C'est fini. We are done with the EWnd season of Shakespeare and Company. Easily the most difficult and trying summer I've had out there, but, also as easily, the most rewarding. I think our holy triumvirate took a chance on casting me as lead in two separate shows, but I'd like to think I held my own.
I'd like to take this chance to say thank you to the wonderful cast I was so lucky to get to work with; though young in years (on average), they were long in the tooth on talent and never gave me any grief for the way I mix metaphors. May we all be together again soon, my 'band of brothers (and sisters)'.
See you this fall for Ten Little Indians!
Monday, August 20, 2007
Monday, July 16, 2007
"Turning the accomplishment of many years Into an hourglass..."
Well, we made it. Hell Week is over and all three shows are up and running. Now to lapse into a coma from which I may never wake.
Henry V went well, all things considered. There were no major hiccups, though there were a few flubbed lines ("...such a sum of...CASH!"). I think I did ok; honestly, it's hard to tell at this point. My throat is so ragged from talking that I sound like George Burns after a tracheotomy.
I fear I yelled too much, but as the rehearsals went on, it became firly clear to me that there's a lot of yelling called for in the show. It just seems that I was the only one doing it.
The last scene went great. I only added back a little to one of Henry's lines when he's talking about how he can't speak very well but it's better to have a good heart than good rhetoric. The actress that plays Katherine is fantastic and makes her into an angel that can pardon all of Henry's sins (self-accused or otherwise). In all, it was a nice wrap-up to a well-performed, well-directed show. And to think I was worried...
Henry V went well, all things considered. There were no major hiccups, though there were a few flubbed lines ("...such a sum of...CASH!"). I think I did ok; honestly, it's hard to tell at this point. My throat is so ragged from talking that I sound like George Burns after a tracheotomy.
I fear I yelled too much, but as the rehearsals went on, it became firly clear to me that there's a lot of yelling called for in the show. It just seems that I was the only one doing it.
The last scene went great. I only added back a little to one of Henry's lines when he's talking about how he can't speak very well but it's better to have a good heart than good rhetoric. The actress that plays Katherine is fantastic and makes her into an angel that can pardon all of Henry's sins (self-accused or otherwise). In all, it was a nice wrap-up to a well-performed, well-directed show. And to think I was worried...
"SCONE!!!"
Sunday, July 8, 2007
"...And now is he turned orthography; his words are a very fantastical banquet, just so many strange dishes."
Hell Week is two-thirds and we open Henry in a week. We lost a performance of Doctor to rain tonight; it happens. We generally go on, rain or shine, unless conditions are obviously unsafe. Tonight, though, we called it off because only three people showed up to watch: a company member and my parents. Thanks, guys!
We have one week to inject whatever magic we can into the show. The third show gets the most time in development (technically), but we stop rehearsing it during opening week so we can focus on the other two shows. Consequently, it can be tough to jump back into the groove and get things together before opening.
I think the show has some strong scenes in it, but I think we have yet to shape those scenes into a satisfying whole. I think we've only run the show top to bottom once so far in rehearsal, and even then we left a few scenes out. Things like absences, scheduling conflicts, fight rehearsals and other unavoidable obstacles have made it nearly impossible to get an idea of the show as a whole.
My concerns are essentially the same but, not content to simply play the damn role, I volunteered for another task: rewrite the last scene.
The last scene doesn't work. I don't mean our performances specifically; I think the scene itself is less than perfect. I've expounded on this topic at length previously so I won't drag all that out again, but never let it be said that I don't take action to change my situation. So I'll see what I can do to punch it up; though it's awkward, it's a vital counterpoint to the rest of the play.
We have one week to inject whatever magic we can into the show. The third show gets the most time in development (technically), but we stop rehearsing it during opening week so we can focus on the other two shows. Consequently, it can be tough to jump back into the groove and get things together before opening.
I think the show has some strong scenes in it, but I think we have yet to shape those scenes into a satisfying whole. I think we've only run the show top to bottom once so far in rehearsal, and even then we left a few scenes out. Things like absences, scheduling conflicts, fight rehearsals and other unavoidable obstacles have made it nearly impossible to get an idea of the show as a whole.
My concerns are essentially the same but, not content to simply play the damn role, I volunteered for another task: rewrite the last scene.
The last scene doesn't work. I don't mean our performances specifically; I think the scene itself is less than perfect. I've expounded on this topic at length previously so I won't drag all that out again, but never let it be said that I don't take action to change my situation. So I'll see what I can do to punch it up; though it's awkward, it's a vital counterpoint to the rest of the play.
"KISS ME, KATE!"
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
"...She is a woman more worth than any man; men, that she is the rarest of all women"
Alright, screw it. I'm on a roll here so I'll continue on with the 'promised post' about misogyny in Taming of the Shrew. Everyone feels SOMETHING about this show (and you're welcome, both of you reading this, to weigh in in the comments section) but I've done it so long now and in such a pedestrian, work-a-day way (i.e. just learning the friggin' lines) that the 'secret' of the show is elementary to me.
This isn't a show about keeping the sisters down for many reasons.
1. What everyone forgets (and few produce on stage) is that it's a show-within-a-show. The entire misadventures of Petruchio, Katharina, Lucentio, Hortensio, etc. etc. make up the action of a play that is viewed by Christopher Sly, lousy hubsand extrordinaire. It's a FARCE, people. Everything that happens in the show is suspect, and it's all presented with tongue firmly in cheek. True, Shakespeare, in the full bloom of his stupid youth, forgets to append a pertinent coda to the 'on stage' action, but nothing that happens should be taken at face value.
2. Kate is not a turbo bitch for no reason. She has it pretty rough. She's the first-born sister, and Daddy dotes on his second-born baby. No offense meant to my younger sister, but I feel for Kate. She's also someone who is extremely dissatisfied with being auctioned off to a pair of old guys so her goody-two-shoes sister can tie the knot. In any other play (i.e. As You Like It or Much Ado About Nothing), Kate would be a friggin' hero. It denigrates her character and the author to assume that she's crabby just because she's a "bitch". She's a person witb problems and she's brave to lash out the way she does, considering the age she lives in.
3. Because the play involves a guy "taming" a girl, people assume that his actions are misogynist and her final speech is a nightmare of female submission. *I* think the final speech is a beautiful elucidation of the mindset that any spouse should have for his/her significant other. The only thing missing from the show would be a similar monologue by Petruchio about how important it is to be willing to do anything in one's power to please one's spouse, something I believe Petruchio, despite his rich dowry, despite the wager he wins through Katharina's 'obedience', despite all his crazy antics would do in a heartbeat for Katharina, his true equal in every way. Because the show's not called The Taming of the Madcap Swearing Jack, we don't get that speech, but there are other examples of Women getting theirs in Elizabethan sexual politics (see "The Tamer Tamed", et al.)
4. Petruchio be crazy, yo. Okay, Katharina is worked up over her situation, trust, and it's *possible* that someone could "get through" to her and make her feel better through gentle kindness, but the boisterous Pethruchio decides to make a fool of himself and imitate/magnify Kate's behavior in order to show her how ridiculous she's being, how she can have everything she wants (happiness and understanding through a true equal) by simply deigning to acknowledge the man who is turning himself inside out for her. "Making a fool out of yourself" for someone else is pretty much the definition of love in my book.
5. And finally, get over it, people. Men and Women sometimes have trouble making it work for a plethora of reasons: sexual politics, social standing, parents, money, sex, what movie to see and on and on. This is a play where the two people who have the courage to be themselves and to speak what they feel find happiness together and that's, frankly, awesome. I'd compare Taming to any number of "romantic" movies where the uptight society girl is charmed by the devil-may-care worldly guy and she learns to loosen up and he learns the joy of a loving commitment. The Aristocats, par example. Yes, Shakespeare's ghost haunt me, I just compared The Taming of the Shrew to a Disney film, and goddammit, I think the comparison stands.
This isn't a show about keeping the sisters down for many reasons.
1. What everyone forgets (and few produce on stage) is that it's a show-within-a-show. The entire misadventures of Petruchio, Katharina, Lucentio, Hortensio, etc. etc. make up the action of a play that is viewed by Christopher Sly, lousy hubsand extrordinaire. It's a FARCE, people. Everything that happens in the show is suspect, and it's all presented with tongue firmly in cheek. True, Shakespeare, in the full bloom of his stupid youth, forgets to append a pertinent coda to the 'on stage' action, but nothing that happens should be taken at face value.
2. Kate is not a turbo bitch for no reason. She has it pretty rough. She's the first-born sister, and Daddy dotes on his second-born baby. No offense meant to my younger sister, but I feel for Kate. She's also someone who is extremely dissatisfied with being auctioned off to a pair of old guys so her goody-two-shoes sister can tie the knot. In any other play (i.e. As You Like It or Much Ado About Nothing), Kate would be a friggin' hero. It denigrates her character and the author to assume that she's crabby just because she's a "bitch". She's a person witb problems and she's brave to lash out the way she does, considering the age she lives in.
3. Because the play involves a guy "taming" a girl, people assume that his actions are misogynist and her final speech is a nightmare of female submission. *I* think the final speech is a beautiful elucidation of the mindset that any spouse should have for his/her significant other. The only thing missing from the show would be a similar monologue by Petruchio about how important it is to be willing to do anything in one's power to please one's spouse, something I believe Petruchio, despite his rich dowry, despite the wager he wins through Katharina's 'obedience', despite all his crazy antics would do in a heartbeat for Katharina, his true equal in every way. Because the show's not called The Taming of the Madcap Swearing Jack, we don't get that speech, but there are other examples of Women getting theirs in Elizabethan sexual politics (see "The Tamer Tamed", et al.)
4. Petruchio be crazy, yo. Okay, Katharina is worked up over her situation, trust, and it's *possible* that someone could "get through" to her and make her feel better through gentle kindness, but the boisterous Pethruchio decides to make a fool of himself and imitate/magnify Kate's behavior in order to show her how ridiculous she's being, how she can have everything she wants (happiness and understanding through a true equal) by simply deigning to acknowledge the man who is turning himself inside out for her. "Making a fool out of yourself" for someone else is pretty much the definition of love in my book.
5. And finally, get over it, people. Men and Women sometimes have trouble making it work for a plethora of reasons: sexual politics, social standing, parents, money, sex, what movie to see and on and on. This is a play where the two people who have the courage to be themselves and to speak what they feel find happiness together and that's, frankly, awesome. I'd compare Taming to any number of "romantic" movies where the uptight society girl is charmed by the devil-may-care worldly guy and she learns to loosen up and he learns the joy of a loving commitment. The Aristocats, par example. Yes, Shakespeare's ghost haunt me, I just compared The Taming of the Shrew to a Disney film, and goddammit, I think the comparison stands.
"I'm half the man I used to be..."
"I'll have her but I will not keep her long..."
Henry is off of rehearsal this week as we rehearse Doctor and prepare to open Taming on Saturday. This period at S&C is affectionately called 'Hell Week', though truthfully it should be called 'Hell Fortnight plus One' or somesuch. For the next 21 days straight we will either be rehearsing or in performance for one or more of our three shows. After our performance on the Sunday of our third week (when all our shows are open) everyone sighs collectively in relief. Here's to a safe, productive Hell Week.
Oh, yeah. I broke up with my girlfriend...you know, the one who plays Kate to my Petruchio? My joke about surviving this summer just went from 'cute' to 'ironic'. Ha friggedy ha. Being pros, we're not going to let this affect us. but suffice it to say the 'acting' portion of our performances will be shifted from "pretending to hate each other at the beginning" to "pretending to like each other at the end".
Oh, yeah. I broke up with my girlfriend...you know, the one who plays Kate to my Petruchio? My joke about surviving this summer just went from 'cute' to 'ironic'. Ha friggedy ha. Being pros, we're not going to let this affect us. but suffice it to say the 'acting' portion of our performances will be shifted from "pretending to hate each other at the beginning" to "pretending to like each other at the end".
"I hate you." "Oh, I hate you, too."
Sunday, June 17, 2007
"It oft falls out, To have what we would have, we speak not what we mean. I something do excuse the thing I hate..."
Gah. So, I've gotten behind on blogging. No surprise there. I've gotten somewhat discouraged. I've had "big" seasons out there before (lots of roles or lines or responsibility), but this one seems to be getting to me. We open in two weeks and I don't know how we got here already. Plus, we essentially had a week off when our director was laid up, so all in all, I feel underprepared. I been thinkin' about a lot recently as pertains to the show and some of that stuff is gonna come out now, most likely in a haphazard way.
First of all, I've decided I disagree with the politics of the play. The invasion of France (including Edward III's and Ed Jr.'s previously) were wrong. Not just in a "all war is wrong" way, though I agree with that sentiment, but morally it's pretty indefensible. The English didn't want to pay rent on their French holdings and they wanted to make sure their wool exports would continue to go through Flanders, so bang zoom, let's kill some Frenchies. Henry and his court puff everyone up with the new religion of nationalism, mom and apple pie (or would that be Mum and figgy pudding?) but they've got to realize that their fine sentiments can't excuse their basic greed. I could never be a politician because apparently it involves doing a lot of bad things while making pretty piss poor excuses for them.
Thusly, I find it hard to relate to Henry, to really believe what I'm saying when I know he probably didn't believe a lot of it himself. I've played characters before that I didn't agree with (like when I played a rapist), but when the 'mirror of Christian kings' is a big fat liar, it makes it hard to jump in with both feet.
Ok, done with that. To be fair, Henry was a pretty good king for his short reign. He had a knack for problem-solving in the short term: he basically turned a dynasty that stunk pretty fairly of regicide and turned it into a war machine that handed one of Europe's strongest monarchies its royal Ass. If Henry hadn't died so soon after uniting France and England, we might be calling a
croissant 'crescent bread' and Joan of Arc might have been an unassuming farmer's wife. His ability to inspire men and win allegiance may have been overblown (three guys tried to kill him in Southhampton, after all), but he ultimately was an effective general and strategist, wisely playing the warring French factions against each other in order to improve the English chances. Historically, his life was meteoric.
The trouble with meteors, though, is that they burn up...aaannd I've lost my thread. I'll pick this up later...
WTF!?!
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
“Or can we cram within this wooden ‘O’ the very casques that did afright the air at Agincourt?”
The other night, we began the process of blocking the Battle of Agincourt (inside, because of the rain). There are no less than 19 combatants involved in the fight. “Can we cram within this wooden ‘O’”, indeed. This is certainly the most ambitious combat scene I’ve been involved in at S&C and if everything comes out right, it should be awesome. If things go wrong, we’ll probably have a few people who can’t count to 20 on their digits anymore.
Our fights can be pretty cool and I’ve been in a few great ones. I got to be Edgar in the climactic broadsword swordfight of Lear for my second year in the company, and I fenced as Laertes in Hamlet two years ago. One of our long-term (as in 28 years) company members is the fight coordinator and he does a great job of creating exciting but manageable fights. He’s also a big fan of wrestling, comic books and video games so he definitely gets a few “holy crap” moments in there. The big challenge this year is that of management. During each of the two sections of the Agincourt battle, there will be 4-5 separate fights happening all over the stage, and without a careful eye towards spacing and awareness, we could end up with a few missing eyes and stabbed backs. Maybe we should be doing Greek tragedy?
I saw “300” the other day. It was good, in a essentially mindless and flashy way, but the story struck me as being nearly the anti-thesis of Henry V. Both works feature a noble king and his small band of warriors facing overconfidence in overwhelming odds, and both feature the full or partial defeat of those odds through shrewd utilization of the “disciplines of war”. But the similarities end there. Henry features a war of aggression (how ever well justified it may debatably be) while 300 is about fighting against a foreign invader. Henry ends well (ostensibly) while 300 ends in tragedy, at least for the short term (as our non-Persian asses know, the “good guys” win the subsequent battles and the war). Trying to “analyze” Frank Miller’s “commentary” on ancient warfare and defending one’s beliefs to the death would be like exegizing an episode of Sesame Street, but I have to wonder about similarities in Henry and Xerxex’s characters. Apart from the 8 ft. tall, androgynous Coppertan model with a full body-piercing punch-card aspects, that is.
Our fights can be pretty cool and I’ve been in a few great ones. I got to be Edgar in the climactic broadsword swordfight of Lear for my second year in the company, and I fenced as Laertes in Hamlet two years ago. One of our long-term (as in 28 years) company members is the fight coordinator and he does a great job of creating exciting but manageable fights. He’s also a big fan of wrestling, comic books and video games so he definitely gets a few “holy crap” moments in there. The big challenge this year is that of management. During each of the two sections of the Agincourt battle, there will be 4-5 separate fights happening all over the stage, and without a careful eye towards spacing and awareness, we could end up with a few missing eyes and stabbed backs. Maybe we should be doing Greek tragedy?
I saw “300” the other day. It was good, in a essentially mindless and flashy way, but the story struck me as being nearly the anti-thesis of Henry V. Both works feature a noble king and his small band of warriors facing overconfidence in overwhelming odds, and both feature the full or partial defeat of those odds through shrewd utilization of the “disciplines of war”. But the similarities end there. Henry features a war of aggression (how ever well justified it may debatably be) while 300 is about fighting against a foreign invader. Henry ends well (ostensibly) while 300 ends in tragedy, at least for the short term (as our non-Persian asses know, the “good guys” win the subsequent battles and the war). Trying to “analyze” Frank Miller’s “commentary” on ancient warfare and defending one’s beliefs to the death would be like exegizing an episode of Sesame Street, but I have to wonder about similarities in Henry and Xerxex’s characters. Apart from the 8 ft. tall, androgynous Coppertan model with a full body-piercing punch-card aspects, that is.
"Tonight...we dine...at SPAGOS!"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)