Poor Shadows of Elysium

So, this is a thing that exists now. More to come, soon.

Doctor Faustus: Challenges, Part I

The story of Doctor Faustus did not originate with Christopher Marlowe, but Marlowe’s version of the story was enormously successful in its time. The story has been retold and adapted hundreds of times in the intervening centuries. I think it’s difficult to overstate the significance of this play.

The play is not without its problems, though. It can be said the The Tragicall History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus occupies a pivotal place in the development of English theatre. In some ways, the play is a bridge between medieval and modern drama, and between the morality play and the modern tragedy. In fact, at least one critic has called Doctor Faustus the first tragedy written in English.

Early Modern English theatre is a passion of mine. And while it’s important to me to respect the work, our actors will not be playing to an early modern audience. They will be playing to an audience that has very different expectations. I’ve decided to adapt the text somewhat to try to minimize some of the problems that I anticipate. I certainly wouldn’t say that anything I’m doing is an original idea – I’m sure most, if not all of these things have been done before – but I will say that I arrived at them independently. And I’m going to try to talk about them without spoilers. We’ll see how well I do.

Modern audiences are accustomed to a higher degree of realism in entertainment. We have more difficulty accepting storylines involving twins played by actors who don’t look alike, or storylines involving cross-dressing. One common device in early modern theatre was doubling of roles. Audiences would likely key off of certain costume pieces, and merely accept the fact that the actor who just walked offstage as one character walked right back on as someone totally different. Doctor Faustus is a very episodic play. Several characters appear in only one or two scenes and are never seen again. It would require an enormous cast to stage the play with a different actor in every role. Doubling is a must. I think I’ve found a way to make the doubling clear to people who are unfamiliar with the concept.

Another issue with Doctor Faustus is Marlowe’s tendency to give his actors very long speeches. Faustus has several very long speeches in which he debates his choices with himself. I’m dividing some of these speeches up between different actors. I think it’s going to work very well, it will add more action and tension to the speeches, and there will be more movement. Overall, I think it’ll be more interesting to watch without losing much, if anything.

Now, now, work serious thoughts on baneful plots

'Tis Pity has been a hell of a ride. I was very worried at one point, because Giovanni operates at a very high emotional state throughout this play. The stakes are enormous for him. I was really concerned that, because of that, I'd deliver a performance that lacked variety. But, by the time we opened, I realized there were several scenes that showed another side of him. The morning after scene, the "view well her face" speech, and "busy opinion is an idle fool" all allow opportunities to show a calmer, tender side. Nevertheless, it's a very demanding role.

The process of working on this show has been fantastic. I am so grateful to have been given this opportunity. The cast and crew are top notch. I'm honored to be part of this show, and I only hope I can live up to the work they're doing.

This weekend, I got my acceptance to grad school, where I'll be studying Theatre History and Dramatic Criticism. And Doctor Faustus and Coriolanus are on the horizon. Finally, I'm hoping to get my own theatre company up and running early next year. More on that later, after the venue is locked up.

It's been an amazing theatre year for me.

Doctor Faustus

Although it's been over two months since my last post, I've been keeping busy. I'm currently prepping to play Giovanni in John Ford's 'Tis Pity She's a Whore. And while I love this play and I'm really enjoying working with this group, it's not Shakespeare. By that, I mean that I don't have the sense that this play contains the kind of encoded meaning that Shakespeare's verse does. Consequently, there seems to be less opportunity for discoveries in the text. Of course, I still have more work to do, so I hope I change my mind about that.

I have a couple of other projects on the horizon as well. I'm very excited to be directing a production of Marlowe's Doctor Faustus this Fall. I've begun my work on the text for this play. There are two surviving versions of the play, known as the A-Text and the B-Text (published in 1604 and 1616, respectively... both dates long after Marlowe's death in 1593). Henslowe's Diary notes a payment in November of 1602 of 4 pounds to William Bird and Samuel Rowley for additions to the play. It's not clear which language in either text is attributable to them (although an argument can be made for one scene, which contains several instances of a noun followed by an adjective ending with -al, a phrasing that shows up a lot in Rowley's work).

Anyway, there's no way to know with any certainty which is the "true" text. But I don't really believe in that sort of thing, anyway. These texts were not considered sacred in their time, and while I do want to treat the play with respect, it isn't a holy relic. The chief thing is playability. So, I've started my work, which is to go through both versions of the text (edited by David Bevington) and compare them word for word. When I find a conflict between the two versions, my sole determining factor is which phrasing I think is stronger. In at least one instance, though, I plan to leave the choice between the two versions up to the actor. I think I may find be more of those, as I continue to work through the text.

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.