Hello Hungry--
We will not be meeting this Sunday as our sessions have now ended. Thanks for the ride. Going forward we need to decide on a specific plan. As I said last week, I caution against going too long before starting up again lest we loose momentum, but it seems as though I’m in the minority. For those would like to meet next week in some reduce capacity, I’d be in favor of this. We don’t even have to be doing work in the previous sense, but I think it’s important that we be meeting regularly until we start up again—just a thought. Please write back with your thoughts and suggestions. Also you should let everyone else know whether or not you are still personally interested in continuing our experiment. Feel no pressure.
Best,
Bradley
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
English Dir. Mike Leigh
Link to Original
THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 2008
Mike Leigh
My preview of Mike Leigh's Two Thousand Years (now in previews at the New Group) is in this week's Time Out.
I did a lot of research for the piece, most of which, of course, couldn't fit into 750 words. So here's some rambling summing up of some things I found interesting but couldn't fit in.
I must say it was a rush to talk to the man (over the phone, alas), having been a devoted fan of his films since 1988's High Hopes--which it turns out was his first US release. Through the New Group's previous four stagings of his work (starting with 1995's Ecstasy, which I saw) we in New York have been able to discover some of his theatre oeuvre, as well. All the plays the New Group has done before this (Ecstasy, Goose Pimples, Smelling a Rat, and Abigail's Party) all date from his residence at London's Hampstead Theatre from the late 70s to late 80s. But he actually has been creating plays since 1965 and basically kept at it until the international success of his early feature films (especially Naked andSecrets and Lies) took over by the early 90s. Two Thousand Years, then, is his first new work for the theatre since then. It was commissioned by the National Theatre back in 2001. Nicholas Hytner, who had just taken over there, sought Leigh out and coaxed him out of theatrical retirement.
Of course, "commission" is a funny word to use in this case. Especially given the way Leigh works. Hytner knew full well he was never going to see a script in advance. And because of Leigh's film schedule (Vera Drake kind of got in the way) he did not even commit himself until 2005. But even when he did, he insisted on a total news blackout about his development process and even an off-site rehearsal location to work with his actors in total isolation from the National. My understanding is that not even Hytner had a clue what the play was going to be like before seeing a dress rehearsal, or even 1st preview.
Leigh is famously cagey with journalists about his process--which he told me, not without a chuckle, is a "trade secret." And he is as secretive with every project really, whether stage or film. But as good as it may be for publicity--the mystery of Two Thousand Years stirred up
the London press pretty good--it's also honestly a necessity given neither he nor his actors know what the script will end up being about for a very long time.
From my research and talking to him, I gather it's something like this: Leigh does begin with some sense of a theme, historical period, or specific event. (Obviously films like the Gilbert & Sullivan docudramaTopsy-Turvy and the WWII-era Vera Drake didn't just materialize out of nothing.) He casts actors not so much for specific roles, but for their temperamental openness to his methods, their facility with improvisation, and what they might personally bring to the project.
With Two Thousand Years, for instance, he told (finally) the London press he had set out to something about his Jewish background, but wanted to engage modern London Jews with each other arguing about the world. He then deliberately set out to only cast Jewish actors. ("I auditioned or at least considered every Jewish actor in London," he told me.) His bluntness about this struck me as unusual, by the way. Hard to imagine someone saying that here. (Yet he did instruct New Group director Scott Elliott to do the same.) For Leigh, the play had to come from a group effort of Jewish people reflecting upon themselves and their families.
Including his own--Leigh himself did a teenage pilgrimage to a kibbutz with the Habonim movement referenced in the play, and his parents had previously met under such circumstances a generation earlier. Talking of the play, he frequently discusses his own "Zionist Socialist" background, even though he seems to have been brought up--in what was a large Jewish community in Manchester--rather secularly. (Emphasis on the Socialist more than the Zionist, perhaps?) This secular, political experience of Judaism (or Jewishness) is exactly what the play is about, though--and the conflicts it comes into both against pious faith and political realities in contemporary Israel.
But back to his casting process...Leigh also mentioned that a separate "secret agenda" of the project was to reclaim Jewish roles for Jewish actors. At least in England, where he believes there is far too much "blacking up" of gentiles in major Jewish roles. He has even served on a committee of British Equity formed to represent the interests of black, asian, and Jewish actors
in not being passed over for roles matching their race or ethnicity.
Needless to say, such essentialist insistence on "authenticity" might be more controversial in the cultural climate here today. (Even David Henry Hwang questions it in his Yellow Face, which dissects the controversy that arguably, with his help, started the debate: the Miss Saigon affair.) I'll let others comment on that for now. But I was definitely struck by how adamantly Leigh insisted on this ideal for this play. In much the way August Wilson insisted on black directors for his work.
However, if we consider the "devised" element in Leigh's work, and the collaborative , ensemble-based creative effort, then his a different stance than merely "identity politics." After all, if you decided to gather Jewish actors in a room to tell their stories and then staged it as a "documentary" (or as the English say, "verbatim") play, then few would question the practice.
Make no mistake, though, Leigh's plays and films eventually are scripted, and scripted by Leigh himself. He says he does not "write" in a traditional lone-man-at-a-desk way. But rather he selects, shapes, and structures from what emerges in the rehearsal improvisations. There is never any improvisation on stage before an audience or in front of the camera. By that time everything has been "set."
Leigh spent four months "rehearsing" Two Thousand Years this way. Typically, the beginning of this--according to other accounts--consists of extended one-on-one discussions with each actor, exploring themselves and people they know, searching for interesting hooks for a character. The actor then goes out and researches on his or her own extensively before coming back into the room to work with the others. "Research" is a big deal to Leigh, whatever the project, and for Two Thousand Years he designated an assistant, a young Israeli filmmaker,
a resource for all things Israel. (One of the play's characters is Israeli.)
When actors begin improv-ing together, they may know their characters, but there's still no settled plot. Leigh may develop a storyline with some actors but not tell others. In Vera Drake for example, he was careful to keep all information about Vera's illegal abortionist work secret from those playing her family until they first improvised the scene when police come to arrest her: the points was to create the dramatic reaction of her family to the shock in as emotionally authentic a way as possible. (Again what you see on film is not the improv itself, but sort of a reenactment of it, presumably.)
So you can see why he insists on secrecy all around the project and to the press, if he's even keeping secrets on set. In London, this pissed off the press to no end on Two Thousand Years. The National was patient, and settled for advertising the play in their season brochure as merely "A New Play by Mike Leigh." The run sold out in advance anyway. The mere release of a poster--bearing the enigmatic image of a palm tree amidst sand--set off fevered speculation. "It could be about the Iraq war," someone in the Guardian wrote. "It could be about a desert island, or it could even be about coconuts."
When the play was finally unveiled, most were pleased with what they found. Having read the script, I don't want to "review" the play before seeing it at the New Group, but I will say I found it very engaging and very like a Mike Leigh film--except more contained, in its unit set and tight nuclear family. It's also relatively plotless and rather Shavian in its self-conscious staging of debate. But given the debate is about theissues facing Jews today (assimilation vs tradition, belief vs modernity, Israel right-or-wrong vs leftist solidarity with Palestinians) it's one automatically engaging. And since it's all really about how weall live as civilized people in a world where terrorism has ratcheted up the challenges to freedom and tolerance, then I imagine it should be of interest to non-jews, too.
One last thought about Mike Leigh as a theatre artist: I learned he's a major one in Britain, actually. Abigail's Party (I believe never done in the US until the New Group did it here in 2005) is a bona fide modern classic in the UK, constantly revived, imitated, and quoted. (Leigh also filmed it in a 70s TV version, which he now dismisses as a crude video of the stage production.) One senses his heart has been in film all along, though, at least that's what he says about his youthful ambitions. He began doing theatre, he says, as a way to develop this technique which he started applying to filmmaking as early as 1971 with his first feature. Then followed a series of highly regarded television films over the next two decades, which were never released here, but constituted an important oeuvre of largely working class drama on their own. (Some of these early films are now finally becoming available here on DVD.)
But it's interesting that the whole Mike Leigh Process really did originate in the theatre, and back in 1965. And it's, I hope, inspirational for young theatre artists today to consider what it must have been like for him, at 22--dropped out of a more traditional stage acting training at RADA in favor of art school and film school stints--to just gather together a group of actor friends and create together a play over a period of months. Little did they know, actors and director alike, that this was the beginning of a process that would catapult its leader into a career of now over four decades, doing exactly the same thing, except usually on bigger scales. With the spare simplicity ofTwo Thousand Years, though, he pretty much returns to his roots.
THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 2008
Mike Leigh
My preview of Mike Leigh's Two Thousand Years (now in previews at the New Group) is in this week's Time Out.
I did a lot of research for the piece, most of which, of course, couldn't fit into 750 words. So here's some rambling summing up of some things I found interesting but couldn't fit in.
I must say it was a rush to talk to the man (over the phone, alas), having been a devoted fan of his films since 1988's High Hopes--which it turns out was his first US release. Through the New Group's previous four stagings of his work (starting with 1995's Ecstasy, which I saw) we in New York have been able to discover some of his theatre oeuvre, as well. All the plays the New Group has done before this (Ecstasy, Goose Pimples, Smelling a Rat, and Abigail's Party) all date from his residence at London's Hampstead Theatre from the late 70s to late 80s. But he actually has been creating plays since 1965 and basically kept at it until the international success of his early feature films (especially Naked andSecrets and Lies) took over by the early 90s. Two Thousand Years, then, is his first new work for the theatre since then. It was commissioned by the National Theatre back in 2001. Nicholas Hytner, who had just taken over there, sought Leigh out and coaxed him out of theatrical retirement.
Of course, "commission" is a funny word to use in this case. Especially given the way Leigh works. Hytner knew full well he was never going to see a script in advance. And because of Leigh's film schedule (Vera Drake kind of got in the way) he did not even commit himself until 2005. But even when he did, he insisted on a total news blackout about his development process and even an off-site rehearsal location to work with his actors in total isolation from the National. My understanding is that not even Hytner had a clue what the play was going to be like before seeing a dress rehearsal, or even 1st preview.
Leigh is famously cagey with journalists about his process--which he told me, not without a chuckle, is a "trade secret." And he is as secretive with every project really, whether stage or film. But as good as it may be for publicity--the mystery of Two Thousand Years stirred up
the London press pretty good--it's also honestly a necessity given neither he nor his actors know what the script will end up being about for a very long time.
From my research and talking to him, I gather it's something like this: Leigh does begin with some sense of a theme, historical period, or specific event. (Obviously films like the Gilbert & Sullivan docudramaTopsy-Turvy and the WWII-era Vera Drake didn't just materialize out of nothing.) He casts actors not so much for specific roles, but for their temperamental openness to his methods, their facility with improvisation, and what they might personally bring to the project.
With Two Thousand Years, for instance, he told (finally) the London press he had set out to something about his Jewish background, but wanted to engage modern London Jews with each other arguing about the world. He then deliberately set out to only cast Jewish actors. ("I auditioned or at least considered every Jewish actor in London," he told me.) His bluntness about this struck me as unusual, by the way. Hard to imagine someone saying that here. (Yet he did instruct New Group director Scott Elliott to do the same.) For Leigh, the play had to come from a group effort of Jewish people reflecting upon themselves and their families.
Including his own--Leigh himself did a teenage pilgrimage to a kibbutz with the Habonim movement referenced in the play, and his parents had previously met under such circumstances a generation earlier. Talking of the play, he frequently discusses his own "Zionist Socialist" background, even though he seems to have been brought up--in what was a large Jewish community in Manchester--rather secularly. (Emphasis on the Socialist more than the Zionist, perhaps?) This secular, political experience of Judaism (or Jewishness) is exactly what the play is about, though--and the conflicts it comes into both against pious faith and political realities in contemporary Israel.
But back to his casting process...Leigh also mentioned that a separate "secret agenda" of the project was to reclaim Jewish roles for Jewish actors. At least in England, where he believes there is far too much "blacking up" of gentiles in major Jewish roles. He has even served on a committee of British Equity formed to represent the interests of black, asian, and Jewish actors
in not being passed over for roles matching their race or ethnicity.
Needless to say, such essentialist insistence on "authenticity" might be more controversial in the cultural climate here today. (Even David Henry Hwang questions it in his Yellow Face, which dissects the controversy that arguably, with his help, started the debate: the Miss Saigon affair.) I'll let others comment on that for now. But I was definitely struck by how adamantly Leigh insisted on this ideal for this play. In much the way August Wilson insisted on black directors for his work.
However, if we consider the "devised" element in Leigh's work, and the collaborative , ensemble-based creative effort, then his a different stance than merely "identity politics." After all, if you decided to gather Jewish actors in a room to tell their stories and then staged it as a "documentary" (or as the English say, "verbatim") play, then few would question the practice.
Make no mistake, though, Leigh's plays and films eventually are scripted, and scripted by Leigh himself. He says he does not "write" in a traditional lone-man-at-a-desk way. But rather he selects, shapes, and structures from what emerges in the rehearsal improvisations. There is never any improvisation on stage before an audience or in front of the camera. By that time everything has been "set."
Leigh spent four months "rehearsing" Two Thousand Years this way. Typically, the beginning of this--according to other accounts--consists of extended one-on-one discussions with each actor, exploring themselves and people they know, searching for interesting hooks for a character. The actor then goes out and researches on his or her own extensively before coming back into the room to work with the others. "Research" is a big deal to Leigh, whatever the project, and for Two Thousand Years he designated an assistant, a young Israeli filmmaker,
a resource for all things Israel. (One of the play's characters is Israeli.)
When actors begin improv-ing together, they may know their characters, but there's still no settled plot. Leigh may develop a storyline with some actors but not tell others. In Vera Drake for example, he was careful to keep all information about Vera's illegal abortionist work secret from those playing her family until they first improvised the scene when police come to arrest her: the points was to create the dramatic reaction of her family to the shock in as emotionally authentic a way as possible. (Again what you see on film is not the improv itself, but sort of a reenactment of it, presumably.)
So you can see why he insists on secrecy all around the project and to the press, if he's even keeping secrets on set. In London, this pissed off the press to no end on Two Thousand Years. The National was patient, and settled for advertising the play in their season brochure as merely "A New Play by Mike Leigh." The run sold out in advance anyway. The mere release of a poster--bearing the enigmatic image of a palm tree amidst sand--set off fevered speculation. "It could be about the Iraq war," someone in the Guardian wrote. "It could be about a desert island, or it could even be about coconuts."
When the play was finally unveiled, most were pleased with what they found. Having read the script, I don't want to "review" the play before seeing it at the New Group, but I will say I found it very engaging and very like a Mike Leigh film--except more contained, in its unit set and tight nuclear family. It's also relatively plotless and rather Shavian in its self-conscious staging of debate. But given the debate is about theissues facing Jews today (assimilation vs tradition, belief vs modernity, Israel right-or-wrong vs leftist solidarity with Palestinians) it's one automatically engaging. And since it's all really about how weall live as civilized people in a world where terrorism has ratcheted up the challenges to freedom and tolerance, then I imagine it should be of interest to non-jews, too.
One last thought about Mike Leigh as a theatre artist: I learned he's a major one in Britain, actually. Abigail's Party (I believe never done in the US until the New Group did it here in 2005) is a bona fide modern classic in the UK, constantly revived, imitated, and quoted. (Leigh also filmed it in a 70s TV version, which he now dismisses as a crude video of the stage production.) One senses his heart has been in film all along, though, at least that's what he says about his youthful ambitions. He began doing theatre, he says, as a way to develop this technique which he started applying to filmmaking as early as 1971 with his first feature. Then followed a series of highly regarded television films over the next two decades, which were never released here, but constituted an important oeuvre of largely working class drama on their own. (Some of these early films are now finally becoming available here on DVD.)
But it's interesting that the whole Mike Leigh Process really did originate in the theatre, and back in 1965. And it's, I hope, inspirational for young theatre artists today to consider what it must have been like for him, at 22--dropped out of a more traditional stage acting training at RADA in favor of art school and film school stints--to just gather together a group of actor friends and create together a play over a period of months. Little did they know, actors and director alike, that this was the beginning of a process that would catapult its leader into a career of now over four decades, doing exactly the same thing, except usually on bigger scales. With the spare simplicity ofTwo Thousand Years, though, he pretty much returns to his roots.
Monday, October 20, 2008
reflections
wanted to express my thoughts as they are still fresh in my mind... I felt that we took yet another huge step as a group this week. The extended open exploration was great and provided us with even more time to really explore just about anything. The biggest shift from last week was everyone's willingness to really just jump in head first and take big risks. It was so wonderful to watch and learn from all of you.
I also appreciated everyone's honesty during the last part of the meeting. And I think we all know not to take anything that was said personally and to understand that with time we will be laughing at our silly fears of the past. I would have liked to also do "I love/like your.. and I perceive you love/like" , so hopefully we can fit that in somewhere in the coming weeks. But I think the only way to truth and being truly open and comfortable as a person and actor is through complete honesty. And I believe we are heading in the right direction.
That's all for now. See you all soon... in Paradise.
I also appreciated everyone's honesty during the last part of the meeting. And I think we all know not to take anything that was said personally and to understand that with time we will be laughing at our silly fears of the past. I would have liked to also do "I love/like your.. and I perceive you love/like" , so hopefully we can fit that in somewhere in the coming weeks. But I think the only way to truth and being truly open and comfortable as a person and actor is through complete honesty. And I believe we are heading in the right direction.
That's all for now. See you all soon... in Paradise.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
developing our extraordinary facets
Good Morning everyone. Or good evening to those who either stay up late like me or are just seeing this on a fine Sunday evening. I must say, this last meeting we had was wonderful. I felt all of us really challenging one another and allowing our walls to slowly come down one by one. I feel that I really 'saw' most of you last week. I saw real people underneath all that thinking and talking and fear, we all as human beings bring to the table. I saw us take a huge step onto that bridge of balance and awakening. In the words of a wise member, last week we began to make 'sacrifices that will inevitably lead us to discover and develop all of our extraordinary facets.'
I love this idea- this need to overcome the gap or void in our lives- this gap that's full of words and thoughts but no real actions. I really believe that what we are doing is SO BRAVE. Yes, people will read all about our goals and jump at the idea of being a part of it, but like most of us have already witnessed, it's VERY SCARY. It's scary to try to overcome these obstacles and fears that we create for ourselves in our often poisonous thoughts. And we will create any excuse to stop the voices and insecurities from taking over our thoughts. We will throw away and turn our backs on people and things that can take us to the next level of balance and beauty and real freedom.
I think freedom is the key to finding this balance, to bridging that gap. But what does it really mean to be free? And why do we constantly deprive ourselves of it? Is it because we are afraid to be judged? Afraid of the consequences? Afraid of really finding out who we are and what we care about? Why do we allow ourselves to run away from ourselves?
Only the free can look in the mirror and see themselves. Only the free can see something new and different and explore it before judging it. Only the free can expose themselves to strangers and not be hand-cuffed by thoughts and insecurities. But the free cannot walk alone. And the bridge to freedom cannot be built by one. I want to find that freedom. I want to be able to really let go and dive into the deep pool of uncertainty. I want to fly high above my thoughts. And I trust that you all want the same. I trust that I can count on you to hold my hand on this journey. I trust that one day we will all be free, not only as actors and artists, but as people.
I'll be seeing you all soon. :)
Korken
I love this idea- this need to overcome the gap or void in our lives- this gap that's full of words and thoughts but no real actions. I really believe that what we are doing is SO BRAVE. Yes, people will read all about our goals and jump at the idea of being a part of it, but like most of us have already witnessed, it's VERY SCARY. It's scary to try to overcome these obstacles and fears that we create for ourselves in our often poisonous thoughts. And we will create any excuse to stop the voices and insecurities from taking over our thoughts. We will throw away and turn our backs on people and things that can take us to the next level of balance and beauty and real freedom.
I think freedom is the key to finding this balance, to bridging that gap. But what does it really mean to be free? And why do we constantly deprive ourselves of it? Is it because we are afraid to be judged? Afraid of the consequences? Afraid of really finding out who we are and what we care about? Why do we allow ourselves to run away from ourselves?
Only the free can look in the mirror and see themselves. Only the free can see something new and different and explore it before judging it. Only the free can expose themselves to strangers and not be hand-cuffed by thoughts and insecurities. But the free cannot walk alone. And the bridge to freedom cannot be built by one. I want to find that freedom. I want to be able to really let go and dive into the deep pool of uncertainty. I want to fly high above my thoughts. And I trust that you all want the same. I trust that I can count on you to hold my hand on this journey. I trust that one day we will all be free, not only as actors and artists, but as people.
I'll be seeing you all soon. :)
Korken
Saturday, October 18, 2008
But tomorrow …
But tomorrow …
It’s tomorrow and all the dead words are on the lawn. Sprouting. Digging in their roots. If the sprinklers are turned on then maybe there’s a chance they’ll grow. It’s conceivable they might dEvelOp into shapes and sizes both worthwhile and delectable. But harvesting such worth takes a steadfast, calloused, palm.
Your porous watering can does as advertised, yet I prefer the goodness within – hugging the walls of a sputtering hose knotted on both ends. Before things have seasoned, turning yellow, browning in the sun, they look as though they’ll always be anything but ripe. The farmer’s job is not to yellow them, but to make scrumptious recipes of green. To make children taste first broccoli and rub their bellies, “Mmmm!”
My words may...
They’re meant to blow like dandelion-memories. They should stalk you, invasive like that of Kudzu. I want them to itch like members of the Sumac Family while smelling like roses.
But tomorrow, I’ll rise early and plow.
It’s tomorrow and all the dead words are on the lawn. Sprouting. Digging in their roots. If the sprinklers are turned on then maybe there’s a chance they’ll grow. It’s conceivable they might dEvelOp into shapes and sizes both worthwhile and delectable. But harvesting such worth takes a steadfast, calloused, palm.
Your porous watering can does as advertised, yet I prefer the goodness within – hugging the walls of a sputtering hose knotted on both ends. Before things have seasoned, turning yellow, browning in the sun, they look as though they’ll always be anything but ripe. The farmer’s job is not to yellow them, but to make scrumptious recipes of green. To make children taste first broccoli and rub their bellies, “Mmmm!”
My words may...
drop from trees, fall from vines or shrubbery.
They’re meant to blow like dandelion-memories. They should stalk you, invasive like that of Kudzu. I want them to itch like members of the Sumac Family while smelling like roses.
But tomorrow, I’ll rise early and plow.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Feeding yourselves
We all are hungry in our own respective ways. Creatively there may be a void in our lives that the corporate world could never fulfill, so we act and we create art. Literally we have a hunger that has to be fed 3 times a day. Is that the same with our creative hunger? Do we ingest art three times a day? Or for some of us do we need less? It's an interesting balance between being an artist and also trying to make a living. The term make a living is interesting in itself. We usually take the word living as something very organic, but in reality when we do create life it usually comes from a conscious decision to make babies. Well those of us who are lucky to avoid unforeseen pregnancies. But to make a living signifies consciously compiling/earning resources for one's survival. Then to do so as an artist. Then to do so from the work of being an artist. Yes that's the ticket! That's the goal right? Well all said and done I think we all can agree that being rich already makes it a lot easier to create art, at the very least devote one's time to art. But how do the meager continue on? Through balance. Through sacrifice is more likely the case. The artist seems to me more hungry for love, recognition and individuality than the average person. We are extraordinary people, but many of us never fully get around to developing our extraordinary facets.
So what's the point? What's the point of this blog? Exactly. What is your point? You don't necessarily have to have a written answer, but you need to have a sense of direction. You need to have a sense of measuring progress and defining this progress as a measure of your self worth and self esteem. We are all hungry. But are we feeding ourselves in all the ways we should? I feel like we are all able to see it so clearly the path of righteousness for others, but we are unwilling to take that same path. Because there is a gap, a fence between words and actions. This gap takes bravery. This gap requires persistence to be overcome. This gap is an obstacle that will always be there and will never be completely filled. But with each temporary bridge that is built, it becomes easier to follow the same blueprint. Life is full of earthquakes. But we rebuild. We are humans. We'll be here for a while. Start building that bridge.
Stop thinking and talking about it and there is nothing that you will not be able to know. - Zen paradigm
It's easy to focus on the hunger. It's also easy to focus on the food that seems so out of reach. But once you learn to cook 1 meal, 2 meals, 1 million meals, yes you will always be hungry everyday but you will have the knowledge and experience to feed yourself. Others will not have to feed you. They can. And you can feed them. But learn how to feed yourself and you'll never go hungry.
Do what you want--what's required. For your own happiness. Take the risks. How does it sit with you? Are you happy going along this path? If not then reexamine. You have options. Nothing is a done deal. Make a choice, commit to your decision and then evaluate. Move forward.
So what's the point? What's the point of this blog? Exactly. What is your point? You don't necessarily have to have a written answer, but you need to have a sense of direction. You need to have a sense of measuring progress and defining this progress as a measure of your self worth and self esteem. We are all hungry. But are we feeding ourselves in all the ways we should? I feel like we are all able to see it so clearly the path of righteousness for others, but we are unwilling to take that same path. Because there is a gap, a fence between words and actions. This gap takes bravery. This gap requires persistence to be overcome. This gap is an obstacle that will always be there and will never be completely filled. But with each temporary bridge that is built, it becomes easier to follow the same blueprint. Life is full of earthquakes. But we rebuild. We are humans. We'll be here for a while. Start building that bridge.
Stop thinking and talking about it and there is nothing that you will not be able to know. - Zen paradigm
It's easy to focus on the hunger. It's also easy to focus on the food that seems so out of reach. But once you learn to cook 1 meal, 2 meals, 1 million meals, yes you will always be hungry everyday but you will have the knowledge and experience to feed yourself. Others will not have to feed you. They can. And you can feed them. But learn how to feed yourself and you'll never go hungry.
Do what you want--what's required. For your own happiness. Take the risks. How does it sit with you? Are you happy going along this path? If not then reexamine. You have options. Nothing is a done deal. Make a choice, commit to your decision and then evaluate. Move forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)