|
When you worked with John Cusack's Commedia company in Chicago,
New Crime, the actors had an entire year to work on one show. Cutting Ball also tends towards long rehearsal processes, Shrew, for example, has a two and half month process. What do you think the benefits are for allowing so much development time?
A long rehearsal time is a great benefit because it allows you to take big risks and follow a lot of impulses. When we talk about 'mining' material that is a pretty precise metaphor. Mining is not a quick process -- it involves exploring and digging and sifting and examining. You come up with all this source material. Then you can hone and craft the piece out of this big pool of source material. "Woyzeck" is a dense text, Heiner Müller's texts are extremely dense, as are Shakespeare's. When you have more rehearsal time there is less emphasis on needing to immediately find the "right" way to play a scene or a relationship or a character arc. It can be very stultifying to the creative process to feel pressure to make the "right" choice right away. You tend to take less risks, and lock on to something safe that works but is, perhaps, less interesting or surprising or resonant. With a longer process you can really do more justice to all the layers of meaning a text contains. Sometimes unexpected truths emerge from a piece only after working on it for a while.
What Commedia or improvisational techniques that you practiced with New Crime are you bringing to your performance of Petruchio?
New Crime's style was adapted from the Actor's Gang (in L. A.), who in turn adapted parts of it from work they did with George Bigot of France's Theatre du Soleil. It seemed to hold a tremendous amount of potential for me -- extremely high energy, physical and emotionally sincere work combined with a precise presentational format that compelled the actor to give everything away to the audience. So, while it allowed the actor to ignite his or her emotional/physical energy, it demanded a great deal of generosity and forbid insincere indulgence or histrionics.
At New Crime we spent a great deal of time exploring contemporary analogs to the Commedia's stock characters. So, from that perspective, I bring with me the willingness to explore Petruchio's emotional and physical extremes from the standpoint of character, as opposed to plot. He is no shrinking violet. And while he is often interpreted as a calculating and ruthless egotist, with a dose of charm. I see Petruchio as being very sincere and true to himself. He's a sort of a hybrid character, combining traits of the Capitano, Arlecchino and, of course, a touch of the Lover -- he is certainly an iconoclast. He absolutely loves to play and this gives him the ability to be both totally sincere and completely unpredictable -- something of a loose cannon, I suppose.
At New Crime we improvised the characters we played for six to eight weeks before we started rehearsing the text and written scenes. We got to explore back-stories, relationships and situations that never appeared in the actual play. That was so valuable in allowing us to feel confident in playing the whole emotional life of our characters within the confines of the written script. It also taught me that you don't stop improvising just because you're working with a text -- that the whole performer's goal of being "in the moment" onstage is really the process of continuing to improvise within a given set of precise words and movements.
That's true of Lazzi, as well. Improvising in the New Crime style required that you adhere to a fairly strict set of physical rules. Within those rules we could develop these fun physical gags which we would then integrate into the characters' interaction in the plays. We were especially inspired by the old Warner Brothers and Max
Fleischer cartoons. We're using a lot of lazzi in "Shrew."
In Cutting Ball's last production you played the Captain in Buchner's Woyzeck, in what ways is that character similar to the role of Petruchio?
That is hard for me to answer, because from an interior perspective they don't feel very similar at all to me. What comes to me most readily is how they are dissimilar -- the Captain is extremely insecure, hostile and remote -- whereas (at this point in the process, anyway) I don't think Petruchio is any of that. They both carry a certain status and wield a certain amount of power, though I think the Captain's is much more absolute in the world of "Woyzeck" than Petruchio's is in "Shrew." They certainly both have large egos.
I think the Captain thrives on dominance -- he gets off on it. He loathes real relationships in that they present the possibility of reciprocity, response, or simply having to acknowledge the needs of another. All of which terrify him. Petruchio thrives on relationship, on interaction, playing with and off of others. He is a true improviser in that he always tries to say 'yes!' He is a master of the old improv game "Yes, and... Yes, but...." Control interests him only insofar as it allows him to keep the game going.
Inevitably by taking on the role of Kate you inherit a history of feminist frustration and dozens of different ways in which actresses have approached the role, do you find yourself burdened by these ghosts?
I do not find myself burdened by ghosts. At Trinity Rep Conservatory, where I took the largest part of my theater training, we were taught to be tools to a director's vision, to "subvert" if you will, one's own opinion and simply do your job as an actor. I think some people may leave the theater feeling nauseous at the end of our show, but so be it. Others may come away with a very different feeling. I cannot concern myself with making Kate jibe with modern day feminist propensities. That is Rob's job.
In what ways do you find your induction character, a powerful lesbian woman, gives meaning to your performance as Kate?
In some ways, that character has to be forgotten quickly or else I'd make myself truly crazy. I hope that every person seeing The Taming of the Shrew can relate to the bigger questions asked in the play and come away with some personal insights. By the end of the play, I think my induction character might really be able to do this as well. She needs to examine the imperious way she treats her entourage and her girlfriend and she needs to ask herself why she felt it was okay to mess with Sly's mind, a drunken tourist completely unknown to her.
Do you think that Kate's character ultimately represents Shakespearean commentary on the appropriate role of women in the 17th century or is more of a symbolic commentary on the general necessity to civilize one's animal and crass behavior?
I would say both, and so many colors in between as well. My personal take on Kate's journey is this: she is out of control at home with no boundaries, guidance or unconditional love. Beating yourself up and/or beating others up as you make your way through life does not promote love or peace in oneself. It actually perpetuates self-loathing. Kate finds a much needed breathing space with the parameters that Petruchio lays down and her self-loathing abates. In the end, she has a partner who watches her back at all times and, more importantly, her immediate family no longer has control over her. She's not a slave to the hair trigger that family members can often activate. In the end, she is much more comfortable as a human being and in her own skin.
How do you feel about playing Bianca, a woman whose character is arguably treated as little more than domestic property?
Chad and I joke about this because I'm frequently on stage and say very little. He'll say, "Shhh...no talking. In this marriage you don't get to speak." I love playing this part because Bianca may be perceived as weak, but in a world where the highest bidder gets to be her husband, Bianca gets quite a few chances to gets to speak her mind. She decides when and what she will learn. She ultimately decides who she will marry. And when all of the guys are trying to get the girls to have a verbal sparring match, she cuts the men down with one line. I love those moments.
In what ways do you find your induction character (a lesbian) gives meaning to the character of Bianca?
Though arguably dissimilar, the two characters (Bianca and the Lord's porn star lesbian girlfriend) share the same level of status. Both are beta females to more powerful women. In exploring the two roles, I found that Bianca actually gave meaning and strength to the porn star. When the play within a play is over, I feel my porn star character is stronger for having (temporarily) lived in a world where her desires were acknowledged and respected.
Having just finished a three-month rehearsal process on Cutting Ball's last production, Woyzeck, in what ways have you found your performance benefits from the luxury of a long rehearsal process?
I love the fact that the group can spend enough time to together to really read each other on and off stage. I get the chance to play and explore well before tech starts without feeling like I need to be locked into a character. It's wonderful.
How were you first exposed to dance?
Lisa: I was first exposed to dance by my best friend in Kindergarten, and after watching her dance for a few years, I decided it was my turn to try it out! I've been dancing for almost ten years now.
Elena: I started ballet classes when I was very young and as I grew older I began to explore other forms of dance including hip hop, modern and jazz. From there it turned into a passion of mine and I have been taking classes off and on since then.
Cat: I originally started dancing when I was 5 years old at a ballet studio in Marin County. After a few years though, I wasn’t too keen on continuing so I shifted to theatre and piano studies. When I was around 12 I picked up dance again, but in the form of jazz and hip hop, as well as ballet. Ever since then, I’ve delighted in a mixture of theatre, music, and dance to make my life an splendid one!
What led you to hip hop in particular?
Elena: I have more training in hip hop than in any other dance form and it is by far my favorite, so I was very excited to work on this show. Hip hop is a very upbeat, exciting and versatile style of dance which appeals to a wide audience and I hope it contributes positively to the show.
Lisa: I've always been attracted to the sharp movements and clean-ness of hip-hop dance. I find it to be a generally aesthetically pleasing dance, and as you'll see in this show, we stretch the boundaries of the umbrella term "hip-hop".
Cat: I was initially drawn to hip hop merely as a fling at the musical theatre company I was a part of. I thought it would be a fun way to revisit dance on a less serious level than ballet. It turned out to be highly enjoyable and I continued to take classes in conjunction with other forms of dance.
In what ways is your experience with Rob Melrose, director of Shrew, distinct from your experiences with him at Marin Academy?
Elena: The experience in Rob's professional shows seems to be more of a malleable vision created by everyone in the cast. I have thoroughly enjoyed being able to see amazing professional actors breathe life into Rob’s vision, while bringing their own personality and style to the table.
Lisa: When Rob asked me to choreograph Comedy of Errors a couple of years ago, I dove into the project knowing barely anything about choreography, but in the end I learned an incredible amount of indispensable knowledge about working with people (dancers and actors), what a piece should look like in terms of aesthetics, etc. Rob has led me, knowingly or not I am unsure, to one of the greatest passions in my life: dancing and directing at the same time, what could be better?
Cat: Working with Rob at Marin Academy has been and will always be a most memorable experience. Much of the way Rob has directed at MA holds true at the Cutting Ball. His open mind, utmost enthusiasm, and overflowing creativity are clearly apparent in both venues. It is wonderful to be a part of this show because it has enabled me to gain a new perspective on the world of theatre outside of the Marin bubble. I love the connection that comes from being in a close cast and Rob’s hilarious sense of humor is the glue that sticks us all together!
Having recently completed your role as Woyzeck in Cutting Ball’s last production, how have you experienced moving into the role of Lucentio, a romantic optimist?
It’s a welcome change. Woyzeck was an amazing and very tough role, one that challenged every part of my technique as an actor. Even though it was only an hour-long show, Woyzeck as a character goes through so many extreme changes. Half the time he doesn’t know what he wants. And even if he does he doesn’t know how to go about getting it, which makes things complicated for an actor because there are so many options for you to play. I’ve always loved Shakespeare because his characters are so clear in their desires. Most of the time, they come right out and say what they want. My character Lucentio is pretty simplistic in what he’s going after: first he wants to study and soak up the culture of Padua, then as soon as he sees Bianca he wants her as his own and spends the rest of the play executing a plan to get her. Simple. I also like Lucentio because he’s optimistic and charming and intelligent. He’s light, as opposed to Woyzeck who was a very dark and “heavy” character to play. But Lucentio’s also not your typical Shakespearean lover in that when the pieces are all in place and he’s told that Bianca can be his, he experiences doubt. He actually questions himself as to what he really wants – a monogamous life of love, or the freedom of a bachelor - which you don’t see from lovers very often in Shakespeare’s plays. And in the same instant he feels doubt, he overcomes it and says “No, this is who I want and I’m sticking to her.” I admire him for that.
What are a few of the most interesting challenges you face as an actor when approaching an experimental rendition of a classic piece?
I think the biggest challenge is actually over-experimentation. Directors have been good at really messing around with Shakespeare, setting plays in different time-periods or genres, or experimenting with context and making everything highly symbolic. But honestly, my opinion is if you’re doing that without bringing out anything new in the play, then it’s just superficial. If you’re layering a specific time period or genre on top of the text just because you enjoy that specific time period (and it doesn’t bring out anything new about the piece for the audience to discover), then it’s pointless. I’ve seen too many of those productions. These stories have gone down in history for a reason. They’re classics because they resound within us and always will. And they’re written in such a beautiful and masterly style that they’re probably the greatest example of what the English language is capable of. Anytime you present Shakespeare, the story needs to be given priority, not the costumes or the acrobatics or the “style” of the play. If those are intriguing – great – that’s an added bonus, but they should be supporting the story.
Rob’s idea to add some Commedia dell’Arte influences to Shrew is a great one because this play is custom-made for such physicalized comedy. You have so many different “classes” of characters (lover, servant, tutor, businessman, etc.) and each has a certain style of movement according to the Commedia tradition. Watching those styles come together for – oh, say - a fight between two characters, or when a servant changes into a lover or vice versa, so much more of the comedy comes out (not to mention it shows off the ranges of the exceptional actors). And that only supports the already hilarious text. Through the use of such physicality, I think this play becomes simpler to understand, and really just a lot funnier than if it were done “realistically.”
Do you find playing a Shakespearean role to be a unique challenge?
Shakespeare is always a challenge, but a fun one. I studied Shakespeare at two schools, NYU and RADA. At RADA the poetry, the text, is given priority. You learn the dissection of iambic pentameter, where to breathe, how to bring out thesis and antithesis, etc. It was all very technical. At NYU the technique was more about really going after what your character wants, and if you are doing that fully, the language will fall into place – which does happen. I think the best classical actor finds a middle ground, which is the real challenge of playing Shakespeare. Myself, I kind of tend toward the latter, going after what I want and hoping the language falls into place.
Shakespeare’s language is some of the most beautiful in the cannon, and should be treated as such. But frankly audiences aren’t going to care about how beautiful the language is if they don’t know what’s going on. So in a way, no, it’s not unique because you’re trying to go after what you want, just like any character. But unlike that, you have to respect the poetry and the need to get the beauty, the wit, and the plot across to the audience by manipulating the language.
When were you first exposed to Shakespeare?
Shakespeare was always a "presence" in our house. My father, who was a prodigious reader, kept a large, rather battered copy of The Complete Works on the book shelves within easy reach of his chair. From my earliest years, I often saw him with the book opened on his knees. Also, his best friend, who lived close by and was always spoken of respectfully in our house, taught Shakespeare at a local university. So, I was "aware" of someone called Shakespeare from an early age.
What do you think some of the primary challenges an actor faces are when tackling Shakespeare?
To summon up the courage to embrace his marvelous language and make it live for the audiences! Shakespeare uses tremendous undercurrents of sound and elements of poetry within his verse such as assonance, consonance, onomatopoeia. The actor needs to put his imaginative ear to the page and not only listen and recognize these (since they give meanings to the character's state of mind), but also be willing to pass this exquisite wash of words, of sounds on to the audience--whole-heartedly and without reserve. To do so requires a strong vocal technique and a willingness to use heightened speech. And, of course, to make it sound effortless.
Another challenge for the actor is to handle and assimilate the dense language and to think through to the end of the thoughts, which can go on for any number of lines. And within these dense thoughts full of multiple clauses, pull out the important words, the simple subject and verb, and channel them to the audience. He has to make sure the audience understands what they need to understand. The well-known actor and director, Margaret Webster, used to say that you had to think of Shakespeare as a telegram. If you had to pay fifty cents for each word, which ones would you keep? Shakespeare demands that the actor be master of the language, both for sounds and for content, and to shape them for the audience.
In terms of content, Shakespeare was a master of rhetoric. Much of his writing has a very specific structure, especially evident in the longer speeches. It is important for the actors to be aware of Shakespeare’s writing patterns. For example, Shakespeare is fond of an "either-or" construction and also the use of three's--three nouns, three phrases, and three clauses. By identifying and incorporating these patterns, the actor can contrast or build thoughts to the greatest effect and emotional power.
Shakespeare himself was an actor. He knew what actors could do and did. Bottom line? They act. They just don't "speak in verse." Ultimately, every actor has to seize Shakespeare's words and own them, act them, do something marvelous with them, and not just a lot of vocal gymnastics.
And, finally, an actor always needs to remember that it's called a "play" and to have a good time no matter how much is being demanded. Shakespeare's plays call for extra work, but they are worth every minute of your time and attention.
In Shakespeare's time there was no formal dictionary. Can you speak to how that impacted Shakespeare's works and makes it peculiar from plays written today?
I can look at that from both perspectives, both of the audience and the playwright. Since Shakespeare's plays (as all plays) were meant to be spoken (acted) and heard and not read, I don't think it made much difference to the audience if there was a dictionary. The meaning of unfamiliar words would have been assumed through the word's context in the lines and also how the actor said it-- in much the same way that words are "colored" and understood today by how they are said, especially slang. We grasp the meaning by the sound. And with Shakespeare's plays and so many words moving at a rapid pace, who would have had time to even think about a new word much less question what it meant?
If anyone had had the time to examine or ponder a word in the flow that went past, they probably could figure out or recognize what it meant. Many of Shakespeare's words are based on Latin roots and Latin was the main subject in the "grammar" schools. (Latin was the universal language and the official language for diplomats, church, and the law as well as commerce and medicine.)
Both in Elizabethan times as now, the language was growing at a phenomenal rate, especially with words having to do with science and words being assimilated from other languages and cultures as the English seamen returned from voyages and political refugees sought asylum. Then as now, new words are absorbed long before they even appear in a dictionary. So, I see no problems for an audience.
On the other hand, Shakespeare himself (and us) definitely benefited from his not having access to a dictionary. He never spent time searching for the mot juste. He simply made up words to fit his verse or his fancy, mostly by adding suffixes to existing words or Latin roots. Some of the words he is credited with creating or using for the first time include sanctimonious, accommodation, assassination, multitudinous, incarnadine, obscene, dexterously, premeditated, submerged, indistinguishable, dislocate. He loved playing with words: he made verbs from nouns by adding an "s" to them and so used "pageants" "dukes" etc. He also incorporated slang and the vernacular into usable words. No dictionary kept him fancy-free and he seems to have had a ball! The result is that his plays have a vocabulary of approximately 34,000 words, compared to 12,000 in the King James Bible.
© 2008 The Cutting Ball Theater |
Paige Rogers and David Sinaiko on working together
Felica Benefield on Bianca and her character from the induction (Prologue)
David Skillman on the Process
Avery Monsen on Shakespearean Clowning
Cat Lum, Elena Scott and Lisa Tsubouchi on Hip Hop Dancing 
Chad Deverman on Lucentio and Woyzeck 
Gwynth Richards on Shakespeare and Sound 
LeNeac Weathersby on Dominance
Sam Gibbs on Comedy