Shakespeare under the Stars

Last night we worked on the play outside in the Elgin plaza behind city hall. Another company was in the space and we needed to run the show somewhere else. It was a nice night, so alfresco Shakespeare seemed like the right idea.

Being outside is a nice change of pace. After working in small rooms and the echo chamber of our space, the openness of the plaza was a welcome relief.

It also forces you to be louder.

Too often it’s too easy to get quiet when you’re acting. In realistic plays this isn’t a problem. But with Shakespeare or any classical author, it can be death. Being bigger is usually better than reducing your character down to television size. When you’re outside there is no choice - speak up or fall off. If you’re not heard, who cares what your character is doing.

****

Last night we ran through the play. It took two hours and twenty minutes without the beginning and ending dances, which would have extended the time to two hours and thirty minutes. Figure with one fifteen minute intermission we would be at 2:45. The good news is that we can really tighten this show up and get the time way down. Most Shakespeare plays are almost three hours. At least we have a chance of making this a lean performance.

The challenge last night which will be all week is the lines. Everyone has them. Now it’s a matter of wrestling them to the ground and making them our own. It sounds easy but when you’re out there in the scene, you can sometimes lose your place and even your nerve.

****

Another fun thing about last night was the size of the plaza. It is very large. This allows for bigger gestures and greater use of the space. Everything seems much more possible. Maybe its being outside that creates this sense of possibility. Or maybe we’re at the point where the play starts to take shape. In any case, we will be returning tonight to run the show again.

Last Night There Was A Moment

Last night there was a moment.

You know what I’m talking about? It’s when you work on a project and for the first time it clicks.

Last night we were working on Act 2:1 – the “Elbow” scene as we like to call it. Much of the ground work had been done weeks ago, but nothing came together until last night.

Part of this stems from pace (speed) and energy. Terry (the director) started work on the scene before us with Angelo (Ben) and Escalus (Joe). It centers on a small debate between the sage-like Escalus (Joe at the Yoda age of 44) and his younger and newly appointed boss Angelo (Ben somewhere in his twenties).

Prior to last night the scene was very polite, like: “Okay, you talk, now I talk, now you talk.” And on it would go until we made our entrance. But last night with Terry shadowing the actors like a mad conductor, waving his arms and snapping his fingers, the scene came to life and all of a sudden I was somewhere else – not on the eighth floor of the Professional Building in Elgin, but actively engaged in a debate. It was very exciting – like two boxers swatting in the ring.

That thrill prompted our scene, which in the past, was very choppy, to say the least – filled with fits and starts. But again, Terry was snapping, like a Michael Vick pitbull, pushing us to “pick it up.” Suddenly, there was little time to think – only react. Between Pompey (Jim), Elbow (Greg) and myself as Froth (Sean, hey that’s me!) we started to connect and the scene was funny. But more importantly, it was fun to be in it playing.

That’s the click – not the Tennesse Williams “click” of his alcoholic character Brick, but more of a brick smashing the politeness and sloppiness of our previous efforts.

We Are At It Again.

We are at it again - rehearsing our third show at the new space and about to finish up our “short” 2007 season.

It has been a testing ground.

The first two shows were interesting and drew some fine critique. Now we have to build on that and keep growing. Even though the theatre’s been around for eight years, it feels like we’re starting from scratch. Being in a permanent space is attractive. But it really forces you to think about what you’re doing. Will it sell enough tickets to pay the rent and, hopefully, everything and everyone else?

Our latest effort, Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, has been a challenge. The rehearsals have been serious and fun. The cast is very willing and talented.

Measure is one of Shakespeare’s “problem plays” mainly because it doesn’t have a strong resolution. There is a lot of ambiguity in the play. The great thing is how modern it is. There is political corruption, scandal and sex. You can see some Jerry Springer in this show, along with Bill Clinton, and certainly reality television. And yes, it also is pretty funny.

The problem, if there is one, is that the audience doesn’t know the show. This isn’t your typical Shakespeare offering in Chicago’s suburbs. Unlike the other familiar summer plays, where you remember what they taught you in school, or you saw a movie version, this play has a story we don’t hear very often. And yet, I believe it will resonate with people that see it. And then they’ll tell two people and so on. We will see.

The truth is this play has been on our director’s list (Terry Domschke) list for some time. He has a real desire to do this play. So I, in my let’s take on the world tone, said “Why not?” The reality is nobody else in the suburbs would do this kind of work.

Most classic theatre is absent in the suburbs. And when I say classic theatre I don’t mean the work of Shepard, Miller or Williams. They are certainly great authors, but I’m talking about the old playwrights with the larger-than-life stories and characters: Sophocles, Moliere, Marivaux, Goldoni, Chekhov, etc.

These are the playwrights that make the really good actors and directors. Working on these plays is tough. This is because they take some decoding to figure out. Unlike many contemporary scripts that do all the work for you, the classical theatre speaks a whole different language. But you learn the most working on them.

I'm Back

Okay it has been awhile. This is like working out. You really have good intentions but it can be so hard to get to the gym everyday, or in this case, the blog.

I stopped posting on May 18 – the day we opened Murdering Marlowe.

So the question now is: What happened?

The run went better than Life X 3. We averaged double the attendance, which was good, but we still lost money.

The audience response was encouraging. Everyone seemed to like the show and they were able to handle the Shakespeare style language. The cast bonded well and worked hard.

We had a tremendous amount of press and the one review we pulled in was thoughtful.

So what’s the problem?

Maybe it’s just a matter of time. If we keep trending (I sound like I’m running a business) in the right direction, we should be in good shape. The trick comes down to buying enough time to get established. Even though we’ve been around for 8 years, we are now, finally, working in a permanent space in downtown Elgin. And after working throughout Chicago and its suburbs, it feels like we’re starting out all over again.

So “we have to put one foot in front of the other” and “just keep swimming.”

And I’ll try; really try to keep this blog current.

TONIGHT, WE OPEN!

Yes, finally, after 7 weeks of work, we'll put Mr. Marlowe up and out on the stage.

Tonight should be exciting. We have a full house and the reception will follow with the bubbly.

This cast has come a long way from the start of the process. Much work has been done and they've responded well to the challenges of the text.

At this point, my anticipation of how the audience will react to this thriller, is huge. This is the best part: watching the actors throw their talent, energy and guts on the stage. And to see how the audience works with them, supports them and gets involved in the whole experience.

Ah yes, good times, good times.

MARLOWE: THE REAL STORY PART 8

WHY WAS HE MURDERED? THEORY THREE

Which brings us to a third explanation. Marlowe was a known member of a heretical group led by the famous Sir Walter Raleigh, an important Elizabethan figure who was alternately in and out of favor with the queen. The Raleigh group was opposed by a rival group that also sought the favor of Elizabeth I, led by the Earl of Essex. In one way or another, Marlowe, in his role as a spy, or possibly because of his dangerous atheistic talk, had to be silenced. The question remains whether Raleigh needed Marlowe out of the way, or Essex needed, for some reason, to silence Marlowe. Key to this question is the relationship of Thomas Walsingham to these two rival factions.

Walsingham, no longer under the protection of his recently deceased relative, Sir Francis Walsingham, was involved in the "study group" led by Raleigh, and, as such, could be painted with the same brush of heresy. It wasn't simply the heretical views of the Raleigh faction, but the fact that such heresy was also a threat to the authority of the queen. It was a fatal combination of disbelief and treason. The new spymaster, Sir Robert Cecil, was as dogged as his predecessor, and would have little regard for Thomas Walsingham's position.

It is curious that all three of the men present with Marlowe at Deptford were nefarious characters. All three, along with Marlowe, had been spies (and, in the case of Poley, would continue as an active agent). It is even more remarkable to accept the strange fact that Poley and Skeres stood by while the struggle between Frizer and Marlowe was going on. One might assume that Frizer "drew the short straw" and was the designated assassin, while his two colleagues were available should Frizer encounter some difficulty with their intended victim.

MARLOWE: THE REAL STORY PART 7

WHY WAS HE MURDERED? THEORY THREE

Which brings us to a third explanation. Marlowe was a known member of a heretical group led by the famous Sir Walter Raleigh, an important Elizabethan figure who was alternately in and out of favor with the queen. The Raleigh group was opposed by a rival group that also sought the favor of Elizabeth I, led by the Earl of Essex. In one way or another, Marlowe, in his role as a spy, or possibly because of his dangerous atheistic talk, had to be silenced. The question remains whether Raleigh needed Marlowe out of the way, or Essex needed, for some reason, to silence Marlowe. Key to this question is the relationship of Thomas Walsingham to these two rival factions.

Walsingham, no longer under the protection of his recently deceased relative, Sir Francis Walsingham, was involved in the "study group" led by Raleigh, and, as such, could be painted with the same brush of heresy. It wasn't simply the heretical views of the Raleigh faction, but the fact that such heresy was also a threat to the authority of the queen. It was a fatal combination of disbelief and treason. The new spymaster, Sir Robert Cecil, was as dogged as his predecessor, and would have little regard for Thomas Walsingham's position.

It is curious that all three of the men present with Marlowe at Deptford were nefarious characters. All three, along with Marlowe, had been spies (and, in the case of Poley, would continue as an active agent). It is even more remarkable to accept the strange fact that Poley and Skeres stood by while the struggle between Frizer and Marlowe was going on. One might assume that Frizer "drew the short straw" and was the designated assassin, while his two colleagues were available should Frizer encounter some difficulty with their intended victim.

MARLOWE: THE REAL STORY PART 6

WHY WAS HE MURDERED? THEORY TWO

A second scenario proposes that Marlowe was done in because of his heresy. Shortly after Marlowe's death, a document, written a short time before by Richard Baines, surfaced. In it, Baines claimed that Marlowe had uttered various blasphemies, the most serious of which denied the divinity of Christ. Ten days before Marlowe's appearance before authorities, Marlowe's fellow playwright, Thomas Kyd, was arrested and tortured until he confessed that heretical documents found in his chamber were written by Marlowe when the two had shared quarters in 1591.

It is believed that Marlowe's summons before the Privy Council a few weeks before he was murdered was based on these accusations, as well as other unspecified evidence that Marlowe was a heretic. Heresy in Elizabethan times was a capital offense, carried out in a most horrendous manner -- hanging, disemboweling while still alive, drawing and quartering. Yet, Marlowe was released by the council, with the mild admonishment that he must remain in the area and report daily to officers of the council.

This was a curious procedure, considering the severity of such an accusation. As a matter of record, Marlowe was summoned by the Privy Council for this interview while he was visiting his patron, Thomas Walsingham, so it is unlikely that Walsingham was unaware of Marlowe's predicament. A possibility exists that the true reason for his requested appearance had more to do with his association with others whom the council wished to discredit than with any intemperate beliefs on Marlowe's part.

An interesting corollary to this theory and the preceding one is that Baines reports that Marlowe spoke boldly of Jesus and his disciples as a licentious homosexual group, with blasphemies about Jesus' relationship to Peter. In effect, the Baines letter does triple duty in accusing Marlowe: heretic, blasphemer and sodomite.