Trailer

This trailer seriously rocks.

Followspot

The followspot website is an interesting phenomenon.

I've never belonged to a theatre community with a website where so many people got toegether to discuss the local shows.

It's received a lot of criticism in the past for people being a bit hostile and defensive, which I have seen, but we haven't gotten much of that on Macbeth. At least not yet. I think a lot of that comes about because of the ability to post anonymously, but the flip side of that is that many actors are able to say what they think of a show behind a shield of anonymity, and without fear of professional repurcussions.

I've been a bit surprised by the response to Macbeth. There's been a lot of positive and some negative. But without that source of feedback, I never would have known that there seem to be a number of people who are worried/concerned/upset about the fact that Brandee's lizard appears in the show. I can understand why people might be concerned about animals being mistreated on stage, but all that happens in this show is that she has her bearded dragon on her shoulder in one scene. It never leaves her body, and as it belongs to her, it's very comfortable. It's never been bothered by the sounds or the strobe, and of course we rehearsed with him before an audience joined us.

The other negative comment we seem to be getting a lot of is the direction of Lady Macbeth (thankfully not negative comments about Allison's acting, which has been stellar and precisely what I've asked her to do.) I'm a bit concerned that what I'm trying to do isn't getting across to the audience. A lot of them seem to see Lady M as being driven and consumed entirely by libido and lust. And I think they are missing the point (which could well be my fault.)

I see Lady M as controlling Mac through sex. I think we played that rather clearly in the first two scenes where they interact. In their third scene (the post-murder scene) she is drunk and lustful, as indicated in the line "That which hath made them drunk, hath made me bold / What hath quenched them hath given me fire." With him playing horror and regret in that scene, and her playing lustful passion, their cross-purposes make the scene really spark. We often see this scene played that way - we just amped it up a bit. It's very clear in the text that this is a couple who are very hot for each other, very much in love and in lust - she is very ambitious as well - for the achievement of that ambition to result in salaciousness is not the stretch some seem to be trying to make it.

Later, as Mac decends into madness and isolation, the passion between them cools, and the division is what drives her mad. The idea that her madness is brought about by guilt is what is usually played in her "doctor" scene in 5.1, but I believe very strongly that this is in error. If you approach the text from a first folio technique point-of-view, specifically the rule that you cross to the character who gave you your cue if the text doesn't specify who you are talking to, then all but one of Lady M's lines in that scene are given directly to the doctor, making it patently obvious that she, in her madness, is mistaking the doctor for Macbeth. She isn't responding to guilt here - she's responding to the loss of her close relationship to her husband. She's been cut out of his trust and influence, her marriage is essentially dead. THIS is what drives her mad.

Those who say 5.1 is about guilt are basing that on one or two lines - one earlier about "if he had not resembled my father as he slept" (a dubious justification for the idea that she sees him as a father figure - the one scene they are both in earlier in the play implies NO warmth between them.) and her line in 5.1 "who would have known the old man to have so much blood in him" - but this doesn't imply regret, specifically. Who's death IS she upset about? "The thane of fife had a wife: where is she now? What will these hands ne're been cleane." The murder of LADY MACDUFFE has her seemingly MORE upset than that of Duncan. Why? Is it because she's a woman? Maybe. Is it because it's the first murder that she wasn't consulted on? Maybe. Then she brings up Banquo's death as well. If she's guilty, it's about all of them, and I certainly think guilt ties in - but more than anything, it's the unforseen loss of Macbeth. Not only has she lost him, but she's also created a monster who is willing to kill innocent women and children.

There is also discussion about Lady Macbeth having an Electra complex for Duncan, because she mentions that he resembled her father. I don't really understand this argument. She doesn't say anything about wanting to have sex with him (which is what an Electra complex would imply) and he isn't actually her father, even if he resembles him. And I'm not sure she isn't just making excuses - in any case, it does show some weakness on her part, but how that becomes sexual, I'm not clear.

So anyway. I guess I just wanted to get that out in the world somewhere.

Another review!

And thus, we go 3/4 in the press. Not bad at all.

Macbeth

Northwest Classical Theater Company
Posted by Frenchglen May 12, 2007; closes June 3, 2007

Solid rendering of the Scottish play. Lady Macbeth a chilling blood red, all desire and ambition run wild. Mac himself a little too handsome for true evil, but still holds darkening second half together, especially after the gloves “come on”. Beautiful, unearthly poetry of weird sisters partly lost beneath shrieking.

Bardolatry

Wow.

I had been getting a tad worried that I was failing in my approach; that the production was not coming across the way I thought it was.

I feel vindicated. This guy just gets it! All his points below are dead on.

And he seems a damn sight more knowledgable about Shakespeare (and writing) than our Mr. Mannex.

Macbeth at the NWCTC
May 9th, 2007 by John Murphy

Full of Sound and Fury

Portland, Oregon’s Northwest Classical Theater Company (NWCTC) is currently offering a dramatic, dynamic staging of Shakespeare’s classic horror show, Macbeth, at the Shoe Box Theater. This modern-dress production emphasizes the “sound and fury” of the Scottish Play, serving up an audience-pleasing assortment of sex, swordfights, strobe lights, murder, witchcraft, and lopped-off heads. Audiences today aren’t that much different from our groundling brethren 400 years back: we like our sex and violence, and we like lots of it.

Brian Allard, the director, notes in the program: “Shakespeare sure knew how to put on a show.” So does Allard. As soon as Lady Macbeth enters stage right wearing peak-a-boo negligee, you know this is not your sainted aunt’s Shakespeare. But it’s not a cleverer-than-thou postmodern treatment, either—all the violence and viscera, drama and angst, witches and black magic can be found smack dab in the first folio. This is just the PG-13 version.

Though this was my first NWCTC experience, Macbeth showcases what seems to be the ethos of the company: to make classical theater come alive. The Shoe Box Theater is appropriately named—the space is almost claustrophobically intimate—and the actors work what could be a handicap to their advantage by incorporating the audience rather than ignoring them. (Theater-goers are even offered complementary cheese & crackers during the play’s banquet scene). During moments of introspection, certain characters engage the audience directly, as if we’d become conspirators as well as confidantes, briefly granted access to minds very seriously diseased. In a play as macabre and psychologically intense as Macbeth, a smaller, stripped-down space can feel appropriate to the No Exit-like atmosphere of the play, creating a palpable sense of existential dread.

Despite the limited space, many of the scenes are inventively staged, with priority given to physicality and drama over intellectual or abstract concepts. (The company’s motto is, accordingly, “Content over Concept!”) The reading of Lady Macbeth’s incantation, “Come, you spirits that tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here…” takes the Bard at his word: Lady M is conjuring unfriendly spirits to aid in her diabolical quest for the crown. She chalks a circle-inscribed pentagram by flickering candlelight as she intones the chilling words: “Come to my woman’s breasts, and take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers…” The effect is visceral, unnerving. An inspired moment arrives later, when Macbeth echoes his wife’s incantation with his own revised version : “Come, seeling night, scarf up the tender eye of pitiful day…” and Allard suggests that Macbeth and his Lady have effectively switched roles: he’s the possessed one now, even as Lady M’s sanity grows increasingly brittle.

I remember Allison Anderson as a member of our beloved Tygres Heart Shakespeare company—she was an excellent Ophelia in that company’s masterful staging of Hamlet many years ago (ah, in that gorgeous blood-red Winningstad theater). Here she hardly plays an “unsexed” Lady Macbeth; she’s a far sight oversexed in fact, as much turned-on by the sight of her hubby lathered in Duncan’s blood as turned-off. Anderson’s Lady M is a film noir femme fatale, using her sexuality like a weapon to threaten, disarm, and manipulate her smitten husband. Watching this production, I was reminded of Harold Bloom’s observation that Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are the happiest married couple in all of Shakespeare. Or they at least have the most active sex life.

The Weird Sisters are also sexualized, played more as sirens than witches—seductive, soul-sucking succubi instead of the bearded hags usually depicted. They ensnare Macbeth by appealing in part to his masculine vanity. Paul Angelo “struts and frets his hour upon the stage” as Macbeth. He’s a Macbeth hell-bent on proving his masculinity, especially to his ball-breaking wife. “I dare do all that may become a man,” he insists to her, “who dare do more is none.” Angelo plays Macbeth as a conflicted, brooding sort of soldier “bound in to saucy doubts and fears,” and a little too eager to believe his own press: (“Macbeth shall never vanquish’d be til Birnam Wood do come to Dunsinane”—yeah, right). He’s blustery and ripe for a take-down by the end, but we can’t help but feel pity for the poor, trapped guy when he admits to us and himself:

That which should accompany old age,
As honour, love, obedience, troops of friends,
I must not look to have; but, in their stead,
Curses, not loud but deep, mouth-honour, breath,
Which the poor heart would fain deny, and dare not.

It’s a sad, intimate moment made even more moving and immediate by the close proximity to actors the audience is privileged to in the Shoebox Theater. I’m very much looking forward to more Shakespeare from this spirited troupe of PDX players.

The Shoe Box Theater is located at 2110 SE 10th Ave.
Performances of Macbeth run through June 3rd.

Such Welcome and Unwelcome Things at Once

These last couple days have been just ridiculous.

First there was the good review (See below.) Yay.

Then I had an interview with the Northwest Academy to teach their theatre class next year. It's a part time gig, 4-6 three days a week. The whole job is directing four plays. The interview went really well.

Then we went to the Opera, which was fun, and while we were there, the Twins won in extra innings.

Then we came home, and it all went south.

An argument over dinner was one thing, and not really a big deal.

The second review (see below) was less than pleasing.

This morning I auditioned for Portland Center Stage. I got an early audition, which was good, but the auditors didn't really seem present. I've never had an audience that didn't laugh at the "Coupling" monologue ever. Until now.

Did some mother's day shopping, came home.

And then it got better again.

Lisa and I had a lovely day. Went to see Spider Man 3, which was excellent, no matter what the reviewers say. We had a great time. On the walk home, I had a call from David Wagstaff at the Northwest Adademy...

I got the job! So awesome. It means I'll only have to sub maybe 1 or 2 days a week next year, and I'll be done early enough to do shows in the evening.

Then the Twins lost, but it wasn't the end of the world, since we had a lovely dinner.

Just a lot of up and down the last couple days.

I'm subbing an English class tomorrow, and then we have five straight days of performances.

Here's hoping things stay on an upswing.

The dark side of reviews

I don't mind a bad review.

Really. I don't. Even if it's harsh. But I do ask that it be well-written and logical, and that the author be knowledgable about his subject.

And that is where this review falls apart.

For simplicity, let's go through line by line.

Theater review: Lead on, Macduff; someone should at Shoe Box

Ok. I should start here at the title, but it's too easy. I'll save it for later. But can you identify the egregeous error here?

'Macbeth' - The director at Northwest Classical Theatre Company takes liberties
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
COLIN MANNEX

The only problem I have here is that Mr. Mannex never gets around to explaining what liberties I'm taking, but more of that anon.

The folks at Northwest Classical Theatre Company have staked a strong claim at making big, canonical plays popularly accessible while keeping great textual integrity. As cultural purists, they've shied from the spectacular, relying on directorial ingenuity to cram parlor scenes and battlegrounds into the intimate Shoe Box Theater.

I know I've only been here a year, but I've never heard the NWCTC say anything about making plays popularly accessible. They do say "[We are] placing the emphasis on text and authorial intention rather than directorial conception." and "By cutting back on stage pyrotechnics and limiting our use of set and costume, we focus the attention on the word and story that we try to tell. Our company motto is “Content over Concept!” " So yes - they shy away from the spectacular. But then again, this is Macbeth - and some spectacle is necessary. So we have some fog, some lights, a strobe, some swordfights and some blood. But it's hardly excessive. It's in the text.

Their use of space is always impressive: You're not likely to find a more cozy and confrontational theater experience in Portland. But they've long fallen prey to a loophole in the accuracy of their "classical" productions: Too often their stage directions are confabulatory nonsense.

From what the artistic director has told me, Mr. Mannex only took over reviewing NWCTC shows this year - in fact, I believe his first review was Henry V. So unless he'd been spending time at NWCTC shows before that, how can he speak to how "often" they do anything?

Hm. I have a pretty big vocabulary, but let's look up confabulatory.

"1. the act of confabulating; conversation; discussion. "

That's no help.

"2. Psychiatry. the replacement of a gap in a person's memory by a falsification that he or she believes to be true. "

So....I think he's trying to say that our "stage directions" are nonsensical because we replace Shakespeare's lack of stage directions with falsifications.

I think.

So he's saying that NWCTC does this as a rule? I can't speak to that so well - I have only been involved with or seen four productions there - and I can't think of an occasion where I saw something that seemed like "confabulatory nonsense." Grant is kind of the opposite of that, really, and I'm pretty much a purist, too.

And, you know, examples would be nice. When teaching students to review plays, I generally don't let them get away with making a statement without backing it up with examples. Let's read on and see what more he's got to say.

Granted, Shakespeare never indicated much more than the traffic of entrances, exits, hiding places and essential points between sparring partners. Any production requires an interpretive leap to animate the language. But in his current production of "Macbeth," director Brian Allard has egregiously misused this license.

Ok, we clearly have some disagreement here. It's true that Shakespeare never indicated WITH STAGE DIRECTIONS much more than those things, but to say that he didn't indicate them at all shows a complete lack of Shakespearian knowledge.

If you've studied Shakespeare beyond high school, you know that he gives us all sorts of clues. If you gone in depth at all, you would know that Shakespeare indicates actions through dialogue. He gives us the blocking through the simple precept of "cross to the person to whom you are speaking: if you don't know to whom you are speaking, cross to the person who gave you your cue." This is a basic tenet of first folio technique, which we followed, and which I expressly mentioned in my directors notes, which were in both the program and the press packet. I'm guessing Mr. Mannex failed to look into this, and clearly had no foreknowledge of such things.

Shakespeare requires an interpretive leap to animate the language? I don't think I buy that statement, but I'm assuming Mr. Mannex means that when the text says "they fight" it's my job (well, Kendall's, really) to decide how that's going to take place. And he's right. I had to decide what type of candle Lady Macbeth would carry, too.

And then he finishes by saying I've egregeously misused this license. That's a pretty serious accusation. But he doesn't say how I've done this, or give any examples. Maybe he will later. Lets move on.

True to the text, it's a throbbing, bloody and lascivious engagement.

Damn straight! And thanks. I agree wholeheartedly. Shame you didn't stop there.

And it's a shame you spend the rest of the article refuting your own statement.

I wouldn't accept that from a student. And I'm not happy to see it published in our local paper.

However, the grisly bits are almost never employed to the service of the central story.

Really? How so? Hm...grisly bits.... you mean when Banquo is murdered in cold blood? Yeah, that doesn't serve the story. Or when Macbeth dies on a battleground at the hand of a desperate man who's had his entire family ripped away by the tyrant? How does that not serve the story (other than as it's climax?)

You need to explain yourself, Mr. Mannex. Maybe you will.

Lady Macbeth (Allison Anderson) shows great "ambition" in wrapping her legs around her husband and her doctor, but there's no impetus for further action.

There isn't? You didn't latch on to the fact that she manipulates her husband through sex? That she belittles his manhood when he shies away from murdering Duncan? That she refuses him physical contact until he does it? Were you THAT distracted by the negligee?

And in the doctor scene, was it unclear to you that in her madness she thought the doctor was Macbeth? I really thought that was clear...

Macbeth (Paul Angelo) wields his "barren scepter" with rightful outrage, but he affects hollow deference to the spectral forces that guide him.

"Rightful outrage?" Where on earth do you get the idea, Mr. Mannex, that Macbeth has any RIGHTFUL outrage? This is a man who killed his king, took his throne, had his best friend murdered, massacred the family of an innocent man....what is rightful about Macbeth? Have you read the play? Do you know anything about the play?

And the hollow deference line has me rather confused. Does he think that Macbeth should show sincere deference to the witches and spirits? I'm not sure where that would be found in the text. He mocks them at first, then uses the prophecy as an excuse, then it becomes a source of worry for him, then he goes to them again, and within one scene both praises and curses them (and this is when he is well on his way to madness, anyway) - I'm not clear on what you want here, Mr. Mannex.

Some fine dramatic moments come with Dan Ruiz Salvatura as Ross and director Allard as Macduff.

Uh, thanks. Maybe you could spell the character names right. We're using a first folio text (I might have mentioned that.) It's Rosse and Macduffe. You'll find that in the program.

But for the most part, if the action doesn't involve thrusting, it suffers a complete lack of directorial attention.

That's going a bit far. A complete lack of directorial attention? So, what - I just told the actors to go onstage and fuck around in the scenes that weren't sex or combat based? Was I asleep? Um - the secene that you just praised, the one with Rosse and I? That didn't have any thrusting. (And frankly, got less directorial attention than most scenes - I was in it, so I couldn't watch it. If you had criticized me for that, I would have taken my lumps with humbleness.)

Ask Lisa about how much attention I paid to each scene. She knows. I talked about the play incessantly, and not just the "thrusting" scenes. We spent ages on the banquet scene - and it was a rather fresh staging, I thought. But no, I forgot, it was directorially ignored.

Allard describes his approach to Shakespeare as a return to "popular -- not elitist -- entertainment." He would have done well to make more of the verbal play ("Remember the Porter") and less of the stage combat.

Well, that's kind of a misquote, which is funny, since you had it written down. I didn't say that was my approach. I said "In Shakespeare's day, his plays were popular (not elitist) entertainment."

"Remember the Porter" what? That's a line in the play. When the Porter asks for money. What's your point? Are you saying you didn't like the Porter scene? Strange, on opening night the audience nearly fell out of their seats in hysterics. What "verbal play?" This isn't Romeo and Juliet, there aren't a lot of jesting/punning/joking around scenes. Are you criticizing our use of text? Cause I thought the actors did a fine job with the text - and Lisa (among others) has pointed out the Porter scene in specific as one that "felt like he was speaking modern English, it was so clear."

What's your problem with stage combat? It's says "they fight" in the text. Would you rather we had just done some namby-pamby-three-moves-and-you're-dead fight scene? Would that have served the text? Do you think they did it that way at the Globe? (Fact is, we have lots of evidence that implies they had much more complex fights than we do - but of course they had more space.)

Shakespeare never shirked from lewdness or violence,

Nope. You're right there.

And that kind of kills your whole argument. Your grade goes down again.

but "Macbeth" needn't suffer these emendations to capture a modern audience.

Emendations? WHAT emendations? You have given no examples of emendations. Reading into your article, you seem to dislike the sex and the fights, though you've said twice now that Shakespeare intended those things. So what are the emendations you're upset about?

And who is trying to capture a "modern" audience? I never said in any of my notes, comments, or in causal conversation that I was trying to capture a "modern" audience. I said I was trying to go back and do this thing the way Shakespeare himself would have.

What makes you think a modern audience is any different from an Elizabethan one? I don't. Shakespeare put blood and sex in the play because people have always liked that on stage. I'm just trying my best to fulfill the author's intent.

So don't you go calling me a sensationalist.

And don't you go telling me about emendations either, not if you can't even give me an example. (I know there are some - we extended the Lady MacDuffe fight a bit, but it showed a side of Seyton that I felt was important to see. We cut some scenes and combined some characters to cut time and cast size. But he doesn't seem to have an issue with that.)

I don't mind a bad review.

I do mind a badly written review. If a student turned this in, I'd probably give it a D+. None of his arguments are supported, and it appears he did no research into the play, or the methods being used by the director.

Oh, and about the headline? To be fair, I know a lot of times the headlines are added by editors, so this may not be the fault of Mr. Mannex.

But the line is "Lay on, Macduffe." Macbeth is inviting him to a fight, not to go for a stroll in the park. I know you were going for a (labored) pun or something, but get the damn line right, or put it in quotes or something.

Well.

That was therapeutic.

At least he left the cast alone. I'd rather he go after me than them. They're brilliant, and if you think this article made me mad, just try attacking them.

You'd regret it.

And Lisa assures me that this is the sort of review that will actually make people curious to see the show. And she's right. I just don't like being called a sensationalist. And I shudder at the idea I would get the reputation of one. I am not Darren Nicols from "Slings and Arrows," dammit. I'm Geoffrey Tennant, I hope. At least no one is accusing me of being Oliver Welles.

Sadly, Mr. Mannex has a larger readership than I. But I'm a better writer.

I hope.

First Review!

I'm pleased:

[NEW REVIEW] Director Brian Allard soaks the audience in the bloody witches' brew of Macbeth's claustrophobic remorse-world at the Shoebox Theatre and holds it under to dodge sword swipes, fake blood and delicious cookies served gratis from wenches at banquet scenes. Even a back-row seat in the small theater puts you nearly onstage in the gore of swashbuckling action. You feel the iambic anguish of the characters up-front-and-personal in this well-choreographed rendition of the classic tragedy. Shakespeare's murdering Scotsman portrayed by cherubic Paul Angelo melts and hardens before Lady Macbeth's (Lara Flynn Boyle look-alike Allison Anderson) naked (well, negligee-clad) ambition. WILLIAM CRAWFORD. Northwest Classical Theatre Company at the Shoebox Theater, 2110 SE 10th Ave., 262-5503. 7 pm Thursdays-Saturdays, 2 pm Sundays. Closes June 3. $12-$18.

It's Open!

And thank fortune for that. I don't know if I could have taken much more at that pace. Getting the tech together was a challenge - I ended up doing some 10 hour days toward the end, there. But we got it done, we got it up, and frankly, I'm damn proud of it.

The response has been fantastic so far. Lots of great feedback, lots of people asking all the questions I wanted them to ask, making the sort of comments I was hoping for. Not just "it was great" but really picking out the parts that I was most proud of. Comments about how we made it fresh, lots of great stuff about the fights, lots of chatter about the way we made the relationship between MacBeth and his wife the lynchpin of the show. Also lots of talk about the way we played 5.1 (the "crazy" Lady M scene) which, by going back to the first folio, we constructed in a way very different than most productions do. Lots of love for the direct audience address, which is the crux of my style. I'm pleased.

Did I mention we sold out opening night, and on Sunday we had to turn people away? We were almost full for the preview on Thursday!

Of course, I fully expect that the newspaper reviews will have nothing to say about any of that. They certainly will focus on the smallness of the stage, or the fact that someone's tie didn't match, or some other nitpicky thing that trivializes the whole production and ignores all the deeper issues we explored. Whatever. I mean, when the Willamette Week is ripping on the show before it even opens.....

"Bubbling cauldrons, roving forests and severed heads in the uncomfortably intimate Shoebox Theater. Can such things be?"

Well....no.

You see, we don't have a bubbling cauldron. We don't really show a severed head. And if you read the script, you'd know that the forest doesn't roam around - in fact, that's the same misunderstanding of the prophecy that MacBeth makes. And look how things turn out for him. Fact is, if you'd read our press release, or know ANYTHING about our company, you would know that our freaking MISSION STATEMENT says "The NWCTC is dedicated to performing great plays by great writers, placing the emphasis on text and authorial intention rather than directorial conception. By cutting back on stage pyrotechnics and limiting our use of set and costume, we focus the attention on the word and story that we try to tell."

And wow. Every time I sit in our theatre, I just feel, like, soooo uncomfortably intimate. What does that even mean? It's intimate. We LIKE that. There's only 30 seats. What makes that uncomfortable? (Uncomfortable for reviewers, I would imagine. We can see them.)

Shame they had to review on Saturday and Sunday, the two shows that Kendall missed. Alex did a great job filling in, but man, Kendall is amazing with a sword. He takes the fights from great to astounding. But that's okay. We still kicked ass.

I'm so proud of this cast. There's isn't a weak link among them - everyone plays their part excellently. Everyone worked so hard. And we never could have done it without David and Lauren - we threw a lot of tech at them in the last few days - and though it was hard, they got it done. And without Paul and Allison, the show would be nothing. They created a MacBeth and Lady MacBeth that noone should miss. And the witches! And....

I could go on forever.

Just come see the damn thing, ok?