Showing posts with label Lincoln Center. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lincoln Center. Show all posts

Friday, July 22, 2016

Women on Shakespeare: Rachel Pickup as Portia


Since most Shakespearean casts are male-heavy (and some are male-only), coverage tends to focus on men who create the work. Let's balance that out! This is #12 in my interview series, Women on Shakespeare. I'm talking with the women who produce and perform Shak and related work in New York.

The Lincoln Center Festival hosts Shakespeare's Globe on another visit to Manhattan. The show's Merchant of Venice, and Rachel Pickup plays Portia to Jonathan Pryce's Shylock. She's an English actress who spent a season with the RSC, and several more years around the UK, before she moved to America. Her shrewd Goneril, plus chemistry with her Regan (Bianca Amato), made her stand out in '14's Lear at Theatre for a New Audience. I emailed with Rachel about the complexities and challenges of Portia.


Thanks for talking with me, Rachel. In rehearsing and playing Portia in London and New York, what have you discovered about her?

I confess I had never really thought much about The Merchant of Venice before I came to do it last year, so my preconception about Portia was probably the same as many people’s. I knew she said, “The quality of mercy is not strained, it droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven,” so I had assumed she herself was full of mercy. If I am honest I think I thought she was pure goodness. Foolish of me, as Shakespeare is never so simplistic, but I thought she was the romantic lovely princess. She is not. She has many of those ‘young lover’ qualities: intelligence, passion, sometimes compassion, selfishness, (often selfishness), but also entitlement, confidence sometimes even bordering on arrogance. That has surprised me.


But the most fascinating thing has been how someone [who] is able to say that speech about mercy can then behave in quite a cruel way. However you justify the cruelty, she is nevertheless distinctly lacking in mercy in the way she treats Shylock and Jessica and two of her suitors. She is certainly not wholly lovely in how she behaves, and that has been a fascinating journey of discovery. I have a whole other play going on in my head when myself and Nerissa return from the court scene to Belmont. But the play ends where it ends so that sequel is for another time.

What are Portia's finest qualities, and her worst ones?

She is super-smart and passionate, and magnificently brave and strong, and ahead of her time, and she has the capacity to learn. But she is capable of cruelty, she is selfish, and, most devastatingly, she is a racist. She is a complex woman. She is a flawed human being. She is a product of her time, her environment, so alas, she is, frankly, racist. It has been hard to embrace that, but it is important to, especially because of these times that we are living in. It is sadly far too current!

What knots did the playwright leave for you to untangle?

Many! So many little plot details which we as a company had to address when we were first going thru the play. Simple things like, how long have I been going through the casket trial? Do I know which casket contains my picture? When did I meet Bassanio and, if we both fell in love at first sight, why did we not get together when my father was alive? Then of course myself and Nerissa dressing up as men and going to court. How do we do that in the time allotted? And get back to Belmont so fast? How is it that my cousin happens to be the Doctor of Law expected in court, and that I can be instructed in the ways of the law in the short time before travelling to Venice? All of these things and so many more. I could go on and on — and I think you almost always can in Shakespeare. We can find justification for all of the these things though, and it is vital that we as a company come to an agreement on why we do what we do and when.

Do you think an audience gets all that thought you've put in?

Oftentimes an audience won’t even consider these problems. The brilliance of Shakespeare is the way he forces you to jump in and just — believe! It is like how we are when we are children. There is a fairy tale element to this play — to many of his [plays] — and so long as we know why we are doing what we are doing, I think an audience will. Conviction is all!

Merchant addresses religion in volatile ways, and the show’s effect depends heavily on Portia’s argument in court. What are your thoughts on her argument about mercy?

I answered that to some degree in my first question but to further it. She is of course utterly brilliant in what she says. What you realise, when you really listen to the whole trial scene many times, is that the Doge and everyone else keeps saying to Shylock, “have mercy”, “everyone expects mercy”. But it is an assumption we all make, that a person would be merciful — nobody actually stops to say why? Portia is astounded by the fact that Shylock has to actually ask the question, “On what compulsion must I [be merciful], tell me that?” Of course one should not have to ask, but he does, so she simply answers. It starts as a simple answer, but Shylock does not respond nor does he seem convinced, so she is forced to qualify her initial simple answer and expand on it. And I think the shock of having to explain this basic human concept of mercy allows her to get somewhat carried away — not entirely, she has her feet on the ground — but I think during that speech Portia has a deep, new learning herself. [sic]

What does she learn?

She grows up somewhat in the mercy speech. She herself has not always been merciful, she has not always been kind, she has never been outside of her cloistered and “golden” palace of Belmont and has not known the world. Now here she is in the ugly real world of Venice and it is a coming-of-age.

What about her ‘winning’ argument about flesh but no blood?

The most brilliant move a lawyer could come up with - and she does so in the moment — in our production anyway! It is genius and spot on! I love her for it! I love it!

By contrast, the casket scenes make Portia silent, but she still controls the situation. How do you animate her silence and formal responses to her suitors?

I am interested that you think she controls the situation. In our production she does not. We felt that it was more dramatic for us not to know which casket contained which “prize” so we are at the ‘mercy’ of fate in those scenes and she does not control it. She prays to the Gods! And she wishes she could “teach Bassanio how to choose right” but alas she is one who also obeys the law and her father’s will so she will not ever cheat or lie or “be foresworn”!

I just need to listen to the others on stage. Morocco and Aragon, our actors, are so brilliant and so 'in' it that I don’t need to think about how I animate anything. I listen to what they are saying and I react accordingly, as do Nerissa and Balthazar. You should never really have to think about how you are animating a scene if you are listening — words or no words.

How does she make her choice (for Bassanio)?

We discussed Bassanio’s and my backstory and decided we had met a few months ago at one of Belmont’s many balls—we had barely spoken but we fell in love. Again, there are fairy tale elements but you can fall in love at first sight, people do all the time so… it was not a choice is what I am saying, we were ‘meant to be’! I like to believe in that!

Talking about Shakespeare more generally, what’s your perspective on his roles for women?

There are not enough of them, that is for sure. He writes many wonderful women though, and I love that for the most part they are strong. They are often the ones who sort out the problems, or take the risks. Juliet is way more interesting than Romeo, Portia is braver than Bassanio, Rosalind intensely more fabulous than Orlando, etc. etc. But, obvious to say, they are often second fiddle to the men. Where in Shakespeare are the Hamlets, the Lears, the many Richards or Henry’s or Iagos for the women? They are just so few and far between, however wonderful those that are there areHaving said that, the ones that are brilliant are truly majestically so, and I feel incredibly lucky to have played so many of them.

Are there any you don't like?

The only female semi-leading role that I find a little limp is Hero in Much Ado. She is a bit insipid, I am glad I was never offered that part.

Pickup as Goneril opposite Michael Pennington's Lear
at Theatre for a New Audience, 2014
Is there anything in Shakespeare's plays that’s beyond salvaging?

Interesting, never thought of it in that way? “salvaging”?!!? I don’t think so, no — not that I know every single play intimately, by any means. But he is so brilliant that even in some of the more flawed plays there are always moments/speeches that take your breath away. I think any good director who is excited by any given play will then do something with it to make it ‘salvageable’ as you say — or they will cut any of the dross — not a bad thing to do sometimes!

I mean anything that can never work onstage, no matter how ironically it's played.

I am not a fan of all the “Poor Tom” stuff in King Lear — it goes on for far too long. Many don’t agree with me of course, but I think it is impossible to sustain that for quite as long as Shakespeare writes it. I am afraid I tend to tune out! If I direct Lear, I will cut a lot of that!

Do you have any particular Shakespearean roles you’d still love to play? Any dream-roles traditionally played by men?

So many! All the obvious ones and sure — I always wanted to play Richard the 2nd and Hamlet and King Lear and Edmund and all those meaty parts. But as I get older I do tend to think let the men play the men and the women the women… perhaps that is very boring of me. If I were offered King Lear I would say yes in a heartbeat!


-----

Shakespeare's Globe and Lincoln Center Festival's The Merchant of Venice runs from July 20 to 24 in Jazz at Lincoln Center. Tickets are $45-150.

-----

headshot  Scott Marshall
photos #2 & 3  Manuel Harlan
photo #4  Carol Rosegg

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Third Stages (or, Losing my Journalistic Virginity)

I wrote this article for Metromix two weeks ago, only to get it sent back with edits requested. You can see the new version, about 1/3 the length to give space to an EW-style bullet point FAQ. My first journalistic compromise, after a year of editorial carte blanche! It only hurt a little. This piece is out of date, but it's good enough that I wanted to post it. Thanks go to Paige Evans, my former boss; I'd hoped to steer audiences to "Clay", her inaugural production at LCT3. It was fun, it was fine, I'm sad this didn't run in time. Anyhow, on with the show:

----

Last week, the theater world got a bit of good news: the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation announced that it would award $10 million to subsidize new playwrighting. Some of the money will go to organizations like New Dramatists (a local writers' workshop). But the lion's share will go to companies here in New York and across the US to stage more plays by young writers.


Plenty of Gotham's smaller companies have been supporting young playwrights: 13P, for example, was founded by a baker's dozen of writers who were tired of seeing their plays go unproduced. But it's the larger companies, like Roundabout and
Lincoln Center, who have the space, money, and organizations to develop relationships, provide connections, and get the word out.

Even before they heard the Mellon announcement, both the Roundabout and Lincoln Center announced their own initiatives, “Roundabout Underground” and “LCT3” [Q: can anyone find LCT3's official web-page?]. These programs turn their third stages into incubators for the next generation of theater artists – and of audiences. In an interview, the excitement of Paige Evans, Director of LCT3, is contagious. The most exciting aspect of the project, she said, is bringing new artists and audiences to Lincoln Center Theater.


Lincoln Center's share of the Mellon money – around $1 million according to the New York Times – will help support the LCT3 program, whose goal is nurturing young playwrights. “Through LCT3, we hope to bring in new generation of artists who will make Lincoln Center Theater their artistic home,” said Evans. “We plan to produce and cultivate new artists’ work at LCT3 and then, in time, these artists have other work produced at the Newhouse and Beaumont.”


More importantly, LCT3 and Roundabout Underground both make theater accessible to twenty- and thirty-something audiences. Don't want to spend $100 or even $75 on one of their mainstage shows? Tickets to their shows are only $20. While that leaves less money to spend on spectacle, Evans rightly points out, “in theater, budgetary limitations can inspire creative solutions and innovation.” Anyway, it's not just the artists who are young: the works themselves feel fresh and contemporary. LCT3's current offering, “Clay”, is a one-man hip-hop musical about escaping from suburbia.


As Metromix mentioned last month, even the most established companies are letting youngsters into the clubhouse. Manhattan Theatre Club joins LCT3 and Roundabout Underground in producing a play on their third stage by a writers who's around 30 years old and whose directors aren't much older. The Public is playing host to mid-30s monologuist Mike Daisey and his collaborator-wife, Jean-Michele Gregory. Adam Rapp, the writer/director whose “Kindness” is at Playwrights Horizons, is a geezer at age 40. Autumn 2008 is turning out to be a banner season for young playwrights. With the funding coming through and the theaters rallying behind them, all these young artists need are the audiences.