On March 10, the Plan-B Theatre Company and Meat and Potato Theatre, in a theatre laboratory project led by Tobin Atkinson, showcased two 25-minute plays, Self-Storage, written by Elaine Jarvik, and Stumped, written by Debora Threedy. The performances were part of the company’s Script-in-Hand Series, which is a kind of trial run for new work by up-and-coming and established playwrights. The venue was relaxed and informal, set in the small Studio Theatre at the Rose Wagner Performing Arts Center. First, the scripts were read by well rehearsed actors, and then the audience participated in a discussion about the work. All seats were full and the audience responded with enthusiasm to both performances.

In 2008, Elaine Jarvik participated in the Humana Festival of New American Plays, with the 10-minute play “Dead Right”, in which a husband and wife discuss their obituaries at the dinner table. “Dead Right” is a comedy in the Lawrence Stern vein. As Stern’s Tristram Shandy keeps running up against the problem “I am not yet born,” the couple in “Dead Right” contemplates their obituary even though “they are not yet dead.”

“Self-Storage” is also a comedy that works with the problem of planning for the future, and trying to reconstruct the past. The play takes place in a storage facility, and the dialogue is between two people, a man—Tick (Josh Thoemke)—and a woman—Rosie (Stephanie Howell). Tick is a doomsday scenario fanatic whose wife has kicked him out because of his obsessions about the end of the world. Tick uses his unit to store his end-of-the-world paraphernalia, which includes the book “Every Dismal Thing,” a loud speaker, and a tinfoil thermal suit designed to keep a person warm in the event a catastrophe occurs in winter and there is no heat. Rosie is a normal suburban housewife who is guarded, but is also ready to listen to Tick’s paranoid ramblings. She uses her unit to reconstruct the bedroom of her young son who was killed in a car accident. With humor and poignancy Jarvik juxtaposes Rosie’s real sadness caused by a quotidian event that occurred in the past against Tick’s hyperbolic fantasy projected into the future. Under the direction of Alexandra Harbold the play comes to life, with enjoyable performances from both Howell and Thoemke.

Thoemke does a good job of capturing Tick’s anxiety, caused by an obsession with saving the world through preparedness at the expense of alienating his wife and children, while Howell captures the tension inside Rosie’s mind. She always seems to be on the brink of abandoning Tick as he talks. Her normal reaction to a person like Tick would be to nervously smile and leave as soon as possible, but she doesn’t. She listens and from time to time finishes his sentences with humorous comments. When Tick names off the many possible disasters awaiting humankind, “nuclear war, EMPs, terrorism, bio-terrorism, chemical warfare, near Earth objects, rogue states, dirty bombs…” Rosie chimes in, “Locusts!” She even dons one of his tinfoil thermal suits upon his insistence. Her reciprocity leads Tick to believe that she, too, is concerned about the end of the world, and, in her acceptance of his “help,” she helps him feel less lonely in his hallucination.

But she also tries to bring him closer to reality. When Tick talks about being ready for an earthquake, she asks him if he is ready for a 9.0 earthquake, which makes him admit he is not. “When does it stop?” she asks almost pleadingly. Of course, she is not only asking Tick this question, but herself as well. Her shrine to her dead son is a secret that she keeps from her husband who believes it is time to move on.

“Stumped” is written by the more established playwright Debora Threedy, who is one of the two playwrights of Plan-B’s current production of “Wallace,” about authors Wallace Stegner and Wallace Thurman and which premiered at the Rose Wagner this month to favorable reviews. Like “Self-Storage,” Threedy’s play works with the themes of past trauma and the desire to do good in the future.

However, “Stumped” is the more cerebral of the two. (Threedy holds a professorship at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah.) And emotionally, Threedy is more in the company of playwrights such as Lisa Loomer, Paula Vogel, and Caryl Churchill.

There are times when “Stumped” (deftly directed by Mark Fossen) produces that gut-wrenching feeling caused by the injustice inflicted by men of authority on the disempowered, in this case a young woman who has had a tubal ligation against her will.

The play consists of two dramatic spaces, one real and one imagined. In the real, a law student, Debora (Colleen Lewis), studies a Supreme Court case for her class. The imagined is Debora’s thought experiment about what would happen if the plaintiff, Linda (Deena Marie Manzanares), met with the defendant, the judge (Josh Thoemke), who issued the court order for Linda’s tubal ligation.

Threedy does a fine job of setting the dry judicial language of the case as it is in the book against the emotional desperate language of the women the case involves. Debora herself narrates the case as events unfold in her imagination. Linda demands answers from her mother (Stephanie Howell) and the judge. When she enters the judge’s office she calls herself “karma.” Debora wants the case to make sense, because she herself is studying to be a lawyer. As she says, “unfairness has always pushed my buttons.” She wants to believe that justice is fair despite evidence to the contrary.

In a way, “Stumped” and “Self-Storage” mirror one another. In “Self-Storage,” the probability of an apocalyptic catastrophe (future) is juxtaposed with the reality of a personal human catastrophe (past). In “Stumped,” a legal case from a law book (past) is juxtaposed with a young woman’s desire to do good in a system that seems unfair (future). Both work with two dramatic spaces which are in dialogue with one another, and, in both instances, one space is full of facts, statistics, and a desire to change the future and the other is full of loneliness, longing, and a desire to change the past.

As an audience we can appreciate both of these states. All of us have thought about putting on some sort of aegis, be it a lawyer’s suit or tinfoil thermal underwear, in order to not only make the world better for ourselves, but for our fellow human beings as well. Indeed, this theatrical laboratory is testing and finding compelling significant evidence of Anthony Neilson’s proposition that the playwright, unique among the community of writers, effectively masters an immediately valid and relevant forum “that truly captures the impression of our fragile and transient lives.” For example, these two readings reverberate in their contemporary connections to recent events. The volume of donations contributed to tsunami and earthquake relief is a testament to our desire to help others, but somehow it is never enough. No matter how much we all donated to Haiti none of us could have prevented the earthquake in Chile. As storytellers, these playwrights remind us just how ephemeral our sense of order and stability actually is.

Saturday at Centro Cívico Mexicano, 155 S. 600 W. in Salt Lake City, several hundred Latinos met for Rumbo a la reforma migratoria or working towards immigration reform. The subject was Utah’s role in the immigration debate. At the end, there was to be a vote on potential actions. After brief introductions, the community meeting went to the point.

A two-minute orientation indicated three priorities for immigration reform: 1. criteria for the legalization of undocumented immigrants, 2. more justice in the system and 3. more efficient and less costly processes.

Two questions were posed for participants: 1. What should the community do to improve immigration policy? 2. What is your personal role?

The meeting shifted to audience participation. The microphone was open. Every voice counted.

Speeches, including those of organizers, were limited to two minutes. Some people wrote commentaries on 3×5 index cards.

One card read in translation, “To whom it may concern, my name is Humberto [last name omitted] and my point of view is that all the people should support this type of meeting because all of us support a just reform for everyone. Personally, I exhort all people to support a march on 21 March. Yes, we can. [Telephone number omitted].”

More than thirty people spoke.

Ramiro, a seven-year-old, made plain an issue: “I can go to Mexico and come back. My father cannot.”

Jose said, “we are losing the game por goleada, by blowout, for failure to make our voices heard.” He later recommended five steps: 1. march to the Capitol on March 21, 2. meeting with members of Congress, 3. a no-buy day, 4. increased effort to inform and involve people and 5. another community meeting.

Alicia spoke in favor of a march with positive messages.

Georgia spoke about the urgency of reform and strongly encouraged the values of studiousness and hard work.

Ruben said the purpose of the meeting was to organize and to use a community voice: “we are people with dignity. We do not have to continue hiding.”

Gladys said, “I do not want to keep hiding. I agree with the march. We also need to study and do the best we can.”

Laura said, “we need these types of meetings for information. We ourselves need to make the difference.”

Johnny from Odgen talked about an organization that had essentially become dormant. He said, “It is time the organization became active again. It is time to stop being silent.”

Efrain spoke about the importance of learning English: “speaking English opens up many opportunities. It is necessary to learn English.”

Many others spoke in favor of learning English and in favor of showing that the Latino community was patriotic to the U.S. There was broad support for using the American flag exclusively.

After an hour, nobody had spoken against a march. People in the audience were encouraged to present a dissenting view. Nobody did.

Two hours into the meeting, people voted. Almost everyone stood up in favor of a march on March 21. Those who did not stood up for a demonstration at a fixed location.

Emi covered the fundamentals: “Enough with divisions among ourselves. This is a country of immigrants. We must stand up, and we must excel. I favor the march.”

Utahns will march on March 21 for just immigration reform. Tentatively, people will gather at City Hall in downtown Salt Lake City. The event will begin at 11 a.m. and include a march to and from the state Capitol. All are invited.

Near the end of Plan-B Theatre’s ‘Wallace,’ Wallace Thurman stands on a wooden table surrounded by three chairs and a circle of yellow rejection letters. He declares, “I am a human—being.” Actor Carleton Bluford deftly blends a plea for understanding with an assertion of identity.

‘Wallace,’ from two scripts by Jenifer Nii and Debora Threedy, alternates and overlaps the stories of Wallace Thurman (1902-1934) and Wallace Stegner (1909-1993), both of whom spent much of their childhood in Salt Lake City. Thurman wrote, lived and died young at the core of the Harlem Renaissance. Stegner won prizes and fame for books and letters. Though Thurman and Stegner likely never met, Jerry Rapier cleverly directs their interaction on stage.

Wallace begins with the song “The Big Rock Candy Mountain” and its paradisiacal suggestions of lemonade springs, alcohol streams and endless sunshiny days. The novel “The Big Rock Candy Mountain” supplies much of the dialogue for the Stegner side of Wallace.

Childhood was rough for both Wallaces. Stegner became strong at the broken places while Thurman longed to leave Utah, a place in which there was a “devil on every inbound train” and where he felt among “black pioneers in a strange, white land.”

The first scene and interaction lay plain the contrast. Richard Scharine plays Stegner in his sixties. Stegner wears a white sweater with an Indian motif, sits alone at a table and discusses autobiography and fiction. He feels most comfortable at a typewriter. Scharine hews close to this theme and renders his side of Wallace a celebration of Stegner’s prose.

Carleton Bluford plays Thurman in his twenties. Thurman stands against a wall in darkness behind the table. He wears a sharp suit with suspenders. Thurman leaps onto the table in front of Stegner and sings “Fire!!.” His singing, movement and words evoke the Harlem Renaissance in which Thurman played an important role.

Near the middle of Wallace, Stegner pulls a book from the table and reads. Attention focuses entirely on words that combine with setting for beauty, insight and nostalgia. It becomes akin to a meditation. Stegner asks if we have come to paradise only to ruin it.

Thurman pulls “Fire!!” from the same table. “Fire!!” was published once during the Harlem Renaissance, a label Thurman challenges for lack of antecedent attention: “Had there been an interest in Negroes before and I missed it?” Thurman applies the term “Niggerati” to himself, Langston Hughes, Zora Neale Hurston and others who formed part of Harlem’s African-American literary movement. Thurman proudly called his house “Niggerati Manor.” It was a gathering place for writers and artists in Harlem. Alcohol streams flowed.

Thurman speaks against the idea of artists as representatives not of who people are but who they can be. He writes about prejudice among black people. He asserts a reality clearly uncomfortable given the yellow rejection letters and criticism from peers. Albeit uncomfortable, the reality is authentic. Equally authentic are the ever-present silver flask and the nagging cough, both of which contribute to Thurman’s early death.

Salt Lake City unites Thurman and Stegner. Both struggled through troubled youths here. Wallace Stegner once wrote, “I hunted the Big Rock Candy Mountain” because ”I wanted to hunt up and rejoin the civilization I had been deprived of.” Wallace Thurman sought “a dream city with wide-awake realities. Stegner gained wide readership and appreciation during his hunt. Thurman found a vibrant city, but he died young and largely unknown. Thurman and the actor who plays him deserve a look and appreciation through “Wallace.”

Because the world premiere run of “Wallace” has virtually sold out, a performance has been added on Sunday, March 14, at 5:30 pm. For ticket information, see here. More background about the show can be seen here from The Selective Echo.

Wallace Stegner, Angle of Repose, 1971

“Then possibly…life would open up for her, for it seemed as if its doors yielded more easily to the casual, self-centered individual than to the ranting, praying pilgrim. After all, it was the end that mattered, and one only wasted time and strength seeking facile open-sesame means instead of pushing along a more difficult and direct path…Her motto from now on would be ‘find–not seek.’ All things were at one’s fingertips. Life was most kind to those who were judicious in their selections, and she, weakling that she now realized she was, had not been a connoisseur.”

Wallace Thurman, The Blacker the Berry, 1929

Critics and authors alike have said, in one form or another, that all writing is a revenge on childhood and that when confronted with the profound effects of continuous family upheaval and the sense of one’s rootlessness, writers strive to reestablish their identities in the home of their spiritual self.

We may venture far from our childhood homes to fulfill the desire for personal and intellectual fulfillment but the unconscious impulse to reconcile and reclaim those earlier fleeting moments of love, approval, and a sense of belonging always is active even when they were obscured by the pain and disappointment of previous rejection and betrayal. The arc of the individual stories might be surprisingly familiar for their consistency but the experience of revelation almost always will take strikingly different paths. Nonetheless, the themes are virtually universal.

In Plan-B Theatre’s world premiere of Wallace, the seemingly disparate biographical storylines of two authors with Utah roots – Wallace Stegner and Wallace Thurman – harmonize in a provocative exploration of those universal pulses.

The production runs March 4 through March 14 in the Studio Theatre at the Rose Wagner Center for The Performing Arts. Performance times are Thursdays through Saturdays at 8 p.m., Saturdays at 4 p.m., and Sundays at 2 p.m.

While some may wonder about the artistic risks surrounding such a bold experimental production, this award-winning theater company in Salt Lake City, finding itself increasingly comfortable with staging truly original work that challenges jaded mainstream sensibilities, certainly will do its best to assuage any skepticism.

Perhaps the biggest challenge has already been successfully answered – the collaborative work of playwrights Jenifer Nii and Debora Threedy, who originally penned separate treatments of these writers, and producing director Jerry Rapier, who envisioned the creative potential of the harmonizing resonance in their stories. Threedy’s solo work, “Where I Come From,” was commissioned by the Wallace Stegner Center for Land, Resources and the Environment, coinciding with the centennial of his birth (1909) while Nii’s treatment of Thurman, “Fire!” was commissioned by Plan-B.

At first glance, the contrasts of both writers run deep. Stegner had a long productive career, living into his middle 80s, while Thurman, who was born earlier in the same decade, died of tuberculosis in his early 30s. Stegner’s publication record was impressive: 13 novels, six collections of stories and essays, and a tireless track record as editor, contributor, and magazine journalist. He won many awards including the Pulitzer Prize in 1972 for “Angle of Repose.”

Even 17 years after his death, Stegner’s presence in the literary world remains undeniable, especially in the West, and, in particular, among Utahns. He wrote highly praised books about the Mormons and naturalist John Wesley Powell and, by near-unanimous claim, his fiction and nonfiction works reflecting the geography and the historical essences of the West have secured his permanent place among the most influential figures in the American literary tradition. While the public record on his evangelism for the protection and the preservation of the environment is well known, Threedy draws her Stegner portrait inward, reflected in many ways through his fiction.

Although Thurman died at 32, his record suggests its own impressively prodigious output as a key figure in the Harlem Renaissance. He was a journalist, novelist, playwright, mentor, and ghostwriter. More often comfortable as a satirist than as a novelist, he was asked by Langston Hughes in 1926 to edit the avant-garde magazine “Fire!!” intended as a platform for young black writers to establish their own literary identities. Later, in his short career, he published the mainstream magazine “Harlem: A Forum of Negro Life.” Among his best-known works were “The Blacker The Berry,” a 1929 novel examining interracial prejudices among lighter-skinned and darker-skinned individuals, and “Infants of Spring,” a 1932 roman a clef perhaps far more noteworthy as biographical documentary than as character-driven satirical fiction.

However, it is the simple geographical fact that both considered Salt Lake City their home, especially during a good portion of their formative years, which gives the new play the genesis of its structural integrity. Thurman lived 19 years – more than half of his life – in Salt Lake City. Stegner, seven years Thurman’s junior, was born in 1909 and moved to Salt Lake City in 1921. In the nine years that Stegner lived in Salt Lake City, his family moved at least 12 times within the city. Stegner returned to SLC later on as a teacher and invited scholar at the University of Utah.

Both had disrupted family lives during their early years. Both were fiercely independent. Thurman, gay and a regular on the alcohol-fueled social party scene, could be a biting satirist, openly questioning the lasting artistic substance of the Harlem Renaissance. In fact, some cultural historians regard his importance more on terms of his influence with young black writers than in the merits of his work.

“The Blacker The Berry” received many scathing reviews at the end of the 1920s for its harsh – and what many critics considered as unacceptable – look at color bias among blacks. Yet, its impassioned defense of dark-colored skin finds similarly sensationalized tones in the more recent Oscar-nominated film “Precious: Based on The Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire.”

Stegner grew up in impoverished circumstances and his parents never advanced past the sixth grade in their education. Yet, it is clear in the Q&A featured below, that both writers acknowledged and accepted the hardships in stride as part of the definitive American experience. That pulse echoes throughout the collaborative work of Threedy, Nii, and Rapier. And, the two men — just as the case in real life — never meet on stage.

The 70-minute production features Richard Scharine as Stegner and Carleton Bluford as Thurman. The creative crew includes Cheryl Ann Cluff, sound design; Phillip R. Lowe, costume design; Randy Rasmussen, set design; Cory Thorell, lighting design, and Jennifer Freed, stage manager.

Tickets for the production are $20 and $10 for students. For more information, call 801-355-ARTS or see here.

In addition to the production, there are numerous events related to the work of both authors, including Uconoclasts, an art gallery exhibition at the Rose Wagner Center, featuring a dozen word and visual portraits of major Utah literary figures prepared by Ken Sanders and Trent Call. Also, there is the 15th annual symposium of the Wallace Stegner Symposium (March 12-13), free screenings of documentaries featuring the Harlem Renaissance and Stegner’s life (March 8-9, respectively). A March 3 preview performance will benefit Wallace Stegner Center for Land, Resources and the Environment. There also will be a March 1 free reading of the Peoples Production’s The Talented Tenth by Richard Wesley. For information on these and all events related to the production, see here.

The Selective Echo also is pleased to feature this Q&A with Threedy, Nii, and Rapier.

SE: Individually, what particular aspects of each figure inspired you to write about them? And, how did you see your particular subject figure being presented to emphasize the notion of place and home?

NII: There was so much I didn’t know, but felt strongly that I should have known, about Wallace Thurman. He was such an interesting, unique, dynamic person. Someone who emerged at a time and from an environment that you’d think would have inhibited him from doing the things he did, and becoming the person he became. He didn’t let that happen.

In terms of place and home: Again, in many ways, Thurman (at least the Thurman that’s available to us through his and other peoples’ writing) was a product of both. Growing up black, and gay, and non-LDS in Utah surely shaped his perspective of the world, and strengthened certain aspects within him. Then, as a central figure in the Harlem Renaissance — which itself was a defining period in American and world cultural evolution — he was enveloped in, and helped grow and develop a safe place where people could come together and inspire one another and play and argue together.

THREEDY: In the fall of 2008, the Stegner Center at the University of Utah put out a call for submissions for ideas on how to celebrate the life of Wallace Stegner at the symposium honoring the centennial of his birth (he was born in 1909); I submitted the idea of a one-man play to be written by me and performed at the symposium. The idea was accepted and I asked Jerry Rapier to direct.

My intent was to focus on Stegner’s life; there were going to be a lot of people at the conference talking ABOUT Stegner and I thought it would be kind of cool to let Stegner speak for himself, as it were. I tell a story of his moving from homelessness (in the sense of moving all over the country and also in the sense of having an abusive father) in his childhood to making a home with his wife, Mary. So it’s a story of redemption, and of moving from “rootlessness” to being “rooted.”

SE: Initially each of you was writing a separate treatment of your respective figure. Was there any initial skepticism on either part when it was proposed to unite the figures together in the story? And, how did you see the stories being successfully joined into one piece – especially where one writer lived a long productive life but the other, despite his prodigious output, died at an early age?

NII: I wouldn’t call it skepticism, but certainly it was an idea I’d never have thought of. We were lucky, I think, or at least I felt lucky that Jerry just asked us to go and write our own pieces and not think about linking them together. That’d be all his.

Clearly, there are enormous differences between the two Wallaces. On the outside, it’d seem that they only shared a place and a name. But the really cool thing about this project is that there emerged so many commonalities, so many resonant images.

THREEDY: No skepticism on my part. It was Jerry’s idea, but I trust Jerry’s insights; I think he’s an incredibly creative person. From the beginning the idea was that Jen and I would write our separate pieces and then someone would combine the two stories into one story (at the beginning Jerry wasn’t sure if he’d do it or if he’d recruit someone else to do it). So I went into it knowing that I’d be relinquishing some control over the final product. I was okay with that — theater after all is an incredibly collaborative art form and no single person ever has complete control over the final product — and I still am okay with that. I’ve been amazed at how the two pieces create this resonance between these two men’s lives, despite them being opposites in so many ways.

There are times where Stegner says something and then a little while later Thurman says something that echoes that — not repeating, just echoing — and vice versa. And in most cases this was totally serendipitous. I can think of only one instance where, after I’d heard Jen’s piece, I said to myself — “Stegner said something like that” — and so I went back and added that little piece. Which was this: I’d deliberately chosen to not focus on Stegner’s environmentalism, because that piece of his public life is fairly well known, and I wanted to concentrate on his private life (which he made public in a way through his fiction).

But when I heard where Jen had Thurman talking about an artist’s obligations to speak out, and of course he was speaking in terms of racial discrimination, I suddenly realized that Stegner had said something similar about an artist’s obligation to pay attention to the world he lives in, from an environmental perspective, and so I added that piece. But other than that, any resonances you hear in the two pieces — and there are lots — are totally unplanned.

SE: What were among the surprising elements that you discovered in researching and writing about both Wallaces?

NII: See second paragraph above.

THREEDY: I knew nothing about Thurman, had never even heard of him until Jerry suggested this project, so everything about Thurman is new to me. And surprisingly, while I thought I knew a bit about Stegner it turns out there was lots I didn’t know.

The most dramatic piece of information about his life is — spoiler alert — I discovered that the scene in Big Rock Candy Mountain where the protagonist finds out his father killed a woman and then committed suicide was literally true. Stegner’s father, after the death of his mother, was involved with this woman and living in a fleabag hotel in downtown Salt Lake City. For reasons that are unclear, one day they had a fight and Stegner Sr. pulled out a gun and shot her in the hotel lobby, then walked outside and shot himself. I had no idea. Stegner’s father is buried in the Salt Lake Cemetery, as are Stegner’s mother and his brother. The father’s grave, however, is unmarked.

At the end of his second biographical novel, Recapitulation, the protagonist relents and buys a headstone for his father’s grave — but Stegner never did. When asked why not, he said: “I never felt the need.”

SE: In terms of casting, how did you settle on the actors portraying the two writers?

NII: Jerry’d be best to answer this one. All I know is that Carleton came in and from the first cold reading I heard out loud the voice I’d been hearing in my head during the writing process. It was freaky, and cool.

RAPIER: And that’s why I cast Carleton – when the playwright says the voice they’ve written is coming out of the actor in front of you, you have to listen!

THREEDY: We had open auditions for Stegner and both Jerry and I agreed that Richard gave by far the strongest audition. He just nailed it.

RAPIER: We knew Richard was our Stegner within the first few seconds of his audition.

SE: While most audience members likely will be familiar with Stegner, Thurman will be a new name to them. How did this influence the development of this production?

NII: I think it meant that in the writing I’d have to find ways to weave in biography, period and place. So part of my challenge, and I don’t know how effectively I addressed it, was to figure out ways and places to do that. To balance the introductory elements with the deeper layers.

THREEDY: Jen and I have talked about how we both had very different but intimidating challenges in doing this. Stegner is this iconic figure, he’s written a ton, there are two biographies of him, many people are familiar with his writing, he’s given a lot of interviews, and I wanted to use his own words as much as I could. So my challenges were first of all not to be intimidated by Stegner’s prose. After that, it was the job of going through this tremendous body of work, sorting and choosing, and cutting and pasting, to make some sort of new and coherent story.

But at the end of the day, I’d guesstimate that 75-80% of my piece is Stegner’s own words. Conversely, Thurman is pretty much unknown and his prose didn’t translate well to the spoken word. So Jen’s challenge was to be much more imaginative. I actually am in awe of Jen’s accomplishment; I think she had the more daunting task and the one that took more creativity.

SE: The biographies of both of these men serve to propel a deeper, expansive theme that underlies virtually every interaction and public discussion in contemporary Salt Lake City and Utah and that is the presence of the “Other,” the stranger in an unfamiliar place. This seems to provide that essential genesis, the impulse for creative work reflecting the individualistic, entrepreneurial spirit so characteristic in Utah. I would like each of your thoughts on this thematic aspect.

NII: Again, I think that while part of what makes Thurman so interesting is just how “Other” he seemed, I think the impression he ultimately left with me was that despite all the things that set us apart, or make us feel alienated or outcast, we are all, in the end, human. In the end, we are one. It was good for me to be reminded of that, and it’s one of many reasons I’m grateful to have participated in this project.

THREEDY: Absolutely both Stegner and Thurman were “outsiders” in Utah, but more generally as well. Neither of them were Mormon, so there was that. Stegner has a whole essay he wrote about how strange it was that he felt like Salt Lake was his hometown, given that he would forever be an outsider to a faith-based sense of the place. And, of course, Thurman’s skin marked him as an outsider, in more ways than one. But it goes far beyond these superficial marks of “outsiderness.”

And it’s a theme that resonates deeply with me. I have felt like an outsider my whole life, and I think I share that feeling with Stegner and probably with Thurman. Sometimes I wonder if it’s part of what it means to be an artist. To be on the outside looking in, even when you are the most engaged in living life. Or maybe it’s just part of being human.

It seems like some of us are just more in tune with the existentialist notion that all of us are alone in our own skins. Maybe being an artist is about trying to connect with another stranger across that existentialist divide.

CREDITS FOR PHOTOS AND ART: Art by Trent Call; Photos by Plan-B and Rick Pollock

First on deck is the Oscar-nominated 2009 film, “The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers,” directed by Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith. The film will be screened Thursday, Feb. 25, at 7 p.m. in the City Library Auditorium. Following the film will be a panel discussion with Michael Chandler, the documentary’s co-editor and co-writer; Rocky Anderson, former SLC mayor, City Weekly Editor Jerre Worble, and moderator Scott Renshaw.

The documentary, which premiered at last year’s Toronto International Film Festival, already has won the USA National Board of Review’s Freedom of Expression Award and a special jury prize at the Amsterdam International Documentary Film Festival.

In Toronto, Ellsberg, 78, electrified the crowd unlike other major activists (especially the likes of Michael Moore). Greg Payne, Toronto blogger, described the reaction at the screening: “True, it was a crowd already predisposed to be on his side politically (at one point he asked how many people had seen Errol Morris’ ‘The Fog of War’ and easily 90% of the audience shot their hands into the air and that pretty much says it all) but the crowd was in his hands no less than the Ryerson auditorium was in Jimmy Page’s hands at ‘It Might Get Loud’ last year.”

Calling it a journalistic drama equal to the intensity of Watergate’s ‘Deep Throat’, the Film Journal’s Chris Barsanti says the “filmmakers do an astounding job relating how Ellsberg brought the Pentagon Papers (which laid out in plain language how the Pentagon and White House had been lying through their teeth to the public about the war) to light.”

The journalistic edge continues in full form with the March 1 screening of “Burma VJ” directed by Denmark’s Anders Østergaard, nominated for an Oscar this year as best documentary feature. The film already has seven awards to its credit. The film will be screened at 7 p.m. in the City Library Auditorium.

The 84-minute film follows independent journalists — VJ standing for video journalists — who use small consumer cameras to document anti-government activities in Burma, and the footage is then smuggled to Norway where the Democratic Voice of Burma operates a television station in exile and beams the video via satellite back to Burma. In particular, the film follows the major 2007 uprisings by Buddhist monks that reverberated around the world.

On one hand, there is the power of new media. As the New York Times’ A. O. Scott wrote: “The viral videos of the Democratic Voice of Burma are like the hidden printing presses of earlier underground revolutionary movements, except that the portability of the cameras and the ease of Web and satellite-based distribution make them harder to suppress.” Unfortunately, as Scott explains, the “narrative of ‘Burma VJ’ takes on a somber, elegiac cast, as the potential for freedom flares up and is, in short order, snuffed out.”

On March 8, in conjunction with the University of Utah’s Middle East Center, the award-winning film “Waltz With Bashir,” directed by Ari Folman, will be screened at 7 p.m. at the Post Theater on the U campus at 245 Fort Douglas Boulevard.

Constructed like a conventional documentary, the animated film of 2008 opens one night at a bar where an old friend tells the director about a recurring nightmare in which he is chased by 26 vicious dogs. The number is significant because it represents the time lapse since the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the widespread massacre of Palestinians in refugee camps. Although the massacre was carried out by a Christian militia, the Israeli military had the authority to stop the bloodshed but decided not to intercede. The title also is a reference to the young Lebanese leader Bashir Gemayel who was assassinated just prior to the invasion.

As the great film critic Roger Ebert describes it, Folman “sets out to interview Israeli army friends who were also there, and his film resembles ‘Rashomon’ in the way truth depends not on facts but on who witnessed them, and why.”

More intriguing is Folman’s use of animation, his first such foray, especially in reconstructing memories. As Ebert notes, “the freedom of animation allows him to visualize what they tell him — even their nightmares.”

For more information about SLC Film Center offerings, see here.

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”—Dwight D. Eisenhower

The “tea party” movement indicates growing frustration and anger over an important point: government increasingly serves interests, not people. Change is necessary. The core “tea party” principle of excessive spending serves as a start.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government will spend $3.5 trillion in 2010.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid account for $1.5 trillion. Defense totals $684 billion. Outlays for interest amount to $207 billion. Smaller items including transportation, education, social services, income security and government departments make up the rest of spending.

With a projected deficit of $1.3 trillion in 2010 and deficits over the next decade averaging $671 billion, Congress and the President must implement fiscal discipline so hard decisions must be made.

Government should thoroughly review programs for costs and benefits.

Health care comprises one-sixth of the economy. Absent changes in federal law, health care will make up one-fourth of the economy by 2025. Taxpayer dollars fuel this industry. In 2005, 45 percent of health care expenditures were public. This is not a free market.

Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and others who profit from health care spending have opposed measures that could cut into their income. Among these are the single-payer system and a public option for coverage.

Wise health care reform should streamline bureaucracy, require greater transparency concerning treatment and cost, and encourage personal responsibility. Insurers and health care providers are happy about more money that could come from broad coverage mandates but unhappy about stricter controls. This is hypocrisy and political power run wild. Good policy must serve the people.

Defense spending amounts to $1.88 billion per day and should not be exempt from review. The U.S. faces security challenges but these should not be bandied about for partisan politics and profits. The firm Blackwater stands out for raking in taxpayer money, much of it from no-bid contracts. Numerous elected officials are in jail or have faced or are facing investigation for improper ties to defense firms.

Reducing spending will be difficult. Recently, several Utah Congressmen complained about defense cuts affecting F-22 aircraft. They worried about jobs at Hill Air Force Base. This is understandable; nevertheless, honest review of defense spending must evaluate programs for cost, effectiveness and need. Local and regional concerns are important, but they should not be controlling.

Fiscal challenges facing the U.S. are great. While deficit spending makes sense in rough times, current spending is not sustainable. While the deficit commission concept is useful for political cover, politicians of both parties should start talking the specifics of balancing expenditures and revenues.

According to 2010 budget reports, the State of Utah will spend approximately $4.5 billion in discretionary funds. Some spending areas and their respective percentages are: public education, 50.1 percent; higher education, 15.8 percent; corrections, 7.1 percent; health, 7.0 percent, and human services, 5.9 percent. This year, the legislature has concentrated on economic issues. Interests that receive state money have lobbied ferociously to defend their shares. Ordinary people have quieter voices.

Utah politics largely is disgusting. Last week after a standing committee hearing, Utah representative Ryan Wilcox told Tony Yapias and me that he was with our community but that he could not vote that way because he was only a freshman. Nice example of political courage. Not long afterwards, someone suggested I could not write that because it could jeopardize future votes. I struggled with this for a day. Okay, politics is dirty, but bad rules must change. Let’s start with honesty.

Representatives of both parties should be able to stand on their own, speak honestly and vote their conscience. The legislature should employ what most of us are taught in grade school: public policy is about doing the right thing for the public. The process should not be a backroom one of vote counting, vote trading and special interest calculation. Leadership and caucuses that impose themselves beyond organizing for vigorous debate should be damned.

Policymakers at all levels must formulate wiser strategies and counter misplaced power that has practically embedded itself in government.

We must demand more responsible government, but we must do so substantively. We also must prepare for sacrifice.

The new 14-foot chandelier in the entry hall of Tuscany, the elegant Italian restaurant which sits in Holladay at the base of the Wasatch Mountains, is a marvel of the captivating art form of blown glass.

Its sheer magnitude — with a weight of two tons and 85 percent of that represented in pure crystal — is as ingenious for its engineering as it is for aesthetics. Depicting an old grape vine with the soil removed along with plump grapes of glass and optically pure crystal drops of water coursing through the roots, the 2000-piece chandelier effectively recreates the sense of being on a Tuscan hillside.

Commissioned by restaurant owners Mark Eaton and Guy Wadsworth, the art was created by Tom, Treavor and Richard Holdman in their family-owned business based in Lehi, the only fully functioning glass blowing studio in Utah. In fact, the furnaces in the studio, which reach temperatures of more than 2,000 degrees F., had to operate around the clock to support the melting and annealing processes for the glass.

As guests enter they get the feeling they are underground looking at the roots absorbing water. Then as they move upstairs to the second floor balcony, a grape vine railing suggests that it is attached to the ancient grape vine. To their right, viewers see a mural of a grape harvest so the chandelier ties these artistic elements together, Tom Holdman explains.

The project’s complexity seemed to barely faze Tom and his brothers who are accustomed to large commissions. Their work can be found worldwide as well as in each of the 50 states, including art glass for 18 LDS temples and the Utah Valley University Library. To realize the visual effect of water flowing into the grapes, Tom knew that it had to be animated or computer controlled. The steel-framed piece, with the frame hidden so that it looks like a floating piece of glass, incorporates more than 5,000 LED lights of white, red, green, blue and amber strung together along 3,200 feet of wire. Pure crystal was shaped into roots, bark, and grape clusters and especially was used along the roots to resemble clear water. Some root stems reach downward by as much as five feet. Richard Holdman designed the dedicated computer systems for the animated lighting and sounds, which recreate the soft chimes of a grandfather clock. The lights can be programmed for particular seasonal and holiday effects.

A video of the project also is available here.

Tom Holdman also graciously agreed to a Q&A about the project. The Selective Echo is pleased to offer his responses.

SE: The art is stunning not only for its magnificence in size and strength but also for its delicacy, intimacy, and fragility. What were the challenges in this artistic process ensuring that the work not only fit in with the requirements of the restaurant’s space but also captured the essential character of Tuscany itself?

TH: The Tuscany’s decor has a really organic feel to it. I knew the piece needed the same feel but also to capture a fresh look. The restaurant has exceptional food and style already and I knew the piece had to be one of the best things Holdman Studios has ever done, especially to set the tone of your whole experience as you walk into the lobby. The piece also acts as a buffer between the second-story balcony and the reception area.

SE: As in any other art form, glass demands complete and exacting dedication especially in dealing with the numerous trial and error experiences involved in mastering this medium. How does an artist move from learning these time-enduring skills to being able to realize these art forms impressive in scope and natural beauty?

TH: Art glass is definitely not a very forgiving medium. You really need to learn the rules so you know when it’s okay to break them. I had been doing stained glass for 16 years and pushed that about as far as it could be pushed. The next higher step was to go from a 2-D surface to 3-D glass sculpture. It was a definite jump not only in working with glass at 2200 degrees but in engineering the piece to hold up structurally. What pushes me harder then anything is for a person to say it can’t be done. I’m so grateful for patrons of the arts that can see the vision from just a small sketch.

SE: Clearly, the design embodies the very essence of functionality. Not only does the piece deliver the aesthetics but it also delivers an experience to every visitor at Tuscany. In terms of your own artistic temperament, how did you envision this dynamic in designing the project so that it would definitively transcend the mere ephemeral sense of curiosity and add to the visitor’s overall experience?

TH: Glass has such a magical quality to its makeup. I don’t think I will ever realize its full potential. Molten glass also deserves respect. But if you work with the trio partnership of Glass, Light, and You, the glass will definitely exceed your expectations. Give it some direction and let the music happen. I feel that making a piece in art glass is not just one piece of art but hundreds as the light changes so does the piece dramatically — almost as if it’s a living, breathing thing. Good art brings the individual into it emotionally and not just as eye candy. My goal is to create an art piece to bring the viewer back again and again to examine the wonder of glass and light.

People always ask me what’s the favorite piece I’ve done. I tell them it’s the one I’m about to start. I say that because every piece needs to have a part of me left behind. I also need to focus on how can I make this the best piece of art it can be. I’m so grateful others have come on the journey with me.

Owners John and Yiching Piquet will use a two-bean blend consisting of Brazil Sweet Yellow Bourbon from Daterra Farms and an El Salvador bean from Finca Matalpa, a fourth-generation family farm. John describes the blend as offering “sweet woody and spice notes ranging from caraway to anise that merge into a roasted peach/peach juice finish.” The Piquets roasted the coffees separated, using different profiles to highlight unique flavors from each bean. And, with a nod to their well-honed scientifically precise craft, they shipped a portion of the blend to Colorado so it could be acclimated to particular environmental conditions.

A veritable geekfest for true coffee aficionados, the competition comprises making and serving 12 drinks (four espresso, four cappuccino, and four signature drinks) in fifteen minutes. Scores center around the espresso as it is the heart of all the drinks. Baristas are judged on, among other things, flavor balance, mouth feel, crema color/consistency, proper texturing and ratio of milk, consistency of shots (timing, volume), coffee knowledge and passion, and overall performance.

Win, lose, or draw: The simple fact of Caffe d’bolla’s participation in this competition further underscores just how the Piquets have been able to cultivate awareness of coffee not as a mere afterthought but as a truly extraordinary beverage with a primary culinary status that matches wine, chocolate, cheese, and other foods that merit serious attention.

For more Selective Echo articles about this magnificent downtown gem, see here, here, here, and here.

This 90-minute film, more a positive celebration of advertising’s creative and emotional potential than of shopworn critiques of mediocre and manipulative strategies and tactics, follows the unknown personalities behind the rarefied top two percent of creative ad campaigns and content. A free, public screening of this film, which premiered at 2009 Sundance, will be held Friday, Feb. 12, at 7 p.m. at the Salt Lake Art Center in downtown Salt Lake City.

In his artistic statement, Pray no doubt deeply admires the subjects of his film: “It was, of course, inspiring to meet these creatives and hear their passion for effective communication and their anger at boring clients and market research, but what amazed me was how much their commercial work was a direct reflection of their personal lives.” For example, he chronicles George Lois who grew up in a tough West Bronx neighborhood and went on to produce edgy ads for MTV and Hilfiger. Or, the story of the late Hal Raney whose ads for Saturn, Gallo, and Reagan sought to re-imagine the core emotions that were lost in his formative years during the Great Depression. Viewers will get inside scoops on the genesis for such venerated ad themes as Nike’s ‘Just Do It,’ the ‘Got Milk’ campaign, and ‘I Want My MTV.’

Yet, Pray is careful to push the stories outward toward larger themes that practitioners and spectators (consumers) of advertising could find equally compelling. As he explains, “I knew the film wasn’t going to be ‘Adbusters,’ it wasn’t ‘Mad Men,’ and none of us wanted to just make a straight tribute film to these ad legends—not even the One Club, the nonprofit advertising organization who funded the project and provided access to them (and, for the record, did not dictate the creative content of the film). I simply wanted to know: who are these unknown people who’ve so profoundly shaped our culture, and what can we learn from them?”

Pray effectively showcases the magic of these creators as noted by San Francisco film critic Graham Leggat. “Over the course of the film, it becomes clear many of the great advertising campaigns were crafted despite their clients, almost independently of their products,” he writes. “If there is such a thing as soul in a slogan, you will find it here, in the words, images and ideas of the finest Mad Men in the business.”

For more information about the SLC Film Center, see here, and for more about the featured film, see here.

PHOTO CREDIT: Film still features Rich Silverstein of Goodby, Silverstein, & Partners, and his pithy summary about his advertising philosophy.

“We have an opportunity every time the Winter Olympics comes around to be reminded of the impact on our community. There is no better stage than the Games themselves to remind the world what they discovered about Salt Lake when we were the host city,” says Scott Beck, resident and CEO of the Salt Lake Convention and Visitors Bureau (SLCVB). “Our brand as a legitimate world-class convention destination was born out of the Olympic experience, and our brand as a destination for world-class winter recreation was solidified at the same time.”

And, Utah’s industry will be well represented at the Games which begin Feb. 12 in Vancouver. The visit is hardly trivial. The group’s branding message remains simple yet definitely resilient. Each of the three cities (Salt Lake City, Park City, Ogden) has greatly benefited from hosting the Olympics, as shown in these three lasting legacies: growth in Utah’s tourism and convention industry; numerous world-class athletes now calling Utah home due to the state’s incredible sports infrastructure and, perhaps the most important legacy, the tremendous economic growth and prosperity enjoyed by the three destinations.

Recognized as one of the state’s eight key economic clusters, outdoor tourism and recreation’s economic development has seen many outdoor recreation companies relocate or expand operations in Utah, including Rossignol, Descente, Amer Sports, (parent company of Salomon, Atomic, Suunto).

“The 2002 Winter Olympics helped establish Snowbasin and the Ogden area as a prominent winter destination. That recognition has lead to an influx of visitors and winter sport enthusiasts eager to experience and take advantage of our area’s offerings,” explains Sara Toliver, president/CEO of the Ogden/Weber Convention & Visitors Bureau. “Equally important is the impact on our economic development. After discovering Ogden, many outdoor recreation-based businesses have relocated to the area as a result of our easy access to recreation and our quality of life.”

The overall numbers bear this impact out:

The legacy for Utah’s tourism and convention industry:

VISITORS — 20.4 million visitors in 2008 vs. 17 million in 2000(

UTAH SKIER DAYS — 4.259 million in 2007-08 vs. 2.984 million in 2001-02

INDUSTRY — $7.1 billion industry (2008) as compared to $4.25 billion prior to hosting the Olympics (2000)

JOBS — Responsible for 113,030 jobs (2008) vs. 100,674 in 2002.

“We have watched our hospitality product and its utilization grow significantly since hosting the Games,” says Bill Malone, president and CEO of the Park City Chamber and Visitors Bureau. “The popularity of Park City as a vacation destination has soared with the instant credibility afforded the community by hosting 26 medal events and being deemed ‘The Alpine Heart of 2002.’”

Malone adds, “With the community having embraced Alpine, Freestyle and Snowboarding World Cup events over the many years leading up to the Olympics, this has produced a pipeline of young athletes aspiring to become Olympians, many of whom will be competing in the Vancouver Games.”