Stage Banter: The Arena Stage Blog

Talking with Tom

by Christin Siems, Dramaturgy Fellow

Tom Jones co-wrote The Fantasticks more than half a century ago with his friend Harvey Schmidt, and although he doesn’t travel around the country to see all of the thousands of Fantasticks productions, he came to Arena Stage last Wednesday to enjoy director Amanda Dehnert’s “abandoned amusement park” version.

Now, post-show discussions are always interesting.  But a post-show discussion with the LIVING AUTHOR is… wow.  So cool.  

Tom came with his wife, and they were both so charming.  Here’s a fun fact: Tom’s wife’s older sister originated the role of Luisa in the original one-act version at Barnard College before it opened Off-Broadway in 1960.  I asked them how they met and… there you go.

The absolute highlight of the post-show was when a perspicacious high school student asked Tom: “Why does El Gallo say to keep the wall (that divided the two houses) up at the end?”  Ah, a GREAT question.  Tom said so himself.

It turns out that Tom hates the line.

El Gallo says: “Leave the wall.  Remember—you must always leave the wall.”  Tom told us that when he wrote it, he was really young, and he thought it sounded impressive.  Well, a year or so later he heard it and thought: “This is BAD!  It sounds like the point of the play!”  And the point of the play, Tom told us, is “without a hurt, the heart is hollow.”

Tom wanted to take the line out, but his producer (who really liked the line) said he’d sue him.  So the line remains… but Tom tried to fix it by writing in a stage direction that tells actor playing El Gallo to speak the line “casually.”

Tom also told us that when The Fantasticks received its first production in Russia soon after perestroika and 8 months after the Berlin Wall fell, the producers over there cautiously approached him: “eh, Tom… so about this line… ‘YOU MUST ALWAYS LEAVE THE WALL'... can we, uh… take it out?”  And Tom, knowing full-well the cultural implications, told them: “Take it out! PLEASE!!!”

Another highlight was when Tom praised Laurence O’Dwyer for his portrayal of Henry, the old actor.  Tom originated the role Off-Broadway under the pseudonym “Thomas Bruce,” and gave Laurence his highest compliment: “He was almost as good as I was.”

Tom also spoke freely about his inspiration for writing The Fantasticks, and all of the various artistic influences he and Harvey borrowed from.  For example, did you know the Mute was inspired by the “Invisible Prop Man” character in Japanese popular theatre—a character who the audience agrees “not to see”?  For other borrowed influences on The Fantasticks, go here.

Thank you, Tom, for a delightful post-show.  I don't think any of us wanted it to end.

Tom Jones is coming!

by Janine Sobeck

Yup, that's right!  Tom Jones, co-creator of The Fantasticks, is coming to see the Arena production and has graciously offered to join the cast and myself in a discussion after the show.  So, if you're not busy at noon on December 9th, come over to the Lincoln for the matinee show.  This is an event not to be missed!

Give this play a try!

by Janine Sobeck

I always love it when our audience members let their voices be heard.  After a post show last week I had a lady talk to me about how she had read the review in the Washington Post for The Quality of Life and almost decided not to come.  After seeing the show she was so grateful that she decided to come anyways because it had been a truly moving theatrical experience for her. 

Now, I'm not sure if this is the same person (as she didn't give me her name), but just a few days later, we happened to see this in the "letter to the editor":

Give This Play a Try

(Letter to the Editor)

I take issue with Peter Marks's tepid review of "The Quality of Life" by Jane Anderson, playing at Arena Stage's Crystal City theater through next week. I had vaguely remembered the review and told my husband it was too bad Arena was starting the season with such a lackluster choice.

Boy, was I wrong. Anderson is dealing with lots of issues - life and death, religion, the nature of evil, grief - central to any thinking person's experience. Contrary to Marks's assertion that the play could have been a panel discussion, Anderson's characters experience the emotions and raw the audience into their lives with the humanity of it all. It is a powerful play.

-Diana H.

Thanks for speaking out Diana.

Quality closes on Sunday.  So if you haven't had a chance to see it yet...well, you might want to listen to Diana and think about giving it a try.

Talking again...

by Janine Sobeck

After a short break from the whole series of special discussions that we had for The Quality of Life, it was great to have more opportunities to talk to the audience last night as we started our normal post show series with the actors. 

While a lot of the discussion still revolved around the themes of the play I was intrigued by how much the audience wanted to know how the actors' experience with the script has affected their own lives.  Questions such as whether it has changed their perspective of death and on their individual beliefs on what creates the quality of their own lives were abundant, spurred by the curiosity of whether or not developing and living with these characters has had a personal impact. While each actor has had an individual experience, the stories that they shared - both with how it has impacted them personally and how it has related to relationships in their lives - brought a whole new level to the experience created by the production.

Just more proof that we were right in our original impulse.  After seeing this show, people want to talk. 

What Defines Your Quality of Life?

by Travis LeMont Ballenger,
American Voices Senior New Play Producing Fellow

We knew when we decided to produce Jane Anderson's The Quality of Life that it would have a strong affect on our audiences. The knowledge that would people need a way to express the power the show had on them was the impetus behind the special series of post show discussions that we've been holding for the last 10 days. Last night was the final installment of the series, with special guest Reverend Paul R. Abernathy (rector of St. Marks).  I found his take on the play brilliant and was especially struck when he asked the audience what defines their Quality of Life. People had responses from God to mental awareness. One woman even discussed her need to give back to the community.

I think I could survive without my laptop. I've survived before without my cell phone. You could probably even take my home from me, and I would make it. However, without love - which I define as someone to speak to, someone to open up to - there would be no quality to my life. It's really an interesting question. What creates the quality of your life? What could you survive without?

Grief is the Price You Pay For Love

by Amrita Mangus, New Play Senior Producing Fellow

I never fathomed that C.S. Lewis, the Harry Potter Series, and The Quality of Life shared something in common, but during the post show discussion following Tuesday night's performance, Dr. Steven Sabat proved me wrong!

Dr. Sabat, a renowned professor of Neuropsychology at Georgetown University, was our guest for the discussion. When asked his thoughts about the show, he opened the conversation with, "I thought about a quote by C.S. Lewis: 'Grief is the price you pay for love.'"  This quote pretty much wowed the audience and left us murmuring for a moment as Dr. Sabat proceeded to discuss the necessity for grief and sorrow in order to understand the importance of love, but how it's ok to ultimately release feelings of grief while sustaining the fond memories of the people we lose and improve our "quality of life". This concept ignited a series of heartfelt and emotional comments from the audience. One story that stays with me came from a couple who had recently lost their daughter. They stated that they never want to forget her, but also understand the importance of letting go of their grief. "It's hard." commented the wife, but they allow her memory to live on. They were so candid and genuine as they spoke, and trust me, there wasn't a dry eye in the audience. It was amazing to see how the play resonated as a strong cathartic experience from them, and in a way, for all of us after hearing their story.

Dr. Sabat then talked about the different manifestations of death. With a brilliant choice of words, he then compared the play's exploration of death to that of the Harry Potter series, quoting Professor Dumbledore by saying "Death is the next adventure that lies ahead." We then explored the different forms of death - from the sudden, unplanned deaths we've experienced  to the lingering deaths we see coming - and agreed that no matter how you look at it, death is an event you can never fully prepare for.

I left the discussion more enlightened and empathetic, compelled by the compassion that just took place in a room of seemingly complete strangers. It illustrated the power of theater, the power of dialogue, and in essence, the power of love and life. 

Quality thoughts from the audience

by Janine Sobeck

Post show discussions are one of my favorite parts of my job.  I love the chance to sit with the audience immediately after the performance and hear their gut reactions to what they just finished watching.  If you've been reading along with the blog you'll know that the extended discussion series that we've been holding for The Quality of Life has really allowed us an even greater opportunity to talk with more of the audience. We still have a week left in the series, so if you have a chance to check it out, we'd love to see you in the theatre.

Of course, people haven't stopped talking once they left the theatre.  Citizen reviews have started to pop up on Goldstar, DC Theatre Scene, The Washington Post and other places about how much people have been affected both by the script and the performances.  Here are just a few examples:

"We saw this on Friday, and we were blown away. The dialogue was so well crafted, it was a pleasure to listen to. And the acting was terrific — really really compelling, especially Johanna Day. Really, really recommend it." - Kate (DCTS)

"This is one of the best plays I've seen. I loved it! It is so intelligent, and when the characters argue, a part of them remains open to other points of view. So refreshing in this day and age! And there is humor in it. I think it would be one of the best ways to spend a Saturday night." - Dottie B (Post)

"It is a total joy to experience the superb direction of Lisa Peterson as she manages to get the actors to 'act their hearts out'. This is a highly recommended play." - Bob Anthony

"The acting in this drama was fabulous. The story line is intense and thought provoking...I would highly recommend it." - Pamela M. (Goldstar)

"You do not want to miss it. What a love story- for both couples. This is a great human study. What a wonderful show!" Rich Massabny

Feel free to leave your own thoughts on show in the comment section.  And if you haven't see the show yet (and if those comments aren't enough to whet your appetite) then check out the new video that we've put together...

Is there a God in the House?

by David Dower

The post show discussions at The Quality of Life continued to dive deeper into the questions raised by the play. Last night's guest was Professor Terrence Reynolds, professor of theology at Georgetown University.

When I stepped on stage to introduce the professor, I saw the stunned and red-eyed faces of an audience that had just witnessed one of the most commanding performances of the play the actors have given to date. I asked them how they'd liked the show and a huge burst of applause answered for them. People talked about the "catharsis" the play creates, of their amazement at the performances, and when I mentioned playwright Jane Anderson by name another burst of applause even though she wasn't present.  This was a group that had been profoundly touched by the play.

When Professor Reynolds joined me, the conversation jumped immediately into the deep end of the pool. The first question: "So, professor. 9-11. Many of us were saying 'how could God allow such a thing to happen?' And yet, the last words from the men who flew the planes were apparently 'God is great'. How do we reconcile that?"

Mind you, there's nothing about 9-11 in the play. But there are big questions about God and Faith and whether God's hand is in every human action, and "where you go for moral guidance" if you don't believe.   (And a reminder here that the play has an almost alchemical mix of humor and pathos. It's not a heady experience in any way: it manages to touch the heart, the mind, and the funny bone in equal measure. And it makes you want to talk with strangers. So people stay and ask big questions or share intimate doubts.)

Professor Reynolds and the audience proceeded to discuss the question of whether or not God treats believers differently from nonbelievers. And the purpose of a personal relationship with God, if in fact he's unmoved by our belief or behavior. And about autonomy-- whether we have the right to take our own exit from this life and whether we have a responsibility to the potential of our remaining days, the potential to do good. And the difference, if any, between faith and Faith. Oh, and whether the sort of cataclysmic, cathartic, empathic conversation the play depicts-- as heated and clumsy as human interactions so often are-- could have leapt the chasm of their different definitions of faith if the characters hadn't been family. In other words, can the country bridge its own divide without a tie that binds us as firmly as the family bond?

The discussion was going full boil as we approached 11pm. I tried to cut it off, thanking people for coming and asking for their help in spreading the word about the show.  Another round of applause. And people got out of their seats and clumped into small groups, some in the lobby, some in the theater, still wrestling with the implications of God's presence in tragedy, His indifference to belief, and whether or not empathy with people of opposing values was possible. I had to move the groups out to the hallway so the theater staff could go home. The conversations continued, echoing down the empty late night walkways of the Crystal City underground in both directions.

Thanks, Professor Reynolds, for provoking the big questions and for guiding the wrestling that results. This is exactly what we are trying to do with this series of conversations. I hope you, dear reader, will join us for some of them! And, again, thank you Andrew Ammerman for making this series possible.

Virtuous Tolerance

by David Dower

At today's post-show discussion, our guest moderator was Professor James Lamiell, of Georgetown University. He introduced the topic of "Virtuous Tolerance", which is in ample evidence in Jane Anderson's The Quality of Life. Here's a brief synopsis from his writing:

Virtuous tolerance is predicated finally on a genuine respect for human individuality, i.e., on individuals' principled regard for others as people whose thoughts and actions reveal what they as individuals have embraced and rejected in the realm of human values. Unlike mere forbearance, which encourages the uncritical acceptance of 'difference' for its own sake, virtuous tolerance is demanding. It requires the active engagement of each person in the critical appraisal of one's own values and the values of other people, to the end of judging the proper place of those values in the life of the community. In this, tolerance demands that people view other people individually, rather than in the stereotypic fashion licensed by discourse that persistently labels and so encourages the further labeling and subsequent understanding of other people as mere instantiations of demographic categories: gender, race, ethnicity or religious confession.

He spoke about the concept of tolerance as it is currently understood and practiced in our civic relationships as something more akin to forebearance than empathy. A sort of cosmic shrug on differences, an entire country saying to each other "Whatever". Jane Anderson, who joined him on stage, picked up on the notion of Virtuous Tolerance being demanding. She spoke of her own rage at, and dissapproval of, the protesters here last weekend who's dissent took an extreme and alienating form for her at the rally. But she also spoke of learning from her own play, recalling that a few years back she was here marching for Gay Rights in equally strident and alienating terms. "If I don't want people to ridicule and dismiss my values, and my dissent, it is on me to make room for these people to express themselves as well, in their terms." She went on to say that "If you find yourself depressed or losing hope over the tone of the conversation, or worried about our country, you are here in Washington.  You need only walk the mall, go to the Jefferson Memorial and see those big words, see the fabulous minds of our Founding Fathers on display in this city, and you'll know we're on a solid foundation. We're still in good shape."

What's remarkable, and deeply moving, in this play is the way Jane has allowed each of her characters, who are arrayed along a values spectrum from Conservative to Liberal, to be changed by each of the others. The conservative Christian Bill is altered by his Act 2 encounter with the liberal, agnostic Jeanette and finds his way back to a deeper dialogue with his wife. Jeanette, for her part, finally asks Bill for instruction for how to "get out of bed" following a tragic loss. She is able to turn away from her own abyss as a result of their exchange. Even the two characters in the middle of the spectrum grow from the intense give and take of the conversation, with Dinah finding her own spine and voice-- locating herself after being swallowed by her own grief for so long-- and Neil finding the words to both confront and console his own shattered wife, Jeanette.

This, Dr. Lamiell seems to say, is that destination we are seeking-- a place of Virtuous Tolerance. Not simply putting up with each other's differences, but engaging each other as different, and in the process moving each of us to a deeper understanding of our personal complexity as well as the complexity of our culture.

There are more of these stimulating discussions to come. The complete schedule is here. I hope you will join us for one or many of them. These discussions are free and open to the public, but your engagement with them will be greatly impacted by having seen the play beforehand. They are made possible by the deep generosity of Mr. Andrew Ammerman, who has underwritten the entire series of events that constitutes our elaborate and enriching partnership with Georgetown University.

Discussion update! and more from the rehearsal room...

by Janine Sobeck

So a few days ago I officially announced the first names for the special discussions that we are having around The Quality of Life.  We've been getting some great additions since then, and all the names and dates are now posted on Sub/text.  Check it out and see which nights might be of interest to you.  All the discussions will immediately follow the performance and should prove to be a great companion to the experience the audience is going to have with the show.

And what an experience it's going to be.  Wednesday I was able to see a run through that the actors did for some of the designers and I couldn't help but be impressed by the amount of progress that this cast is making.  You can tell the excitement and love that they each have for the production and it's pretty infectious.  We're moving out of the rehearsal room and onto the stage today - a move that has been eagerly anticipated, especially considering the physical quality of the show (I can't wait for you all to see the set!). Our tech week is going to be full of discoveries.

And I just have to say it...isn't the new image cool?