Q: How do you prepare for a role?
A: The first thing that I do to prepare for any role is read the script four times: once for familiarity with the play, and one read-through for each of the three essential things that an actor has to know in order to start working on a role - What do I know to be true about my character? What does my character say about himself? What do others say about my character? The end result is a couple pages of notes on the role and the show, and a good idea of where to start that let me start sculpting the clay of the character (or Play-dough, if you're the sort who enjoys lame jokes). Once I have a general shape, the proverbial lump o' clay gets tossed to the director, who adjusts and re-sculpts it as they see fit, and removes any extra limbs that I might have thought looked cool when I started working the clay. The end result is a statue with two sculptors, who work together to keep improving the piece at each rehearsal until it is unveiled on opening night.
You can't get too attached to your initial sculpture, however, or you'll end up with a sphinx without a nose. Beyond hammering the script into my head, I try to keep it pretty simple. The most important thing for an actor to concentrate on when building a character, especially in Shakespeare's plays, is making the characters accessible to a modern audience. I know some actors who do an insane amount of research for the roles they're in, particularly Shakespearean ones; they look up historical context, read analyses of the characters, watch other people perform the roles, and do a bunch of other stuff that I consider (for the most part) to be going overboard. If you're cast as Romeo, for example, researching social interaction and courtship in 14th century Verona and considering the audience that Shakespeare was writing for and his intent with each line isn't going to make your character connect with the audience any better, or make them care when Romeo dies. The audience will appreciate a character that they can understand and relate to more than one that is "true to Shakepeare's vision" or "historically accurate". Randy Jeffreys did a fantastic job as Macbeth, not because he played a Scottish Thane with dreams of kinghood, but because he played a guy who'd worked hard and been loyal his whole life, and been passed over for recognition that he deserved. Also, Macbeth's fall from grace will resonate (I feel like I'm overusing that word) with anyone who's ever thought about taking matters into their own hands to get what they feel (or in this case, what a manipulative companion feels) they deserve. Long story short, it's important to act for your audience.
Q: How do you go about learning all the lines?
A: WORDS WORDS WORDS. There's no secret method an actor can use to memorize lines (or if there is, it's too secret for me to know). It's all about reading, re-reading, re-re-reading, reading out loud, attempting to recite from memory, failing, kicking any furniture in one's general vicinity, shouting assorted curses at the inanimate objects you just kicked, trying to recite from memory again, rinse and repeat. It does help me to learn lines as I'm going to be delivering them; if I'll be walking across the stage when I speak a particular line, I'll walk with the script as I'm memorizing it, for example.
Q: Prince of Cumberland.....do you think Malcolm was expecting that? How close do you think the royal family is to one another?
A: I'd imagine that he was expecting it to happen at some point, he's King Duncan's oldest son, after all. There isn't much dialogue between Duncan and his sons that suggests that their relationship was terribly close, but they seem to be pretty well-adjusted for a royal family. Malcolm and Donalbain seem pretty tight despite their personality differences, with Malcolm being more of a planner and politician and Donalbain being more action-oriented. I tried to push the closeness between the two brothers whenever I could onstage, since it makes Don's death at the end of the show more of a blow to the crown prince.
Q: Duncan is murdered in what seems like minutes after your new honors as Prince by his "sleepy grooms"....what do you think is Malcolm's gut reaction to the murder? Shock? Dismay? Or does he already have a few people in mind who he feels actually performed the murderous deed?
A: Malcolm is ever a planner. He's definitely stunned and horrified by the news of his father's murder, but he realizes that 1.) If someone is out to stage a coup, he's next, and 2.) Mourning won't help him or his brother. I doubt he has any suspects in mind at the time, but he's thinking clearly enough to realize that he and Donalbain need to leave, despite the suspicion it will throw on them.
Q: You away to England, and then find yourself in a deep conversation with Macduff about Scotland, your potential reign, how you are going to overthrow the tyrant, etc. Why the confusion tactics? What are you trying to glean from Macduff? Do you think an accord is truly reached between the two, that Malcolm has Macduff's loyalty?
A: That was one of the more problematic scenes for me, simply because Malcolm spends the majority of it lying about what a terrible person he is, and then hand-waves it away with just a couple lines. The point of the scene, as I understand it, it to establish Macduff as very loyal to Scotland (as shown when he tries to justify Malcolm's negative traits) and to show that despite his patriotism, he values a good a fair ruler more than the official rules of succession that allowed Macbeth to take power. Malcolm had his father murdered and had to flee the country for his safety, so he's not exactly in a trusting mood at this point. He needs to know that Macduff is someone he can trust to do the right thing for Scotland and her people. The conversation is cut short when Macduff receives news that his family has been murdered, and the discussion of treachery and loyalty is thrown out the window for revenge. I believe that if his family hadn't been killed, Macduff would still have sided with Malcolm and returned to overthrow the tyrant, but there might have been a monologue where Macduff questions his decision and considers siding with Macbeth at the last moment. What a twist!
Q: Malcolm loses his brother, Donalbain, in the final act. What some play goers may not realize is that Director J.B. switched this up a bit and replaced young Siward with Donalbain. As an actor, what is your take on this revision? Do you find it to be more powerful in the unaltered script?
A: Siward is only mentioned a couple times before he appears to duel Macbeth. He's built up as the best soldier in all of England, and his death makes Macbeth look stronger, which puts some suspense into the Macbeth/Macduff fight. As I mentioned earlier, when performing Shakespeare to a modern audience, priorities need to be changed a bit. Since most people in the audience probably know the outcome of the play, building Macbeth up as a good fighter and making it seem like he can beat Macduff doesn't really serve a purpose. Cutting Siward (no pun intended) and replacing him with Donalbain makes a lot of sense, and I think the revision makes the last few scenes of the play more powerful than they would have been with Siward getting slain.
Thanks Stephen!
No comments:
Post a Comment