Becoming an Actor/Scholar

I'm currently in the process of applying to graduate schools -- I'm looking to get my MFA in Acting. This weekend I'm being the work on all those essays and personal statements that I have to write. One of them wants me to write about a defining life moment that has nothing to do with theatre. Um... I get that they want me to be well-rounded, but I don't think I have any life-defining moments that have nothing to do with theatre. Well, maybe the ones that have to do with religion, but I'm not sure I really want to be that personal. I've had people tell me that they don't know anyone that is as into theatre as I am, and so everything in my life I'm pretty sure I can relate to theatre in some way. My brother's fiancee joked that I could write about the moment I met her, but the night we met we watched Hedwig and the Angry Inch!

Anyway in order to prepare for writing these essays I have been digging up old pieces of writing and I've discovered a blog that I wrote and then never posted. It's sort of the companion piece to the posting after SAA 2010. I was supposed to post this one first, but I guess I never did. Here it is:

Today’s blog will give you a little bit of history: how and why I decided to change my career designation from Actor to Actor/Scholar.

I have always been interested in knowledge. I do inordinate amounts of research when I am in a play; the amount of research is only limited by how much free time I have. When I do a production of a Shakespeare play I always pick up the Arden edition and read all the notes; I also seek out other editions of and essays about that play to read.

Last year the Shakespeare Association of America moved their headquarters to Washington, DC which is also where they were holding their annual conference. I decided to attend the 2009 conference as an observer, since I wouldn’t have to pay for travel and room. I figured three days surrounded by lovers of Shakespeare could not go wrong. And I was right. The event was life-changing, and as such was both exhilarating and depressing. Exhilarating because I felt like I found a part of myself that was missing. Depressing because bridging the two worlds of actor and scholar will be a difficult task.

I attended the sessions and seminars that were somehow related to performance, but even with the scholars participating in those discussions, there was a sense of here are scholars and there are theatre artists and never the twain shall meet. In fact, the performance aspect of Shakespeare has been sadly neglected by most Shakespearean scholarship. I felt hope however, as this appears to be something that is changing. First, with the rising interest in original practices that has occurred in the last decade. Second, with the younger generation of Shakespearean scholars. The wonderful women my age that I met at the conference have a great love of performance, to the point where all of them at some point have staged readings of obscure early modern dramas.

But it is not just in the realm of scholarship where performance has been ignored. In the realm of performance, scholarship has been ignored. One scholar noted in her panel in 2009 that she will go to Q and A's and ask the actors if they read scholarly articles or academic reviews and she always gets the answer no. I spoke to her after to let her know that I do. She said, "Well, you are the first one I've met." And I had to be honest with her, I didn’t know anyone else who did either. And at that conference I only ran into two other full time practitioners, and actually one of them I only knew of as an actor, but in speaking with him it turned out he was actually an English professor who had just recently gotten back onstage. The other was a director, and indeed the scholars who also work in performance tended to be directors as opposed to actors. (This is not to downplay any of these people, their work, or their contributions, merely to point out that the task of being an actor/scholar was overwhelming when faced with the reality that there didn’t seem to be anyone else with my identical perspective or situation.)

So I came home from the 2009 conference with a determination to be a part of the new conversation of performance and scholarship, but not really sure how to go about that. I did know that one step I could take was to attend the 2010 conference as a participant instead of merely an observer. I’ll continue this later, but just to let you know 2010 was even better than 2009 and I left even more hopeful at the progress of the conversation between performance and scholarship.

So that was how the journey began. And it's a journey that is frustrating in regards to grad school. Because there isn't one program that will give me Actor/Scholar. I basically have to chose one for now and hit the other one later. There are two MFA programs that are really appealing to the scholar side of me: the MFA in Staging Shakespeare at the University of Exeter and the Master of Letters/Master of Fine Arts in Shakespeare and Performance at Mary Baldwin. I start think I should apply there (especially given how much I love the ASC), but then I remember that I really do want to get strong actor training in voice, movement, and all that jazz. Sure the two programs have acting components, but something has to go. So I'm trying to look at acting MFAs that seem interested in analysis and Shakespeare, and preferably with an abroad component. It's all very overwhelming.

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