me. [ music continues ] man: i like the long sections that goat island is sort of famous for, of repetitiousovement. and, to me, it's very meditative, and just those visuals of people moving in space over and over again, so you can really saturate your mind with what it is. one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. hixson: the actual making of these pieces, that usually take a year and half to two years with us meeting three times a week -- the actual process of that is that people bring in text, they bring in gestures, they bring in music, they bring in concepts. yeah, that's right. the pieces usually start with a question or an exercise. and they brought in performative responses, and what i mean by that is something that could be performed, like a gesture or a piece of music or a song or a line. one, two, three, four, five, six. the question really gives us an excuse to explore what we're thinking. ...all clap your hands for amelia earhart. ritual and endurance are things that have been of interest to the group. matthew was interested in working on this character in the hitchcock fi

without being too repetitious, [tone] president fong: any other speakers in favor of the project sponsor? dr request doors, you have a two minute rebuttal. >> thank you. -- >> the merger application was not withdrawn. the rooftop deck was not reconfigured so as to be lower and easier until the drs were filed. it is opposed by 24 direct neighbors, not a single supporter. not a single one. cal hollow was here, they don't support it, it violates their policies. this commission is the guardian of the general plan. and the policies in the general plan. the policies against housing use it -- housing unit boss is the highest priority policy. it rises above all the priority policies contained in a general plan. we are asking you to draw assumptions, make conclusions from facts and we don't often get that assumption or conclusion. but in this case, you have it directly from the source that not only do i intend to circumvent the code and do a merger year regardless of what the commission does because i've done it before -- you heard the objections from the attorney about don't use our own words ag

without being too repetitious,

who haven't been to the prior events and for those of you who have, i apologize for this being repetitious, but for those who haven't been to the previous events, i wanted to describe a little bit about the way this project works. which is that we have sort of divided up the world of the campaign into 12 major issues, some of them foreign, some of them domestic, some of them kind of hybrid. and for each of those issues, we have asked a brookings scholar or sometimes a pair of brookings scholars to write a paper sort of somewhating the discussion of the issue in the context of the campaign, talking about president obama's record on the subject, talking about the critique of that record by the republican opposition, and trying to synthesize the merits of the record and the merits of the critique into something like a set of action items or advice for the incoming administration, whether it's a second term of the obama administration, or whether -- i think we're allowed to say it now, a mitt romney administration. we had to pretend that we didn't know for a long time. the subject for today, a

because you have to do it eight times a week, i relish the kind of -- the repetition, it is not repetitious repetition because it is never quite the same and i even seek out the kind of fatigue element involved. i don't mind that kind of -- i like working that hard and i like doing it that many times in an attempt to get it obsessively perfect and if it is funny, which it generally is, because i gave up doing plays without jokes in them, because, you know -- >> rose: no jokes you say no thanks? >> i think it is bad manners to invite people to sit in the dark two hours and not tell them a joke. >> rose: or not make them laugh. >> or not make them laugh and i generally do nude plays, i have been spoiled, and the delivering of jokes and trying to get, arrange for all of those people to laugh at the same time is endlessly fascinating, and it never gets old. and i would quite happily spend my, you know, the rest of my life trying to do so. >> rose: what is it you like about movies? >> i like about movies the fact that, i mean -- >> rose: director's medium. >> there is that and i do like the fact

i apologize for this being repetitio repetitious. but for those who haven't been to the previous events. i want to describe how this project works. we have divided up the world in the campaign in two major issues, some foreign and some domestic and some hybrid. for each of those issues we have asked a brooking scholar or a pair of brookings skcholars talking about president obama's subject on the topic and the peak of that opposition. and trying to synthesize the merits of the record or critique in the obama administration or we may say it, the mitt romney administration. we had to pretend we didn't know for a long time. and for each of these subjects we asked two groups of other brookings scholars to write a response paper. sometimes these were simply arguments. people who disagreed with the thesis of the main paper. sometimes they were efforts to add texture and richness. to look at the issue from a slightly different point of view. and from each of these groups, 12 of three papers. we are having an event like this, the author of t

those of you who have not been to prior events and for those who have, i apologize for this being repetitious but for those of you who haven't been to the previous events, want to describe the way this project works. we have sort of divided up the world of the campaign into 12 major issues, some of them foreign, some of them domestic, some of them hybrid. for each of those issues, we have asked a brookings scholar or sometimes a pair of them to write a paper situating the discussion of the issue in the context of the campaign, talking about president obama's record on the subject, talking about the republican opposition and try to sympathize -- synthesize the merits of the record and merit the critiquing to something like a set of action items are advised for the incoming administration whether it is a second term of the obama administration or -- we are allowed to say it now -- a mitt romney administration. we had to pretend we did not know for a long time. the subjects for today -- for each of these subjects, we then asked two or sometimes two groups of other brookings scholars to write a r

for those of you have not been to prior events, i apologize for this being repetitious.or those of you who have not been two previous events, i want to describe how this project works. we have divided up the world of the campaign into 12 major issues. some of them foreign, some of them domestic, some of them hybrid. we have asked a brookings scholar or a pair of brookings scholars to write a paper situating the discussion of the issue in the context of the campaign. talking about the president's record on the subject and the critique of the record by the opponent and trying to synthesize the merits of the critique into advice for the incoming administration whether it is the second term of the obama administration or a mitt romney administration. we had to pretend we did not know for a long time. the subjects for today -- for each of these subjects, we ask two groups of other brookings scholars to write a response paper. sometimes these were simply arguments, people who disagreed with the pieces of the main paper. sometimes it was to add texture or richness and look at t