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.
Friday, May 18, 2007
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.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, May 14, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
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?"
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?"
Friday, May 04, 2007
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?"
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?"
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)