No time to blog

I took part in the Opening Day festivities of the Women in Public Service Project Summer Institite earlier this week, which I will blog more about later.

And I am busy assembling the cast and creative team for my play, Becoming Calvin.

So I really did not have time to blog this week! But I did get out the June edition of my newsletter, Notes from the Speaker's Bubble. The lead article is about the value of going back to the beginning once you have mastered a discipline or practice. Very helpful when you're stuck creatively or otherwise in a rut. If you like would like to subscribe to my monthly newsletter, sign up here.

Will get back to blogging more soon, I hope!

What we can learn from "Acting!"

Actors love to act! But of course, the best don't let you catch them in the act of acting. Baaaad acting, the kind we associate with Jon Lovitz's Master Thespian, loves to call attention to itself. Good acting, well... that is somewhat indistinguishable from "being" -- on a very focussed level.

I have been auditioning actors for my upcoming production of the play I wrote three years ago. It has been a long journey to get to this point, and now the fun is starting! I love meeting actors, and there are many talented ones in the DC area. I have been amazed and gratified by the number of gifted men and women willing to be a part of our adventure.

And what an adventure it is! I am playing a lot of roles myself: wearing both playwright and director hats, at the moment (also doing the day-to-day producing work, but that's another story. . .) That may be why I am most attracted to actors who let the story be the star, not themselves. They do not spend time being clever and thinking up "bits" to enliven the scene; they work to bring the scene -- as written -- to life! The fact that they trust the text speaks volumes, I think, about they way they work as artists.

I tell my Adult Ed acting students, as well as my public speaking clients they, too, need to trust the text. Sometimes this is more difficult, especially if they haven't fully prepared. But here's the professional advice I give them: You Need To Prepare. I know they already know this, but sometimes you just have to hear something from an "expert" to believe your gut instinct. And to act upon it.

Make the time, do the preparation. Then you can relax and just be. Be the conduit for the message. Let it pass through you freely. You will communicate more clearly if you can just let it flow, and not clutter  it up with cleverness that comes from forgetting that it's not about you. It's always, always -- in theatre, in a speech, in a conference call -- about the message!

Don't forget to breathe

"Take a deep breath."

I give this advice all the time.  In my work as a speaker trainer/communications consultant, my clients come to me to learn how to improve their speaking abilities. If I had a magic wand to wave over them, transforming them on the spot into genius orators, I would pull it out! But I don't, so I start with the magic I know: I start with the breath. Breath is the engine for all speech: you simply cannot produce vocal sound without it.

And breath is, of course, a necessity to – life itself! If we don’t breathe we die. But we forget. When we are stressed, we make matters worse by “holding our breath" – or we take quick, shallow panic breaths when we should do exactly the opposite.  The professional term for this is “getting in our own way.”  And it takes some people months, even years of practice to stop “trying” so hard to “do or “make” and just “be.” Be in the moment. Be aware. Be the breath.

Even Google recognizes that breathing is important! They have a Zen master at the Googleplex who teaches engineers how to breathe and practice mindfulness. Two Sundays ago on her radio show Interfaith Voices, Maureen Fiedler interviewed Chade-Meng Tan. He is a member of  Google’s Talent Team, and author of  Search Inside Yourself: The Unexpected Path to Achieving Success, Happiness (and World Peace). Tan’s course on mindfulness is one of the most popular classes Google offers its employees. His practices derive from Buddhism, but he has found that "The practice of calming the mind by focusing on breath is universal." He defines mindfulness as ''Just being present – without judgment."

Maureen Fieldler asked if this was hard for such high-achievers. Tan replied  "mindfulness is simple, but not easy . . . Googlers are already good at concentration & motivation . . . but they are very much in their heads and need to bring attention to the body. Sometimes their achievement drive interferes with the meditative mind." 

It is hard for any of us high achievers to let go, and stop trying so hard to control things. But as wise men and women throughout the ages tell us again and again, and as even Google knows, we have to stop doing and just be. Breathe. And let life unfold before you. It just may surprise you!

Lessons from Chuck Brown

This past week we have lost several gifted vocal musicians, ranging from the Prince of Lieder, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau , the Queen of Disco, Donna Summers, and the God-father of Go- Go, Chuck Brown. To spoil it for the superstitious who believe in the Rule Of Threes, let me also point out that Robin Gibb lost his battle with cancer this week.

Vocalists are special musicians: the are their own instruments. The upside is you don't have to pay for extra space in the baggage compartment when you travel, but the down-side is that you can't ever put it down. And that means you have to be aware of everything you are doing, because it all affects your voice. When I first heard a radio clip of Chuck Brown's biggest hit "Bustin' Loose"  I thought "what is he doing with his voice? He won't have it much longer if he keeps making that sound!" When I heard him live this past September he still sounded great - at age 74!

Singers know that everything shows up in the voice: their general health, physical and mental; their focus; how deeply they deep connect with the lyrics; and their need to share that connection with the audience. But the rest of us get lazy; we use our glorious instruments as quotidian tools. When we speak, there is no need to work as meticulously as singers do to produce a good sound. The technical demands are not as precise. You can be feeling "a little low" and still breathe deeply and be relaxed and focused and achieve a ''good enough" spoken vocal tone. We simply are not required to sing our "ah" in the center of the A. It could be a G flat and no one would really notice. 

And we are lucky that way, we speakers. But I think we should take a page from the singer's notebook. We should remember to work on our phrasing, our coloration, our line. We need to make sure we convey our message with all the nuance we can, given the relative limitation of the instrument used in spoken mode. And it is possible; listen to Jim Dale (who so fabulously narrates the "Harry Potter''  books) discuss the artistry of book narration in a 2005 NPR interview. 

I know, there is only one Jim Dale, but his work, and that of many other audiobook narrators (Stockard Channing as Ramona, anyone?) remind that even as speakers, we can play our instruments to astonishing effect! 

Still walking the walk

Since my blog post last week about walking in high heels was such a hit I thought I would continue in the vein. More insight on how to walk the walk. . .

Some women seem to instinctively know how to make walking in heels work. Sofia Vergara's character Gloria proudly totters on her heels during a family outing to Disneyland on last week's Modern Family . Fianlly, she, too, succumbs and hilarity ensues! Of course, that is comedy, not real life. 

Back in my childhood, girls were encouraged by their mothers, as well as their Girl Scout leaders (via whatever merit badge we got from doing so) to take the Wendy Ward Charm School course at the local Montgomery Ward Department store. Years ago, long before it went bankrupt and was sold to an online retailer, Ward's offered a multi-week course that prepared us to be "young ladies".  In the basement of a store in a strip mall.

But, location notwithstanding, we were transformed. We learned to walk -- rather, glide -- across the floor. In imitation of the Hayley Mills movie heroines so popular at the time, we put our heels down 6 inches in front of our toes and walked a straight line, while balancing single slim books on our heads. Certainly something you had to practice. Later in life,  I needed to "walk like a man" when playing Rosalind with my all-female Shakespeare troupe in college. I practiced walking with a wider stance, legs moving from the hip, avoiding the swiveling that set feet in a line in front of each other. A more liberating, balanced way to walk, for sure. But a gait that called out for sensible shoes, not "date night shoes."

At Wendy Ward we also learned very useful advice about how to sit. When seated, we were told, the only acceptable place to cross your legs is at the ankles, never the knees. Moreover, "our knees should be best friends" i.e., we must keep them together when seated. This is still great advice for whenever you're not wearing trousers. Particularly if you're on a panel and seated at a table without a table skirt, or up on a dias or stage sitting in a place of honor. Nothing kills credibility like showing too much thigh, or worse, offering the audience a glimpse up your skirt.

I see many online advice blogs that offer help to girls today. From what I see out there,  I can only surmise their readership is low. And I wonder if any virtual expert or e-communal experience can ever be half as effective as those after-school sessions where we learned to walk like we owned the world in the basement of Montgomery Ward.

Walking the walk

As I was surfing FB I saw that a friend posted she had recently made a resolution to wear high heels more often. I thought I knew why. There are many things a good pair of heels can do. They make you feel taller and hence, more powerful. They slim your overall look by visually lengthening your legs. They create a "wiggle in your walk," that many find attractive. For me, stepping into my heels often signals an imminent special occasion--probably because they remind me of my girlhood "party shoes" that were too impractical to wear everyday.

I know, too, that there are many reasons to hate high heels. The three main arguments against then:

1) Physiological/medical: Are you an orthopedist? If not, heels are no good for your health and well-being.

2) Feminist: What does it say that men find women more attractive when they are wearing footwear that renders them virtually helpless, or at least keeps them off balance?

3) Practical: There are so many things essential to everyday life you absolutely cannot do in heels, why would you want to wear them ? (Of course the women who take part in Amsterdam's Stiletto Run may disagree: after looking at them race in heels I would say they have special skills.)

I have been watching women teetering on sky-high heels for a long time. But I reserve judgement: I am sure they have their reasons. However, all too often whatever image/illusion these women create by wearing heels is shattered when they begin to move. Sometimes I worry they will fall and twist their ankles. Often I witness women who have no idea how to walk in heels clomp about like so many horses. I single out women; any self-respecting cross dresser or drag queen knows that walking in high heels is something that takes a lot of practice.

So - practice. Wear your heel inside to break them in. Slow down. Put one foot in front of the other. As young girls in the 60's we were taught to do this (I believe it was a prerequisite for getting our first pair of heels). Most importantly, extend your legs from your hip sockets, not just your knees. Not only does this put slightly less stress on your knees, it helps you maintain a graceful gait. Walking by kicking your your legs out from your knees results in that unattractive horsey-walk.

You have your reasons for wearing heels, none of which involves a comparison to Mr. Ed!  If you put in a little practice, you will glide like a runway model -- and not the ones who fall off their shoes.

Going to the candidates' debate. . .

If you're not already a fan of Amy Poehler's genius creation, Parks and Rec, you should be! This season we follow our heroine, that earnest cheerleader for local government, Leslie Knope, as she runs for City Council against the doltish heir to the largest employer in Pawnee, Indiana (Paul Rudd). 

Last week's episode featured the candidates' debate.  I recommend it to anyone who is contemplating a run for office or working on a campaign. Leslie was more than holding her own until she was blindsided by a "bomb" lobbed by her opponent right before the closing statements. She talked her campaign manager into letting her go off script so she could speak to the issue that threatened to derail her candidacy. What I especially liked about this interaction is that Leslie, who had vowed never again to disregard the advice of Ben, her manager (and boyfriend), made a conscious choice to do just that. She threw away the playbook and went out on a limb --- but it was very clear that she was not extemporizing, not just speaking "in the heat of the moment." As she has said from the beginning, "I have been preparing for this campaign my whole life."

Now, I know this is TV, and the whole thing was scripted, but I found it instructive. "Speaking from the heart" can be a powerful strategy -- only IF you have been thoroughly prepared and are absolutely sure of what you stand for. That's a big IF! Too often I have heard, "well, I will just wing it" or, "I don't want to be over-prepared, then I will be inauthentic." And the images we see of candidate debates on TV and in movies only perpetuate the myth that it is possible, when you're in a corner, to come out swinging and knock your opponent down with your brilliance. But that doesn't happen. The character of Leslie that Poehler created has never not been prepared. That is why Ben reluctantly gave her permission to deviate from their plan in this episode. And though she is fictional, we can all benefit from Leslie's example. The deeper your preparation, the greater your latitude to "change it up." The pros know that. But they never let you see it!

The other totally goofy plot line in last week's episode provides a brilliant example of the lost art of storytelling. I won't say more, except that Andy's recreations of movies made me reflect on the wildly improbable success of Charles Ross' One Man Star Wars Trilogy. We all relish a good story, well told.

Art as (p)art of your life!

We are all arts consumers.

Whether we realize it or not, our lives are enriched by art every day. And most of us rely on art to keep us going through the tough times. That beautiful song that provides inspiration? The book you turn to when feeling blue? The classic movie that always lifts your spirits, or, conversely, gives you an excuse to cry your eyes out? Yes, many of these experiences come to you via the vast American Entertainment Complex, but don't be fooled. They could not have been packaged and marketed to you unless someone in the beginning had an original vision. And the training to nurture that vision into something tangible.  Sometimes, when the final product reaches us, it has watered down so much of the original creative spark that we have to look hard to find it. But other times, even in a wildly popular sit-coms like Modern Family, my favorite TV drama The Good Wife, or the music of Adele, the unmistakable whiff of art lingers.

But the pipeline that brings us popular works of art isn't an option for the vast majority of artists. How long can we keep growing artists in a country that persistently under-funds them?  According to a 2010 study from the National Assembly of State Arts agencies: "Legislative appropriations to all state arts agencies currently total $297 million, or $0.96 per capita. This represents only 0.042%—less than one tenth of one percent—of state general fund expenditures. Yet the return on this investment is tremendous. State arts agencies support about 18,000 organizations, schools and artists, making the economic, educational, civic and cultural benefitsof the arts available to 5,100 communities across the United States." Think what we could do if we spent $1 per person on arts in this country!

But there is an upside: if the government and politicians are not generous to the arts, individual patrons are! Because the U.S. has always had a tradition of philanthropy (we can thank Andrew Carnegie for our unsurpassed public library system), we have a culture of arts support from private citizens. That support was stretched to the limit by the recent recession, but there are signs it is recovering.

In my own case, I have been the happy beneficiary of individual largesse. After a little over 2 years of fundraising and grant-writing (during a terrible economy), my play Becoming Calvin has gained enough financial support to have its premiere in September 2012! I am busily jumping through hoops as I fill out contracts for the actors and performance space and try to find more members to join my creative team. Lots to do but very exciting! And done mostly through individual contributions: 78% of the money I have raised so far has come from many people writing small checks. I cannot imagine a greater testimony to the generosity of individuals and their recognition of the crucial role art plays in their lives!

Alec, Maureen and arts . . . oh my!

Lots of news happening this week! So in case you missed it, Arts Advocacy Day was this past Tuesday. Artists, arts administrators, and arts supporters gathered in Washington and stormed Capitol Hill to advocate for more money for the arts. One of the highlights of this advocacy push is always the Nancy Hanks Lecture. This year it was delivered by Alec Baldwin, who has been a tremendous supporter of arts over the years. He was introduced by the incomparable Maureen Dowd, who writes speeches that are every bit as clever as her columns for the New York Times, but are improved by her spectacular comic timing. She delivers a funny line with the kind of ease that leads lesser talents to think they can do it too. The kind that I am certain took lots of practice!

Actor and advocate Hill Harper (who has his own foundation to empower underserved youth) spoke earlier in the evening. I wish I could find a copy of his short but perfect advocacy speech to share with clients and students. He followed the Marshall Ganz formula of "Story of Self, Story of Us, Story of Now" to a T. A clear demonstration of why that model is the best for such speeches!

As I listened to the lecture in a full house at the Kennedy Center's Concert Hall, I felt tremendously empowered surrounded by people for whom art is not a "frill" but a way of life. I don't get to experience that very often. President Kennedy looked forward "to an America which will reward achievement in the arts as we reward achievement in business or statecraft." But we're not there yet! I get so tired of being told the arts do not deserve "a handout" or "if they can't pay for themselves they have no place in our society," or -- my favorite -- "I believe in arts education for kids. But by high school they need to stop playing around and grow up." If I had a dollar for every time I heard such a comment, I could self-fund the upcoming production of my play Becoming Calvin.

The arts business is good for business, which Mayor Bloomberg is sure to tell anyone who will listen. But it's not just New York that profits from a booming arts economy. All communities benefit, in tangible ways. You probably know that art is good, and may already be a supporter. But if you want to counter the ignorance of nay-sayers like the ones I quoted above, you can arm yourself with facts from Americans for the Arts: 10 Reasons to Support the Arts.

Art: good. . . and good for you!

Lost in a good book

Here's a question: how do you become a better communicator, learn to pick up on non-verbal cues more effectively and take a low-cost vacation? Pick up a work of fiction!

Earlier this year I indulged in a flurry of novel reading activity. I found myself zipping through imaginative worlds that closely mirror my own reality. Chad Harbachs The Art of Fielding, and Helen Schulmans's This Beautiful Life described lives lived in places and situations that were not too much of a stretch for me. Conquistodora by Esmerelda Santiago and Suzanne Collin's ubiquitous The Hunger Games set me down in places I can only imagine and led me on adventures I will certainly never have. But as I mentally traveled back in time to 19th century Puerto Rico and forward to the dystopic Panem, I experienced foreign worlds conjured by authors who literally took me with them.

You may call it escapism, but it's more than that. Science now tells us that when we spend hours in a world far, far away, we are actually doing something very valuable; sharpening our empathy skills. In "Your Brain on Fiction" in the New York Times last month, Anna Murphy Paul describes research suggesting novel readers benefit from this activity more than we know. Findings by Raymond Mar, a psychologist at York University in Canada, point to "substantial overlap in the brain networks used to understand stories and the networks used to navigate interactions with other individuals — in particular, interactions in which we’re trying to figure out the thoughts and feelings of others."

So I ache for Henry Skrimshander as he loses his gift for fielding and turns his back on baseball, his one true love. I get frustrated with Liz Bergamot and want to scream at her to stop being such a passive bystander in her own life. It is almost as if I were experiencing their pain myself, rather than observing it. And it is this experience, vicarious though it may be, that makes me a better communications coach, teacher, artist, wife and mother. I live in a very self-contained corner of the world, but by walking in a fictional character's shoes, I can go anywhere, be anyone. Which helps me develop greater empathy.

Keith Oatley, an emeritus professor of cognitive psychology at the University of Toronto summed it up: “Fiction is a particularly useful simulation because negotiating the social world effectively is extremely tricky, requiring us to weigh up myriad interacting instances of cause and effect. . . . novels, stories and dramas can help us understand the complexities of social life.”

So next time you want to unplug, close the door and indulge in a good novel - go ahead: you'll be a better person for it!

United we stand

Yesterday was historic for me and 130,999 other actors in the US who work in film and/or TV: our two unions merged into one. Yesterday at 1:35 PT Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists became SAG-AFTRA. After 80 years of sometimes feverish, sometimes tepid talks of merger, the membership of both unions voted to unite. In spite of opposition led by some pretty big names, including former SAG President Ed Asner (who says this plan will hurts the SAG pension and health benefits) most rank-and-file actors I know have been longing for a merged union for years.

We are proud to be union members! And now our One Union will be stronger to fight for our wages and working conditions.

You probably don't think about it, but it's not easy being a film or TV actor -- unless you are a star who can negotiate a separate contract. The rest of us are grateful for the protection of the union. When I work a shoot with non-union actors they begin the day thrilled just to be near the set. They can't imagine why we need to be paid for this, for goodness sake! By lunchtime they are dragging because our day has been "hurry-up-and-wait". Then, all at once, we are called to set and have to be brilliant on command. Again and again. Take after take. Fortunately we get overtime after eight hours (well, nine, but lunch doesn't count), but can't leave early to pick up our kids at daycare! It takes discipline and dedication. Often those non-union people don't show up the next day. They worked for their lunch and the excitement of it all. They never counted on the patience they would need to get through hours of waiting for lights to be focused, sound to be connected, camera angles to be set.

Movies and TV shows provide viewers worldwide with escape, relaxation, entertainment and enlightenment. But they are much harder and more complicated to create than you will ever know. The weavers of dreams are professionals who hide the machinery and the sweat of their hard work. I am proud to be among them. And now, with a stronger union, we can take on the producers who want to film offshore or in dangerous conditions, or claim that the rules don't apply to talent employed in "new media." And maybe the rest of the country will realize that - hey- if my favorite TV star or film actor not only belongs to a union, but voted to make the union stronger, maybe unions aren't such awful, subversive things after all!

Aaah-choo! Speaking while pol-undated

March came in like a lamb here in Northern Virginia, and the month quickly progressed to something resembling the dog days of summer. Consequently, here in the land of flowering cherry trees, all the tree flower pollens and those of other flowering plants have been released much earlier than expected. And my peonies are a month ahead of schedule! In my house, this early onset allergy season caught at least one of us by surprise. We are "pol-undated", inundated by pollen.

I have had a few clients who are encountering their very own SSDs --- seasonal speaking disorders. That is when your sinuses are congested and blocked, and your throat gets scratchy. There is so much pollen floating through the air it turns your blue car green. Think how hard your nasal cilia have to work to filter the air that goes through your nasal passages, your throat, and finally reaches your lungs. They try their darndest, but just can't keep up. Of course some pollen and other irritants get through!

It gets rather hard to speak through all the "crud" that collects in your throat and chest. But of course you can't block out all of allergy season on your calendar and say you won't/can't do a speech or presentation for three months. So what do you do?

You need to do your regular 7-10 minute vocal warm-up (you do have one of those, right?), starting off with breathing exercises to center you, articulation to make sure your consonants are crisp, and resonance awareness. Be sure to spend extra time on the resonance exercises, and do them a tad more slowly and gradually. In case you need a refresher on these: massage your face and gently hum up and down your vocal range to get vibrations going in your sinuses. Hot liquids and steam help move some of the mucus out of there. So warming up in the shower is a good thing, as is drinking hot tea (which for some reason is better than coffee). Avoid the impulse to just plow through. To force the sound out. That would only make things worse. Don't do it! You can stress your vocal folds that way, which can lead to all sorts of trouble down the road.

Take care of yourself. Keep hydrating so you can more readily flush the offending stuff out (the cilia, after all, do sweep it into the digestive system so it can be eliminated). And support your voice. You may not be as tiptop as you would like to be, but don't use that as an excuse to collapse into bad posture and shallow breathing. Let your voice vibrate through clogged sinuses as much as it can, but don't force it.

You'll thank me later.

When artistic license expires

Playwrights don't often make news, and when one does, the rest of us hope it is something worth celebrating. This week, I, for one, was angered by the cowardice of a fellow practitioner who made us all look like liars and cheats.

This American Life, a weekly public radio show that I love, devoted a whole episode this week to exposing and explaining the errors in its previously most-downloaded show. That show aired in January of this year. It was an interview host Ira Glass had with writer and monologuist Mike Daisey about his extremely successful one-man show, The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs.  Coincidentally, Mr. Daisey's monologue closed today at the Public Theatre in New York, where it had been running since October 17th.

The show, as I understand it (I have not seen it) deals with the tension between Americans' growing dependence on everything Apple, and the harmful, abusive working conditions at Apple factories in China. Mr. Daisey, whom The New York Times called “one of the finest solo performers of his generation” is not a journalist. However, he presents his onstage story as something that really happened, and much of the power his story holds for audience members is because they believe he is revealing Truth (see opening night NYTimes review). But his script does not square with the facts.

This week, in his extraordinary interview,  Ira Glass takes Mr. Daisey to task for passing his show, this piece of imagination, off as true. Mr. Glass rightfully feels duped, since he and his This American Life staff went out on a limb and vouched for it as such. Mr. Daisey's defense (this is really what makes me mad): ''Well, I don’t know that I would say in a theatrical context that it isn’t true. I believe that when I perform it in a theatrical context in the theater that when people hear the story in those terms that we have different languages for what the truth means."

Puh-leaze!!! Even in the "context of theatre'' this guy is lying!

I write plays. I write plays based on fact, on history. And yes, sometimes you have to conflate a small detail or two, or make up a character to serve your needs.  I can see the temptation, after all... you can't footnote a play, so how scrupulous do you really need to be with your facts?

You need to be very scrupulous. You need to have integrity. Honesty. Artists aren't liars; they interpret the truth. They shape it and create a new way of looking at it. So people will really see it, and come to an understanding of themselves, of each other. If they need to create a world out of whole cloth to do so, there is no shame in that. Sometimes it is even easier to set a play in a fictional world than the real one. But you can't have it both ways and still be an artist with integrity. You can't play fast-and-loose with facts and then cry "artistic license" when you are called on bogus fabrications. Even if -- no, especially if -- you are successful, you have an obligation to readers, viewers and other audiences to either tell the truth or signal that not everything in the story is exactly as it seems. Other playwrights do it all the time; it is not hard.

Mike Daisey took a good long drive down the road to success. But he didn't play by the rules, and his artistic license has expired.

Sticks and stones. . .

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." I grew up with that saying, but it never really made any sense to me. Of course words can hurt! But if you complained about it, back in the day, you were called yet another name, or told to "grow up." Or, if you were a boy, insulted by being called "a girl" (which is another topic for discussion. . . ).

Last Wednesday Lady Gaga launched her new  Born This Way Foundation. She hopes to offer a strong antidote to a society that celebrates those who conform to some limiting norm, and denigrates those who either dare to be different, or were just born that way. We should all be grateful to Lady Gaga for putting her considerable influence and resources to work solving this very real problem -- one that, according to Nick Kristof's Thursday column in the New York Times, she personally experienced.

And just as this wonderful foundation was being unveiled, we had a fine example of bullying from one of the masters of the craft, Rush Limbaugh. His words have already come back to haunt him as sponsors decided they could no longer support such behavior. Yes, Rush did eventually apologize for his "word choice." But I, for one, do not expect him to change any time soon. Bullies keep bullying until they actually understand what damage they are doing, which often means they never stop.

Today many of us recognize bullying language for what it is, a way to destabilize and disempower the target or victim. Words have power. They always have. Dramatists have known this for centuries, so have poets. Novelists do as well, and screenwriters, and ad execs. Parents and children know it. Everyone knows it, yet how many of us forget . . . until we have said something we cannot take back? We communicate through words, through the shadings of meaning we convey when we make certain word choices. When we speak, we set in motion a chain of events. So we must stand behind our words, and not use them carelessly. This is not just advice for public speaking; many a private relationship has sunk quicker than the Titanic because of thoughtless speech.

Commit to your words. As I tell my acting students, behind the words there is always intention. If you have no intention, then don't say anything. Because after all, there really is no such thing as "just talking."

Oscar time in an election year

As I was watching the Oscars last night I was thinking about performers, speeches, and the act of speaking. Octavia Spencer, who was wonderful in The Help, was speechless when she was the winner in an incredibly strong field (and if you still have not seen Janet McTeer in Albert Nobbs, go see it ASAP!). I think Ms. Spencer was caught off-guard (though, really, if you are nominated for an award like that you should have a little something up your sleeve). But her job is to embody other people's creations, make the words of the screenwriter and the vision of the director live on screen. So maybe the "real" Octavia was gob-smacked last night. Most of America can forgive that in a grateful actor.

Not so Mitt Romney. When will that man learn to stay on script? If I were on his communications team I would have pulled out all my hair long ago! His gaffe in Detroit when he ad libbed about his wife's two Cadillacs, and his recent NASCAR comment certainly were not "on message." They may have cost him votes he cannot afford to lose. Why does he (and to be fair, he is not the only candidate who does this. Rick Perry's mistakes cost him his seat at the table) continue to speak this way?

He falls too easily into the "diva trap."

I warn my clients to avoid this by being thoroughly prepared, then trusting their preparation to carry them through their speeches, meetings, etc. But sometimes, gosh darn it! - the thrill of seeing faces turned toward you and hanging on your every word is just so sweet! You feel you can do no wrong; all your words are golden. So you venture something new that you think is even more exciting - or (most often) funnier - than you have prepared.  And - just like that - the trap is sprung.

Some of my clients say they fear becoming too "scripted" and want to "keep it real"when they speak. I tell them they owe it to their audience, meeting partners, and clients, to be prepared, to know what they're saying and how they are going to say it. That is how you establish credibility and gain trust. Not by trying out some stand-up material or a false humility act on unsuspecting potential partners. If you want to get the job done, preparation is key. And comedy, above all things, requires enormous preparation. So even if you occasionally insert a quip that is funny, 99% of the time it does absolutely nothing to further the conversation, or strengthen the relationship with your partners.

And the people you are meeting with are always, to some extent, your partners. They are not your "fans." When you forget that, you start veering perilously close to the diva trap. It's OK for Sally Field to gush "You like me! You like me!" while accepting her Oscar for Places in the Heart. She took flack for that for years, but she is in a business where that kind of personal credibility isn't really a job requirement.

Mitt Romney, however, seeks a job where it is. So he should save his "off the cuff" comments for his private speech. Or he can look for a new career - in the movies!

Working networking

Networking! A word that strikes fear in the hearts of many, trepidation in the hearts of most.

I am in a few very collegial groups whose purpose is to support each other, and yes, network. As in: I will get to know you better as a person, hear about what you do and why you love to do it, and then we might be able to work with each other some day or help make connections for each other. But hard-core "networking"? I like that about as well as going for my annual check -up.

Once in awhile I do talk myself into going to one of these events where the stated purpose is to just network. I find I can last about 90 minutes before my energy flags, and so I heed that sign and make my exit. It is time to go when you can no longer be your "best public self." But I have worked hard (which may be why I am out of gas), and I have already made connections.

When I help a client with networking, we focus on her "cocktail party speech'', which is a hybrid of two time-tested public speech forms: the elevator pitch and the neighborhood get-together introduction. When networking, you need to present yourself in your best light, and give a few tantalizing details about what you do. You will also be testing the waters with your conversation partner to determine if this is a connection worth pursuing. So you need to be specific but not jargon-y. Tell a bit about your business but more about yourself. And listen to the person you are speaking to. It's challenging to strike that balance, but it gets easier over time. And the very best networking experiences I have had come from meetings, lectures, book launches, exhibit openings, etc., where I am truly interested in the event/subject matter/topic. These events attract people with whom I already have something in common, so I have a guaranteed ice-breaker.

That way, every networking evening is a winner! Even if I walk out with fewer valuable contacts than I would like, I have been enriched, challenged, engaged by the experience. And as the French say,  je me coucherai moins bête ce soir*. Which is always a good thing!

* I will go to bed less stupid tonight.

What one picture is worth

Yesterday I was tweaking some speech templates I provide for clients, designing a way to integrate story into existing organizational structure (beginning, middle, end; never more than 4 main points; tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them, then tell them that you told them). While we need to keep employing these principles, we also need to share more stories in our speeches and presentations.  People learn from story. Narrative arc provides structure, suspense keeps listeners hooked. People will stop what they are doing to listen to a good story, as the announcers at my local NPR station are fond of saying during the current winter pledge drive. I am sure we have all had our "driveway moments"

Of course my biggest battle in this area is from those who feel they absolutely must present everything in PowerPoint. (sigh!) It can be a useful tool when your graphic or picture really is worth a thousand words. Or thematically underscores your presentation. But when you are putting 6-8 bullet points in teeny tiny print up on a large screen you aren't doing yourself or your audience any favors! And charts and graphs need to be used judiciously: make them big, bold, easily read and easy to understand.

I am told that PowerPoint presentations are necessary "for the visual learners in the audience." Really? I have two responses: #1: Putting words on a screen to be read while you are saying something else is confusing even for people who learn through language. And if you do put the same words on the screen that you are saying, you will bore everyone in the room. #2: What about the kinesthetic learners? The musical learners? How are you reaching them?

A few summers ago I was working with Asian climate change scientists and educators as part of George Washington University's PISA program. I knew they liked to use charts and graphs a lot in their presentations, and wanted them to make sure they did not become over-dependent on this method of content delivery. I was searching for an example I could use to illustrate my point. And I asked them, these climate change experts, what image they remembered most about Al Gore's "slide show" in An Inconvenient Truth. Was it the large, detailed graphs? Charts showing ever-increasing temperature deviations? No. It was the polar bear stranded on his ever-diminishing piece of ice. An image with a story. That sticks.

Voice and women's leadership

This week I was busy getting out my monthly newsletter, and so the "Talk the Talk'' blog entry took a back seat. My apologies!

In the newsletter - for those of you who haven't gone there - I talk about the transformative power of voice, as employed by Meryl Streep in her portrayal of Margaret Thatcher in The Iron Lady. In a wonderfully in-depth interview with NPR's Fresh Air host Terry Gross, Ms. Streep gives background on how Mrs. Thatcher herself found a new voice, and used it as a tool in her transformation from Education Secretary to party leader.

I am especially interested in this story because I work with a lot of politicians, mainly women. These women come to me because they know they need to strengthen their voices as part of establishing stronger leadership personae. Some of this has to do with the still lingering perception that "women aren't strong enough to lead," that well-documented double-bind women face while vying for leadership positions. But much of it has to do with personality. As is true with men, women who seek leadership roles not always the most outgoing, extroverted people. As such, they know they need help with their verbal communications, especially before large crowds, and with the packed schedules candidates must maintain.

It is true that women's voices have a general tendency to be smaller. It is a fact that men (in general) have bigger, deeper, more resonant voices than women, due to their relatively larger size, specifically their larger larynxes. This has been an impediment to women in many leadership positions. I also work with female pastors, who need to strengthen their delivery; they have all heard variations on the theme "I can't hear what that preacher-lady is saying." Microphones can only do so much of the work.

But don't tell a soprano at the Met that she is not as strong as the guys she sings with! She knows how to maximize her instrument, to make it flexible, responsive to emotion. And she can turn up the volume when she needs to. She has learned how to use her voice. She knows what to do to maintain proper vocal health, so she can stay strong and continue to grow in her career. One of my favorite opera artists, Renee Fleming, sang her first major role in 1986 and is still going strong!

I tell every one of my clients she or he can develop a strong public voice. No question! Everybody who has a working diaphragm, larynx, lips, tongue, and teeth already has the basic material. All that is needed is some coaching, guidance (and a bit of effort) to uncover it. But then you have it for life!

Experts make it look so easy!

Last Saturday I attended a lecture hosted by the Reformed Institute of Metropolitan Washington on religious pluralism. The Institute sponsors a Convocation each year, and I always enjoy feeling my mind stretched when I attend. This year's speaker was the esteemed religious scholar Dr. Richard Plantinga. His presentation was extremely interesting; you can see it here. If you look it over, you will notice it is very readable. Even if you are not highly knowledgeable about the subject, you will learn from reading his text. He takes us through some fairly weighty material, and balances the concluding tensions in a way that makes us feel we have reached greater enlightenment on this complicated issue.

Anyone who remembers being thrilled by lightbulb moments in the classroom and beyond will understand how Dr. Plantinga does this. He breaks down a complex subject into smaller parts that are comprehensible (not necessarily right off the bat, but sooner rather than later). Your best professors did this. They may have learned how to do it through pedagogy, but most likely it was knowledge hard won through experience. They found their own voices, and spoke in terms that helped listeners and students understand. Vocabulary pitched at the proper level of complexity. Simple, direct sentences. Metaphor that is evocative, yet not too convoluted. Striking imagery.

Not all writers and scholars can do this, of course. I am sure you can remember the professors who won major awards for books and articles, but were disappointing lecturers. Writing for the ear is not the same as writing for the eye. It is a different variation on a theme.

I write plays. (My latest play, Becoming Calvin, was commissioned by the Reformed Institute.) And that is yet another variation. I write for the ear, yes, but in different voices. And I write for the eye--not to be read--but to be visualized, physicalized and turned into action. Writing this way taps into different levels of creativity. But always, the watchword is clarity. If character or plot or theme become too complex and people can't follow then, then I need to go back and simplify. Because the point is never about showing off how much you know or how deeply you feel or what creative stretches you can do. It's about sharing your message.

It's awards season!

I've been watching a lot of movies lately. As a member of Screen Actors Guild I will cast my ballot for the SAG Awards tomorrow by noon Pacific Time. This year there are some terrific performances, particularly in the female actor categories. It will be tough choice, but for both the female actor in a leading role and female actor in a supporting role, I think I will vote for the women of Albert Nobbs. Glenn Close and Janet McTeer portray two very different variations on the woman-masquerading-as-man theme in this period drama set in late-19th century Dublin. The performances are meticulous, and spell-binding. If you want to see not-good-but-great acting, check out this small-studio release.

My acting students were asking me the other day who I considered to be an excellent actor. I told them (before I saw the incomparable Ms. Close and Ms. McTeer) to study both Michelle Williams in My Week With Marilyn and Meryl Streep in The Iron Lady. Each has a tough job: not to recreate, but to embody a real woman who was herself playing a role for the public. Add to that the difficulty that each of these famous women still looms large in our collective memory, and you can see why such roles could prove catastrophic for lesser talents. Both of these performances are spectacular!

I like these films very much for other reasons, as well. My Week With Marilyn contains some very interesting (and heated) discussions of the clashing acting techniques employed by Laurence Olivier and Marilyn Monroe as they try to work together in The Prince and the Showgirl. If you're curious about the difference between acting techniques used in 1957 by the best American film star and the best British stage star, this movie gives you a very good idea.

The Iron Lady provides a glimpse of what I do when I work with clients as a Communications Artist.  In the film Margaret Thatcher, the only woman sitting in the House of Commons, is advised that before she runs for party leadership she'll have to do something about her shrill voice. So off she goes to a drama school voice teacher and learns how to speak from her center, lower her voice, and project authority. As I tell my clients, if you can use your voice as your secret weapon, the rest will follow. In Margaret Thatcher's case, the rest, as they say, is history. . . !