‘Changes’, a fourth-annual summer compilation of student written and directed one-act plays debuted at Miami Dade College – Kendall Campus on June 9 and ran until June 13.
Six short plays were presented in about one hour, with a short intermission at the halfway point.
The kitsch of these summer production is that the plays are allegedly united by an overarching theme this year being, naturally, ‘Change’. Last year’s production was ‘Perceptions’ where my own one-act, ‘The Ratchet Men’, opened the show.
The opener for 2010 was a relatively funny little number called ‘Do I Need Therapy’ written by Robert Torres and directed by Maryam Sierki. Ian Vargas played Bob, a Woody Allen-esque neurotic therapy patient decked out in the standard-issue geek regalia of a plaid shirt bound around the carotid artery, easy-fit jeans and black oxfords, topped off with thick horn-rimmed glasses like a misfit Peter Sellers. The piece could have been reminiscent of Dr. Katz: Professional Therapist, had the actor playing Therapist Jim (Jaromir Garcia) been more sardonic and less, well – medicated. In a rapid-fire back and forth, Bob accuses Jim of having assumed his problems and at the end, after tentatively solving his problems with the opposite sex himself, Bob storms out of the office and, following a poorly calculated blink black out, re-enters the office demanding a refund. The ending was weak, but Bob’s onstage energy kept my interest until his final exit. Jim was dry and almost transparent, but not in the way a therapist is paid to be in the off-stage real world.
Next up, was the aptly named ‘Everything Is Not What It Seems’ written by Vania Vieta and directed by Julia Rose Turner. Out of the six, this was potentially the most promising but unfortunately the biggest let down. When Nelson Delgado, an erratic and oddly dressed cop goes to a strip club to investigate a murder, he is greeted by a resident dancer, played by Lyane Capote. Neither characters are named, and rightly so, because they were one-dimensional and advanced absolutely nothing. The stripper asks for cash payment in order to discuss the murder she witnessed, one in which it appeared her John had had a part in. All the money, along with valuable time, is wasted, for the cop gets no information and the audience gets no resolution. After one black out, the agent is seated with his head on his desk and is awakened by the stripper, who is now donning a sweatshirt as opposed to her previous corset and skinny jeans ensemble. The circumstances of the visit aren’t explained or even hinted at with subtext – the pole is still in the room, but the cop is supposedly at his office, or his home. Did the stripper and the cop get hitched? I’m sure this happens all the time, but the audience had no idea. Why was the stripper back in his life after a five-year cold case investigation? The set was confusing, and the story did not end on any note. Harold Pinter was famous for perfecting the incomplete resolution, but this one was just an example of poor writing.
‘The Papi Chulo Effect’ followed. The story dealt with three pink-clad women celebrating an engagement and discussing their experiences with “papi chulos” – essentially, Spanish Don Juans without the charisma. Each of the women take turns telling their own stories, in between shots of Jose Cuervo. How utterly a propos. One of the women is revealed to be dating a “Jew named Abraham” but for good measure at the end of the play, it is also revealed that the favorite and perhaps the only acceptable form of the shape-shifting “papi chulo” is the flamboyant homosexual, personified here with a pink boa and crown thrown in to counteract any suspicions of a P.C deficit.
After the intermission, the audience was greeted to (or subjected to, depending on one’s interpretation) ‘Rabbit Ears and Turtle Shells.’ In the story, Milton, a geeky young man enlists the help of his calm and collected waiter friend Brian in order to win the heart of Marie (Andrea Lopez), a young woman with a wandering eye and overprotective mother whom he knew in high school. After ordering a scotch on the rocks, Marie’s date shows up, thrusting flowers in her face. He orders a scotch, straight up, and runs to the bathroom to splash water on his face, maybe also to count the hairs that grew on his chest. He calls the waiter out for serving him “gasoline” and faints when Marie approaches him and discovers the quasi-Cyrano de Bergerac plot. The play ends with Marie repeating for the third time that the waiter was “cute.” The name of the play didn’t make sense at first, but was explained to me afterward as a rhetorical spin on the fable of the Turtle and the Hare. Why their dominating body parts were included in the title is beyond me, however.
‘Past Imperfect’ was the second non-comedy in the line-up. The plot focuses on a young woman (Tammy Salazar) plagued by her boyfriend’s relentless ability to not listen or tidy up. The boyfriend, played by Carlos Martinez, ignores her concerns with a handheld video game. After two telephone conversations and too many blackout scenes, it is revealed that boyfriend Steven cheated on girlfriend Karla with one of her friends, and Karla kissed another man at a party. In the end, after various conversations with her new beau, Karla walks out on Steven, despite his desperate pleas.
The final play was ‘The Game Show’, directed by Matthew Donovan and written by Jaromir Garcia, was one of the highlights of the production. Ian Vargas returns to the stage as a 1950s style game show host, donning a blazer and jeans combo a la Glenn Beck. Contestants included Lauren, a dim-witted aspiring model and actress who had been recently crowned ‘Miss Chili Cook-Off’ in Kansas City, (that’s in Kansas), a dowdy newlywed, Rick, who lost 20 grand in Vegas and is being egged on by his brash new wife, Tina, to “kick some ass” and make the money back, and Joseph, an apathetic teenager who spends his days watching Youtube videos and couldn’t care less about being on the show, much to the dismay of his overly excited mother Felisha Chang who at one point storms on stage to fix his cowlick. The first game in the contest was ‘Oh God, Not the Face’, in which balls were thrown at the contestants by the matchy-matchy sequined stage girls. Lauren wins the round, but is soon eliminated by Rick and Joseph, who vote her off the proverbial TV island. Two “commercial breaks” separated the rounds, both for cleaning products in order to stay true to 1950s shows like ‘The Name’s the Game’. The interrupted breaks along with the mention of Youtube were a fairly obvious yet fresh and funny anachronism. ‘The Game Show’ was overall the best written and acted of the bunch and a nice way to round-off a lackluster show.
Showing posts with label Miami Dade College. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Miami Dade College. Show all posts
Monday, June 14, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
The article I was wrong about - in a way.
Why was I wrong? I thought it was entirely necessary to be escorted around campus for the weeks following this publication because of all the hate mail and rocks that would be flung at my head. Instead, I received three hand-written thank you letters in the mail from staff or faculty members who appreciated the honesty in my story, and a voice-mail from another staff member. I say "in a way" in the literal sense, not in the pseudo or maybe not so pseudo pretentious way I've used it in the past - as a reference to Camus' 'The Fall' - better than 'The Stranger' if you get around to reading it. Very highly recommended. I felt the title was appropriate because I took the liberty of quoting Albert Camus twice in this story, published a few days after the November election in 2008.
I never did find out who the individuals were who sent me the thank you notes, nor did I find out the name of my source - he reported directly to my best friend and former human resources staff worker, who refused to tell me the gentleman's name, even off the record.
As an irrelevant and admittedly Krameresque "hipster-dofus" aside - Camus is such an inspiration to me, that I had the words 'Life is Absurd' tattooed on myself several weeks after this article was published, the day before Thanksgiving to be exact. So - two years late, but thanks Camus, you Bogarty French ruffian for without you, my lede would not have been nearly as refined as I'd hoped it would be.
Amendment 8: Padron’s One-Sided War
By: Katherine Concepcion
Albert Camus spoke of the “Puppets and chatterboxes who pretend to speak in the name of the people.” For the past month, the chatterbox has been playing to the tune of “Yes on 8!” and the puppets have donned the matching pins and t-shirts.
We have all seen the signs, most of us have heard the radio spots, and fewer may have read Miami Dade College President Eduardo Padron’s Miami Herald article (‘MDC central to our chance for prosperity’, dated October 16th, 2008).
An explanation of the nature of the amendment is not in order here, what is however, is how Miami Dade College has ever gotten away with this arrogantly blatant lobbying.
Even if a law preventing a public, tax-funded college from endorsing a constitutional amendment did not exist, would it be as widely accepted if the amendment being promoted were not Amendment 8?
Would there be a massive outcry if Miami Dade College had suddenly come out in support of a vote of Yes on Amendment 2?
What about if Miami Dade College had publicly announced their endorsement of a political candidate and began investing thousands of dollars in radio spots, signs, pins, and other tchotchkes?
Why is it so acceptable to everyone that Miami Dade College supports a certain vote on a certain amendment when no one would feel okay about Miami Dade College endorsing another political issue? Why is Amendment 8 arbitrarily in the clear?
Miami Dade College’s own recorded phone announcements speak of “supporting democracy” by voting for Amendment 8. There is a blissful bit of irony in this situation, as “democracy” is being pushed on to students and staff, at the threat of reproach or no club funding. You cannot force democracy through the barrel of a gun, and you cannot expect an entire college population to be ideologically in line with the ideals of its president.
It is irrelevant whether the cause is a noble one, attempting to receive more money for students. The fact remains that an element of intimidation has been introduced to our campus by the campaign of Amendment 8.
A few weeks ago, campus club advisers were told that any club which did not participate in Amendment 8 activities should not expect any funding. This seems like a form of extortion. Certain members of the faculty and staff may have begrudgingly agreed to attend Amendment 8 events for fear of losing their jobs or being ostracized by the administration.
When asked the question: Have you felt pressure from your superiors to support Amendment 8? An MDC employee, who shall remain anonymous, responded, "Yes, I have been harassed with emails, voicemails, and one on one discussion. I have been forced to wear the button and the sticker. I don't believe in Amendment 8, but they make it seem like you'll lose your job if you're not for it."
Is this the kind of environment the administration wants to provide for its staff and students, for them to feel like a group of black-listed, radical subversives? For an institution which prides itself on its “open door policy” and “democratic” ideals, they are being pretty closed minded about any dissent on the issue.
At the time of this writing, one week has passed since the tragic deaths of Lisa Ard and Callie Pascal, two incredibly altruistic college employees who were killed in a car accident while they were en route to an Amendment 8 road blocking event.
After the accident, all Amendment 8 activities were allegedly canceled.
Recently, it was discovered that students and faculty were still sent out to polling locations to hold signs for Amendment 8, and the events were offered as extra credit in a variety of courses.
Thank goodness that another terrible accident did not occur to an attendant of one of these events. Although all events weren’t canceled, the other planned events were, so it is still important to ask: Why did it have to take the deaths of two innocent people for the administration to realize that it is not right to push students and staff into supporting their agenda?
Hopefully in the future, Miami Dade College will be less quick to pimp their legislation of the month and require others to do so. This is necessary, you know, for the “spirit of democracy.”
While it may be easier said than done for a student group or staff member to stand up and openly condemn the threats proposed by Student Life, one must never forget to stand up for one’s self. The minute you allow yourself to be heinously walked upon, no matter whom the authority, you give up a little bit of your freedom and thus a little bit of your humanity.
In light of the realization that many people on campus would prefer not to bother raising an objection, perhaps with the intent to remain “respectful” towards their superiors, Camus had another nugget of wisdom for this group to reflect upon, “Nothing is more despicable than respect based on fear.”
I never did find out who the individuals were who sent me the thank you notes, nor did I find out the name of my source - he reported directly to my best friend and former human resources staff worker, who refused to tell me the gentleman's name, even off the record.
As an irrelevant and admittedly Krameresque "hipster-dofus" aside - Camus is such an inspiration to me, that I had the words 'Life is Absurd' tattooed on myself several weeks after this article was published, the day before Thanksgiving to be exact. So - two years late, but thanks Camus, you Bogarty French ruffian for without you, my lede would not have been nearly as refined as I'd hoped it would be.
Amendment 8: Padron’s One-Sided War
By: Katherine Concepcion
Albert Camus spoke of the “Puppets and chatterboxes who pretend to speak in the name of the people.” For the past month, the chatterbox has been playing to the tune of “Yes on 8!” and the puppets have donned the matching pins and t-shirts.
We have all seen the signs, most of us have heard the radio spots, and fewer may have read Miami Dade College President Eduardo Padron’s Miami Herald article (‘MDC central to our chance for prosperity’, dated October 16th, 2008).
An explanation of the nature of the amendment is not in order here, what is however, is how Miami Dade College has ever gotten away with this arrogantly blatant lobbying.
Even if a law preventing a public, tax-funded college from endorsing a constitutional amendment did not exist, would it be as widely accepted if the amendment being promoted were not Amendment 8?
Would there be a massive outcry if Miami Dade College had suddenly come out in support of a vote of Yes on Amendment 2?
What about if Miami Dade College had publicly announced their endorsement of a political candidate and began investing thousands of dollars in radio spots, signs, pins, and other tchotchkes?
Why is it so acceptable to everyone that Miami Dade College supports a certain vote on a certain amendment when no one would feel okay about Miami Dade College endorsing another political issue? Why is Amendment 8 arbitrarily in the clear?
Miami Dade College’s own recorded phone announcements speak of “supporting democracy” by voting for Amendment 8. There is a blissful bit of irony in this situation, as “democracy” is being pushed on to students and staff, at the threat of reproach or no club funding. You cannot force democracy through the barrel of a gun, and you cannot expect an entire college population to be ideologically in line with the ideals of its president.
It is irrelevant whether the cause is a noble one, attempting to receive more money for students. The fact remains that an element of intimidation has been introduced to our campus by the campaign of Amendment 8.
A few weeks ago, campus club advisers were told that any club which did not participate in Amendment 8 activities should not expect any funding. This seems like a form of extortion. Certain members of the faculty and staff may have begrudgingly agreed to attend Amendment 8 events for fear of losing their jobs or being ostracized by the administration.
When asked the question: Have you felt pressure from your superiors to support Amendment 8? An MDC employee, who shall remain anonymous, responded, "Yes, I have been harassed with emails, voicemails, and one on one discussion. I have been forced to wear the button and the sticker. I don't believe in Amendment 8, but they make it seem like you'll lose your job if you're not for it."
Is this the kind of environment the administration wants to provide for its staff and students, for them to feel like a group of black-listed, radical subversives? For an institution which prides itself on its “open door policy” and “democratic” ideals, they are being pretty closed minded about any dissent on the issue.
At the time of this writing, one week has passed since the tragic deaths of Lisa Ard and Callie Pascal, two incredibly altruistic college employees who were killed in a car accident while they were en route to an Amendment 8 road blocking event.
After the accident, all Amendment 8 activities were allegedly canceled.
Recently, it was discovered that students and faculty were still sent out to polling locations to hold signs for Amendment 8, and the events were offered as extra credit in a variety of courses.
Thank goodness that another terrible accident did not occur to an attendant of one of these events. Although all events weren’t canceled, the other planned events were, so it is still important to ask: Why did it have to take the deaths of two innocent people for the administration to realize that it is not right to push students and staff into supporting their agenda?
Hopefully in the future, Miami Dade College will be less quick to pimp their legislation of the month and require others to do so. This is necessary, you know, for the “spirit of democracy.”
While it may be easier said than done for a student group or staff member to stand up and openly condemn the threats proposed by Student Life, one must never forget to stand up for one’s self. The minute you allow yourself to be heinously walked upon, no matter whom the authority, you give up a little bit of your freedom and thus a little bit of your humanity.
In light of the realization that many people on campus would prefer not to bother raising an objection, perhaps with the intent to remain “respectful” towards their superiors, Camus had another nugget of wisdom for this group to reflect upon, “Nothing is more despicable than respect based on fear.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)