Old Movies’ Review: ‘The Circus’ (1928)

by Laura Lai/Review

The film ‘The Circus’, written and directed by Charlie Chaplin, is a 1-hour silent, black and white comedy movie made in 1928. The action takes place at a circus, where a tramp (Charlie Chaplin) was the right person, at the right place and at the right time to be offered a job as an entertainer at the circus. Chased by the police, the tramp gets in the circus entertaining the crowd, who basically asked for him. Then there are lots of funny moments related to the tryouts for the job, as well as a love story unfolding between the tramp and the step-daughter (Merna Kennedy) of the circus owner (Allen Garcia).

The action is placed in the United States in 1928, when the economic situation of the country was looking bad. In October 1929 began the first world economic crisis, which lasted until 1933. It started in the United States, where 40-45 percent of the people were unemployed (those employed had the income diminished) and the strikes were frequent. The crisis hit the whole world and all economy’s branches. It is in this economic global context that in the 1920s in Europe, fascist governments took the political power: in Hungary, Italy, Portugal and then in Germany.

            Despite the limited technical means of those times, in order to express the unlimited artistic ideas that film directors have always been having, Charlie Chaplin made the historical dating of its movie perfectly clear although silently with hunger scenes and people on strike scenes. It is absolutely sensational the way Chaplin succeeded in including such despair scenes into a comedy, without using the despair in order to achieve a comedy, but only to time frame the movie. It was genius! Furthermore, despite the rough times, Chaplin did not omit to stress the drop of humanity still left in people by the scene in which the tramp shares a slice of bread.

            How did Charlie Chaplin achieve a comedy with the technical means of the beginning of the cinema, the make-up simplicity and without words or tone of the voice as the movie is silent? The director put lots of focus on the comicality of different situations: chases, mirror maze, revealing magician’s number, tight-rope walking and plenty of animals. For example, there is a scene where the tramp is on the tight-rope under the assault of monkeys, or in another scene the tramp is in a lion's cage. But foremost what makes this movie a comedy is Charlie Chaplin’s comedian talent to be so expressive and so funny when he expresses himself silently.

I believe that this type of rough contexts and these types of artistic findings to achieve a comedy are what make the movies eternal, its actors showing even better their brilliance and their directors acting like real magicians when achieving wide public success with those economic times’ budget and technological means. The movie ‘The Circus’ won the U.S. Academy Awards in 1929, and Charlie Chaplin got the Honorary Award of the U.S. Academy.  

Reflecting Upon the American and the European Citizenship (I)

photo by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/Comment

Last week was the Constitutional Week in the United States. A whole week to celebrate the American Constitution! And how to celebrate it better than granting citizenship to new Americans and organize naturalizations ceremonies at the White House and across the country?!

            In my opinion, the history of the formation of the United States of America is the most beautiful political story of the modern times. In the context of the whole history of humankind, I find the story of the formation of the United States from its independence fight to the building of its institutions and the challenges of multiculturalism to a world superpower, as the most fascinating story to read after the story of the Old Testament.

            During this Constitutional Week, on the 17^th of September 2019, the Americans celebrated the Constitutional Day and the Citizenship Day. This was an opportunity and an invitation to reflect upon the meaning and importance of citizenship.

It was at the end of July 2019, when the U.S. President Donald Trump went to Virginia to celebrate 400 years since the first (continuing) legislative assembly of an elected 22-representative on the 31^st of July 1619 in Jamestown (to see the video, click here). It was the time when the U.S. was still a colony and from this self-governing initiative unfolds a fascinating 400-year democracy and state building. Nowadays, when a reform of the immigration policy looks more imperative than ever, Donald Trump said about the granting of U.S. citizenship that:

‘We don’t give them [immigrants] a permit, we give them a history, a heritage, a name, a future of limitless possibilities and potential.’

I can’t agree more with this point of view. In practice, the granting of citizenship by the host country is an honor that the society – who was there before, paid taxes and raised the country – grants the new comers. I cannot agree more that this is an acknowledgement on behalf of the society which forms the state of all struggles and all efforts of the new comer: to learn the language, to respect the laws, etc. And by applying and accepting the new citizenship is not like applying and accepting a permit, but the new comer takes an oath of loyalty to its choice country, whatever the reason might have been for that choice. The former general attorney of Virginia and the current director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services declared that:

‘We believe that US Citizenship is the greatest honor and privilege in the world. The Constitution ‘secures the blessings of liberties’ so that we can live in freedom, both individually and as a nation, by protecting our rights and providing for a common defense.’

In theory the concept of citizenship is a complex concept. And relating it to liberties, freedoms and common duties, means focusing on what the concept of citizenship means, its boundaries and also its fundamentals.

            Although complex, when citizenship is defined in terms of rights given by the state to its citizens, in order to freely gather, freely speak, etc. and duties from the citizens to respect the character of the state (usually secular) and its laws, citizenship as such is grounded on liberal values. Furthermore, it is always a state that grants citizenship. Therefore, the state’s boundaries are the limits within which the citizenship is exercised and it is in relation to the state that the citizenship is legally defined. The recent global action of school children and youngsters from all over the world to ‘go on strike’ in order to call on the political leaders to do more on global change, is more like an action of world’s citizens on a precise topic. It can be some sort of attitude-related citizenship that is difficult to be defined. Anyway, the fundamentals of citizenship were and still are: loyalty, patriotism, different forms of civic participation (voluntary work, etc.). From the point of view of the fundaments of citizenship, I also agree with Aristotle who said that ‘a good person is not necessarily a good citizen’. And I think that a good citizen is not necessarily always a good person (ex. citizens in jail for different felonies committed against members of the society). (to be continued)

Reflecting Upon the American and the European Citizenship (II)

photo by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/Comment

In this theoretical context, I am wondering how is it possible that a supranational forum, like the European Union is, to grant to all people living on its territory citizenship. Furthermore, how is it possible for a citizenship to be granted without the citizen having asked for it or without the citizen having expressed its interest. And how can be expected that citizens show patriotism to …a forum, which granted them citizenship without them having asked for it. Supposing that the European citizenship is an attitude-related citizenship – that is something vague and difficult to define – why is then imposed on everybody, including the skeptics?

            On the one side, there are the supranationalists – usually militating for more power for the central institutions in Brussels – who consider that citizenship should focus on convincing people to identify themselves with the supranational level because of the values its promotes. Democracy is one of these values, but the European Union is an association of democratic countries, which means that democracy is already promoted at national level.

But if citizenship means also voluntary/civic participation, I wonder how many of the supranationalists have ever engaged in non-profit activity to promote the European Union. When I was an euro-enthusiast, I managed one year of a non – profit book about the way a federal Europe would look like. It was an invitation to an imagination exercise that was very appreciated. If I regret it now that I am not an Euro-enthusiast? Absolutely not! It was a tough and (financially) struggling year to successfully manage the book project, but I did what I most like to do: to write. I also appreciate the U.S. President Donald Trump, who in his attempt to ‘make America great again’ he is the first to volunteer for the greatness of his country, by donating his entire annual income to organizations, which needs funds to bring greatness. There is no doubt that is difficult to carry on your shoulders the responsibilities of your country – that is almost as big as a continent – and that of the world – given the U.S. position in the world. And when one is doing it voluntarily that is patriotism.

            On the other side, there are the transnationalists, who oppose the supranationalists, but who consider that nation-states should work together in inter-governmental formats, but not supranationalism. To me, this institutional arrangement does not imply any form of citizenship (state or attitude related), but it requires informed citizens and equipped with certain understanding of things, to have arguments, to participate in debates if necessary. But democracy itself does not impose on its citizens any form of participation, because democracy and coercion are opposite by definition.

            And there are also the so called nation-state promoters, who oppose the constant grabbing of power by the center and supranational level. They are those who traditionally can grant citizenship in the state legal sense and require its citizens patriotic attitudes. And the citizen knows to whom it expresses its patriotism.

The European Union’s tendency to constantly increase its decisional power and concentrate it in the institutions in Brussels is something that the Americans have experienced, too. The former U.S. President Ronald Reagan approached the relationship between the central government and the states in its inaugural speech on January 20^th, 1981:

‘From time to time we’ve tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self rule that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by and of the people. If no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?’

In this one of my favorite natural and emotional speeches written with heart and with vision, Ronald Reagan also stressed that reference to ‘elite group’ is inappropriate because the real special group is the one, which was mostly neglected: those who feed, care, cure, teach, drive, etc. In three words: ‘We the People’.

‘All of us must be reminded that the federal government did not create the states, but the states created the federal government.’

All in all, the American institutional framework was an evolution from the bottom to the top. The European supranationalists impose from the top to the bottom an American inspired federal-structure, but they fall short in comparison to the American model and then they improvise with elements that dismiss all arguments of university education. The European Union contradicts theory so much, that European university education proves irrelevant.

             Furthermore, the government of the United Kingdom opposed with ‘took and nail’ since the 1980s to the grabbing of power by Brussels. Recently the ‘We the People’ of the United Kingdom voted in a referendum to take back control of their country, nowadays they are still struggling for independence and in the future they will probably take back their country with ‘tooth and nail’.

            In the United States every four year on January 20^th, all elected president solemnly swear to ‘protect, preserve and defend’ a 4,500-Word document called the United States Constitution, which is fundamental for the American state and its citizens. In all other theoretical confusions, so help us God! (the end)

The U.S. Border Crisis: The Deal with Mexico Works, But Can the Results Be Sustainable? (I)

The U.S. Sourthern Border BEFORE ... 

and DURING the Trump Administration

by Laura Lai/Essay

The United States has been dealing with a situation at its Southern border long before Trump Administration, but it has always been other issues that caught more the American public opinion attention: wars on terror and on terrorism, ‘zippergate’ and whether or not to impeach the president, beautiful dinner speeches flavored with Obama charm spice and so on, until the situation reached the peak of a crisis during Trump Administration.

            In February 2019, the U.S. President Donald Trump issued a national emergency declaration, in order to address both the security and the humanitarian crisis along its border with Mexico. In May 2019, the illegal immigration at the Southern border reached a record for the whole almost 100 years history of the U.S. Border Patrol. And in June 2019, a Gallup public opinion poll registered the highest number of Americans identifying immigration as the most important American problem, since Gallup records data on this issue (since 1993). After a long political struggle with the Democrats denying the crisis and refusing to increase the financial support for the humanitarian crisis at the U.S. Southern border (for a previous blog article that discusses in more detail this struggle, click here) and under the pressure of the constant growing number of apprehensions and other crimes at the Southern border, on June 7^th, 2019 the U.S. President Donald Trump signed an agreement with its Mexican counterpart to work together on this issue.

And Mexico started to respect its part of the deal right away: in a few weeks of June, Mexico sent back more illegal immigrants living in Mexico and heading towards the United States than it did in the whole month of May. Mexico also engaged to deploy 6,000 of its National Guard at its border with the United States, but it actually deploys 15,000 at its Northern Border and 10,000 of its National Guard at its Southern Border. Although Gallup public opinion poll from July showed that 27 percent of Americans named immigration as the most important problem the United States is facing, the deal with Mexico really works and the numbers of apprehensions decreased significantly until September 2019. The bipartisan agreement reached with the Democrats on July 2^nd, 2019 for a $4,6 billion in humanitarian and border assistance to facilitate the struggle of the employees and to alleviate the sufferance of the refugees (most of them unaccompanied children, abused women, raped girls, etc.) played also a vital role in dealing with this crisis. In July 2019, after the humanitarian aid was approved and after the agreement with Mexico was sealed, the U.S. Vice President Mike Pence accompanied by a group of senators paid a visit to the facilities at the Southern border, in order to assess firsthand the situation. On this occasion he declared that:

‘Everyone at both these facilities had access to food, water, hygiene items and medical care. (…) Was it a Holiday Inn with extra comfort and amenities? Absolutely not. As expected, the facility was overcrowded, but the conditions were humane, and every detainee had access to basic necessities. Let’s not forget that everyone in these detention centers chose to violate our laws, rather than seeking to enter our country legally.’

            Positive statistical results of the U.S. – Mexico agreement quoted by Politico were obvious across the entire border: If in July the apprehensions dropped with 21 percent in comparison to June and 43 percent in comparison to May, in September 2019 the numbers are down to 60 percent in comparison to the month of May. (to be continued)

The U.S. Border Crisis: The Deal with Mexico Works, But Can the Results Be Sustainable? (II)

The U.S. Sourthern Border BEFORE ...

and DURING the Trump Administration

by Laura Lai/Essay

But are these results too good to be sustainable?  

            These positive results correlated to the 2016 U.S. electoral campaign, occasion on which the future President Donald Trump promised to secure the borders, to enforce the law and to reform the immigration system, prove so far that President Donald Trump delivers on his promises. In a democracy, a candidate in a campaign – be it individually or collectively as a party – is elected or not depending on some sort of a ‘contract’ that they make with the voters. This ‘contract’ has different names: ‘electoral program’, ‘campaign promises’, etc. Due to the fact that too many candidates and too often do not deliver on their promises, this ‘contract’ is also informally called ‘campaign lies’, ‘empty promises’ and so on. The problem is that this ‘contract’ does not mention anything about what to do, if those elected do not stick on their promised program or on their campaign promises. The voters need to wait until the next round of elections, in order to sanction those voters and many times to put in place the friends or families of those just not elected. This very wrong-doing is a pity, quite a moquery to democracy itself. The U.S. President Donald Trump definitely knows what a ‘contract’ means and how important it is to respect its terms for your own reputation in the field! [No, I have not been paid either by the Americans or by the Russians (or anybody else) to say this.] It must be a professional habit he developed, since he worked as a businessman. And this great professional habit enforces his reputation of a president who delivers on his promises.

            Therefore, results can be very good and very true, although we are all used with the opposite formulation (‘too good to be true’). We are also used with the ‘too beautiful to last’. It seems that the Trump Administration found the man to work against all these clichés. On the U.S. Immigration policy and after decades of neglect the work must be huge. In order for the reforms to last last, this Administration made an exhaustive analysis and approached the problem holistically.

            During the crisis, the President struggled with the Democrats for more resources to handle the situation as it was, while assessing the whole immigration system, in order to keep what is good and to fix what is broken. And all decisions concerning what is good and what is broken and especially on deciding the ways to fix it, was based on the great imput brought by law enforcement professionals working in the field (and even on the field) rather by the politicians.

            At the pick of the crisis, in May 2019, President Trump presented in the Rose Garden his Administration’s vision of a ‘fair, modern and lawful system of immigration’ (for the entire video speech, click here). The new policy starts from the observation that the current immigration system is incapable of attracting the ‘best and the brightest’ from the whole world, as the United States used to:

‘With the current system we discriminate against genius. We discriminate against brilliance.’

The new policy is based on the historical fact that America is a country of immigrants and will stay a country of immigrants, but it correlates the modernization of its system to the prosperity of the whole country. In this sense, Trump Administration considers more in the American society’s best interest to have a modern and easy-to-navigate points-system, similar to the Canadian one, that is based on merit and skill, in order to attract world’s best doctors, researchers, brilliant students, etc. The ‘Build America Visa’ would be America’s win in its struggle against genius and brilliance discrimination. The overly discussed wall is itself part of the immigration policy and the border security campaign promise. The border wall that will replace the border fence along its Southern border with Mexico will have precise check points that will generate cross border revenues and have its own trust fund. The wall border is considered a physical barrier to remove all possible incentive to smuggle women and children across the border and a technologized border will scan products crossing the border and will curb the drug flow.

            The loopholes of the immigration and asylum laws are part of what is broken and need to be fixed. On August 21^st, the White House announced that one of the greatest loopholes got closed: the Flores Settlement. This settlement obliged the U.S. officials to release into the U.S. in max. 20 days all adults with children (including fake families) and hope that they will ever return for their hearings. This settlement was acting as a ‘magnet’ for kidnapping, buying, trafficking, use and reuse of lots of minors (for a video click here). On this occasion, the U.S. President declared that:

‘To protect these children from abuse, and stop this illegal flow, we must close these loopholes. This is an urgent humanitarian necessity.’

The asylum seekers from all over Central and South America are now demanded to seek asylum in the first safe country they entry and for those in Mexico claiming asylum in the United States should ‘remain-in-Mexico’ until asylum is granted. Actually, on the 21^st of August the ‘Washington Examiner’ counted no more and no less than 17 measures taken in 2019 to secure the border and to diminish the illegal immigration flow at the Southern border.

            In spite of all critics, the U.S. Supreme Court came twice in support of Trump Administration’s reforms of the immigration and asylum policy. A first Supreme Court’s decision (on July 29th) allowed the Administration to dispose of $2,5 billions of Defense Department, in order to continue building the wall. The U.S. President Donald Trump made a trip to California on September 18^th, in order to see firsthand the way works on the building of the wall proceed (to see the video, click here). And the proceedings are fulfilling the President’s exigencies. A second decision of the Supreme Court (on September 13^th) was in favor of President Trump’s immigration policy allowing the asylum restrictions to take effect.

To sum up, the United States has been dealing with a situation along its border with Mexico for decades. The illegal crossings (accompanied by drug smuggling, children’s abuse, raped girls and women) reached its humanitarian and security crisis peak in May 2019.

The Trump Administration approached the situation holistically, working both with internal and external political actors. The fact that Mexico agreed on a deal and respected its part of the deal was not only a significant contribution, but actually playing a vital role in diminishing the number of illegal crossings and apprehensions. It is in its Mexican counterpart that the U.S. President Donald Trump found the political partner, who acted right away after the sealing of the agreement, while with its own American (Democrat) fellows he needed a long and argumentative political struggle to recognize the existence of a humanitarian and security crisis. The bipartisan agreement with the Democrats to increase the funds for those already in shelters, was definitely also highly relevant in overcoming the humanitarian crisis.

Now that the crisis is overcome, the loopholes are removed, new rules (with the U.S. Supreme Court’s approval) are in place, a new immigration and asylum policy is entering into force and the U.S. President and the Vice President are assessing firsthand the situation, there are no doubts that beautiful results can also last and reforms can be sustainable. (the end)

How are the Characters Once Deleted from Manuscripts? – Announcing ‘Deleted.’

picture from Enid Davis/Story Friends' website on https://storyfriends.org/wiseowlplayers/

by Laura Lai/ Uncategorized

At the beginning of 2019 I started a specialization writing course at the University of Oxford. And in spring, I completed the Writing Drama (Online) Course. It was also a great opportunity of a stay in the beautiful and historic city of Oxford. On this occasion I visited the Oxford University Press Museum and I posted the blog article ‘Oxford University Press Museum: A Free Guided Tour’. I spontaneously got the inspiration for a children’s chapter book ‘Christmas in Oxford’. I strongly believe that for the best accomplishment of a journey – in this case the writing drama one – all details are important: the place you live and/or study, the lectures, the tutor(s), the colleagues, and sometimes (or for some people) even the weather.

A great example of will to learn and to improve the theoretical knowledge, to teach and to stage at any age is my colleague Enid Davis – a wife, a mother and a grandmother, an author, a storyteller, a teacher and a drama director. After retiring as a children’s librarian in 2012, Enid Davis founded and chaired the Los Altos Fest (2013–2016). And in 2017 she founded ‘The Wise Owl Players’, a senior theater group (50+), who under Enid’s direction performs live before the public.

            On September 14^th and 15^th, 2019 Enid Davis will be directing ‘The Wise Owl Players’ at the Mountain View Centre for Performing Art (MVCPA) in California.  The senior players will play in ‘Deleted.’ (for a compressed version 2, please click here), which was first performed on November 3^rd and 4^th, 2018 in Palo Alto (California).

            ‘Deleted.’ is a 2-hour play written by Enid Davis based on a very original idea: a dialogue between eight characters (males and females, older and younger, and from different time periods) who were deleted by their authors from their manuscripts. Have you ever wondered what eight fictional characters deleted by their authors may think about themselves or each other? Or what they do? Whom they can possibly meet? – A librarian, maybe?! Have you ever wondered about the way they may react if the whole chapter disappears from the manuscript? Enid Davis invites you all on September the 14^th and the 15^th to the literary comedy written as a dramatic reading and played by ‘The Wise Owl Players’: ‘Deleted.’

A 38-Word Champion Story

Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/Uncategorized

My drama is definitely not the only one happy to see me back: my e-mail inbox must be very happy, too! It seems that I skipped the deadline of a creative writing exercise invitation from the Australian Writers’ Centre (AWC). There is no loss for the AWC, because it got nearly a thousand of such stories (some of them you can read here).

The exercise was asking to write a 29-word story, which starts and ends with the same word and includes the names of two countries. Today I gave a thought to these precise requirements and I tried to write a story:

Serena Williams (37) comes back from a long maternity leave, returns to world’s top 10 in a record time and is finalist in four Grand Slam tournaments (in UK, US, etc.). The definition of a champion is ‘Serena’.

I understood from an article I’ve read today that she turns 38 this month. Besides the fact that I subscribe to all those wishing her the best on this occasion, I believe that the definition of a champion is ‘Serena’ 38! My story has 38 words. I guess it doesn’t make me a champion in writing… with only one manuscript under review, but I will persevere.

Creative Writing Exercise #8

by Laura Lai/ Uncategorized

I’m very happy to be back on this writing blog! I missed the month of August and I paused working on my Brexit drama because I had another writing project to finish. It’s a creative and German language writing trip journal to Vienna, to which I’m trying now to find a publisher.

That text in German allowed me to shortly refer to the Chinese language, to include a quote from Martin Luther King and to use the proverb ‘speechless like a mummy’. And I came up with this fantasy dialogue to mark my return to this blog and to the drama, on which I’m working since January 2019 and which still needs some technical and argumentative improvements. Enjoy it!

I’M SAYING IT RIGHT:

GLAD TO BE BACK … ON THIS WRITING BLOG!

(Scene: a room, man standing with the back to the woman, a woman at the writing table, an armchair)

Man.    So… you’re back?! Just like that?! You left without leaving me any message and you return the way you left!

Woman. Oh?! I thought you like surprises.

M.        I do! But not this kind of surprises! You left me for somebody else! (touching his head with his hands) Don’t you get it? You left me for somebody else, you…you…

W.       Come on! Say it! Me… what? Bitch?

M.        No, not bitch. (shouting) Adulterous woman!

W.       (she stands up, goes to him and try to touch him) Come ooon… let’s not exaggerate.

M.        Don’t touch me! (he makes a step away)

W.       I’m finished with him. I sent him away.

M.        For a month I know nothing about you, woman!

W.       (touching him) Sooo you missed me? Say it right! You missed me, didn’t you?

M.        Don’t touch me! Did you like it? Was it fun?

W.       Man, why do you want to twist the knife in your own wound?

M.        Say it right! So you liked it. It was fun! It was fun! (he crashes on the armchair)

W.       (she surrounds the armchair, touches his shoulders) I liked it … a lot. And it was very fun!

M.        What?! And you say it just like this?

W.       Since you asked. (pause) But you’re fun, too. (she insists on touching him)

M.        (he stands up nervously) Don’t you even think about! Leave me alone! Don’t touch me!

W.       (takes her hands off him) Ok, as you wish. But say it right: you did miss me!

M.        Ha! Actually, I haven’t! I was with somebody, too.

Woman (alone): He was never a good liar! He was with nobody, because I made sure to let everybody know that he still needs some technical improvements, argumentative, too… . I spread the news that he is not good enough, so that women don’t line up at his door as long as I’m not here.

W.       (pretending curious) So how is she? Who’s she?

M.        How is he? Where did he take you?

W.       It was all inclusive: He was German, but I succeeded in including a Chinese, a black man and a mummy.

M.        A group?! You’re…you’re a bitch! What did you need the mummy for?

W.       (she turns her back on him, returns to her writing table) And you’re some sort of saint of something? Haven’t you just confessed an affair? I had several!

M.        (nervous) We are together since January 2019, but I haven’t betrayed you once! Not even once! And you? (pointing accusative to her) And you left with a German, a Chinese, a black man… and a mummy?! (crashes again on his armchair) Oh, my God! (nervous) What is that you liked at him? (shouts) What is that he has, and I don’t?

W.       He’s a trip journal! He’s younger. You’re a drama journal! You’re older; you belong to ancient times! That’s all! (laughing) Isn’t she also younger than me?

(Somebody knocks at the door)

M.        (jumps to open the door) My fairy tale! (he kisses her) My love! Please come in! (looking at the woman) We were just talking about you!

W.       Son of a bitch!

(Fairy tale gets in, makes few steps around)

F.T.     Don’t bother for me! I’ve never liked this house, anyway. (playing with man’s chin) But you’re fun! I just stopped to say good bye.

M.        It can’t be true!

W.       Of course, that it’s true! (she accompanies F.T. to the door) Very well! Good bye, then! Bye bye! Ciao! Ciao! (Fairy tale leaves, the woman slams the door)

(The woman returns to her writing desk)

M.        (goes to the woman’s desk, puts his hands on her shoulders) You work toooo much. It’s good that you have taken a break. The good thing is that you’re finished with him and that you sent him away.

W.       (she stands up, rolls his tie on her fingers) That’s right… I’m back now… you’re here. And we are even.

M.        We did many foolish things together since January… we had fun too. And…we still can…

W.       Of course we do! Hmmm…

M.        Will you send me away when you’re done with me, too?

W.       It’s really neither the time nor the place to talk about it… .

M.        Did you say anything about improving my technique, my arguments?

W.       Did I say that?! I’ll bite your lips if you talk about technique or arguments now… .

M.        I will not! I’m glad you’re back!

W.       So I am, my drama! So am I!