Festival Dramaturg Kee-Yoon Nahm spoke with director Corey Allen about the upcoming production of Macbeth at the Illinois Shakespeare Festival (ISF). This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Kee-Yoon Nahm (KN): This is your first season at ISF, right? Welcome to Illinois State University and Bloomington-Normal! Before we talk about Macbeth, would you tell me about your experiences with Shakespeare?
Corey Allen (CA): Sure. I discovered Shakespeare in my high school English classes, and Shakespeare became my “gateway drug” into theatre. One of the first shows that I did in high school was A Midsummer Night’s Dream. The poetry of the language just hooked me. From that point forward, Shakespeare and the classics were a large part of my undergraduate training. I loved the fact that anyone could be anything. You could play a king, a god, a fairy, a goblin. I thought the language was so versatile and incantatory. I went to graduate school at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and after that my career was mostly in the classics. I worked at the North Carolina Shakespeare Festival, the Utah Shakespeare Festival, and the Great River Shakespeare Festival, among others. Shakespeare kept working his way into my time onstage as an actor.
KN: Our artistic director, John Stark, told me that he saw the production of Carlyle Brown’s The African Company Presents Richard III that you directed at Great River Shakespeare Festival two years ago. Would you tell me about that experience?
CA: I have been a company member with Great River for four or five seasons as an actor. I had not been there for a number of years, but then they asked me to come back to direct The African Company Presents Richard III. It is a play about one of the first African American theatre companies in the country. They produced Shakespeare’s Richard III in New York City in 1821 at the same time that one of the biggest theaters in the city also programmed the same play with Junius Brutus Booth in the title role. The spine of the play is about putting on a Shakespeare play. But it is also a historical drama about how a disenfranchised group of artists get into some good trouble, bucking up against the system and producing Shakespeare in the way that they wanted. I also had the blessing of the playwright to take the play in a different direction than it had been produced up to that point. It was a beautiful production. One of the things that the company was wowed by was that this story was taking place a full 40 years before the Civil War. And people from all walks of life—free people and people who had just gotten out of enslavement—were working and living together in New York City. They were drawn by and taking ownership of Shakespeare’s language. It is a very interesting play to unpack.
“I loved the fact that anyone could be anything. You could play a king, a god, a fairy, a goblin. I thought the language was so versatile and incantatory.”
KN: That is a very important story and part of American theatre history to highlight. Moving on to Macbeth, I remember you saying at the first design meeting that Macbeth has been your dream role as an actor. What about the character excites you?
CA: I am a broad-shouldered, tall, sometimes melodious-voiced Black actor. And in my earliest introductions to Shakespeare, my mentors and teachers would tell me that I was going to be a fantastic Othello one day. I am a bit contrarian. So, the idea that there was this predetermined role that I would step into rubbed me the wrong way. As I moved through my training, I found that most of my classmates were drawn to Hamlet. I think Hamlet is a beautiful play and the character arc is interesting. But I do not think I am cerebral enough as a person to be drawn to the idea of playing a guy who is sort of stuck in his head. For me, Macbeth occupies a place that is in between these two poles of Hamlet and Othello. I have played Othello and it is an incredible part that requires great skill, imagination, and heart. But I am drawn more to the challenge of simultaneously navigating a physical and psychological journey.
When I was offered to direct Macbeth, I asked myself: ‘How do I direct a role that I have a very strong idea of playing without becoming a puppet master?’ As the director, you want to free up your cast to find their own versions of these characters in this story. I think that the themes of the play are evergreen. We are looking at ambition. We are looking at order versus chaos. We are looking at the disruption of hierarchies. These all feel relevant now. So, I think it is a perfect play to examine in this moment. Shakespeare deconstructs what it means to be a leader and what it means to take a person at face value. I keep coming back to a lesson that King Duncan offers his heir Malcolm early in the play. Duncan says, “There’s no art / To find the mind’s construction in the face” (1.4.11-12). I think so much of the rest of the play revisits this idea. You have no idea of what is actually happening on the other side of someone’s appearance.
KN: I mean, Duncan becomes an illustration of that notion in the next act, right? He is murdered by Macbeth, whom he trusts. He does not follow his own advice.
CA: When Duncan says the line, he is talking about the former Thane of Cawdor who rebelled against him. He goes on to say, “He was a gentleman on whom I built / An absolute trust” (1.4.13-14). There is an argument that perhaps the administration that precedes Macbeth’s reign was inefficient, that it was not savvy enough to see threats where they existed even though everyone speaks of Duncan as being virtuous. I think we are having similar conversations now. What do you want the head of your ship—your country, your community—to look like? What are the values that you want them to espouse?
KN: I think those questions are understandable and relatable to us on a human level. But there is also a supernatural dimension to this play. There are so many different interpretations and approaches to the three witches. How are you thinking about these characters and their presence in the world of the play?
CA: When I began to do more research on the origins of the play, I came across the medieval European concept of the Great Chain of Being. It was a guiding principle for people at the time that established a hierarchy with divine power at the top all the way down to plants and minerals at the bottom. And I asked myself, ‘What exactly does this mean? How is this philosophy in conversation with what Shakespeare puts on the stage?’ The conclusion that I have come to is that the other side that the witches occupy—the “dark side,” if you want to call it that—is simply a space outside of this hierarchy, of human understanding. It is a neutral force rather than a good or evil one. When human beings choose to engage with that force, it magnifies whatever you put into it. I am curious to see how the witches can serve as observers of human nature. I do not know if this is the right word, but they are “processors” of things that they come into contact with. They are scavengers who pick through earthly remains. I think this approach allows us to reimagine what the witches could mean. They are certainly supernatural since their existence exceeds what the average person’s understanding of nature is. But I am not ready to subscribe a value judgement that they are evil or good.
“I am curious to see how the witches can serve as observers of human nature.”
KN: Even though these figures are called witches in the stage directions, it is interesting that they never use that label themselves. They call themselves the Weïrd Sisters. When you think about how witches were stereotypically represented in the time period, they were often seen as followers of the devil. But Shakespeare does not seem to treat the Weïrd Sisters in that way. I think these textual clues support the idea of them being neutral forces. Depending on who they come into contact with, they might seem malevolent. But that is not the essence of who they are.
CA: Early in the play, one of the Weïrd Sisters talks about asking a woman eating chestnuts to give her some. And the woman casts her off, shouting, “Aroint thee, witch!” (1.3.6) And she earns the ire of the witch as a result of that. This made me think that these figures become witches because we say they are witches. But from another perspective, they might just be a person in need, or a person who wants to have a basic human relationship. The witches respond to us according to how we perceive and treat them. So, in that situation, the woman denying the chestnuts might be the real witch.
KN: Right. Macbeth later believes that these witches are toying with him, but actually they are holding a mirror up to him and showing what is inside.
CA: In some instances, the witches warn Macbeth not to do some of the things he does. So, are they his better angels or are they devils? Or are they physical manifestations of his ambitions, his doubts, his fears? I am very interested in exploring how the witches function throughout the play.
KN: Another thing I remember you saying in the design meetings is that you want to emphasize movement and physicality. Would you share some of your ideas about that?
CA: I think Shakespeare’s language is beautifully poetic. It can be very violent and very vulnerable. And with the group of actors that we have, I think the audience will experience that language. But there are also a number of rituals that take place in the play. I think that in order for them to be felt and understood, we really have to lean into the physicality. We have been looking at a variety of movement styles, including Butoh, Jerzy Grotowski’s work, and psychological gesture work, to tap into what lies beneath the language. In the play, there is this idea of seeing and reaching for something that is not there, such as in Macbeth’s famous “Is this a dagger which I see before me” speech. Lady Macbeth’s compulsive washing of the hands is also interesting in that regard. In these moments, there is a disconnect between the voice and the body. I want to explore that as much as possible. Also, this is a warrior culture. There is a lot of fighting and primal movement in the play: brutally attacking one another, stabbing one another, holding one another. So, I want to make sure that we support the physical storytelling as well as tending to the language.
KN: It is interesting to think about how that warrior culture filters into everyday life. There may not be a strict division between how people compose themselves physically in daily life and on the battlefield. The line gets blurry. I am thinking of the scene where Macbeth tells everyone that he killed Duncan’s two attendants out of rage. Of course, Macbeth has an ulterior motive for killing them, but the response from the other characters is shockingly nonchalant. They do not make a big deal out of it because it is apparently something that can happen in this society.
“I want to make sure that we support the physical storytelling as well as tending to the language.”
CA: Right. And the characters move seamlessly from one scene to the next. Depending on how much time has passed between Macbeth’s meeting with the king and him returning home, he might still be covered in blood from the war. He has been fighting on the battlefield, and he is able to integrate back into his home life with his wife and his servants. So, yes, I think that culture of violence does seep into the space. We want that to be present for the audience as well.
KN: I also want to talk about love in the play. This question came to my mind because we have been in rehearsals for Twelfth Night and Sense and Sensibility for a few weeks before Macbeth. So, I have been watching the same actors who will be in Macbeth falling in love and finding joy in their lives in these romantic comedies. And even though those feelings are not prevalent in Macbeth, I think love exists here as well. I think back to a line from Lauren Gunderson’s The Book of Will, which ISF produced last year. Henry Condell remarks that the Macbeths are ironically the happiest couple that Shakespeare ever wrote. I think about that line sometimes, and it has been on my mind since we started working on Macbeth. How do you see the relationship between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth? What kind of unit do they form and how does it gradually break apart?
CA: I have never heard their relationship stated that way. But I think I agree. The text suggests that they have spent a fair bit of their lives together. There is mention of a child that we do not see in the play. This is a man who goes away to fight in wars. And this is a woman who understands what kind of man she is married to, down to the bottom of his feet. She knows exactly what he needs for him to do the thing she wants him to do. I think that is a sign of great love and respect. The fact that she wants for her husband all the greatness that he deserves and is willing to do whatever has to be done to guarantee it tells me that their love is one for the ages. I do not know if this term is used often, but to me, they are equally yoked as a couple. They perfectly complement one another’s strengths and weaknesses. But in the moment that they murder the king, their relationship undergoes a crucible that I do not think they ever recover from. I wonder what kind of rulers they might have been if the plot did not take the trajectory that it does. I think Lady Macbeth in particular understands the political game. We see this in her interactions with Duncan and the other thanes. This is a woman who knows her way around in public.
KN: Is there anything else about the play that you would like to talk about?
CA: I think it is a beautifully complicated play. I do not necessarily like to lead the process with the politics of the moment, but I think now is an interesting time to examine violent choices. The play asks what you get if you lead with violence as opposed to thought. Is it possible to think yourself into a better situation rather than making a rash decision that you will spend the next five acts of your life regretting? I look forward to exploring these questions with the cast and finding out where these themes resonate with them. I hope that the production will give the audience a lot to contemplate.
KN: In relation to this play, I have been thinking about how so many atrocities and instances of state violence that we see around the world can be traced back to a leader who gets desperate because they either feel that power is slipping from their grasp or are insecure about the legitimacy of their authority. This leads them to overact, which causes suffering on a mass scale. Shakespeare explores that state of mind so effectively in Macbeth.
CA: I think what is masterful about the play is that Shakespeare gives the audience the ability to (hopefully) see both sides of the coin. They get to see what the people of Scotland most certainly do not get to see: the doubt, the fear, the anxiety, and perhaps the regret that are fueling all of Macbeth’s actions. The other characters in the play only see him from the outside as a tyrant or a monster. I read that when the play was written, there were some who saw Macbeth as a cautionary tale against regicide and usurpation. But others saw it as a warning to King James I, who had recently been crowned monarch of England, not to abuse his power because regicide was always an option. So, I think the play allows you to take from it whatever you are willing to take from it.
KN: I look forward to seeing what we discover in rehearsal and what the audience takes from the production. Thank you.
“The play asks what you get if you lead with violence as opposed to thought.”
