'Sleep no more, / Macbeth does murder sleep'

More like "Litmus Theatre's Matchbox Macbeth has murdered my barely-formed confidence in my theatrical talent", am I right?

Seriously though, it is equally intimidating and inspiring to witness true theatre at its best —and the recent remount of Matchbox Macbeth is exactly that. I am in absolute awe of every aspect of this production, and months later it is still a pleasure to speak about it!

Reworking the Bard

Shakespeare's Macbeth is 5 acts in length, with an approximate running time of 2.5 hours. Matchbox Macbeth is 1 hour long. Impossible, right? Gloriously wrong. They distilled each scene down to a few key lines without losing the tone or meaning, letting the actors' fantastic work and the audience's understanding fill in the rest. This was not your beginner's Shakespeare, but as long as you've read or seen it at least once, you were more than equipped to understand and appreciate this version.

Not Casting a Cat

Now on to casting. First of all, what the hell, Shakespeare? Six "WITCHES"? "A SPIRIT LIKE A CAT"?! That's just silly. I have seen Macbeth several times and I have never seen a Spirit Cat. Maybe I wasn't looking closely enough, but I'm pretty sure everyone else also thinks that Spirit Cat is superfluous. And how is Spirit Cat different from "Other SPIRITS"? Now I've typed "spirit" so much that it looks weird. Moving on.

Shakespeare's Macbeth has almost 30 characters. Matchbox Macbeth had 4 actors, one of whom only played Macbeth. The other three (one woman, two men) were then left to interpret all of the remaining characters, and they did an INCREDIBLE job. Lady Macbeth was suitably desperate and crazy without overacting. King Duncan's age and decrepit physical nature was evoked by having the actor walk with upside down milk crates attached to his feet. The ghosts were the perfect mix of malice and mischief. For clarity and timeliness many characters were omitted, but at no cost to the overall effect.

Shedding Tradition

Now here's where it gets crazy. The staging was... It's been almost 10 weeks since I saw Matchbox Macbeth and I still don't think I have the right words to describe how incredible it was. To put it plainly, it was the best play I've ever seen AND IT WAS STAGED IN A FREAKING SHED. You know those sheds that all face into a communal alley, the ones that can barely fit one car? Yeah, one of those. THERE WAS A PLAY IN ONE OF THOSE! Amazing.

The audience was limited to 15 people, seated against the two side walls of the shed. Most of the action took place in the shed, with some moments happening through the back window (Lady Macbeth's death) or in the alleyway (a clever opening dumb show, entrances into Macbeth's "court"). Lighting was minimal --a few well-placed stage lights, tiny handheld flashlights, a few candles, and a very creepy red oven light-- but the dimness was an asset instead of a weakness. And the sound? Dear Lord, the sound. Taking full advantage of the shed, actors who weren't on stage would bang on the walls or whisper through cracks, creating an atmosphere of tension and darkness that is nearly impossible to have in a larger space. We felt claustrophobic and uneasy, and it was amazing.

Earned Praise
All of the actors were ridiculously talented and hardworking, and it showed. Way to earn your MFAs, guys! Seriously though, so much thought was put into making it an original production and taking full advantage of their limited resources. Nothing in the final product was superfluous or poorly planned. It ran like a well-oiled machine, but with enormous heart. Essentially, Matchbox Macbeth accomplished everything that I want to with my own production, overcoming every obstacle that I know I will also have to face. There's hope yet, if you are dedicated enough to the cause!

For a taste of the talent:


Links to other reviews of Litmus Theatre's 2011 remount of Matchbox Macbeth are below. A great little piece by one of the actors is here. Apparently their next project is a twisted version of Peter Pan! Let's all go together!

http://www.mooneyontheatre.com/2011/10/13/review-matchbox-macbeth-litmus-theatre/

http://www.nowtoronto.com/stage/story.cfm?content=183240

http://torontoist.com/2011/10/theatre-that-goes-bump-in-the-night/

"I have a vision. Of the Orient. That, deep within its almond eyes, there are still women. Women willing to sacrifice themselves for the love of a man. Even a man whose love is completely without worth." - M. Butterfly, III.iii

It's plot time!

This synopsis does include the ending, so… spoiler alert?

Rene Gallimard, a former diplomat wallowing in French prison, recalls his 26-year affair with a Beijing opera singer named Song Liling, and how it all began when he saw Song perform the famous aria from Gallimard's favourite play: Puccini's Madama Butterfly.

Unlike his other connections with women, Gallimard's seduction of and relationship with Song is perfect. He is the dominant one. His self-confidence is bolstered by Song's absolute devotion and obedience, save for one condition: she never appears naked before him. But what does that matter? In all other ways, he has found his Butterfly.

Their lives become increasingly more intertwined, spanning the Chinese cultural revolution, Gallimard's disgraceful demotion, the arrival of a son, and the forging of a new life together in France. It is not until 1986 that Gallimard finds himself accused of treason, having stolen and shared state information with Song —who is not only a Chinese spy, but a man as well.

The revelation that Song is a man sparks international interest and ridicule. Gallimard, however, mourns only for the loss of the fantasy he lived for over two decades. Faced with the truth of his great love affair, betrayed by his lover, Gallimard retreats even further into delusion. In the final scene, Gallimard dresses himself as Butterfly and commits seppuku, confirming that Song was never Gallimard's Butterfly —it had always been the other way around.

… Yup.

M. Butterfly

I was a bit conflicted about starting this blog off with M. Butterfly by David Henry Hwang. On one hand, it's my all-time favourite play and my dream production. On the other hand, the thought of expressing all of my ideas is daunting and vaguely threatening to my fragile artistic self-confidence. So I've decided to do this one in installments —as much for my sanity as for that of the reader's.

So… here we go.

My copy of M. Butterfly includes a wonderfully funny, insightful, and encouraging afterword by DHH. This was the second last paragraph:

"M. Butterfly has sometimes been regarded as an anti-American play, a diatribe against the stereotyping of the East by the West, of women by men. Quite to the contrary, I consider it a plea to all sides to cut through our respective layers of cultural and sexual misperception, to deal with one another truthfully for our mutual good, from the common and equal ground we share as human beings."



It sounds overly dramatic and —like most artistic notes I've read— self-important. But I had the pleasure to see DHH speak at Hart House a few months ago, and I know he is sincere. M. Butterfly is more than a clever interpretation of a scandalous, real-life event. It is a poetic and poignant conflict between illusion and truth.

Stay tuned for more!