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.

MARLOWE: THE REAL STORY PART 5

WHY WAS HE MURDERED? THEORY ONE

If Marlowe did not die from an argument over a bill (a "reckoning," as the Elizabethans called it), what was the motive for his murder? There are several possibilities, some more probable than others.

The first of these possible theories for "getting rid" of Marlowe was bandied about the small literary community of 1590s London. The several variations of this theory revolve around Marlowe's possible love life. One contemporary account reports that Marlowe was murdered by a jealous husband in a street brawl. Another suggests that the brawl was with a jealous competitor of Marlowe, both of whom sought the favors of a compliant and not too respectable mistress. A third, it has been suggested, proposes that Marlowe was a homosexual -- he was quoted as stating that those who love neither tobacco nor boys are missing something -- and that his murder somehow was involved with his aberrant sexual tastes. The implication is that he was involved with a rough crowd, or that he made the fatal mistake of approaching an unwilling young man who was not so inclined. Many of the interesting novels about Marlowe, particularly one written by the distinguished writer, Anthony Burgess, have scenes with Marlowe in energetic love trysts with boys and men. Marlovians defend their hero by arguing that sexuality in Elizabethan times was far more ambiguous than in the present day, and that sex between men was common. After all, did not Shakespeare suggest homosexual love for a youth in his sonnets? (It should be noted that in his sonnets, Shakespeare also expressed a passion for "a dark lady.")

All of these speculations fall into the category of gossip, and seem unlikely.

MARLOWE: THE REAL STORY PART 4

WAS MARLOWE REALLY MURDERED?

For the past 50 years or so, a theory has been put forth that Christopher Marlowe was not murdered at all. The proposition is that his killing was faked, and that Marlowe escaped from inevitable prosecution as a heretic by fleeing abroad. The main proponent of this theory, Calvin Hoffman, maintained in numerous writings that Christopher Marlowe was the author of the plays of Shakespeare.

The outlines of his theory go something like this:

With the connivance of Thomas Walsingham, and through the services of his men Frizer, Skeres and Poley, a recently executed man was substituted for the body of Marlowe. Marlowe then fled to Italy, where he wrote Shakespeare's greatest plays (many of them set in Italy), sent them back to Walsingham, and Walsingham had William Shakespeare, an actor, serve as a front man for the authorship of the plays. Of course, Walsingham would have had Marlowe's manuscripts recopied.

Hoffman relied heavily on what he termed "parallelisms," phrases and lines from Marlowe's acknowledged works that are very similar to lines from the plays of Shakespeare. Further, he raised the cherished argument that no one of Shakespeare's limited education could have written the erudite and complicated plays attributed to Shakespeare.

If Marlowe had been spirited away into exile, it was cleverly done. There are a number of references to Marlowe's death in various documents of the time, and friends and associates seemed to have no doubts that Marlowe had been killed at Deptford.

The most convincing argument, however, is the difference in quality between Marlowe's plays and those attributed to Shakespeare. If one rereads Marlowe's plays, one is struck by the absence of plot, the two-dimensionality of the characters, and the almost simplistic moral presentation of the plays. With the exception of some moments of soaring poetry, and, in Edward II, a few scenes of dramatic power, Marlowe's plays are not comparable in quality to even the earliest and least popular of Shakespeare's plays.

In brief, if the non-murder of Marlowe is dependent on his assuming the authorship of Shakespeare's plays, the case is indeed weak. In all likelihood, the man murdered in Deptford in 1593 was Christopher Marlowe. The question is "Why?"

MARLOWE: THE REAL STORY PT 3

WHO WAS CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE?

Christopher Marlowe, if he is known at all, is vaguely remembered as a playwright who wrote the immortal lines about Helen of Troy: "Was this the face that launched a thousand ships, and burnt the topless towers of Ilium?"

These lines from Dr. Faustus are repeated by actors auditioning for roles in the film "Shakespeare in Love," and serve as a cliche or the soaring poetry of Elizabethan drama. Yet, Marlowe was more than a single immortal line of blank verse. He was the most popular and successful playwright before and during Shakespeare's early years, having written five tremendously successful plays. It has been suggested that he collaborated with Shakespeare on the latter's three parts of Henry VI.

Like most of the playwrights of the era (except Shakespeare), Marlowe was a university graduate, having left Cambridge in 1585, about the time of his first success, Tamburlaine. He had left Cambridge under a cloud, and was denied his Master's degree until a letter from the Privy Council charged the university with granting it. "He has of late done the Queen great service." Cambridge relented, and he became Christopher Marlow, M.A. He had been born in Canterbury in 1564, the son of a shoemaker, two months before Shakespeare had been born in Stratford. Besides his fame as a poet, as well as a playwright, he was, in all probability, a spy.

Several accounts of fights that Marlowe had suggest that he had a violent temper. Other references to him propose that he was "sweet Kit Marlowe," an affable companion. The portrait in Corpus Christi College in Cambridge that has been purported to be the likeness of Marlowe shows a young dandy with a sardonic smile. Only one signature (as a witness to a will) exists. In contrast, the mysterious William Shakespeare is represented by two (perhaps three) portraits and a number of signatures. While we have a reasonably detailed paper trail of Marlowe's life, not much more is known about him than we know about Shakespeare. Calvin Hoffman has argued that, indeed, Marlowe was Shakespeare.

A great deal of evidence exists, however, that Marlowe was a spy. Under the power of Sir Francis Walsingham, Elizabeth I had the first of the British Secret Services, and university graduates were recruited for intelligence work. The enemy, of course, was primarily Spain, but, broadly speaking, it was an intelligence war against Catholics. Sir Francis's spy group engaged not only in intelligence gathering, but in elaborate schemes of entrapment. It was a very nasty enterprise.

One of Cambridge's objections to granting Marlowe a degree was his frequent absences with trips to the Continent. Were these espionage assignments in which he provided "good service to the Queen?"

REHEARSAL UPDATE

Last night we moved inside the performing space. What a difference! To see the actors work out their characters, the blocking, and the language - its a thrilling process.

Being in the space so early can only help. Too many times you find yourself in the space the week the show opens. Then everyone has to get "comfortable" in four days before the show goes up in front of an audience.

Last night was the first day for being off-book. Nobody disappointed. It wasn't perfect but it was honest and they worked at it. That's all you can ask for.

We're on the right track. Everyone is working hard, which is what I would expect, even though it can be lacking in some shows. You don't want to take anything for granted. Personally, I like to be way out in front of an audience when the show opens. It can be surprising for an actor and director to see what lies just out of one's reach when you keep pushing to go further. There is always more to do and to see. The more you work it, the more see it.

Tonight we're moving to the next series of scenes in the play. My hope is that we build on last night's success and move forward, building the show like a pyramid, one block at a time. Sounds cliche, but it's the best way to do it.

MARLOWE: THE REAL STORY PART 2

This continues our series on the various theories and speculations about Marlowe's death.

THE THREE MEN IN THE ROOM

More is known about the three other men in the room, Ingram Frizer, Robert Poley and Nicholas Skeres, than about Christopher Marlowe. Frizer, the man who killed Marlowe, was a servant of Sir Thomas Walsingham, a relative of Francis, the Spymaster. In this case, "servant" refers to a general handyman, a combination of secretary, administrative assistant, and gofer. Thomas Walsingham was not only Frizer's employer, but, as was often the case in Elizabethan times, a patron of Christopher Marlowe. To add to his mysterious resume, Frizer appears to have been an adept confidence man, specializing in schemes to lend money and extract more than he leant.

Robert Poley and Nicholas Skeres were, to one degree or another, spies in the employ of Francis Walsingham. Poley was deeply involved in "The Babbington Plot," a scheme by Roman Catholic dissidents to assassinate Elizabeth I and to replace her with the imprisoned Mary Queen of Scots. Evidence supports the idea that Poley infiltrated the plotters, encouraged their traitorous plans, and provided information to Francis Walsingham, allowing the plot to be both created and thwarted.

In order to maintain Poley's cover as a spy, Poley was comfortably imprisoned in the Tower of London for two years -- lenient, by Elizabethan standards. Skeres was also involved in the undoing of Babbington and his co-conspirators, and engaged in other assignments for Francis Walsingham.

Hence, all three were connected to the shadowy world of 16th century espionage and intrigue.

And so was Marlowe.

MURDERING MARLOWE: THE REAL STORY PART 1

The backstory about Christopher Marlowe has many theories. Fortunately there is an excellent site http://www.crimelibrary.com/ that offers some fine scholarship on the subject.

The story is by Russel Aiuto and we will be sharing it on this blog as we grow close to our show opening (May 18).

THE OFFICIAL STORY

May 31, 1593. A widow's house in Deptford, three miles from London. She rents rooms for meetings, and provides food and drink to those who wish to spend the day in contemplation. It is just after six in the evening, the sun not yet set, the room suffused in a pale, golden light. Supper is over. In a matter of minutes, Christopher Marlowe will be dead.

Three of the men are seated on a bench, "cheek by jowl," as one of them is to report later, in front of a trestle table. They are playing an Elizabethan version of backgammon. The only other furniture in the beamed, dark, low-ceiling room is a bed, upon which the fourth man, recovering from too much wine, is reclining. One of the men at the table, the one sitting in the middle of the three, says, over his shoulder, that the bill for their day's food and drink must be paid to their hostess. The young, drunken man on the bed protests. His share of the reckoning is too large, he says. The man at the table replies that the share is only right. The young man lurches to his feet and grabs the dagger from the seated man's belt -- kept in his belt at the small of his back, "Spanish style" -- and strikes him on his head, a superficial gash that bleeds profusely. He strikes him again, opening a second wound. The man struggles to his feet, grabs the wrist of the young man, and forces the dagger into the eye of his assailant. He falls to the floor, instantly dead. The man at the table had no choice. He had to defend himself.

This is the account of the three men, given to the coroner the next day, June 1, 1593, as the coroner and his jury of 16 men view the room and the body. It is a case of self-defense. The next day, June 2, in the churchyard of St. Mary's, Deptford, the dead man is buried. The grave is unmarked.

Death was a common event in Elizabethan London. Plague, violence, execution -- each day brought the end of life to more than a few 16th century Londoners, with little regard to rank or station. Death hovered above the city day after day. Why should the death of this one man concern us?

Two weeks later, the man who thrust the fatal blow is pardoned by Queen Elizabeth I.

Who is he, the man who is dead on the floor of a chamber in a widow's house? And how did he really die?

He must have been important.

MURDERING MARLOWE MACABRE

In the coming days, we will be posting information relating to the death of Christopher Marlowe, his associates, and the back story that surrounds our production.

Sure, the play is apocryphal, but the characters are intriguing and the city of London was one teaming mass of malcontents, plotters and opportunists.

Stay tuned!

OLD "BUS STOP" GETS A FRESH NEW LOOK

Went to see the preview performance of "Bus Stop" by William Inge last night. The play was performed in the black box theatre at ECC. It was directed by Beata Pilch from Trap Door Theatre in Chicago.

Seeing a small town realistic American classic re-imagined with hints of the avante-garde is absolutely wonderful. I never read or saw the play or movie, so I went in raw, with no expectations.

Little touches like the asides, spotlight speeches, strobe-light blackouts, overlapping dialogue and the overall sense of playfulness in the production, really opened the show up to the audience. The predominately young cast did an excellent job throughout.

If you go to the show, keep your eye on the actor playing the sheriff. He has a subtle intensity about him that is very interesting. In fact all the actors stayed focused and providing good support to each other, even when the focus wasn't on the them. The relationship between Beau and Cherie is fiery and the Professor serves wonderfully as narrator/character/storyteller. And the actor playing the young waitress has enough spunk to jump-start a car.

My hope is that audiences come out to see this play and enjoys the fresh interpretation that's been applied. It's very theatrical and completely accessible.

ONCE MORE INTO THE BREACH

Have been away for awhile.

Working on writing grants for the company, seeing shows and planning for the upcoming production of Murdering Marlowe.

Tomorrow night we start rehearsals. We had a reading almost two weeks ago. Now I'm eager to get going on this new story about some classic characters: Shakespeare and Marlowe. The play is very contemporary. The themes range from envy, jealousy, fame, marriage and desire. Breaking it all down should be a wonderful challenge.

The approach is fairly typical: block the play, work it, run it through and polish it to a fine sheen. That is the hope. The excitement comes from working with the actors and seeing what they bring to the play with their ideas and talents. What I see is only a part of the whole. The key is to see what is created by all of us working together, collaborating and dissecting, devouring and digesting the play. It's an interesting process that can be exhausting, because once you see something on stage that is intrigues you, the next instinct is to explore it further, which leads to other doors, new discoveries, and really long sentences like this one.

In any case, tomorrow will be the first major step into this new world, and I'm excited to see where we end up on May 18.

FIRST READ

Last night the cast of Murdering Marlowe read the play.

There is something so exciting about a first reading. Watching and listening to the actors work the language and get their heads around the ideas and expressions.

In this case, it's more thrilling than usual since the play is written in a pseudo-Elizabethan style with verse and prose. There is nothing more engaging than the sound of different words working together to form the music that is the play. And in this play the ideas are quite contemporary: envy, power, religion, fame and sex.

It should be a thrilling ride, but more on that later.

HERE WE GO

After a week to scramble, a cast has been assembled for Murdering Marlowe.

We had auditions then conducted some callbacks (rare for me) and were finally able to put together a group of talented people.

Tonight we'll meet to read the play and go over introductions. This will give us roughly 9 weeks to get this play in shape. That should be enough and with the commitment of everyone involved, this should be another exciting show.

Currently, I've been tossing around the idea of staging this play with a film-noir/neo-noir style. Charles Marowitz, the playwright, says the play is above all a thriller rather than a period drama. I would agree. He actually has a wonderful mock interview with Will Shakespeare that sheds some light on moving classical plays to different time periods.

CM: Does it bother you to have your plays radically reinterpreted, their time periods changed, the characters costumed in attire ranging from the Stone Age to the 21st century?

WS: Why should it? I did the same in my own time. We played in "modern dress," you know -- or what was modern in the l6th and l7th centuries. It doesn't matter to me what the clothes look like, or the settings. What does bother me is when these wiseacres impose a new story on to mine which disintegrates the original and makes a mush of both. It's like a bad organ transplant; the original organism rejects the new heart or liver and the fusion only draws attention to the incompatibility of both. Now that really does get my goat!

CW: So you don't mind being freely "reinterpreted"?

WS: Being reinterpreted is the only way my work can possibly survive. It almost perished in the Victorian era because a few fussbudgets were determined to protect and defend me against distortion -- but what they called "distortion" was really the Present interacting with the Past, which is the bounden duty of the Present to do. God forfend that I should fall into the hands of the Purists, the Scholars, and the Academics! They're the New Puritans and we have to fight them as staunchly today as I did five centuries ago.

Interesting stuff. And I couldn't agree more. The plays won't survive if we don't constantly play with them in order to discover what lies beneath the text. Or what new worlds are waiting for us to wake up.

A WEEK TO SCRAMBLE

It has been a week to scramble.

After holding auditions last Sunday night for Murdering Marlowe, we went to work on making choices on how to cast the show. That is why I've been away this week.

You can go back and forth on what to do about casting a show. We had some fine talent show up and I would say all went well, except for the fact that we didn't have enough men to cover the parts for the play. Damn. Damn. Damn.

So the week was spent making emails and phone calls, trying to find people to fill out the show. I think I hit 1 for 8 from the field. Not my best week in office. The problem is that we're pretty shrewd about casting. This isn't the little league baseball team where everyone gets to play regardless of talent. If you don't fit the part or the play, and I can't wedge you in somehow, we don't do it. That's it.

That's not arrogance. It's a responsibility to the audience that sees the work. It's also a responsibility to the playwright who wrote the piece.

I've had to reschedule a few shows due to that situation. This is because I believe it's important to have the best people you can find on stage. Especially for a show that will be getting a Chicago premiere. That might sound tough but you have to have some guiding principles or standards.

Still, I was encouraged by the auditions, which featured some wonderful women and some energizing men.

Now the trick is finding a way to cast the play, or move on to a new production. I have a few days. The clock is ticking.

ONE DOWN, TWO TO GO

We finished Life X 3 last night.

Endings are always difficult with theater. You work 6,8 or maybe 9 weeks with a cast, put up the show, ride the emotional roller coaster of audiences, reviews and wondering whether the heat will be on - then it's over. Just like that, it all seems to stop at once.

Usually you have a certain amount of downtime to reload and think of the future. In this case, we had scheduled auditions for Murdering Marlowe roughly two hours after Life ended. Luckily our strike only took 10 minutes (one of the perks with doing a Janus show).

The show stayed strong throughout the run, and the cast kept their focus, even with light audiences, fluctuating temperatures and hot and spicy cheez-its.

I felt fortunate to direct this group. They worked well with each other - onstage and off - which can be rare in theater; where moods change like the wind and people can get very strange very quickly. But this group did us proud for our first effort at the Elgin Art Showcase.

Now the challenge becomes growing our audience. It feels like we're starting from scratch.

Fortunately, we have two more "practice" productions to see how what we'll work best for us.

Yes, we're scheduled beyond the next two shows, but they are part of our "breaking-in" phase to see what works well in the space. So far so good, save for the fact that we need to find the secret to getting the ever illusive larger audience.

As the late (I'll call him great) theater producer Fred Solari (Athenaeum Theatre, Chicago) said to me a few years ago: "When you find out the secret, be sure to let me know."

I THINK WE CAN, I THINK WE CAN

Previous posts found me lamenting the lack of male actors in the suburbs. This post still has me pouting, but there is hope, as the numbers have changed.

At last count, we have six men lined up to audition for the pseudo-Elizabethan thriller Murdering Marlowe by Charles Marowitz. We also have 10 women auditioning for only two parts, which is very typical and unfortunate.

Perhaps we should do something with a dominant female cast. That would makes sense. Maybe The Trojan Women as suggested by Terry Domschke (Artistic Director) or a gender-bending take on a classical play with the author long dead (as suggested by Tara Schuman - Stage Manager). Perhaps the low turnout is due to the foreign title. This is, after all, a newer play, which will be the Chicago-area premiere.

This is a discussion me and my fellow Janus folks had last night.

Would a better-known play attract more people to audition as well as an audience to support them? The obvious answer is yes.

So why would we decide to do two new plays to christen our new space? It appears better to play it safe, right? Of course it does.

The problem is that I (Sean, the director of these two plays) have been seduced by their wonderful theatrical qualities.

These are great plays for actors with meaty roles, thrilling language and interesting stories. Oh, yes, the audience will find them exciting as well.

This is little consolation when your current show struggles to find an audience and your next show cannot easily be cast.

Still, I have hope that these next two days will present us with more actors to audition and a strong weekend closing of Life X 3. At least that's my hope. I thing we can, I think we can, I think.

AND THEN THERE WERE THREE

This is the last week to see Life X 3. Only three performances left before we wave goodbye to this strange ride.

The weather has not been kind, which has led to sporadic attendance. But the cast has been a strong bunch - able to stay professional despite the myriad of distractions that comes with a new space. They've all done fine work on this Chicago premiere.

All in all, the run has proved fruitful from an artistic side. The play reveals new insights every time they run it. And, of course, the cast keeps it lively with slight variations every night.

The audience has been interesting. Some are quiet, some are loud, and some are completely amused by what's happening on stage. This play has that overall effect on those who see it. I compare it to Groundhog Day meets Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf. A heady mix that is like taking a ride on a roller coaster. Good times. Good times.

At this point, attendance is slim for this weekend, but I'm hopeful it will pick up. Final weekends tend to bring out the late rush of people who've been too busy to see past performances. Hopefully that is the case and maybe the weather will stay quiet.

LESS THAN TWO WEEKS TO GO

It seems like we have two scenarios working to their logical conclusions. The show Life X 3 will be ending, and the auditions for Murdering Marlowe will be starting.

The day we close one will give way to the night we begin the other.

This is the time where I begin to wonder if the last-minute masses will make their way to see our show. I can't see why not: a tight cast, interesting script, tons of press and a new space.

Of course what seems obvious on the one hand, can lead to empty houses on the other. A show like Life X 3 challenges and has that funky title. Not like Vagina Monologues or Santaland Diaries, but something else all together, which doesn't have them running up eight flights of stairs to see it. Just kidding - you can take the elevator.

Yes, this is the fun little struggle you deal with when you present your art. "And there was much rejoicing. Yeah."

As for Murdering Marlowe, the situation stays the same: where are the men? Can we get some guys, please? One of the most pressing issues with suburban theatre is the lack of quality male actors. And with the recent influx of theater activity in the last 7 years, it all becomes that much harder.

What you'll find is many male actors stay close to groups that star them, regardless of the material. Sure, there are exceptions, but usually it is a tall order getting people to travel. Still, the pool is very shallow when it comes to male actors, regardless of where you dip your feet.

Chicago has actors. The young twenty-somethings don't mind building a resume by doing a show in the burbs - once. That's it. Only one time will they make that drive. I can't blame them. When we worked in Chicago for four years, the drive wore me down like a Rachel Yamagata song.

So the plight with Murdering Marlowe is that he might never come to life to begin with. If I can't get the right cast, I will have to rethink the whole situation. The play requires 7 men and 2 women, which means that right now we have an inverted situation, with nine women and two men scheduled to audition. That's how it goes, so many plays with males parts and too many women to fill. Now don't get me wrong, I've worked with some wonderful women in the theatre. The problem is there aren't that many men left in the burbs. And so many plays are dominated by men.

The last few shows I've directed have found me dodging the bullet when comes to casting. The Laramie Project, We Only Have Ives For You, Squirrels and Life X 3 - all these plays almost didn't happen because the male actors I needed didn't show until the last minute. Sometimes the last minute wasn't enough, leading me to make many, many phone calls.

That's why you have a backup plan (new play) if you need to change directions. It's also why I take Aleve on a regular basis.

LENORE ADKINS GIVES PRAISE!

Sunday's edition of the Daily Herald featured some kind words from staff writer Lenore Adkins.
Says she:

...Elgin play’s backdrop gives it a trendy feel.

I don’t know if you’ve been to see the
Janus Theater Company’s latest
production, “Life X 3,” inside the new
Elgin Art Showcase in the Professional
Building, but if you haven’t, you should
totally check it out.

My friend, Elisabeth Carrel, a copy editor
at the Daily Herald, and I took in a sneak preview
of the show a day before its official release. A party
followed afterward in the green room that featured
champagne, cider and dozens of pastries.

Anyway, I must say the new performance
space is phenomenal, with sweeping views of
downtown Elgin. And the play, set in a Paris
apartment, included those views in the backdrop
that, to me, made the production all the more realistic.

As I told Elgin Mayor Ed Schock, who also
was there with his wife Karen, the open view gave
the apartment a trendy loft feel. You should
definitely check it out for yourselves.


Adkins was one of many people that made it to the "sneak preview" night. Her comments were welcome and she's right. The space has a trendy feel, but more importantly, it gives off an urban atmosphere, reminiscent of what you would find in Chicago or even New York. Definitely a new jewel in Elgin's downtown revival.

WE'RE BACK!

This is a little late. About one year to be exact. But after producing the successful Laramie Project in Chicago, we had to regroup and refocus, while we prepared to move into our new digs - the Elgin Art Showcase!

That's right. After eight years of wandering, claiming the irreverent titles - nomadic stalwart and gypsy troupe - we are now settled and prepared to enter middle-age in an old/new space.

Some background. The Elgin Art Showcase is an old ballroom with high ceilings and hardwood floors. The space has been fully renovated to provide gallery/performance space for Elgin artists and performing groups. We jumped at the chance and when they asked groups to provide dates, we said we could do five shows accounting for 19 weeks!

That's a little nuts. I liken the experience to and all-you-can-eat fish fry, where you think your able to consume at least a dozen pieces of perch, when, in fact, you only finish two.

In our case, we hope to put our stamp on the space, and survive in the process. And maybe people will come and consume the theater. Always perched precariously close to the edge of what is considered mainstream, our group has survived - somehow, someway - despite producing an eclectic mix of theater in an array of venues.

We're thinking that being in one place, over time, can only help our chances.

Time will tell the tale.

Stayed tuned for updates, anecdotes and information.

And if you want more "professional" information about us and what we're doing, please go to our website at http://www.janustheatre.org/. "It's in there. It's all in there."

Thanks
Sean