I had an experience recently where I saw an audition call, was incredibly excited because I haven’t acted in a while and have been keeping my eye out for an opportunity I could jump at, and began preparing the sides the theatre provided.

A week or so later, it’s the day of the audition, I’m dealing with the to-be-expected nervousness of auditioning, especially because this is a new theatre and I’m feeling a bit rusty for in-person auditions.

The role descriptions for this production had races on most of the characters, and as a mixed-race person I am a little hesitant to jump at any “African-American” casting because it’s not uncommon (or unreasonable) for productions to want an actor to be a bit darker-skinned than I am, so I decide to see if I can read the script and see why my character is written to be African-American, and if a light-skinned version would make sense (Before I continue I would like to acknowledge that I am aware there are many theatres/productions that wouldn’t care much about the exact race of the characters, but I am a lover of proper dramaturgy and care regardless).

While reading the script I learn that the character I’m planning to audition for is actually dealing with some severe mental illness due to experiencing racial violence as a child. Now, this is not inherently problematic, but a few things about it felt…off.

Subscribe now

Out of respect for the artist, I am not going to say exactly what play this is (it’s a new script by a playwright I am unfamiliar with and I simply don’t want to bother), I’ll just explain the parts of it that didn’t sit right with me. For one, the story didn’t necessarily center the illness of this character, it was a plot device to explain their suspicious behavior, and then promptly “dealt” with through doctors taking them away in the end. This character also became violent when confronted about their suspicious behaviors, even having to be forcibly restrained. The racial elements in the story were also a bit unsettling to me. I read the script twice and brought it up to two trusted people to ask their thoughts, and all of us felt the same. This script wasn’t great.

It simply wasn’t doing what I think it set out to do. I actually think the entire mental illness and racial aspect took away from the real “point” of the story, and this character, who has experienced terrible violence and was coping in the only way he could process, was not treated with particular care by the playwright. So…do I still audition?

I proceeded to spend about an hour debating with myself and then several hours after making a decision pondering this situation. Here’s what I thought through:

ME

Do I even want this role? I think I’d feel really uncomfortable trying to portray this insensitive of a depiction of this specific mental illness.

ALSO ME

But it’s a new script, there could be growth?

ME

But also I honestly don’t know if this script can be saved with the presence of the mental illness? Like making it a sensitive depiction would require basically a different story because the mental illness really isn’t the “point” of the story. But the alternative is to just, remove the mental illness which would be a huge rewrite. And, am I even equipped to bring up that kind of problem to an established playwright that I don’t even know?

ALSO ME

But at the same time, the story isn’t going to get better if no one tries to make it better. And I do think it has some really intriguing elements.

ME

But I’m being hired as an actor, not a dramaturg. And I would feel incredibly uncomfortable having performing as this character if there weren’t significant changes to the script. That doesn’t seem like a good kind of emotional investment to make in a project?

ALSO ME

People don’t tend to blame actors for insensitive depictions though. It’s clearly the way the script is written and/or how the director builds the scene. Even if I were to play the character, I didn’t write the story or make it go that way, so what’s the harm in trying?

ME

Well the harm is supporting a project that I think is genuinely harmful to a group of people that deserve considerate media portrayals, even if the insensitivity is done with good intent. If a show like this was written about an identity that I do hold, I wouldn’t want people to support it.

ALSO ME

But also a paid gig. And I like work. And the economy is shit right now

ME

Butttttt, I also believe in moral integrity, particularly as an artist. And I don’t think this story should be produced. And if more people refused to work for productions they felt were harmful, we’d likely have a very different theatre landscape. So, my decision is to not go.

Now, does this decision mean literally anything? Probably not.

There are plenty of actors in my city that I’m sure will appreciate the role (and the stipend), so I haven’t exactly made waves with this moral conundrum, but I stand by my decision. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Let me know what you think?

Leave a comment

This essay isn’t meant to hate on community theatre at all, but to reflect on my experiences and the experiences of others that I’ve known who participate in community theatre out of a love of the art form, and the financial strain it can still take.

Subscribe now

The first of these strains being cost of travel. My most recent community show happened on the opposite side of the city from where I live. As I unfortunately don’t have a car, public transportation would take at minimum 1hr 15min, and that assumes both buses and the train I had to take were on time (which in the city I live in, never happens). So my options became travel for around 2 hours both ways, or pay $15-30 for Ubers. As I have other things in my life that made a 4 hour commute incredibly bothersome, I ended up Ubering most rehearsals, as did several other members on the production. A friend of mine was recently in a community theatre production that required them to drive over an hour and pay a toll every time as well.

And sure, we both could have chosen to not do a show that far away from us, but there are a finite amount of theatre opportunities. If you a theatre lover who isn’t lucky enough to have a quality company in your neighborhood, this cost is just a sacrifice you have to make.

Another common cost is costume and/or make-up contributions. My partner recently participated in a show that asked them to provide their own costume, which they were happy to do as they just so happened to wear a perfect costume to their audition. However, the company also refused to wash costumes items that cast members provided, which I find mildly annoying, but whatever. My partner also used their own make up, setting spray, and nail polish, as did much of the cast. This issue is more impactful to actors who play women, as I’ve noticed I’m less often expected to wear make up at all as a man. As such, I don’t have specific numbers to reference, but I’ve been in Sephora enough with my partner to know that make up costs can add up just the same as travel costs for runs over multiple weeks.

Don’t even get me started on organizations that require people to pay membership fees.

The last one I want to bring up is admittedly more complicated than the previous because it isn’t technically “required.” Gifts. Gifts for the director, stage manager, for the cast. For first rehearsal, the start of tech week, to celebrate opening night (or closing night!). There are many, many, many times during a production where food or other gifts may be given. Most of these aren’t necessarily “required”, so I can’t blame this companies at all. There are also certainly ways to make gifts for others thoughtful without costing much, but I wanted to bring it up nonetheless. Gifts are good! And the culture of celebrating parts of the theatrical process are incredibly meaningful with how challenging it can be to actually have the resources to produce a show. But that doesn’t mean it can’t also be an additional financial burden.

I know there are only so many things community theatre organizations can do to alleviate these. It is challenging to afford a company and produce shows, and I don’t mean to accuse companies to expecting large financial sacrifices (Except for companies with membership fees. I know money is hard but I don’t like you.), this is just a weight that’s been on my mind recently that I wanted to share. There are so many financial challenges to theatre, and it’s frustrating when even companies that are meant to reduce those barriers just can’t.

Oh well.

~If you’re someone who cares about avoiding spoilers, this probably isn’t the essay for you~

Subscribe now

The primary thematic conflict of the play is the debate between the value of utilizing science to create places for humanity to leave once the planet is no longer inhabitable, and the value of investing our resources into protecting and healing the Earth we have. This dichotomy is set up beautifully in Cassie and Brian (respectively), and Stella serves as an interesting and complex character who feels pulled between these two forces.

I loved handling the climate conflict and the tension between the twins. One sister has everything the other wants, and yet doesn’t know if she wants it herself was captured really well in the staging I saw.

A contention I had with the script is the handling of the relationship between Cassie and Brian. The chemistry of the characters is captured well, there is a fascinating similarity in their relationships to their own ideologies and how they became so dedicated to their respective lifestyles. The characters are clearly aware at how well they compliment each other as they both state the other is “just so easy to talk to”, and of course the climax of the play is launched by an almost-kiss between them.

Up until this point in the play I was hooked. I saw the sparks fly during their first conversation together and was honestly waiting for how the playwright was going to handle Brian moving from one sister to the other. But then something happened that I haven’t been able to reconcile with: the play just ignored it.

Stella busts into the argument, interrupting the kiss, but doesn’t seem particularly angry at it specifically and directs her anger at the larger trend of Cassie wanting everything she has. Which, I don’t disagree with at all, the way Stella handled this argument honestly felt incredibly mature and it was something I wasn’t expecting. But then Stella also dismisses Brian’s attempt to reassure her about the almost-kiss. And then the final scene simply flashes forward to a time where Brian and Stella are supposedly happy and none of that almost-infidelity seems to matter.

And this is where I am left with: What is the purpose of an infidelity sub-plot to then be completely ignored in the end?

Subscribe now

The plot made complete sense for the characters involved. Brian not only represents something that Stella has and therefore Cassie wants, he also is someone that doesn’t have the expectations of Cassie (Or Stella) that they are both so used to feeling the weight of. And to tie it all in a bow he loves to discuss their philosophies and is willing to listen and be challenge and challenge in return. I mean, he’s written to be quite perfect for Cassie.

And for Brian, Cassie has something that Stella seems to lack, which is the ability to be open. Their connection due to this desire to be open and explore ideas together is apparent from their first solo conversation, so it was no surprise to me as it became more clear in later scenes where their relationship was going. My only confusion is why it wasn’t directly addressed.

I can reason that Stella was willing to ignore what happened because of the weird situations that led to it. Perhaps she thinks it was initiated by Cassie and so it hasn’t effected her feelings of security with Brian. And maybe she understands that Cassie doesn’t try to take everything on purpose so she’s still able to forgive and move forward. Sure.

What I struggle more to accept is that Cassie and Brian just move on from what happened. They both found someone that they connect with (for Brian, arguably more than we see him connect with his fiance), and clearly they both felt an attraction, they both were willing to kiss each other before it got interrupted. So why would they just forget it?

When discussing the play with my partner, they brought up that one of the most interesting parts of the sister’s characterizations is that they have what the other wants. Cassie has the physical capability to withstand going to space that Stella desperately wants but just doesn’t have. I wholly agree that this tension that Stella has in not being able to go to space no matter how bad she wants it an incredibly well-executed conflict. However, Cassie doesn’t really have that same conflict. There is no biological limitation to Brian and Stella splitting up, and Cassie leaving NASA for a similar life with Brian. Cassie’s conflicts are purely moral. She’s battling her sense of autonomy over her own life and body versus her sense of duty. The choice that she’s being pushed to make, to dedicate the rest of her life to desert of Mars with no one but the few scientists also trapped up there, is one that in my experience of the play, doesn’t receive an adequate reason to go. Cassie makes it clear she doesn’t actually want to go, and is only doing so because everyone around her (except Brian!) tells her she has to. This includes Stella, which is fascinating considering the amount of turmoil Stella is experiencing because of that same pressure being put on her.

The play doesn’t officially tell us what choice Cassie makes in terms of going to Mars. But I still felt a bit, unsatisfied because Cassie doesn’t seem to have a reason to go to Mars by the end of the play. The first half of the play seems to set up for a moral lesson about the weight of others expectations on us, and how we can still take control of our own lives even when it’s incredibly challenging. But then it doesn’t. And the characters continue to make the choices they’ve been making from the start, even after making it rather clear they aren’t fully satisfied.

Maybe I’m missing something. If I am, let me know. I did really enjoy this play and I highly recommend every goes to see it if they can. And if there’s ever a rewrite, I’M THERE.

Leave a comment

I saw it at InterAct Theatre Company in Philadelphia, PA. It’s running through Nov 24!

https://www.interacttheatre.org/

Subscribe now

The Merchant of Venice was written as a romantic comedy following Bassanio, an Italian gentleman in need of financial security, and Portia, a wealthy heiress. Bassanio plans to woo Portia but needs money to afford the trip and asks his very close friend Antonio. Antonio doesn’t have the cash because his investments are in ships that aren’t set to return for a month, but they know of a moneylender that may help. In comes Shylock, a Jewish moneylender who is incredibly reluctant to help Antonio and Bassanio as they a regularly antisemitic towards him, but eventually he agrees to loan them the money on the condition that if Antonio fails to repay him, Shylock is allowed to take one pound of Antonio’s flesh. They take the deal, Bassanio successfully woos Portia, but (who’s surprised) Antonio’s ships are lost at sea. The Christians try their best to ask for mercy from Shylock, but as they have never offered him mercy from their hatred of Jews, Shylock is set on claiming his pound of flesh as Antonio agreed to sacrifice. Portia, upon learning of the situation, allows Bassanio to go back to Venice with enough money to pay Shylock, but Shylock refuses the outside payment. While the court stalls, a young lawyer (who is actually Portia disguised as a man) shows up and finds a legal loophole to accuse Shylock of attempting to kill a Venetian citizen (as Jewish people were not considered citizens at this time), and therefore Antonio now has a right to Shylock’s money and property. Antonio chooses “mercy” by letting Shylock live and keep his assets as long as he promises his will to his daughter (who abandoned him earlier in the story to marry one of Antonio’s Christian friends, Lorenzo) AND convert to Christianity.

And the Christians live happily ever after.

I don’t think it’s hard to reason why this isn’t a particular popular play today. Shylock has been cemented in literary history due to it’s lasting impact on Jewish stereotyping due to his greediness, but contemporary readings of the play can make it challenging to really view the story as a happy ending. Sure, the primary romantic relationship is successful and Antonio survives, but Shylock chose to help two men who have called him names, spit on him, and have supported the government systems that prevent him from being recognized as a citizen AND from being able to work many jobs aside from money lending (AND called him greedy for it) and in return he lost his daughter, the right to his own will, and the right to practice his own faith.

I saw this production 5 years ago, and I truly believe the company I saw was attempting to play the script as a tragedy, but ultimately this play is structured like a comedy, and no matter how much directing and acting choices push against the cruelty of the Christian characters, the choices of the play still lead to Shylock being left without even his own spirituality, his daughter left in an unhappy marriage with someone who doesn’t see her fully, and the primary Christian couples rich and happy.

It’s a challenging play, and while I wouldn’t be pushing for any theatre company to produce it, I do think it is a play worthy of reading and discussion. I am fascinated by the Shakespeare scholars who have pointed out that while Shylock is a the villain of the story, he is also written to be one of the most empathetic villains of Shakespeare’s plays. His indignation against Antonio and Bassanio are explicitly stated, and even if you reason that Antonio and Bassanio are just trying to protect themselves, the play makes it hard to not question their actions against Shylock, and whether his ending is truly just.

Personally, I love this play, because I love plays that leave me with questions, and this play has been on my mind since I saw it 5 year ago, so much so that I purchased a copy of the script for myself to read. In today’s landscape, it’s a fascinating study into dramatic structure and how stories change with the times, but it’s also a study of interfaith relations, and how the powers of the law can be manipulated by anyone and against anyone.

Have you seen or read The Merchant of Venice? What did you think about it?

Leave a comment

Where I found the script:

I purchased a Sparks Notes brand physical copy from a book store a few years ago (Probably Barnes & Noble, although I don’t frequent them anymore for ethical reasons). I also referenced the free, online version of the script from Folger’s Shakespeare Library (they have the entire folio available and many other great Shakespeare-related resources).

https://www.folger.edu/explore/shakespeares-works/the-merchant-of-venice/read/characterList/

Subscribe now

1. They Make Theatre More Accessible

Again, I enjoyed the Hamilton pro-shot when it was released, so I don’t think I can ever fully dismiss this point. And it is true that theatre can be incredibly challenging access, especially for people who don’t like in large cities where theatre industries tend to thrive. My concerns in this regard are first, theatre is meant to be a live experience, and that will never be translated to a pre-recorded video, so is it really showing people what theatre is, or just what it looks like? And second (and more importantly), large theatre companies with large budgets are really the only ones that get to make beautiful pro-shots, like Hamilton. And if that is how large amounts of people are getting introduced to theatre, how is that going to warp their perception of what regional theatre (the actual lifeblood of the industry) is “supposed” to look like. The finality of a proshot feels anti-theatrical to me, who loves the art form that embraces the never-really-finished reality of an artistic process.

2. They’re Useful for Advertising/Company Growth

My concern for this is largely related my aforementioned concerns about Big Theatre setting an unrealistic (and unnecessary) standard for theatrical works that put too much pressure on smaller companies and individual artists to make their work look a particular way, but I want to expand on this fear in two ways. First, there is something very concerning about producers using proshot as ways to milk more money out of audiences without investing anything into developing more art. The need to keep creating new art is incredibly important for the form, and a further reliance on “complete” pieces like pro-shots can lessen that need (as we as seeing in the impact of streaming on television and Hollywood). Secondly, I firmly believe that not all theatre is meant for a global or even national audience, and honestly, theatre that is Designed for such a large audience tends to be…lacking. Shallow. Boring? It’s just missing something. When theatre is read and studied in classes, we often study classics because of their “universality”, but we don’t often talk about how that’s not what the playwright or creators of the piece intended when they wrote it. The most powerful stories came from creators intending to speak to a specific audience with intense authenticity, and audiences take that and create something new with it. As wider and wider audiences get access to the same pieces, and then artists start to target those wider and wider audiences, we lose a critical piece of that process.

3. They’re Useful for Theatre Education

This is the hardest one for me to argue against, truthfully. Particularly as someone who is pursuing graduate education in theatre and performance, I understand the value of being able to watch and rewatch performances to study them. I watched pro-shots in undergrad that were incredibly useful in demonstrating ideas and experiencing plays and musicals beyond reading the script. I can’t say there is a value to them. I can reiterate, though, that theatre is meant to be a live experience, and that live experience is something that I also believe needs to be an element of quality theatre education. Is that particularly challenging? Yes. Is it possible 100% of the time in every educational scenario? No. But does that make it less important? Also no. Education at any level that isn’t actually teaching students what something is, isn’t really education, is it?

So?

I don’t have a good answer. I think accessibility is important. I think education is valuable. I think pro-shots have genuinely good uses. I also fear the impact of highly visible “final products” have on current and future generation’s relationship to theatre as an art form. It’s a complicated question.

Let me know your thoughts on the role of proshots in the industry:

Leave a comment

Some common answers may include:

“It’s important to teach Shakespeare to so young people see stories with timeless themes”

“Performing Shakespeare teaches actors how to analyze scripts”

“We should remember/celebrate dramatic history”

All of these answers have some validity to them. And as a fan of Shakespeare, I am generally supportive of any reason for invoking the bard, as long as they’re being done to their fullest. Recently, I’ve been noticing a trend that I find particularly fascinating: the “re-imagining” of Shakespeare.

Remount vs Re-imagine

Theatre knows remounts, where a team takes a play that’s been done before and add their own twists or lens to it. As I already acknowledged, Shakespeare remounts can be incredibly broad, and I think it’s safe to say remounts of Shakespeare have much more variability than remounts of any more contemporary play (in large part because of copy-write limits, but that’s not the point).

The trend I’m noticing looks a little different than what you might expect from a traditional remount. Some recent ones include:

Julius X by Al Letson, at Folger Theatre in Washington, DC (insp. Julius Ceasar)

Call Me by Nigel Semaj at The Voxel in Baltimore, MD (insp. Romeo and Juliet)

Fat Ham by James Ijames at Studio Theatre in Washington, DC (insp. Hamlet)

&Juliet by David West Read, on Broadway (insp. Romeo and Juliet)

All of these have taken central elements of Shakespeare’s works and but create an entirely new story with a unique script. What’s exciting to me about this, as a Shakespeare lover is that re-imagining these plays create an entirely new way for the current and future theatre generations to engage with Shakespeare. And honestly, it’s incredibly refreshing to see what kind so of connections creative minds like the playwrights above can do with these timeless plays.

What do you think of this trend?