Words, Words, Words

Scott Wright (Sly / Hortensio / Grumio / Vincentio) on the challenges of being doubled.

Try this on for disguise…

It always interests me to see how much of what we discovered, tried on, or experimented with during our initial read-through and in the early phases of rehearsal made it into the final production.

Especially with a very-small-cast where each actor, doubled into two or even more major roles, is asked to make character choices that will make it very clear to the audience who is being portrayed.

Some of the choices are easy and obvious, given to us in the text – the older men for example. The “Old Master Vincentio,” accustomed, by virtue of his age and wealth to deference and obedience, is taken by surprise when he stumbles into the topsy-turvy world of Kate & Petruchio and the goings-on in Padua.

As Kat Hermes has mentioned already, one of our tactics is to choose one character that will be simply be the most like me – that will speak in my (mostly) natural speaking voice and be mostly just me physically.

Grumio seemed the obvious one : self-aware (but not self-conscious…), smarter than average, fun-loving, attuned to what’s going on and to the people (…and their motives…) around him, and well adapted to the unique circumstances of living around Petruchio.

Well – maybe I’m not always all those things, but a little positive self-image never hurt, right…?

I’d never thought much before about Hortensio. Never had to. In my previous experiences with this play I’d seen Hortensio as someone Grumio has possibly ingratiated himself to or as one of the pawns in Tranio’s ex-machina.

But in our first read-through, under the pressure to come up with yet another character (especially one that someone else hadn’t already played with that evening…), just having a bit of fun and trying to make my cast-mates laugh, I tried on something so ridiculous, so completely improbable – something I was fairly sure at the time wouldn’t end up working…

The feedback was immediate (the expected laughter) and unequivocal as later review of what we had done and discussions about how to implement this crazy concept made it clear that it was something we would be keeping.

So then I had to start wondering – what is Hortensio’s deal…? There’s plenty in the script – Petruchio’s “best and most approved friend,” a man of higher social class – an at least moderately wealthy resident of Padua, and most notably – in love with Bianca, or at least in love with his ideal of what Bianca represents… and utterly blind to the fact that she just isn’t really interested in him.

So as I thought more about it, my very different characterization of Hortensio (…not that it’s never been done – I’ve just never seen it done…) sort of started to make sense.

It sort of fit with the way other characters treat him, and it made perfect sense that Bianca might prefer a young, good-looking (if somewhat thick-witted) gentleman to an effeminate, lisping, not-so-good-looking man who might one day be caught trying on her clothes.

You still have one chance to get out and see our zany experiment in small-cast Shakespeare at the fabulous Grant Fine Arts Center in Grant, MI next Saturday January 28th. You may never see these particular characters again…

Scott Wright (Hortensio / Sly / Grumio / Vincentio) on managing rehearsals for six people.

Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow…

In the weeks leading up to the beginning of rehearsals for The Taming of the Shrew, I put my hand up for the job of Rehearsal Coordinator. I’d been allowed to “assist” the rehearsal coordinator on a past production but in truth, that was really more about officially observing the RC than what I’d been doing – which was watching & learning by experience how it all worked.

As the very small cast was set and rehearsals began, the first job was to lay out the schedule – particularly for the short-term (i.e. the next few days) – which is really a maze of conflicts, scene labels (do we work on I.iii or III.i …?), and dates. Not to mention the schedule of performances.

It’s a very eye-opening experience doing this job. I found that I made a number of miscalculations about the amount of time certain scenes would require (and possibly about how much time the characters in our cast of actors would require for debating character and scene choices…) Some scenes are significantly longer than others, and when looking at the list of scenes it was far too easy to make the amount of rehearsal time for II.i (which is ALL of Act II) the same as for IV.iv (a comparatively short scene.)

Something else that took me by surprise as a relatively new Rehearsal Coordinator was when, as we finished the time period allotted for a particular scene and the talk and debate and brainstorming (and laughter…) came to a natural ebb. Everyone turned and looked at me expectantly as if to say, “Ok, what’s next…?”

Good thing I had it all worked out…

As Many Of Your Players Do

When the small-cast concept for The Taming of the Shrew came up I couldn’t help thinking, “Six…? How is that gonna work…?” I’ve done The Taming of the Shrew twice before this, and there are a number of scenes where there are at least seven main characters on stage. This play also has a scene for Shakespeare’s typical army of servants and attendants, and in the final scene almost the entire cast of characters is supposed to be at table for dinner!

The small-cast thing is something we’ve done before too, but when we did it with The Tempest in summer 2010 there were a few differences. There’s generally a smaller cast of characters in The Tempest, and there are two fairly distinct groups of characters who don’t interact much but appear in alternating scenes, with the big exception of the final scene where, again, everyone appears on stage.

The challenges in The Taming of the Shrew for doubled actors in a very small cast are, as always, to make very distinct character choices that help the audience recognize who’s speaking at any particular moment. The addition of hats, costumes, and props help to further differentiate characters, but the demands of a small-cast production make it necessary for those costumes and things to be especially simple and specific.

This particular challenge – of making very clear character shifts, sometimes very quickly within a scene – has been, and continues to be, really tough for me personally. As our show continues to come together and prepares to open the first weekend of January, we’ll be working to make all those elements come together to make this familiar, funny, and fast-paced story come to life in the way you’ve come to expect from us.

Scott Wright on Building Character:

Well, being cast in the role of Sir John Falstaff has been at once exciting, intimidating, frightening, and exhilarating. Much has been written about the jolly knight in one form or another. Scholars, wits, and critics alike have spent words and/or wisdom in plenty writing about Jack Falstaff.

The scholars write of the way he makes a phrase of simple prose seem like the very best of a compelling poet’s quality. The wits use Falstaff’s humor for his own ends. The critics, with their own incisive wit skewers the actor who either makes the character blustery, or funny, or believably human – or not – and uses his bully pulpit to inform the world of his opinion of what makes the character lovable, and believable, and funny – or not…

One might wonder – why….?

Falstaff isn’t a noble character. Despite his knight-hood he is a thief and a rogue of the commonest sort. It seems that most of his charm, after all, lies in his earthy, unapologetic, common-ness. He is an unrepentant liar, schemer, and cheater, defrauding anyone with the means to make it worth his while. But he manages to do it in an inept and lovable style that never seems to make him truly a villain, and which always seems to make us smile, and laugh, and forgive the bombastic, vain, and likable old bastard.

So, as an actor charged with bringing such a character to life, the challenges have been daunting. Jack Falstaff is a larger-than-life personality. Scott Wright – at the risk of saying so myself – not so much…

This fantastic ensemble has produced ideas, and suggestions, and support throughout the process that has been at once encouraging and challenging, and has helped me feel like the Falstaff we’ve created is almost right. The weak link yet, it seems to me, is whether I can do it with all the enthusiasm and commitment they’ve given to me.

Scott Wright on Building Buck-Baskets:

When we first began conceiving “Merry Wives”, the pivotal element of the Buck-basket came up and I have to admit, I drew a blank. What sort of laundry basket would be big enough (and strong enough) to carry a very large man in…?

The first thing I imagined was a sort of wicker laundry basket, such as I’d know growing up. That particular basket had disintegrated in a relatively short time of moderate abuse and I wondered what a buck-basket (big enough to hold a month’s worth of dirty underclothes – not to mention a very corpulent knight…) might have looked like.

Ultimately, knowing that no modern wicker-work (even modified to safely carry an actor of “any reasonable stature”) would be available within my budget, we had to imagine something that would satisfy all the requirements

i.e. : allow two actors to safely transport a third actor (who could not in any way aid them off stage), look to a modern audience like some sort of laundry basket or hamper, evoke the Elizabethan period that the play was to be set in, be fairly easy to build, be able to broken down and packed for touring AND be INEXPENSIVE.

We found a nice big round piece for the base and some casters with a sort of old-fashioned-looking bronze swivel that looked about right. We also found some wooden closet pole, 20-odd feet of 3-strand rope, some scraps of mahogany, and a very skilled and dedicated person who could sew us a 5-sided canvas bag. We had to come up with a fixture for drilling holes on a 14 degree angle, and one to make a circular plywood reinforcing panel for the bottom (this thing has to be STRONG – a big man’s going inside it…). Making circular panels is straightforward, but drilling 1.25″ diameter holes on a 14 degree angle around a 20″ circle is a little less so, but I have to say doing it was fun and satisfying.

In the end (after some epoxy, a bit of compromise, and some dark-colored wood stain) we have what would appear to be a 16th century version of the laundry hamper I bought at Wal-mart a few years ago. So when you see old Jack Falstaff being carried away in the name of foul clothes to Datchet-Mead, as you wipe the tears of laughter from your eyes you might just notice how well constructed that buck-basket is perhaps.

“The Master, the Swabber, the Boatswain and I”

Hello again out there all you Shakespeare mavens and Pigeon Creek enthusiasts – Scott Wright here and it’s my turn again…

I never cease to be amazed at what I discover working on PCSC productions.  From the beginning rehearsals where we pore over the script and reference materials working out meanings of obscure words, debating pronunciations of particular words, and reveling in the subtleties of scansion (yes, I’m a Shakespeare nerd…), to the final stages of preparation as we work (sometimes sleep-deprived…) to get the finishing touches on the show.  The perseverance and talent of the people around me in this company inspire me to seek and strive for my very best – to dig deeper than I’ve ever had to before.

One of my big challenges working on The Tempest was in the company’s well-known practice of doubling.  I was given multiple roles in Macbeth – my very first show with PCSC – but since then I’ve pretty much never been “doubled.”  Being a rookie on Macbeth, I didn’t truly appreciate what it takes to convincingly pull off dual or even triple roles.  Using costumes is the most visually direct way for an audience to differentiate between characters but as an actor, what else can I do?  It’s still my voice and my face and my body they’re looking at…!

The two characters I play in The Tempest are Alonzo, King of Naples and Stefano, “a drunken butler.”  The distinctions between them in the script manifest in the undercurrents of their social status, but mostly in the way they talk.

Alonzo speaks in a fairly tragical/poetical mode throughout the play.  He has lost the pomp and ceremony of his majesty – sure he’s still king, but being king of a few foolish people on a desert island might be thought of as something of a step down…  The order of his world where a hoard of people saw to his every human necessity and where his son would carry on his legacy seems to have been completely shattered.  His grief over the loss of his son and the Island’s magic draw his mind toward despair and madness.

Stefano on the other hand, suddenly finds himself free of the oppression of class and service, and with all the necessities of life at hand (i.e.- a small instrument and an intact and full butt of sack…) now fancies himself his own king.  The script shows him speaking in what seems to be a coarser dialect than that of the “court” and his mood seems to be considerably more buoyant – he’s first seen singing to himself, and especially when he finds two “subjects” & drinking buddies in his old friend Trinculo and the monster Caliban.  He never strays far though from the profane and violent truth of the world of the lower class…

So finding the ways I, as an actor, can make all these distinctions clear to the audience with my voice and movements has been an adventure that’s been both fun and challenging, and the ideas and suggestions of the other company members have been invaluable.

Well, I guess that’s about as tedious-brief I as can be about that…

Come see The Tempest and let us know how successful our doubling was (-or wasn’t…!).  Hope to see you!

My Most Painted Word

Greetings to all you Pigeon Creek fans and Shakespeare aficionados out there!

I’m Scott Wright and it’s my turn this week.

“Hamlet” has been one of my favorites almost since the first time I read and saw it back in high school, and when I learned that PCSC was going to be presenting it this spring I couldn’t help feeling a little excited.

It wasn’t long before I began thinking, “I could play Claudius…”

Then they actually gave me the role.

Pleased at first of course (-and pleased still, for all that…), as I began reading and researching the script, that small voice that reminds me every so often that I’m not all that, started getting a little louder.

Here I was looking at a role in the play that some might call Shakespeare’s masterwork – one of the greatest works in the English language – a character that has been dissected and analyzed by literary types all over the world for centuries, and played by such actors as Basil Sydney, James Earl Jones, Patrick Stewart, and Derek Jacobi – to name just a few.

Feeling just a little intimidated now…

But once we got into rehearsals the general wackiness and sense of fun that infuses this group quickly winnowed away any doubts.

Everyone in the group attacked the text with a gusto and seriousness that is truly a thing to behold.

Now, I’ve been a self-described Shakespeare geek for quite a long time, but after being involved with Pigeon Creek for a few shows (“Hamlet is my fifth…) my Shakespeare-geekness-quotient has increased conspicuously.

Under the influence of the brilliant Katherine Mayberry I’ve gone from being simply an enthusiast to the point where I now find myself unconsciously working out scansion, curiously intrigued by the variations of rhythm within the rigid structure of iambic pentameter and intensely fascinated with the minutiae of punctuation…

I found and downloaded a facsimile copy of the 2^nd Quarto edition (the “good” quarto) so that I could directly compare its spellings and punctuation with the modern editions, and bought the 2^nd volume of the two-volume Furness edition that I’d been missing ever since I found Volume 1 in a used book store back in college, so that I could see the 1^st (“bad”) quarto and look for more character clues…

It’s a frightening and wonderful thing she’s done to us…

But in rehearsals we began to look at it from an actor’s perspective – seeing the characters as real people, looking to bring life to their actions and words, discovering the relationships between them and the feelings they express (-or don’t express…) for each other, creating something more than two-dimensional literary characters.

It would be easy (and a bit lazy) to make Claudius a cardboard cut-out villain, but Shakespeare created very few of those kind of characters and Claudius is not one of them.

No one in the play ever says that Claudius is a tyrant or a bad king.  No one (except Hamlet…) seems to think that he’s done anything particularly wrong by seizing the throne and marrying his brother’s wife…  (Though it would probably have been bad form to have said so…)

In fact, whatever reasons he may have had for murdering his brother – whether for power, or for a woman, or both – he’s doing his best to appear a genuinely nice guy – at least in the beginning.

Claudius’ fratricidal act seems to have set in motion a series of events that will inevitably bring his carefully constructed world crashing down around him.  Whenever something unexpected happens he lashes out in a desperate attempt to re-establish order – which he never quite manages to do, as each attempt seems to spin things further and further out of control.  At last, he turns again to secret, cold-blooded murder as the only way to get back on top of things, but the result is that nearly everyone around him – including his queen, the promising young Laertes, and he himself suffer the same fate as his intended target.

So the challenge then will be to bring to life a man with a heart -  a heart that loves, that feels loss, and sadness, and regret, but whose envy, ambition, lust, and fear lead him to commit the primal eldest act of jealousy…