sinking back into naturalism or realism. When I did that, it began to become melodrama."

Question: "Most Greek tragedies are real downers, but your play leaves the audience with hope. Was that something you made a conscious decision to do?"

Her response: "Really I just followed the characters and the form. In real life, the people had found a way to come out of the darkness. That's how the story went. But I'm going to disagree with you about Greek tragedy. I think tragedy is the most hopeful form of theatre. A comedy only stops before the tragedy begins. But there's always something gained at the end of a tragedy. The price is always horrific, but something is always gained."

"I didn't write 'The Women of Lockerbie' with an agenda. Some people think I wrote the play as a political critique of the State Department. Some people think I wrote it as a Christian text. There are Christian values and ideologies, no doubt. But I'm more interested in writing characters into circumstances and writing them truthfully."

On why she likes to visit college campuses producing her play: "You're showing me things about my work that I didn't know before. This work is bigger than just me."

On writing characters in plays: "I think that if you're not inhabiting your characters, you're judging them."

Question: "Do you have a favorite character that you wrote? Like how you know you're not supposed to have favorite kids but everybody kind of does?"

Her response: "No, I really don't have a favorite. I'm fond of them all. They're all a part of me."

Question: "How did you make this play relevant to audiences?"

Her response: "I had the hardest time getting this play produced. People thought I was being morbid. And then September 11th happened. And suddenly, people understood. People in other countries understand the character of Maddie. The rest of the world has been ravaged by war. We've largely been spared. But suddenly people started to understand."

"The theatre's not about being historically accurate; it's about telling the truth."

"I didn't want the responsibility of journalism put on the play. I wanted to tell the story."

(RACHEL CORRIE!!!)

And finally -

Question: "What is your favorite play?"

Her response: "Oh there are so many. My three: 'A Streetcar Named Desire,' 'A Raisin in the Sun,' and 'Butterfly.'"

Follow-Up Thoughts on "World Changer"

A fellow student of mine who I greatly respect posted this as his Facebook status today after the World Changers convocation, and I wholeheartedly agree with him:

"I thought Kirk Cameron did well today. He spoke from his heart, and I admire that.

He encouraged others to stand for their convictions, and I applaud him for exemplifying that.

I may not have the same convictions as he does, but that doesn't mean that I won't affirm him as my brother.

I may disagree with him on his methods and some of his stances, but I will support his ultimate cause to serve God as best as you can with your life."

I also seriously do have this question, however:

In response to the ceremony today, and I imagine in response to naysayers of Mr. Cameron, IWU's Twitter re-tweeted a student who quoted Romans 14:4 - "You cannot judge another person's servant. The master decides if the servant is doing well or not..."

I love the Romans 14 passage and have even talked about it here before. And I agree. It should be in God's hands to judge his servants. And, in this light, I am certainly guilty of judging the effectiveness of someone else's servant.

The cool thing is that, as much as I find this truth convicting, I also find it comforting.

If, however, we use this verse in support for certain inductees, I see a need to look at the other side of the coin as well. The master decides if the servant is doing well or not. Not IWU's board of trustees. Not IWU faculty or staff. Not IWU students. Not the church. Not Christians. The master.

It also poses the question: if it is God's to judge the effectiveness of his servants, why are we giving a "world changer" award in the first place?