| Related links |
|---|
Director Carlos Trevino and The Rubber Repertory are tackling the U.S. premiere of Wallace Shawn’s controversial play A Thought In Three Parts. The play is actually three separate plays directed by three different directors. And Trevino has bravely chosen to direct the middle one – the one that involves directing naked actors. Many know Wallace Shawn as the “Inconceivable!” guy from The Princess Bride, but he is also an accomplished playwright who once told Trevino’s co-director, Josh Meyer, “If you want to do A Thought in Three Parts, you’d be a pioneer, my good man!”
That Other Paper Did you know that when you search for your name on Google, the very first result is a Carlos Trevino who’s on death row?
Carlos Trevino Yeah, I think there’s something like six Carlos Trevinos in Austin alone. Spread that out to Texas, and it’s a lot. And just take a percentage of that, and it’s likely that one of them is in jail. And it’s likely that one of those, at least, will also be on death row.
TOP Do you know what he did?
CT No, I didn’t look too hard. I might be related to him. There’s this whole part of my family that’s a bit on the sketchy side.
TOP You’ve done a Wallace Shawn play before.
CT Yes, I co-directed The Fever with Josh Meyer, who is also co-directing this.
TOP And what challenges were different about this Wallace Shawn production than the other one?
CT Well, The Fever was sort of a disembodied production. We wanted to give people the experience of hearing a play through their car radios. The challenges in that were about the technology itself and getting it to work, which it did finally. That was different. In this one we’re dealing with bodies. There’s lots of bodies on stage.
TOP And they’re naked bodies?
CT And they’re naked bodies. And there’s also this delicate balance between psychological realism and ridiculous cartoonishness. That’s not exactly what I mean. There’s a balance between finding the real and unreal in this and making it all seem right.
TOP Matt Hislope and Josh Meyer, your co-directors, are both acting in A Thought In Three Parts, but you aren’t. Why did you make that decision?
CT Oh, it was just sort of made. I didn’t want to act. And I’m busy with other things right now, so I didn’t feel like I could attack all three plays at once. There are three plays inside this one evening of performances. So they wanted to act in the middle play, which is the one I am directing.
TOP And that was the one you wanted to direct?
CT And that was the one I wanted to direct, as it turned out. So that turned out very well. They’re fine directors themselves. As a team, they’re incomparable. So they’re doing the first play, and all three of us are going to be working on the third play.
TOP You’re directing the most controversial play of the three. Do you find you’re often drawn to the most controversial things?
CT That’s one of the things I like about it. It’s an incredible challenge to figure out where the balance lies in terms of taste. I don’t think there is taste, but then there also is. How do you present bodies onstage in a way that’s compelling and not just cheap? I mean, it’s so weird to think that you go through your brain and think, “Are these people being exploited, or are they enjoying what they are doing? Is what I’m watching pornographic, or is it artistic?”
TOP So you find yourself asking those questions, but do you ever find clear-cut answers?
CT No, the answers are in the rehearsals. We cross the line back and forth between all of those things over and over again. What we’ll end up with, I have no idea.
TOP I saw from the press release that Josh had actually spoken to Wallace Shawn. Is there any chance he’s actually going to come down to The Vortex?
CT He’d like to. He says he’ll come if he can work it into his schedule. We’ll see. It’d be really nice if he did.
TOP Have you ever met him before?
CT No, but they have. They ran into him a couple of times in New York. In fact, he remembers them. I think that’s why Josh gets to talk to him so often. They ran into him in New York and talked about how much they loved him and told him that they wanted to do this show. And that’s when [Wallace Shawn] said, “You’d be a pioneer!” Yeah, that would be great if he comes. But I don’t want to “wait for Guffman.” It’ll be a good show even if he doesn’t come.
TOP In 1977, the show had a really tough premiere in London when it was investigated by the Attorney General and nearly shut down. What do you think the reaction will be here in Austin 30 years later?
CT It’s hard to say. Austin’s really hip, but it’s Texas, so you never know. I think, given the advertising, people probably know what they’re getting into. I think people are ready for this kind of thing. Not only is it interesting to see that kind of sexuality displayed on stage, but the first play is actually rather moving, and the second play is funny and disgusting at once and also a little moving as well. It goes all over the place. It’s more than just naked people on stage – there’s a lot going on. It’s really touching and sometimes harrowing and sometimes just disgusting. You know? That’s life. Somebody said Wallace Shawn once said he couldn’t write a romantic scene without making people hate each other as well.
TOP Did you guys try to time this close to the release of Grindhouse? You know, two movies in one? Three plays in one?
CT Well, look at that. See, now you’re on to us. Yeah, we talked with Robert and with Quentin and actually we gave them the idea, and now they got all that money. We were expecting money to come through so we could do it before them, but they beat us to the chase.
TOP What’s your favorite line in the play?
CT There’s this really dweeby guy who we’re imagining has actually never had sex before, and he’s trying to convince some woman to take her shirt off. He says, “Please? Please, Judy? I won’t look hard.”
TOP What’s one of the toughest things you came across during rehearsal?
CT One of the women went through an ordeal a few weeks before we started rehearsals. In the first scene, she’s sort of compromised by somebody that she knows – not raped, but sort of just a little bit compromised. So it was interesting working with that scene. That was a big challenge, because she was not wanting to be touched at that time. But she’s come a long way in a short time. She’s a very strong person.
TOP As a director, how do you deal with something like that?
CT You have to have the utmost understanding and patience with someone – making sure they’re okay every step of the way and not just saying they’re okay about it. And because she was that way we could proceed. You also have to be forgiving that the scene is probably not going to work for a long time because it’s hard to get the kind of perspective – performing if you’re feeling it too much. That’s the weird thing about performance. Sometimes performance requires that you feel a certain amount, but if you’re completely immersed in it you lose the scope of the character. You lose what the play is doing.
TOP Where do you find the line between controversy for controversy’s sake and seeing the art in something?
CT The line is wherever you put it. But sometimes you have exploit the controversial nature of it to get people to see it, and that’s just the way it is. And it’s still up to people to take in the art in whatever way they will. Some people will only take it in as controversy. For example, the elephant dung paintings five, six years ago in New York. And now there’s chocolate Jesus. You can get embroiled in the controversy if you want. You can see it for the art, or you can see it as both at the same time, and there it is.
TOP It seems like the Rubber Repertory often pushes the boundary of what theater should be.
CT Pushing any boundary of theater is good for theater, but it’s also good for play-goers. Sometimes you can fall flat on your face if something doesn’t work, but theater gets to stay alive a little longer.
Recent comments