Bird's Eye View

Talk About Innovative Theatre

Last night I went to a terrific live production of Noel Coward's "Brief Encounter," adapted by Emma Rice, who also directs the stunning ensemble cast from Kneehigh Theatre.  It's a brilliant adaption of a classic movie that ties together live musicians with actors and actresses performing onstage and literally (!) jumping in and out of film screens stretched across the stage.

 

The show last night was a truly magic evening of theatre, exemplifying the best of live stage performance.

Equally mesmerizing was the conversation that took place following the performance.  Emma Rice and many of her cast came back on stage to talk with the audience about the production, Noel Coward, just how ensemble groups work together, whatever people wanted to discuss.

The conversation was amazing.  Emma explained that normally a cast and director approach a new production by studying the script, then working together to block the activity on stage.  But the Kneehigh group has its own idiosyncratic way of approaching their work.  Instead of starting with the script, the group gathers and listens as Emma tells the story of the play.  As she is telling the story, they encircle a large container of props and pull things out one by one as the spirit moves them, innovating possible ways each of the props could be incorporated into the production.  There may be a fur scarf, a lamp, a newspaper, a chair.  The group engages in what they think of as serious play, letting the actors' imaginations carry them to possible ways to make the story come alive onstage for the audience that will eventually assemble, as we did last night at St. Ann's Warehouse, a Brooklyn theatre company that stages a variety of plays throughout the so they can memorize it.

Emma Rice, highly regarded in the UK, was nominated for the 2009 Olivier Award for Best Director for Brief Encounter, which played on London's West End for over a year before touring the UK.  She is an impressive conversationalist, a great storyteller.  At one point, someone in the audience asked Emma what she considered the secret to her success.  She thought a moment and then replied "Failure!" and went on to explain that earlier in her career she tried any number of things simply to make a living, and failed at many of them.  At one point she worked with young children and became an expert storyteller ("You've got to be good when telling kids stories; if you're not, you get instant negative feedback when they start looking elsewhere in the room or start talking among themselves.")  She took a job in Poland, thought she spoke no Polish, and said that was a bust as well.  But she always learned from those failures, especially the foibles of human beings that are the stuff around which she conceives her stories that become theatrical productions.

She said the second thing you need, besides experiencing failure, is to be fearless, to try anything, even if you know you could fail at it.  One of the actors then added, "Yes, it is important to say yes to anything!"  As he explained, if you're open to all possibilities, you're more likely to land on the best possible result. 

That comments appears to reflect the thinking behind the idea of the huge prop box from which the ensemble extracts props that give them ideas for their production.  Nothing is considered too crazy, too out there, as they search for the best way to express their story.  And the conversations they hold while "playing" with the props sound like the best of innovative conversations I've experienced in business, where innovation rules, all ideas are considered valuable fodder and no comments are rejected out of hand.

Maybe at your next team meeting, you should being in a box of props and ask the team to pull them out and figure out how each of them could relate to what you are trying to accomplish.   Wouldn't that be an interesting conversation?

Stop Me If I Told You This

If you have found yourself saying something akin to "Stop me if I've told you this before..." then you will find Benedict Carey's recent article in the New York Times interesting.  Entitled "Story?  Unforgettable. The Audience? Often Not," the article talks of research into what causes us to remember what we've told others, although we forget to whom we told it.

Researchers Nigel Gopie, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rotman Research Institute in Toronto, and Colin MacLeod at the University of Waterloo, in Ontario, have coined the term "call destination memory" for the ability to remember to whom we tell a story.  Repeating oneself is not only embarrassing, it can be damaging, say Gopie and MacLeod, especially for "diplomats, liars or anyone else trying to guard secrets, personal or professional."

What I find particularly interesting about their findings is that self-absorption is a factor in call destination memory.  They explain that the more we focus on our self when we're telling a story, the less able we are to recall to whom we told it.  On the other hand, Gopie and MacLeod acknowledge that some of our tendency to forget to whom we told our story may just be an indication of a "healthy memory" which is able to erase information that is unimportant, much like the ability to forget your old phone number, once you memorize the new one.

So if I've told you all this before, don't roll your eyes, with that "Susan, we've heard this..."  Put it down to my healthy memory.  

Tiger And Confessional Conversation

So I see that Tiger Woods has been forced to put a confessional statement on his website about his recent car accident and the resulting exposure of alleged indiscretions with women in Las Vegas and elsewhere.

It's tough being a celebrity in today's media world.  Yet it seems everyone wants that five minutes of fame Andy Warhol predicted would become the desire of many.  Everyone wants either to be a celebrity, or to be close to such people, or pretend to be close.  We are a celebrity-obsessed world, not just in the United States.  This hunger for celebrity and for the tidbits of juicy--whether true or false--information about those in the limelight permeates everything. 

For example, news from Broadway today is that ticket sales are over the top for shows that feature well known actors (top tickets going for $300 per seat) while 11 of the 34 shows now on Broadway are suffering from lack of ticket sales. Those shows with slow sales (selling only 2/3 of their seats on any given night) happen to be the ones without celebrity actors on the marquee.  Apparently the public is less interested in seeing the play Hamlet than in being able to say they saw Jude Law in Hamlet.

Bad behavior doesn't seem to stop our interest in stars; it seems to increase it.  So there is even greater interest in following Tiger Woods now that the world knows he isn't the goody-two-shoes family man we thought he was. 

And how about those Salahi's, the recent White House state dinner party crashers?  Are they just nuts?  Or are they simply extreme examples of the public obsession with being close to people who are famous, whatever it takes?

In any event, Tiger has delivered an apology to his fans for his bad behavior.  Are such confessionals required?  Former President Clinton was famous for refusing to apologize for his Monica Lewinsky behavior, let alone all his other indiscretions.  What about corporate executives whose failures in leadership lead to bad corporate results?  Should they apologize?  In Japan, where shame plays a major role in the culture, it is the norm for leaders to step down when they deliver poor results.  Here in the States, however, people not only don't step down willingly, they are sometimes allowed to continue delivering bad news to their shareholders.  Whey they are finally forced out, they often leave with huge golden parachute bonuses and don't feel at all compelled to apologize.

Maybe the confessional conversation should be dusted off and brought back to life.  The sincere one, I mean.  Not one written by one's PR agent, but the real kind.  "I blew it and I'm sorry."   Or maybe, just maybe, if we could shed our celebrity obsession, we could simply allow people their private transgressions without fanfare.

What about companies, though, when they deliver a faulty product or service?  That's what recalls are designed to correct, I guess.  And I've received letters of apology from companies for bad service.  When they are written sincerely, I'm impressed.  It's a conversation, of sorts, that exposes the humanity of the people behind the transaction.

When's the last time you apologized?  Did you take full responsibility for your actions?  Or did you end up blaming someone else in the process?  And what do you think re the Tiger Woods public "confession" on his webpage.  Is it necessary?  Appropriate?

Does Kindle Use Stifle Conversation?

My good friend Al Chase, the executive search guru, aka White Rhino to those who love him (and everyone who knows him does), has a habit of striking up conversation with virtually everyone he meets.  When I say virtual, I don't mean on-line.  I mean it in the old fashioned sense of "just about all."  The compulsive drive to converse appears to be in his DNA.  Al has never met a potential conversation he doesn't like.  So he's always game to initiate an exchange with strangers and it often pays off big time.  Some of his closest friends and business relationships started with a simple hello.

 

So what does this have to do with the Kindle?  Wherever he goes, whether a Red Sox game, a ride on the Boston T, or for coffee at a local Starbucks, Al can usually be seen with whatever book he's reading at the moment tucked under his arm.  Often, people stop and ask him about the book he is reading.  And anyone, yes anyone, Al spots with a book is fair game for his inquiry as to what they are reading and how they like it.  I'd venture to guess that the majority of people with whom he has struck up conversations were reading a book when he spotted them.

So, here's my question: what does Kindle readership do to people like Al, whose method of mixing has a book--the kind with a title on its cover--at its core?  If you see someone reading a Kindle, you have no idea what they're reading.  So striking up a conversation is trickier.  You can't say, "Oh, great, another John Grisham fan..." or "I wish I could read Shakespeare."  It has to be more general, like "Oh, do you always read when commuting?" or some such...and that sounds, well, contrived.  Lame.  Maybe even creepy.  Too obvious an attempt at conversation.

 

So Kindle may be going great guns on getting people to read, but it's hampering new friendships like Al Chase's.

Knowing Al, though, he'll think of something.  Conversation is too important to him to be stymied by this. 

Talking Turkey

Thanksgiving was especially interesting for me this year, considering that I was in Hong Kong for the celebration.  Since Thanksgiving as we know it in America is strictly a USA phenomenon, you normally have to improvise when out of the country if you want a baked turkey with all the trimmings, including cranberry sauce, mashed potatoes, pumpkin pie and all the rest.

Well, our Hong Kong hosts went all out with not one but two turkey dinners, one at a friend's, the other at their flat in Hong Kong. Perhaps it's because we were so far from home that everything tasted even more delicious than usual.  It was unexpected in Hong Kong and perhaps that made it exotic and exciting.

  

I got to thinking on the plane ride home yesterday about the phrase "talking turkey".  We know it refers to speaking plainly, frankly.  When you talk turkey, especially in business, you get to the point quickly, indicating you are ready to make a deal.  I am curious, though, as to the origin of the phrase.  Is it particularly American?  Does it harken back to the pilgrims and their conversations with the American Indians about the menu for the celebration that has become Thanksgiving dinner? 

Despite my efforts on the web, I could find little explanation of the phrase's origin.  This one might amuse you, though, from answers.com. It says the expression "allegedly comes from a tale about an Indian and a white man who hunted together and divided the game. When the white man said, "I'll take the turkey and you the buzzard, or you take the buzzard and I the turkey," the Indian replied, "Talk turkey to me." Whether or not this tale had a true basis, the term was recorded in its present meaning by about 1840."

Don't know about you, but I find this explanation lame.  Just how an exchange of such little import could result in a phrase in common usage nearly two centuries later escapes me.  What do you think?  And don't mince words...let's talk turkey. 

Making Conversations Over Dinner

I had lunch yesterday with Michelle Garnaut in Hong Kong.  We ate at her Hong Kong restaurant called M at the Fringe, a landmark eatery in a landmark building.  The restaurant closes December 31, a casualty of the screamingly escalating real estate values in Hong Kong, which leads to buildings like the one that houses the Fringe to be sacrificed for higher rent per square inch opportunities.

But M at the Fringe had a good run—twenty years –and Michelle will be up and running in a new Hong Kong location in no time.

Meanwhile, her M on the Bund, in Shanghai, a long run hit among the Shanghai cognoscenti for more than a decade, and her brand new Capital M, right on Tienanmen Square in Beijing, are clicking along successfully.

What makes Michelle—a transplanted Aussie—such a success as a restauranteur?  Basically, she sees herself not so much in the food business, as the conversation business.  What makes dining experiences memorable—besides great food—is the great conversation that takes place over the dinner table.  And Michelle knows how to facilitate that.  In fact her M on the Bund is as much a salon as a restaurant.  It’s where great musicians, poets, authors--you name it, all people at the top of their game, especially in the arts world—are welcomed and celebrated.  In fact, Michelle creates programs around them, so on a given Sunday you may hear from a poet or be treated to a chamber music concert.

It’s all about the conversation.  And at Michelle’s places, they talk about more than the food.

Shhh! I Am In the Movie Theater!

My name is Nora and I’m an intern at Wf360. I come from a French-speaking city in Switzerland called Geneva. I have been in New York for 8 weeks and I still am amazed about everything I experience.

Since I’ve been in NYC I have been to the movie theater 3 times and watched 3 different genres of movies. Even so, I was surprised to see that the moviegoers reacted very similarly every single time during the movie… something I’m not used to in Geneva.

First, almost everyone is eating popcorn or candy witch makes a lot of noise. In Geneva, only a few people eat during the movie and they try to make as little noise as possible. In NYC, if you make noise when you eat your food no one seems to care, while in Geneva people would stare at you because it is very rude and disturbing to everyone else in the theater.

Second, people here react very loudly during the movie. For example, when something funny happens in the movie, everyone is laughing loudly or when a handsome actor or actress appears on the screen, people scream and clap their hands. But what shocked me the most is that some people are making their own comments during the movie. Last Sunday I saw the Twilight saga: “New Moon” with the very famous Robert Pattinson. At the end of the movie he asks the main character to marry him. Then suddenly, a girl in front of me (who apparently is a huge Robert Pattinson fan) stood up and screamed,  “This can’t be happening!” Directly after that, the entire room was filled with laughter and everyone was talking about the incident. Nobody seemed appalled at what just happened with the girl in front of me. 

In Switzerland no one would ever talk during the movie and wouldn’t dare to scream something loud enough for others to hear. We are more afraid about what others would think about us if we were loud. And for sure everyone would be very shocked if something like that happened. I am not too familiar with the rules of respect here in NYC or the US but in Switzerland, we learn that we have to be respectful during a movie and should never disturb the other spectators. 

With all that said, I think the American theater going experience is growing on me. I think that it is fun to hear people laughing out loud, clapping their hands and reacting strongly to everything that happens during the movie. It makes you feel you are part of it and that you are sharing an experience with the whole room. In Switzerland, you feel like you are watching the movie alone even if the room is full.

Even if at first I was very surprised, during all the movies I saw in New York, I loved to listen to the reactions, eating my popcorn without being scared of disturbing someone and freely laughing out loud if the movie is funny.

I’ve learned to realize that I like it more when people react to the movie because it makes it more entertaining. Until the movies in NY, I’ve never felt like I was communicating with the entire audience and bonding over a simple movie. Maybe I can bring this back to my friends in Switzerland.

Winging it to Hong Kong

I'm on my way to one of favorite cities.  Actually, it's a 3-way tie for me between New York (nothing like walking into Grand Central and feeling the sheer activity of the Big Apple) and Paris (no more beautiful city on earth and no other place where every conversation you overhear sounds beautiful due to the sheer poetic melodic flow of the language and Hong Kong ( towering homage to commerce in the midst of Asian sense of intrigue). 

I loved HK the first time I was there 15 years ago and my affection has not been dampened even through the Turnover from the Brits to Chinese rule and through the endless building (although my ardor has been put to a bit of a test by the takeover of more and more of the harbor for commercial use).

Love the overheard conversations.  It's not a beautiful language like French.  It's a fast moving, clipped talk that sounds like life is moving fast and not a minute can be wasted.

I plan not to fritter any of it away this week.  Ready for anything.  Did an all-nighter last night to adapt to the Hong Kong time zone before departing New York..painful, but it's the answer to the jet lag dilemma.  I swear.  A bit of Ambien in a few minutes and I'll be on Hong Kong tome before we take off.

Talk to you soon from the jewel of Asia...

Let's Talk About Fat People

If you want to initiate a controversial conversation, try this and watch the sparks fly.  This is highly serious business and it is loaded with emotional response so be fore-warned.

At the 360 Summit, held at the New York Stock Exchange here in New York City, several highly respected senior executives posed a "What if...?" to their fellow attendees.  Of question was deeply reflective of issues that leaders everywhere are concerned about.

Among the most provocative was that posed by Laurie Coots, global Chief Marketing Officer of the media company TBWA\Chiat\Day.  Laurie teed up her questions as follows:

"For the first time in history, there are more people in the world who are overweight or obese than there are people who are underfed.

Globally, a twelve year old today is predicted to have a shorter life expectancy than his/her parents had, due to the co-morbidity of obesity related illnesses.

Japan's insurance companies are devising rate and actuarial tables based on waist size.

34% of adult Americans fit the definition of “obese."  And in the United States, obesity has now passed smoking as the number one preventable cause of premature death.

Health care spending on the overweight and obese is 36% higher than for others.  And those health care costs are now higher than health care spent on smoking or problem drinking.  In the United States $120 billion a year goes into the cost of obesity.

So in world in which businesses will be picking up the tab for an overhauled health care system...
And in a world in which we know that fat = higher health care costs...

What if…we had a policy to not hire fat people.   Would this be illegal discrimination or responsible business?"

As you can imagine, the audience went crazy over this question.  Each table of ten executives engaged quickly and loudly in debate over the issue.  Everyone had a strong opinion.  For certain, Laurie's posing of this question provoked awareness of just how important this issue is and just how loaded it is emotionally, which is a caution for corporate executives who feel they must consider how best to deal with the escalating costs of health care and other issues related to obese members of their workforce.

What do you think?  Perhaps this is a question you should raise in your own company. 

Friend Or Unfriend?

The year 2009 is fast coming to a close and that appears to be good news to some people I've talked with lately.  "Good riddance...it's been a tough year and we need a fresh start" is a comment made recently by a friend at a business lunch and heads around the table nodded in agreement.

Perhaps it's fitting, then, that in this somewhat negative view of the year the New Oxford American Dictionary chose as its word of the year 2009 "unfriend," a verb that describes the act of removing someone from one's friends on a social network like Facebook.  It's a negative act ("You're OUT!") that reeks of rejection, dismissal, public indication of unpopularity.

 

It's certainly an acknowledgment of the ubiquity of Facebook, now over 300 million members strong, around the world.  So I suppose if you're unfriended by one person, there is hope that another will find you worthy of on-line friendship. 

At least one commentator--Adrian Chen at Gawker--says the selection of unfriend as word of the year is no more than a "marketing ploy" by the New Oxford American Dictionary.  But Christine Lindberg, Senior Lexicographer at Oxford and spokesperson for the Word of the Year selection says unfriend was selected because of its current popularity as well its potential for longevity.  Hmmm.  Does that mean that both Facebook and unfriending are here to stay?   Hard to imagine--with that kind of membership--a world without Facebook, but who knows what the future will bring?

I'm hoping that 2010 will bring many things, among them a sense of authentic connection rather than superficial "pretend you know me" connection and, worse, disconnection.  If unfriending is way of reducing the numbers of people one has collected, willy-nilly, without a real sense of relationship, than perhaps this kind of housecleaning is in order.  If, however, it is more about personal popularity contests, dependent on the whim of the moment, count me out.  Never liked that kind of "who is in and who is out" mentality in high school and don't see it as valuable now.