CURRENT
ESSAYS
A series of essays on this and that going back to observations of the general thrust of Malia Howard's biography Jonathan Frid: An Actor's Curious Journey with a counter stroke or two from Ms Howard herself ... followed by an essay describing my brief dalliance with a career in Directing, continuing on with my essays dealing with the technical high jinks surrounding the making of Caliban's Island and right up to the latest, Gazing: Frid's Miraculous Survival as Barnabas Collins and Ignoring Barnabas
The placement of the essays begins with the latest.
#12 Surprise Package
#11 Confronting Frid's Acting Capacity
#10 Ignoring Barnabas?
#9 Gazing: Frid's Miraculous Survival as Barnabas Collins
Soon to be displayed.. Essays #10: Ignoring Barnabas and #9: Gazing as one unit.
#8 De-Canadianizing My
Voice - Parts I, II, III & IV
#7 Chills and Thrills
#6 Promises, Promises
#5 Shaping Up
#4 An Apology ... Yes and No
#3 My Thwarted Career: Directing
#2 My Rank in the Pantheon of
Famous Vampires...
#1 Through Rose Coloured Glasses
Essays 4, 5, 6
and 7 now read as a continuing and developing tale of my struggle with
Caliban's Island and all that flash animation business that is necessary
to make it work.
If you wish to transfer to another essay,
you can simply click to its corresponding number on the list above.
If however you wish to leave The Essays all together simply use the
toolbox link below.
>>><<<
After an overwhelming response to our first introduction to this package
at the Newark Dark Shadows Festival in 2009...we have decided to bring
it back...this time with many rare extra treasures.
Just what is so surprising about the contents of these ongoing “Surprise Package” deals?
For some months now… “years” really, I have been prying among thousands of scattered papers, yes, even scattered bundles of them from basement corridors of buildings I have inhabited… here in Canada, The United States and even Great Britain. The result hereby leaves me in my present dwelling with the discovery of endless numbers of career and private life photos and snap shots as well as career anecdotes and reviews, sketches, paintings and on and on.
All this is not exactly new to many of you, but during the past 6 years or more, even I have been overwhelmed by the number of lost boxes of this and that often showing up in places like the crawl space behind my furnace etc. etc.. I wonder how many of those boxes were left behind my furnaces in those east side west side Manhattan dwellings of so many decades ago.
Culling out gems here and now is not going to be an easy thing to do but worth a huge try. So here we go and please keep in touch with our Storefront for this and other new developments. Jonathan
>>><<<
The two essays to be resolved...Essay #10 Ignoring Barnabas? and Essay #9 Gazing...have a ways to go yet before they're complete....Oh? (Aug.1 2006)
For sometime now...right up until yesterday in fact...I have been prone to making statements like: "I still see a future amalgam of the above two essays." That was yesterday. Today?...'Well, maybe I will, and maybe I won't". Amalgamating them could lead to an incorrect perception that I have ignored Barnabas because I hated myself in the role...a rather loosley bandied about notion that shows up in a number of feedbacks I get from the viewers of this site. The thrust of "Gazing" does take me to task, indeed, for my clumsy acting early on in Dark Shadows, but only as a precursor to a counter thrust that bespeaks getting a grip on my performance potential later...ultimately leading to a number of outstanding individual performances, of which I was frankly very proud.
#10 "Ignoring Barnabas?"? Well, to be more positive about this particular essay, at the very outset I would like to quote from a passage in the Old Testament, Chapter 3 of Ecclesiastes which starts off: "For everything there is a season..." My guess is that the essence of this biblical passage has partly to do with indulgence vs balance and specifically here in its application to the question of either indulging/ignoring Barnabas or simply rendering him a reasonable amount of attention.
Whatever, this essay will dwell, momentarily at least, on some of my recollections of those years (good and bad) in Dark Shadows to make up for any apparent neglect.
A sample or two of scenes that I have happy memories of: i) my first encounter in the past with Victoria Winters(Alexandra Molke) She knows Barnabas but Barnabas doesn't recognize her...an intriguing and charming way of launching a "storied" past.
ii) My discovery that Josette (Kathryn Leigh Scott) has turned Barnabas down for another, Jeremiah(Anthony George)...a near disasterous scene technically, by the way, rescued by an obliging technical crew in the editing room later that same day...quite a scene unto itself which I will detail eventually.
iii) Two other contentious scenes, ironically, with the same actor (A.G.) only in different time periods, he in two different roles, Jeremiah in the past and Burke Devlin in the present. The latter refers to The Blue Whale and what I call: the "steady as you go" scene *"where the two agree basically to dislike each other and liken the contention to sword play".
Of the three scenes mentioned here, only this one ("The Blue Whale" scene) reveals me as a vampire. It was one of my favourite scenes from the whole series partly because I made it through without a goof...only just. Interesting as it exemplifies the duality of nervousness eminating from both Barnabas as a liar and Frid as a memorizer...together oozing an electric steady-as-you- go aspect that was ideal for the whole scene. At first I thought that perhaps Barnabas came off a tad too obvious and then, on second thought, realizing the unbelievable pressure being put upon him by Devlin's probes. What an incredible liar did our Barnabas grow to be!
And let me not overlook what a marvelous adversary did actor Anthony George make. As an adversary, his characters were always challenging...both in the present and in the past...frighteningly so, and yet as an actor he was a very easy-going kind of guy to work with.
*(Thanks to Nancy Kersey for rattling my memory cells regarding some of the particulars of the above scenes scenes. )
>>>><<<<
Fleshing out all of the above and reworking it into a consistent whole with the rest of the two essays in question will be further explored as we move along.
>>>><<<<
Essay # 11: Confronting Frid's Acting Capacity
Our latest contributor to the site...Brant Davidson... is more than happy to permit us to post his comments with regards to our on-going dialogue dealing with themes such as good acting and effective production. He develops a critique of Dark Shadows and of my input as an actor in the role of Barnabas...in ways not always flattering, mind you, but certainly containing some well thought-out words of wisdom.
Brant’s Posting on April 18, 2005.
Mr. Frid, I do not often comment on pages such as yours,
but some of your self-deprecating views about Darks Shadows and your
performances have inspired me to offer my 2-cents worth of insight. Dark
Shadows was a mixture of good and bad elements. Its early episodes (the
ones before it became so saturated with the supernatural) were often
slow and shaky; by the very end it was downright dreadful and rightfully
deserved to be canceled. In the middle, however, it occasionally
achieved greatness. The first time-travel storyline, in which Angelique
is introduced and we discover the truth about how Barnabas became a
vampire, is — in my opinion — some of the very best storytelling I have
ever experienced. Your performance, particularly from where Barnabas
discovers the truth about Angelique right up to when he is chained into
his coffin, is a major reason that storyline works. Yes there were
technical gaffs, missed-lines, and other errors that would be
unforgivable in a big-screen movie or novel or even a stage play; but
Dark Shadows was none of those things. We, the audience, know we are
watching a daytime TV show made under arduous conditions in which
mistakes, errors, and utter goofs must sometimes be left uncorrected. We
tolerate imperfection in that medium that we would not accept in
another; we do so not because the medium is inherently of lesser
quality, but because we know that everyone involved is doing the very
best that they can. The question is not whether it could have been
better, but whether or not for a little while we sat watching with
wonder and awe in order to discover what would happen next. I do not
think you are a great actor, and frankly I have not seen enough of your
other work to judge if you are a good actor, but I do think that you
were perfectly cast for Barnabas. Ben Cross, who is a very good actor,
did a positively dreadful job trying to portray Barnabas in the Dark
Shadows remake that aired during the early 90’s. The character is
complex, and it is not easy to capture that complexity. You did. In the
process, you and the rest of the cast and crew of Dark Shadows
entertained multiple generations and created a daytime series that is
worth watching and re-watching to this very day. I doubt the same could
be said for any other daytime series ever made. Indeed, name one other
daytime series that is currently being sold on DVD. I can’t think of
any. Was Dark Shadows of the same quality as Shakespeare’s plays? Of
course not. Was it entertaining and engrossing? Decidedly yes. Was its
success due in no small part to your performances? Of course. Obviously.
For the many hours of enjoyment you have given me, thank you. I wish you
well and hope you have good health and happiness all of your days. Brant
Davidson rbdavidson@charter.net p.s. Your website is quite impressive
and very enjoyable to browse. Please pass on my compliments to your
web-site administrator/programmer.
Four Responses to Brant
#1 by Nckersey@aol.com on 2005-05-07 11:00:28
I read with great interest the recent featured feedback by Brant Davidson. It was a very well written piece. However, Mr. Davidson's praise of what you brought to the role of Barnabas does not jive with his stated belief that you are not a "great" or necessarily "good" actor. Mr. Davidson states that "the character is complex, and it is not easy to capture that complexity. You did." Well, that wasn't by chance. It takes talent and experience to imbue a character with nuances that make him complex and unpredictable. Otherwise, Barnabas would have been a short-term, cut-out villain staked by the end of the originally contracted 13 weeks. A good actor has the skill to make certain choices, go against the grain and, as in your case, wind up playing an original, three-dimensional character. The complex Barnabas Collins is remembered some forty years after his introduction to the world because a marvelous actor brought him to life. Nancy
#2 by mmulanouskus@kesq.com on 2005-05-06 05:20:13
Who's Brant and what makes HIM such an expert? I'm a television director and I've worked (and still do) in live television, albiet news, since 1979 and well aware of live television and it's being almost a live animal, ever changing and challenging. Oh sure it's EASY to pick out all the "bugs" but unless you've been there how can you appreciate what it takes to produce something as complicated as that. Sorry Mr. Frid. I enjoyed it.(Dark Shadows) Just that simple. These people remind me of the kind of people who when you buy something and you're all excited about it....they know where THEY could have got it cheaper. I feel the best when I "pull one of my shows from the fire." It may not have been the best show but the rewarding feeling I got from pulling it off far outweighs all the critics. Speaking of which I'm off to do my show now and don't have time to check my SPELLING!!!!!! sheesh
#3 by Linda G on 2005-05-06 11:20:46
I'm sorry Brant, but Ben Cross did NOT do a "dreadful job trying to portray Barnabas", he did a remarkable job. It was quite a good remake & it's a shame it got cancelled before we had a chance to see who the new Angelique would be.
#4 by DanD on 2005-05-09 22:34:55
I'm partly with Brant and partly with Nancy. I was working in the TV industry in the early '60 (as a child actor), and I got to see the "quality" aspect of the business first-hand. I loved DS from the first episode I ever watched, and Branabas was always my favorite character, with several of the others in a close race for "second." An afternoon "soap" is not the best possible place to show off acting talent, but I always thought that you did a great job in a very challenging role. The character of "Barnabas Collins" was defined as "over the top," but you redefined him as somebody who was a victim, IMHO. I loved that as a less-than-popular high school student. FWIW, my mom was working on Lost in Space when DS was being broadcast. I'd call you the "equal" of Jon Harris, who I knew very well at the time. Dan
Response to Brant's and other viewers' input on "Frid's acting career" by yours truly
Since posting Brant’s feedback on the Visitors’ Corner of my website on May 4, 2005, some 20 or so replies have been generated…leaving me overwhelmed and a bit uneasy. Much if not all that has been written is good. By that, I mean it is clearly stated. However, much of it has been tainted by sour grapes. “Who's Brant and what makes HIM such an expert?” Certainly, I take full responsibility for this kind of reaction. After all, I did give him “special notice” simply because what he had to say, from my perspective, was clear and yes…even fair. It had a kind of summing up of what had already been posted. Strangely, and almost knowingly, it gently touches on my own questionable views about my status as an actor.
I have always thought of myself, frankly, as a sort of dilettante actor. That is to say, an actor that considers himself reasonably successful but hardly ever sparked by the urge to make big bucks or even a modest living from his profession. Consequently some of my early or even opening night performances have been appallingly bad and yet by the end of their runs have been as good as any other actor in the business. I repeat, “as good as any other actor in the business”.
Three classic examples of the above were showcased in the following ventures: Jonathan Brewster in Arsenic and Old Lace, Father Tim Farley in Mass Appeal, and in a number of performances as Barnabas Collins in Dark Shadows. (I say “in a number of” since every performance was an “opening night”, with a new script)
Anyone who has eagerly or willingly followed a storyline in a drama with me involved in it surely must have had plenty of opportunities to wonder just what sort of talent, if any, existed there.
Maybe I am just a one man show at heart mistakenly caught up in the cycle of group offerings. In the case of one of the above plays referred to, the director was eventually heard to say of one of my later performances: “He certainly has made it his own, hasn’t he?”
Most actors, by the way, react with a bored expression at such praises as “oh, you were wonderful! How on earth do you remember all those lines?” But my own personal reaction is usually with the same look and wonder of the questioner: “I just don’t know. Its amazing isn’t it?” Hence, my actual one man shows were always “readings” (i.e. with script-in-hand)
I’m afraid I’ve given an erroneous impression that can easily be interpreted as one who performs in a sort of personal vacuum. This is not exactly what was intended. At worst, it was only a tendency. Because of that, I have always made a special effort to consciously focus my energy on listening.
One particularly appalling example from Dark Shadows, mentioned earlier, was able to be rescued through a miracle in the editing room. As I recall the scene, Barnabas had been confronted by a dreadful fait accompli: His beloved Josette was now betrothed to Jeremiah…the cause of all this unbeknownst to everyone but the witch Angelique. The scene had been brilliantly conceived to reveal the pain suffered by Barnabas. It permeated the room touching all of those present. Suddenly there was silence…”oh, yes”!…then there was more silence…”oh, ”…and more…”oh dear”!…and even more…oh my God, Frid’s up again!…the continuing silence was palpable to say the least. Finally one of the actors present…I think it was Louis Edmonds…said something…and the scene stumbled the rest of the journey to its conclusion.
After the days taping was over, the associate producer came down from the control room and approached me across the studio.
“Curtains”, I thought. “It’s really the end for me this time.”
“Jonathan, we have a very distinguished guest at the studio today. We want you to meet him.”
A stunned pause…
“But what about my blunder in that big scene?” I asked.
”Oh, it wasn’t all that bad.” he replied with a look of “so what else
is new?”
“Oh yes it was”, said I. Then gathering my courage, I went on to say, “I tell you what. I will meet your visitor on one condition…that you allow me to work with the show’s editor this evening to help repair the scene”. (This editing session is a routined daily exercise to put those half hour shows together and along with the addition of the necessary commercials, etc.)
It was a deal.
As things took shape that evening the technical crew taught me the essential makeup of the tape itself and the separating of the video track from the audio track…or something like that, thereby making it possible to adjust the two by lengthening or shortening one against the other and removing what is not necessary or, indeed, wanted for the finished product.
It was a fascinating experience, to say the least. How I got away with this I don’t know. Editing “acting blunders” were hardly ever, if at all, carried out. It probably cost ABC or Dan Curtis a couple o’grand. But the result was well worth the price…probably cheaper than having to hire a new Barnabas at that stage of the game.
Anyway, the final condition of the tape…minus the endless pause…revealed an otherwise perfect result: a scene charged with deep emotion indeed for a heartbroken Barnabas rather than a heartbroken Frid. (only a brief stunned pause this time).
For those of you who have access to this particular episode, I wonder if the uncalled for lengthy pause can be detected.
Ignoring Barnabas?
This essay was suggested…yes, even inspired…by a feedback on Visitors’ Corner by someone called Deborah. I quote:
"As to what appears to be your love/hate relationship with Barnabas: You can run-but you can't hide. Barnabas was a part of our lives for a long time and you can't change that by ignoring him."
As for: “You can run but you can't hide.” I dunno. I was never very good at running but I’ve done pretty well at hiding. But ignoring? Well that’s what this essay is all about.
Yes, I have ignored Barnabas, quite deliberately at times, especially when it came to discoursing on career matters that mattered beyond the reach of Dark Shadows. Sometimes I have to be very blunt about all this to the point of reeking of sour grapes. And I hate it. But 'tis due to those few among D.S. fans who think that my career life began and continues to be in their debt. Thank heavens they are few, but they are noisy.
However, to make up for any apparent neglect on my part, I am now going to have something to say about the ups and downs of those four years with Barnabas and Dark Shadows and my own personal attachment to those never-to-be-forgotten time warps.
(To be continued)
GAZING
Frid's Miraculous Survival
As
Barnabas Collins
"Oh no!", I shuddered. "Oh yes, indeed... to the rescue!!!"
I couldn’t believe these letters. I mean… praise!!!
Part 4
The challenge somehow came accompanied by a series of what I call miracles:
Even more to be told on this theme ( along with a more consistent font style, I might add ) as we develop our story.
With Jon’s latest feedback below, I have taken the unusual liberty of commenting on his material, sentence by sentence and/or paragraph by paragraph. Frid's comments are in "quotations and italicized". Hope it works for everyone.
Mr. Frid, You have elevated me sir. I noticed that you had used a portion of my comments to you on this site (posted on 2004-04-14) on your “essays” page, regarding a specific scene in DS where I used the term “gazing” (the scene where you were looking at your own portrait before Ms. Stoddard came down the stairs). Of course I couldn’t know what was going through your mind at the time and you responded with what I would term as, “secrets of an actor”, which your audience was not aware of, at least not for this author. Allow me to respond to what you termed as, “clumsy acting” during that specific time I was speaking of as your response may have been propositioned by my term, “gazing”. As you have continuously stated, you appreciate being corrected, therefore I respectfully invoke that invitation now. I used that word (gazing) in the most positive fashion in that it appeared to me that you were not merely “looking” at the portrait, but from the position of the viewer, you were reminiscing on a life that your character had gone through over a vast period of time. “Of course” We were not viewing you as the actor that you are, but moreover the character that you were portraying. “Of course” It appeared to me that you were thinking about the time that the portrait might have been painted and how long ago it must have been. “Of course” I surely was not thinking about the probable fact that you were considering you next line; “Of course not” I was too engrossed in the scene to pay particulars to anything else. “Of course” “Clumsy acting”? I must strongly disagree. I assure you, even if “mistakes” were made (by anyone), lines of script were not followed exactly, microphones or stage hands in the distance was not a problem for the viewer. “Oh?” In fact, those times were most entertaining “what?” and for the most part, I would think only the actors and production teams were aware of them at the time. If you look at those times as I do, it is nearly as entertaining as the story lines themselves. “Oh, come on now! After all, entertainment is your field “I beg your pardon, but "my field” does not consist of fluffing lines…nor ever did” and if we, as an audience are given an occasional humanistic view where we can see the actor as a person, “at his worst?” it is just as appreciated as the story itself. For myself, I’d rather know that an actor lives and breathes “but who is suppose to be living and breathing here, Frid or Barnabas?” as I do and is not untouchable, or one who lives forever in a mansion of gold and glitter and is different than I am. I view a "mistake" (or clumsy acting as you put it) on live television as more entertaining than some of the spectacular special effects that can be had today in multi-million dollar films. And by chance, we can even see mistakes and unreal situations in those which are not as entertaining, but are seen as true blunders. Surely, a missing line on live TV or a restatement is certainly something we can all live with. “I think perhaps you are confusing ‘blunders’ with ‘ad-libbing’. The latter is controlled and indeed can be refreshing and exciting within reasonable bounds of the original text. Blundering is out of control and can easily stumble beyond the bounds of reason. Actually, there were innumerable times when my blunderings rose to the occasion and came off as rather clever ad-libs… much to my delight… but it did not follow that the technical crews, or my employers for that matter, were equally amused. The very exact nature of television production which contains precisely scripted dialogue does not allow even ad-libbing...let alone blundering. The camera ‘cues’ for one simply won’t tolerate it.” As for the scene I mentioned, I thought it was perfection and as I stated before, I was on the edge of my seat and it took my breath away! In all the scenes in all the productions I have ever seen, that one has to be on the top of my list of suspense and excitement. If you think there was any “clumsy acting” involved in that, I’d have to say with the utmost respect; you are in error. “?”. "Still, Barnabas, for all of his 'oddities', would never 'fluff' what he had to say. Hesitate, yes. After all, he had to use caution with every word he uttered. Remember, as a vampire his life was one long lie." Thank you for using portions of my comments to you and also those of the respondent "Bobbi". I wish I knew how to contact him or her, but you were kind enough to publish my e-mail address in my last post. “Hopefully, she will read this far” Perhaps I might hear it from other fans of yours so we might speak together more of your work in TV, films and the stage. Warmest Regards, Jon Lioncourt ( Jon67cj5@yahoo.com )
Here are three follow-ups to the above Commentary by Jon Lioncourt along with a final statement on the issue by Jonathan Frid
Posted by Jon Lioncourt on 2004-12-23 19:42:30
Mr. Frid. I am somewhat at a loss of words to extend my appreciation for you adding portions of my narritives to you, and more recently your time to respond to them on your "essays" page. Even now, on an internet search with my own name, I can find the posts that you responded to. I had said that you elevated me sir, but the time and trouble you have taken to respond to each sentence of my last post (which does not appear on this site), is nearly overwhelming. I would like to say I appreciate your attention, but that really doesn't fully convey my feelings entirely. Perhaps there is a word unknown to me that might express my true "thank you" for what you have done. I received three e-mails from other fans of yours and in particular, Bobbi, whom I was very excited to hear from. In those e-mails, I was told that I might not understand completely your position as an actor. However since I am not, I was speaking as a fan or an audience member. As a musician, I have given concerts where I knew I had made mistakes, but from the reviews of my performances, I heard nothing regarding them. You see, whatever moments you have had in your career that you see as less that perfect, we the audience miss such imperfections. My opinion is that you are too critical of your own work and in doing so, do not give yourself the credit you deserve. Therefore, I stand with the entire populace of your audience to state that every performance you have ever delivered is not only acceptable, but was enjoyed and deemed perfect. How can we, as your fans state any more clearly that we adore you and whether it is Baranbas or any other character, it is your persona and deliverance of those characters that we are enamored with? Mr. Frid; Jonathan if I may be so bold, you are a part of us. Please welcome our adoration and accept it, welcome it and appreciate it. I am a friend of yours, althouh you have never met me. Kind Regards, Jon Lioncourt ( jon67cj5@yahoo.com )
Posted by Russ Williams on 2004-12-26 09:26:17
In response to "gazing" you recently spoke of in the Visitor's Corner, I must say that to this viewer, though I appreciate the fact that you confess the nevousness and uncertainty that Frid the actor felt at that moment, it did not come through to the viewer. Not to say we never caught your nervous moments. I remember several. That particular scene came off splendidly. I won't repeat Mr. Lioncourt's comments as he already put it so well how the character seemed to be reminiscing. It looked as if it were meant to be presented exactly as it was.It truly added to the magic of the appearance of this new character. We took our clues about what sort of man this was in those first scenes. A contemplative, and reflective sort of person rather than a brash or even evil man. It is most likely why the masses took a liking to the character right away. If Barnabas had been presented as the blood sucking fiend right away, most viewers would have looked forward to the day the stake penetrated his heart, rather than clamouring for his permanence on the show. Russ Williams
Posted by Bobbi on 2004-12-26 11:28:26
With
reference to your comments to Mr. Lioncourt, which I found with one
exception to be dead on and well put, and I do hesitate to dispute the
point with the man who knows, better than any, all that was involved in
bringing to "life" the undead: Barnabas as an individual "living" a lie
would hesitate in his speech, certainly, being careful in the company of
those he had to deceive constantly; but it is also likely that he would
'fluff' lines, especially when under particular stress. Granted the
emotional turmoil of Sarah's appearance to David, the threat posed by
Woodard, the fear of betrayal by Hoffman, with his mind churning over
possibilities and options faster than his speech could reflect, there is
no reason to expect that Barnabas would not stumble over his words,
trying too hard, as it were, to maintain that facade of the British
cousin above suspicion and above reproach. At least, to this viewer, it
appeared perfectly natural, and very immediate and real. There is no
dispute that it is difficult to watch an actor go up on his lines when
he can not get back on track or maintain the sense of what is happening
in the drama. It is something that I have seen with very fine older
actors whose strength has diminshed and very fine actors who have not
yet settled in to a new part. If you will, everyone has a bad day; it is
just much more difficult to forget or brush it off when your bad day is
in front of an audience and is further captured on tape for repeated
showings. Thank you for sharing with us your reflections on that time,
and your reflections on others' reactions.
Frid's Summing-Up
This is my thank you note to all of you... for expressing your views on
how my performance level in the early days of Dark Shadows successfully
played itself out to the satisfaction of viewers like yourselves.
Your participation in this ongoing argument has been much appreciated.
I have only this to add.
The actor must do what he knows is right for himself in order to be fully in command of what his character should be. "Of Course"?
>>><<<
Essay # 8:
"...De-Canadianize My Voice...And Other Matters"
This essay was prompted by a "feedback" from "dessiesgirl", who writes, "...in Britian you studied voice in order to de-Canadianize your voice but that was, admittedly, several years ago. Have you continued to train your voice?"
My reply: "From time to time, yes, when I feel something is going wrong with my vocal chords (bronchitis or aging trachea) or simply at a time when I’m preparing a reading."
This exchange led to my compiling Essay #8
Part I
The Ravages of Aging
The big “follow-through” questions of de-Canadianizing my voice have always been: “How” and “Why?” But more on that later.
No, my main pursuit nowadays in training my voice has been in sustaining it and preserving it from the ravages of age as it begins to take on a croaking or scratchy sound. It doesn’t sound too good when you are trying to suggest a gentler mode of speech when reading aloud the lines, say, of the very young Lady Anne in Richard III. By the way, what parent or even grandparent hasn’t faced the same sort of vocal challenge contrasting the characters’ voices while reading, say, “Little Red Riding Hood” to a child? Mom has trouble enough with the big bad wolf while dad (if he’s reading the story) feels just a tad foolish reading the “lines” of ‘sweet’ Little Red Riding Hood. The child doesn’t care. “Read it again, dad!” Thusly, it is always a barrel of fun challenging moms and pops and thespians to make fools of themselves trying to be someone they’re not. A great way to stimulate the imagination!…A great way to make a living!
Bedtime reading aside, preserving the voice through the “seven ages of man” has to be an ongoing concern for any actor.
At the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art in London back in the late 1940s we undertook, for a time, exercises similar to what opera and concert singers undergo… mostly to do with breath placement and control. All the details of course I have forgotten principally because we were not being trained to sing per se. The exercises had nothing to do with training us for musicals or opera (useful, for sure, if we secretly coveted such additional expertise).
And so, while an actor can forget the details of music technique and it’s lexicon, one somehow remembers the essence. That’s to say the breathing apparatus and how it can work for you. All of this gets minuscule attention nowadays in acting schools, from what I “hear”, but there are times when it can be a life saver. I remember an occasion many years ago in a tent theatre just outside of Boston. We were doing Shakespeare’s Henry IV Parts 1 and 2. It was the fourth of July…and was it ever! A huge thunderstorm descended upon us. Lightning would blow lights on the stanchions that were holding up the tent as well as its so-called acoustical roof, which for this performance served no other purpose than that of a drum for the beating rain. It was bedlam. And I came out a winner! Somehow I got my vocal apparatus going as I “miraculously” recalled those exercises of yore at R.A.D.A., one especially for the nasal passages, which gets the whole head ringing as a resonator…which, in turn, keeps the larynx and the trachea reasonably relaxed, thus sparing those delicate organs from excessive strain. All this produced a sort of twanging sound, to be sure, but I knew…I felt…that my words were reaching the top of that enormous and quivering balcony…where there were, it turned out, a remarkable contingent of dear old fans of the Bard giving us their support through all that “hell and high water”…to the very end.
However, that was merely one "life-saving" incident. The real point of that experience was how it awakened in me the endless possibilities of what one's vocal apparatus can be coaxed into doing. I found that the range between producing a mellifluous sound at one end of the scale and a nasal sound at the other was enormous. The first was all breathy and honeyed (mel) but not too clear and rather monotenous, while the second, though at times extremely useful in an emergency as in the case above, can easily become a killer if used to excess. It is precisely why my average tv viewing time has been reduced to about fifteen minutes a day because of all the nasal twanging that I'm subjected to via the commercials and the would be trained voices of the men and women that have a high or thin pitched register. If I go to another room, away from a television set that is on, or distance myself enough so that I can't hear the sense of what they're saying, the voices all sound like a barnyard of quacking Donald Ducks ...or likethe unmistakeable and intensely ugly sound of a cat in heat in the middle of the night: MEOW, MEAOW or MIAOW slightly adjusted to make it a buzzword for the whole culture of the "fast buck": NEOW, NEAOW, NIAOW.
Buy it NIAOW!!!...Order it NIAOW!!!
~~~
Part II
"The Mouse Ran About The House" / Shakespearian Speech Safe In The Sounds off Chesapeake Bay
As students at R.A.D.A. in London, we “Canucks” were drilled with exercises like “The mouse ran about the house.” to rid us of the habit of sounding like we were saying “The moose ran aboot the hoose”. Students from the deep south of the U.S. were drilled with the same exercise…only for the opposite reason. They had to stop saying “the mayowse ran abayowt the hayowse” or something like that. We used to have lots of fun sending each other up by the way we individually “trashed” the English language. We were a fairly good cross-section of students from just about every major English speaking area in the world including the Commonwealth and the U.S.A. Students from India would speak a very elegant and precise English but with an odd muffled sound. They were probably the best-educated students of all of us…including the English students themselves. That’s my guess. Their goal was perhaps more to learn what they could take back to India in the way of acting techniques. They were quite happy and steadfast with their own speech patterns. We North Americans, Aussies and Cockneys etc. were slightly ill at ease with our attempts at imitating what we imagined, or were led to believe, was a “standard” English…especially when it came to the sound of “Shakespeare”. And herein lies a great irony which will eventually lead us to a fundamental question: Is there such a thing as a Standard English?
The sound of English as it was spoken in Shakespeare’s time is most markedly reflected by a dialect spoken to this day in, of all places, a small group of tiny isolated islands off the coast of Virginia where the inhabitants have been left pretty much to their own devices on how to survive throughout the intervening centuries. Of course, the English inhabitants who moved on to explore and settle the mainland of this “new” continent continued to maintain contact with the “old” world to some extent. Through contacts with other “civilizing” European powers, they began to develop their own cultural patterns separate from that of Britain...hence, of course, through evolution and revolution these settlers brought about a super-abundance of new vocal patterns or accents...a bonanza of new "American" accents... along with their new politics and the birth of their new nation.
In the meantime, Britain herself had been obliged to cultivate a new cultural strain... beginning about a century after Shakespeare’s death. It came with the arrival of the Hanoverian Kings from Germany in 1714 (See Part III below) Thus, the sound of modern cultivated “upper-crust” English evolved in the Hanoverian Court of England beginning with George I who spoke no English at all and continuing with his son, George II who merely made some token efforts to speak English. And so, by the time our “illustrious” King George III came along, a heavy German “accent” had been imbedded in the speech of England’s late eighteenth century court circles. Then there was George 1V, followed by his younger brother William 1V, then Queen Victoria and so on down to her son, Edward V11 and grandson George V…all Germans* to the core who consistently married back into the families from whence they came, thus preserving strong ties with their cultural roots. Albeit, their first language became English but, in a sense, no longer spoken with a German accent. That “accent” had simply become the way cultivated English was spoken, exemplified by modern or contemporary English actors such as George Sanders, C. Aubrey Smith, Nigel Bruce as well as various sorts of "veddy, veddy British Col. Blimp" characters that have peppered the pop culture of Britain for the last century...and even the great Laurence Olivier himself when he was deliberately playing a sort of stuffy aristocratic Englishman. In fact, Olivier himself, when he was speaking in his normal manner, probably exemplified the ideal of a universal English acceptable anywhere in the English speaking world (John Gielgud could never escape his Englishness). But Olivier is not the only example I can think of. There are any number of individual Canadians, Americans, Australians etc. who speak the English language in a pleasant, intelligent and unassuming manner. After all, it's not just British and "foreign" villains and other questionable characters in movies that speak impeccable English.
Nevertheless, that plethora of flat ‘a’s and hard ‘r’s of Shakespeare's time was never again to be heard in London’s theatres unless the character on stage was to be a dyed-in-the-wool Canuck or Yank or else hailed from some outer reach of the British Isles.
Those gut level sounds so familiar to Shakespeare and his contemporaries, are not only familiar today to those few folks out there in Chesapeake Bay, but also to those (though not as pronounced) on the continental mainland including the U.S. and Canada. A good example of this phenomenon will take us to a city in the mid-west, namely, Independence, Missouri and to its most famous son. Who among you remember the flat “plain speaking” resonance of Harry Truman? He was arguably one of the most Shakespearean sounding orators from our era.
Yes, those forgotten Englishmen who had sailed west to those off shore islands in the south Chesapeake Bay in the 16th century, have continued to maintain the sound of a by-now obsolete English… fed by that most typical of Elizabethan words: “I reckon this and reckon that” and peppered by all sorts of flat ‘a’s and hard ‘r’s.
Maybe the new actors of the 2nd millennium, if they want to be really at home with Shakespeare, should be reaching out for a speech pattern that reflects Shakespeare's English by spending time on those off-shore islands in the south Chesapeake Bay, rather than in the royal environs of London’s Piccadilly Circus and Shaftsbury Avenue.
*
Princess Alexandra of Denmark, wife to King Edward VII, was the only exception to the German connection.
~~~
Part III
The German connection.
The story of England's Royal Family with hardly an Englishman to be found.
This new Part III is a follow-through to the second paragraph of the preceding Part II where we detailed how the sound of cultivated English was influenced by the heavily accented German speech patterns of the Hanoverian monarchs. Part III details who these Hanoverians were and how they came to reign in England from 1714 to the present day.
The accompanying black and white reproduction of a painting entitled “Princess Elizabeth Leaving England in 1613”, illustrates the beginning of a series of events that led to one of the great watersheds in England’s history. Elizabeth was the youngest daughter of King James I of England and granddaughter of Mary, Queen of Scots. In 1613 she was married to the German Prince Frederick, Elector Palatine of Hanover, with great celebrations marked here by this painting of a touching farewell event at sea (she was never to see England again).
Just over a century later, a time embracing two and three generations, Elizabeth’s grandson Prince George, Elector Palatine of Hanover found himself the only possible direct successor to the throne of England. This perticular line of succesion was designed to guarantee a protestant base for the future. In the meantime the demise of six English monarchs had passed without one of them producing an heir which included Queen Mary II and her sister Queen Anne both of whom after a series of many false pregnancies and miscarriages brought the Stuart dynasty to it’s tragic end… with the one frail, but vital link from the distant past to an uncertain future in the person of the young princess Elizabeth now all but forgotten in her native Britain.
~~~
Part IV
De-Canadianizing, De-Americanizing and
De- Hanoverianizing All Our Accents???
If I’m going to go anywhere at all as a follow-up to the first three “sprawling” parts of Essay #8 (I, II and III), I should pull everything together now and give it an all embracing title like: “De-Canadianizing, De-Americanizing and De- Hanoverianizing All Of Our Accents”, and find some sort of neutral English suitable for the world… short of going all out for something like Esperanto. (“Esperanto”? Check any encyclopedia or the Internet.)
But why a “neutral” English at all? Surely, the English speaking peoples of the world today are busy enough with their workload embracing the world of science and technology as well as with their free time inventing new words for things, new acronyms and new kinds of phraseology. This is the curse, I suppose, as well as the grace that goes with being a responsible “world language”...open to change and always ready to absorb new trends.
Surely, one curse resulting from this openess was bound to produce a spelling crisis unequaled in the world of modern languages. You can hardly blame our educational systems for their failure to educate students (even a few honour students) in the nuances of English spelling. George Bernard Shaw more than once has parodied this idiotic state of affairs. Here’s a riddle of his, which has always amused me. Take the following five letters GHOTI. For Shaw, that spells “FISH”…no less sensible than most other English spellings. Have you figured it out yet? “FISH” is a one-syllable word with three sounds. Here are three sentences or phrases that will illustrate all three sounds and will put you on the right track. i. Those tough guys are really rough. ii. Not just one woman but three women… iii. The United Nations. Each of these phrases contains one of the three sounds in the word fish. (Contact us for help through the Visitors’ Corner if you’re having trouble figuring it out).
It’s interesting to note how the evolution of the English way of life politically, artistically and socially shows a certain on-again- off-again pattern of informality…almost a devil-may-care attitude…with not a lot of concern for the exact order of things, although there will always be those Engishmen who want to put a stop to this sort of behaviour and stick with the “rules of the game”. This open tendency is apparent in the evolution of the English language itself…a sort of loose amalgam of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, French, German, Spanish, Latin, Greek (what else?).
In contrast, take, for example, the French language with its Academie Française in Paris and the Spanish language with its La Real Academia in Madrid, in these two cases, precise rules restrain both languages from getting out of hand. It is an on going exercise periodically checked. Whereas in London, the English language has been allowed to take whatever direction it wants.
At R.A.D.A. in London, while there is a respect for those disciplines that are part and parcel of any school of learning, there is, at the same time, a sort of frank admission by English language instructors that England is without any such specific academy other than R.A.D.A. itself for keeping a watchful eye on new trends. At least that was the way things were when I was there.
If there is any “Standard English” at all, it is generally understood that the language spoken by well-educated people living in southern England in and around London is the nearest thing to an accepted standard. Not a very steady or consistent environment for an aspiring young actor in which to find his way. For some actors, no doubt, it is an opportunity of getting away with murder. The language is up for grabs. Be yourself…even if you’ve not made it beyond an elementary education. What’s more, there are probably lots of actors who haven’t the slightest idea of what I’m talking about. So who has the last laugh? Certainly not me. For I don’t exactly practice what I preach anyway… well, not nearly enough… Yes, “dessiesgirl”, I practice “simply at those times when I’m preparing a reading.”
I sometimes wonder what motivates me to go to the trouble of creating a website like this. For me, the computer is still a strange animal, but with the help I get from others it makes for a wonderful conduit through which to practice my trade (keeping my voice up to scratch), to reflect on my career… and even to improve my English.
jf
- Chills and Thrills - Part 1
A
metamorphosis ( I love words like that! They challenge me! There’s that
aura of mystique about them! ) anyhow, a metamorphosis of the title
“Chills and Thrills” has been going on for a long time since I first
thought it up. Considering my ghoulish reputation, methinketh
that the title could be a misleading guideline for what is to come…a
little too halloweenish, especially for this time of year ( Oct./Nov ).
Don’t you think? Well, I have been tinkering about for a substitute in
order to keep the reader on track…that’s to say, away from the spook
stuff… Much more to the point anyway would be “My Grandma’s Tin Lizzie”.
“The connection?” you wonder. Well, the former title came as a
result of my fascination, bewilderment and frustration... then back to
fascination again (I hate to admit it) with the “computer machine”. The
latter title, a result of recollections of childhood and my rather scary
bewilderment with Henry Ford’s creation of the first mass produced
automobile “The Model T” (1908 or so) and dubbed later as the “Tin
Lizzie”. It was considered a miracle in its time and not at all
clumsy…well, at least when judged against the bother of rigging horses
and buggies. But what of its starting and operational devices, such as a
crank, a throttle, a choke a foot clutch and, oh yes, a very long and
wobbly and multidirectional gear stick which provoked a lot of
irritating gear “stripping” by the novice or the inept?
I can and will throw a few similar well chosen words your way
shortly describing what for me are the tedious down-loading
terms for so many of those annoying operational devices that keep our
modern phenomenon, the computer afloat… However, before that, I wish to
delight you by hammering you with more of my earliest memories of riding
in family cars. The further back I go, the more horribly clear my
comparison will become.
First, there would be the cranking of my Grandma’s by now
old Tin Lizzie (roughly around 1929) finally turning over after endless
attempts to get it started. Then Tony, her driver plus general handy man
around the Waterdown place ("me fix") would grapple with the formidable
task of getting this “horseless carriage” thing straight up through "Clappison's
Cut" in the Niagara Escarpment. Grandma was too terrified to drive the
thing herself…she’d barely gotten used to the “telephone” thing…which
also, by the way, was started with a crank.
Tony at that time, a recent Italian immigrant to the new world,
had a command of the English language based on about five or six well
scrambled words compounded by a lot of hollering. The Tin Lizzie had an
earsplitting language of its own (a muffler?...What's that?). All this
was put to fitful use and brought to a crescendo by my Grandma’s
shouting instructions straight through my two ears to Tony who, of
course, hardly needed “instructions” from a panic-stricken old lady.
Tony, I might add, had a club foot which did a dangerous jig
skipping back and forth from the clutch to the accelerator to the brake
and back to the clutch… stripping the gears most of the way. I was a
very terrified young lad… squished between the two of them and wondering
if we’d ever make it to the top of the cut.
These chilly childhood memories have all been brought back to
me during recent months of coping with this “Tin Lizzie” of the new
millennium. These memories all serve as an appropriate beginning to
an essay in which I will try to convey to you some of the hellish
“chills’n thrills” that I’ve gone through trying to put together an
entertainment called Caliban’s Island on the great computer machine.
Mind you, much of my frustration now is water over the dam. I’ve learned
to keep my cool… well sort of. Many of my lingering doubts about whether
it has all been worth while have been allayed by your reassuring
feedbacks; and I thank you very much for them.
Adam’s (my webmaster) recent discovery of the problem with
synchronization of Part 3 in Caliban’s Island has been yet another shot
in the arm, indeed, a gift from heaven to keep me going. “Chills’n
thrills” indeed.
(To be continued…like all the other essays…" in due time"…ho ho
ho... well you never know. )
JF
something like this
Promises, promises.
There will be a cessation of activity by the staff of the Jonathan Frid Official Web Site (artists, technicians, editors, etc.) for the next ten days(May/June) while they all undergo end of year high-school exams. And so that's that. However, we will do the best we can to get the last scene and The Epilogue up before the end of the month.
Promises, promises! The top of the web site announcement dated June 14, 2002 states the following (rather brazenly):
Part III Scene iii - Caliban/Stephano/Trinculo (still to come)
That's to say, the very heart of Caliban's Island is "still to come."
But Essay #4 (March 26, 2002) states "It (Caliban's Island) should be up in a couple of weeks... (approx. April 10). Well what can I say... read on.
The crux of the matter goes way back to those days of innocence in early January when, with my script and music stand and my living room for a rehearsal hall, I began to work as promised ("until I get it right") on "the three drunks" scene from Shakespeare's The Tempest.
Somewhere along the way a light went on. Oh, I thought, why not put a sample of these drunken high jinks on the computer and see what happens? Just a test mind you... using some of the sketches from the Globe Illustrated Shakespeare plus my voiced readings plus the text itself scrolled on the screen.
Then along came a school friend or two of my Webmaster at the time: one of them with sound equipment in his folk's basement that would rival any N.Y. studio, and then another, a talented illustrator/cartoonist, Trev Jimenez who says he got his start at age 2 (that's to say 17 years ago) and I believe him.
Since there were simply not enough samplings of Trinculo among the "Globe Illustrated" sketches, we hired Trev to do all of the sketches for Part III. The "Globe Illustrated" went by the boards, at least in this section. Before we knew it, my computer room evolved into a work place that now has all of the trappings of a Walt Disney Studio.
Interestingly enough, though totally beside the point, I've been told that Walt Disney, the original, either was born in or spent part of his youth in Blue Vale, Ontario, a cross roads suburb of the larger metropolis of Wingham, Ont. (pop. 20,000). If this legend has any base in fact then we must assume that young Walter collected field mice from his dad's farm when he was a boy. Thus John Steinbeck was moved to write "Of Mice and Men" and lo and behold Mickey & Minnie Mouse were born... Oh well, on the internet you can get away with just about anything, can't you?
To be a tad more serious, this formidable undertaking has become an all consuming pastime for me... every sketch every tilt of Trinculo's head can sometimes consume hours of technical wizardry on the computer. Thank heavens Trev could come up with the sketches themselves in a matter of minutes.
For me, frustration has come in heavy doses these past few months. I don't understand anything of the computer's limitations... only its possibilities... and what I want from it. Sometimes I'm a menace to work for. I have an inkling that exams are really a pleasant escape from this work site for the boys.
In the meantime, all of my January rehearsals have gone out the window. As an actor, gone are my prescribed exercises for physically delineating the antics generated by the three characters: Caliban, Stephano and Trinculo. In their place are my earnest descriptions of them to our resident artist, Trev. As an actor I have reduced myself to being a mere couch potato amazed at the talents of others, even though my vocal readings still stand as testament to my talents. If I were called upon at this moment by some sponsor somewhere to present Caliban's Island to a live audience tomorrow, I would be hopelessly unprepared. My one consolation however: were I given even a few days to work up a performance, I would certainly be enriched by my experience of having witnessed these three hilarious creatures through the eyes of our cartoonist with a true insight into how beautifully absurd these bungling gents can be.
I've only to gaze upon Trinculo's first appearance on the beach and Caliban's face peeking out from under his gabardine as Trinculo stumbles on him to make these whole six months worth it indeed.
JF
Essay #5
Shaping Up
Expanded March 26, 2002.
San Diego, Cal., 1966
Even though I have no dates or plan of any kind to mount a Readers Theatre program for the immediate future or even this year, I find myself, nevertheless, returning to my music stand in my living room...script in hand containing one item only at a time. The present one is most important to me since I have avowed so many times to pursue it "until I get it right." Yes, it is the scene from Wm. Shakespeare's The Tempest... where the native Caliban takes up with two shipwrecked seamen, Trinculo and Stephano, as they reach the storm-swept beaches of his island and, at Caliban’s bidding, they all plot to overthrow his lord and master, Prospero... the three of them buoyed up, of course, by the jug of wine that Stephano has salvaged (one of many!) from the shipwreck.
My "director", in an unusual sense, you might say, is Malia Howard. You see, I have found myself slipping backwards of late in my presentation of this piece...disregarding, a little carelessly, the precision that is called for in the delineation of the antics of these three drunkards. And so I have taken hold of Malia Howard's critique of it written, oh, some four years ago in a performance at Hofstra University LI which occurred at a time early on when the piece had, if not quite the precision or honing I would have liked, at least it had a freshness of attack... However, Malia with her keen eye saw this precision aborning, but barely visible to my mind's eye at the time... an oft over looked feature of an actor's skill... that I wish to work on during the coming months without deadlines of any kind.
Of course, to fully understand what I am driving at, you, the "reader," will just have to pull out your copy of "An Actors Curious Journey" and read Chapter 14 Two Boards and a Passion.
If you don't already have a copy of Malia's book, you can order it at Malia Howard's Page - "An Actor's Curious Journey".
~
I recently got back from a two week vacation in South Carolina. I always take a project with me on these trips. It spares my hosts from constant caring. This time it was the shaping up of my "Caliban's Island" piece, from "Shakesperean Odyssey".
I am now in high gear preparing it for presentation on the website. I am borrowing format ideas from "Audio Gallery" on the Menu/Index (Poe's "The Cask" and Shakespeare's "Richard II")... which means calling in my Flash Animation experts to mount it by combining the spoken word (new recording) with illustrations... some fabulous sketches from "The Globe Illustrated Shakespeare".
It should be up in a couple of weeks (approximately April 10th).
JF
Essay #4
An Apology...yes and no.
An apology, certainly, for keeping loyal viewers of the web site in the dark for so long about the promised essays, chiefly dealing with Malia Howard's "An Actor's Curious Journey."
Not a day has passed since November 5th, 2001 (the date of my first promised delivery) that I haven't winced just thinking about it.
However, a realization, slow in growth, has dawned on me. Every time I have sat down at the computer to compose an essay or message of sorts over the past two or three months, I have found something out of whack in one or another segment of the Menu/Index: everything from misspellings to clumsy, badly expressed or irrelevant passages, to poor graphics... and on and on.
In other words I have been much distracted, and rightly so, nit-picking through the site until I felt satisfied, as best I could, that everything was correct.
The careful viewer over the past few weeks could easily have been aware of the subtle changes taking place throughout the web site... almost on a daily basis.
For this, I do not apologize. There were factors that had to be dealt with before I could move on.
What I do apologize for is the protracted length of time that it all took, much of it brought on by frustration (I'm not a professional editor) and compounded by holiday chaos and that vague mid-winter feeling of running out of steam (the blahs) following my return from Norwalk, Connecticut in December.
There, by the way, in Connecticut, I had a ball doing a mixed-bag show with a "Fridiculousness" flavour. I much enjoyed the performance space in the beautifully restored Lockwood-Mathews Mansion.
Also, I enjoyed my accomodations at the century and a half old Silvermine Tavern... a New England country inn on the edge of Norwalk. Talk about time tunnels!
On-going septuagenarian indeed!
JF
Essay #3
My Thwarted Career: Directing.
Georgia College
John H. Frid M.F.A. (Directing) Yale Drama School ’57
"Dare to be a Daniel, / Dare to stand alone" .…the only two lines remembered of a Sunday School hymn from childhood, alluding to the biblical account of Daniel in the lions' den, the sort of thing that one can go on muttering involuntarily to oneself, now and then, for the rest of one’s life. Well, one instance of this muttering away happened the other day sending me into a paroxysm of giggles as my thoughts drifted or switched or short-circuited involuntarily over the word "lion" and on to the question of my missed career as a director of plays.
"Dare to be a Director / Dare to stand alone." Had I dared while at Yale and then chickened out when faced with the "lions" in New York's big time? After all, I had been doing quite well at the drama school as a directing student. What shorted, so to speak? I dunno. But when I arose to the occasion of directing 35 years later, it was with James Goldman's "A Lion in Winter". What happened to my "directing career" in the meantime? Just who were those "big time" lions who had stood in my way? All that is a subject for a future essay (I haven't forgotten).
~
"The Lion in Winter" by James Goldman, was produced in the early 1990s at Georgia College, Milledgeville, GA. In my future extension of this essay I will give some attention to my views on play directing in general. Meanwhile...
...In Malia Howard's "An Actors Curious Journey"(chapter 15), her account of the events that took place during rehearsals of the "Lion in Winter" reveals Malia's talents at their best.
In it, she not only reproduces the following essay but goes into some detail on the events that took place in Milledgeville including who took part, most notably Dark Shadows' Marie Wallace who played Eleanor of Aquitaine, wife to Henry II of England.
~
What follows is a treatise on the play's plot in the program for the Georgia College production in 1991 written by yours truly.
"The Lion In Winter And The 12th Century" by Jonathan Frid, Director
Modern U.S. presidents have, from time to time, invited foreign heads of state or prime ministers such as King Hussein, François Metterand or John Major for important, even sometimes "crisis" meetings to Camp David, Maryland in order to cut through the heavy time wasting protocol of Washington… more relaxed there runs the feeling… "meet-the-family" sort of thing.
Well, here, in the 12th century, King Henry II of England and of the continental Angevin Empire invites Philip II of France to his country seat at Chinon on the River Vienne (not belonging to "France" at this time) to meet his family… head on, for sure, since they are not exactly strangers to one another – and that’s putting it mildly!
It is Christmas Eve and they’re "trimming the tree"… I suspect with fire crackers. I know that in those days fire crackers had not yet reached the West but as a director I’ve been sorely tempted to introduce the notion to the staging but for fear of being slapped with a summons by the Milledgeville Fire Department. As for the author himself, he would have loved it. To play havoc with historical trivia is not a problem for him.
The essence of the times, however, is all there – the people, the plotting, the politicking. Dates and places are kicked around with abandonment but Shakespeare and others had long demonstrated that theatre is not bound by caveat.
Henry, probably the most powerful and colorful of England’s Plantagenet kings, was ruler over a vast expanse of territory that stretched from the Scottish borders along the Atlantic seaboard to the Pyrenees bordering Spain… and all gained almost as much through marriage and inheritance as through conquest.
His wife Eleanor, for example, had already brought to Henry as her inheritance the duchy of Aquitaine, a huge and rich territory that makes up much of modern France’s southern half, fanning inland from Bordeaux on the Atlantic coast. From his maternal Norman great grandfather William the Conqueror he had, of course, inherited Normandy, England and subsequently, through further conquest, much of the British Isles.
None of the play’s action takes place in London. In fact, England is only mentioned peripherally. Her Plantagenet kings as we have suggested above came from Norman and Angevin stock, Henry's father having been Count of Anjou. Their orientation was essential continental.
The political and military troubles that constitute the tough fibre of THE LION IN WINTER are harbingers of the eventual decline and fall of Henry’s continental empire. For example, the reign of his youngest son John, (who figured so prominently in the Robin Hood legend and in the signing of the Magna Carta) was a tragic one for England due mainly to the enormous losses of territories the English forces suffered at the hands of Philip, the brilliant and zealous king of emerging France (Philip and John appear in our play as very young men). The remaining territories broke away one by one with each of John’s successors until the waning years of the last of the Plantagenet kings three centuries later, with only the Irish, Welsh, and Scots left on whom to vent their frustration.
In our play, it is the little but very strategic territory called the Vexin, barely a stone’s throw from Paris, that rivets the attention of both Henry, who presently holds it, and Philip who would like to have it back. Both use Alais* the French princess (Philip’s half sister, Henry’s mistress) like a chess pawn… "Alais marries Richard (Henry’s eldest son) or we’ll have the Vexin back," Philip demands.
But there are other central issues: 1) Which of the three sons will succeed Henry (Eleanor wants Richard and Henry wants John) and 2) What is to become of Eleanor herself? A powerful figure in her own right, she is currently in captivity for having taken up arms earlier against her husband. However, with time off for good behavior, she rejoins Henry and the family for the Christmas holiday, arriving just after the play gets underway.
All these issues set off the "plotting, counter-plotting, and counter-counter-plotting" which permeate the play. Another author back in the 1950s beat ours with a line so absurdly right for this play: "Fasten your seat belts, it’s going to be a bumpy night!" JF
~
In future extension of this essay, I will give some attention to my views on directing in general.
Essay #2
My Rank in the Pantheon of Famous Vampires...and Other Questionable Accolades.
Ms. Howard in her Foreward to "An Actor's Curious Journey" writes: "Jonathan Frid is, in reality, a classically trained actor, with a list of impressive stage credits that would capture any theatre lover's attention. Yet, in the public's mind he had burst onto the commercial television scene, seemingly out of nowhere, as one of the biggest television sensations of the era while playing a vampire on a soap opera. Of all the curious twists of fate that might befall a serious actor's career, that totally astounding turn of events is among the most amazing any actor has experienced."
The above quote would have been more to the point, I think, had my career taken me directly to Hollywood and to the Warner Bros. studios with a contract to replace the actor who was the voice of Bugs Bunny. Now, that really would have been astounding...! But Barnabas Collins, vampire...? Nothing strange about that. Alas, it has indeed been the final resting place of many an aspiring classical actor who never quite made it to the Royal Shakespeare. I personally can't think of an actor in the horror genre who had not been " classically trained ", or seemingly so in the course of his early career.
The astounding thing that did happen to me was the spawning of that offshoot career to do with celebrity...an aging dreamboat to the bobby-sox generation of the time.
I was reminded of another short quote from the Foreward not too long ago where Ms. Howard salutes me as "one of the biggest television sensations of the era". It was while I was reading a Canadian newspaper account of this year's Halloween celebrations and the theme was the great vampires of the past century. It featured under the title The Essential Dracula the five great ones (I take it the writer knows what he's talking about): Nosferatu (1922), Dracula/ Lugosi (1931), Dracula/Lee (1958), Dracula/Oldman (1992) and Dracula/Langella (1979)...but no Barnabas/Frid (1967). and that's not the end of it. It (the article) goes on: "Others who have donned the cape over the years: 2 Carradines, one Hamilton (George that is), one Jourdan, one Kier, one Kinski, one Nielsen, one Niven and one Palance..." but still no Frid...Heavens! Oh well, the article wasn't about teeny bopper dreamboats anyway.
Now, lest I'm accused of being disrespectful to all those followers of D.S. who spawned that dubious reputation, it was from their ranks that I gained enough support for my twenty or so years of immersion in readers' theatre. Not only have I been encouraged by their presence at these functions but by the intuitive understanding and unreserved enjoyment that they have gotten from my readings; that's to say, from each of the individual pieces that make up the readings.
And in turn, from out of their ranks came Malia Howard to articulate
that which they have brought to my performances: their laughter, their
astonishment and their much appreciated applause. These many special
people have propelled me to undertake this awesome enterprise.
JF
...And Ms. Howard's Rejoinder.
Well, hmmmm. Your passages below are all well and cleverly written. However..... I will demur on a point or two. Actually, I don't object so much as I think you may want to take into account a contrary point or two that many in your audience of readers may scratch their heads about.
First, your statement that, " I personally can't think of an actor in the horror genre who had not been "classically trained", or seemingly so in the course of his early career," is a bit too universal. While it's certainly true that many classically trained actors have had successful turns portraying characters in the horror genre, the notion that all horror genre actors fit that description is far from the case. The examples of B, C, D, and E grade horror movies with B, C, D, and E grade actors in them are quite plentiful... in my opinion. :) And, of course, no other actor -- let alone a classically trained one -- (with the possible exception of David Selby) has ever become celebrated for having played a horror archetype on daytime television.
The other thought I'd like to pass on relates to your counter-point to the "one of the biggest sensations of the era" line. My impression is that you are more "remembered" than your source article would imply. Perhaps it's that "Canadian" thing. It's my impression that DS was not widely seen in Canada, so, it's not especially surprising that a Canadian source would fail to mention you. And, of course, there is the fact that "Barnabas" was not "Dracula". In the US, it is not uncommon for "lists" of famous vampires (not Dracula, exclusively) to include mention of Barnabas. The most recent such mention that I'm aware of was last month (also a pre-Halloween feature) on a major commercial internet website which listed the Top 10 vampires -- Barnabas was listed as number 7. :) Oh well...
Essay #1
Rose Coloured Glasses.
I guess I'm not used to being put on record in such a consistently positive fashion as Malia Howard has done in her book Jonathan Frid: An Actor's Curious Journey. The plaudits never seems to falter... at times reaching to such heights that bespeak "to the manor born"... family or career.
My immediate reaction... embarrassment? To a degree, perhaps. I think it is this Canadian thing... "So what!"... a sort of blunt self esteem... often presumed as a subliminal holier-than-thou attitude expressed, if at all, with a "tut-tut-tut you're getting carried away now". Outsiders, by the way, often miss the mark by considering this trait as lacking self confidence and therefore self respect.
Well, to get on with it, this is the first time I have encountered an attempt to encompass my whole life in a two or three hour "read".
A biography, like any snap-shot album, manages to record a few hundred silent seconds of a life (or maybe it's a thousand or so... whatever). The trick for a biographer is to make it seem as if any one of those seconds can somehow illuminate, oh, a whole year or two of a life. By orchestrating the text in this manner, the reader is allowed to imagine he's getting it all when, in fact, he's simply being duped by the writer's mastery of the "foreshortening of time" when it is convenient for him or her to do so. Of course, I am overwhelmed by the flattery this technique produces. In Ms. Howard's view, my career seems to go on nonstop. Or if there is a "pause", it is construde as a deliberate, even wise choice. Well, I'm tickled pink by all this, so why kick up a fuss? Why? Well, H.L. Menchen, an American journalist of our recent past, provides an answer. I quote, "Conscience: The inner voice that warns us someone may be looking." That's to say I have many friends and acquaintances that know better than to accept this rosy picture of myself.
Having said that (and I will be addressing that
point again and again) Ms. Howard has written passages that amaze me for
their perception of what I do with a story, or a piece of verse, or a
passage from Shakespeare, not to mention her assessment of roles I have
played on the stage and on various sized screens. Though her perceptions
are often flattering to the extreme, the point is that they do pry below
the surface performance of whatever I take on and seem to capture
precise details and nuances of the particular character in focus. This
point, by the way, will also be dealt with over and over again in future
essays... if I ever get to them.(an after thought months later)
JF
~~~
Arsenic and Old Lace/J.F.'s Fools and Fiends
JONATHAN FRID IN “ARSENIC AND OLD LACE” … DURING THE NUTURING TIME FOR
HIS NEW CAREER IN READERS THEATER THAT BEGAN WITH "JONATHAN FRID’S FOOLS
AND FIENDS".
By Nancy Kersey (1987)
"Maybe this play should be called 'Arsenic and Old Frid', joked Jonathan
Frid a few days after he began a vigorous three week rehearsal period
for "Arsenic and Old Lace" in December 1986. Frid took over the role
from Abe Vigoda who had been playing the role in the Broadway revival
since June 1986. He would play the role for two weeks on Broadway before
starting the national tour. When he stepped out onto the stage of the
46th Street Theater just before Christmas, it was Frid’s first
appearance in a play in eight years and over twenty years since last on
Broadway.
The
much anticipated national tour of "Arsenic and Old Lace" started in
Louisville, Kentucky on January 3, 1987. For most actors, the thrill of
being in such a major touring production would be excitement enough, but
Frid saw the tour as a means to a less obvious end. "I’m enjoying the
play, of course", Frid said during the run, "but I'll admit one of the
main reasons I took the part was to promote my readers’ theatre or
one-man show in order to get back in to the marketplace. I've been away
too long".
The year 1986 had proven to be a milestone year for the magnetic actor. Earlier that year, Frid had established his own production company, Clunes Associates, along with business partner Mary O’Leary for his one-man shows. Months before ARSENIC opened, he made his professional debut in this new medium with JONATHAN FRID'S FOOLS AND FIENDS at Salve Regina College in Rhode Island. The plan was to tour the college and university circuit with this show and conduct acting workshops with the drama students. It was also intended to include community cultural centres. The initial obstacle for Clunes Associates was to market Frid in a readers’ theater format which obviously had a limited marketplace. Although Frid had had a scattering of local theatrical engagements of various sorts during the past two decades, he had been out of the national public eye for too long.
ARSENIC would change all that. Frid was co-starring with four other well-known leads: Jean Stapleton, Marion Ross, Gary Sandy and Larry Storch. The media spotlight was on the cast, especially since the five of them had become TV icons and Frid was hawked as television's first matinee idol playing the angst-ridden "Barnabas Collins" on Dark Shadows. Dropping out of sight after the series ended, only added a mysterious element to his persona. "No mystery about it," Frid says now of his disappearance from the public eye. “I did try to get work after the series was over in commercials, and I was treated with great respect by the personel in the commercial advertising offices. They were even in awe of this dubious legend from the soaps but what what they wanted me to do was a mere parody or send-up of a vampire. They would look at me and say ‘Oh, Mr. Frid, do your thing!’ I knew vaguely what they were driving at, but I never came to them with a ‘do your thing’ bit. They wanted to make a 'product' out of me and if you didn't play their game, you didn't work. Well I didn't want to be a 'product' so I finally said nuts to it all. I didn't intentionally ‘retire’. I just went about my business (consequently, for a time, out of business) and enjoyed spending time in Mexico studying Spanish followed by a sojourn at my home in Canada.”
However, in spite of this absence from the public eye for such a long time and now in the presence of much more famous (prime-time) actors, Frid, nevertheless, wound up bringing formidable business to the theatre indeed, but to the wrong door. Instead of his fans going to the box office with big bucks in their pockets, they came to the stage door armed with pencils and autograph books, much to the amusement of his cohorts. After all, the “stage door” was not exactly the place where you bought tickets that would keep the show going. It would seem that the 'box office' was not a significant concept in the minds of those standing outside. Well, at least, Frid had not been forgotten.
To be continued...