What's next for Poor Shadows of Elysium

Our Richard II was successful, so we're looking forward to the next show. I want to pitch a non-Shakespeare early modern show with a strong female presence. I was hoping The Roaring Girl would fit the bill, but while I love parts of it, I'm not in love with the play as a whole. I've been reading Fletcher's Bonduca, but Bonduca and her two daughters, the only women in the play, die in Act IV. The Duchess of Malfi is a strong possibility, and I've ordered a copy of Fletcher's The Sea Voyage, which I am given to understand contains six or seven female roles - fighting Amazons.

Many plays left to consider, including Women Beware Women, The Changeling, A Chaste Maid in Cheapside... if anyone has any input, please reply here or on the poll on our Facebook page.

A review of Poor Shadows of Elysium's Richard II

"It's a virtuoso turn that stretches not only the principals but also the cast."

Me as Henry IV, Heath Thompson as Exton. "They love not poison that do poison need." Photo by Shawn McHorse.

Click through to the review.

Austin Live Theatre interviews Aaron Black and Kevin Gates about Richard II.

Guest blog post by Casey Weed, on playing Northumberland with two different Bolingbrokes and Richards.

Guest blogger, Casey Weed, writes about his experience playing Northumberland in our current production of Richard II. In our show, Aaron Black and I are each playing Richard and Bolingbroke, but which actor plays which part is determined by a coin-toss right before the show. Although the other actors are playing the same roles every night, they are playing those roles in two very different shows, as Casey's post explains. (Spoiler alert: Casey discusses our takes on the characters so far. If you're planning to see the show and want to be surprised by this, you might want to come back and read this after you see the show.)

___________________________________________________________

The same man is given two sets of circumstances- two significantly different relationships- and the same set of goals.  With a guaranty that the outcome is semantically the same- the script, after all, does not change- does the journey change?  To what degree?

Our experiment with two possible Bolingbrokes has been an intriguing one with these questions floating about like those paper-filled panty hose in an old high school haunted house; you know they are there, what they are isn't a mystery, and yet every time your head bumps into them they give you an awkward start.

After analyzing the text and making my discoveries about what Northumberland wants- I believe him to be the primogenitor of the entire usurpation plot, earliest in and by far the most active in moving things forward- I looked at the way the shapes and textures of the different Bolingbrokes and Richards mesh and grind together.

Kevin's Bolingbroke seems more designing with fewer ties to tradition and the Old Way... hungrier in an immediate sense for power.  A Northumberland with this Harry as his friend doesn't need to obfuscate or coddle; the crown can be a little bloody when we get it.  And we will get it, Harry... believe that.

When the coin falls the other way- with Aaron Black's more morally considerate Bolingbroke acting in the now and generally more surprised by how events are turning- Northumberland's mode has to be one that salves his conscience and yet spurs him through to do the terrible and great tasks before him.  The Earl seems to say to this Bolingbroke: "So sad that circumstances have forced us down this path but it is your duty to see them through, Your  Grace."

The different Richards?  Well, they are a factor, too, but as an obstacle rather than an ally it affects Northumberland to a lesser degree.  The scene at Berkely Castle where we make our first demands presents the most significant challenge: how does Northumberland's speech change Richard's mind so drastically and so abruptly?  It must be in the delivery, certainly, as there is nothing overt in the short and disingenuous speech to trigger such an East to West turn.

Northumberland. The king of heaven forbid our lord the king
Should so with civil and uncivil arms
Be rush'd upon! Thy thrice noble cousin
Harry Bolingbroke doth humbly kiss thy hand;
And by the honourable tomb he swears,
That stands upon your royal grandsire's bones,
And by the royalties of both your bloods,
Currents that spring from one most gracious head,
And by the buried hand of warlike Gaunt,
And by the worth and honour of himself,
Comprising all that may be sworn or said,
His coming hither hath no further scope
Than for his lineal royalties and to beg
Enfranchisement immediate on his knees:
Which on thy royal party granted once,
His glittering arms he will commend to rust,
His barbed steeds to stables, and his heart
To faithful service of your majesty.
This swears he, as he is a prince, is just;
And, as I am a gentleman, I credit him.

An acerbic and bitey, spitey Richard (Gates) requires a much more 'no nonsense', factual rebuttal that leaves the true meaning of the speech sitting like a cold tombstone on the stage with a dried dead rose laid upon it.  In contrast, the tool Northumberland uses on the pensive and moodier Black Richard has far more bark and threat in it to better snap him from his delusion- an image of an axe being sharpened and tested on an overripe melon, violently and hatefully.

The Earl is the same man no matter which way the coin falls: ambitious, perhaps even to the point of greed; protective of his own line; and a machinator of the first order.  Each relationship presents itself as a locked door requiring a different key but leading to the same room.

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.