<p>The Queen Mab speech makes perfect sense in the context of the play, and the particular scene it is in. Romeo is worried about a dream he has had (we never get to find out what it was, because Mercutio butts in immediately), so Mercutio is trying to convince him it is silly to pay attention to dreams. Maybe Mercutio does at some point in the speech just starts liking the sound of his own voice, but that’s the sort of character he is. Later in the play it looks like he is about to launch into another such speech, but Benvolio immediately says “Stop there!”</p>
<p>Finally, Romeo interrupts Mercutio’s queen Mab speech by saying “Hush, thou talk’st of nothing!” And Mercutio replies “True, Romeo, I talk of dreams . . .”</p>
<p>Now I can say all that about the Queen Mab speech, without even looking at the script. This is just off the top of my head. And this is why it may be a bad idea to do the Queen Mab speech. Because the auditor has a very clear idea of what the speech is about, its context, and how to deliver it. If you choose instead a lesser known playwright (other than Shakespeare!), the auditor won’t have a clear idea of “how the speech should be done”.</p>
<p>connections is correct in saying “Probably if they’d delivered an equally good rendition of a not-overdone monologue, that would have been a plus”. I agree that–everything else being equal–it is usually better to do a monologue that isn’t overdone. These auditions can get so competitive that you may need every little “plus” or “advantage” you can find.</p>
<p>If you are auditioning for the competitive programs that attract LOTS of auditioners, SOMEBODY is going the deliver SOME monologue so well that the auditors will say “that’s the best I have ever heard that monologue delivered.” And that is who they will be offering a place to. And that is who you are competing with. If you manage to perform a monologue that they have never heard before, then obviously, that will be the best they have ever heard it.</p>
<p>I have a hard time with someone who says “I am really good at Shakespeare.” Such a person, it seems to me, would be equally good at, say, the playwrights who were writing in London at the same time as Shakespeare, using the same Elizabethan/Jacobean language, and the same verse form, having their plays performed in the very same theatres by the very same actors that performed Shakespeare’s plays (including Shakespeare himself, who was an actor!). Some of these guys were even Shakespeare’s drinking buddies! If you can do Shakespeare well, you can also do these guys well. The skills transfer. The person who seems to have never heard of ANY classical playwright except Shakespeare really does not know much about theatre history. Everybody has heard of Shakspeare, so choosing a different classical playwright, in addition to the other reasons I have said, lets the auditors know that you know more about theatre history than the typical applicant.</p>
<p>And yes, everything I have been saying is just “guidelines”. Any one of them can be broken by the right person. But you need to be sure you are that person.</p>
<p>KEVP</p>