Crossfit: the next big thing in crossfit events!

Posted on February 13, 2012 by scharles

Ha!  I’ve come up with a great idea.  I was at the Sac Throwdown over the weekend, and I was really impressed with the level of athletes that participated.  Of course, they sent the best of their best.  I know Crossfit East Sac did — CFES won the novice and master divisions, and the open team just missed the cut for the top 8 teams for the final event on Sunday.

But I was thinking about it, and I wondered how would we measure the overall success of a crossfit box?  In other words, how would we establish a fitness ratio for each gym?  Well we’d have to measure the fitness of everybody in that gym, allow for time spent, age, weight and etc.  Interesting challenge!

But me being me, I kept thinking about it, and I came up with an idea.  Instead of choosing athletes because we know they are fit, let’s reverse that — let’s pick them randomly!

That’s right: let’s have each Crossfit affiliate who wants to participate submit a list of their members, and then the event team picks their names out of a hat, and we do an event.  Of course we have to work out the individual workouts so that everybody has a chance to finish.  We would still focus on the three main dynamics of fitness: strength, agility and endurance.  But really it’s just a question of allowing enough scaling to create an opportunity, but still maintain the highest level of intensity.

Sounds like a really neat idea, doesn’t it?  Sure it does!  Let’s do this thing.

Well that’s it for now.  Thanks for stopping by and have a great day!

 


Posted in Crossfit Diaries | Comments Off on Crossfit: the next big thing in crossfit events!

Crossfit as a sport: some notes and comments

Posted on February 13, 2012 by scharles

I went to the Crossfit Sacramento Throwdown over the weekend.  For those who are not familiar with Crossfit or what a Crossfit event is like, think of it as a combination of high school PE and a road rally.  Only more extreme.  A very high level of excitement and unpredictability.

The individual events are rigorous.  Weightlifting, cycling, gymnastics, running, jumping and pulling heavy objects.  I think of Crossfit as a sport, and you’ll see what I mean when you watch the video.  Crossfit lacks the rigid structure that other sports have, but of course that’s the point.  What defines Crossfit as a sport is it’s dynamic quality. The workouts test every possible domain of fitness: strength, endurance, agility.

It’s hard work.  Lots of noise, chaos and physical stress.  Walking lunges with 95 pounds and 135 pounds, pulling a police cruiser, various kinds of pullups, sandbag thrusters, box jumps, lifting 200 pound stones.

Crossfit East Sacramento won the novice division, and the masters division.  Which is incredible when you consider how many athletes from various gyms competed.  We’ve got some great athletes right here in Sacramento.

The winning was inspiring to watch. So was the losing.  It was that kind of event.

What I took away from it is that I need to work harder.  The big “aha” for me was that if I could do double-unders without fail, toes-to-bars and bar-muscle ups, I would be at a higher level of fitness.  Those are basic skill sets.  I need to master them before I move on to other things.

Well that’s it for now.  Thanks for stopping by and have a great day!

Posted in Crossfit Diaries | Comments Off on Crossfit as a sport: some notes and comments

Crossfit notes: managing expectations while in a “cult”

Posted on February 9, 2012 by scharles

The other day one of my crossfit colleagues (a superb athlete named A.L.) shared an article on Facebook, “Inside the Cult of CrossFit“.   Posted to the Yahoo Health page, written by a fellow named Grant Stoddard.  Mr. Stoddard set out to see what Crossfit is all about.  It’s an interesting article.  I enjoyed most of it.

The short analysis here is I think it’s a great short piece, and I agree 99% with everything he says.  Which comes down to this:

  1. Crossfit is very different from other fitness programs
  2. Crossfit is dangerous
  3. Crossfit is addictive
  4. Crossfit has a cult-like feel

Yes, crossift is dangerous.  It’s dangerous because once you introduce a time boundary to throwing weights around, things get dicey.  That time boundary is the definitive difference between crossfit and other programs.

But it’s necessary.  As Stoddard points out, Crossfit was designed for people whose lives are bound by emergencies: paramedics, firemen, policemen, the armed service men and women.  Crossfit is meant to mimic what happens during disaster; which is to say life-and-death situations where the dynamics are unknown before, and perhaps during, the event. Emergencies don’t happen on cue, or at convenient times.

You want to find out how you will do in emergency?  Well it makes sense to seek out the training programs used by firemen, policemen, Marines, SEALs, SWAT teams.  I don’t think you can get this at a regular gym, because regular gyms don’t have the kind of chaos you get when you introduce a time stamp in a group setting with a set of exercises meant to exhaust every possible muscle group.  Run two hundred meters, climb a rope, do dumbbell thrusters.  Do that once every 2 minutes five times to see how many thrusters you can do, and at what weight.

The more chaos you introduce, the better.  Like Stoddard, I have found the workouts so grueling that I get confused in the middle.  I’m so physically stressed that I have trouble focusing on anything other then getting that next rep.  Sometimes I’m so exausted I have to focus on parts of reps: get down for one more burpee, ,extended the legs back, push up, draw the legs up. Stand up. Clap.  One more time. “High state of fatigue” is the name of the game.  Over and over.

He’s right, it’s tough.  Does that encourage sloppy form?  It could.  The answer: scale down the workouts until you have mastered the form.  It’s up to the individual to be responsible; if they don’t know, they need to ask the coach.  I knew this from the start.   And the coaches at Crossfit East Sac enforced that: don’t go into dangerous territory.  Find a good box where the trainers are interested in who you are and what your goals are.

I think it’s addictive because once the adrenaline is flowing, once you catch that primal wave of hormones, you’re hooked. It’s addictive because it’s how we were meant to be.

Regarding “cult-like”, I don’t think that’s really the right word. I think “tribal” is the right word.  It doesn’t bother me.  Putting my scores on the board doesn’t bother me.  And I’m not interested in crushing anybody.  I’m interested in optimum fitness.

For me, Stoddard’s discourse breaks down when he talks about “body shapes”, as in why don’t the people with “better” bodies always perform better then those with “gelatinous” bodies?  Really, no kidding? For Stoddard, it refutes Greg Glassman’s claim that the best bodies belong to crossfitters.  The fact that Stoddard took exception here doesn’t matter to me. I think it’s a straw man argument. Fitness is the determination, not body shape.  The numbers on the workouts speak for themselves.

You don’t want a bunch of women clapping and shouting for you to do that one last rep?  I agree that for some people, a group setting is not the right one.  Well, it doesn’t bother me.  I’ll gladly come in last, if it means I did the workout as intended.  And by “as intended” I mean this: scale the workout down to the intensity that is the most you can safely do on that day.  Leave nothing on the table, as often as you can.  In that situation I’ll take all the applause I can get.  I do not find my best effort humiliating.  Inadequate perhaps.  But I’ll deal with that.

The women at CFES regularly outperform me.  Good for them.  In fact most people outperform me.  So be it.  Forging elite fitness does not mean I come in first.  My main concern is that I don’t what the spread to be too large.

Really hard work, really fast, always different.  Well, that’s what I signed up for.

That’s it for now. Thanks for stopping by and have a great day!

Posted in Crossfit Diaries | Comments Off on Crossfit notes: managing expectations while in a “cult”

KOLT Run’s production of “Where We’re Born”: notes and comments

Posted on February 5, 2012 by scharles

I had a chance to attend the weekend opening of KOLT’s first play of the season, “Where We’re Born” at the Ooley Theater.  The play is written by Lucy Thurber, a (relatively) young playwright from New York City.  I’ve never met, or even heard of, Lucy Thurber (I’m guessing she doesn’t know me, either).  What I can tell you is she is a really, really strong writer.  If she is like her play in person, she is intelligent, articulate, and something of a romantic.  That said, the play (at least for me) was not about romance.

I can describe the production with three words: focus, rhythm, intensity.  What I found interesting was that nobody, not for a second, dropped the ball.  Every performer was totally in tune with their character.  At all times.

Thurber did a great job of constructing the dialog and story line; the characters stood out immediately as unique and identifiable (and familiar).  This play is not for the faint of heart on either side of the theater.  It must have taken a tremendous amount of work to put this production in place.  And pain.  Lots of pain.

The script required the kind of in-the-moment emotional availability that separates the causal from the practiced. The whole crew — Kelley Ogden, John Young, David Chernyavsky, Brian Harrower, Jessicah Neufeld — was spot on.  Judging from the results, I would say Lisa Thew’s directing was outstanding.

The script is complicated enough that I’m sure there are lots of things that can be surmised, or learned.  What I took away from it is there is a kind of response to life that one might call “existential indulgence”.  Which is to say, drifting without purpose.  One of the characters (“Drew”) looks longingly into the horizon,  past the confines of the town, past even the vast distances of the sky, and into space.  He doesn’t seem to know what he wants, just that he wants something.  They all want something, but what they get is distraction.   I got the distinct impression they were emotionally stunted.

But they are supremely articulate in their emotional weakness.  The character “Tony” utters one of the best lines in a play that I’ve heard recently — he is struggling to come to grips with his own inadequacies, so he tries to live through the success of his young cousin (“Lilly”).  He uses her the same way he uses a bottle of Rum; he numbs himself.  You are my success, he tells  her.  A great line, generally true as far as it goes; as long as it doesn’t go too far.  But of course it does go too far.

I cannot say that I liked these characters.  They seemed small and alone.  Sometime I feel like them.  But I don’t like them.   That may be Thurber’s point.   Well, sometimes life is a quiet stream on a warm sunny day with clear skies, and sometimes it’s a freight train going full on rushing past you six inches away.  Aside from that, I don’t know very much.  So go and see the play and see what you think.

Well that’s it for now.  Thanks for stopping by and have a great day.

Posted in Plays | Comments Off on KOLT Run’s production of “Where We’re Born”: notes and comments

Crossfit: 1 Year Later

Posted on January 31, 2012 by scharles

About this time last year I signed up for Crossfit at East Sacramento Crossfit.  I remember it was a difficult decision.  First, the cost — more expensive than a regular gym.  Plus, the workouts would be difficult.  I knew this because I had gone through a couple of free sessions, and I had been to one of the events.  Finally, CF has a social aspect to it that made me nervous.  I hadn’t been introduced to a new social group in quite a while.  Mostly I was in complete control of my social life.  So this was something new.

But I did it anyway.  And after a year, I would say it was worth it.  I’m in better physical and mental shape.  I doubt if anyone would consider me a very competent athlete, but then again I stuck with it and I’ve made some real gains in ability.  The other thing I notice is that just facing up to a workout that could take 15 minutes, or 20, or a 1/2 hour, takes focus and discipline.  It requires patience.

I can tell I’m stronger because the first day our workout took me about 16 minutes.  At the end of one month it took me 8 1/2 minutes.  Recently I did a much harder version of that workout and did it in 6:48.

But the thing is, it’s not enough.  The difference between my numbers and the better athletes is way too big.  I haven’t really exhausted  the possibilities.  I suppose that fits some of the defining characteristics of “competitive.”  There’s no doubt that competition is an important element of Crossfit.

However, the competitive aspect has to be put in the right perspective.  “Winning” or “losing” isn’t’ what I feel when I’m working out.  I feel motivated, or not.  Simple as that.  Some days I’m stronger than others.  When I’m at my best, I feel good.  I like that feeling.  I want more of it.

I was watching the Boston Marathon on television, about 30 years ago, and heard the best sports quote I’ve ever heard.  One of the analysts quoted a man who had won several times (whose name I have forgotten) — “My goal isn’t to win.  My goal is to make sure that whoever does win knows that I took them to a level they didn’t think they could get to.”  I thought that was a great quote.

I look at my workout journal, and I think, wow, that stuff used to seem so hard.  Fifty burpees for time?  Deadlifts? At the time it was scary.  It’s still daunting, but now I spend more of my time trying to figure out how to get to the next level, rather than worrying about how hard it’s going to be.

Well that’s it for now.  Thanks for stopping by and have a great day.

Posted in Crossfit Diaries | 2 Comments

Thomas Friedman: In Your Face

Posted on January 28, 2012 by scharles

I’ve come to the conclusion that when people really, really enjoy conversation with a person who is great at conversations, and they agree with them, they label that person “erudite” and “articulate.” When there is a disagreement, that same person is “a pompous ass.” A great case in point is Thomas Friedman.

Thomas Friedman has become so famous, and controversial, that there is a cottage industry of sorts that has emerged to refute him.

First, we have The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work, by Belén Fernández: wherein we read that “Factual errors, ham-fisted analysis, and contradictory assertions—compounded by a penchant for mixed metaphors and name-dropping—distinguish the work of Pulitzer Prize–winning New York Times columnist and author Thomas Friedman.”

Ms. Fernández has taken time out of what must be a very busy career to skewer Friedman.  And then a whole slew of writers reviewed her review of him.  He’s the handmaiden of the elite!  She has succeeded in “filleting the silliest man on the planet!”  A dangerous fraud, that’s what he is.  He needs a really really effective eviscerating.  Aljazeera reviewed “Imperial Messagner”, summing up their opinion by leading with this: “Thomas Friedman’s writing on the Middle East is condescending and often misleading.”  Now were getting somewhere.  Some famous names in there, but I’m too modest to name them.

Some of these are, heck most of them, are so vitriolic they are hilarious. This from Matt Tiabbi reviewing “The World is Flat” (Flathead! hahaha!) is perhaps the funniest line from a book review I’ve ever read. After lambasting Friedman for being a sappy, sloppy, weak minded fool,

“Friedman is a person who not only speaks in malapropisms, he also hears malapropisms…This is the intellectual version of Far Out Space Nuts, when NASA repairman Bob Denver sets a whole sitcom in motion by pressing “launch” instead of “lunch” in a space capsule. And once he hits that button, the rocket takes off.”

he then delivers this verbal assault:

“God strike me dead if I’m joking about this. Judge for yourself. …[the] baseline argument begins with a lengthy description of the “ten great flatteners,” which is basically a highlight reel of globalization tomahawk dunks from the past two decades: the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the Netscape IPO, the pre-Y2K outsourcing craze, and so on. Everything that would give an IBM human resources director a boner, that’s a flattener. “

God strke me dead! Globalizaton tomahawk dunks! IBM HR guy with an (ahem!) erection. You have to love that level of angst. That kind of exasperation does not come cheap. I can only imagine how many vodka martinis it took to relax at the end of that day.  Someone should rewrite Camus’ “The Stranger” with Tiabbi and Friedman as the protagonists. Why stop there? Let’s redo “Les Mis.” It’s that good. Thomas Friedman is giving journalists fits of existential hernias just by being alive and writing columns.  God strike me dead if I’m wrong.

Some of the critique is so harsh it’s embarrassing. Conservative writer Debbie Schlussel is absolutely apoplectic. She reaches a level I would say goes beyond anger.

“I don’t begrudge the gentile and Arab Muslim Jew-haters and Israel-attackers as much as their Jewish anti-Semitic comrades. … Thomas Friedman … would race from his DC-area mansion and run over his own mother if it meant the chance to eat shawarmeh with King Abdullah (either the Saudi or Jordanian King Abdullah, take your pick as he bends over for both) and attack Israel.

In truth, Tom Friedman isn’t a Jew in any way shape or form. Instead, he’s a far-left radical in a tweed coat with a BS Pulitzer Prize. And if you ask his patrons in the Gulf states and the Middle East, to them, he’s just the pet camel . . . bending over and assuming the position. I’m not sure who paid for Friedman’s mansions, aside from many gullible dumbasses who bought his cliche-filled, toilet-paper-worthy books. But I wouldn’t be surprised if his writing and commentary was bought and paid for by the Arab Muslim lobby. Someone needs to look into that.”

Ouch! That’s gotta hurt! She even compares him unfavorably to porn star Ron Jeremy. Whoa Nelly! Time for a cartoon!

The list goes on: Thomas Friedman Wants YOU to Sacrifice from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Tom Friedman’s losing battle from Caroline Glick, Thomas Friedman = Captain Obvious from Business Insider.

I almost need a cigarette.  Anyway Friedman has been a reporter for a long time — since 1980, starting out at UPI and shortly thereafter at The New York Times. He’s written thousands of columns and articles, several books, and has the distinction of having been on Charlie Rose 18 times. In other words he is well known. Not just well known, but prominent.  And he is very, very much in love with writing his opinions.  That may be the problem.

And he is, (ahem! in my opinion) a conversationalist. He loves words. I’ve read two of his books (“The Lexus and the Olive Tree“, and “From Beirut to Jerusalem“) and found them interesting in parts, and trite in others. I think his columns are a better read then his books. I suppose that’s because I see his columns as op-ed pieces. In others words, as with all op-ed pieces, I come prepared to watch for the sleight-of-hand that goes with that kind of writing.

The problem is that when he gets into bigger projects his opinions get stretched really thin by the reality that some facts don’t fit the framework of his arguments.

This will give you some idea of what I mean.  Here we have a whole blog devoted to reinterpreting Friedman’s columns: The Mustache of Understanding:

“Essentially, what we have here is Friedman recognizing that, however reasonable his proposals are, very few other pundits and political figures have spoken up in support of them. To compensate, he engages in the time-honored political tradition of projecting your views onto others and casting them as cheerleaders for your approach. … Tom Friedman writes things and then feels a need to include a quote from some guy he probably met at a cocktail party repeating whatever point it was he just made. It’s really irritating.”

Can you imagine? Whole books and blogs devoted to ripping apart every article you have written? Every day, right after it’s published? Now that’s famous.  When you have that kind of adrenalin rush going who needs recreational drugs?

Seriously, all this has given me an idea. What if I just read every book review and then evaluated the reviewer? Never mind reading the books, the heck with that. I can make money riffing off the quirky, exasperatingly hilarious writers writing about other peoples writing.

Well that’s it for today. Thanks for stopping by and have a great day!


 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Musings | 1 Comment

Crossfit and the Nature of competition: a Few Notes and Comments

Posted on January 1, 2012 by scharles

Last year right about this time I joined my local Crossfit gym, Crossfit East Sacramento. CFES is not a “gym” in the usual sense. Virtually all of the workouts are done in groups. Sometimes individuals work out alone as needed. But the essence of Crossfit, at least at CFES, tends to be driven by a sense of community. And therein lies an interesting effect — the concept of “competition”.

Crossfit is more then just rigorous — it demands mental and physical discipline that goes well beyond casual. That’s one of the reasons I like it, because it’s tough. It’s fast paced, and addictive. You can see it on the faces of the people in the group. And there is a high degree of competition. But the CF concept of competition is unlike anything I have encountered in the past. It’s as much social ideal as it is individual achievement.

I will describe it this way. Think of yourself living in a village of 500 people, half of them children. A remote place, far from anything convieneint. Everybody knows everybody. How does the village manage to thrive? Which is to say how could the group manage itself in such a way that there would be the highest probability for a continued existance? I would suggest that every individual would have to able to contribute as much as needed most of the time, and 110% some of the time.

So how exactly would you know what level of contribution each individual could make? Certainly there would be wide differences. And therein lies the secret to success: the ability to contribute across different challenges at different times. Unknown challenges, random, as fate would have it.  As it is written, the battle does not always go to the strongest, nor the race to the swiftest, but time and circumstance happeneth to all.

If a child falls into a place with a narrow opening, get a small wiry person to pull him out. Get some strong people to move the rocks out of the way. Need more help? Send someone who is really fast to get the message out.

That’s the secret of Crossfit: get every individual trained across as many different domains as possible. Intense work, constantly varied. Make the whole group stronger. Some people will excel at one thing or another — running, jumping, lifting, being nimble. Some will be good at all of those things. That’s the nature of life. No matter what, the whole village celebrates individual success, and the whole village celebrates it’s own triumph over adversity.

My commitment to my own success rests on two precepts: I check my ego at the door, but not my ambition. I see people around me who are stronger, faster, quicker of wit — and I compete with them. I don’t often come in first. Or ever near the top. Mostly I’m near the bottom. That doesn’t stop me. Nor will this change over time: new members will join, and most likely they will be younger and fitter. That’s not stopping me either. Because it’s not so much that they are “beating” me, rather they are showing me the possibilities. It’s tough, sometimes frustrating. But I doubt if anyone is worried about “beating” me, and in any case the tendancy at CFES is to celebrate everyone’s successes, no matter what level they are at. It’s the discipline, the resolve, and the participation that counts.

Because after all, is there really a choice? The world is competitive no matter what I do. I can choose to participate in the intensity of life, or not. So I choose to participate.

Well that’s it for today. Thanks for stopping by and have a great day!


 

 

Posted in Crossfit Diaries | 1 Comment

The Playwright as Warrior

Posted on July 24, 2011 by scharles

Recently a friend of mine reccomended I read a book called “Backwards and Forwards” — subtitled “A Technical Manual for Reading Plays”. The author is a man named David Ball, who seems to have the right credentials. The book is slim, at 96 pages a quick read. But I’m on my third read right now.

I’ll tell you what the book reminded me of, first sentence of the first page: Miyamoto Musashi’s “Book of Five Rings”. It was such a strong feeling I had to reread the page several times. I don’t want to get into a lengthy comparison here, so let me just sum up Mushashi’s philosophy in a few words: be 100% invested in the life around you, and be resolute in all your actions. Musashi’s axiomatic core idea was simple: death is inevitable, and the true warrior understands this. Mushasi’s writing is arachaic by our standards, and perhaps obscure, while Ball is quite transparent, but the similiarites for me were startling.

David Ball’s book has the same kind of admonition that Musashi’s book has: the truth is in the action. Plays must be read with that one fact in mind. Look for the action, and all will be clear. The trick according to Ball is to read the play backwards, which is to say to really comprehend the action you have to trace it from end to beginning. Then you will understand what the play is about. Simple enough in concept; a bit difficult in practice, at least at first try. But what struck me was the tone of his admonitions — be forthright, determined and resolute! The play is a set of actions, don’t allow yourself to be distracted.  Look for the truth: which is always in the objectives and obstacles.

For the Samaurai, the sword represents a tool and an avatar. The Samurai sword is an avatar of transformation, a living dialectic methaphor — life and death, courage and fear, truth and falsehood. The sword represents the pure action of transformation. In fact in the fictional story of Musashi’s life, there is a whole chapter on sword sharpening called “soul polishing”. Musashi called his style of swordsmanship “Two Heavens as One”.

I see theater that same way. Theater is transformational. The audience suspends disbelief, observes the actions, and internalizes a story represented by the action. The construct of the play is fictional, but represents a perspective on the real world. That perspective is real to the extent it drives action outside of the theater. Put another way, have you not encountered a work of fiction — a book, or movie, or play that altered your perspective? I believe we are all subject to the influence of art, one way or another.

Thus to the extent that theater is transformational, and to the extent the playwright seeks the opportunity for transformation, the playwright is a warrior. The play, at it’s best, offers up a special opportunity insofar as it allows us to step back and examine our beliefs. Sometimes this is fun for the audience, sometimes it’s not. My feeling is that it can be dangerous — I suppose that’s why there is censorship.

I think it’s in our best interest to understand how to really see the art. The audience is part of the story — observing, judging, censoring, acquiring perspective, rejecting perspective. The audience has the opportunity to be warrior as much as the playwright. And along with opportunity comes challenge.

Well that’s all for today.  Thanks for stopping by and have a great day!


Posted in Plays | 2 Comments

The Diviners: notes and comments about a play

Posted on July 9, 2011 by scharles

I had a chance to see The Diviners last night for their open dress rehearsal.  Cast and crew did a great job.  The play is well staged and well acted.   Great story as well.  Excellent  theater.

The Diviners has 11 actors and a complicated story line.  Think “The Rainmaker” (Burt Lancaster’s movie from the ’50), “Elmer Gantry”, and “Inherit the Wind”.   Staging, acting and story came together really well.  All the acting was really good, some of it was outstanding.  Everybody was marvelously in character. Joseph Boyette plays what might be the most unique character I’ve seen in a long time.  He nailed it!

The best analogy that I can come up is to compare the play to a great bottle of Chardonnay from a great house.   There are many, many great Chardonnay’s in California, but for the sake of argument, let’s say Ferrari Carrano, 2002.  In other words a great wine at it’s peak.  What you get there is a huge flavor profile.  Typically these kinds of wine will exhibit a wide range of flavors  — apples, pears, hints of tropical fruit, maybe pineapple.  The next level you’ll get to is herbs, combined with vanilla or licorice.  Finally there might be a mineral quality, or even a slight metallic taste.   So you’ll get at least 3 levels of flavor to discern.  In two words: intensity and complexity.  And all these flavors will be well coordinated.  And that coordination is the key; all those different elements have to work together.  And they did.

Now I will say I’m not certain I understood exactly what the author was getting at — in other words the story profile is complex enough that I have to think about it for a while.  But I suppose that’s what good theater is all about.

Well that’s it for now.  Thanks for stopping by and have a great day!

 

 

 

Ferrari-Carano


Posted in Plays | Comments Off on The Diviners: notes and comments about a play

Dinners With Augie World Premier!

Posted on June 29, 2011 by scharles

Dinners With Augie opens Friday July 15th, and runs Fridays and Saturdays until August 6th at the Geery Theater, located at 2130 “L” Street.  Shows start at 8pm.  Tickets are $10.  Give us a call at 916-730-2192 for box office information.  Visit Augie on Facebook!

Dinners With Augie

Dinners With Augie at the Geery Theater

Dinners With Augie is the story of Arthur Valentine, Danielle Signorello, and Dr. Tom Mauro.  Arthur is an elderly man, a patient of Dr. Mauro’s; Dani is his nurse.  Arthur must finally confront his own mortality.  As he examines his life, he remembers a dog he and his wife had — Augie — and how much that dog meant to them.   Arthur comes to realize how caring for another being, even a dog, has tremendous potential for spiritual growth.     Dani and Dr. Mauro help Arthur understand the true context of that experience.

The show stars Jeff Webster as Arthur, April Maylene as Dani, and Cameron Johnson as Dr. Tom Mauro.  Directed by Leo McElroy.

Hope to see you there!

Author’s Notes:

I have to say that a year ago I really didn’t have any idea that all this would happen.   A lot of fun, but a lot of work as well. Last June about this time I was working with a small cast for a reading of my first play, Dinners With Augie.   Now I have a cast, director, crew and a theater for that very same play!  Three very talented actors — Jeff Webster, April Maylene, and Cameron Johnson — and a great director, Leo McElroy.  Audrey Kerster is my stage manager.  Mary Casey’s poster artwork is incredible, the Geery Theater is a marvelous venue.  It is all good! Many thanks for Gary Agid and the Playwright’s Collaborative for all their help and support.

Historical sidenote: the Geery was also known as the “Show Below” and was designed by Ivan Sandoval (now deceased), one of Sacramento’s great musical talents.

Thanks for stopping by and have a great day!


 

 

Posted in Plays | Comments Off on Dinners With Augie World Premier!