Interview: Paul Mescal's Last Trip on the Streetcar Named Desire

Oscar nominee Paul Mescal has firmly established himself as one of the most exciting actors of his generation, effortlessly moving between television (Normal People), the silver screen (Aftersun, Gladiator II), and the stage. But his turn as Stanley Kowalski in A Streetcar Named Desire—a role he’s been living with for over two years—marks a particularly intense, but immensely satisfying, chapter in his career.

As the critically acclaimed production, directed by Rebecca Frecknall, settles into its final home at the Brooklyn Academy of Music after stints at the Almeida Theatre in London and the West End, Mescal reflects on the unique evolution of the show, the challenges of inhabiting Tennessee Williams’s creation, and the deep bond he’s formed with castmates Patsy Ferran and Anjana Vasan. Here, he also shares his thoughts on theater accessibility and why he’s especially moved by the younger audiences who have found their way to Streetcar.

This conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.

This is the fourth time putting up Rebecca’s production of Streetcar, between the Almeida run and two West End engagements. Is the fourth time the charm?
It’s bizarre. We started in the round, went into a traditional cross-arch [proscenium] space, and now we’re back on the deck, not in the round. It’s been an education in terms of spaces. Different scales, different sizes. And, yeah, fourth time is the charm, I think. It’s definitely the iteration that we, collectively, as a group of creatives, are proudest of, validating that the longer you spend with a play, the better it’s generally going to get.

What are your first experiences with A Streetcar Named Desire? Did you see yourself as a Stanley?
My first Streetcar experience was the film. Then I saw a production of it at the Gate Theatre in Dublin. I’m glad that they were far enough away in my memory. I obviously can remember moments from each, but this is a particular production style, directed in a particular way that allows you to distance yourself from the performance lore of what this character and this play have been to other people.

For me, a character like Stanley is much closer to the characters that I would have been playing in drama school. If an audience thinks they have an understanding of me from my work on screen, it may be surprising. But it’s less of a distance in my head. In my mind, Stanley is a supporting role that’s driving the energy of fear and anxiety and rage through the play. I think there’s this kind of weird fetishization of this part. And I think if I’m doing my job correctly, I hope that people come away and are slightly scared of who Stanley is.

Of course, it’s massively frightening [for me] because it’s a brilliant, brilliant play, and you usually get one or two goes at a character or a production like this. Every version of this could have just been moderately successful and we’d never get to do it again. God knows, there are tons of productions of it, so to get to take it back after two years is a wonderful privilege.

What is it like working with Patsy and Anjana and this team over the last couple of years?
I know actors say this all the time, that we love each other in, like, inverted commas, but there’s a real deep love and care. We know each other so well. It’s rare. Even if you were to work on a serial TV show for two years, you probably wouldn’t get this close.

But the work demands an honesty from each other, a kind of safety that allows you to play Stanley and really try to decimate another human being, and feel safe enough in that relationship, with Patsy, for example, that you can really show the kind of dark corners of your own psychology and still feel love and respect and care for each other.

And I could watch them read the phone book. I think they’re extraordinary actors. Extraordinary. It’s a company full of real professionals and people who care deeply about not just the work, broadly, but this production. We feel protective over it and totally stand behind it regardless of what anybody says or thinks about it, which is a great place to be as we finish it off here.

Your casting in this production means that it’s getting an audience of younger people who may be seeing the play for the first time or experiencing theater itself for the first time. What does that mean to you?
It is very validating to see not just necessarily old people who have the money. I really do appreciate that lots of young people who don’t necessarily have the money for tickets are finding ways to get here.

That’s part of a broader conversation about ticket pricing. It’s a real issue. If we want people to go to the theater, and we want the next round of theatermakers to come out into the world, how are we expecting them to see theater if it’s going to be $250 or £300 for a ticket? I know myself that I wouldn’t have been able to afford it when I was in drama school, so, from the bottom of my heart, to anybody who’s a student or a young person who has come to see this, it means a lot to me.