'Macbeth' was a very lucky play for me.
When a play is really cooking, there's nothing like it.
I'm not denying that it's exciting to have a play on Broadway.
I've been asked a lot why didn't 'Ruined' go to Broadway. It was the most successful play that Manhattan Theatre Club has ever had in that particular space, and yet we couldn't find a home on Broadway.
Matthew Broderick and Megan Mullally were unbelievable to work with in 'How to Succeed.'
I wrote my own play, 'The Westie Monologues,' about where I'm from in Australia, and it was very successful. From that, I started getting offers from television.
This play John Drinkwater's Abraham Lincoln holds the season's record, thus far, with a run of four evening performances and one matinee. By an odd coincidence, it ran just five performances too many.
Even if you're lucky to have a play on Broadway like 'Chinglish,' you don't necessarily earn enough off it to support the years it takes to get there.
If you lead with the anger, it will turn off the audience. And what I want is the audience to engage with the material and to listen and then to ask questions. I think that 'Ruined' was very successful at doing that.
So in case there was any doubt, I am here to report that having a play on Broadway does not suck.
It's too easy to underestimate your audience. But it's not rocket science: bad plays don't get people on seats; good plays do.
The audience is not the least important actor in the play and if it will not do its allotted share the play falls to pieces.
As far as I could discover, the notion that a play could succeed without any further help from the actor than a simple impersonation of his part never occurred to Tree.
