A Gaggle of Saints by Neil LaBute was directed by Patrick Reilly of the class of 2021 at Bates College as part of his Directorial Thesis. In partial fulfilment of my Thesis Performance Capstone, I was part of this production which became the first in-person Theater event that was done in-person.
I would like to express my gratitude first and foremost to my team, without who this production wouldn't be the success that it was.
Patrick Reilly was my first scene partner in my first ever Acting class as a first-year at Bates College. Patrick has consistently been one of the most helpful, understanding, kind, collaborative and creative directors and partners that I've ever had the pleasure of working with. His ideas and creativity shone through not only in the horror that this show conveyed by in the lack of trauma that we, the actors, lived with even as the content tried its best to make it difficult to keep being the characters we had to be every single day for months.
Jem Costello and Lauren Reed were the perfect Stage managers who went above and beyond for this production. Their commitment and hard work was key to the outcome of the show and of the rehearsals.
Max Younger, my co-actor, was a delight to work with, even in less than ideal circumstances and his abilities as an actor gave me goosebumps even during rehearsals.
I'd also like to acknowledge the importance of having Michael Reidy Justin Moriarty be the wonderful, helpful and supportive members of this production. Professor Reidy's tech truly made it a film-like atmosphere even as we performed live. Justin has been an important staff member and mentors for me from my earliest time in Bates Theater, being one of the first people to listen to me and discuss the intersectional aspect of theatre, especially as it concerns to black and brown bodies.
Professors Timothy Dugan and Martin Andrucky have been a huge reason for any success I have had as an actor.
Having never studied theatre before Bates, I have been insecure and uncertain of every step I made during what turned into an Acting Major for me. I'm extremely grateful to my advisor and mentor, Katalin Vescey, who has been my supporter from Day 1. She has been supportive and a guiding beacon when I have felt lost and defeated during the four-year ordeal while also calling me out and shaking me up when needed to get things done. Kati is not only a mentor for my major or thesis but a mentor for life, and I plan on doing my best to always live by her words, "Don't f**k it up!."
There are so many people who get all the credit for my being able to get to the point of completion and presentation of my work and skills, but I will mention as many as I can. My family has been nothing but supportive of me and always has my back. My mentors and teachers from UWC Atlantic College, Sylvia and Chris who helped me become comfortable in myself as I first left India. Dean Reese and Ellen Alcorn who have been like my family throughout my Bates experience. Brittany and Raymond from the Multifaith Chaplaincy who continue to be my rocks. My therapists Susanna and Erin, without whom I truly wouldn't be here.
My "adopted" family in Lewiston who took me in as their own as I continue to be away from my family- Mitch and Joyce and Koda, Padme, Neil and the recently passed Grey Cat.
My amazingly supportive friends, who I cannot believe, love and support me through everything- Matt, Jowy, Kasyan, Eli, Josh, Munashe, Jhansi, Prarthana, Cam, Armaan, Devanshi, Nathan, and so many more.
Evan, for being there for me through my best and worst and cheering me on- thank you.
And finally, Cheddar, my ever so dramatic cat that let me hold him through many panic attacks even when all he wanted to do was get to the window and look at the birds.
This has all been possible because of all these people (and pets), and I will forever be grateful for all your love and support.
Violence hides behind beauty.
There exists a cycle of violence within this relationship and outside of it. There is a focus on traditional gender roles, and John’s expression of and his relationship to his masculinity is vital for the existence of this relationship. It could be that Sue feels protected by this masculinity. Still, she is drawn towards blood and violence, which she seems to replace with or understand as passion, dictated by the kind of role she is expected to play as a woman of her identity.
A big theme in the play, in the couple’s story, and real life, as seen through the lens of Bash, is of the ugly within the beautiful. John and Sue are charming, but the play lets us see the evil and the ugly rear its head as they talk and give away when in the spotlight- more for John than Sue in this case.
The image of beauty and perfection that this violence hides behind comes from the oppression of the marginalised.
Sue embodies the balance between innocence and cruelty- she is both a victim and a perpetrator. She is an important character, but it’s not enough because she is not directly involved in the traumatic event. She is the leading lady that remains in the background as a support for the “hero” who in this case really turns out to be a villain (at least for a big part of the population, though I must acknowledge that there would be an uncomfortably significant part of the population who may not see his actions as evil.)
As the rehearsals went on, I understood the profound significance of Sue. I don’t know if LaBute’s intentions were anything close to how I interpreted and embodied Sue’s role in John’s life, the incident and on the stage. Outwardly, following the pattern, Sue’s character sits in the same position on stage as John; she has her spotlight, she has her beautiful dress and her turn to speak as she recalls the night’s events. Yet, most of what she says is shallow and focused on her life in her bubble or meant as a creepy interjection and distraction from the picture that John paints for the audience. There are very few moments in the play where we get glimpses of the complicated character that Sue could be. Her fascination with blood and violence combined with her cheerful demeanour is nothing short of a whole story within itself. Her aversion to drinking- be it her ex-boyfriend or her sister’s date tells of a woman who is capable of being traumatised by and of thinking beyond her upcoming engagement and her shoes and dress. Her comments towards the “dirty-looking” couple on the train is a direct contrast to her perfect life of a stable, church-going, intelligent college student like persona. While she plays her role of the support system that makes her man look good, she has privilege that peaks through her ignorant comments- so while she may think it is no big deal for two men to be walking together in what John could clearly see was a homosexual relationship, she also thought it not a big deal for the woman on the train to have been hit by her partner as long as the conclusion was outward peace and quiet. The men from the park must have been well-dressed (John says Chad was probably VP of some bank), whereas the couple in the train were “those kind of people,” which counts as a big deal changes depending on what the big deal might be dressed like. Class plays a huge role in how Sue’s world seems to have been built.
Sue can never seem to let go of her attraction to violence. We may sympathise with her when she talks about her ex-boyfriend being drunk and screaming at a party, but as she leaves him, she ends up with John through a path of violence. The way it happens, though, seems to be out of an 80s or 90s movie with the hero beating up the villain to get the girl and a problematic romanticisation of violence in the name of love that has been ingrained in generations and popular culture- which aids in making us root for Sue and John, initially seeing them as the perfect, charming, protagonist couple in love that they appear to be.
The question is also whether Sue would have still gone with John had he not won the fight or if he hadn’t fought at all? They didn’t talk all the way to her house- what made them get together? It is very movie-like in both the boy winning the girl through violence and them getting together without much else to the story other than initial attraction and then conflict and resolution.
Something that concerned me in the beginning, was Sue’s role in this play. As a thesis performance, the play clearly focussed and goes deeper into John’s character. Out of the Bash plays, this is the only one with two characters, and the scales seemed tipped towards the male role. Initially, I wondered and worried about how I could make sure that Sue is enough for me to stand out as her for my thesis performance while still remaining true to my role within the play.
Sue and I
Sue is written as a blonde, white, Mormon woman and doing this play was not only hard due to COVID related circumstances and the content of the play, but also the character I was playing was so different to me. I couldn’t use a lot of my emotions that stem from my experiences as a queer woman of colour from a low socio-economic background and never having been to the US before 2017. I had to connect to and channel a persona that had an entirely different life experience than me but also would probably see me as “one of those” “dirty-looking” people.
The unfortunate part about this whole experience, though, was not all the things I mentioned above but that it had, in fact, been easier than expected to take on this persona of privilege for me, which in turn brought me emotional turmoil that made becoming Sue harder. The reason it was easier than expected was that as a brown woman in theatre, there is already a huge disparity in the roles available to me. Many roles, especially in the US, are written for what would be considered more usual or the normal in the country. Unless it was a story specifically about the South-Asian experience, or a brown woman’s experience, or a stereotype role needed for comic relief (though things are getting better), there is relatively very little to choose from. So every time I hope to get on stage or become a character, I have to be open to the possibility of losing parts of my identity. And I happen to be racially ambiguous or white-passing enough for roles, especially in the Winter, which makes things easier but never lets me forget that it must not be the same for my peers.
To become Sue, I took the intersectional approach. One where Sue could be a victim of a patriarchal society and playwright, but also a perpetrator with her privileged identity and her lack of actions. I wanted to play the role of the perfect woman, by the man’s side who stand behind him and cares only about things that may affect her little bubble. She has depth in her character and story but remains ignorantly privileged.
Comments