All Eyes on Me

Last night I had Frances, Brenda, and Charlotte over for dinner and to watch a little I, Claudius. It was a lovely evening with some of my favorite people, and some of my favorite television.

Given the company, the timing, and theme of the evening, the conversation inevitably included talk of Caesar. I mentioned (something I am only just now revealing here) how when I made suggestions to help Lenny and Jenna cast the show, my only thought that differed from their final choices was that I had Brenda and Steph switched as Antony and Cassius. This was with total respect for both as actors (seeing as neither role is exactly undesirable) but with concern that Steph would not want to play as a man, and I could more easily see Cassius as a woman than Mark Antony. I must concede my error in judgment in that case. To have cast as I had suggested would have not only deprived us of Steph's remarkable interpretation of Mark Antony, it would have also removed the advantage of the remarkable onstage chemistry of Brenda and Frances. Their version worked out fantastically, and my concerns turned out to be for nothing.

The truth is I have a difficult time holding the Shakespearean Antony as the conception of Antony in my head. I tend to see him far more (and I think this may actually be more historically accurate) as a rough-and-tumble soldier who partied too much, said whatever came to mind, and was much less of a politician and much more of a born battlefield second-in-command. That is a very masculine image, and it is from this that my inability to picture that character feminized came.

Of course my thinking on all matters of this period is influence by I, Claudius, one of my two all-time favorite novels and the fantastic BBC miniseries we watched part of last night. Antony is dead by the time that I, Claudius begins, but it still does a great deal to emphasize the cruder image of Antony I have in my head. He has been soundly dishonored and defeated many years ago by that point, and is dismissed by Marcellus as a "wine-soaked lover and his Egyptian whore." In his place remains only Augustus, and for all that I'm not sure it's accurate to history at all, I LOVE the Gravesian version of Augustus. He is expansive, emotional, forthright, friendly-tempered, in possession of a strong code of values, and perhaps even a bit boyish while still having the more typical qualities of a supreme statesmen of cunning, discernment, and political acument. I like that balance, that atypical combination. He is intensely likeable and yet respectable in his capacity.

I find myself wanting to write a play about the period where he and Antony split, clashed at Actium with Octavian emerging the victor, and the transition from triumvir Octavian to emperor Augustus. I suppose that is a time period already covered by Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra, but as I said, that interpretation of Antony does not particularly strike me. And at any rate, I am significantly more interested in Augustus as a character.

With him as my central figure, I would go with my preference for the expansive, emotional Octavian. This man would mourn Caesar and despise treachery but genuinely mull over the position of Brutus; he would adore Caesar as his personal god but feel the pressure of having to live up to him; he would have a bright outlook on the Rome that the new Triumvirate was going to build together and be genuinely wounded that Antony, a man who he thought was his friend, could betray him. I would like to play with the notion that Augustus became emperor with the intention of sort of putting Rome back in order, and then returning it to a more Republic notion of government. The he liked the idea of the Republic, but it was clear that the empire couldn't support it at the time, that it needed the firm central guidance that at that time only he was in a position to provide. I would also want to show Livia as a strong driving force behind him, not so wicked as the Gravesian version of her, but with a much more cynical view of things than he had. She'd be a pragmatist who was willing to do the hard, sometimes distasteful things for the good of Rome, someone who didn't believe in the Republic at all and thought that only an emperor could run things the way they needed to be. And I'd want to contrast the two of them with portrayals of Cleopatra and Antony, more power-hungry and less civic-minded, their relationship more lustful and more tempestuous than the loving but more subdued and more intellectual one of Octavian and Livia. Though battles are tough to depict in theater, I think it would culminate in the defeat of Anthony at Actium, and the making of Octavian into the Emperor Augustus.

Caesar tech week continues to go well. Last night was mostly devoted to light focus, which is a grindingly slow and tedious process by the time you get to all four electrics. I was a little grumbly over this (though it was absolutely no one's fault and everyone was working very hard) because I wanted the run to start so I could watch it for my photo call planning, and I needed to leave by midnight. Still, things were getting done nicely, and eventually the show got running. Last night I watched the first half of the show for the first time before I had to leave. In order to run an efficient photo call, I took notes on what scenes needing snapping when, with what people, and in what costume. 

So many great things going on up there. First off, the acting is phenomenal. Everyone really sinks their teeth into their roles. I've said this before, but Plesser improves in technique, presence, and nuance with every show. I love Charlotte's committment to her roles, the way she assumes the persona of the character. I was so impressed not only by Steph's acting, but how she made me buy the Marc Antony role as a woman. Caitlin had so much fantastic attitude. I adore the subtle force and slyness of April's performance. Zanna brought an unexpected but very effective strength and presence to Calpurnia, and I enjoyed the passion and even slight sternness of Gigi's Portia. And, of course, Frances and Brenda not only were great alone, they played off one another so well. I was very impressed by Frances's finding an alternate way of conveying Brutus's intensity without resorting to restless energy, which made a great contrast to the roiling anger Brenda brought Cassius. 

The set looks fantastic, one of the best sets HTP has ever had, in my humble opinion. The marbling effect on the platforms is gorgeous, and the curtains are awesome. They not only serve for an interesting vertical addition to the aesthetic, they effectively divide the stage into useful smaller sections, and they can have color thrown on them from the lights. And when this show's over, they can be folded up and stored for any other show to use, ready to go and free of cost.

The costumes look amazing. They were very skillfully designed and look good on the actors. And they are all in dark, bold colors that contrast beautifully with the light-colored stage behind them. I was impressed by Shana's ability to emulate the look of the period so well.

The one thing that needs a little work is the level of movement onstage. Probably because they were used to rehearsing in spaces significantly more cramped than the actual stage, there's a lot of standing around and speechifying happening. It makes it look a bit flat. But they're aware it's going on, and I'm confident they can figure out how to utilize the beautiful space around them to create a more dynamic look. Most of the elements are so good that if they can just get over this one hurdle, they'll be golden.

I am now going to organized my notes for photo call. I wish I could have gotten the second act in order as well, but I couldn't stay late enough. Ah, well, I can do that during the run tonight. I want things to go as quickly as possible, so I plan to wow everyone with my awesome efficiency. ;-)

Having Brenda and Frances over for dinner tonight. It is cold and sad outside, so I want comfort food. I have decided to make a big old meatloaf. Haven't had that in a while, and it will be easy, tasty, and comforting. Frances has an idea for a Hamlet-related theater piece that I'm interesting in hearing about, so we shall discuss that over dinner.

Yesterday I had a lovely lunch with Jonathan and heard about HIS theatrical piece he wanted my help with. As part of his final art show he wants to incorporate a sort of living installation that expresses his theme, and he asked me to play a part in it. I love his idea, and I'm very excited. This should be happening in April, I think, which means plenty of time to prepare.

Have all the headshots taken and prepped now. Just have to print out Jonathan's and we're good to go. I still need people's bios, though. I should send out an e-mail threatening that if I don't get bios by, say, Thursday, I'm writing them myself. And they will say nothing but how awesome I, their wonderful and long-suffering director, am.

I have not been cooking enough recently. I was really pleased with how the stew came out the other night, and the whole process was so pleasant and relaxing and satisfying I see it would be quite good for me to do more of that. At rehearsal last night on a whim I invited Frances over for dinner tomorrow evening, so Jared and I will be entertaining her and Brenda before he goes to his supers campaign. I shall have to pick something very special to cook; it's been a long time since I just got to hang out with them socially. I did get no fewer than five lovely cookbooks of various kinds this past Christmas, so selecting something suitable should not be a problem.

I know that I have not been cooking enough recently because cooking has shown up so rarely in my blogging lately, both here and what I'm calling my new record book. I started an auxiliary LJ account (bl_endeavors on the remote chance that anyone cares) as a place to keep records of what I have done working toward my various projects-- improving my cooking abilities, improving my dressing habits, my writing projects, stuff like that. I like keeping records of such things, if to no further end than I like being able to read over and compare them to see what is consistent and what has changed. Thus far it has mostly been my documenting the outfits I've been putting together each day to see what works and what doesn't, and what pieces I wear a lot and feel good about and what should be gotten rid of. I started a new journal to do this in because I very much doubt anyone is interested in such minutiae besides me, and I didn't want it cluttering up my oh-so-much-more-significant entries on life angst, closet wrangling, and larp babble. Most of the entries have been about outfits if only because while the outside force of propriety compels me to dress every day, but laziness and shortness of time often keep me from cooking every day. If I have something interesting other than just recording what the product that day was I will continue to write it here, but the dull flat facts I will confine to the alternate space.

Talked to my brother a little bit about my role as Fleance in Macbeth. He told me cross-casting doesn't happen as often in actual theater as often as one might think-- while college theaters often make use of whatever actors they have available, it usually only happens in real theaters when they specifically intend to do it. He thinks my size and delicacy made me seem like a good choice for playing a young boy; when I mentioned that they made a point of comparing my height to those of the other auditioners, that confirmed it for him. I've always been comfortable being cross-cast. Sometimes it allows me to play a particularly interesting part-- Dromio, Puck, the Fool --and sometimes it's an acting challenge in itself to try and be believably male. And I while I may be capable of looking boyish fairly easily, acting it is pretty tough for me because of my high voice and fairly feminine carriage. I sometimes wonder if that affects my larp casting, at least by people who know me. I've mused on getting cross-cast in larps in this space before, but I'm thinking about how infrequently it happens to me. Even though I always say I am cool being cross-cast on my casting questionnaires, I almost never actually get a male character. No matter, it's fine either way. But I wonder if it ends up this way because people who know me can't see me as a grown man. I suppose I get that, given that I'm kind of small and have such a girly voice. That's not the case at all in my theater experience, but again in that instance there tends to be a necessity because there just aren't enough guys for all the male roles. But the final word for me on it is that while I don't necessarily prefer it I'm completely fine doing it, and sometimes I particularly welcome it. So, my GM friends, don't be afraid to give me a guy role if you think I would be suited to it.

People's feelings on it tend to be mixed. Most guys would really rather not be while more girls tend to be okay with it even if it's not their preference. It's kind of funny when you think that in previous times in the theater men played all the roles. Still, I don't know why it is, but for some reason a woman playing a man is easier for me to accept as "male" than a man playing a woman is as "female." Not that I've never seen a guy play a woman convincingly, but I think it takes more for it to be believable. I've even known a few girls, like witticaster in larps and Frances and Brenda in theater, who actively prefer to be cross-cast. Never really met a guy that way, except for perhaps morethings5 whom I gather sometimes on a whim decides he would like to play a woman.

A lot of games are written with characters that are gender-flexible in order to conform to preferences of the player. In general I am not a fan of this; the gender is usually, at least to me, so intrinsic a part of each character I write that I would rather cross-cast the player. Even if a lot of the genders in Alice don't necessarily factor much into their characterizations, I chose them based on the character they are inspired by in the book, and I am pretty attached to them being played as I wrote them. Unfortunately, that means for a very low number of female parts. Alice has fortunately never had much of a problem finding a way to honor the requests of the players to which this is something important, but a lot of girls still end up playing guys.

Despite my preference for fixed genders, in Oz I decided I needed to have if not all then most of them be flexible. Oz is a smaller game than Alice, with only fifteen players, and also based on a fairly famous source material. I didn't want people to look around at the genders of the other players and be able to say things like, "Okay, four of these females have to be the witches, and since I know a little about the source material, I know two of them are good guys and two of them are bad guys." So in order to combat that, I decided that most characters would be gender-flexible so that no one could metagame using the genders of the characters. In the first run of Oz, there was one character who's intended gender was flipped, the one played by contradictacat in honor of her preference, and it worked fine. The game is probably better for this flexibility, though it's not my preference in these things. For the next run, I expect the genders to be at least somewhat different than they were. I just need to make sure I thoroughly edit the sheets for pronouns.