My first experience with theatre was when I was six years old. I played a character called Mr. Tall in my class play. I don’t remember anything about the show except that I walked onstage, said my first line, and got a huge laugh. I was hooked. I did as much theatre as it was possible to do in my sleepy little home town (not much), and managed to get a partial theatre scholarship to college.

When I started college, I was as thin as a rail and looked like I was about 14. I suppose it isn’t surprising that I didn’t get cast in significant parts in the first few shows we did. But the program was a small one, and consequently, there wasn’t that much competition. Nevertheless, it broke my heart when I didn’t get cast in our production of Medea. It’s probably true for almost all actors, but particularly very young ones, that when you aren’t cast in a show, it feels like a very personal statement that there is something about you that just isn’t good enough – that you are inherently flawed in some way. The AD was a sophomore and a friend of mine. He told me in confidence that the director really struggled with the casting decision, and ultimately said, “Kevin is so talented, he’s going to be cast all the time.” That really didn’t console me. I could imagine that being said every time a show was cast.

It’s been both a blessing and a curse that I have so many interests. I think people who are really successful usually focus on one thing to the exclusion of all others, and I certainly don’t have a history of that. I changed schools and majors, and "focused" on playing guitar for the next several years. Eventually, I got back into theatre, and it seems that lately, I *have* focused on that to the exclusion of everything else. And, lo and behold, auditions are coming up for a production of Medea. It would be the closing of a big circle to play Jason in this production, putting that college experience behind me.

And yet, of course, there’s another wrinkle.

A year or two ago, I was worrying that during my divorce from theatre, I'd aged out of the chance to play a lot of the great roles. This was underscored when I didn't get Henry in a recent production of Henry V (never mind that, in my opinion, the actor who played the role reads significantly older than I do). But I really freaked out when I was offered the role of Leonato in Much Ado. It’s a great role, of course, but I think he needs to be older (it's relevant to the action of the play, when Leonato challenges Claudio to a duel. That scene is very different with a younger Leonato.) To put it in the context of the seven stages of man from As You Like It, I think Leonato is a pantaloon. I still see myself as a soldier, but of course, being offered Leonato made me doubt myself. And then, of course, I started listing off roles I really want to play that I’d never be able to do because it wouldn't be age-appropriate. I was extremely anxious (and that’s putting it mildly) when I auditioned for Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet. In fact, I was quite certain I hadn’t gotten the part for a few weeks. In the end, I did get the role, and I'm pretty proud of the work I did. I received some really wonderful compliments from several people whose opinions I value highly, and the show was a great experience.

A few seconds ago, I sent an e-mail cancelling my audition for Medea. I’ve been offered the role of Giovanni in ‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore. I never would have seen myself in this role, because of my age. And I think the production is going to be fantastic. I’m excited to be working with each member of the cast that I know, I'm confident that the actors I don't know will bring it, and I have the sense that the direction is going to help me do the best work I can do. So instead of having a chance to play the role that I left acting over, I’ve turned down a shot at that role for one that I’m even more excited about, one that I didn’t think was even available to me.  It’s an even better way to close the chapter than I’d imagined.

Sitting backstage last night, I had some ideas for a new post. I was going to talk about pronoun inflection, about how people sometimes gloss over the word "that" when I think it should be stressed, and about people thinking "an" means "and," instead of "if." But more than anything else, what I really want to say is that we had a fantastic audience last night.

I'll save all that other stuff for later. Right now - thanks, audience.

Why, is not this better now than groaning for love?

I've written a few posts already on the alleged homoerotic undertones in Romeo & Juliet (and hopefully, this will be the last). As I’ve stated, I don’t see any real support for it in the text. Over the past few weeks, I’ve read a lot of material on the topic. I think the support for the interpretation is weak and simply lacks perspective.

The argument seems to go like this: since Mercutio is so obviously misogynistic, there must be a reason for it. And that fact, coupled with the fact that he makes sexual jokes around Romeo means he must be in romantic love with Romeo. I think it’s total crap. Now, that’s not to say that an actor playing the role couldn’t feel that this interpretation is supported by the text and make choices accordingly. But the idea that this is clear from the text, or that it’s the ONLY possible interpretation (as is sometimes implied), is just nonsense, as far as I’m concerned.

The first step in the analysis is a bit of a logical leap, in my opinion. It assumes that because something COULD be interpreted a certain way, it MUST be. I don’t see anything particularly misogynistic that Mercutio says or does. Certainly nothing that compares with the ending of The Taming of the Shrew or Two Gentlemen of Verona. Much weight is given to the fact that Mercutio speaks negatively about love. Let’s remember, though, that his friend, Romeo, has been walking around moaning and groaning about some woman who does not requite Romeo’s love. Romeo is in an UNHEALTHY state of mind. Mercutio is trying to cheer his friend up. ROMEO is the one with the problem, not Mercutio. The sort of hyperbole that Mercutio uses is used by people all the time. “Screw that asshole, let’s go get some drinks.”

Let’s be totally clear. What Romeo feels for Rosaline is an infatuation. It vanishes immediately when he sees Juliet. It is not a deep, meaningful love. And THIS is the love that Mercutio rails against. Also, let’s not forget that Romeo says that Rosaline will not “ope her lap to saint-seducing gold.” I don’t think there’s any way to know whether someone will have sex with you for money unless you ask them. So what about Romeo’s misogyny? Where is that in all of the literature?

Stanley Wells says in Shakespeare, Sex & Love that Mercutio is killed because he becomes dramatically unnecessary. I agree. But I disagree about the reason. Wells suggests that Mercutio represents an immature attachment which Romeo no longer needs because Romeo has finally found a mature love. I think Mercutio becomes unnecessary because Romeo is no longer lovesick. Romeo doesn’t need someone to try to get him into a healthier frame of mind once he gets there himself. The mere fact that he effectively trades one relationship for another does not mean that they both must be romantic.

Often, when I work on a role, I find a passage (or a few) that I think sum up the character. I think Mercutio’s intention is all summed up in this passage:

Why, is not this better now than groaning for love?

now art thou sociable, now art thou Romeo; now art
thou what thou art, by art as well as by nature.

I walked into Romeo and Juliet rehearsal trying to figure out a way to make the Queen Mab speech more interesting. The speech is problematic to me, because it doesn’t advance the story in any way, nor does it tell us much about Mercutio or anyone else in the play (except that Mercutio loves to hear himself speak). But while I’m going to be saying all of this stuff about fairies riding through lovers’ brains at night, there are going to be two other actors stranded onstage with me. My idea was to have a lot of physical interaction between us, sort of a stand-sit-lean kind of deal.  I wasn’t sure it would work, but I really wanted to try to find a way to share that speech with the guys playing Benvolio and Romeo. But, that all took a turn.

The director of this production believes that the text indicates that there is homoerotic tension between Mercutio and Romeo, so he asked me to try that. It pretty much puts the kibosh on what I had in mind. If I’m playing that sort of intention, I’m mostly directing my attention at the object of my desire, which leaves poor Benvolio with not much to do but wait for me to shut up (which actually might be a good motivation for him, I suppose).

I struggled with this subtext. So far, I don’t feel it’s something that’s clearly there. It’s my opinion that this idea is a revisionist reading that imports a 20^th century view of sexuality into an Elizabethan text. I explored the same type of arguments with respect to colonialism when I was working on The Tempest.

But then I stumbled on something that I think is much more interesting, and ultimately, gets me to the same place anyway.  In The Shakespeare Wars, Ron Rosenbaum compares Mercutio to Marlowe. Rosenbaum observes that while it has been said that Shakespeare had to kill Mercutio, or Mercutio would kill Shakespeare, the same is also true of Marlowe. Harold Bloom notes in Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human that, in writing Titus Andronicus, Shakespeare finally wrote himself out of Marlowe’s shadow, by putting words in Aaron the Moor’s mouth that were like a speech by Barabas from The Jew of Malta on steroids. What if, once Shakespeare no longer felt overshadowed by Marlowe, he felt free to include a little tribute to him in a play?

The similarities between Marlowe and Mercutio are obvious.  Both are larger-than-life characters with quick wits who love to ramble (the Queen Mab speech is positively Marlovian, in my opinion). Both are ultimately self-destructive. Both die in a knife fight under dubious circumstances, and both die with a curse on their lips. There’s some textual basis to think that Mercutio may have been a nod to Marlowe, as well, although it’s all speculation. Mercutio compares Romeo’s love to Dido, to Helen, and to Hero – all characters Marlowe wrote about.

And of course, there’s the famous quote attributed to Marlowe: “All they that love not tobacco and boys are fools.” Now, the actual evidence supporting this statement may be dodgy, and it seems pretty clear that Marlowe loved to shock people, so it would have been in character for him to say such a thing even if he didn’t mean it. Still, it does raise an ambiguity. And that ambiguity is just enough, I think, to make me feel okay with what I view as importing something into the text that may not be there.

Relationships

I noticed something last night at rehearsal. I've been thinking about Mercutio's relationships with Benvolio and Romeo. How is Mercutio thought of in Verona? What's his status? Last night, I found a clue. Capulet writes a guest list for the party at which the young lovers first meet. And on that list, Mercutio is listed before any of Capulet's relatives, including Tybalt (who is apparently the LAST relative listed).

Signior Martino and his wife and daughters;
County Anselme and his beauteous sisters; the lady
widow of Vitravio; Signior Placentio and his lovely
nieces; Mercutio and his brother Valentine; mine
uncle Capulet, his wife and daughters; my fair niece
Rosaline; Livia; Signior Valentio and his cousin
Tybalt, Lucio and the lively Helena.

Out of all the people on the list, Mercutio is the first one who appears elsewhere in the play. Tybalt is the last. This doesn't help much with respect to Benvolio and Romeo, but it does strongly suggest that Mercutio is seen in Verona as more than just a brawler and a rake. He's respected enough to be invited to the best parties, and not as an afterthought. And that, in turn, suggests that Benvolio and Romeo don't merely tolerate him, but that they probably have some degree of actual respect for him. How that's possible, given what we see of Mercutio, I haven't figured out yet.

Nay, I am the very pink of courtesy.

This month, among other projects, I'm preparing to play Mercutio. This is the role I was really gunning for in the Spring, and I'm thrilled to be playing it. It's going to be a BLAST. Four great scenes, a fight, AND an onstage death (well, technically, immediately offstage).

The last role I was this excited about was Oberon. I had seen several productions of Midsummer, including the film version with Judi Dench. Frankly, I'd never really been that taken with the play. But when I found out it was going to be produced here, I sat down and read the play again, and Oberon was the role that stood out for me, since I feel that age-wise, I'm pretty firmly out of Demetrius / Lysander territory and not yet in Egeus land. Oberon is the heart of what I feel is missing from other versions of Midsummer that I'd seen. He's often played as detached, cold, and uncaring. I see where that choice comes from, but I don't really think it's supported by the text (or particularly interesting). After all, at the beginning of the play, Oberon is "passing fell and wrath," so much so that the elves hide from him. And although he and Titania create the seasons, and have, every year since the dawn of time, the conflict between them is so great that they are prepared to let the world spin itself out of existence. As Titania notes,

                         ...the spring, the summer,
The childing autumn, angry winter, change
Their wonted liveries, and the mazed world,
By their increase, now knows not which is which:
And this same progeny of evils comes
From our debate, from our dissension;
We are their parents and original.

If this conflict is not HUGE, the other action of the play overshadows it, and it becomes unimportant. And it's the driving force for much of the other action of the play. To put it another way, when the Oberon/Titania conflict is understated, the entire play is on its head. So, I began my work on the character by focusing on the source of this conflict. What's different this time? Why is this time special? What has changed in the dynamic between Oberon and Titania?

Anyway, to make a long story short, I found a reason for it, based on the text and on common stories from myth (how the Greek gods behaved, since we're talking about Cupid's arrow, about Theseus, etc.) The director, however, had a different idea. I thought her idea was less interesting, and, honestly, unplayable. At least in a way that would give the conflict between Oberon and Titania the high stakes necessary to make the play work the way (I think) it should. Also, it's my opinion that the director's take on the conflict was only sustainable if certain things were cut from the text.

Mea culpa time. I was a bad actor. I could NOT let go of my take on the character. I probably should have quit. I had an absolutely *miserable* time working on the production. I kept trying to make my case, and ultimately, I began to feel that no matter what choice I made, I was always told it was the wrong one. I really struggled with how to make it all work, and once the run started, I slipped more and more into the way I felt the character should be played. By that point, the director was too busy dealing with other things to pay any attention to what I was doing. I know, it's terrible. But I KNOW my take was better. And I don't think I lack objectivity on this, either. The feedback I got from the audience was very positive - people saying they'd never seen it done that way and that it gave the show a new layer of meaning - and I was also offered some other roles by people who saw that production. I have very mixed feelings about that production. I know that I didn't hold up my end of the bargain, by taking my marching orders and carrying them out like a good soldier. But, on the other hand, I don't really respect choices that I think directly contradict the text.

So, here I sit, getting ready to emotionally involve myself in a take on a character again. From what I've heard, the director of this production is very hands-off with respect to actors' choices. That's looking good for my freedom to do what I want with Mercutio. But it also brings me to the other side of the coin.

One danger in a production where actors are given too much freedom is that when you have two or three actors who have different ideas of the scene, or who don't work together as a team, they can get into a competition. In those cases, the performances of each actor are improved by someone essentially watching the scene with a pointer, saying, "right now, the focus is here... here, it shifts to you, etc." Someone needs to steer the ship. When you're on stage with a group of clowns, and it's every man for himself... well, that's not going to maximize the effect of the scene, in my opinion. It's going to lack focus, it's going to be diffused, everyone can end up pushing to try to get through the clutter, and you end up with an audience who feels pummeled, even though they may not consciously realize it.

Back to Mercutio. This guy is ridiculous. He has a quick tongue and a quick blade. Everything is a joke to him, and most of the jokes are dirty. When you read some of these speeches, you have to pity the scenery, because you know it's going to be chewed beyond all recognition. I'm looking forward to working with the guys playing Benvolio and Romeo - I'd really like to make this a team effort, instead of the Mercutio show. In fact, I'm going to suggest that we try stand, sit, lean in some of the scenes. I'd love for us to have a lot of physical interaction and movement while I'm yammering on about tithe-pigs and little atomie. But I suppose the main concern I have, and the reason for this post, is that since I have an outsized character in mind, I hope it will work with the director's concept and will not be out of place in the context of the show.

Thankful

Here's one of the many things I'm thankful for: I spent my evening participating in a table reading of a new play.