ROUNDABOUT BLOG

Too Heavy for Your Pocket Design Statements

Posted on: November 7th, 2017 by Roundabout

 

Reid Thompson/Set Design

Too Heavy for Your Pocket is set on a place in between. It is in between the city and the country, between nature and civilization, modernity and the past. Sally and Tony's home is a refuge for our four characters, a safe and warm space of their own making where they can be themselves, hidden and protected from the outside world. Our characters draw strength from the earth and the natural world, and we wanted the set to be both Sally and Tony's home and Bowzie's field, simultaneously. The landscape is burned into the walls, and grass grows on top of the floorboards. We wanted a fully immersive environment that takes full advantage of every inch of the intimate Black Box Theatre, where the audience is literally invited into our quartet's world. The materials and props are inspired by meticulous historical research, but realized with an emphasis on the poetic feeling of the place over accurate historical recreation. As the play progresses, the ugliness of the outside world starts to intrude on our refuge, and we wanted the physical environment to reflect a shift as well.

Model of the set

 

Valérie Bart/Costume Design

Gordon Parks photo

I wanted to fully immerse myself in the period and culture, so I began looking at a lot of photographs of civil rights protests, freedom riders, school desegregation, but staying away from such recognizable figures as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcom X. I became aware of two photographers of the time, Gordon Parks and Bruce Davidson. While the latter focused more on actual protests, rallies, and clashes, Gordon Parks went to the South and captured how black families and people actually lived. There are collections of color photos that show the effects of segregation and systemic racism, and Parks frames it in such a beautifully heartbreaking way. These were the inspiration for the color palette of the costumes. My design process involves a quirky way of sketching. I like to do what I call “paperdoll-ing.” Essentially, sketching all the clothes that will be layered on a base body, rather than spending the time sketching new poses and re-drawing faces for the same character, I would trace the clothes using a light box and cut the clothes out to layer on top. The varying looks would then be scanned and lightly photoshopped and printed out as complete sketches. It ultimately also became a great tool to discover how a character would wear clothes—layer up or down, buttoned or not, tucked/untucked, etc. It would also get me thinking about quick changes and the tracking of clothing. Edits and adjustments would be vastly easier and faster with just having to re-draw the clothes and not spend the time with faces/hands and poses.

A great example of this was with Bowzie. Even though he doesn’t have many costume looks, he layers up and down his pieces throughout the show in some major character arcs. Margot Bordelon, the director, and I spoke at length about what it meant for him to be barefoot and shirtless, as well as in a full suit. And then to see the suit be taken off, the “stripping” of his humanity and the reveal of his human body when in nothing but underwear. To see the underwear eventually deteriorate over time along with his dignity, and the last image of the once immaculate suit that was supposed to mean so much now crumpled and dirty were important visual storytelling points, which we hope will heighten the experience for the audience

Bowzie's costume design

Jiyoun Chang/Lighting Design

Although we haven’t sat in the same room at the same time, I feel we have been in the same room from the beginning of this journey. We have all been open to new ideas and concepts even though some have joined the journey at different points in the life of this production. We honored what worked in the Alliance Theatre production in Atlanta, focusing on how to transfer those ideas and reimagining how to make them work in a new space. Most of all, we all value the poetic nature of Jiréh Holder’s play, although its domestic set-up is based on naturalism. That lyric naturalism anchored and guided our meetings and led us to a new visual landscape. The new ground plan is simpler and open -- allowing light to perform at its best in poetic, abstract, and impressionistic ways. This new ground plan will heighten the nature of the play, and it also allows for exciting fluidity in staging. Margot Bordelon, the director, and Reid Thompson, the set designer, gave warm and open direction, and Jiréh’s soft and supportive voice in the meetings was helpful for the entire design team to arrive at this crucial point in our journey together.

Ian Williams/Sound Design

On my initial read of the play, I responded immediately to Evelyn, considering how our social/political climate is behaving in its current condition. I felt this strong and radiating tension inside as I asked myself, “Could I leave my family behind to stand up for what I believed was right?” I don’t know the answer to that question because, as a young and privileged man, I still don’t know what my personal thresholds are just yet. That’s been part of my personal journey while interacting with the play. Overall, I am a steadfast believer in the magic and imagination that Jiréh puts on the page. When I hear and read his stories, my imagination runs wild and my heart is moved. When I begin sound research for a show of this nature, I always start with a history lesson. I ask questions like, “What is common knowledge to an American citizen?” or “What is popular in my age group right now?” I create playlists of popular music and listen to the sounds of commonly used appliances or gadgets. In this way, I gain an understanding of what people would hear on a da- to-day basis and move forward from there, letting my heart lead the way. The challenge on any show for me is always finding the balance between responding with my heart and keeping moments honest in the sound design. I know that I am susceptible to having a sentimental response. Being in the rehearsal room is how I avoid this happening. I can respond to the director and actor as the crow flies during the process.

 


Too Heavy for Your Pocket runs through November 26 at The Black Box Theatre. For tickets and information, please visit our website here.


Related Categories:
2017-2018 Season, Roundabout Underground, Too Heavy for Your Pocket


No Comments

 

On September 30, 2017,  Charlotte Parry spoke about Time and The Conways with education dramaturg Ted Sod as part of Roundabout Theatre Company’s lecture series. Following the conversation is a brief talk on J.B. Priestley’s life from Ted Sod.

An edited transcript follows:

(There are spoilers below)

 

Ted Sod: Charlotte, will you give us a peek into the rehearsal process for J.B. Priestley’s Time and The Conways? Did you do a lot of table work?

Charlotte Parry: We did about a week of table work, which was so valuable because of the family dynamics and arcane political references. We spent a long time talking about the relationships among the siblings. And we were each given a research project on a certain subject relating to the time periods and other subjects in the play that we shared with one another so we could fully inhabit our characters and the era they are living in.

TS: There was a dramaturg working with you on this production, correct?

CP: Yes, we had a brilliant dramaturg named Drew Lichtenberg. On each page of the script, he gave us notes explaining absolutely everything that was going on during the play’s two time periods, 1919 and 1937. In some ways, Priestley is writing about what happened between the wars in England. There’s a lot of history that it’s assumed the audience will know. A British audience would most likely know references to people such as Lloyd George, but an American audience may not. The play refers to history that is not necessarily even taught in England anymore.

TS: You spent most of your time growing up in England and you were educated there for a time. I think you said your father’s British and your mother’s American.

CP: Yes, that’s right.

TS: Are you the only one with British background in the cast?

CP: No, Matthew James Thomas, who plays Robin, is also British.

TS: Do you remember being taught any of the history referred to in the play when you were going to school in Britain?

CP: I remember taking exams at 16 and then at 18 that concentrated on the First and Second World Wars, but, truthfully, I gave up at 13.

TS: It seems because your character, Kay, is a writer that she could be a stand in for Priestley. Do you see that?

CP: Yes, I really do. I think the type of writing Kay says she wants to do is very much like Priestley’s style of writing. I believe they are both sensitive and sincere when they write. Kay and her brother Alan are both voices for Priestley in two different ways. And Madge speaks for his belief in democratic socialism.

Photo by Jenny Anderson

TS: When I interviewed you for the playgoers’ guide, you said that you sometimes write diary entries as your character as an exercise if you’re stuck or you’re feeling creative. Did you do that for Kay?

CP: I did do a few actually. I didn’t have a lot of time to write because we were rehearsing so much, but, yes, I did write little bits and pieces this time. I do that exercise when I’m trying to figure out the story and what’s going on for the characters.

TS: All the marvelous acting that you are doing in the final act, none of that is requested in the script. Kay has seen the future and you let us see her comprehend that. Will you tell us how you found those moments in rehearsals?

CP: Our director, Rebecca Taichman, who is fabulous, was really helpful in figuring out what she wants the audience to see. She’s very much been the idea person behind Kay stepping out from the set at the end of the play and the two different worlds we create with Kay’s sister Carol in the background. I did find it tricky to play because suddenly Kay’s very aware of what is happening. The last line she says before that stepping out is jolly, so Rebecca and I had to figure out places in the act when Kay is remembering seeing the future in her premonition. It has grown over performances by watching what everyone else is doing.

TS: That final act made me realize that one of the points Priestley is making is how we lie to ourselves as human beings, how we feed ourselves these dreams to keep going. Do you believe that’s true?

CP: Yes. I think when life is really tough, I definitely feed myself stuff to keep pushing through. Mrs. Conway’s insistence in the play that her children all will be great in some way, is probably why they are such a hot mess 20 years later.

TS: Mrs. Conway is a widow, she has six children and, evidently, Mr. Conway made sure they were well taken care of financially after his death. How important was it for you to understand who your father was to play this part?

Photo by Jeremy Daniel

CP: It was quite important. Rebecca made sure that, as a company, we have a real sense of him because he is mentioned quite a few times. We decided that the upstage chair was father’s chair and Alan is the only one who sits in it. We each had to write a memory of our father and send it in to our assistant director, Katie Lindsay, and she compiled all the family’s memories of him. Then we found a picture of him so we could have a mental image. All this was done to make him alive in our minds because, in a way, he is alive in the play. He’s so much the reason why the family has fallen apart. The grief of losing him and then the grief of losing Carol were two huge events which were never dealt with by the family because they’re incapable of it. Mrs. Conway can’t even talk about it. If her children acknowledge their father, Mrs. Conway shuts it down because we’re supposed to laugh and be happy.

TS: I did sense that some of the children had a very close relationship to Mr. Conway. I suspect that Alan did. It’s mentioned that he was his father’s favorite. Parents say that they don’t have a favorite child, but I think that’s a big lie. Do you?

CP: I don’t have children, but I think it’s a big lie. I don’t think I’m the favorite.

TS: I want to talk about what it was like to go from the rehearsal room to performance. Had you any sense of how the play was going to play in front of an audience or was it a big mystery?

CP: Rebecca talked about how Alan and Kay would be moving off the set at the end. But moving from the rehearsal room into the theatre was very exciting. When we got into tech, we got to watch how Neil Patel’s set moves and we had the music right from the beginning. We’d been told Rebecca’s ideas with the sets, but we didn’t realize it would be so beautiful.

TS: I would imagine that this is a play that requires deep listening on the part of the audience because that first act is almost ninety minutes. I think that audiences are not accustomed to plays with a ninety first act unless it is a musical. Is that true from your perspective?

CP: The way the play is written is in three acts and the first act takes place in 1919 and the second act is in 1937. The third act takes us back to 1919. It would be a colossal mistake to have an interval after the first act as written, because you barely get going. So, putting the first and second acts together does make a very long first act.  Our act one gives the audience so much information. Who are these people? What era is it? What is charades? What is this version of charades? We are all very aware of getting this information to the audience as clearly as possible. We are also keeping the pace up and simultaneously delivering the put-downs from sister to brother to mother, so it’s not just happy fluff the audience is seeing. We are laying the groundwork for all the reasons it goes wrong in 1937. So, yes, it’s a tricky first act to take in, I imagine. We spent a lot of time in rehearsals figuring out how to play the first act.

TS: The quote that Alan speaks seems to give Kay some solace when she is feeling confused. Can you talk to us about that?

CP: The Blake poem?

TS: Yes, was that a poem you were aware of as a student in Great Britain?

CP: I’d heard it before but hadn’t spent much time with it…

TS: Do you have a sense why Priestley chose it?

CP: Yes, it very much is what the play is about. Life is joy and woe, that was Priestley’s view. My sense, from the small amount of research I did on Priestley, is that he was a person with real emotional maturity who understood the complexities of life. But, in the play, that’s what Alan learns about time and life and that’s what he shares with Kay. Alan’s the most settled, at peace person of all the characters when we see them in 1937.

TS: He’s accepted the reality of life.

CP: He accepts it and the rest of us are struggling with it – it’s as if we are all panicking on a sinking ship.

TS: I’m wondering if there’s anything you’d share with us about becoming a family in rehearsals because I love how sweet the siblings are to one another and then, like most families, they know how to hurt each other’s feelings if they want to. How did that dynamic come together?

CP: It is a lovely company and we do really care about each other, but actually Rebecca was very good at helping us with those dynamics because there’s not necessarily many clues in the text. At first, we were playing the tension with the joking. Rebecca very much wanted to tease these moments out. She helped us figure out the dynamics among the siblings. Carol, Alan and Kay are a little team. When Mother puts us down, Madge steps in to help Kay and vice versa. Hazel is the favorite; then we see that change in act two.

TS: It’s rather clear in this production that Robin and Hazel are the favorites of Mrs. Conway.

CP: Yes, she says that quite clearly in the text.

TS: I think Elizabeth McGovern might agree that Mrs. Conway is a child in many ways herself. She has as much fun with the charades as the children do. I kept looking at how much alike Anna Camp, who plays Hazel, and Elizabeth look. It’s as if Mrs. Conway is looking at a mirror image of herself.

CP: They’re both beautiful.

Photo by Jeremy Daniel

TS: It’s rather remarkable. I’m curious about Kay’s relationship to her siblings. I know she is close to Alan, but what about the sisters? It seems to me Madge would be someone Kay relates to most? But then there’s Carol too…

CP: Yes, we figured out that Carol is the baby, but Kay was the baby for four years until Carol was born. So, they might have shared a bedroom. I think they have a really close bond. I think Madge and Kay, certainly in their younger life, were close. As an adult, Kay’s gone off to London in 1937 and Madge has become so settled in her own world at school that neither of them really know how to relate to one another anymore. My family is very British in that way -- you don’t talk about things. So, if there is physical distance, it becomes an emotional distance and that is what is happening between Madge and Kay.

TS: It seems to me that Madge disdains what Kay has done with her life and she takes the high road by implying she’s working for the good of the people by educating them. It’s also interesting that around the time period of the first act, women got the right to vote, but they had to be 30 years old and own some property.

CP: Yes, a woman had to own property and be 30 years old when they got to vote in 1918. It wasn’t till the 1920s, I think, when women over the age of 21 could vote.

TS: We have not talked about the book that inspired the play: J.W. Dunne’s book, An Experiment in Time. Did that come up in rehearsal?

CP: It did, yes. Gabe Ebert, who plays Alan, was assigned to research that book. He gave us a breakdown of what that book was about. It is the book Alan is talking about in the play. He gave us a breakdown of some of Dunne’s ideas, but we didn’t delve into that much.

TS: An Experiment in Time posits the theory that time is not linear, that the past, the present and the future are happening simultaneously. Dunne said that in his dream life he saw the future, which is wonderful because Kay does say, “I fell asleep. I must have been dreaming.”  Priestley gives voice to Dunne’s theory, would you agree?

CP: It’s left a bit vague: did Kay fall asleep and actually dream? Did she not fall asleep and it wasn’t a dream? Was it a premonition with her eyes open? That’s something we never had to make a definite decision on.

TS: Some audiences will see it as the literal future and some people will see it as a dream or Kay seeing the future. Or perhaps it is a possible version of the future. It’s really wonderfully modern.

CP: A friend came the other day and said, “Oh, it’s what Kay’s written in her book!” and I had never thought of that.

TS: We have about 10 minutes left before we have to let Charlotte go. I want you to have the opportunity to ask her questions.

Audience Member #1: Regarding the character of Joan, who marries Robin, can you help me understand where she came from?

CP: Joan is a very good friend of Hazel and so they’ve grown up together, gone to school together. Joan has always been around our family. She’s probably not from the same class, her family may not have as much money as the Conways, so she feels a little uncomfortable, a bit out of her element.

TS: Priestley does give a sense of the heightened awareness of class that goes on in Britain.

CP: In the stage directions, Joan is described as a good friend of Hazel, a silly girl, not quite as wealthy, not quite the same class. I don’t know the exact words, but that’s the gist of how she’s described.

Audience Member #2: Madge’s relationship to her mother is quite clear and the other sisters have a different relationship with their mother. What is Kay’s relationship to her mother?

CP: I feel that in 1919, Kay is super sensitive. I think she feels controlled by her mother and at the same time she desperately wants her mother’s attention and approval. She hasn’t got a father anymore and it’s very important to her to feel validated by her mother. I don’t think there’s necessarily any anger toward her mother, there’s just a desire to be loved and acknowledged. There is a bit of frustration that her mother’s taken over the charades that Kay has written out so carefully and seriously. Kay does get a bit serious about the game of charades.

TS: It seems to me that Kay, Alan and Madge are probably more like their father.

CP: Yes, and Carol is adored by everyone.

TS: Robin and Hazel are their mother’s pets. I think with Carol, we don’t quite know what would have happened to her because of her premature death, but she has a lovely heart and we can see it.

CP: What Ernest says about Carol being too good to last is very true. The one who has really figured it out is taken away from the family.

TS: No one in the family except for possibly Carol or Alan really seem to support Kay writing her novel. It can be very hard to persevere if your family doesn’t support your work as an artist.

CP: At the same time, there’s that forcing of identity coming from the mother. Kay may feel like being a would-be writer is the only identity she has within the family and it may be why she ends up writing for a tabloid magazine about Hollywood stars. She really feels like she’s failed in some ways as does the rest of the family.

TS: We have time for one more question.

Audience Member #3: Why do you think Hazel married Ernest? He was such a nasty man.

TS: Hazel says something about being terrified of him.

CP: When Anna and our director discussed it, there was something about Ernest unlike any man the Conways had ever met. He’s very strong and very determined and there’s a power to him. I think Hazel’s knocked out of her comfort zone and is almost attracted to that. Hazel constantly has men falling in love with her left, right, and center, who are worshiping the ground she walks on and here’s a man who’s so different, so determined and maybe there’s a sexiness or an attractiveness to that. He knows he wants her and he’s going to get her. He doesn’t put her on a pedestal. I think she’s fascinated by this creature. But it’s a complex thing.

Photo by Jeremy Daniel

TS: I think he bullied her, too. Sometimes you are repulsed by something you’re attracted to. I see people who immediately don’t like each other and then two years later they’re married. I think there’s a sexual charge sometimes that you can’t really understand and you try to suppress. I love when Ernest says to her, “I get what I want because I’m very direct.” I don’t necessarily think that’s a common British trait, to be that direct.

CP: No, it’s more of a northern trait perhaps. He’s certainly from a different world than any one the Conways have ever come across.

TS: It’s a good question, it’s a mystery because she’s so unhappy and doesn’t seem to make an effort to get out of the marriage.

CP: I don’t think she could. Men back then could put women in asylums for being unhappy. Or difficult. Earnest had the power to put Hazel in an asylum.

TS: Plus, once children are involved, it’s very difficult to leave a marriage. Maybe not for Nora in A Doll’s House, but definitely for some others it is very hard to make that choice. We must say good bye to Charlotte now. Please help me thank her for joining us today.

CP: Thank you!

TS: For those of you who are interested, I’m going to end today’s event by telling you a bit about Priestley. I feel that learning about his background will enhance your appreciation of the play you just saw. Priestley was born in 1894 and died in 1984. He grew up in Bradford, which is a suburb of the county Yorkshire. His mother died when he was two years old. His father remarried about four years later. He went to the Belle Vue Grammar School and dropped out when he was 16 to work in a wool mill. He was starting to write at night during that time and some of the articles he wrote were published in local newspapers and in London publications. In 1916, he joined the army to fight in World War I. He was injured and came back to London to convalesce. During that period, he trained to be an army officer. He went back to fight on the front line, was injured again by poison gas and was reassigned to administrative work for the rest of the war. Because Priestley was an officer, he was entitled to a grant which allowed him to go to Trinity College, Cambridge.

Postscripts radio program

He was a successful novelist and a playwright. He was also a social commentator. His first success was in 1929, with a novel entitled The Good Companions. He worked with a collaborator on turning it into a stage play. After he had that experience, he thought he’d write a play by himself because it required an immense amount of economy. He wrote a play entitled Dangerous Corner in 1932 and the next year he went on a tour of England. He wrote a book about it entitled An English Journey. He was absolutely stunned and angered by the income inequality that he saw all over England. That was further exacerbated by his rage at the way veterans were being treated. This is when he became a democratic socialist. He fought for these ideals for the rest of his life. In 1941, he had a radio show on the BBC called Postscripts and he was quite popular. He had 16 million listeners every Sunday night. The only person to have more listeners was Winston Churchill himself.  It’s interesting because during his broadcasts he gave hope to people in very dark times. People were finding it hard to make ends meet. People liked to listen to him because he was able to give them some sort of comfort, but with that comfort, he also gave them a healthy dose of socialism. That was considered too leftist and there’s an unproven theory that Churchill was behind his show being cancelled. It was taken off the air. In the 1950s, he got so disenchanted with the political process, that I think he just washed his hands of it. That disenchantment was motivated by England acquiring nuclear arms. He wrote an essay that helped create a movement in England for the disarmament of nuclear weapons.

John William Dunne

I gave some lip service to the book, An Experiment in Time, by J.W. Dunne that inspired Priestley to write this play. Dunne’s theory is called “Serialism.” His idea is that all time is happening simultaneously and that some people can see the future in their dreams. Five or six of Priestley’s plays were inspired by this theory. In England, Priestley’s much better known than he is here in the United States. He’s renowned for being one of the last great men of English letters. In America, he is probably best known for his play, An Inspector Calls, which was written in 1945. It is also one of Priestley’s so-called “time plays” and was given a first-class revival by the National Theatre. That production came here in 1994, directed by Stephen Daldry. It won a Tony Award for Best Revival that year and then went on tour. It’s really a remarkable play and it was quite a lovely production.

The play that you saw today is a lost treasure. It was first done on Broadway in 1938 at the Ritz Theatre -- which is now The Walter Kerr Theatre -- Jessica Tandy originally played the part that Charlotte played, Kay. This is the first time that this play has been revived on Broadway in 79 years. I kept saying, “This is so modern,” when I first read it. I think Priestley was influenced by Freudian psychology. And, of course, he was influenced by Dunne’s theory of Serialism. It is fascinating to think about time and question whether we are intrinsically aware of our future and, if so, are we able to access it?

Now, I want to give you all the opportunity to ask any questions about that research I just shared, if you have any.

Audience Member #4: Can you put this play into a little bit more of a historical context? What else was being written at the time?

TS: I can speak about America, but I can’t really speak with very much erudition about Britain. The Group Theatre was extremely influential in the 1930s here.  It didn’t last very long, but putting naturalism onstage was part of what The Group accomplished. Clifford Odets and Sidney Kingsley were trying to put real life onstage and I think that’s what Priestley is doing. In a way, that’s really remarkable. He’s showing us a slice of family life, but with this time disruption. What I think is more important is the fact that he is showing us not only the dysfunction and the deterioration of the dreams of this particular family, but that so many in Britain had a similar trajectory. Everybody in Britain was thinking now that World War I is over, we can breathe again -- things will be good again. They didn’t know what was about to happen in Europe with the rise of Hitler. It’s just a remarkable way to show how one family can represent a whole country and its various issues. As far as British playwrights are concerned, I can only think of Noel Coward and T.S. Eliot who were writing at the same time. I believe Shaw wrote Pygmalion in 1938, the year after Priestley wrote this play. And I believe Terence Rattigan had his first success in 1936 with French Without Tears.  I hope that helps answer your original question, but please give me your email and I’ll do some research and send what I find to you.

Audience Member #5: At that time in London, séances were very popular with both J.B. Priestley and Arthur Conan Doyle. The reason I know this is that I worked for someone who held these séances. I came across the names of people who were in attendance in London. Priestley was one of them and Arthur Conan Doyle was another. Priestley was literally influenced by life beyond time and space and being able to look into the future.

TS: I thank you for that observation because you just triggered something in my mind. Noël Coward wrote Blithe Spirit around 1941 and that play has a séance in it. The play, You Can’t Take It with You, which was written in the late 1930s, has the character of the upper-class mother who comes to dinner and talks about being into spiritualism.  So, this idea of accessing the past and the future must have been in the zeitgeist. I think what Priestley was trying to say to us, on some level, is that we can transcend the negative things that happen to us if we are able to get past thinking it will last forever. I believe he wants us to live in a more mystical way. I know it’s a trope to think this reality we are all part of is only part of a collective dream, but I do believe, like Priestley and the character of Carol, that we need to focus on the bigger issues of love, kindness and generosity. A lot of the issues that we are dealing with right now in this country. Priestley was very smart. Hopefully, we can all figure out how to practice what he preached.

 


Time and the Conway runs through November 26 at the American Airlines Theatre. For tickets and information, please visit our website.


Related Categories:
2017-2018 Season, A Conversation with, Education @ Roundabout, Time and the Conways


No Comments

 

 

Ted Sod: Where were you born, and what made you decide to become an actor? Where did you get your training? Did you have any teachers who profoundly influenced you?

Alex Mickiewicz: I was born in Worcester, MA, but I’d say that I grew up in southern Pennsylvania. When I was about four years old, my family left Massachusetts and moved to Littlestown, PA, a town that definitely lived up to its name. After a few years, we moved to the neighboring town of Hanover, and I stayed there until I graduated high school. I can credit my parents for my introduction into the world of acting. As a young kid, I attempted to follow in my brother’s footsteps and try my hand at every sport imaginable, but unlike him, I was terrible at all of them. Trust me, the irony is not lost in the fact that I now find myself playing a professional athlete. Aside from my lack of athletic promise, one thing my parents noticed was my knack for entertaining my teammates at all costs. So, when I was about six years old, they asked me if I’d like to attend open auditions for the local production of The Nutcracker. In the most cliché fashion, the rest is history. I landed the role of “child” or something, and even though I barely remember much from the experience, I do remember that I instantly fell in love with being onstage and the chaos backstage and the costumes and the sets and the rush of performing in front of an audience. I knew what I wanted to do for the rest of my life. All the way through High School I performed in school productions, community theatre, and even some dinner theatre when I was really young, sitting backstage garnishing cocktails made by one of the actors serving double duty as a bartender during intermission. After High School, I went to Boston University, where I earned my BFA in Acting. After spending some time struggling in NYC, I decided to study at the William Esper Studio with Barbara Marchant. Barbara has been an amazing influence on me. Not only did she teach me so much of the technique I now use and helped me to develop a strong sense of discipline in my work, but she also helped rebuild my confidence as an actor.

Wilson Bethel and Alex Mickiewicz. Photo by Joan Marcus.

TS: Why did you choose to do the role of Sergei in Anna Ziegler’s play The Last Match? What do you think the play is about?

AM: Every once in a while, you read a play or come across a character and think, “I have to play this.” When I first read The Last Match, Sergei was the character I immediately related to. Having never even played tennis, I still felt like I understood what Sergei was grappling with. Anna Ziegler wrote such a beautifully vivid and complicated character that I felt like I just immediately had a clear picture of who he was in my mind, and I was drawn to that. I love his temper and his sense of humor and also his sensitivity and pain. I also love how universal tennis can be. It’s the perfect vehicle for tackling huge life questions. For me, the play is about so much. It asks what we are willing to risk and sacrifice in the pursuit of being the best and what happens if “the best,” or rather the outcome of that pursuit, is not enough. It’s about the ways in which we grapple with our own mortality and race to find meaning in our lives before time runs out.

 

TS: What kind of preparation or research do you have to do before rehearsals begin in order to play this role?  

Alex Mickiewicz visiting the U.S. Open

AM: I’ve been reading a lot about tennis. Anything I can get my hands on: essays by David Foster Wallace, The Inner Game of Tennis by W. Timothy Gallwey, and biographies of professional tennis players (Open by Andre Agassi is a must-read for anyone), just to name a few. I also watch a lot of tennis. Luckily, it’s played year-round, so I can almost always find a match either online or on TV. When working on the Russian dialect, I spend a lot of time listening to recordings of authentic Russian accents, absorbing the sounds and rhythms, and I’ll also spend time meticulously going through my lines and breaking down each syllable and phonetic sound. I’m reading about Russian culture and looking at images from the area of Russia where Sergei comes from. Since the staging of the play can be physical at times, I’ve also been trying to stay in shape so that I can not only look like a tennis player, but also have the endurance for the physical demands of the play. I’ve taken some tennis lessons as well, so I work on my form and technique.

 

TS: How is this character relevant to you? I realize the rehearsal process hasn’t begun yet, but can you share some of your initial thoughts about who your character is with us? What do you find most challenging/exciting about this role? 

AM: As an actor, I relate to a lot of Sergei’s experience in this play. Like Sergei, I decided what I wanted to do with my life at a very early age, and that decision came with a lot of consequences and sacrifices. Also like Sergei, I am often faced with periods of extreme self-doubt and self-sabotage. I wonder if I’ll ever reach a place in my career where I’m truly content, and, if not, why even bother? At the same time, this is all I’ve really known my whole life. Sergei is a naturally competitive person. He’ll stop at nothing to make it to #1. He puts so much pressure on himself to get there so that he can justify all the sacrifices and hard work, but he’s crippled by the fear that being #1 might not provide the justification he’s after and that all the work and sacrifice was for nothing. The most challenging part about playing Sergei is probably also one of the most exciting parts, and that is the physicality. I guess the second best thing to actually being a professional athlete is playing one onstage. I’m really trying my hardest not to look like an actor attempting to be an athlete.

 

TS: At this early stage in your work, how do you understand Sergei’s relationship to his girlfriend, Galina, and his idol/nemesis Tim?

AM: I love Galina and Sergei’s relationship. Due to their common Russian roots and history, they have a deep understanding of one another. Sergei finds that he can open up to Galina in ways that he hasn’t been able to open up to anyone else. In one way, she is the maternal comfort that has been missing in his life since the death of his parents. Likewise, Galina can open up to Sergei. Simply put, they see each other for who they truly are. Sergei’s relationship to Tim is complicated. Growing up idolizing Tim, Sergei is now faced with the opportunity to beat his idol. In a way, Tim is so much a part of Sergei’s identity (he is everything Sergei wants to be) that Sergei feels that if he defeats Tim, he defeats a part of himself. By exposing Tim’s mortality, Sergei is faced with his own.

Wilson Bethel and Alex Mickiewicz. Photo credit: Jenny Anderson

TS: What do you look for from a director when working on a play?  

AM: I look for a director to be collaborative. I would hate to enter a rehearsal process with a director who claims to already have the answers to everything. I hope that the rehearsal room is a place for open dialogue and somewhere we can feel safe to disagree. Every play has its own set of rules by which the characters exist. When working on a new play, it’s such an exciting experience to get to explore and establish those rules for the first time. This means trying out a lot of things and then deciding what works and what doesn’t work. Having worked with GT Upchurch before, I know that she has a brilliant eye for what works and is open to exploring many different options.

 

TS: How do you keep yourself inspired as an artist?

AM: I try to go see theatre and watch movies and TV, seeking out performances that make me want to be a better actor. My family and friends are a huge source of inspiration for me. Watching those close to me work hard and achieve great things makes me want to do the same. My mom works harder than anyone I’ve ever known. I draw on her for inspiration all the time. I think it’s important to know that inspiration can be found anywhere. My source of inspiration changes all the time. One day I’m feeling inspired by an article I read in the paper, and another day I’m inspired by a new band I’ve discovered.

 

TS: Public school students reading this interview will want to know what it takes to be a successful actor. What advice can you give young people who say they want to act?

AM: Some advice I would give is to be patient. If you really want to be an actor, that (hopefully) means you want a career as an actor, and building a career takes time and a lot of hard work. Also, try not to compare your career to others. Everyone has their own path. Just worry about yours.


The Last Match begins performances at The Laura Pels Theatre on September 28, 2017. For tickets and information, please visit our website.


Related Categories:
2017-2018 Season, A Conversation with, The Last Match


No Comments