Marc Kudisch
MARC KUDISCH recently appeared as Reverend James Morell opposite Bobby Steggert, Kate Fry, Drew Gehling and Liz Baltes in the New York premiere of “A Minister's Wife” at Lincoln Center’s Mitzi Newhouse Theater. Ms. Kudish’s other appearances on Broadway include “9 to 5” (Tony & Drama Desk nom), “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” (Tony & Outer Critics Circle award), “Assassins” (Drama Desk Award), “Thoroughly Modern Millie” (Tony & Outer Critics Circle award), “The Apple Tree,” “Bells are Ringing,” “Michael John LaChiusa’s “The Wild Party,” “The Scarlet Pimpernel,” “High Society,” “Beauty and the Beast,” Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dream.” Mr. Kudisch also appeared in “A Little Night Music,” opposite Juliet Stevenson and Jeremy Irons at the New York City Opera, and with Victor Garber and Judith Ivey at the Los Angeles Opera. In regional theatre, he originated the role of Van Gogh in “The Highest Yellow,” and starred as Darryl van Horne in the American premiere of “The Witches of Eastwick,” at The Signature Theatre in Virginia (Helen Hayes Award). On film he appeared as Conrad Birdie in “Bye Bye Birdie.” Off-Broadway he was with the critically acclaimed improvisational comedy troupe, Noo Yawk Tawk, in “The Thing about Men,” “See What I Wanna See” at The Public (Drama Desk Award), and “The Glorious Ones.” He starred as Slick Follicle in the City Centers Encores! production of “Girl Crazy, and makes his Feinstein’s debut with “What Makes Me Tick” in mid July.
Congratulations on a memorable performance. How did you begin to work on the role of Reverend James Mavor Morell?
I always start with myself; I don’t know how else to start. I start from a place of logic. I always think: how does his logic relate to my logic so the connections can be organic, because we all share the same emotions in life. Everyone has fury, anxiety, insecurities, jealousy; we can go through the list. I kind of connected quite quickly to his character, it was very easy. I just have to be connected to myself. I try to then get more specific, the specific moment-to-moment discoveries. I am creature of specificity. I came to it myself, I suppose, and then along the way I read little things, quotes you hear that catch you and you go whoa!
Zoë Caldwell taught me the usefulness of punctuation. I learned that punctuation is the formation of an idea. What you use makes all the difference. When I was in college at Florida Atlantic University, I had five different editions of Shakespeare and when I would study one of his playa, I would look at the all five different punctuations to see which form of thought I appreciated the most. I will go through a script, and I will redo the punctuation for myself, that’s how I understand it.
How did your work on the Reverend grow during rehearsals?
I react to other people’s energies; that’s what it’s all about for me. I thrive on it. I have a lot of respect for you doing a one-man show. I don’t want to be onstage by myself. I was in an improv group for many years. And that’s one of the challenges for me with auditioning, reading opposite a person who doesn’t give me anything. I, as the character react in response to the energy I get, and depending upon what I get – that gives me the energy to respond instead of having to create everything.
I’m a believer in presence. I work hard to be present. It’s the only way – by being present the character will come, and the relationship you have with the other characters. I re-define your character this way. I’ve done Carl Magnus (the character in “Candida’) many times, and I love him. I find him so easily misunderstood just because another character says he’s an idiot, he couldn‘t such be an idiot if Candida would marry him. She’s highly intelligent, so why is she with him? So you have to understand the nature of their relationship and their marriage. That’s how I believe in the situation, by believing, and ultimately, it gives me the opportunity to break down who I am. Who am I? If I was to play myself in a show, I would consider myself as a character in a three dimensional way, and I’d have to explore myself specifically to the situation. I have to separate myself from the opposite to the character
There are a lot of similarities between that period of history and today in relationship to the ideas in the play.
History repeats itself. I actually worked to get more of the Christian Socialism into the play. We put more in because I felt we needed to be specific, so when you hear him speak, it’s not just hot air. He’s an idealist. What’s the difference between him and Obama? Obama said: “Yes, we can!” That’s what he’s saying in the play.
Christian Socialism is such an interesting idea. In its time it was a strong grassroots movement. Today we have the same thing, there’s a strong grassroots moment; it’s very socialistic. That’s why semantics are important. We don’t believe in socialism, yet it’s one of the most affective ways of helping people: social security, Medicaid Medicare.
What does it mean to you to return again to perform at Lincoln Center Theatre?
I love it. Lincoln Center is a well-established institution, and you feel you’re a part of a fabric of its history; it’s an institution of high art. I’m in a place where I can be an artist. As a business person, I’m reminded how rare that it is in this city. It’s a home where you feel like you’re part of a large family. I’ve been able to have done beautiful pieces here as an actor. I’m not a celebrity; I’m not a movie star, so if this play was done on Broadway I would not be playing this role. Yet my skill-set gives me the upper hand on a lot of people.
Had you thought of becoming a leading musical theater actor when you began as an actor?
No, I didn’t even know what it was. I became an actor in college when I moved to Florida Atlantic University; I was part of their first four year program. I was poly-science major, and I switched. I just realized I wasn’t going to be a politician. I was trained on Ibsen, Williams – he was my specialty.
When I moved to New York City, I worked a lot Off-Broadway before I got involved with musicals. I just loved doing them. I worked really hard at singing. I loved the multiple vernacular when you must rise to a song or when you don’t have anything else to say and you have to break into song.
The Reverend James Mavor Morell’s life starts to unravel during the course of the play. How do you find the reality and keep it honest during every performance?
By being present. If you listening to your cast members, it’s going to slightly different every night. I rely upon them and I also rely on the audience. So regardless of knowing your line, your intention, there’s always a unique energy if you listen to the audience. You don’t have to make anything happen because at the end of the day, theatre is a conversation. That’s what it is. So I have to have the conversation every night. When I’m out there, I’m not there for myself. I’m there to listen. I’m there for the audience and the cast. I’m always aware of the conservation. I always know what my intention is, and it always keeps it interesting.
How do you prepare for your performance?
I make sure I’m warmed-up. I’ve done the work in the rehearsal room so I have to be trusting enough to forget about it. I don’t stand in the wings. I put on the clothing, I love putting it on. It makes me physically move in a different way. There’s the character, the demeanor, my intention…
You created a simply delicious snake in “The Apple Tree?” Did you spend time researching a snake – where did he come from?
It was fun. The snake came from Sitzrobe. In German opera, when you go through the music with the orchestra for the first time you sit there and probe through the music. Well, I was doing it with orchestra and I was wandering around on stage when I first heard Jonathan Tunick’s new orchestration. I didn’t know what I wanted to do with the Snake. I wasn’t sure. But I remember there was all this percussive stuff; it wasn’t in the original orchestrations. It was very primal, and I remember I just started enjoying the music and began to move and went with it.
I was asked: “Do you want to go through the song one more time.” I said “It’s not necessary.” When I walked out of the room, I knew I had found the snake! Jonathan had given me the character. I had intention, and he gave me external. It was so much fun finding through the syncopation and sounds.
It wasn’t just music, I had to know what each beat was. It could be a look away. I could find the intention in the music. I had done the ground work in rehearsal so when I got out in front of the audience, ultimately I could throw it away and be present and run into bigger walls. I know I’d keep asking more questions and build a stronger foundation. When I’m on stage I let it go, and be present, listen and react.
You never finish. I’m still learning every time I’m on stage. I come up with stuff. I found myself constantly saying: “Let’s go back to the barre.” I remind myself of the original intention and rediscover it.
When I did “Beauty and the Beast” for 2 and half years, I had to take two leaves of absence, to re-energize myself. After a certain time I needed to clean my head. It’s easy to fall into bad habits. The lovely thing about this musical is it’s such a deep piece. There are always lovely things to find.
With “9 to 5” and “Chitty Chitty, Bang Bang,” you dealt not only with a large set but you were on ropes tied up, you were in a flying car in “Chitty,” what kind of extra challenges did that present for you?
All these shows are highly technical. “9 to 5” was another one. It’s gotten much technically demanding. I liked doing “9 to 5,” the music, the book, the relationships and characters. Like I said, people go to the theater to have a conversation, and sometimes the spectacle is lovely. But there has to be a good story or no one is going to car. I kept saying it to the producers with “Chitty” during the process.
With “Chitty,” I believe the producers limited themselves by not allowing themselves to go beyond and look at it with a fresh point of view between London and New York.
I thought we could have gone deeper, to much more fascinating stuff in the play. The book was written by Ian Fleming and Ian had started the screenplay and he passed. So they asked Raul Dahl was asked if he would finish the writing. The beautiful thing about Fleming was he was a satirist, and I wanted the show to go there. I felt it was for the adults, because everyone has a child within us, and if you strike the child in us, that’s when you’re being the most honest.
Working on “Assassins,” were you surprised with the response to Mr. Sondheim’s play?
For “Assassins,” I had to go out and say what I meant. I believed what he was saying – that everyone has a right to be happy. I loved the experience. It was a part of our history, what they did.
We were doing it in 2004, in the middle of Iraqi war and here we were doing this show about these terrible people, and you have to wake up people to get them to see their habits, to get them out of their backyard. We had a talkback, and one audience member was so upset that we were showing these monsters. I said: “You can’t deny their point of view. I’m not saying there isn’t another point of view, but you have to understand what caused it to happen and what happened to us for it to happen. It’s part of our history and you have to acknowledge it.
That’s why the theater is so important – it’s about social consciousness. It’s a place to go and share ideas, to yell ideas, to sing ideas, to be a part of what’s out there in to the world. It will only be important if it’s completely human even with all the flying. The human quality has to exist.
Why did we gather to begin with? To share ideas so that at the end we have a conversation, and that it doesn’t end. It’s when it really begins. I think we’re offering them a conversation. I believe in this kind of theater. What I’m saying is let’s have a conversation. Why not become a part of it? Theater doesn’t exist without an audience.
