Meditations on Meditation

-->

I've been listening to the “Zenprov” podcast for a while now, and those guys are way into the meditation as a good way into improv approach. First, as full disclosure, let me say I've never pursued meditation seriously (or semi-seriously, for that matter). I don't feel like my brain is the kind that really takes to meditation well – I can't really sit still with an empty mind much, if at all. I do appreciate some of the things that they talk about that are adjacent in the topic, things that are found in both Zen Buddhism and some improv texts – being in the moment, reacting honestly, and I really do feel that they do know what they are talking about. Just not for me, is all I'm saying.

That having been said, I do have a beef with meditation as a way to warm up before improv. I was in an improv troupe that did pursue quiet meditation, stretching, yoga and other things which I'm sure have names, but I would probably end just calling “that thing where we did the one thing”. Now, I know that one data point does not make a pattern, but I would say that my experience from that group tells me that meditation as warm up may not be the best choice. What are warm ups intended to do? Establish group mind, get energy up, get the mind working, get the players listening – these are all good reasons. Meditation, doesn't appear to do those things. This group would dutifully follow the whole routine, spending 15-20 minutes clearing the mind and whatnot, and then get up on stage and yell at and ignore each other.

I can see the benefit of the meditative approach: spending some time focusing on yourself, the environment, the other player (not necessarily in that order) before you muddle the whole thing up with words. Really paying attention to things, instead of just waiting for your chance to talk, sure, I can get behind all of that. My point is that I have seen much better work come out of a group that has taken the time to focus on the group at the start of a practice with “zip, zap, zop” (which focuses on energy, listening, and responding quickly) or a pattern game (focus, listening, paying attention) that I have with silent solo meditation. There has been a lot of talk from a number of different people who are all saying the same thing, that we must first take care of ourselves, but improv still is a team sport, and we need to still pay some focus to our fellows on stage. Even the meditative approach to scene starting (what my friend calls the “shut the fuck up” method) is about tuning in to what is going on with you and your scene partner.

This whole approach goes back to those very Zen like principles of quieting the mind so you can a) turn of your internal policeman that criticizes and second guesses your instinctual reactions and b) really listening. Ultimately though, a warm up regimen must be selected that fits your groups personal style and benefits them, and if meditation isn't doing it for you (as in getting you do all the good things you should be striving for), then you've gotta try something new.

American Pie versus Technology, Part 1

The late 90's were an interesting time for the Internet – it was no longer a novelty, but it hadn't yet found its niche; most of the users of the internet found that it was useful for emails and pictures of naked women (remember that back in these days, few, if any, people had anything more than a 56k connection, so anything more than pictures or very short videos was largely out the question) and little else. Back in 1999, if you will remember, was the age before YouTube (not until 2005), Facebook (2004), MySpace (2003), or even Friendster (2002). Even Napster wasn't operational until 1999, so the years prior were a very untested time for the internet. Very little content had yet to be ported onto the web, for example it is estimated that in 2007 YouTube consumed as much bandwith as the entire internet in 2000. Even movies hadn't really decided what to make of the internet – only a handful of films even used the internet: “The Net” (1995) and “Hackers” (1996) being the more notable ones. The former envisioned a world where we were so disconnected by our digital selves that others could substitute themselves in for us, and a powerful computer program allows a well resourced group to control information. The latter promotes the web as a wild west, where information is the weapon, and a few rebellious hackers can use it to help protect the world from a powerful corporation. Both films extol information and the web that harbors it as a powerful tool, but in both cases any attempts to pigeon hole it as whole cloth bad, are countered by the fact that the internet is eventually used to win the day. Indeed, tech up to this point is merely a tool like a gun or a bomb – in the right hands, deadly, but useful when used responsibly.

It would therefore seem unlikely to find a powerful anti-technology statement in the film “American Pie” (1999) - but the film is surprisingly, and subtly, a condemnation of the permeation of technology in our lives. (That the film came out in the same year as three movies that all took stabs at the encroachment of technology and the potential for being dominated by it - “The Matrix” (1999), “Existenz” (1999), and “The Thirteenth Floor” (1999) shows that clearly by this point we were prepared to make statements about technology and networks and their power.) Indeed the three entries in the trilogy - “Pie”, “American Pie 2” (2001), and “American Wedding” (2003), take a staunchly anti-technology stance, more so than any other film previous or since. “Pie” and its successors, in fact take a far more Luddist view of technology than even “The Matrix”.

Every instance of technology that appears in the film (and the series as a whole) is associated with embarrassment and humiliation – even from the opening shot: a lone Jim sits in his bedroom, attempting to masturbate to scrambled-cable porn, he is quickly discovered by his parents – as a direct result of his attempts to use technology over bedding a non-digital woman. Indeed, Jim suffers the most as a result of his interactions with technology: during the first montage, where the four friends are organizing to lose their virginity, Jim uses an internet dating profile to get a prom date, and receives no responses. And of course, during the longest sequence in the film, Jim sets up a web feed to catch video of Nadia undressing is his bedroom, which then leads to his eventual embarrassment as he unknowingly sends the link to his entire school (the undressing ultimately becomes a chance sexual encounter with Nadia when Jim enters the room where she is undressed) – exponentially increasing his damage at using technology. The filmmakers make such a statement about how wrong this use of technology is that it is brought up by a high school party-goer in the beginning of the second film; indeed this incident has followed Jim well beyond his first year in college.

Similarly, the centerpiece sequence in the film's sequel is set around an increasing intimacy scene with two (alleged) lesbians, that again becomes broadcast, this time over walkie talkies. Another incident in the second act of the sequel comes as an attack from tech again – while watching a porn VHS, Jim inadvertently super-glues himself to himself while masturbating. In the opening scene of “Wedding”, Jim mishandles a wedding proposal, which leads to him receiving fellatio from Michelle in a crowded restaurant – which while not a direct result of tech, is notable because just before this act, Jim receives a phone call on his cell phone from his father, and now this highly common tech serves as a harbinger, signaling the embarrassment to come. And again in the third entry, he uses an electric shaver to shave his pubic region and peppers most of the wedding planning crew with his discarded pubic hair – becoming increasingly the victim of increasingly simpler technology. In fact, it may be his over-reliance on technology that makes him suffer the most; in an early scene in the original he is explaining to a fellow party-goer that he should be able to talk to women, because he got a “1600 on the SAT's”. Now while the SAT itself is arguably not a technological achievement, it represents a modern advancement into standardized testing and evaluation. He should know better, because in the AP universe, technology may not be mortal or even morbid, but it is the cause of humiliation. Even a startlingly good score does not help him lose his virginity or with his capacity to even talk to women. His excellent score on a modern evaluative method does not equal good social grace.