Much adoe and Me

As we at USP prepare for our upcoming tour of Much adoe about Nothing, I wanted to take a moment to reflect on why this is such a special play for me.  It wasn’t the first Shakespeare play I read.  That was Romeo and Juliet.  It wasn’t the first Shakespeare play I saw.  That was The Comedy of Errors.  It wasn’t the first Shakespeare play I was in or even the first Unrehearsed production I was in.  Romeo and Juliet and The Taming of the Shrew, respectively.  However, Much adoe… is a Shakespeare play that I am very passionate about and, therefore, of which I am very protective.

My first brush with this comedy was when I was an undergrad.  It was to be one of the first plays of the upcoming fall/winter season and I desperately wanted to play Beatrice.  All of that wonderful wit and not suffering fools coupled with such charm?  Yes, please.  So, I spent the entire summer before auditions studying the script on my own.  Just me and my Schmidt Lexicons (you Shakespeare-philes know what I’m talking about).  I prepared completely and was ready!  Then a few days before the auditions, I was in a horrific car accident.  Against recommendations, I pulled myself out of bed and showed up at the audition complete with bandages and pain killers.  I was not going to be deterred from doing my audition monologue and let all those months of preparation go to waste.  Forgetting all pain when I was on stage, like all actors do, I did scene after scene that the director requested.  Then I came home and collapsed.  A couple of days later, a fellow actress in the drama department called me.  I was in a bit of a pain killer haze so I don’t remember everything she said until I heard the word “Congratulations.”  “For what?” I said.  “Well…you’re Beatrice.” She said, surprised.  Apparently, the casting sheet had been up for a day or so, but due to my injuries I hadn’t gone to school to check.  I burst into tears over the phone.  Tears of joy, release, and gratitude that all of my hard work had paid off even though I was hobbling around the stage.  A few months later, the pain killers and bandages were gone and I was playing a part I had set my heart on and worked so hard to get.

Years later, I was cast as Beatrice in Much adoe… in an Unrehearsed production with The New England Shakespeare Festival (my fourth year with them).  It was supposed to be just one performance for me this time since I wasn’t sure I would be able to do the entire tour since I had other show obligations in NYC.  But, after the wonderful actor playing Benedick called me after the show and said “Let’s do the tour!” – I checked with my director in NYC who was able to work out the schedule so I could go.  Little did I know that this tour would change my life, forever.  My first day there, I met a very funny and very charming man named Andy Kirtland.  He was a vet actor with The New England Shakespeare Festival, like me, except he had been with them longer and just happened to perform on the tours that I wasn’t on.  After years working for the same company, this was our first meeting.  We instantly fell in love – not just romantically, but with each other’s talent and humor (Andy played Dogberry).  Shortly after the tour, we moved in together and were married a few years after that.  During that time, we have worked together on many, many occasions – either as actors, director/actor, co-teachers, co-producers, etc. and realized how well we work together due to our mutual respect and enjoyment of theatre and each other.  Even fellow artistic directors have commented on our awesome working relationship.  We decided to work together on a full-time basis doing theatre that we love and are passionate about, so in 2012 we founded The Unrehearsed Shakespeare Project and have taught, directed and produced some wonderful theatre so far (and will continue to do so).

This year, we are doing our first tour with USP.  As Artistic Director, I chose to do Much adoe about Nothing this time to celebrate this play that I have been passionate about and very close to for years as well as to celebrate the play that brought my husband/partner/best friend and me together.  It’s going to be one hell of a show!

-Elizabeth Ruelas

The Unrehearsed Shakespeare Project

 

USP Is Going to France

At the end of the month, I will represent The Unrehearsed Shakespeare Project at La Société Française Shakespeare’s 2015 conference in Lyon, France. The topic of this year’s gathering is “Reading Love’s Labour’s Lost.” In the interest of full disclosure, this is not one of my favorite plays penned by Mr. Shakespeare, and my interest in this opportunity lies in the chance to explain our way of working to a new audience.

This international conversation about Love’s Labour’s Lost, the sister convention of the larger one to be held in Paris on 15 February, will host speakers from France, Norway, the UK and me (the only speaker from the USA in Lyon). A vast array of approaches and perspectives of the play will be covered. The topics range from very esoteric philosophic takes on the comedy to performance-based approaches of exploration. I have the honor of being the final presenter of the day.

My paper, An Unrehearsed Perspective on Love’s Labour’s Lost, focuses on the role of Berowne. By examining parts of the cue script that the Berowne-actor would receive, I demonstrate how Shakespeare wrote stage direction into his texts as well as plot and situational information and suggestions for how his actors may play their role(s). There is a great amount of information to condense into a 20-minute presentation. My exploration is limited to the cues that appear in the actor’s cue script, changes and shifts in the way Berowne speaks (or in the way the text appears in cue script form) and the ways in which they mirror and direct changes in the character. I explain the first two basic rules of performing the Unrehearsed Cue Script Technique and demonstrate how they can affect a reading of the script. To find out what those rules are and to make an interesting discovery or two about the role of Berowne, you will have to wait for La Société Française Shakespeare to publish my paper on its official website.

On a personal note, I am looking forward to spending what limited time I have in Lyon, France’s second city. Lyon has hundreds of years of history to explore in a very small amount of time. In regard to history, I will be turning an extended layover in Turkey into one day in Istanbul, a city I have longed to visit. On this trip, I will be in the air for about as much time as I will be free in Lyon and Istanbul, but I will make the most of my time in these amazing cities.

Above all, I plan to take every advantage offered by La Société Française Shakespeare and the connections I make in Lyon. Over the past year, USP has put a great effort into expanding our presence online and enhancing our local visibility in Pittsburgh. With the presentation of this paper we will put our first footprint in European soil.

-Andy Kirtland

The Unrehearsed Shakespeare Project

The Unrehearsed Shakespeare Project's Book Review

For all of you who have been keeping up with what we have to say about the Unrehearsed Cue Script Technique and all things Shakespeare and would like to learn more about it, I’ve put together a reading list of books that I have enjoyed and / or influence my work on the Bard. Please, comment and let us know if you have other favorites or recommendations. USP is always looking for interesting and new research and inspiration.

Secrets of Acting Shakespeare, The Original Approach, Patrick Tucker, Routledge, 2002

            This is the book that started it all. In these pages Tucker talks about how he “discovered” (used in the loosest sense) unrehearsed Shakespeare. He details some of the performances, what worked for him and the Original Shakespeare Company and what did not. Everyone of whom I am aware that works in this style has roots in what Tucker sets forth in this book. It is the best source for starting your exploration of this technique.

Shakespeare in Parts, Simon Palfrey and Tiffany Stern, Oxford, 2007

            At the moment, this award winning study is my bible and greatest influence. Tiffany Stern is Patrick Tucker’s niece, and with him ran the Original Shakespeare Company. This is a much more involved study of the style and is intended for academics as much as it is for theatre practitioners. Parts of it can be wordy, and it is a long read at 490+ pages, but it is a gold mine. Stern details brilliantly how the cues contain just as much important information for an actor as his own text. She has some very astutely observed and detailed accounts of how the technique influences characters. This is a must read for anyone with any interest in the subject.

Acting from Shakespeare’s First Folio, Theory, Text and Performance, by Don Weingust, Routledge, 2006

            The title sounds like a thesis paper, and the book almost reads as one. Wiengust was a party to the Original Shakespeare Company’s productions at the Globe Theatre in London during its first three years in operation. He gives good, thorough reasons for the use of the technique as opposed to the New Bibliography movement that for a long time has held sway over the editing of Shakespeare’s texts. It is rather dry, but it should be read at least to get another perspective on the technique from someone who was not directly involved with Tucker’s productions.

The following books are not on the Unrehearsed Cue Script Technique, but will be of interest to any scholar or actor who has a passion for Shakespeare.

Playing Shakespeare, An Actor’s Guide, by John Barton, Anchor Books, 1984

            The only thing better than the book is the television series from which this book is made. I cannot recommend that series enough. It is brilliant to see so many famous British actors relatively early in their careers sitting literally at the feet of John Barton, and seeing them going through the same steps as every young actor takes when learning how to perform Shakespeare. At this point, this book is most likely required reading for every Shakespeare class for actors, but in truth, everyone should read it – or even better, see it.

The Shakespeare Wars, Clashing Scholars, Public Fiascoes, Palace Coups, by Ron Rosenbaum, Random House, 2006

            This is a wonderful book in which Rosenbaum, inspired by Peter Brook’s famous production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, sets out to discover what makes Shakespeare Shakespearean. He talks with scholars, editors, theatre practitioners getting conflicting views on just about every aspect of the Bard from authorship to attribution, performance style to editing texts. This book raises more questions than it seeks to answer and gives a great picture in the variety of Shakespeare scholarship. It’s a big book at 500+ pages, but rewarding.

A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare, 1599, by James Shapiro, Harper Perennial, 2005

            This is my favorite book regarding Shakespearean biography. Rather than taking the usual approach of reading Shakespeare’s texts and attempting to extrapolate biographical details (from works of ­fiction – don’t get me started), Shapiro looks at the facts and actual events surrounding London in 1599, then looks at the texts to see how these events influenced the writing. 1599 was a particular busy year for Shakespeare: amidst the drama of constructing The Globe, the Bard finished Henry V, wrote Julius Cæsar, and As You Like It, as well as completed a draft of Hamlet. It was also a busy year for England: the Spanish Armada, the Irish Rebellion, the beginning of the East India Company, and the Queen was aging without settling on a successor. Shapiro paints a wonderful picture of the time, and how Shakespeare incorporated the themes of his contemporary life into his plays.

Becoming Shakespeare, the Unlikely Afterlife That Turned a Provincial Playwright into the Bard, by Jack Lynch, Walker, 2007

            I love this book because it shows how subsequent generations built the pedestal upon which so many now place Shakespeare. So many people point out how they want to get back to what the playwright originally intended, or to some approximation. Lynch shows how the changes imposed upon the plays over the past 400 years have made that a near impossibility. This is a great antidote to the terminal Bardology that many suffer from today. It lets us know that Shakespeare was a playwright. Whatever else we see him as today is our own construction.

 

-Andy Kirtland

The Unrehearsed Shakespeare Project

 

Benedicke versus Leonato: Who Will Stop Her Mouth?

I have been putting the finishing edit touches to the script of our next production: Much adoe about Nothing, trying to work out the best way for ten actors to play all of the characters.  I’ve had to combine a couple of characters and, unfortunately, completely delete one (apologies, Antonio).  As we’ve blogged about before, there were some lines in the First Folio (the only version we use) that were not attributed to characters but rather to the actors who played them at the time.  Without using modern versions to fill in the answers for us – Andy and I enjoyed working out who should say what.  It was pretty easy to figure out, but still a fun exercise for us Shakespeare nerds.  Then, in Act Five… the last scene…28 lines from the end of the play, there it was: “Peace I will stop your mouth.” delivered by Leonato instead of the usual Benedicke. 

We knew it was coming.  So, now the question: should I, as the director, give the line to Benedicke to say (which audiences will expect and enjoy) or leave it as Leonato’s line (which may throw some for a loop?)

The line is Leonato’s in every Folio and Quarto version I could find: First Quarto (1600), First Folio (1623), & Second Folio (1632) has the line plain as I’ve written above.  In the Third Folio (1664) and Fourth Folio (1685) the line is still Leonato’s, but a comma is added after “Peace”.

In modern texts, there is also a stage direction added: “kisses her”, which is not in any of the Folios or Quartos. 

This begs the question: why give the line to Benedicke and add the stage direction?  Based on the Unrehearsed Cue Script Technique, the actor playing Leonato would have endless options to ‘suit the action to the word’ (an unrehearsed technique rule) with stopping Beatrice’s mouth.  After all, she’s the one who’s talking when this line is spoken.  He’s her uncle and has been living with her brilliant wit for years, day after day.  So, stopping her mouth would mean something else coming from him rather than Beatrice’s soon-to-be husband.  Plus, the added stage direction in modern texts takes the choice away from the actor.  Yes, a kiss is fun and it’s what the audience is waiting for, but letting an actor’s imagination be free to decide how to stop her mouth can be an exciting moment!

But, it’s not what the audience who knows this play expects.  True.  That is what the Unrehearsed Shakespeare Project is all about.  Introducing audiences to this fun, original way of performing Shakespeare’s plays.  It’s fast-paced, true to the text, and as close to the style that Shakespeare’s company would have performed them. 

So, who will be stopping Beatrice’s mouth and how will they do it?  You’ll have to come see our show in 2015 to find out!

-Elizabeth Ruelas

The Unrehearsed Shakespeare Project

 

"This is Not the Theatre of Subtlety" - Guest Post by Elizabeth Chappel

I would argue that there are two nightmares for actors:

1.      Going onstage not having a clue of what you are doing. (Don’t lie; you’ve had that dream. EVERYONE has had that dream: the one where you didn’t even know you were supposed to be in a play and have no idea what the lines are.)

And…

2.      Auditions.

The Unrehearsed Shakespeare Project turns the first into an insanely fun experience. Sure, you have the inherent directions in your text, and you’re taught the basics (action to the word; cross to the person to whom you are speaking, if you do not know to whom you are speaking, cross to the person who gave you your cue). However, you have no idea what anyone else is going to say or do or even what the specific plot of the show is. It is thrilling and unexpected and absolutely wonderful.

Now let’s talk about the second nightmare.

Any audition can be a nerve-wracking process. The audition room turns into this blank void where anything could happen – somehow it becomes a torture chamber with an inherent, intense pressure to be everything the director wants or you face corporal punishment. Maybe? I don’t know. Trying to encompass the normal audition process with metaphors is hard.

Anyway, this is what auditioning can be. Auditioning for Unrehearsed is NOT this.

When I walked into the audition last year for Unrehearsed, I went in nervous (as I am for every audition ever). I checked in and was given the cold reading with lines for Adriana and Dromio. Obviously, I thought, I shall prepare for Adriana, as I am female. Once I was ready, I walked into a large space with two people unexpectedly beaming at me. Elizabeth and Andy were sitting at this table with an infectious, expectant excitement on their faces that put me immediately at ease. They explained some of the concepts about how cue script technique is performed, and off we went into the world of Shakespeare.

I started off with the Adriana monologue, hamming it up a little bit, moving around and directing some of the lines to Elizabeth. Elizabeth and Andy gave some notes, and then I was asked to perform the Dromio monologue… which was unexpected. I winged it, verging onto vaudeville in the character and running around like a crazy person. I left the audition room feeling exhilarated and like I made a complete fool of myself in the most wonderful way. It turns out that this is how Shakespeare performed in the cue script technique should feel. It feels be big and vivid, and you are completely exhausted afterwards.

Some tips:

-Gender-swapping may occur.

As you read, if you are a girl, you may be asked to read for a boy, and vice

versa.

-Have fun!

If you haven’t gotten it already from the other blog posts or watching a

performance, performing Unrehearsed is incredibly fun. No reason the

audition shouldn’t be the same.

-Action to the word!

The bigger the better. This is not the theater of subtlety – there’s a time and

place for that, but think of yourself as entertaining the Elizabethan masses.

Pretty sure physical humor might get you a better response.

-Interact with your audience.

In this case, the auditioners. I know there are some auditions where there is

this awkward, invisible, impenetrable barrier between you and the director. Not so here.

And that’s it!

Think of it this way: the final performance of the Unrehearsed Shakespeare Project will be surprising and wonderful in its flaws; why would the director expect the audition to be any different?

Hope to see you all for Much adoe about Nothing!

-Elizabeth Chappel

The Unrehearsed Shakespeare Project

Acting in Silence

The most terrifying cue script one of our actors can receive is:

Lady #1 Cue

…………………………………………………….Gypsies Lust.

ENTER ANTONY, CLEOPATRA HER LADIES,

THE TRAINE WITH EUNUCHS FANNING HER

[1.1.2]

…………………………………………………….Speake not to us.

EXEUNT WITH THE TRAINE

There are many Lords, Ladies and soldiers populating the scripts of William Shakespeare with such cues. What is the actor faced with such a cue supposed to do on stage? There is no indication of how long this Lady is to be on stage, what is happening around her or who it is happening to. The actor is in many ways in the same situation as her character. She must ‘use it.’

These characters often are not given stage directions by the other characters. Inexperienced or overly excited Unrehearsed actors will often times execute, with great enthusiasm, what they believe to be stage directions that are in fact not intended for them when they are playing these parts. This results in confusion for the audience (and the actors), or inappropriate actions and stage pictures leading to confusion for the audience (and the actors). The speaking characters should be clear about what, if any stage directions, they are throwing to other characters. Discretion is called for, and that comes with experience.

The silent actor still should be listening for pertinent stage directions, but she must react to what is happening on stage. If she is listening as actively as the technique demands, then she will not fail in making her presence on stage a benefit and not a distraction. The interesting thing is that her reactions are not important to the story telling. If the character’s opinions and / or reactions were, then the character would have lines expressing her thoughts or directions regarding her reactions. Sometimes characters are given an outlet. Maybe it is in a different scene, or after the main action has left the stage. In the moment however, her true reaction is correct – as long as it does not upstage or detract from the scripted scene.

The question when preparing the text is whether to present these nameless wordless characters. Are their reactions worth the expense of costumes and the (quite often) quick-changes that actors must undergo between their exits and their next entrance? In theatres with budgets, the audience watches supernumeraries standing in the background holding spears or looking as though they are waiting for a bus. For the many theatres that cannot afford these characters, they are simply cut from the scene – or a retinue is represented by one faithful courtier wordlessly following the King.

If money and cast is no object, then by all means we should represent these characters because at some point, their presence was thought necessary. However, when money is a concern, these characters often fall by the wayside in favor of economic story telling.

The other time that silence comes into question is when main characters become silent. Most notably Isabella (Measure for Measure) and Sylvia (The Two Gentlemen of Verona) come to mind. Both of these characters, very strong and rounded female characters, fall silent in the final scenes of their plays after their betrothals are announced. Celia (As You Like It) has no lines at all in the fifth act of her story – and she gets married on stage! (For more thoughts on this character, see Elizabeth Ruelas' earlier post "An Inexplicable Romance in the Forest of Arden" from Sept. 12, 2014.) Critics and audience members have expounded on the possible meanings of such mute characters, but when approaching the texts as we do, through cue scripts, it is important to remember that the actors portraying these characters have no idea what is not in their scripts. These actresses do not know for how long they do not speak. All they know is that they do not have the last line in the scene. The actress playing Celia knows that she is getting married because she must rehearse the dance, and most likely at some reading of the text or telling of the general story, Isabella and Sylvia will know their fates (or maybe not, just to keep it interesting for everyone involved). But these are moot points, because the actors should be playing by the rules, and in doing so make no comment on the scene. Any interpretation belongs off stage.

For everyone involved, the audience included, it is paramount to remember that everything pertinent to the stories is spoken. We listen to who is speaking. We watch who speaks. We do not ignore the silent characters, but they should not be the focus, and it is the actors’ job to make sure that we are always focused on what is important on stage. It is a discipline that comes with discretion and experience. The reasons why the silent characters are needed will only be evident in performance.

So in the first scene of Antony and Cleopatra, according to the above cue, the actor must follow Antony and Cleopatra onto the stage. She must exit with everyone after the line “Speake not to us.” Everything else must happen in the moment, and that is what creates interesting theatre.

-Andy Kirtland
The Unrehearsed Shakespeare Project

Auditioning for The Unrehearsed Shakespeare Project

Auditions are stressful on both sides of the table.  Actors want to do well and to be what the director wants, and the directors want the actors to do well and to be what we want.  Both sides want the same thing.  Unfortunately, nerves about the unknown can get to most people.  Actors stress over whether or not they’re “good” enough and directors stress over whether the “good” actors will be easy to work with.  We’ve found that the best way to help actors stress less during the audition process is to just tell them exactly what we want and to…wait for it…talk WITH them.

When we post audition notices, we state that we’re looking for “actors experienced with heightened language, the ability to play multiple characters, the ability to take direction well, lots of energy and awesome attitude.”  That’s all.  As actors, having a clear set of expectations for an audition is very important to us.  It helps us determine if we’re right for the show and tells us a bit about the people we’ll be auditioning for.  As directors, we are letting actors know what’s expected from them before they even sign up for an audition slot.  The Unrehearsed Cue Script Technique is not for the lazy actor.  It is not for the shy, timid actor.  It is also not for the Divas.  We are trying to put together a troupe of players that work together well, are giving, dynamic, and have wonderful personalities that shine through even during difficult moments on stage.  We want to give our audiences a unique experience where they can enjoy themselves as much as the actors.  The first step is proper casting.

We don’t like prepared monologues for our Unrehearsed auditions.  We want to see what you can do with a bit of Shakespeare that you may not know perfectly, which is why we do cold readings for our auditions.  When the actors show up, they are given a short selection of monologues from which they choose to do for their 10 minute audition slot.  Yes, we use the whole 10 minutes, but more on that later.  So, the actor who shows up early for their audition gets some time to work on the monologue a bit, and then comes in to perform it for us.  This first part is very important because it shows us their comfort level with the language, how they approach a monologue on their own, and their choice of monologue also tells us how they type themselves.  Then we explain who we are and what we do.  One of us gets up from the table and goes to stand by the actor and talk with them.  We talk about our process, talk with them about something interesting we’ve seen on their resume, and ask them if they have any questions.  We try to ease them and to let them know more about us.  Then we give them directions and have them do the monologue again.  Depending on the actor and how we are casting the show, we may have the actor do another cold monologue.  The important part of this process is to determine whether or not the actor truly fits all the criteria we are looking for:

1.       Experience with heightened language (their first go at the monologue tells us this straight away)

2.       Ability to play multiple characters (leads also play character parts, so can this actor do both?)

3.       Ability to take direction well (how does this actor take direction from us during their brief time here?)

4.       Lots of energy (do they use the stage? Do they use us as the audience? Are they not afraid to move?)

5.       Awesome attitude (the discussion we have with the actor shows us this)

Throughout all this, we look for another vital element: a sense of humor.  Can they have fun with the monologue and can they be funny?  This isn’t something we can teach them.  It’s something that every actor either has or doesn’t have, and with this technique the ability to find humor and to use it well is imperative.

This is also the time for the actor to decide whether or not they want to work with us. We may not be right for every actor, and it is better for everyone to find this out in the audition rather than after the process has started.

If, during that 10 minute audition, an actor shows us that they can bring to the table everything we’ve asked for, then why call them back to confirm it?  If, on the other hand, we’re unsure about an actor who maybe gets 50% of what we’re asking for, then we just review our notes from the audition and decide if we think they’ll get the rest with a bit more Unrehearsed training.  Of course, if an actor comes in with a bad attitude or doesn’t seem to get what we’re asking for at all, then we are not the right company for them. 

We tried doing callbacks once for this technique a couple of years ago, which didn’t work.  They were wonderful actors to begin with, and we knew we would like to work with them, but sometimes it just comes down to “type” or “look”.  If we already have two actors with similar looks or types in the cast, then we’ll hold on to this third actor’s info for our next show.  Aside from building a troupe of players, we also want individuality and eclectic-ness.

That 10 minute initial audition has always told us exactly what we need to know about an actor – especially when we combine it with the other elements that happen during or before an audition. A callback is just one more audition that they might stress over, or have to take time off of their ‘pay the bills’ job to arrange.  If we, as the director and producer, use our time with the actor to talk with them and put them through some Unrehearsed technique paces, then why call them back to do it again?

Luckily, we have been spoiled for choice at our auditions with the amount of talented actors with awesome personalities who have shown up.  Yes, we want that to continue.  We want actors to give us difficult choices because they’re all amazing.  Maybe they’re not right for this show, but they may be perfect for our next show.  Not doing a callback for USP is also our way of saying not only do we trust our cast, but we hope they trust our decisions.

-Elizabeth Ruelas & Andy Kirtland

The Unrehearsed Shakespeare Project