Chorus

A few months back, I was directing a production of Doctor Faustus, and an actor had to drop out of the show. I put a few feelers out to some people who had the sort of presence and energy I wanted for the role. For lack of a better term, I used the word "chorus" as a catch-all for a group of 8 actors in the show. They  were onstage for probably 80% of the show. They played all of the parts except Faustus, Mephistopheles, Robin, Dick, and Wagner. Each actor had 4 or 5 different roles, in addition to being a sort of neutral devil when they weren't involved in a scene. It required a lot of each of them, and I think they each had some fantastic moments to shine.One person told me that she wasn't taking any more chorus roles for the year. I don't know if that was the real reason of just an excuse because she wasn't interested in the show. Either way, it demonstrates a perception of what it means to be part of a chorus. One that I think is a real problem.

But to most actors, "chorus" means somebody who's unimportant. Set dressing. They don't do anything interesting, but just walk around as a group and maybe say their lines together in unison. What is lost here is the idea that the Chorus in Greek tragedy was the connection between the audience and the action onstage. Maybe it's years of people directing shows in ways that minimized the role of the Chorus, but whatever the reason, the Chorus is very important and deserves more respect than it gets. That makes me want to do a Greek tragedy and explore the Chorus, to see if I can bring all of that out - and, of course, if I do, I'll have to battle this perception of the relative importance of the Chorus when casting the show. I'm so busy with different projects already... but someone needs to stand up for the Chorus.

Incidentally, the person who turned down the role in Faustus? I saw a show she did around the same time. She was onstage a lot less than any member of my "chorus" and wasn't able to show nearly the amount of range required in my show. Their show was really well done, don't get me wrong. But as a role, the mere fact that her character had a name did not make it a more challenging or interesting role. Here's a shot of Faustus getting dragged to hell. Look how active and involved everyone is, in different ways.

To lift shrewd steel against our golden crown

On December 10^th, we all got together for a read-through of Richard II. And now that my semester is over, I’m turning my attention to trying to understand this play. It’s my opinion that a common trap in working on a play is getting caught up in details that are really beside the point. Forcing the action into a setting, trying to replicate some staging conditions – things that have little to do with the one thing which we can actually be pretty certain of – the text. That’s why I started Poor Shadows in the first place. I want everything to grow out of, and be supported by the text. Not that we’ll never do a conceptual piece, mind you – I think that will definitely happen, and I have a few things in mind – but those ideas are based on bringing out elements in the text.

Anyway, back to Richard II. Apparently, Sam Taylor Coleridge took a look at this play a long time ago and decided that Richard had certain bad qualities that led to his downfall, and that all of those qualities were “feminine.” It seems that this idea has been basically unchallenged ever since. So, when you see a production of this play, very often what you get is a hyper-feminine Richard. Ben Whishaw in the Hollow Crown is an example, but Derek Jacobi’s was just as twee. Fiona Shaw even played the role. I think this feminine Richard concept is a trap. And it seems inconsistent with the relationship between Richard and his queen. I believe she has genuine affection and respect for him. This is not the same relationship that Edward II and Isabella have. Despite Bolingbroke’s suggestion that Bushy and Green have “made a divorce” between the king and queen – which I think is a lie anyway, based on his irregular verse in the speech, she seems to think he is a model king, and even compares him to a lion.

What is this play really about? I think it’s summed up in this one line from III.ii: “To lift shrewd steel against our golden crown.” This is a play about shrewd steel, or realpolitik, finally challenging the golden crown, the divine right of kings. It is a play about the transition from the medieval to the modern; from the poet king, whose court contained Chaucer, Gower, Clanvowe, and others, to Henry IV, a no-nonsense king who has no poetry in him. Focusing on the old (and not particularly textual) Richard-is-a-woman trope turns the attention away from the real point of the play, in my opinion.

Now, all that being said… this is just my interpretation, and Aaron and Christina will each have their own. I think it would be interesting if one of our Richards in this production played the role in a traditional way, while the other production focused on the medieval-modern switch. Then we could really see how differently the play works on the stage with the two interpretations. But so far, Aaron and I have avoided making strategic choices like that (Aaron called that sort of approach “collusion,” which I think is pretty apt). It will be interesting to see how it develops in rehearsal.

Richard II

My first semester of grad school draws to a close. As I drink my morning coffee and get ready to resume work on a paper I'm writing about censorship of the deposition scene in Richard II, I decided to spend a little more time on my lines for the next production I'll be working on, which, not coincidentally, is Richard II.  That led me to further procrastinate by writing this blog post. I've neglected the old blog while I was in school. Directing Doctor Faustus and playing Coriolanus while in grad school (and working) has kept me running for the past few months, so I'm indulging myself with a blog post this morning.

A few words about my new company, Poor Shadows of Elysium, are in order, I guess. I call it "my" company not because I'm trying to claim credit for all that's happening. I have a great team of people working with me on this, each of whom are invaluable. I call it mine because I started it, I gathered the team, and as of right now, the vision and direction are mine. If what we do is a success, it will be a credit to everyone involved. If it's a failure, the blame can only be mine, because I can't imagine a better group of people to help me realize my vision. I hope this company will continue to grow and evolve.

When I started working on RII, I had a few preconceptions about the play that have already changed, without even having the first reading yet. Chiefly, I thought the conflict in the play was ambiguous, that it wasn't clear whether Bolingbroke or Richard was the hero. After scanning the lines, I don't believe that any more. Richard's verse is very regular, overall, even when he's obviously in a heightened emotional state (which is always). Bolingbroke's verse, on the contrary, is full of irregular endings. By the time I finished scanning Act III, Scene 1, when Bolingbroke speaks to Bushy and Green before they are executed, I felt strongly that Bolingbroke was a lying bastard. Although he gives reasons for the executions, I think they're bullshit. His eyes are on the prize, and he's Machiavelling his way to the throne.

In our production of RII, we're taking an unusual approach. I wanted to do a coin flip at the start of each show, to determine which actor plays Richard and which actor plays Bolingbroke. This was inspired in part by the 1973 John Barton production, where two actors switched the role every night, and in part by the ASC's recent coin-toss Hamlet (the coin toss determined whether they would do the quarto version or the folio version of the play.) Also, honestly, I wanted Poor Shadows' first production to be a bold one. In many ways, I think the play is about how the crown wears the king - how it affects both Richard and Henry, and how interchangeable they are. Because of the coin flip and what the play says about the two characters who wear the crown, I wanted an actor who was very different from me in the other role. I think we have that in Aaron Black.

Aaron has an MFA in acting from The New School. Obviously, he's very well-versed in acting techniques. My approach to acting, by contrast, is almost entirely based on the text. I sometimes supplement my work on a play by bringing in things outside the script, but the things I consider are normally things that might have been known to the audience, such as the historical context of the action of the play, or stories that were in existence at the time the play was written. I can't really speak to what Aaron's process is, exactly, but I am very excited by the knowledge that he will make very different choices than I will, and people will get a very different show depending on which way the coin toss goes. I can't wait to see what he comes up with. This is really going to be fun.

It's also worth mentioning that this is going to make things very interesting for our entire cast. To the extent they interact with one of the kings, they're going to have the opportunity to play the same character two different ways. I'm sure I'll write about some of their discoveries once rehearsal starts. While I'm on the subject - what a fantastic cast we have.

I think our production is going to reveal a lot about the play. This is what I love.

A review of the production of Doctor Faustus I directed.

broadwayworld.com

Gluttony

The Faustus cast isn't even finalized yet, and my next project is already starting to come together. This is going to be a Crucible. I can't wait.

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.