Written by David Mence
Directed by Claire Glenn
For SAYarts in association with
Condundrum and Holden Street Theatres
for Adelaide Fringe 2017
education notes
The poster
posters have to contain
some basic information who, what, where, when
- and a why - why would
you come?
sponsor logos
take up a
lot of space
Poster photography by Lauren Playfair
Poster design by Stu Nankivell and Bec Pannell
The Players
Macbeth Finn Caulfield
Lady Macbeth Megan Paterson
Macduff Ismael Hamilton-­El Aquil
Cripple No-­Toes Ben Cook
Hecate Jenna Bezuidenhout
Malcolm Sam McKenna
Lady Ross Jenna Bezuidenhout
Lady Lennox Clementine Murton
Lord Angus Jak Hoopmann
The Weird Sisters Deanna Athanasos, Milayna Ellery, Grace Shearer
Fleance Sam McKenna
Wandering Shepherd Ethan Miotti
Lady Macduff Clementine Murton
Virgil Sam McKenna
Ghost of Banquo Ethan Miotti
Meek Old Mary (Tavern Hostess) Grace Lockhart
Messenger Huey Cobham Hervey
Guard Jak Hoopmann
Beezlebob Grace Shearer
Tragedians Deanna Athanasos, Milayna Ellery, Jak Hoopmann,
Grace Lockhart, Huey Cobham Hervey
Old Siward Jak Hoopmann
Attendants Huey Cobham Hervey, Grace Lockhart
The creatives & crew
Writer David Mence
Director Claire Glenn
Assistant Directors Anthony Kelly & Bec Pannell
Lighting and Sound designer/operator Anthony Kelly
Set design and Props Lauren Playfair
Vocal Coach Bec Pannell
An Ghillie Mor (sword trainers) -­ David Nearmy & Sarah Hillebrand
Fight choreographer Nicole Allen
Stage Manager Bec Pannell
Producers Bec Pannell (SAYarts) Claire Glenn (Conundrum)
Make-­up design Claire Glenn
Costumes Fancy That
Screens Terry MacKenzie and the Mitcham Men's Shed
Kilts -­ supplied by the Port Adelaide Caledonian Society
Seamstresses Claire Glenn, Kerrie Hamilton, Sandra McKenna
Photography Lauren Playfair
Graphics Stu Nankivell, Bec Pannell
Poster Distribution Travis Simmons & Poster Impact
Tapadh leibh -­ Thank you
Rebecca Olthoff and Mitcham Community Centres,
Martha Lott ( & all her amazing team at HST),
Glyn Berry and Wallis Cinema Mitcham,
Kate Billinghurst, Fancy That Costumes, Rob Miotti and Nicole Ford
Port Adelaide Caledonian Society, David Nearmy & Sarah Hillebrand
Poster Impact, Kelly Farrow, Terry MacKenzie,
The wonderful, supportive parents of our cast.
Interview with David Mence
Who do you like more -­ Shakespeare or zombies?
A hard question. I fell in love with zombies first. As a teen I used to watch and re-­watch Evil Dead 1, 2, and 3 (Army
of Darkness) on an almost weekly basis. I don’t know why I was so obsessed with these films other than to say that
something about the blend of extreme gore and horror and zany oddball comedy really spoke to me. But at Uni I fell
in love with Shakespeare and was mesmerised by the incredible range and sheer force of his language. It was like
discovering a foreign continent on which people spoke another language—our language, in fact—that was so much
richer, deeper, more flexible in terms of both syntax and metaphor, closer to myth, religion, unafraid to confront the
best and the worst of human nature. It was a desire to write something in that language—somewhat that I naively
dared to hope would be equal to that language—that was the major motivation behind Macbeth Re-­Arisen. It was,
first of all, an experiment in language; and, when encouraged by my friends and family, I began to take it more
seriously as a play. That was when I began to merge the linguistic experiment with the characters and conventions I
had imbibed from zombie movies. What made you think of putting zombies with Shakespeare?
I would like to be able to say that it emerged out of some profound meditation . . . but to be frank, like so many good
ideas, it emerged out of a hilarious conversation over a few beers (is that too frank, Bec, I’ll leave it up to your
sound judgment?). We were actually on a play camp—doing a production of Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex at the
University of Melbourne—and having a laugh about how Macbeth was so much more of a badass than any other
literary figure that we could think of and much more of a badass he would be if he came back from the dead and had
another crack at trying to conquer Scotland. I then went home—and sobered up—and had a closer look at the
premise: I re-­read Macbeth and I realised that there were, in fact, a whole lot of resonances between this most
supernatural of Elizabethan plays and the genre of horror that emerged in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. So
many of the tropes and conventions that are central to horror as we know it today were pioneered by Shakespeare
(and others). The witches, Banquo’s ghost (and hence ghosts in general as a figure for something that has been
repressed or violated), moral transgression leading to natural monstrosities (storms and foul weather and horses
that cannibalise themselves etc.), the spiral further and further into bloodshed (just as lies breed more lies to cover
up the lies), the ravages of guilt and descent into madness, and so on. The ‘lightbulb’ moment occurred when I
looked more closely at Act 4 Scene 1, the famous scene in which the witches prepare their devilish spell (‘Double,
double, toil and trouble’) and Macbeth confronts them, seeking more definitive answers (‘How now, you secret, black
and midnight hags? What is’t you do?). Shakespeare never says precisely what this spell is more, and Macbeth does
not get the answers he is looking for, only more confusion. I decided that perhaps the purpose of the spell—the real
purpose as opposed to the riddling answers that the witches give—was to prepare Macbeth for a live beyond death;
in other words, to turn him into a zombie, knowing that he would shortly be killed by Macduff. This is why Macbeth
Re-­Arisen starts almost the exact moment after Macduff has chopped Macbeth’s head off . . . the moment that he
stops being human and becomes a zombie.
How hard is it to write iambic pentameter? Are there any moments in the play where you break the rules?
It’s pretty hard. It certainly slows you down. I think I would call it a ‘good day’ if I could get twenty or thirty lines (good lines) written.
It’s slow and laborious and, of course, you need to keep going back over what you’ve done to improve it and make sure that it fits
with the meter. You might write a new section, further down, and realise that you’ve missed a beat somewhere and then you need to
go back to an earlier section and insert a word or two (or delete a word or two) to make it all sing. There’s a lot of reshuffling the
deck like this. You get faster at it, to be sure, but it’s never going to be as fast as writing prose. But fitting the words the meter, like
flesh onto a skeleton, forces you to be more creative and unorthodox. And it gave me deeper insight into Shakespeare’s use of
language: if you study his plays you will see that he often adds an extra adjective here or there in order to make the meter work. He
is especially fond of adjectival coordination, as in Macbeth’s famous line, ‘Stars, hide your fires; Let not light see my black and deep
desires.’ He could have written, ‘black, deep desires’, but ‘black and deep’ is so much more propulsive and preserves the iambic
(the tic-­toc tic-­toc rhythm) part of iambic pentameter. (Pentameter means five stresses or beats per line, so that each line has a total
of ten ‘tic-­tocs’ in it, if that makes sense). As to whether there are any moments in the play when I break the rules, well, I’m not going
to answer that! That would be giving up the game. But I will say this . . . if I do break the rules . . . I do it for a reason.
Why is Shakespeare important in the 21st century?
Shakespeare is important for the simple reason that language is important. As the greatest writer in the English language, we English
speakers always have something to learn from him, who not only invented half of the words that we use today but the rhetorical modes
in which we use those words. When we praise someone, rail against someone, confess, lie, dissemble or cheat, implore someone,
prod or goad someone, exult, glorify, satirise or savage someone, whenever, in short, we speak we are working with Shakespearean
residues. He also invented some of the greatest and most archetypal stories and characters—think of Othello the jealous moor or King
Lear on the heath—which we find are constantly being recycled in popular culture. Baz Lurhmann’s Romeo + Juliet was a great
demonstration of how easy it is for us get the gist of Shakespeare’s story without having to grasp the exact meaning of every utterance
(nor was it any different for Elizabethans who could not possibly have understood half of what Shakespeare’s characters say to one
another and yet had no difficulty following his plays from start to finish). Tragedies or comedies?
Tragedies. Comedy is too culturally specific as a genre. We often struggle to translate humour from one culture to the next (try
watching a Chinese or Indian comedy for example). Even more so with a comedy that comes from another period in human history.
The tragedies, on the other hand, have a universality to them that seems to better carry across the centuries. Besides, for me,
Shakespeare is a guilty reading pleasure, not principally something that I see in the theatre, which is why I much prefer the tragedies:
they raise deeper, more philosophical or psychological issues, whereas I can only tolerate so many yellow pairs of leggings or
bed-­swap jokes before I start to groan!
What is your favourite film version of any Shakespeare play – including modern film adaptations?
I’ve already mentioned Baz’ Romeo + Juliet, which I do think had a fantastic, youthful energy to it. It’s not really my favourite, however,
because I find Leo and Claire just a bit too soppy. I think Roman Polanski’s Macbeth is an utter masterpiece: it strikes just the right
mud-­soaked, blood-­soaked tone, and has a darkness that shines through in every scene. The witches are just so creepy and Lady
Macbeth is both beautiful (in a very Elizabethan way) and terrifying. I also like Orson Welles’ Macbeth and Othello; they are a bit heavy
on modernist film-­making techniques, but some of them really work, especially the sense of claustrophobia he evokes in Othello. The
fairly recent Richard III with Ian McKellan in the title role is a lot of fun mainly because McKellan is just so wonderfully cheeky and
villainous. I really don’t like these overly-­masculine, try-­hard attempts to be ‘gritty’ that we are seeing at the moment, the case in point
being Ralph Fienne’s Coriolanus. Having said that, the Titus Andronicus with Anthony Hopkins from a few years back was pretty good,
but then that’s a very gritty play. I’m really not a fan of Kenneth Brannagh’s long-­winded and overly indulgent Hamlet (in fact, I kind of
despise Hamlet in general, but that’s another story). I’m not such of a snob that I can’t enjoy Clueless—very, very funny. But probably
my two favourite film adaptations are Akira Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood (Macbeth) and Ran (King Lear). I am a huge fan of Kurosawa
and I think his level of understanding and ability to capture the essence of Shakespeare’s stories is just head and shoulders above the
rest.
Have you ever actually eaten brains?
Haha. No comment.
What's scarier: Sharks or zombies?
Sharks are way scarier because you can’t see them and they tear you to shreds before you get a chance to fight back. Definitely
scared of sharks. Zombies (at least traditionally) move slowly and are good target practice. Their only really a problem in large
numbers (see, for example, Dawn of the Dead in which a lot of good fun is had with shambling corpses). And besides, as everybody
knows, it’s really the human beings who are the bad guys in zombie movies!
Do you have any general advice for a zombie apocalypse?
I’ve thought long and hard about this. First, I would recommend that everyone read Max Brooks’ (only partially comic) Zombie Survival
Guide and World War Z, which together lay out quite a comprehensive plan for survival. Watching (or even better, reading the comics)
The Walking Dead can also be a good source of information and ideas. The key things that I have learned are as follows: get out of
town and learn to survive in the wilderness (preferably a national park or somewhere similarly remote); get good at fishing and
hunting; preserve your ammo and where possible use a knife or other weapon; remember, zombies can’t (traditionally) run, so you
can outrun them and shake them off your tail. Living up in a tree is a very good idea. There’s a character in the book World War Z
(forget the film . . . total rubbish) who really inspires me: he’s an old, blind Japanese guy, who takes the woods and learns to survive
with only a samurai sword. It’s actually the perfect weapon when you think about it. Decapitate the suckers.
What do you believe is the central message of the play -­ for all its silliness there is still a Shakespearean level lesson.
There is a serious message in the play. I wanted it to be able to function exactly as a Shakespearean tragedy might—in the same ways
and on the same levels. And, in many ways both conscious and unconscious, I used Shakespeare’s Macbeth as the template for
everything that happens in narrative and thematic terms. So the central message of Macbeth, which is the classically Ancient
Greek/Christian one that pride and ambition lead to our downfall, is also the central message of Macbeth Re-­Arisen. At first, Macbeth’s
radical Satanic energy propels the play forward (and provides most of its most memorable moments), but the second half of the play
belongs to the noble and virtuous Macduff. The framework that Milton uses in Paradise Lost was also on my mind: Satan (the
imagination) may be a lot fun, and have a lot of the best lines, but it is his downfall and the triumph of God (reason) that the poem
rehearses. I suppose that’s a very long-­winded and highfalutin way of saying that ‘crime doesn’t pay’ or, even more simply, that ‘good
triumphs over evil’. What’s complicated about it is that, as Shakespeare shows in Macbeth, good can be boring and terribly
overbearing whereas evil is compelling (at least in dramatic terms) and downright sexy. I’m pretty sure this is why people love watching
crime shows and reading crime fiction so much!
Does each character have a central purpose or archetype?
They do; but it would take me a long time to outline the entire system. I suppose the main characters who have a symbolic function are
Macbeth, Macduff and Cripple No-­Toes (the latter may come as a surprise but I will explain why). Macbeth, quite obviously, is the very
reason for the play in the sense that he is the one who has come back from the dead and is attempting to conquer Scotland with his
army of zombie minions. He is, in screenwriting terms, ‘the problem’ or ‘the drama’. His archetype, as already mentioned above, is
Satan. He represents all the chaotic energies of the imagination and our desire to rebel against order and what is good. He is an
apocalyptic or revolutionary figure in this sense. He is also an anti-­hero. Macduff, on the other hand, is the hero of the play. His role is
to restore the order that Macbeth has thrown out of kilter. But he is a reluctant hero, a gunslinger who’s seen one too many firefights,
who’s lost the will to live and needs to find his mojo again. His is particularly disturbed by the very high price he paid in Macbeth: he left
his wife and child behind in Scotland, when he fled to England, and blames himself for their death at the hands of Macbeth’s
murderous henchmen. Macduff is thus a force for good but one for whom idealism is no longer possible. He is thus a fraught and not
necessarily ‘inspiring’ hero . . . but the best we’ve got in an imperfect world. Cripple No-­Toes is a sort of neutral, chorus-­like observer,
an ‘outsider’ who has cultivated a Taoist view of things. You might think of him as like Yoda in Star Wars: he sees the bigger picture in
which good and evil struggle against each other eternally and unrelentingly. But, even still, he has a conception of ‘balance’ or
‘harmony’ and he knows that Macduff is the only one who can restore his balance. He is thus a sort of commentator on events who
gives us a deeper insight into the machinery of the drama.
It's a genre-­mashing show -­ can you write a little bit about the influence of horror films/ zombie flicks/ Shakespeare/ epic tales etc
Yes, it is a genre-­mash, and that plays out in unexpected ways. A genre is not simply a familiar plot or setting or collection of
characters. A genre is a set of conventions that dictate both how the drama will unfold and, crucially, why it will unfold in this way. The
horror genre, in particular, is central to the modern film industry and revolves around the shock of pleasure that we get when we are
confronted with something horrific, suspenseful, scary or uncanny. It is a negative pleasure whose basis is in the emotion of fear. This
makes it a very particular genre as compared to fantasy or science fiction or romance, for example, which are all based on positive
emotions. The beauty of zombie films—and the zombie sub-­genre in general—is the way in which it harnesses our fear of other
people, especially masses of people, as unfeeling, unflinching automatons who only want to devour or consume us. Scholars have
made much of the connection between ‘consumer culture’ and zombies in the films of George Romero. But, in the Sam Raimi tradition
that I draw on in Macbeth Re-­Arisen, zombies are more of a manifestation of unholy and occult powers. They are closer to the sort of
horror that was pioneered by the great American pulp author H. P. Lovecraft. This explains the presence of the Necronomicon (the
‘Book of the Dead’) in Evil Dead 1, 2 and 3 and again in Macbeth Re-­Arisen as a portal into other worlds (and for demons from other
worlds into ours). For me, this sort of supernatural tradition is closer to the fertile ground that Shakespeare ploughed the original
Macbeth, in which it is the breach of nature (in the killing of good King Duncan) that opens a gateway for all sorts of evil things to stalk
the land. The ‘horror’ here is not something shocking or gory or suspenseful but the basic idea that, when we violate the moral order,
we set in motion all sorts of horrible consequences that cannot be undone. All this is sounding pretty serious, however, and so I want to
stress that blending b-­grade zombie movies with Shakespeare was also meant to be good fun and the sort of wacky mix that I myself
would like to see when I go to the theatre!
Why do you think audiences and actors love it?
I don’t really know. I think actors enjoy the language and the silliness of the world that they get to create. Audiences are harder to
pin down. I’ve had people walk out of the show saying that it was stupid and childish and I’ve had people high-­fiving in the back
row and telling me afterwards that it is the best play they’ve ever seen. Everyone’s got different tastes!
How does it help with learning to love Shakespeare?
I don’t know . . . but I can say this: it certainly gives you a greater command over language. And language is the basis of almost
every human activity imaginable. So it has the potential to make you not only a better human being but a more compelling one.
Have you made changes for each production?
I’ve whittled the script down from about four hours (production time) to 90 minutes. The original draft was very, very long . . . and
when it was first performed at the Guild Theatre, at the University of Melbourne, the first half went so long that we only had time to
perform the last scene of the play before the building was closed for the night. That really upset met. So I set about cutting it and
making it more manageable. I really trimmed it down for our 2006 season in Edinburgh because we had to bump in and bump out
every night and time was of the essence. When we did it in Melbourne, in 2008, I took a hard look at the play and actually rewrote
some scenes from scratch. I wasn’t happy with some of the character arcs. I also introduced a couple of new scenes (in particular,
the soliloquy for Lady Macbeth at the start of Act 4 Scene 3, in which we learn that she has not entirely freed herself of those
‘damn spots’ and the guilt complex that goes with them). I’m pretty happy with the script now and I seriously doubt if I will touch it
again. Any historical notes -­ after all it does use anachronism as a comic device -­ does Shakespeare ever do anachronistic things in his
plays?
Shakespeare has anachronisms everywhere: think of the famous scene in Julius Caesar in which Brutus hisses ‘Peace! Count the
clock’, and Cassius replies, ‘The clock has stricken three.’ Now, we all know that there were no clocks in Ancient Rome, as did
Shakespeare of course. The point is not to construct a play in which there are no slippages or cross-­references from one time
period to another. The purpose, for Shakespeare, was to entertain; and if that meant using ideas and images that his Elizabethan
audience was familiar then so be it.
There are, by the same token, plenty of anachronisms in Macbeth Re-­Arisen. Perhaps the most obvious one is the chainsaw that
Hecate gives to Macbeth. He then chainsaws off his hand—a reference to the Evil Dead movies—and attaches the chainsaw as a
weapon to use against Macduff. It’s all pretty silly. But it makes for some pretty compelling viewing and a great fight scene at the
end of the play when Macduff must use his outmoded sword against Macbeth’s ‘chewing sword’ (I still have a good chuckle at
that!). Perhaps the more important anachronism, however, relates not to props but to dramatic conventions. I do something really
cheeky in Act 2 Scene 2: I have a minor character, the guard, interrupt Macbeth’s best soliloquy and then attempt to deliver his
own. Macbeth, incensed, murders him and then looks directly at the audience, breaking the so-­called ‘fourth wall’, and complains:
‘Fool! Thou shouldst’ve kept on and would’ve lived./ But, to stop and interrupt my finest/ Soliloquy, and then to launch thy own:/ A
minor role never addresses the audience,/ And such pithy, existential blather!’ This sort of knowing wink to the audience is could
not have happened in Shakespeare’s time because they had not yet invented modernism (or postmodernism if you prefer) and its
disdain for ‘the rules’.
As a historical note, people may be interested to learn that the ‘Law Against Witchcraft’ which King Fleance reads in Act 4 Scene
1, is quoted verbatim from a real seventeenth-­century statute created by James I. Banishing Spell against the old ones - approximate translation
(This is the incantation Macduff chants)
"You will leave this spot, which spot denies the logic of your coming and going, and you will
take, in the Name of the Nameless One, all your minions and their devices with you. And
even the uttering of your name will be lost to this world until time has eaten its own head"
Director's notes: Claire Glenn
In 2006, I auditioned for a student production of a play that was going to the Edinburgh Fringe. I had lived
in Edinburgh for two years previously and I wanted to go back. I didn't really mind what the play was. I
went along to the audition with a bunch of other actors where we read parts of the script, worked on scenes
and then had the opportunity to audition individually. By the time I left that audition, I was hooked. I
needed to be in that play. I needed to be in Macbeth Re-­Arisen. Fortunately for me, then, I was cast as
Hecate and my adventure with Macbeth Re-­Arisen began. Yes, I had a great time in that production. We had lots of fun. We performed for the full four weeks of
Edinburgh Fringe. We saw lots of theatre. We did lots of dancing. But beyond the fun I knew that
Macbeth Re-­Arisen was a very special script. At that time, the running time was 2 hours and 40 minutes!
A long show for the Fringe! But David was still refining it. A few years later, I found an updated copy of it and got a few friends together to read it. It was a much
sharper, much tighter script. I knew then that I wanted to have a go at staging it myself -­ I just needed the
right cast. Fast forward to 2016, and I decided to give my SAYarts On The Fringe Ensemble the biggest
challenge I've set them so far: I decided that we'd perform Macbeth Re-­Arisen at the 2017 Adelaide
Fringe. Macbeth Re-­Arisen is more than Shakespeare with Zombies. It's more than just a reimagining of
Shakespeare with a gimmick. David Mence has written a true sequel and he's done it in Iambic
Pentameter. The play begins where Shakespeare's Macbeth finished. Macbeth is dead. Malcolm is King
and all the loyal Thanes and Subjects think they have defeated the tyrannical villain and that Scotland will
"Rebuild, renew, restore, reorder, recreate, and [...] rearise" (Macbeth Re-­Arisen Act 1, Sc 1). Little do they
know, however, that the Witches' magic has raised Macbeth "not after death, but prior to't" (Macbeth
Re-­Arisen , Act 2, Sc 1) and thus begins Macbeth's journey from corpse, to undead to Zombie Warlord,
with thanks to the all powerful and mercurial Hecate.
Meanwhile, a suicidal Macduff escapes to the Highlands to be with his own thoughts, until he is visited by
the Ghost of Banquo who warns him, that unless he travels to the Underworld to find the Book of the Dead
and use its magic against Macbeth, the world will be destroyed. To give more away would be to ruin the
play so I won't.
As dramatic as all of the above may sound, this is not a serious play. It is a comedy (perhaps a tragi-­
comedy depending on how you look at it) and a glorious homage to shlock horror zombie movies of the
80s and beyond -­ the most specific reference being to Sam Raimi's Evil Dead 2. Yes. There is a
chainsaw. Yes. That chainsaw will be used. Yes, it will be used to chop off a hand. There are also
references to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Dante, Virgil (and though he didn't know it at the time of writing)
Game of Thrones. There's even a nod to the Greek Chorus through the character of Cripple-­No-­Toes
whose sage like predictions and comments on the action around him are profound indeed. I believe, in the
past, David has likened him to Yoda.This latest version of the script was written in 2015 and is the tightest
version yet. Our production comes in at just under 90 minutes.
I'm very thankful to David for entrusting his script to me and my young cast. They have found the light and
shade in the script. The terror and the comedy. Macbeth can be truly frightening -­ and also very silly.
Some of the actors are playing multiple roles and are doing a brilliant job of creating hilariously different
characters for each of those roles. They have mastered the language and given it all they've got. This production of Macbeth Re-­Arisen is the result of almost a year's hard work from the cast and crew.
But what you are seeing, is the result of 12 years of hard work from a gifted writer. Thanks David.
-­ Claire Glenn, Director.
Interview with Director, Claire Glenn
Who do you like more -­ Shakespeare or zombies?
This is hard. I do like Zombies.... but I love Shakespeare. I'm one of those people who thinks that Shakespeare actually wrote his plays and
that it wasn't someone else. Zombies are fun. I really like zombies in popular culture. I'm a big fan of 28 Days Later and Dawn of the Dead
and The Walking Dead etc. I think that, more than just zombies though, I really like playing with makeup effects. I love fake blood. I love
latex wounds. I love making bruises. I recently went to the Miniature and Cinema Museum in Lyon (in France) and saw some of the stand in
models fro Alien and other horror movies and it made me want to learn more about creating effects using makeup and prosthetics. But,
Shakespeare. I love his words. I love that his plays are timeless -­ that their themes are still relevant today. That his plays can be blank
slates open to any interpretations in staging and casting.... Excuse me while I go and read my Complete Works. :)
What on earth made you choose to do a play about zombies and Shakespeare with a teenage cast?
Well. I love this play. In 2006, I was in a production directed by writer, David Mence, that had a season in Melbourne before touring to
Edinburgh Fringe. I loved the experience (because I love Edinburgh and I love theatre) but it was more than just the experience. The play is
HILARIOUS. And clever and is written in Iambic Pentameter!!!! And it has a chainsaw and a chainsaw hand. It has references to literature,
film and pop culture. It has stayed with me all these years. And David's latest version of the script is sharper and more concise than ever
before. It's a rollicking good time! After having worked with the On The Fringe group in its various forms for the past four years and having done two Fringe shows with them
before, I really thought they could handle the text. Because it really is accessible to everyone. Some of them were a bit scared of
Shakespearean style language -­ but the zombies are a huge hook. Over three terms of hard work they have gone beyond just an
understanding of the text -­ they are having fun with it and they are finding more and more in it during every rehearsal. I think they're all
amazing and that they can handle anything. They have proved me right. It's a big play, but they've got it.
Do you think you might have an obsession with blood and prosthetics in stage make-­up?
Yes. And when I have the chance I am going to teach myself how to do more with it. I currently have about eight tubs of fake blood and latex
in my study. It's a worthwhile investment I think. :)
Tragedies or comedies?
Do I have to choose? I love a good comedy. I love to escape and laugh and have fun. But, I think I'll choose Tragedies. I love to be
emotionally invested, I like to be shocked, I like to be upset. I also like blood, death and murder in a play. :) But I also like the message that a
tragedy gives us. What is your favourite film version of any Shakespeare play -­ including modern film adaptations?
Justin Kurzel's Macbeth with Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard. Oliver Parker's Othello with Lawrence Fishbourne as Othello and
Kenneth Branagh as Iago. Kenneth Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing. Mel Gibson's Hamlet. Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet. Richard
Loncraine's Richard III with Ian McKellan
Have you ever actually eaten brains?
No. And if I wasn't a vegetarian I still wouldn't. I'm confident I won't be eating brains until I'm a zombie myself.
What's scarier: Sharks or zombies?
Sharks. Because they are real. I once made the mistake of watching a documentary about Sharks in South Africa... the day before I went to
South Africa. I've had a bit of a fear of sharks ever since. But not enough of a phobia to keep me out of the water. What's your favourite moment in the play?
That's too hard!!! There's so many!! Um... I love all the scenes with Fleance. He's just so awful. The Guard interrupting Macbeth's Soliloquy. And the cast nailed the scene where Macbeth and Lady Macbeth summon their zombie hoards so I love that. And the Tragedians. I can't
choose one. Meek Old Mary is pretty fabulous as well. Which character do you admire the most?
Probably Macduff. He has to overcome both physical and metaphorical demons. He is in the depths of despair. He has lost his family and
he blames himself. He wants his life to be over. But he pushes himself to break through that for the good of humanity. But can he defeat
Macbeth one more time?
I also admire the characters who have less stage time. The Shepherd is a pretty great guy -­ even if he is a bafoon. And Hecate. She'll
always have a place in my heart.
Do you have any general advice for a zombie apocalypse? Like have you got a crossbow or something?
I think the most important thing is to have a good stock of food, a place to hide and the ingenuity to be able to make weapons out of anything. Who is more relevant in the 21st century -­ Shakespeare or zombies?
For me, it's Shakespeare. Zombies are fun, but they don't speak to me the way Shakespeare does.
Promo photos by
Lauren Playfair
rehearsal photos by
Bec Pannell