Another interview from my archives of five years ago………..
For many decades Willard Boudreau and Gary Smith have given theatrical life in the Hamilton, Ontario area a dynamic, sophisticated, versatile and inspiring presence and energy. Their influence in acting, direction, set design, teaching and criticism has been enormous and yet each man, for all his accomplishments, is naturally and noticeably self-effacing, no doubt because each would rather be working at some new production than singing his past.
James Strecker: Since some of these questions might be more relevant to one of you than the other, we’ll let you decide if a solo or a duet is appropriate. To begin, you are each a longtime and influential presence on the local theatrical scene, with many respective achievements, so please give us a comprehensive statement from each of you about who you are and what it is that you do, and have done, that is connected to theatre. Will, let’s start with you and then we’ll hear from Gary
Willard: Performance is at the core of my interest in theatre although I have also found, as my tastes have matured, satisfaction as a designer and as a director. Over my 50 years of work in community theatre, I have been rewarded with many recognitions of those interests at both the local and provincial level. My passion for theatre has also found expression in my career as a teacher of theatre arts at the Middle and Secondary school levels and in the extension program at Mohawk College. For many years I served on the board of directors of local community groups and recently on the board of directors for the Hamilton Fringe Festival. Working with young people and helping develop their talents has always been important to me, so one of the joys of my senior position in the community now is to have served on several occasions as adjudicator to local student festivals, including the venerable Sears Festival. Since my retirement from teaching, I have been serving as the Artistic Director of Piccadilly Circus, a small independent group which has no home of its own and performs in a variety of venues. It has at times partnered its interests with such organizations as The Hamilton Players` Guild, The Dundas Valley School of Art, and Hamilton`s Pride Festival.
Gary: I think that, mainly, I celebrate theatre and dance and what these wonderful art forms do to the spirit and the soul. I have always loved them both and, as soon as I could, I began experimenting in these fields. I started directing for the Players’ Guild when I was in my early twenties. My first major production was Edward Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf. I think the Guild let me direct it because they had no one else. People were afraid of its power and punch. I’ve since directed more than 60 shows, both plays and musicals. I acted on television on Mr. Dress Up for a few seasons, but preferred the control you have directing, rather than acting. For me it’s about shaping the production and being faithful to the playwright’s intent. I taught for 34 years and tried to bring an awareness of the arts to the children in my classroom. I love what I do now since being the theatre and dance critic for The Hamilton Spectator allows me to promote talent in the city and beyond. I also write for several international dance magazines and that permits me to celebrate dance in a forum where lovers of the art look for opinions.
JS: What you have done, related to theatre, that has mattered most to you? Please explain why you feel this way.
Willard: Being part of a theatre community in Hamilton that sought to bring, to this city, the kind of theatre that not only entertained but provoked thought and debate, learning my craft from the example of actors and directors of enormous talent and generosity, some of which was bound to rub off on me whether I was worthy or not, and now being in a position where I can share that knowledge and experience with the next generation of those who love this art is what has mattered to me the most.
Gary: Working with actors in a very close and personal way is my favorite theatre experience. I love the collaborative approach of making a play leap off the page. I hope in some ways I have influenced other directors and actors in community theatre in this region and the notion of that makes me feel good. I also love being able to share my enthusiasm for a fine production with readers who might never see the show but want to know what it offered as a theatre experience.
JS: Let’s talk about critics. Gary, you, of course, have been the theatre critic for the Hamilton Spectator for many years and you also write for several international publications. Will, while wearing your many theatrical hats, you have no doubt been subject to many a critical pen over the years. So let me ask you both: What is the critic’s role? What is good criticism? What is bad criticism?
Willard: As I have said, I cherish the thought and debate that drama can encourage. Literary criticism is the public voice of that. No artist works in a vacuum, least of all in theatre, that most communal of all the arts, and so the voice of those who view and share our work is of vital importance, both for our own personal growth and for the development of our art itself. Good criticism comes from those who first of all love the theatre and share for it a passion as strong as that of those practising the art and, secondly, have a breadth of knowledge about what they are viewing that, of course, extends well beyond that of the casual observer. Some of my best critics have also been my mentors and even close friends who are courageous enough to know when to say something isn`t working. And if they are really clever, they are able to tell me why it isn`t working and, if I am nearly as clever as I like to think I am, I will grow and learn from that criticism. I`m not interested in the criticisms or the praise of those who have no understanding of what it is I`m at least trying to do. Bad critics lack courage and depth.
Gary : The critic’s role or indeed his art is to become involved in the production he’s watching. For me that means using the passion he has for theatre to analyze, recognize and eagerly scrutinize the show he is watching. All criticism is personal. If it wasn’t, it would be useless. Bad criticism comes from people writing about theatre when they have very little experience in actually seeing shows. You need background if you’re going to write about theatre with any real basis. The more experienced the actors, directors and creative people involved the more astute and knowledgeable the critic must be. Bad criticism is when someone without any real background or basis writes reviews. Bad criticism is when a writer can’t tell the difference between disliking the production or the play. Bad criticism is being kind at the expense of the reading public. It’s also when a critic is afraid to write the truth. Good criticism is not written for the actors or production people involved. It’s written for the reader. Of course that doesn’t prevent a critic backing up opinion with suggestions of what might make the play, production and total theatre experience better.
JS: You are both also directors of distinguished achievement, so to repeat: What is the director’s job? What is good direction? What is bad direction?
Willard: A director provides a vision, an overview of the play and its production. Like any artist, a good director has command of all the theatrical tools that allow their vision to be focused and cleanly communicated to the actors, designers, and production crew, as well as to the audience. Exceptionally good directors know when to stop. As an actor I can describe it this way: I don`t want a director to tell me how to read a line or how to move, but I do want a director to help me understand why that line or that move is there and then trusts me to do the rest. The best directors thrive on trust; they trust the playwright, they trust the actor, they trust the design team and they trust the audience.
Gary: I agree with Will. The director should supply the total vision for the play. He should be the arbiter of good taste. Most of all, he should inspire his actors to find the heart of the playwright’s intention. Good directors know when to offer suggestions and when to keep quiet. No actor likes a straitjacket, but at the same time no actor wants to be left on his own with no feedback. It’s very difficult to have a cohesive production with a weak director.
JS: And then there’s acting. What makes a good actor and what makes a poor actor? What advice would you give to persons wanting to be successful in the acting profession?
Willard: Acting is never about being the centre of attention and most certainly not about showing off. Any art is about expressing ideas and feelings. Acting is no different. As an actor, I seek plays which have interesting ideas, ideas and emotions that find resonance within me as well and then work furiously to find the ways on stage to accurately convey those to an audience. For me, and I suspect for most, the guiding principal of our craft is truth. It sounds simplistic, but good performances ring absolutely true, so utterly believable that the audience is not aware of any artifice. As for advice, well I learned long ago that giving advice is a treacherous art. But I will risk an observation. Talent is an ephemeral quality. I have known many very talented actors who could not or would not survive as professionals. What exists in common amongst those who do succeed is a desire and a drive, a determination and a belief that in many cases surpasses the level of talent. If it`s something you can`t live without, go for it, and hold nothing back.
Gary : A good actor explores and finds depth in a role. He never pulls focus from what is important on the stage. He’s always prepared at rehearsal and he’s willing to share the stage and the director’s time. He’s not afraid of criticism and he never changes his performance because someone like me writes a negative review. The time to thrash things out is in rehearsal when the production is being shaped.
JS: Whom do you admire most on the local theatrical scene and how do they compare with the best elsewhere?
Willard: Bill Wade was a dear friend of mine and one of the area`s finest actors. I first met him when I was a teenager acting in CYO drama festivals. He volunteered his time to toil in the makeup room, providing his expertise there to all competitors. He was a truly generous teacher who became one of my greatest mentors. Had times been different when he was young and had he chosen acting as his life, he would have blazed as one of the brightest stars in our theatrical sky.
Gary: That’s tough because there have been many fine actors on this particular theatre scene in the 50 years I’ve been watching and working on shows. I agree with Will that Bill Wade was a genius at what he did. I directed him in many shows. Dylan, Faith Healer and Philadelphia Here I Come are a few favorites. He was fearless. He loved rehearsals and was always able to surprise with a new thought or bit of business. Jo Skilton is another local treasure. She never compromises about getting things right. Kitty Varley is another. These people aren’t afraid to criticize their own work. A poor actor is someone who doesn’t do his job, isn’t prepared and is destructive on stage. Caring more about yourself than the total performance is the hallmark of poor acting. I’d say someone who wants to act should see a great deal of theatre, read a lot of plays and try to work with people who they can trust to give them good advice and good direction. Bad habits are hard to erase.
JS: What has been the impact of television and film on theatre in general and acting in particular? What level of sophistication do you find in theatrical audiences today?
Gary : Television and film have permitted actors to become sloppy about their speech and careless about their performances. That’s not to say there are not good films and TV shows. The thing is actors who have little or no stage experience try a Broadway show and every weakness shows. Julia Roberts, for instance, is lovely on film. On Broadway in Three Days of Rain she gave a weak, mannered performance that lacked any modicum of truth. She simply hadn’t the equipment necessary for the stage. It’s harder than it looks.
JS: What is the current role of public schools in connection with theatre as a popular art form and how good a job are they doing? What else could they do to support theatre as a vital art form in our culture?
Gary: Schools of every stripe should encourage the arts. That might mean bringing artists into classrooms, taking students to shows and talking about how the arts can buoy the spirit. If it hadn’t been for my grade 5 teacher, I would never have discovered ballet.
JS: What is the role of each level of government in regard to supporting the arts and if you were prime minister what would you do to better support the arts?
Gary : I think all levels of government should support the arts the way they do sports. In Europe dance and theatre are funded to a much higher level than they are in this country. It would be nice too if people like the Prime Minister turned up at The National Ballet of Canada and Shaw Festival once in awhile, just to show they have an appreciation of the great talent we have in this country.
JS: Why should the citizen-voters of Canada care about live theatre?
Willard: I am not a complete pessimist about the future of live theatre. Stripped down to its essentials, theatre is the act of telling each other stories. As such, it has existed since the dawn of human life. The human drive to share our experiences first hand is a deep one and has survived all manner of technological advances. I believe it will continue to thrive. Telling our stories is how we organize our lives together in the spaces we occupy. There are many ways in which these stories are told, but all are important to the continuation of our shared identity. For this reason, if for no other, I believe Canada should care and care deeply for all its arts.
Gary: You can’t make people care about anything. I think we should all have a passion for theatre and dance because these arts offer insight as well as spiritual healing so necessary in our troubled world.
James Strecker: What do you think is the future of theatre in Canada and how do you feel about this prospect?
Gary: Theatre will always be with us. Nothing replaces the magic of sitting down in communion with others, watching a good story unfold. Movies are fine, but they are disembodied spirits on a screen. Television is the same. A play, opera or ballet being performed with you as part of the experience can never be replaced by technical wizardry. The more television and films rely on technical wizardry, the more they distance us from a real human experience.
JS: Name three plays that you feel every person should experience in his or her lifetime and explain why you make this recommendation.
Willard: The three I have chosen are, on the surface at least, quite surprising. They all come from my early theatre going experiences and therefore are of significance to me because they all profoundly affected the way I viewed the world . In no particular order they are: Death of a Salesman Arthur Miller. It was the first play to suggest to me that there was a dark underside to the frantic scramble to achieve the American Dream which, to a great extent, describes the Canadian experience as well. The second is J. M. Barrie`s Peter Pan. It’s a fairy tale of sorts, but when I was exhorted to clap my hands to save Tinker Bell, the strength of my response, even as a young child, taught me a great deal about the power of stories and the emotional depths they could stir. My final choice is Rodgers and Hammerstein`s South Pacific. Much of what I grew up to believe about bigotry and its systemic and thus hidden nature, equality and redemption coalesced in this marvelous landmark musical.
Gary: It’s tough to stick with three. Tennessee Williams’ The Glass Menagerie is a brilliant look at loneliness, the strength of the human spirit and the way love can suddenly send shivers of moonlight into the dingiest of lives. It’s a poetic, magical play and Williams is perhaps the greatest American playwright, a man maligned by critics in his latter years and sadly deserted by audiences. The Price by Arthur Miller is a miracle of a play that looks at the way the present spirals from experiences in our clouded past. It’s a play that forces us to realize there is a price to pay for the decisions we make. It may not be Miller’s greatest play, but it is his most human and passionate one. My last choice is Stephen Sondheim’s brilliant musical Follies. With his usual sense of rue and wry humor, Sondheim chronicles the way the past tears at today. In this show, set in a crumbling old theatre about to feel the wrecker’s ball, middle-aged show folks come back to face the ghosts of the past. It is a devastating, heartbreaking piece of theatre that leaves you numb from pain.
JS: Name the most influential persons, in your life a person of the theatre, who made you who you are as a creative person. Or perhaps there were specific events that had great impact on you. Your pick….
Willard: Well, I could write a book here. I won`t. Without any doubt, the most influential person in my life in general and quite specifically in theatre is my partner in life : Gary. I was 16 or 17 when I first met him and we shared a love of theatre, performance and art. At the time, I was very green and not very articulate about my experiences. Unlike me, Gary was very articulate and, as young as he was, had a depth of knowledge far beyond what one would expect at that age. He has literally taught me all I know. I clearly recall leaving the theatre on so many occasions, such as the time we saw Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? in New York shortly after it had opened, and him saying to me, “Well, what did you think of that?” All I could say was how much I liked it (I at least knew that) but beyond that I hadn`t a clue. He did, and he could speak eloquently off the cuff about his ideas for hours. And I learned…like a sponge. He was not my first director, but he was by far the most influential. Because of the closeness of our relationship, I was privy to his thinking and to his creative process as he worked out beforehand how he would approach a particular production. Again, I was the sponge. And I learned a great deal. Gary is still my go-to-person when I’m preparing a show and my most important audience.
Gary: My partner Willard has influenced me enormously. He is my best critic and most devoted admirer. Watching him act in A Delicate Balance recently was to see the arc of a great journey. Evelyn Hart is another source of inspiration for me. Directing her in Love Letters was a dream of an assignment. She was so brave about relinquishing movement and finding a character from the printed words of A.R. Gurney’s text. I had loved her from the first time I watched her dance Giselle. When I became a friend, I understood what total commitment to art means. Watching Evelyn rehearse Swan Lake, watching her coach a young ballerina in Giselle, talking with her about art, these are some of the great experiences of my life.
JS: Now individually. Willard, tell us about running your own theatrical company, Picadilly Circus. What are your goals, frustrations, happiest moments? How have you managed to keep the company going for so many years? What kind of plays appeal to you most?
Willard: Piccadilly Circus will be celebrating its tenth anniversary this year. I can scarce believe so much time has passed. When I list the plays we have done I am amazed, both at the number of productions and at the quality many of the productions had achieved. One of the things I`ve learned is that there is no sense being modest. There are always plenty of voices that will seek to discourage you. You`d better believe in yourself and what you are doing or leave the stage. Some of the highlights for me are the productions of Beautiful Thing, Hosanna, Love Letters (in which it was my joy to work with one of Canada`s prima ballerinas, Evelyn Hart ) The Laramie Project, Waiting for Godot, My Matisse, Vita and Virginia, Frozen, and an original musical based on the music of local composer, Dorothy Lees Blakey, Love in a Minor Key. Piccadilly Circus began in the early seventies. It was founded by Gary and me as a company producing children’s plays at Dundurn Castle. It was very successful and operated there for several years. Our objective was to obtain the very best talents the area had to offer and produce excellent work.
When I revived the company in the year 2000, that objective remained at the centre of the company`s existence. In re-inventing the Circus, I shifted my sights from its youthful audience and turned toward an older target. From the outset I wanted the plays to be significant..at least to me. If I found them interesting my hope is that others would also. The work has been a joy. If there is any frustration it has been that we operate on a shoestring budget and cannot afford to advertise. We work hard at finding audience and sponsors and have a loyal following but many of our shows have deserved much larger audiences. However, larger audiences and the success that they sometimes bring also carry a curse. The more popular you are the more you have got to tailor your play selection to appeal to more popular tastes. All in all, I think where I am, a small company with a loyal niche audience is exactly where I want to be at this stage of my life…I guess if I was younger I might feel differently.
The plays we chose to do are of course the essential ingredient of the Company. Three choices in particular I think illustrate what kind of plays I look for. The first is Beautiful Thing. It was a play about gay youth and their particular difficulties in coming to terms with their sexuality. My young cast were fearless and talented, and the two young boys, men now, are both working professional actors now. One, Jeff Giles will be coming to Toronto this Fall in The Boys in the Photgraph, with Mirvish productions. This was a play which would not likely have been taken on by any other group in Hamilton. The second is My Matisse. This is a small play with intriguing ideas about the nature of art and how we view artists. It was another play which I don`t think could find its way onto the bill of companies that have to select for broad appeal. The final example is our recent production of Frozen, a play which examines the relationship between a serial child killer and the mother of one of his victims. As you would guess, this is a difficult subject, but what it had to say about love and how necessary forgiveness is in our ability to move on from the dreadful events of our past was, I think, an important message to hear. And so we did it. It tested even our loyal following, but I`m still glad we did it. No other group was about to try it. These three choices say much about the company and the kinds of plays we actively seek out.
JS: What are your theatre-related projects for this coming season?
Willard: The Stephen Sondheim Musical Company is the next project for, in this case, both Gary and me. We are co-directing it. It is a co-production of Piccadilly Circus and The Players` Guild of Hamilton. The costs associated with a musical are daunting for both my company and the Guild; a co-production in which we each share the costs is a creative and convenient way to solve the problem. Company is a superb landmark musical. The Sondheim score is fantastic and the way in which the show captures the edgy angst-ridden nature of modern urban living is as usual just the kind material Piccadilly Circus loves to explore. Company also has a huge dollop of humour in it and that, coupled with a cast of exceptional quality, (truly, the cast is as good as community theatre has to offer and when its good, it`s very good indeed) means high audience appeal here. This is not the first time Gary and I have co-directed . In essence it has been a feature of our collaborations from our earliest productions together. We adopted it as an official way of working together about ten years ago and while we each continue to solo direct, co-direction has become our favoured working method. We both work well together but that isn`t to say that there aren`t differences. Confusion is the last thing you want a cast to face, so if we have differing views we keep them to ourselves. That being said, we agree on most things and find the teamwork stimulating. We make a good team. I think most of the area`s actors enjoy working with us, so we must be doing something right.
Gary: I should add that Company is a brilliant Sondheim musical about love, marriage and the necessity of making commitment. It’s a remarkable show and it opens Nov. 20th. And we have a dream cast.
JS: Gary, you are a highly regarded critic of dance, especially ballet, so please tell us what you love about dance, what makes a great dancer, and what makes a worthy critic of dance. Who have been your favourite dancers over the years and of course tell us why?
Gary: I love the way dance makes me feel. It’s a synthesis of music, art and movement. It’s poetry in motion. It’s the most beautiful. It can be so physical, yet it’s ethereal too. It’s a communion of bodies with time and space. A great dancer commits completely. She transcends movement, turning it into metaphor. She finds the private place where an expression of mood, passion and theatre are distilled into liquid magic. I have many favorite dancers. Evelyn Hart, of course, because she danced with every quiver of her imagination. Watching her dance The Dying Swan at her final performance was as thrilling as watching her dance Giselle in those early years. She never allowed pain or time to get in the way. Rudolf Nureyev was a brilliant ballet star who knew how to seduce you with a haughty smile and make his panther-like leaps look like time-stop photography. When he danced with the divine Margot Fonteyn, it was like watching two spirits in perfect union. Karen Kain had a capacity for imbuing many of her roles with a sexy innuendo that made you sit up in your seat. She always seemed vulnerable inside that great body. Her combination of strength and fear worked brilliantly. Today, I admire Evan McKie, a young dancer with Stuttgart Ballet. He has the same passion and poetic spirit as Evelyn Hart. Watching him dance Hamlet recently was to understand fully Shakespeare’s melancholy Dane. His need to dance is there in every step he takes. Then there’s Alicia Alonso, the legendary artistic director of Ballet Nacional de Cuba. What a life force. I love her madly because, well into her eighties, she has never lost the drive to create. Her energy is astounding.
As for critics, I think a good dance critic must have seen many performances of many ballets by many different companies. He has to communicate the beauty and fire of the art. It’s not about petty technical imperfections he might notice. It’s about the measure of the whole performance. Some of the greatest dancers in the world were technically imperfect but dramatically riveting. You have to make the reader see through your eyes, to imprint a picture on his imagination.
JS: By the way, since you have collaborated as a team many times, please tell us what makes a successful collaboration.
Gary: A good collaboration is like a good marriage. Sometimes you shut up even if you think your partner is wrong. Usually you find out he knew more than you first thought. Will and I work well together because we have the same sense of passion and urgency about the projects we work on. That helps a lot.