Full of sound and fury….
Posted in Acting Journal on April 30th, 2006 by Ross BrooksSo I feel like the first thing I need to do is apologize for being absent for so long from the site. I’m not pullin’ my own weight here, and it’s something I intend to change in the near future, especially as I gear up for my next project or two. But I’ve got a couple of things to reflect on at the moment, and I thought this would be a good place to put it all down and see what I’ve learned, if anything, from it all. I guess what I’m talking about are surprises.
So I’m playing Macbeth this summer in the park in Nashville, and it’s one of the coolest things I’ve had happen to me yet. Not only is it probably my favorite of Shakespeare’s plays, it’s a role I’ve wanted to play for a good ten years or so, and I honestly never thought I’d get a chance. Couple reasons for this, the first of which being my age. I’m 32, and for some reason, the heavy hitter roles in Shakespeare’s plays often go to older actors, presumably because it is assumed that they have the maturity and experience to handle it better. I don’t know, but it always seems to be the case. Well, I had to pass up a chance to play Macduff last fall due to a conflict, and I figured my chances of even being involved in the play weren’t gonna be good for a while (at the time, I had no idea the Shakespeare Festival here in town would do the show). Plus, the guy who was cast as Macbeth in that production is a good friend of mine who is a good ten years older than me. And here’s my problem with that, and it’s actually one of the reasons I got cast in the part in the upcoming production: it has never made sense to me that Macbeth should always be an older man. First, he is childless, and while the play never flat out tells you why, you can draw from alllusions in the text that either he or his wife have possibly had children before and lost them, either through miscarriage, stillbirth, or just plain bad luck of any kind. The whole “I have given suck…” speech by Lady M. seems to imply that she has had and lost a child, so it does put them at a certain age, but nowhere does it seem to imply (unless I’m missing something huge, but I’m no Shakes scholar) that it would be impossible for them to have children in the future, so it makes sense to me that they’re young enough to try again. Add in the fact that Macbeth is pretty nakedly ambitious, and he seems to be given a very youthful energy that makes him seem a lot closer to twenty-five or thirty than forty. But it’s open to debate. Suffice to say, my personal opinion is that he is a young man with his entire life and career ahead of him, and what makes it so tragic is that he throws this all away by making the first of many poor decisions, the moral ramifications of which he seems to be very consciously aware. He knows from the beginning that it’s the wrong thing to do, but he decides to pursue it anyway, and hell follows thereafter. Seeing someone with potential ruin himself seems much more interesting and tragic to me than someone who is just simply evil and jaded, like Richard III. Furthermore, he realizes before it’s all over just how badly he has screwed himself, and since there is no recourse or way to save himself, he commits even more fully to his course of action and does what he does best - he kills whomever gets in his way. It’s extremely interesting that there is this existential thread in Macbeth - he realizes his world is falling apart, and even though he could simply give up and aloow himself to be taken prisoner, he fights to hold onto it as long as he can. I’ve never read any of Beckett’s thoughts on Shakespeare, but one would have to be blind not to notice the connection between this particular play and the bleak yet somehow persevering world of Didi and Gogo. Unfortunately for Macbeth, at the end of his story he has no friend to comfort him through the unbearable truth, and so he must persevere alone. At least Didi had Gogo to wait with him.
Anyway, to my pleasant surprise, the director of the upcoming production feels much the same way as I do. Thus, I am cast, and it’s a golden opportunity for me. It has given me the opportunity to step back and look at myself in a role which I haven’t before - the leading man. Self-awareness is something an actor can always stand to have, and while I have always dreamed of playing some of these great roles, I guess I have never really considered myself the leading man type. Comes mostly from past insecurities about myself - growing up as a fat kid, not much interest from girls early in life - some of the very reasons that I believe I became an actor are now the reasons that I seem to have a hard time actually imagining myself playing some of these great roles.
As a side note, but no less important: I’m going to be teaching drama camps this summer at the Nashville Children’s Theatre, and one of the camps is a three-week intensive conservatory program designed for older kids who really want to be challenged and get as close to a professional experience as they can. Julee Baber, the Director of Education at NCT, is going to direct The Crucible for this conservatory, and I will be playing John Proctor along with Nashville actress Jenny Littleton as Elizabeth. The kids in the program will make up the rest of the cast, and it’s a chance for them to work with professionals and hopefully to learn from them. So this summer I’m going to get the chance to play two of the greatest roles in the English language, and to be honest, I’m still trying to come to terms with that. Not in terms of the workload, because I will be working on both shows at once, and I have no fear of that, but just in terms of the fact that I’m going to be the lead in both shows. It’s not earth-shattering, just a new phase in my life and my career, and I’m very happy about it. I guess I should just shut up, be glad that it’s happening, and see where it takes me after this.
Anyway, back to Macbeth. I’ll write more on the process I go through as the summer proceeds. Once again, this is one of my favorite of Willy’s plays, and it’s once Ive spent a lot of time on in the past ten years anyway, so I’ve got some pretty strong ideas about it. I’d love to hear what anyone else has to say about it - if you agree or disagree with my take on it, etc. Here’s something to stew on: I personally feel that Macbeth is a man of action. While not an idiot, he is intelligent and blessed/cursed with an abundance of imagination, which allows him to conceive of the murder of Duncan, and he is definitely a killer of men, he is not a murderer at the beginning of the play. He becomes one as soon as he decides to act on his imagination and kill the king. Once he starts doing so, he isn’t smart enough to figure out a way to keep himself safe, and he responds to any threat to his position the way he would on a battlefield - he kills whomever gets in his way. Even when he’s aware that it’s the wrong thing to do, he does it anyway, mainly because he can’t see any other way to accomplish his goal. Iago and Richard are manipulators; they make others do much of the work for them. Macbeth doesn’t know how to do that. He only knows how to kill, and even when he knows there should be a better way, it is all he knows how to do.
Any thoughts?
