New! Mentalist and Mind Reader Marc Salem will join Game Theorist Debraj Ray, Playwright Carla Ching, and Medical Watchdog Ivan Oransky on Saturday, April 5 to discuss Game Theory, Deception, and FAST COMPANY

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2580","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"336","style":"width: 700px; height: 336px; margin: 10px;","title":"Marc Salem, Debraj Ray, Carla Ching, and Ivan Oransky","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"700"}}]]

This just in: Celebrated mentalist and mind reader Marc Salem will join Debraj Ray, Professor of Economics at New York University, and playwright Carla Ching to discuss FAST COMPANY, game theory, and the psychology of the con after the 2:00 matinee this Saturday. Dr. Ivan Oransky, VP and global editorial director of MedPage Today, and founder of Embargo Watch, will moderate the discussion. 

Saturday’s amazing panel just got thrilling with the addition of Marc Salem.

Marc Salem has been a student of the human mind for over 30 years. He holds a Doctorate in Education from New York University and a Ph.D. in Developmental Psychology from the University of Pennsylvania. His one-man show MIND GAMES concluded two extended runs on Broadway to both critical and popular acclaim and has enjoyed extended runs throughout the world. In 2005 Mike Wallace profiled him on 60 Minutes. His most recent book is The Six Keys to Unlock and Empower Your Mind: Spot Liars & Cheats, Negotiate Any Deal to Your Advantage, Win at the Office, Influence Friends, & Much More.

Carla Ching's plays include TBA; The Sugar House at the Edge of the Wilderness; Dirty; Big Blind/Little Blind;and The Two Kids That Blow Sh-t Up. As a teaching artist, she’s worked for The New Victory Theater, Lincoln Center Institute, The Public Theater, The Women’s Project, TDF, American Place Theater and Young Playwrights. Carla is currently a staff writer on USA’s Graceland and is working on a Crossroads commission for South Coast Rep, where FAST COMPANY had its initial run last October.

Debraj Ray is Silver Professor on the Faculty of Arts and Science, and Professor of Economics at New York University. He works in the areas of development economics and game theory. He received the Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching at Stanford and the Gittner Award for Teaching Excellence at Boston University. Ray's textbook, Development Economics (Princeton University Press) was described byThe Chronicle of Higher Education as "a revolutionary textbook that takes the field by storm."

Ivan Oransky, M.D., is vice president and global editorial director of MedPageToday, co-founder of Retraction Watch, and founder of Embargo Watch. He teaches medical journalism at New York University’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program and is vice president of the Association of Health Care Journalists.  He has also kindly served as moderator for talkbacks for the EST/Sloan production of Headstrong and was a panelist for the October 2013 Artist Cultivation Event.  

For some pre-performance background on the creation of FAST COMPANY, this year's EST/Sloan Mainstage Production, read an interview with playwright Carla Ching.

Click here to grab your ticket for Saturday's 2:00 matinee!

 

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2573","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","style":"width: 409px; height: 89px; margin: 10px 5px;","typeof":"foaf:Image"}}]][[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2574","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","style":"line-height: 1.538em; height: 89px; width: 207px; margin: 10px 5px;","typeof":"foaf:Image"}}]]

Special Event: Game Theorist Debraj Ray Joins Playwright Carla Ching and Medical Watchdog Ivan Oransky on Saturday, April 5 to Discuss Game Theory, Deception, and FAST COMPANY

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2579","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"336","style":"line-height: 1.538em; width: 700px; height: 336px; margin: 10px;","title":"Debraj Ray, Carla Ching, and Ivan Oransky","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"700"}}]]

After this Saturday’s 2:00 PM matinee performance of FAST COMPANYDebraj Ray, Professor of Economics at New York University, will join playwright Carla Ching to discuss the play, game theory, and the psychology of the con. Dr. Ivan Oransky, VP and global editorial director of MedPage Today, and founder of Embargo Watch, will moderate the discussion. 

We are very excited about the line-up for this last talkback discussion about FAST COMPANY:

Carla Ching's plays include TBA; The Sugar House at the Edge of the Wilderness; Dirty; Big Blind/Little Blind; and The Two Kids That Blow Sh-t Up. As a teaching artist, she’s worked for The New Victory Theater, Lincoln Center Institute, The Public Theater, The Women’s Project, TDF, American Place Theater and Young Playwrights. Carla is currently a staff writer on USA’s Graceland and is working on a Crossroads commission for South Coast Rep, where FAST COMPANY had its initial run last October.

Debraj Ray is Silver Professor on the Faculty of Arts and Science, and Professor of Economics at New York University. He works in the areas of development economics and game theory. He received the Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching at Stanford and the Gittner Award for Teaching Excellence at Boston University. Ray's textbook, Development Economics (Princeton University Press) was described by The Chronicle of Higher Education as "a revolutionary textbook that takes the field by storm."

Ivan Oransky, M.D., is vice president and global editorial director of MedPageToday, co-founder of Retraction Watch, and founder of Embargo Watch. He teaches medical journalism at New York University’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program and is vice president of the Association of Health Care Journalists.  He has also kindly served as moderator for talkbacks for the EST/Sloan production of Headstrong and was a panelist for the October 2013 Artist Cultivation Event.  

For some pre-performance background on the creation of FAST COMPANY, this year's EST/Sloan Mainstage Production, read an interview with playwright Carla Ching.

Click here to grab your ticket for Saturday's 2:00 matinee!

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2573","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"131","style":"width: 409px; height: 89px; margin: 10px 5px;","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"600"}}]]  [[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2574","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"120","style":"line-height: 1.538em; height: 89px; margin: 10px 5px; width: 207px;","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"279"}}]]

Special Event: Neuroscientist Heather Berlin joins Game Theorist Joyee Deb and Story Collider’s Ben Lillie This Saturday, March 29 To Discuss Con Psychology, Game Theory, and FAST COMPANY

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2572","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"336","style":"width: 700px; height: 336px; margin: 10px;","title":"Heather Berlin, Ben Lillie, and Joyee Deb","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"700"}}]]

After this Saturday’s 2:00 PM matinee performance of FAST COMPANY, Heather Berlin, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Neuroscience at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, will join Joyee Deb, Assistant Professor of Economics at New York University’s Stern School of Business, for a spirited post-performance discussion of the play, game theory, and why we are so easy to con. Particle physicist Ben Lillie, Co-founder and Director of The Story Collider, will moderate the discussion.  

Still undecided? Read on to discover why this is going to be an especially scintillating panel discussion:

  • Currently Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Neuroscience at Mount Sinai School of Medicine and a Visiting Scholar at the New York Psychoanalytic Society and Institute, Heather Berlin is also a presenter on the international Discovery Channel Series "Superhuman Showdown," a frequent commentator on the History Channel, and has appeared on StarTalk Radio with Neil deGrasse Tyson to discuss "The Science of the Mind."
  • Now Assistant Professor at New York University's Stern School of Business, Joyee Deb teaches game theory to MBA and PhD students. In her research, Joyee uses game theory to study how reputation concerns affect human behavior and strategic interactions between people. Before joining academia, Joyee was a management consultant in India.  
  • Moderator Ben Lillie is a high-energy particle physicist (PhD from Stanford University) who left the ivory tower to pursue a Certificate in improv comedy from the Upright Citizens Brigade Theater. He is the Co-founder and Director of The Story Collider, where people tell stories of their personal experience of science. He is also a Moth StorySLAM champion and a former writer for TED.com.

For some pre-performance background on the creation of FAST COMPANY, this year's EST/Sloan Mainstage Production, read an interview with playwright Carla Ching.

Click here to grab your ticket for Saturday's 2:00 matinee!

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2573","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"131","style":"width: 409px; height: 90px; margin: 10px 5px;","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"600"}}]][[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2574","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"120","style":"height: 90px; margin: 10px 5px; width: 209px;","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"279"}}]]

Special event: Author Maria Konnikova joins game theorist Michael Richter and Scientific American's Steve Mirsky this Saturday, March 22 to discuss game theory, cons, and FAST COMPANY

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2561","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"336","style":"line-height: 1.538em; width: 630px; margin: 10px 15px; height: 302px;","title":"Michael Richter, Maria Konnikova, Steve Mirsky","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"700"}}]]

After this Saturday’s 2:00 PM matinee performance of FAST COMPANYMaria Konnikova, author of the New York Times bestseller Mastermind: How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes and a forthcoming book, The Confidence Game, will join Michael Richter, Assistant Professor of Economics at Yeshiva University, for a lively post-performance discussion of the play, game theory, and the psychology of the con. Scientific American columnist and editor Steve Mirsky, host of the Science Talk podcast, will moderate the discussion.

For this matinee performance, you can pick your own price! $5.00 to $20.00. Buy your ticket at this link now.  Still undecided? Read an interview with playwright Carla Ching about the creation of FAST COMPANY, this year's EST/Sloan Mainstage Production.   

Special Event: Game theorist Qingmin Liu to join playwright Carla Ching and physicist Gabriel Cwilich to discuss FAST COMPANY after Sunday, March 16 performance

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2554","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","style":"line-height: 1.538em; width: 700px; height: 336px; margin: 10px;","typeof":"foaf:Image"}}]]

After this Sunday’s 5:00 PM matinee performance of FAST COMPANYQingmin Liu, Sloan Science Advisor and Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics at Columbia University, who generously advised Carla Ching during her writing of this year’s EST/Sloan Mainstage Production, will join Carla for a post-performance discussion of how game theory relates to confidence games—and to everyday life. Gabriel Cwilich, Chairperson of the Division of Natural Sciences and Mathematics at Yeshiva University and longtime EST/Sloan science advisor, will moderate the discussion. And for this matinee performance, you get to pick your own price! $5.00 to $20.00. Buy your ticket at this link now.  Still undecided? Read an interview with Carla about the creation of FAST COMPANY.   

Carla Ching on Game Theory, Killing Her Darlings, and Her New Play FAST COMPANY

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2546","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"640","style":"line-height: 1.538em; width: 380px; margin: 10px; float: right; height: 380px;","title":"Carla Ching","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"640"}}]]On March 12 previews begin for FAST COMPANY by Carla Ching, this year’s EST/Sloan Mainstage Production. The new play, directed by Robert Ross Parker, features a beguiling family of magicians, pickpockets, con artists, and a fierce student of game theory with something to prove. We caught up with their creator this week to get the skinny on what to expect.

In an interview a few years ago about another of your plays, you said that you always begin your writing with a question. What question did FAST COMPANY begin with?

My question for this one: Why do people screw over people they love? I try to go into the writing open to answering these questions, without a pre-conceived notion, to find the truth and complicated answers from the characters' points of view.  

Intense family dynamics infuses every scene, every word of FAST COMPANY. How do the Kwans resemble your family—or not? Were you ever abandoned on Coney Island? 

I grew up in Los Angeles, and no, I wasn't left anywhere. Family dynamics fascinate me because family are the only people in this world you can't leave. 

The EST/Sloan production will be the New York premiere of FAST COMPANY but it had a production last October in California at the South Coast Repertory Theatre. Has the play changed much in the intervening months? Have you made adjustments for the New York audience?

It is radically different from the SCR version. That was for a 350-seat house. They have a much older demographic, and a larger stage. We had a great time making that version, the director and creative team and actors and me. This version is customized for the EST space. Small. Intimate. A little more brutal. And I've tried to cut the fat and clarify. When you watch a play fifteen times with an audience, you start to get a sense of what can stay and what can go. And it becomes easier to kill your darlings. 

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2547","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"416","style":"line-height: 1.538em; width: 250px; margin: 10px; float: left; height: 347px;","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"300"}}]]Vintage comics play a vital role in the plot of FAST COMPANY. There was a famous incident of the actor Nicolas Cage losing his terrifically valuable edition of Action Comics No. 1. Did that influence the writing of FAST COMPANY?

Yes, that specific case is the basis for the inciting incident of this play. And then I depart wildly. 

FAST COMPANY makes some demands of your actors: they need to be able to pull off feats of magic and sleight of hand. Did you have any concerns about how this would affect casting?

I knew that if we got amazing actors, they'd be able to get there. Ruy Iskandar is our magic consultant and is kindly teaching Moses and Chris. Ruy is an actor now, but he used to be a magician, and wowed me years ago, so I knew he could help our guys find the right things to play onstage. I have always loved providing these kinds of challenges, because as an audience member, I like seeing something that rips me into their world, something I don't see every day. 

Blue, the daughter in the Kwan family, has been studying game theory and cites several terms from her studies: the Stag Hunt, the Signaling Game, Brinksmanship, Credibility of Threat and Commitment. How did you get interested in game theory? Do you have a favorite model? Any practical application in your daily life?

To be honest, when I saw the Sloan Cultivation Event coming up several years ago, I looked at the list of subjects for anything that looked cool. Economics was on the list. What? I dug further and stumbled on game theory and was fascinated by the notion that people's moves could be studied and predicted. And that big business and law enforcement often use it to make their best strategic moves.  I love the Stag Hunt because it encourages cooperation and so much of game theory feels like it’s about beating the other guy. But there are many cooperative models, which I like. I can't tell you how I use it in daily life, but I do. 

What kind of research did you do in writing FAST COMPANY?

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2548","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"430","style":"line-height: 1.538em; width: 300px; height: 323px; margin: 10px; float: right;","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"400"}}]]I read a couple of game theory books for lay people (there are fewer than you think for regular folks): Rock, Paper, Scissors: Game Theory in Everyday Life by Len Fischer and The Art of Strategy: A Game Theorist’s Guide to Success in Business and Life by Avinash K. Dixit and Barry J. Nalebuff.   I also did some reading on the life of David Blaine for the magic stuff, and some books on cons. I watched every caper/grifter film I could get my hands on. I was reading The Book of Basketball by Bill Simmons at the time. Simmons founded Grantland and is one of the best writers about sports and its application to life that I've ever read so that probably influenced my creation of H and his sports writing.  

Did you work with any professional game theorists?  

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2551","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"467","style":"line-height: 1.538em; width: 250px; height: 167px; margin: 10px; float: left;","title":"Gabriel Cwilich and Qingmin Liu","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"700"}}]]My science advisors were physicist Gabriel Cwilich and Qingmin Liu, a game theorist who teaches at Columbia. They were both wonderfully helpful and creative. Qingmin sent me a bunch of movie clips that demonstrated different game theory principles, like scenes from The Princess Bride and Batman. And I have to say, Qingmin gave me the idea to use the Credibility of Threat and Commitment, which really helped the play tremendously. A smart, small decision that really launched the second half of the play.

FAST COMPANY has gone through the EST/Sloan First Light development process and had a reading at EST two years ago. Could you share your experience of the process? How did it shape the creation of your play?

It's been an incredible process. I’ve worked very closely with Linsay [Firman] and Graeme [Gillis] over four years to make this play. Doing a draft, doing a small workshop or public reading, going back to the drawing board to do notes, bringing in a science advisor for weigh in, more revisions. Somewhere in there, I also moved to LA, so we've had to work across coasts, but somehow it's worked really well.

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2550","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"700","style":"line-height: 1.538em; width: 340px; margin: 10px; float: right; height: 453px;","title":"Linsay Firman and Graeme Gillis","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"525"}}]]They have known this play from my first bad proposal where a game theory book fell on Blue's head in the library, and that's how she discovered game theory. So they know the heart of it very well, and that close relationship has helped me grow the play—they get what the play is trying to do. And they both have great instincts and narrative sense (Linsay being a director and Graeme being a writer) which help. And none of us is afraid of daring changes/choices. Also useful. Nobody gets scared at taking risks.  

Most importantly, First Light allowed me to see my play with an audience. I realized during the first reading that I had burdened the play with so much exposition that it was very heavy. Going back to the drawing board and re-writing it with that in mind allowed me to consider where the characters weren't just talking about the science, but putting it into practice. Making this play has been a long exercise in trying to find ways to show rather than tell concepts. 

This production is a co-venture with Ma-Yi Theater Company and I know you’ve developed some of your plays as part of the Ma-Yi Writers Lab. How has Ma-Yi affected your writing?

Yes, Ma-Yi produced my last play THE SUGAR HOUSE AT THE EDGE OF THE WILDERNESS and I've been part of their writers lab since 2004. I have met some of my greatest friends there and they will always be a creative home for me. They helped me fix a lot of plays, and I learned a great deal by watching them birth new plays. Most importantly, watching my fellow writers’ plays get developed over years, how they expand and contract and change when you get to production—that taught me a lot.  

Rumor has it that you’re a very hands-on playwright. You like to be involved with casting, attending rehearsals, rewriting on the spot. That must make every production—even of the same play—different depending on the dynamics with the director, the actors, the schedule, the physical space.  Take us inside how this experience has differed for you from show to show.

Yes, hands-on is a nice way of putting it. And this is the first time I've had to do a production from across the country, so this is the first time I wasn't at every design meeting, rehearsal, casting, etc. Fortunately, Robert, my director, has been great. And I've worked with Nick (the set designer) and Shane (the sound designer) before and I trust them both immensely. And the actors understand that I'm there for them, even if far away (we did first read-through and second weekend rehearsals via Skype and I've flown back every other weekend). And yes, I tailor the writing to the actors I'm working with. Another reason this show will be different from SCR. I almost think of them as just two totally different animals. Twins separated at birth who grew up in different parts of the world. 

Have you written any other plays that engage science, technology, or math?

This is the first.  

Do you have a favorite play about science?

I quite enjoyed PHOTOGRAPH 51 and HEADSTRONG [both previous EST/Sloan Mainstage Productions]. 

What’s next for Carla Ching?

I am currently writing for the TV show Graceland (and am trying to write my first episode as we go into tech, eek.), and I'm working on a commission for South Coast Rep that will be about Motel Kids and Parachute Kids in Orange County. I'm really excited to get back to it.  

Obedience, Shocks, and Learning: Frank Basloe talks about PLEASE CONTINUE, his new play about Stanley Milgram’s controversial experiments

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2523","attributes":{"alt":"Frank Basloe","class":"media-image","height":"186","style":"line-height: 1.538em; width: 279px; height: 186px; margin: 10px; float: right;","title":"Frank Basloe (Photo by Ian Forester)","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"279"}}]]This week The EST/Sloan First Light Festival is showcasing the Roughcut Workshop of PLEASE CONTINUE, a new play by Frank Basloe about psychologist Stanley Milgram’s infamous “obedience” experiments, directed by EST's Artistic Director, William Carden. Basloe’s play focuses on the very first experiments Milgram conducted as a young professor at Yale University in the fall of 1960.

In these experiments the subject thinks he is testing the effect of punishment on learning. The subject is instructed to give a “learner” a shock every time he gets an answer to a word test wrong, and to increase the intensity of the shocks with each wrong answer. The shocks, however, are not real and the “learner” is faking being shocked. What the experiment is really testing is how obedient the subject will be in pursuing the goal of the experiment: will he continue to administer shocks even as the “learner” screams louder and louder in pain?

We interviewed playwright Frank Basloe this week about PLEASE CONTINUE:

How did you first become interested in Stanley Milgram’s experiments?

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2524","attributes":{"alt":"Stanley Milgram with his shock generator","class":"media-image","height":"340","style":"margin: 10px; line-height: 1.538em; width: 270px; height: 170px; float: left;","title":"Stanley Milgram with his shock generator","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"540"}}]]

Many people had that experience in a college or high school psychology course where they were shown Milgram’s Obedience video, but I first stumbled upon them about fifteen years ago in an article (I can’t even recall which publication).  With my curiosity piqued I watched the videos of the experiment and was definitely taken with the visceral quality of what Milgram had set up – it’s extraordinarily powerful viewing. However, I really became interested as I read more about how he devised the various conditions and went about setting it all up.  As a dramatists myself, I have great appreciation for how carefully he calibrated the entire experiment from the script to the casting to the set. 

PLEASE CONTINUE has two well-known historical figures in the play: the psychologist Stanley Milgram and William Sloane Coffin, who was chaplain at Yale at the time the play takes place. What kind of research did you do to create these characters? How closely do you think they resemble the actual persons? Are any of the other characters in the play based on actual people?

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2525","attributes":{"alt":"William Sloane Coffin c. 1968","class":"media-image","height":"442","style":"line-height: 1.538em; width: 260px; margin: 10px; float: right; height: 373px;","title":"William Sloane Coffin c. 1968","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"308"}}]]Originally the play focused on Stanley Milgram and as part of my research I did speak with students who knew him at Yale, colleagues of his, and his biographer, and made some trips to the Milgram Archives at Yale.  William Sloane Coffin slipped into the play in later drafts and is based on the individual I gleaned from his biography and sermons.  Both of the characters are fairly true to the essence of Milgram and Coffin and the events they were grappling with at this point in their careers (one a young professor; the other a young chaplain), but they are still very much characters of my own creation.  The two Yale students running the Obedience experiments in the play are very loosely inspired by the two students who did just that in the fall of 1960.

In PLEASE CONTINUE you don’t just tell the story of the Milgram experiments. You also have a parallel story concerning questions of responsibility, guilt and punishment that involves a group of college students abusing a young girl. Why did you decide to intertwine these two stories?

As I researched the Milgram portion of the play, I came upon this scandal which took place at Yale at approximately the same time, with a number of students being suspended from school.  In pouring through the Yale Daily News from that period I read a student opinion piece in which the writer, in commenting on the scandal and its aftermath, basically wrote that “if just one of the students involved had said ‘no, this is wrong,’ this whole thing could have been stopped.”  For me that had great resonance with what Milgram was trying to demonstrate with his experiments on the very same campus.

You set your play on the Yale campus at the time the actual experiments took place. How much do you think the issues in the play are part of the fabric of that time? Of Yale? Do you think the outcome of the Milgram experiments would be different if they were conducted today?

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2526","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"150","style":"line-height: 1.538em; width: 200px; height: 150px; margin: 10px; float: left;","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"200"}}]]The play takes place primarily in the fall of 1960 as the Nixon/Kennedy election is taking place. I think that was definitely a transitional period in the US with the move from Eisenhower to Kennedy.  It’s also around this time that Adolf Eichmann is captured and tried in Jerusalem and Hannah Arendt famously covers it for The New Yorker (which became her book, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil). All these events will be tied very closely with Milgram by the time press coverage of the experiments comes out in 1963. 

Milgram had originally planned to just do the main experiments with Yale students (the pilot experiments in the play were done with students), but due to his grant funding being delayed until the summer he was forced to recruit volunteers from New Haven (he also came to think that maybe Yale students were inclined to be a little too obedient).  I do think having the experiments on the Yale campus in a Yale interaction laboratory created a certain “sanctioned” expectation for the people from the community who were participating. Whether the effect on the outcomes was significant I don’t know – there are those who believe the experiments tell us something about human behavior and others who think it’s all about situation.  I sit pretty squarely on the fence.  

What I like about PLEASE CONTINUE is how you examine the impact of the Milgram experiments on the people conducting them, both the “learner” (the guy the subject thinks is getting shocked) and the experimenter. Who do you think were more troubled by the results? Do you know whether the experiments had any long-term impact on the subjects? The learners? The experimenters?

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2527","attributes":{"alt":"The Milgram Experiment ad for volunteers","class":"media-image","height":"700","style":"line-height: 1.538em; width: 224px; height: 350px; margin: 10px; float: right;","title":"The Milgram Experiment ad for volunteers","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"448"}}]]An Australian psychologist, Gina Perry, published an interesting book in 2012, Behind the Shock Machine. She actually tracked down a number of the participants in the experiments and there were many subjects who were powerfully impacted by what they had done.  Though I’d previously been led to believe that Milgram was debriefing his subjects in a responsible manner, this book makes it clear that it was generally not done in all that timely a fashion, if at all. 

What do you think the significance of the Milgram experiments is for us today?

I believe that anyone who watches the video of the experiments has a moment where they contemplate what they would have done if they sat in that chair and were asked to press those switches.  I think if you’re honest with yourself that thought does creep in. For me, no matter what your opinion is of the validity of Milgram’s data, the situation, etc., that creeping thought makes them significant.

Performances of PLEASE CONTINUE begin Thursday, February 6 at 7 PM and continue through Sunday, February 9.

Watch a documentary about Stanley Milgram's May 1962 "obedience" experiments with 40 adult males from the New Haven area (please refresh the page if you don't see the video):

Clare Barron, author of OLD FOUR LEGS, on talking coelacanths

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2494","attributes":{"alt":"Clare Barron (Photo by Tom Lehman)","class":"media-image","style":"line-height: 1.538em; width: 240px; margin: 10px; height: 300px; float: right;","title":"Clare Barron","typeof":"foaf:Image"}}]]On January 13 The EST/Sloan First Light Festival is presenting the first reading of OLD FOUR LEGS, a new play by Clare Barron about the discovery off the coast of South Africa in 1938 of a live coelacanth, a huge, strange-looking fish thought to have gone extinct millions of years ago. The discovery made headlines around the world because the fish’s limb like fins suggested it might be the missing link between fishes and mammals.  

We had a chance this week to ask playwright Clare Barron a few questions about the play.

 Two of the characters in the play, Marjorie Latimer and JLB Smith, are actual historical figures involved in the discovery of the first living coelacanth in 1938.  How much liberty did you take with them? Did you have to change the story of what actually happened in any way to make it more dramatic?

This is my first play based on any kind of historical fact, and I have found writing it to be a very new and challenging experience. Most of my plays come from a pretty personal place. It was strange to feel beholden to other people. And I did worry a lot about getting it wrong. But you have to get it wrong (I think) if you're going to write a good play. I didn't want to write a piece of historical fiction. I wanted to write something that was still weird and personal and true to me. The first draft of the play was a relatively faithful retelling of the story (minus the talking fish and a little bit of romantic intrigue).

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2495","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"193","style":"line-height: 1.538em; width: 260px; height: 193px; margin: 10px; float: left;","title":"JLB Smith and Marjorie Latimer with the coelacanth","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"260"}}]]I actually just re-wrote the play, setting it in Eastern Washington on the banks of the Columbia river (where I'm from) and changing all the names (so Marjorie became Shirley) just to try to shake things up a bit and give myself permission to stray from the facts. I still have no idea where it'll ultimately land. To me – at its heart it's a story about someone who makes a huge, sexy scientific discovery. And then continues to lead (more or less) the same life she did before the discovery. It's about ambition. It's about collaboration and competition (and how painful that can be
especially when it's with your friends). And it's about choosing a life that's true to you – even if it doesn't make sense to other people. If I can get those things right, then I'm happy.

Are all the characters in the play based on actual people or did you create some of them?

I more or less created the character of Enoch – Marjorie's assistant. Marjorie does mention that she has an assistant named Enoch. But that's just about all she says about him. He helped her cart the coelacanth around from the cold storage to the morgue when she was desperately trying to find a way to preserve it. But I have no idea about his personality, his family, or his life. Having Enoch in the play, and letting him be whoever I wanted him to be, was really helpful. He gave me a little more ownership over the story.

How did you first become interested in the coelacanth?

I'm a little ashamed to say that I first encountered the coelacanth during a Wikipedia binge. Although I've been drawn to dinosaurs and fossils and prehistoric creatures and big swimming beasts since I was a pretty little kid. 

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2496","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"468","style":"line-height: 1.538em; width: 273px; height: 269px; margin: 10px; float: right;","title":"The drawing Marjorie Latimer sent to JLB Smith","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"475"}}]]The Equinox documentary The Fish That Time Forgot identifies the fisherman who dramatically discovered the second coelacanth in 1952 as Ahmed Hussein but in the play the character Enoch says this is incorrect and that his name is actually Ahamadi Abdallah. How did you discover that? Is that based on new research?

As reported in Old Four Legs: The Story of the Coelacanth, the account he published in 1956, JLB Smith and the French recorded the name as "Ahmed Hussein". But then two years later when National Geographic was doing a story on the coelacanth (which they never published), they fact checked it in the Comoros and it turned out the wrong name had been written down. 

What made you decide to make the coelacanth talk? As the only living creature whose form has barely changed since the Late Cretaceous era some 400 million years ago, what do you think he has to say to us?

Oh man. I wish that I knew what the coelacanth would have to say to us! Probably something contrary to everything we think is true. I wanted the coelacanth to speak because the thought of a four-foot prehistoric fish coming to life onstage was too much fun to pass up. But I'm still trying to figure out exactly how she operates in the play. In the latest draft, the coelacanth sort of takes Enoch and Marjorie to task. She's pretty hard on them, I think! A straight talker. Also, she sings.

Do you fish? What’s the strangest fish you’ve caught?

I'm a catch and release kind of girl. But no strange fish here! Just rainbow trout with my Granddad.

You can watch the Equinox documentary about the coelacanth below. 

Tannis Kowalchuk talks about her stroke, her recovery, neuroscience, and her new show STRUCK

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2472","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"500","style":"line-height: 1.538em; width: 700px; height: 500px; margin: 10px; float: right;","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"700"}}]]This year’s EST/Sloan First Light Festival includes the New York premiere of STRUCK, a new collaborative production from NACL being performed at the Here Arts Center from December 5 through 21. Reviewing it in The New York Times, Neil Genzlinger described the show as "a bracing sort of stage poetry, an almost hallucinatory assemblage of dreams, fears and memories. It’s an effort to capture the experience of a stroke and a recovery, not as they would have been observed by a second party, but from the inside." 

We chatted this week with STRUCK’S featured performer Tannis Kowalchuk.

STRUCK has its origin in a stroke you suffered in August 2011. How soon after your stroke did you decide to create a theatrical work that dealt with it. Can you walk us through the evolution of the work from your initial idea into what we now can see at the Here Arts Center?

After my stroke, recovery began with a week in the hospital and then, at home, sleeping, slow walking around the farm, some attempts at qi gong exercises that I had seen at a workshop at our theatre the year previous, physiotherapy, and after six weeks of that, I really wanted to get into our theatre to see who I was now.

Could I act? Sing? Remember lines?  My left hand couldn’t remember how to play the accordion.  I had to re-learn the songs that the right hand knew so well.  Going back to the theatre to practice balance and music and movement was the beginning of STRUCK. 

I started to write—memories seemed important.  I wanted only to hear piano music, so piano and Chopin became important. I asked my closest artist colleagues Brett Keyser and Ker Wells to work with me; Kristen Kosmas, a great writer, wrote some text after hearing my story, and I contacted Allison Waters, an ex-company member who had become a neuroscientist and she and I had many conversations.  I asked her to give me exercises and tests that I could do in the theatre, so we could see what was going on. 

It was a crazy idea to start the first day of “rehearsal” with a skyped psychological brain test—but that is what we did.  We spent one and a half years working on this sporadically because the show’s director, Ker Wells, lives in Canada.  We collaborated with more designers and writers. In March the Cleveland Public Theatre produced the world premiere, and we opened the NACL [North American Cultural Laboratory in Highland Lake, NY] season with STRUCK this past May.

Now here we are in NYC in the last week of a wonderful run at HERE.  I am fortunate.  The doctor said to me in the hospital, “Do you know how lucky you are?”  I looked him straight in the eye and I was thinking not just about having survived a major stroke, but about my whole entire life, and I said, “OH YES!” 

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2476","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"240","style":"line-height: 1.538em; width: 310px; height: 179px; margin: 10px; float: left;","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"417"}}]]STRUCK is in many ways a memory play. The main character Catherine recalls her grandfather’s stroke, her childhood in Iceland, her life as a flower grower, among many other things. How closely does Catherine’s life parallel yours?

Very closely. I am not the child of Icelandic immigrants but Polish and Ukrainian immigrants. Like Catherine, I am from Winnipeg, Canada.  I am a flower grower on my husband’s and my organic vegetable farm located not far from NACL.  The story of the grandfather who had a stroke is actually Brett Keyser’s story. He developed that.  STRUCK is a collaboration. We all brought our lives to this play.

In the play Catherine is told that a sizable portion of her brain is dead and is not going to return. Is that what you were told? In your performance you look like you are fully recovered. Is this in fact the case? How do you account for that?

A portion of my brain is dead.  I guess as Brett’s nurselike character says—“We have plenty of brains to spare.”  In truth, I cannot feel subtle sensations like temperature and texture on my left side.  I cannot play my accordion very well any more, and if you give me driving directions or any kind of spatial relations direction (like blocking in the theatre), I am a disaster. I cannot put A to B to C together very well.

STRUCK interweaves song, dance, memories, storytelling, multimedia and light in a way that resembles a musical fugue but also suggests what psychiatry calls a “fugue state,” a confusion of personal identity after a severe trauma. Do these two meanings of fugue mirror what you experienced following your stroke? 

FUGUE STATE?  That’s brilliant.  My sister is a psychiatrist. I will ask her about this. Yes yes yes!  I was really confused—not being able to move, to think straight, to stay awake— to feel the constant sensation of falling (mentally and physically). It was all so discombobulating!  The play is our 3-D version of the stroke.

You mentioned Allison Waters, your former colleague who left NACL to become a neuroscientist. She appears onscreen in the play as Catherine’s neurologist. Was she also involved in your treatment? Beyond her appearance in the play how did she contribute to STRUCK’s content?

Yes, Allison made me want to inquire into my state in a scientific way.  She has tools and processes and experiments to measure brain activity and response.  This work with her was the foundational work for STRUCK.  Bringing this science to the theatre was very exciting and profound for me.  I loved Allison as an actor and love her as a scientist.

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2473","attributes":{"alt":"Brett Keyser and Tannis Kowalchuk","class":"media-image","height":"700","style":"line-height: 1.538em; width: 233px; margin: 10px; float: right; height: 350px;","title":"Brett Keyser and Tannis Kowalchuk","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"466"}}]]Onstage, STRUCK is a two-person show. The roles Brett Keyser plays range from neurologist to angel to grandfather to psychic guide. How did your collaboration with him evolve?

Brett and I work together as an ensemble, a team—he and I have a long history of making plays—since 1996.  We share a technique of devising so it was like baking bread without a recipe. We went into creative chaos together for eighteen months. Together with our director Ker Wells, contributing writer Kristen Kosmas , scientist Allison Waters, and the design collaborators—costumer Karen Flood, digital artist Brian Caiazza, technical director Zoot, technician Joe Murray—we came up with quite an interesting concoction.

You performed STRUCK earlier this year at the Cleveland Public Theatre. Have you changed it much in bringing it to New York? 

The play has continued to evolve—we keep working on it every time we get together with our director.  That’s the way we work. We learn from all the performances, from audiences, and we try to fine tune and clarify.  The piece is very poetic—not linear—so we need to work hard to make it as clear as possible for our audience and ourselves.  Yes, we made a number of changes before coming to NYC.  We worked for two weeks at NACL in Highland Lake, NY (our home) prior to the NYC premiere.

Creating STRUCK was clearly a journey of learning: about what happened to you during your stroke, your recovery, and the mystery of what is enduring in a person. What would you like to share about what you learned?  

That life, like nature, is as dependable as it is a surprise.  We can surely expect change and failure, success and extraordinary occurrences.  And sometimes there is just no explaining any of it.

What do you want the audience to take away from STRUCK?

Living is a gift to share and appreciate.  Sounds hokey, but it’s how I feel.

What’s next for Tannis Kowalchuk?

Another science-art collaboration called THE WEATHER PROJECT.  It is a huge one.  A collaboration with our town (Highland, NY), fellow artists, residents, community organizations, environmentalists, students, seniors, and a NASA scientist.  We will build a spectacular performance, hold symposiums, curate an art show and science exhibition about Climate Change and Weather. 

We need to talk about the weather, energy use, and our changing climate and we need to talk about it right now. The big play premieres August 2014 outdoors in the Town of Highland where NACL Theatre is situated.  I am the director and we received an NEA Our Town grant to do this project.

Read more about STRUCK and buy tickets for the remaining performances.

Watch a short trailer about STRUCK.

 

Kenneth Lin answers our questions about LIFE ON PAPER, his new play about how we calculate the value of a human life

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2462","attributes":{"alt":"Kenneth Lin","class":"media-image","height":"700","style":"line-height: 1.538em; width: 234px; height: 350px; float: right; margin: 10px;","title":"Kenneth Lin","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"468"}}]]On Saturday, December 7, the EST/Sloan First Light Festival will feature a reading of LIFE ON PAPER, a new play in development from Kenneth Lin. LIFE ON PAPER deals with what happens when a forensic economist who specializes in devaluing the lives of victims in insurance claims matches wits with a canny adversary and the survival of an entire town is at stake.

The EST/Sloan Blog had a chance this week to interview Kenneth Lin about his new play.

At the core of LIFE ON PAPER are the many different ways we assess the value of a human life—in terms of an insurance settlement, a sports career, its social impact, as a parent or partner, and in a character’s personal aspirations. What prompted you to write this play?

I wrote this play at a point in my life when, like many other artists, I was forced by the fates to have to start working a day job again. It was a lovely job, with lovely people, and I was using all my hard-acquired skills as a dramatist/writer to do a good job. I was appreciated. I was excited. I was happy. Moreover, my son was born, and I was thrilled to be able to take care of my little budding family. But, I remember looking out of the huge windows of my office overlooking Lexington Avenue one day and asking, "Is this going to be it for the rest of my life? Did the window on my playwriting career close? Is it time to put the dream away? If I don't end up being one of the lucky 1% that gets to make my living as an artist, does all the passion, and love, and hope that I put into my work matter? What's it all worth?"

In his rave New York Times review of your previous play WARRIOR CLASS (2012), Charles Isherwood noted that “the dialogue throughout crackles with authenticity” and that “Mr. Lin is clearly a political addict.” LIFE ON PAPER exchanges the world of politics for the worlds of higher order mathematics, Wall Street investments, insurance, and the law. So what addiction of yours is on display here:  Mathematical? Financial? Legal?

I am addicted to people, and the notion that all of us are a result of an organization of forces that produces a life. If you examine that sentence, it uses the very language that describes any equation. Politics is a construction that organizes the forces that build society. Math is a construction that orders our place in the universe.

Science, or more particularly mathematics, figures in several of your previous works: a hand-held four function calculator in INTELLIGENCE-SLAVE, a conscious computer in AGENCY, Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz in GENIUS IN LOVE. What is it that so captivates you about math?

I don't have an easy time with arithmetic. If the tree of science begins with philosophy and then moves to mathematics and then spreads to the rest of the sciences, I find myself quite comfortable with the roots and the branches, yet I struggle with the trunk. This is horrifying and fascinating to me. I'm like a delirious person with short term memory loss in terms of my understanding of the universe. That is what one should be writing about.

Your main character in LIFE ON PAPER, Mitch Bloom, seems to belong to the clan of financial whizzes Scott Paterson describes in The Quants, mathematical geniuses who ply their skills in the service of the great god Mammon. Did you model Mitch on any particular person or kind of person?

We have quite a few brilliant mathematicians and scientists in our lives, and I've watched them struggle, like artists, in the service of their work. In the end, being a scientist is a lot like being an artist, so Mitch is an amalgam of the many people I know who are somewhere on the hard path to finding and making something new and wonderful. 

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"2463","attributes":{"alt":"Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann","class":"media-image","height":"700","style":"line-height: 1.538em; width: 250px; height: 272px; margin: 10px; float: left;","title":"Georg Friedrich Berhard Riemann","typeof":"foaf:Image","width":"641"}}]]The Riemann hypothesis, one of the most famous remaining unsolved proofs of higher order mathematics, figures in the plot of LIFE ON PAPER. Perhaps the best known play with a mathematician obsessed with number theory at its center is David Auburn’s Pulitzer Prize-winning PROOF (2000). Do you see any similarities in the concerns of the two plays? Did PROOF inform your writing of LIFE ON PAPER?

I have a lot of admiration for PROOF. It's been a long time since I've seen the play, so I'm not sure where the connective tissue lies, but I remember being a young writer at the theater and being inspired to go home and work after I saw the play. So, I'm sure there's some of David Auburn's influence in there somewhere. 

In a blog post last year you wrote that you “always try to write about ‘a pickle,’ meaning an intractable problem for which there is no good solution.” Does this apply to LIFE ON PAPER? It has some elements of romantic comedy in the byplay between Mitch and his ostensible adversary Ida. Don’t the conventions of a romantic comedy make intractable problems problematic?

Love is a fundamentally, wonderfully intractable and entangling problem.

One reviewer of WARRIOR CLASS noted that “Kenneth Lin's writing for this play excels at being truthfully realistic, and hopefully will make audiences reassess modern politics and start some fantastic dialogues with one another, friends, and family.” What would like audiences for LIFE ON PAPER to reassess?

I'm not an activist investor when it comes to my audience. I figure you come to the theater for some spiritual capital. I say, "Here you go. Spend it as you will."

Will you be exploring some other aspect of math or science in your next play?

Always.

You are now one of the writers on the second season of the acclaimed Netflix original series HOUSE OF CARDS. Is there anything in LIFE ON PAPER that gives us a clue on what we can expect from the next season? [Fans have to ask]

Not biting. Season 2 of HOUSE OF CARDS drops on 2/14/14. We'll talk then.