What, Ho!

For people who know me all too well (and for those who don't), I have a passion for words. Which is probably why I excelled in vocabulary and helped my high school win 2nd place at the state Spell Bowl championship. Of course, there are times when I use words the wrong way or use big words to the shock and horror of others. Who knew a black woman like myself would love words so much? I personally think my love of books has led to my word addiction. Sometimes seeing the big words on the pages and then finding out the definitions later on excites me, and I always look forward to finding ways to add them to my ever-growing vocabulary list. Of course, some of the 21st century words are a bit... how can I put this? Questionable. Nobody seems to want to use actual words anymore. It's as if we've losing our language and the desire to work hard to learn words that have stood the test of time for many centuries and put them to good use. Or if we have the desire to use them, it's often replaced by an f-bomb every second word or even making up words just so we can sound cool or hip. Words matter, people! Don't be afraid of using the big words alongside the small and made-up words. It's not a sign of superiority. It's a sign of knowledge, and we can all learn something new each and every day. And remember: It's not what you say that matters. It's HOW you say it. Be careful of your tone of voice, please! Even with all of the books in the world, I seem to get especially enthralled by words in scripts. Including the classics like Moliere, Chekov, Marlowe, Massinger... And don't forget the G.O.A.T. himself: Shakespeare! I have to confess that when I first heard Shakespeare, I was a bit beffudled by how they spoke. But then, as I grew up, I started to go from confusion to curiosity to admiration. There's something lyrical about the prose and poetry that Shakespeare used in his plays and sonnets, and it can contain all of the emotions in each of his works. Where else can you find phrases like "all's well that ends well," or "all the world's a stage, and we are merely the players," or "the course of true love never runs smooth," or even "to thine own self be true?" If it wasn't for these famous quotes from Shakespeare's plays and sonnets, I think we'd all have a hard time speaking to each other in actual English. Come to think of it, I think we'd have a hard time figuring out if we can challenge someone to a battle of wits without seeing if they are truly armed or not. Shakespeare used his knowledge and words to create vocabulary that we still use to this day, and we owe him that credit, along with the other great masters of words like Merriam-Webster or even the Anglo-Saxon tribes. Without the basis of the English language, we wouldn't be able to speak to each other, and more importantly, understand one another coherently. Granted, Shakespeare deserves much credit for coming up with some of the most famous and lyrical quotes we often recite throughout history, but he also deserves much credit for creating some of the most unforgettable plays that are beloved from the far reaches of the Globe Theatre to the shores of Australia. And all the way to the United States. The list is pretty extensive, as you can recall: Romeo & Juliet, Macbeth (under no circumstances don't say this in the theatre!), Hamlet, The Tempest, Twelfth Night, All's Well That Ends Well, King Henry IV, Parts 1 & 2, Richard III, The Merry Wives of Windsor, Othello, Much Ado About Nothing, As You Like It, Cymbeline, King Lear, Taming of the Shrew, King John, A Midsummer Night's Dream... I'm pretty sure you've had the chance to see these plays, or even perform in some of them. Or you had the blessed opportunity to do both! Shakespeare's plays are truly classics in their own right - unforgettable characters, exotic settings, famous battles and fight scenes, and oh, those lines! As his popularity grew throughout the centuries, it would be a total shocker if you didn't go about your day without hearing the name Shakespeare or how his plays were being performed at this stage or this popular actor is taking on the lead role in a Shakespeare favorite. But while his plays were growing in popularity, there was one, well, several underlying problems Shakespeare's plays had that many opted to overlook. For starters, a lot of his plays were sexist and placed women in demeaning roles, with very few of them being strong and clever. Even when Shakespeare's plays were being performed, the female roles were all played by men. There was also the problem of some his plays being racist, with stereotypes and discrimination towards the black and Jewish communities. For much of the later centuries, many of Shakespeare's plays were performed by all white casts, with the exception of Othello for obvious reasons. And while these casts were quite good, there wasn't enough diversity for casts doing Shakespeare's plays, probably because of the idea that black people and people of color don't deserve to do Shakespeare plays. Probably because of the stereotypical beliefs that blacks and people of color were too dumb to do Shakespeare, or even that they were only good to do the minor roles like a servant or a guard. And here's a big one: Much of his text was simply too hard to understand! Before the advent of Spark Notes and Cliff Notes that had helpful details and clarification of the language, you were pretty much on your own figuring out the text and its meanings. Worse still, you couldn't change the language to adapt to the style of the times. That would be sacrilege! Sexist, racist, purist, elitist, perfectionist... Geez, no wonder Shakespeare can be a bit problematic! So, how does one adapt some of the most famous plays of all time into a work of art that current audiences can understand and appreciate, while also retaining the heart of the language without it being disrespectful or demeaning? Well, as Shakespeare once said: "If music be the food of love, PLAY ON."

When did Shakespeare's plays start to move away from traditional settings and literal places to more alternate settings and time periods? Apparently, it wasn't as recent as I was first led to believe. It actually started as far back as the 18th century and continued to hold sway through much of the 20th century. Much of the sets and costumes were from outside of Greece and Rome, and even Elizabethan England, to reflect a more modern interpretation for current audiences to understand appreciate. One of the biggest examples of this came in 1928, when Barry Jackson's Birmingham Repertory produced Macbeth, and consciously updated its setting from traditional Scotland to a WWI battlefield, and used Shakespeare's language as a commentary on current society. As far as people know, this was the first Macbeth production to use guns. It was only a partial success at the time due to casting problems and technical difficulties, but it helped lay the groundwork for the possibilities of taking Shakespeare from its traditional setting to more contemporary and alternate settings that helped reflect the current times in society. Another notable contemporary Shakespeare production came in 1936, when beloved actor Orson Welles produced a vodoo Macbeth with an all-black cast. Sets and costumes were set to represent the Caribbean instead of traditional Scotland. But another important reason this production was such a landmark was it was one of the first adaptations to introduce colorblind casting and race swapping, something that wouldn't be touched again until the 1960s. Or even Harley Granville-Barker's incredibly influential productions of the 1910s was also a bit part of this shift, as he self-consciously abstracted the costumes and set design so that they were set in a kind of indeterminate fantasy setting that did not literally try to recreate the time and place of the plays. I suspect Barry Jackson was very much influenced by Granville-Barker and what he contributed to Shakespeare adaptations and translating it from traditional settings to more current, even abstract settings, to have audiences understand and appreciate Shakespeare's works. Of course, there was backlash. That's to be expected. Purists would argue that the Shakespearean classics should only be set in the traditional settings, or have all white, heterosexual casts, or have the authentic Elizabethan or Greek costumes pertaining to the time period, and so on and so on. But like so many things, change is constant, and change is also inevitable. Something that I tend to preach quite frequently, but still seems to fall on deaf ears, even to this day. Anyway, one of the biggest examples of translating Shakespeare to modern audiences came in 1957, when the musical, West Side Story, graced the Broadway stage, and it was a game-changer for many reasons. It took the beloved story of Romeo & Juliet, and added a bit of racial and political issues in the form of the Jets and the Sharks, two rival gangs in the multiracial Upper West Side of NYC. One side was predominantly white, and the other side was made up of Puerto Ricans. There were ongoing challenges for Puerto Ricans living and thriving in a city that has so much promise for them, while also making way for changes to beautify and transform NYC at the expense of expelling the minority groups from their homes, along with the continued discrimination and prejudice, made the beloved musical a lesson in blending current events with raw, emotional storytelling. No Shakespearean language was needed to understand how the two star-crossed lovers from two households, or in this case, cultures, both alike in dignity, were dealing with the societal pressures and racism going on in the late 1950s. Beautiful choreography by Jerome Robbins and timeless music by Stephen Sondheim & Leonard Bernstein has made West Side Story into an unforgettable classic, even continuing to be performed across stages all over the world to this day. Don't forget about the beloved 1961 film adaptation that went on to sweep at the Oscars, successful Broadway revivals and national tours, and a 2019 film remake directed by the illustrious Steven Spielberg and making a star out of triple threat Ariana DeBose, who would win the Oscar for her performance as Anita (almost over 60 years since Rita Moreno won the Oscar for the same role, becoming the first Latina to win the Oscar). Of course, as beloved as West Side Story has become, there were its critics (again?). This time, the show was criticized for not casting authentic Latin performers in the Sharks roles and for glamorizing gangs when in premiered in 1957. Some thought the show was a bit too radical for Broadway theatre at the time, which is probably why West Side Story only took home two Tony Awards out of its seven nominations. My guess is that people at this time weren't ready for radical thinking and a new way of Broadway theatre with current events and real life being intertwined with magnificent dancing and epic music, let alone having Shakespearean classics be adapted to feature real life in the 1950s in NYC as a basis for adapting Shakespeare. But things were about to become even more radical real quick. This time, it would be in the form of Shakespeare in the Park being performed outdoors in Central Park, free and open to the public, and colorblind. Wait, what? COLORBLIND? Yup, you heard me. Originally called the New York Shakespeare Festival, Joseph Papp created this opportunity in 1954 as a way to make theatre more accessible to all audiences by producing free-of-charge performances, and in 1957, Papp was granted the use of Central Park for the Shakespearean productions. They are currently performed at the open air Delacorte Theatre, which was built between 1958-1961, opening on 18 June 1962. But one of Joseph Papp's biggest contributions came in making the New York Shakespeare Festival use non-traditional and colorblind casting. At the time, there were skeptics. It goes back to the idea that black people and people of color couldn't, or even shouldn't, do Shakespeare because of the unfounded belief that black people or people of color were too dumb to do Shakespeare. Or worse yet, the continued prejudice and fear of black people and people of color being considered equal enough to do Shakespeare also played a factor. No one of different skin colors should be allowed to do such things! They don't do that! Heavens, no! Tell that to some famous black and artists of color who have performed Shakespeare. People like Ira Aldridge, James Hewlett, Henrietta Vinton Davis, Paul Robeson, Earle Hyman, Audra McDonald, Andre De Shields, David Oyelowo, Kimber Elayne Sprawl, Adrian Lester, Danielle Brooks, Danai Gurira, Raul Julia, Xavier Santiago & Maria Carmona Hernandez, John Leguizamo, Irene Cara, and of course, James Earl Jones. They've not only excelled at doing Shakespeare, they helped change the game and made things even more accessible to blacks and people of color in ways never thought possible. Part of that was done by directors and producers who saw the infinite possibilities of what could happen when blacks and people of color could do Shakespeare. It has even now opened up to allowing openly LGBTQ+ performers being recognized and celebrated in Shakespeare's adaptations, when creative forces saw how beautiful it is to be so inclusive and diverse in storytelling. Of course, by now most of you are thinking of the most famous example of this: Baz Luhrmann's 1996 film adaptation of Romeo + Juliet. Not only did the Australian director invite actors of all skin tones to be a part of this production, but he also made it more urban and contemporary in ways many never thought possible. It actually did take place in 1995-96 Verona... Verona Beach, that is. It featured two mega business rivals, both alike in dignity. It featured Prince Escalus at the Chief of Police. It featured Paul Rudd! The point is, Baz Luhrmann changed the game in a tremendous way to make Shakespeare more accessible. He believed that the best way to get people to appreciate the classics is to modernize the setting and the themes, while also retaining the language. Sometimes the best way to reach your audiences, especially the younger ones, is by connecting with them in ways that are easy for them to understand. In this case, it was using rock music, some famous teen stars of the day, and a current landscape. Many young people, especially teens, may be turned off by the heavy Elizabethan costumes, but that's up for debate for another day. Of course, not everyone saw Romeo + Juliet as a masterpiece or even a game-changer. Esteemed film critic Roger Ebert called the film "a mess." Others were inclined to agree with him. But no matter what your opinion of Romeo + Juliet is, you can't deny that it turned Shakespeare on its head and blasted open the doors for how adaptations can be transported to places and settings beyond Elizabethan England. I remember seeing a film version of As You Like It take place in a 19th century European colony in Japan, with the Forest of Arden set among the beautiful trees in the Japanese countryside. Then, there was Much Ado About Nothing taking place in a villa in Tuscany. And then there was Love's Labours Lost taking place in WWII-era Europe, using songs from the Golden Age of Broadway and jazz! So as you can see, when one decides to expand their imagination beyond to what they see on the paper, anything's possible. They didn't let the words "no," "absolutely not," or even "why?" stop them. Accessibility matters, especially when you want everyone to appreciate and see themselves in the classics. It's not just one-dimensional anymore. Which brings me to another important point I've seen in recent years; As you may recall from earlier, much of Shakespeare's texts have been perceived, borderline proven, as racist, sexist, and otherwise, a bit problematic. Trying to do the classics for a 21st century audience, especially in the wake of big reckonings and changes like the Black Lives Matter movement, the legalization of gay marriage, recognizing indigenous cultures as more than just Indians and Native Americans, and so on, can be a bit of a challenge when it makes people uncomfortable or even angry at some of the original text. So, what does one do in a case like this? Well, for one thing, you can slightly adjust the language to not make it sexist or racist. In some cases, the lines that were meant for men have now been placed in women's hands, which changes the meaning entirely and gives more power to women. There's also slightly adding some contemporary phrases and sounds the text so that it's easier to understand and also take away some of the negative context. But there's also one more thing that can be done in cases like this: You simply remove the lines. If they don't work for the context of this adaptation, or your cast members don't agree with the meaning of the lines after much discussion, or even if the creative team feels like it is bogging down the production with the overall vision, you do have the right to remove the lines. Just like you have the right to slightly alter the lines just so it can give more power, depth, and accessibility to those who didn't have it from centuries ago. Some productions would go as far as to add some modern language to Shakespeare plays these days that would help audiences understand the story a bit better, if not bring a little humor to the tone of the story. I honestly don't think Shakespeare would mind that this is happening, if it means people would understand the language. Not one bit. But as for the purists and Shakespeare enthusiasts who are sticklers for the shows being done exactly down to the last detail... Well, that's another problem. At the end of the day, you can't please everyone, especially the purists. So why bother listening to those voices just so you can make your production a financial and critical success? Do your own thing, and the rest will fall into place! Louder voices in the room be damned! Which brings me to why I enjoy Shakespeare so much. At first, like many teens, I didn't understand the language. I was confused, and we were banned from using resources like SparkNotes in class. (Catholic high school English strikes again!) But it took doing Romeo & Juliet in high school drama to help me see the world of Shakespeare in a different way. For starters, I literally put my hat in for Prince Escalus because I believed that the Prince can be played by a woman. I wrote a letter to the director expressing my feelings for playing this character, and wouldn't you know it? It worked! One other thing that made this particular production so popular was that we based it off of the Baz Luhrmann classic. If it could get younger people to come see this adaptation, then we've already won the battle. It was quite the experience to wear a business suit with a nice blouse, and then having to come out on the balcony during the first fight and say the following lines at the top of my voice: Rebellious subjects, enemies to peace,

On pain of torture, from those bloody hands

Throw your mistemper'd weapons to the ground,

And hear the sentence of your moved prince.

Three civil brawls, bred of an airy word,

By thee, old Capulet, and Montague,

Have thrice disturb'd the quiet of our streets.

If ever you disturb our streets again,

Your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace.

For this time, all the rest depart away:

You Capulet; shall go along with me:

And, Montague, come you this afternoon,

To know our further pleasure in this case,

To old Free-town, our common judgment-place.

Once more, on pain of death, all men depart. I think people were most impressed by someone who was short with a loud voice to tell people to stop fighting. My mom knew that I had the lungs. But what I was most impressed by was the language. The words flowed like poetry, and there was a certain rhythm that was so different and unique to today's English language, and it made me appreciate how language has evolved and can be appreciated, educated, and transformed to help us all understand each other. Let alone bring classics like these to life. In recent years, I've come to appreciate the language more, but I've also come to be amazed at how far dramaturgy has come to adapt Shakespeare's works for more contemporary audiences that would help bridge communities and relationships. During the pandemic, I had the chance to be in As You Like It as part of a class with The Theatre Lab School of Dramatic Art. I was originally going to play Adam, but then someone dropped out and I was asked to play Celia. I was thrilled, as you can imagine! But there was just one problem: We still couldn't do live theatre at the time, due to the nature of COVID. So, it was agreed at the time to do the performance virtually. But then, when word came about the vaccines, there was a glimmer of hope. Someone had a large backyard that we could use for the performance, as long as we kept our audiences to 10 people and they were masked. And during rehearsals, we would also be masked and socially distant. Of course, we were all thrilled by this, and we were able to do As You Like It in the backyard, all masked, and successfully got to do live theatre again. This time, we had to set As You Like It in a time where we all had to be masked (COVID notwithstanding), but our face mask's colors were identified by where we were. Navy blue masks were in the royal court, grey polka dot masks were in the forest of Arden, and burgundy masks were for the finale. It was my first time in a while being in one of the principal roles of a Shakespeare classic, and I'm forever grateful for the opportunity. But it turned out, it wasn't my only bout with Shakespeare that year. That same time, I had the pleasure of doing a Shakespeare tragedy, Julius Caesar. Only this time, it was called Julia Caesar, and it was an all femme version that was going to be done virtually. Did I mention that this company, Barefoot Shakespeare Company, was based in NYC, and did Shakespeare outdoors? WOW! This version of Julius Caesar story took place in a 1980s workplace environment, and Julia Caesar was elected to free it to a new environment that was more inclusive and diverse. Who did I play, you ask? I got to be one of the conspirators, Decius Brutus. And when I learned that the show was based off of the 1980s workplace environment, with quite a bit of structure, elitism, and not enough freedom for inclusive opportunities, I knew I had something to work off of for Decius Brutus. I decided to do some digging, and base this Decius off of three high profile, villainous women: Phyliss Schlafly, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Miranda Priestly (and yes, she DOES count!). The thing with basing your character off of three nefarious women is to not make them two dimensional. You have to bring depth and well-roundedness to your characters, and from what I was able to do online along with my research on the women and the 1980s workplace environment, I came up with quite a fun performance of Decius Brutus. One thing that made Julia Caesar different was how were going to kill Julia, since this was being done virtually. You see, we were all gifted with letter openers from Julia, and during the scene where we all signed a pledge to do the deed, the pen turned out to have some form of black magic that would write down on the envelope what piece of Julia Caesar we would stab, with Brutus having the heart for the final stab. I decided to be the back-stabber of the group, and stab Julia's back. And so, when it came time to kill Julia, we would each hold up our envelopes, recite what piece of Caesar we would stab, and then we ripped open the envelope with our gifted letter openers. I tell you, I still get a kick out of "stabbing" Julia's back every performance, and then throwing my head back cackling with glee. Did I mention there was also blood in this production? Yup. We got to use fake blood during the final battle, and we were all quite a mess by the time we did the curtain call. I could've kept the fake blood for future shows, but my mom was not having it. I had to get rid of it. RATS!!!!!! But in all seriousness, to be able to be seen and valued as an artist in these Shakespeare productions, while also being allowed to collaborate with my fellow artists and creative team, felt so liberating, and it made me appreciate the stories even more. And to be able to adapt these classics for a new generation that can be told to help make it more accessible and easier for people to understand is not an easy task, but it's one that brought me much joy, nonetheless. I always enjoy doing the classics because there are so many ways to tell the same story without it having to stick to the same routine and tradition of olden sets, Elizabethan costumes, and using the exact, even archaic language in a way that is harder to grasp. And while the language may be a tongue twister at times, there's something beautiful about speaking in a language that can be poetic and rhythmic in its own, special way. Nobody seems to know how to speak eloquently and from the heart anymore. And it's these words and stories that remind us of how beautiful words can be, even if they are adapted to current events and timelines that bridge the gaps of accessibility so that everyone can understand the language. Because at the end of the day... Good vs. evil, love vs. hate, darkness vs. light, fear vs. hope is always present in the world, no matter what language you speak. Or what stories you tell. All the more reason to keep telling these stories again and again. (Oh, I am wearied from this sharing so much of my knowledge of Shakespeare, and yet, there is more from where this came from. You can find out more about Shakespeare by visiting your local library, bookstore, and theatre. Or you can go online to find some websites that offer information about the history of Shakespeare and his plays. Just be sure to find websites that offer accurate information and they come from reputable sources. Like many things, however, I'm not an expert on Shakespeare, and even though I've done his plays so many times virtually and a few times in person, these are still my observations and reflections. You are welcome to disagree with me on anything I say, but I will not tolerate any hate speech, disrespectful commentary, or offensive language from anyone. We all need to learn to get along with each other, and that means being able to agree to disagree, and if you can't do a simple thing like that, I will block you.)

I wanted to end this week's blog post with something that I've been reflecting on as of late... And it involves casting. Not just for Shakespeare shows, but for all theatre shows in general. Has anyone noticed when they go see a show, and they look at the cast list, you notice it's the same people that you've seen before? Or even people from out of the area, especially NYC? I hope I'm not the only one who notices this. Because what I'm about to say next might be a bit controversial, and I'm going to say this very carefully and very slowly. It's starting to get old, it's start to get redundant, and it needs to stop. And here's why: It's one thing to rely on your heavy hitters and people you know to help bring the show to life and make the vision a masterpiece, but when you start to do that over and over again... And leave out the people who could use the experience and the exposure that would help their careers and themselves, especially if they are local and want to reach the same heights as some of the big names and personalities... That's when it starts to become a problem. There are tendencies for shows to be viewed as miscast in some people's eyes, and also the question of authenticity arises when there's a story that needs to have actual people of that racial identity or gender makeup. There are questions of whether companies are just focusing on creating art and opportunities for all when they are only letting some people in, especially if it's the same people from out of town or the same heavy hitters over and over again. There are frustrations just waiting to be voiced from within the community about this, but there's also fear because of what could happen if they do speak up and what it could cost them. Especially if it is their passion and living out their dreams. Yes, I understand that the show needs to make money and there needs to be a reach to the wealthiest of donors to help fund the theatre companies and organizations with the right shows and the right people. Yes, I'm aware that hiring people from out of town may bring in a larger audience and appeal to more people, along with the same steadfast patrons who come to every show or every theatre company. Yes, I can see that budgets are extremely tight right now with the loss of grants and funds, and bringing in the heavy hitters and big names can help offset the costs of royalties. But what I'm and so many of us are also seeing and hearing: "We're not good enough for you, and we don't deserve a chance to get the experience, the exposure, and the chance to shine onstage and do what we love to do the most." The bigger question is WHY? I may not understand the politics of this industry nor how things work nor how certain people are favored above others, but I do know this: I want to understand so that I can tell you that it's wrong, and that things need to change so that the arts can be equitable for everyone, no matter where they are on their journey, and allow doors to be opened so that everyone can have the opportunity to excel and shine in whatever they are passionate about. Help us to understand to why you don't see the caliber in local talent in the same way you believe that NYC talent is better than the locals. Help us to see what you see in your vision that we can't provide in the same way as the heavy hitters and big names can. Help us get the experience and exposure we want and need so that we can take steps to fine tune our skills and be more confident in what we can do, apart from jumping in hoops and leaps and bounds to make connections through working as teaching artists, volunteering as ushers, working as house managers, and doing internships just to get noticed. We may not have the same level of knowledge or education or training that some of the people you rely on do, but that doesn't mean we don't deserve the chance to learn and get the experience, even at the professional level (and not just in the classrooms or in workshops, either). Rachel Zegler and Catherine Tate have been preaching this to the choir for a while now: Theatre MUST take a chance on new talent. Hire more local actors. Hire more actors of all professional levels and let them get the experience, growth, knowledge, and exposure they need to shine at their brightest. And if you'd like a bit of vulnerability, take it from yours truly: I want to do more classics so badly. I miss doing Shakespeare onstage so much, and I know I should be grateful for doing it virtually during the pandemic and that I should be happy with creating new works and being a part of staged readings and works in development. But if I'm being honest, I want to do the classics more than ever because I love the language, and I get to see myself in roles that I never thought were possible thanks to local adaptations bending the rules and turning things upside down by featuring black actors in Shakespeare, and not just as small roles, either. And I want to be able to do it onstage. People have told me time and time again that I have command of the language, I can take direction extremely well, and that I am always willing to learn more because I love to learn. The best way I learn is by doing, along with watching others give examples and guiding me. And there's a part of me that's longing to reach higher quality productions by doing what makes me happy, and yet, I can't get there because it seems like every time I show up and do what I love in the audition rooms or on tapes, I always get the same response: "Thank you, but we don't have a part for you right now." And it's been the same damn thing for going ten years of my professional career, and there have been times when I wanted to scream. I'm pretty sure it's the same thing for many of us local actors who are at the same level as me or who could clearly blow me out of the water with their talent and knowledge. Because in our eyes, you're saying that we're not good enough for you, and that we'll never be good enough for you. And it's been said every single year during audition season, non-union open calls, callbacks, and everything in between. And that freakin' HURTS. Isn't time for a change, for once? Coming from that same place of vulnerability, while also being as diplomatic as I can, I want to leave you with this message: STOP casting people you know who could bring in the money and audiences... And START casting people who are actually right for the role, no matter what level of their professional careers they are at. And can still fit your vision for the production. And it's not just actors. It's also directors, playwrights, costume designers, production managers, stage managers, choreographers, EVERYONE. We all want a chance to get more experience and grow at what we love to do, and hopefully get the chance to do for the rest of our lives. We admire the artists and the talents who inspire us to keep going and continue to show up for auditions for with the hopes of working with them and learning from them. We are working hard behind the scenes and pounding the pavement and doing small, non-union shows and community theatre shows just to get the experience we need to refine and sharpen our skills and do what love. We still show up, even when the stakes are against us and you unknowingly tell us that we're never going to be as good as NYC or LA actors The point is...

We're here. We've ALWAYS been here, and we want to be where the best of the best are, even if the path is not the same as theirs on the basis of education and experience. So why not break away and start using people who are actually right for the opportunity and giving them the chance to get the experience they need in order to grow and thrive in their careers... And not just use the same people or high caliber talent like a crutch or a safety net of assurance for the show's success? Casting the right people who are ACTUALLY right for the roles can make such a difference, and it's in every sector of the theatre community. And since this does involve Shakespeare, I'll leave you with this final thought: "Do you not know I am a woman? When I think, I must speak."