Upon hearing that ex-Libertine Carl Barat is set to make his stage debut I did my usual; I sneered; I followed the sneer with a high pitched, squealy laugh of disbelief; I immediately dismissed it as yet another casting gimmick that has become de rigeur since theatres realised there was more money to be made in seducing successful musicians and TV or film stars to the boards / wings than to invest in productions that may excel in artistic tradition but fall flat commercially. As a dormant actor (I prefer that prefix to 'jobbing', 'out of work' or 'failed') it was a joy to find out that after struggling to move mountains with the one hit musical venture that was Dirty Pretty Things, Barat has opted to reignite a passion that hasn't (publicly, at least) burned all that brightly since an incomplete stint studying drama at Brunel University.
I then found out that the play in which he will star is Sam Sheperd's Fool For Love; a play that is widely regarded as a great two hander and a searing comment on the state of modern love. He will play opposite Sadie Frost (a person with whom Barat says, he has a "dramatic chemistry") in the show directed by Neil Sheppeck, artistic director of theatre company Love & Madness. Set in a dingy motel room, the play focuses on a warring couple in a fractured but cyclical relationship and explores how the weight of society can manifest and put pressure on a relationship. I recently read a study guide on the play, which contained the following description:
"Fool for Love is a western for our time. We watch a pair of figurative gunslingers fight to the finish — not with bullets, but with piercing words that give ballast to the weight of a nation’s buried dreams."
So in fact, isn't this part perfect for Barat? The above statement all but summarises his frequently turbulent relationship with one Pete Doherty and that's the kind of true experience that people like Daniel Day Lewis have to camp out in a jungle wearing a jumpsuit made of bark to achieve. In a recent interview with The Times Online, that very question was put to Barat who - despite claiming to have studied the theory of the great (and very famous) acting practitioner Konstantin Stanislavsky - responded by saying, “God, I’ve honestly not thought about that before.”
Acting for screen and acting on stage differ greatly, but to me this is a little bit like say, Mickey Rourke, being asked if his career as a boxer informed his performance in The Wrestler and the response drawing a similar blank. As an artist, shouldn't the comparisons have been immediately evident? As an actor in particular it is important - when seeking to convey a truthful rendition - that one has a white knuckle grip on the essence of the text and the ability to relate your character's circumstances or emotions to your own. Granted, not every actor of note favours this 'naturalised', emotion led approach. However in believable acting, there must be a certain heightened awareness of how one's DNA differs or matches the characters, and this awareness is a prerequisite whether a debutant or a veteran. Indeed even Gabourey Sidibe, who claimed never to have acted 'seriously' prior to her revered turn in the film Precious was aware of how the character's insecurity failed to mirror her own and how it was becoming an almost diametric version of herself that was the challenge. As she recently told Guardian G2: "I guess physically I had the requirements but I didn't think I could do it. I know I'm awesome, but I didn't think I could be Precious, you know?" She goes on to describe how, psychologically, herself and Precious are worlds apart. Sidibe was majoring in psychology at the time she was cast and I would not hesitate to suggest that this foundation of knowledge of the psyche allowed her to more naturally transform into the mumbling, awkward, hunched figure that she inhabits for the film.
So was Barat responding in faux-surprise? Almost everything I've read subsequently suggests so. During another interview he smiled wryly at the suggestion and he admits that the parallels are there. This still doesn't alleviate my fears however, and it certainly does nothing to detract from my opening gambit; that theatre has become fixated with attracting 'new audiences' and that it's default means for doing so is to give pop culture figures, with their own in built fanbase, a crack at the whip. The director Sheppeck himself, has said whilst promoting the play:
"We are thrilled to have been given the opportunity to work with both Sadie and Carl and hope that through their involvement with the company we will be able to entertain not only regular theatre-goers but also to attract a whole new audience into the theatre for the first time."
In my opinion, he may well be missing the point. He isn't the first and I mean no ill faith in the production itself. Similarly I realise that Sheppeck is hardly about to start marring the promotion run with any misgivings he might have about Barat or the process involved in his casting. It just seems inescapable to me that such casting decisions - whether they work or not, and no matter how good the performances - only serve to undercut the view that theatre is an ailing art form. Even serious and traditional theatre actors who have made their names more recognised in popular television shows (David Tennant
and Patrick Stewart, for example) have struggled to transfer their audience to a point where the members are taking their seats primarily to appreciate the play as opposed to opting for the experience merely to catch a glimpse of Dr Who or Jean Luc Pickard in the flesh at the stage door. Likewise when Harry Potter himself, Daniel Radcliffe, made his stage debut in Peter Schaafer's Equus a couple of years ago, more was made of his chiseled anatomical frame than the standard of the production. As it turns out, both the RSCs production of Hamlet (starring Tennant) and the Thea Sharrock directed Equus (with Radcliffe) received very good reviews and were excellently received by audiences and critics alike. And therein lies the difficult question; is theatre forced to turn to this kind of populist casting in order to survive and more pertinently, to prove itself? If the answer is yes, there are many young actors up and down the nation that face an even greater struggle than ever to make their mark in a historically finicky artistic medium.
So was Barat responding in faux-surprise? Almost everything I've read subsequently suggests so. During another interview he smiled wryly at the suggestion and he admits that the parallels are there. This still doesn't alleviate my fears however, and it certainly does nothing to detract from my opening gambit; that theatre has become fixated with attracting 'new audiences' and that it's default means for doing so is to give pop culture figures, with their own in built fanbase, a crack at the whip. The director Sheppeck himself, has said whilst promoting the play:
"We are thrilled to have been given the opportunity to work with both Sadie and Carl and hope that through their involvement with the company we will be able to entertain not only regular theatre-goers but also to attract a whole new audience into the theatre for the first time."
In my opinion, he may well be missing the point. He isn't the first and I mean no ill faith in the production itself. Similarly I realise that Sheppeck is hardly about to start marring the promotion run with any misgivings he might have about Barat or the process involved in his casting. It just seems inescapable to me that such casting decisions - whether they work or not, and no matter how good the performances - only serve to undercut the view that theatre is an ailing art form. Even serious and traditional theatre actors who have made their names more recognised in popular television shows (David Tennant
and Patrick Stewart, for example) have struggled to transfer their audience to a point where the members are taking their seats primarily to appreciate the play as opposed to opting for the experience merely to catch a glimpse of Dr Who or Jean Luc Pickard in the flesh at the stage door. Likewise when Harry Potter himself, Daniel Radcliffe, made his stage debut in Peter Schaafer's Equus a couple of years ago, more was made of his chiseled anatomical frame than the standard of the production. As it turns out, both the RSCs production of Hamlet (starring Tennant) and the Thea Sharrock directed Equus (with Radcliffe) received very good reviews and were excellently received by audiences and critics alike. And therein lies the difficult question; is theatre forced to turn to this kind of populist casting in order to survive and more pertinently, to prove itself? If the answer is yes, there are many young actors up and down the nation that face an even greater struggle than ever to make their mark in a historically finicky artistic medium. 
