The Fourth Wall

I’ve had several topics that I’ve been meaning to blog about. For instance I still have yet to write about my experience playing Beatrice. But that and other such topics must be put aside, for I find I have to respond to a disturbing trend. Last year I posted links on my facebook page to a couple blog postings from theatre critics bemoaning performers breaking the fourth wall. One came from Christine Dolen of the Miami Herald. This opinions in her post were seconded by Elizabeth Maupin of the Orlando Sentinel. Dolen says that interactive theatre makes her “uncomfortable.” Maupin agrees that she wants to stay on the “safe” side of the fourth wall. Both of them write as though this whole audience interaction is a new, scary idea rising up against the established convention of a fourth wall.

My pretentious side wanted to dismiss these opinions as merely coming from unenlightened arts writers in Florida, but just today Peter Marks posted a blog in the Washington Post putting forth the exact same opinion.

Marks says that breaking the fourth wall is “one of the most annoying trends in modern theater.” Sigh. Audience interaction is not a modern theatre trend. The fourth wall is a modern theatre trend coming from the advent of realism, spreading during the 19th and 20th centuries. Prior to that were centuries of theatre without the fourth wall. And you don’t have to know very much about theatre history to know this – the most famous playwright of all time wrote for a theatre that interacted directly with its audience. (That would be Shakespeare, if you hadn’t figured it out).

First of all, I am troubled that these critics, who are set up as experts on the theatre, only seem interested in one very specific type of theatrical experience (and clearly a middle-class, western one at that). How can we trust theatre critics who deny the great majority of theatre history? But it troubles me much, much more that these critics seem to be against the very quality that makes theatre special. Isn’t the very reason we go to theatre for that live human connection? If we aren’t looking for that very alive and present exchange between an actor and an audience, why see a play? Dolin says, “Just sitting there in the dark, listening and reacting and thinking, is fine by me.” Marks writes about wanting to be "left alone." If that’s all you want, sit in a movie theatre, or in front of your television.

What is the point of theatre that is “safe”? Don’t we want our theatre to be alive? To challenge and surprise us?

Sure, there is a right way and a wrong way to interact with an audience. And it is a fine line that not every actor can figure out. Or every director. I had a director who told the cast that if an audience member seemed uncomfortable or wasn’t responding when we talked to them, to keep going back to that same person and force them to respond. I really don't think that's the way to go about it.

I am well aware that there are plays where audience interaction is entirely inappropriate. I understand that different productions have different styles. I once for a Shakespeare play and was not cast and had another cast member ask me how I would have dealt with doing the show since I would have disagreed with the decision not to talk to the audience. I told him I would do exactly what I did in the last play we did together (which was fully of the school of naturalism) and ignored the director’s wishes and talked to the audience anyway. He was confused and said, “I don’t remember you doing that,” clearly not being able to pick up on my sarcasm.

Not every play needs the actors to look into an audience member’s eyes and speak directly to them. But even without that element, a play is still interactive. It has to be. The audience is there, the actors are there, and each group affects the other. Therefore ALL theatre is interactive. That’s what makes it theatre. If theatre doesn’t make a connection, it’s either badly written or badly performed, or both.

I can absolutely accept that some people do not like audience interaction, especially the more extreme versions of it. But these people probably shouldn’t be the ones writing about theatre. Sure, there are audience members that just want to sit back, laugh at a show, then go home and forget all about it. Fine - there are certainly plays that will allow those audience members to do so. But it’s not the kind of theatre I want to see. It’s not the kind of theatre I want to do. And it’s not the kind of theatre that matters. It’s not the kind of theatre that lasts. And theatre that matters, theatre that lasts, theatre that makes an impact – isn’t that the type of theatre that should interest our critics?

Fringe - Not Quite Over

This is the final week of Fringe, but it's still not too late to see BOTH of my shows.


A Thing for Redheads has two final performances:
Friday July 23 @ 10:30pm
Saturday July 24 @ 3:30pm

DC Theatre Scene just posted a four star review of this show. Reviewer Caitlin DeMerlis calls the play "witty, quirky, entertaining." Demerlis praises all four actors, and writes, "With a touch of Miley Cyrus and a dash of Britney Spears, Charlene V. Smith as pop star Jessie Morgan is poppin’ and lockin’ it ... Smith adds a terrifyingly realistic embodiment of the vapid stars that currently grace the covers of entertainment rags."


Macbeth sold out four of our five performances at the Capital Fringe Festival. Many people had to be turned away. Bummed because you missed this awesome production? Never fear, we are remounting it for two weekends in August at 1st Stage in Tyson's Corner.

The remount will run on the following dates:
Friday, August 6, at 8pm
Saturday, August 7, at 8pm
Sunday, August 8, at 7pm
Friday, August 13, at 8pm
Saturday, August 14, at 8pm
Sunday, August 15, at 7pm

Don't miss out, get your tickets now at Brown Paper Tickets.

Good Press for Macbeth

Macbeth is getting lots of buzz at the Capital Fringe Festival:

--We received a five-star "Pick of the Fringe" rating from DC Theatre Scene. Reviewer Kate Mattingly singled out the three witches, calling us "creepy and conniving."

--We are an Editor's Pick on the Washington Post's Going Out Guide. Critic Rebecca J. Ritzel described the production as "clever, lightning-quick and all about taking risks."

--Finally, the Washington City Paper reports on what happened opening night. A patron was so determined to see our show, he ripped the door off of its hinges.

Only three performances left!
Redrum @ Fort Fringe, 612 L Street, NW

Thursday July 15 @ 10:30pm
Saturday July 17 @ 7pm
Sunday July 18 @ 9:30pm

Macbeth Opens Tonight!

Macbeth opens tonight at the Capital Fringe Festival. The show is at 8pm.

The Redrum at Fort Fringe: 612 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20001

Closest metro stations: Mt. Vernon Square - Convention Center (Green/Yellow) or Chinatown - Gallery Place (Red).

Here's a sneak peak:

photos by Lee Liebeskind

The Actor's Ego

I was thrilled to see that the RSC had posted a link on their facebook page to an interview on the Guardian with Michael Boyd. Frankly, I'll read anything and everything about Michael Boyd. That man reached theatre god status when I saw the Histories cycle in 2008 which he directed. Plus he's brought the ensemble back to the RSC.

The interview is short, but telling. My favorite moment?

What is the biggest myth about theatre?
That it is more populated by egotists than any other profession.

Thank you Mr. Boyd! This has been a thought that's been rattling around in my head recently for a couple reasons. Mostly because I've recently watched the second season of Canadian TV show Slings and Arrows. The second season is the season in which the New Burbage Festival is performing Macbeth. So I could watch in the name of research. ;-) Anyway theatre people are dictated to love this show because it is about theatre people. Every theatre person has told another theatre person, "Oh, you must see Slings and Arrows!" But I began to feel a little annoyed with the show and its over-reliance on negative actor stereotypes. According to this show, people in the arts are all flaky, pleasure-driven egotists with no understanding of the real world. The second season is when Ellen finds herself undergoing a tax audit. Her constant insistence that "I'm just a poor actor! How can you expect me to understand taxes?!" gets a little grating.

If we are being fair, who really understands taxes anyway? And they are increasingly difficult and convoluted when you are an independent contractor. But the actors I know don't whine about them anymore than anyone else in the world, and we have to work harder to understand all the rules and regulations and how they apply to us. (On this note, I have a few friends that insist we can deduct makeup and costumes. We can't. One even says her tax preparer told her she could. He's wrong.)

But Slings and Arrows does get it right when they take on the magic of theatre, the wonder, what draws us all to it. “The theater is an empty box, and it is our task to fill it with fury, and ecstasy, and with revolution."


Are there egos in theatre? Absolutely. Divas? Yes. Difficult actors? Sure. But actors are also practical, selfless, hardworking, courageous, brave, generous, empathetic, smart, and curious. I had a guy on Facebook tell me that being an actor was my choice and since I chose that profession I didn't deserve health insurance. He was clearly under the false impression, as so many are, that actors are lazy leeches. I would challenge him to find a single day in his life where he has worked as hard as all my fellow actors in Macbeth have for the last month. This cast has thrown themselves into the challenges of this production, learning a bevy of new, demanding skills, without complaint. Capoeira, acrobatics, stage combat, physical theatre, etc. Wait until you see what we do with bamboo!

Uta Hagen wanted us to have respect for acting, and America certainly needs more of that. But how about a little respect for actors while we're at it?