"Sport is Theatre": An Interview with Chris Coculuzzi

Chris Coculuzzi

This interview was conducted by CASP Research Associate Gordon Lester in January, 2004.

Could you tell us about the various contexts that led to the genesis of Shakespeare's Rugby Wars and Shakespeare's World Cup?

Rugby Wars, and its successors, was born out of three interests: spectacle theatre, a more physical kind of theatre, and socialist theatre. One of the most inspiring directors of the 20th Century was Max Reinhardt. His productions ranged from intimate experimental theatre to large-scale spectacles with extraordinary mob scenes and audience interaction. Spectacle theatre today is mostly relegated to musical theatre with insane production costs. I was confident and determined to prove that visual spectacle could be achieved and enjoyed at minimal cost and maximum creativity.  

Secondly, I was interested in bridging the chasm between sports and theatre. In Canada there are still a lot of stereotypes about the intellectual capacity of the participants and spectators of these two kinds of events. And although I have my own ideological views on the commercialization of both disciplines, there is no doubt in my mind that Sport is Theatre. There is also no doubt in my mind about what makes a more holistic performer––and that is a commitment to developing not only the mind but also the body. And I don't mean just through other artistic means such as dance and movement (which should be encouraged also) but through rigorous physical exercise.  It makes perfect sense to me that any performing arts program at a College or University should be made up in a large part with Physical Education. That they do not is very telling and helps to reinforce the stereotypes based on "intellectual" classism.

Given the very nature of theatre, it almost seems redundant to say "socialist theatre" but sadly it is most necessary to not only say it but also to promote it. Most of what is considered "professional" art in Canada is structured on a hierarchical capitalist model. Particularly with spectacle theatre - musicals and operas––and even "commercial" theatre there is a lot of pecking order imbedded in the production and administration. I was interested in producing a show that required 30-40 performers of which not one would have more importance than another––that through the collective positive efforts of all would the success of the show hinge on.

So spectacle theatre and a more physical, socialist theatre were the motivators, but I needed a specific project or "medium" as well as a context for production.   I have long had an artistic and academic interest in the period of British History commonly referred to as "The Wars of the Roses" and given my motivators, I easily made the creative leap of interpreting this period as a theatrical sporting event.  It took a lot of brainstorming before I finally thought of Rugby as the sport of choice - which would become so appropriate that I began chanting my slogan of "These shows write themselves."  

Interestingly, Shakespeare was almost an afterthought.  Shakespeare's tetralogy was used because it saved me from creating the basic story and characters; it allowed me the opportunity to intimately explore those texts which I had wanted to do for some time; his name added marketability; and finally, given the literary and intellectual elitism around his work, such an adaptation would be the perfect medium for translating my three initial desires.  The last piece of the puzzle was the Toronto Fringe Festival to provide a production context that allowed for such experimental theatre at a very low cost/risk and an audience that might very likely be responsive.

 
In both plays Shakespeare is the referee on the field with all his characters, but he has almost no lines. In Shakespeare's Rugby Wars his only lines refer to the movie Shakespeare in Love. Could you comment on this decision?

Shakespeare is the referee for symbolic-comical purpose.  Like the writer, the referee oversees the "world" of the play/sport and is there to enforce the structure and guidelines and yet sound "invisible."   Both during Rugby Wars and World Cup, there is time dedicated to "real" play: that is, the actor-athletes are playing in real spontaneous time, where the action is unpredictable. It is the job of Bill the Ref to then seamlessly bring the performers to a specific plot/sport event as dictated by the script.

With regards to the "Shakespeare in Love" reference––it is with embarrassed reluctance that I reveal the genesis of this. It was jointly determined by me and my collaborator, Matt Toner that I would perform Shakespeare.   It was an added symbolic reference (as well as a safety precaution) that the director would direct/ref the action. I strongly felt that Shakespeare should have ZERO lines––but my comical counterpart was determined to capitalize on the fact that ever since said movie came out, it had constantly been pointed out by friends and strangers that I have more than a passing resemblance to Joseph Fiennes' appearance in the same role.   For the sake of a laugh––I conceded.

An important feature of both plays is the use of sports commentators to provide narration and explanation for the audience. Could you comment on the decision to pair the character John Falstaff with Elizabethan playwrights Christopher Marlowe in Shakespeare's Rugby Wars, and Thomas Middleton in Shakespeare's World Cup?

Both Matt and I were agreed that regardless of the sport, the commentators had to be based on Canadian Hockey Commentators––this was our "Canadian" stamp on the production. For practical reasons, our audience is Canadian, but for artistic reasons, Canadian Hockey Commentators have the best blend of professional knowledge, passion for the sport, and witticism.  And of course, nowhere is this more evident then in the highly entertaining Don Cherry and Ron MacLean.  Our duo is not an imitation of these two personalities, but they are certainly inspired by them.   If one had to find a "Don Cherry" Shakespearean equivalent, I doubt there would be a more appropriate contender than Falstaff.  This was also historically convenient, because we have Falstaff always talk about his coaching days with the late great Henry V––a la Cherry and Orr.

The choice for Marlowe/Middleton was to merely have Elizabethan contemporaries featured who could comment more on Shakespeare. Marlowe is credited with establishing blank verse, while Middleton is held to have some writing credit in Macbeth. The names change just to add new contemporaries or equivalent parallels––for Gladiator Games we had Plautus as the "MacLean" character and Pseudolus as the "Cherry" character.

The "sideline" commentator is always the source material author––so for Rugby Wars and World Cup it was Holinshed and for Gladiator Games it was Plutarch.

It the stage directions there are instances of instant replay and Matrix-inspired slow motion sequences. What was the thinking behind their inclusion? Have you thought about filming the plays for TV or cinema?

When I first came up with the general concept of Rugby Wars and we had only vague ideas of what it might look like, there was one gag that I had a clear vision of what I wanted to see and that was 30 actors doing a slow-motion instant replay.   It wasn't until the show was mapped out that I knew finally where to put it––and realized that is was the comical climax. The Matrix rip-off for World Cup took much longer to come up with––but both were born from the fact that these productions are visual spectacles that parody Shakespeare, Sports and Pop Culture.  The shows are filled with large-scale visual comedy and the "climax" has to be the one that involves EVERYONE in what is hopefully the most humourous or visually breath-taking.

Several people have expressed their support for TV/Cinematic representation of these shows, but I have to admit I am sceptical. I suppose it is possible but I think it would be a radically different production.  What makes these shows work is that at any given moment there are 30 different things going on - and yet they are all working together.  Just to give an example - the instant replay at the end of Rugby Wars consists of 30 actors moving backwards through their previous action.   Even though the main visual is Richard killing Henry, the audience member has the opportunity to quickly scan over the entire field and view every performer doing their own little shtick––which I think is what REALLY makes it funny.   It seems to me that even with editing you couldn't reproduce the same breadth of comedy through a TV/Cinematic production.   Not to mention the Improvisational nature of our shows.   The scripts that are on-line are limited versions of what an audience experiences.   We build into the script moments as well as encourage the performers to improvise during the show. These "lines" and "actions" do not make a final edition of a script because often they only exist once or build over the run.   I would guess that a filmed version would tend to focus on the commentators, whereas in the live performance the commentators although visible, are rarely "watched"––it is their rapid-fire commentary amplified over the large-scale human visuals that make it work. These shows are a buffet for the eye and ear and each audience member takes what they want for their own plate.  TV/Cinema is a medium that is very precise in its menu delivery. Therefore, I feel it would be a limited meal.
 
You said that you were planning to do the Shakespeare canon in five years. Could you comment on that decision?

Rugby Wars was a success––great feedback from both audience and critics––but most importantly everyone involved had a great time.  The deadline to submit for the next Fringe was fast approaching and Matt and I were considering another collaboration but with no concrete ideas.  I didn't know if I wanted to do another Sports Shakespeare spectacle––in fact, I was pretty sure I didn't.   It was a chance conversation with two international students that I and my family were hosting––a Brazilian and a Korean––about the up-coming World Cup in Korea that sparked my creative fire.   Always enamoured of the "great four" tragedies lead to the idea of England, Scotland, Italy, and Denmark fighting for tragic soccer prominence. Then with Shakespeare's World Cup revealed I thought about other major athletic competitions and the most obvious being the Olympics. Such a large scale event required a large scale adaptation––and I resolved to adapt ALL the Comedies (and Romances) into this event. That left almost half the tragedies yet untouched––which conveniently were Roman and Greek.no problem. Gladiatorial Combat. This then left the remaining histories. Finally we would get to pay homage to the Canadian sport so inspirational for these shows with Shakespeare's NHL (National History League).

Why the entire canon? Matt and I began a journey with these Shakespeare Sports adaptations, and this seemed (and seems) like the logical final destination. It seems a fitting tribute to an artist and his work that has provided so much inspiration and joy.

Sport has been used to adapt Shakespeare by a number of Canadians. One of the most famous Wayne and Shuster sketches was "The Shakespearean Baseball Game" and Ken Hudson performed Henry V in a hockey arena. Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas also use hockey players in their Hamlet-based movie Strange Brew. Could you comment on adapting Shakespeare and sport?

Really there are two questions here––adapting "plays" into sporting events and then specifically Shakespeare. As I mentioned above Sports is Theatre. In any sporting event a story is told with a beginning, middle, and end––in fact, it is the most linear of plot structures.There are climaxes and crises, stakes are constantly raised, pivotal moments occur, obstacles must continually be overcome––and all players are playing to win. These phrases are synonymous with both sports and theatre. Therefore, any play and playwright is fair game for adaptation to a sporting event.   I've often jested that the complete works of G.B. Shaw could be adapted into a Cricket game––they both go on FOREVER.  

Shakespeare becomes popular game for two reasons––the first because his characters and stories are probably the most familiar––that is pretty important in parody.   But the second reason I think has more to do with what I will admit is a "Canadian" sense of humour. I'm not one to support or adhere to a Canadian Identity, but if there is one point of contact or generalization that I find fairly convincing––it is a distinctly "Canadian" sense of humour. There was a British study done not too long ago looking into this, and more recently I know of at least one university that has a Canadian Humour course.  We tend to like irony, satire, self-deprecation, and pulling down of icons (especially political). Shakespeare is a mighty icon––and that probably makes him a popular Canadian target to pull down. That actually might be something for your project to look into: How many Canadian adaptations of Shakespeare that are a means to remove his pedestal, in comparison with American, British, Australian, etc. adaptations?

Could you reflect on the extent to which Shakespearean influences figure in your work as a playwright and writer generally?

I don't consider myself a playwright since my dabbling in this profession has been limited and for very specific purposes––more as a functional task rather than a creative release. With regards to my writing in general, probably my continual interest and investigation of his use of language helped prepare me to discover and digest more sophisticated writers in literature, philosophy and political critique which in turn have all had various influence on my writing.

To what extent is theatrical/literary culture in Canada (in your reading of it) a function of Shakespearean theatre?

I think I would make a distinction between theatrical and literary culture in Canada. I think our theatrical culture, sadly, has and remains a large function of Shakespearean theatre (not including Quebec). I feel our literary culture continues to grow on its own path and is informed more by geography and climate. Perhaps this is a reflection that literary production allows for a private exploration of independence while theatrical production is by nature public and where we have tended to be much more conservative and still stay at home with our parents.

Is adaptation a way of overwriting Shakespearean source texts? Do you care to comment on the political and ideological stakes of this overwriting?

There are different reasons for adapting and therefore different reasons for "overwriting."  In our case, I have given the motives and with regards to Shakespeare it had more to do with a "Canadian" sense of humour than a means of censorship so often employed in the 19th Century.

What are the problems facing a playwright who undertakes a Shakespearean adaptation?

The main problem when creating any adaptation are the points when the adaptation wants to go one way and the source goes another.  However, coming up with solutions or compromises are usually the most rewarding.  The problem particularly with Shakespeare is that so many others know the source material––some perhaps better than you. Therefore, eliminating all cognitive dissonance will be difficult. Just think Peter Jackson and Lord of the Rings.

Adaptation of Shakespeare in Canada is a flourishing genre. The CASP research team has found close to 500 plays that are clear adaptations dating back to pre-Confederation. To what extent does this tradition of adapting define specifically Canadian theatrical practices (if one can even speak of such practices with any validity)?

Obviously this is something that perhaps your team might investigate more, but this seems to be a reflection of our reluctance to leave our theatrical parents' home as well as a unique "Canadian" sense of humour.

What are the uses of Shakespearean adaptation? In your work specifically? Does adaptation necessarily place the playwright in a compromised position (in terms of reinforcing theatrical tradition) or does it afford opportunities to remake that tradition? Are there examples in your own work you would point to as part of your response?

If our scripts can help promote creative spectacle theatre, physical theatre, and/or a more socialist theatre, then I would be very happy.   For three years now, we have proven that those three objectives are possible and critically worthy.   I think in this way, we have "remade" theatrical tradition.  

Speaking as an educator, I think these adaptations have tremendous use in public education - particularly at bridging the gap between literature and physical education and in so doing improving literacy. I have always been critical of the often watered-down university approach to Shakespeare in the high school curriculum. If nothing else, these adaptations help to reinforce that his texts are meant to be interpreted on your feet and running around and NOT sitting on your buttocks with your nose in a book or writing an essay on theme or animal imagery.
 

What theatrical techniques do you see as most useful in the adaptation of Shakespeare genre?

For these adaptations, I always start with a one page outline broken down in Five Acts in honour of the Bard.  Practically speaking though, such a format has been extremely beneficial in mapping out the basic story. The other "tool" that I rely heavily on is analyzing the source text according to screenplay structure.  This is necessary because I'm adapting usually four or five texts into 75 minutes. I need to be able to hit the main elements of plot along with memorable moments in order to fit it all in.   I also find the screenplay analysis helpful because we are so influenced by TV/Cinema and their structures. Using that format on Shakespeare helps provide a connection to these mediums.

What ideological/political implications do you see to adapting Shakespeare in a Canadian context?

Again it depends on the nature of the adaptation. With regards to the comical ones––it seems to be a reflection of  "Canadian" sense of humour and pulling down icons.

It has been said that adaptation is a way of talking across cultures and across time--a way of relating to other authors and contexts intertextually--would you agree with this sense of adaptation in relation to your own work?

In this case, yes I would. I've often argued that in Shakespeare's time, the performers were much more in tune with their physical selves.   These shows are a means to return to that tradition––ironic that by pulling him down we are putting him up––but "irony" is another focus of "Canadian" humour.

How far would you be prepared to go in defining what an adaptation is? To what extent must some form of Shakespeare be present in an adaptation for it to be called Shakespearean?

That's a tough question. I'm guessing you must have some parameters for your team and your research project. It seems that arbitrary measurements would be insufficient.   For example in our adaptations, if one measured a percentage of lines, it would be almost negligent.   But in terms of plot structure, we follow it almost to the letter. I suppose the only way to make the distinction is in the conscious choice of the author, and in cases where the author is not available to disclose, an educated guess must suffice.  

Could you reflect on your own cultural background in relation to your writing and in relation to being "Canadian"?

Fortunately or unfortunately––depending on your philosophy––I do not adhere to any kind of cultural background, which I suppose is in of itself a "kind" of cultural background.   I merely consider myself a human male.   I think my attraction to theatre was an opportunity to re-invent myself according to other conditions––and yet the satisfaction and comfort to not have to fulfill some kind of stereotype in my "real" life.

And yet, I obviously have a cultural and biological history as well as a continual interaction with my environment from which I have and continue to learn from––all of which inform who I am today.

Therefore, I feel that with any artistic creation, there will always be a balance between where you have come from and where you want to go.   A large part of my sense of humour was established in my teen years growing up in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia in the eighties.   A large part of my philosophies and opinions on theatre have developed over the last ten years actively participating in the discipline in Toronto.   And ultimately these shows were born out of a desire to do something I had not done before––perhaps promote a kind of humanistic theatre that deserves artistic and critical attention.

The more I refuse to accept any artificial description like "cultural background" to inform my own identity––the more I reject the notion of a "Canadian" identity.   And yet, conversely, the more I see a potential for really creating a "Canadian" identity as synonymous with creating and being a "Global Citizen."  

In so many cases being Canadian becomes a way of talking about elsewhere spaces that get mapped onto Canada. What role do you think theatre plays in that mapping of local and international identities that seems to be so crucial to discussions of Canadian identity?

I think in this respect, theatre in Canada plays either no role or a negligible one at best.   As I mentioned earlier, I feel our literary culture plays a larger role––and perhaps our TV/Cinema adds some but theatre I find is still stuck in Mom and Dad's garage.   And I'm certainly as guilty as the next theatrical artist––I don't absolve myself in this critique.   I suppose the more important question is should it have a larger role?   I have received several critiques of our shows (usually with a negative implication) that read "It is not really theatre" or "Is it even a play?"   I take great pleasure in these critiques––because possibly we have opened the garage door and taken a walk down the driveway and dared to convey a theatrical presentation that is unique to our view of the world and of ourselves.  When more begin to do that, we will break the general uniformity of Canadian theatrical tradition and will reflect a more Canadian/Global identity. And yet, no matter how far we roam, there is nothing like home for the holidays.

Link to Shakespeare's Rugby Wars
Link to Shakespeare's World Cup
Link to Shakespeare in Sports