The Official Raúl E. Esparza "Spread the Love" Thread, Part 3 — Page 54

Does spinach get you a voluntary?

---

You didn't even see The Guilty Ones - the Musical.

---

Dude, they're stealing all of our good names. Raul needs something better than thrustalicious.

---

wouldn't that make it an involuntary - if you have to ask for it? Aren't voluntaries given without asking?

---

I want him to do Dangerous Liasons. REALLY REALLY BADLY.

---

I don't care what he does as long as it opens before the end of August when I'll be in NY.

ETA: Of course that may be a little to soon.

---

Updated On: 7/6/07 at 11:54 PM

That big "infinitely rewarding" one looked like it was going to fall in somebody.

---

I want him to do Dangerous Liasons. REALLY REALLY BADLY.

ME. TOO. Could you just imagine the sex and period garb? Need I post the Arcadia picture? (But seriously, I think it'd be fascinating to see him play such an evil, scandalous character.)

Alternatively, it'd be cool to see him in a comedy, but not a really light one. Which I guess would basically be Company, right? It's hard to think of something to follow that up.

Is it wrong that I enjoy him dark and tragic? I feel like that's not really a good thing!

Updated On: 7/6/07 at 09:57 AM

Definitely does suit him, I agree. He has great comedic timing, though. I think he's probably at his best in a tragedy that still has some comedic moments, like in The Normal Heart.

I love that part -- and when Ned is reading the letter on the phone, too. I remember Raul was saying that on paper, it can get kind of dense and read a bit like a newspaper, but then when it comes to life, it just WORKS. Granted, he was saying that and in my head, it was like "partly thanks to YOUR timing," heh.

---

I read the play before seeing the revival, and I still didn't think that there's as much fault as other people find it to have.

Oh, I totally agree; it really helped me to read the play after I'd seen it, because there's just SO much heavy dialogue that a lot of it gets by you too quickly when you first see it. But then.. I find the play a little bit of a paradox, in that sense. I feel like when you read it, you have pages of dense, heady dialogue about which I agree with what Raul said -- although, of course, if you believe that plays were meant to be performed and not read on the page, it's second nature that they are much more gripping when actors breathe life into them. At the same time, though, skittles and I were having a discussion once about the way that some of those passages need an actor who will just let the words speak for themselves. Like, take Bruce's monologue about Albert's death -- the words themselves are so powerful that they're great approached not forcefully, but from a very quiet, subtle standpoint. Of course, in that case, an actor is still definitely "breathing life into" the role, but just in a very certain, specific, text-mindful way, I guess. So maybe it's not that contradictory. I don't know. I'm thinking out loud and articulating this poorly, but do you guys know what I mean?

---

Updated On: 7/6/07 at 12:53 PM