This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"Here at Command Central, not so much with the hilarious. More with the 'What the Hell am I Doing'"
11945 members | you are not logged in | 22 December 2014




Tweet







February 28 2006

James Marsters talks Macbeth in this video clip from his Word & Music 2005 Q&A. If you like your Shakespeare, it's well worth watching.

Oooh,James said a "bad" word. His favorite one. :)
Not your typical Shakespearian lecturer but he certainly does cut through the mists and makes the play intelligible to everyone.
I was privileged to see his performance and it was gripping and incredible. It is so great of JM Live to make these Q&A clips available to all of us. They rock!
He's so adorable in this clip, and he gets so excited talking about Macbeth. I wish I could have seen it live.
Dayam! Y'know if I had money I'd go back to college and take a course on Shakespeare with him as the teacher. Would love to hear his thoughts on Lear and Hamlet and all the Comedies. He'd be a blast teacher. I've taken other Shakespeare courses in my life with teachers who could bring the bard's work into modern parlance and convey to young people what was being said and all that, but Marsters would be a real treat on so many levels.

Would love to see him do Taming of the Shrew's Petruchio opposite Emma Caulfield's Kate. No english affected accents. Just talk straight midwest. They'd set the stage on fire, but that might actually be TOO easy for them. Might not be a challenge but who wouldn't pay money to go to a convention and see them even just do a reader's theater of choice selections or maybe a low budget box stage? They'd rock.

Actually to get a handful of talented actors from a wide range of 'cult' shows like Bruce Campbell and Marsters and even like Adam West or anyone who had the balls to try it -- DUELING SHAKESPEARES where they take turns grabbing soliloquys out of the air and practically push one another off stage stealing the spotlight wham bam bam that'd kick major ass.

Tudyk doing Iago. That'd kick ass too. Ooh! RON GLASS AS KING LEAR! Omigod!
Cult Improv Shakespeare? Interesting idea ZM, I'd go. And Tudyk/Iago, Glass/Lear? Ooh, yeah.
hmmm....
The boy is sharp...and he's got the acting chops.
My dear sainted mother, also a buffista and an actress, totally fell for Spike from the start...
She took to calling him Spikey BEFORE Harmony.
Regardless...she kept on telling me how she could totally see him in Macbeth or Hamlet.
When season 7 rolled around and he did the whole, "spark" speech....she was all vklempt.

[ edited by hbojorquez on 2006-02-28 06:13 ]
Ron Glass as Lear
Gina Torres as Goneril
Morenna Baccarin as Regan
Jewel Statie as Cordelia
Sean Maher as Edgar
Adam Baldwin as Kent
Nathan Fillion as Edmund
Summer Glau as The Fool
Alan Tudyk as Gloucester

I'd almost say Tudyk as The Fool because he'd be FUNNY but then, where would ya put Glau? Cordelia? Then where's Staite gonna go? Gloucester? No way.

Besides, Summer can bring a darkness to The Fool that'd be really deep and disturbing. Tudyk could too, but... ah man that's a tough call. Tudyk would perhaps be funnier than Glau but I don't know if I could lay money on that, and The Fool requires Tudyk's experience and timing. However, Glau would just be physically mesmerizing as The Fool, due to her ability to perform the theatrics and literally use her entire body to convey emotion. Tudyk and Glau would offer very different Fools, each equally fascinating.

Tudyk could pull off Gloucester. Glau can't. Staite can't. Also Tudyk's versatile and capable of lending focus and supporting a cast in any role given him, so he gets to wear some age makeup.

Both Fillion and Baldwin could do either Edmund or Kent, but Baldwin would be a more imposing Kent. Fillion's wry wit would really bring stuff out of Edmund and the darkness would be fun to see Fillion play.

Albany, Cornwall and Oswald could be filled by supporting actors from Firefly or even Buffy & Angel. Who'd direct? Whedon. NO. Marsters would direct! If'n I were god. Whedon would get a ringside seat in the audience. Perhaps with a big cheshire cat grin on his face. =)
I like your casting, ZachsMind but I think I would go for Tudyk for the fool. It takes some age and wisdom I don't think Glau has quite yet.
And I'm waiting for Joss' Hamlet so I don't mind him sitting this one out.
Adorable and sexy, intelligent and funny --> is it possible for him to be more attractive?
Made of chocolate ?
I so wish he could see his way clear to putting a one man show together that he could do on a limited basis but regularly. In my gut I am sure he isn't going to do something in NYC until he can make sure it will be done right, which means years from now. The rest of me wants to deny it. I would so much like to see him acting on stage and I simply cannot afford to fly across the Atlantic just for that (though I'm sure I could find plenty to do.)

Anyway, once I have a few money matters solved, I'll have to try to get a copy of this.
"I would go for Tudyk for the fool."

Okay then. To make Tudyk the Fool I gotta move everybody around and be a little more ingenious. Let's try this one:

Ron Glass as Lear
Alan Tudyk as The Fool
Jewel Staite as Cordelia
Morenna Baccarin as Goneril
Nathan Fillion as Albany
Summer Glau as Regan
Adam Baldwin as Cornwall
Gina Torres as Kent
Sean Maher as Edgar
Mark Shepherd as Edmund
Weston Nathanson as Gloucester
Michael Hitchcock as Oswald


Ain't exactly soldier's work, but I think I'm long done. THIS is my dream casting for Lear.
Hee! Very clever. Now if we only knew what Nathanson sounded like, but he is the right age and while perhaps does not have the right acting background for this pivotal role, I'm willing to accept him. I did see a nice version once where Gloucester was played by a woman to good effect but let's leave Gina Torres as Kent.
Thanks for that, Simon. I always love listening to people talk about something they are passionate about. Plus, as MySerenity said, "adorable and sexy."
"...if we only knew what Nathanson sounded like..."

We do...

"So you're the Browncoats, eh? Fought for the Independents? Thieving ain't exactly soldiers' work!"

In the audio commentary, Whedon complimented Nathanson saying he was a great actor and that he had "melifluous tones" whatever that means. I'm always impressed by any actor that can take one line and make his performance resonate. There are no small parts!

I looked at the entire roster of supporting players both for the series and the film and THAT guy would be my ideal Gloucester. He looks the part. He obviously can hold the weight of the part. To be able to do so much with so little in the film? I'm sold.

For anyone who hasn't read the play, Gloucester is a very difficult role to master. Shakespeare didn't really give that role enough meat in my opinion, yet he is the pivotal role regarding the story's subplot between Edmund and Edgar. He's also the equivalent of Lear in terms of story design; he's Lear's shadow, because in essence Gloucester does to Edgar what Lear did to Cordelia.

Gloucester requires a talented character actor with major chops, who can convey much with little, which is why of the main cast of nine I originally thought of Tudyk for the role, but Lioness was right: you gotta put Tudyk in as The Fool. Of the nine he's really the only one who could pull it off.

Though Glau would look better in the jester outfit, the more I think about it the more I like the idea of Baccarin & Glau doing the dueling evil sisters thing that Regan and Goneril are all about. Those two doing a cerebral catfight would be electric on stage. Killing one another with kindness. Pretending to work together while backstabbing one another - Baccarin & Glau would probably have a ball with the roles too, quite out of stereotype for them.

And as I moved people around in the roles, seeing Gina Torres in my mind's eye as Kent?? Well that'd be brilliant casting if I do say so myself. Though in some areas a few liberties might have to be made with the dialogue, since Kent's supposed to be a guy. One could either play it straight and dismiss the gender issue, or reimagine necessary subtext. Adam Baldwin looks to me the quintessential Kent from sheer presence, but Torres could play the soul of the character like nobody's fool. The undying loyalty. The grace under pressure. Torres is Kent.
umm, ZachsMind, you do know that Joss dubbed those lines? That that is Joss' voice? That is why we keep seeing that part in the extras.
But I agree, he does look the part.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home