January 2009

Dear Subscriber:

SHOULD AULD ACQUAINTANCE BE FORGOT? We certainly hope not. We’ve enjoyed celebrating the holidays with you with This Wonderful Life and are looking forward to even more unmissable moments in 2009. We start the New Year with a play full of wonder, miracles, intrigue, politics, humor and thrilling use of the English language with George Bernard Shaw’s acclaimed Saint Joan. It is a timeless play, a classic if you will, that speaks to the time it is being viewed each time the show is produced. Long intrigued by the kindred rebel spirit of Joan d’Arc, Shaw first alluded to the idea of a play based on the Maid of Orleans in a 1913 letter to a friend and brought his “Chronicle Play” to the stage in 1924, just four years after his medieval heroine was canonized. Many contend that it was this work that confirmed him as the 1925 choice for the Nobel Prize in Literature, an honor that he initially rejected, and later accepted only on the condition that his prize money be used for the translation of Swedish literary works into English. He would later refer to the award as “a hideous calamity” and claim: “It was really almost as bad as my 70th birthday.”

NONETHELESS, HIS PASSION for his subject matter is evident from his trademark preface to the play all the way through the fantastical epilogue. And though he plays havoc with the historical facts a bit (The first trial is portrayed as completely fair, perhaps even biased in Joan’s favor and the nullification trial as a mockery and defamation of the character of her long-dead examiners, to name a few.) it is not for lack of skill or knowledge (He was so compelled by the trial transcripts that much of the dialogue from that scene is taken directly from the historical record.) but rather to further his own literary ends. Shaw’s Joan is not a biographical tribute but instead a full-hearted effort to keep alive the dissenting voice of Joan the soldier and Joan the peasant girl amid the din of the then newly canonized Saint Joan. He wanted to preserve the rashness, the impetuousness and the fearless pursuit of honest critique that ultimately led to her destruction, and yet remained in his eyes her finest qualities. It is exactly this construction that has prompted some critics to argue that with this play, Shaw actually created his own brand of tragedy, even though he tried to avoid the conflict by labeling it a “Chronicle Play.” While classic Greek heroes (or in this case, heroines) are felled by a “tragic flaw”— some personal wrongdoing or undesirable quality—Shaw’s Joan and likewise the court that convicts her, are destroyed not because they failed to do what was right, but in spite of doing so. The Inquisitor, as the chief representative of the ecclesiastical court, is a permanently appointed judge acting in the name of the Pope to prosecute instances of heresy. He is assisted by a council of assessors whose responsibility is to review precedents, examine documents and generally supplement the Inquisitor’s expertise. This court can convict an individual of heresy and consequently excommunicate him or her, but physical punishments such as the stake and imprisonment are administered through the civil authorities after the excommunicate is expelled from the Church. As Shaw presents it, the court which oversaw Joan’s trial was more than fair, even sympathetic and had no choice but to convict her. Thus, from his perspective, both parties have equally just motives, that when pursued to their natural ends result in devastation for all. In fact, as is often the case with Shaw, his preface provides some of the best commentary possible on his own writing. His assessment of Joan the historical figure divulges a great deal about the development of Joan the character:

Joan of Arc, a village girl from the Vosges was born about 1412; burnt for heresy, witchcraft, and sorcery in 1431; rehabilitated after a fashion in 1456; designated Venerable in 1904; declared Blessed in 1908; and finally canonized in 1920. She is the most notable Warrior Saint in the Christian calendar, and the queerest fish among the eccentric worthies of the Middle Ages. Though a professed and most pious Catholic… she was in fact one of the first Protestant martyrs. She was also one of the first apostles of Nationalism, the pioneer of rational dressing for women, and, like Queen Christina of Sweden two centuries later, to say nothing of Catalina de Erauso and innumerable obscure heroines who have disguised themselves as men to serve as soldiers and sailors, she refused to accept the specific woman’s lot, and dressed and fought and lived as men did.

As she contrived to assert herself in all these ways with such force that she was famous throughout western Europe before she was out of her teens (indeed she never got out of them), it is hardly surprising that she was judicially burnt, ostensibly for a number of capital crimes which we no longer punish as such, but essentially for what we call unwomanly and insufferable presumption…[T]here were only two opinions about her. One was that she was miraculous: the other that she was unbearable.

If Joan had been malicious, selfish, cowardly or stupid, she would have been one of the most odious persons known to history instead of one of the most attractive. If she had been old enough to know the effect she was producing on the men whom she humiliated by being right when they were wrong, and had learned to flatter and manage them, she might have lived as long as Queen Elizabeth. But she was too young and rustical and inexperienced to have any such arts. When she was thwarted by men whom she thought fools, she made no secret of her opinion of them or her impatience with their folly; and she was naive enough to expect them to be obliged to her for setting them right and keeping them out of mischief. Now it is always hard for superior wits to understand the fury roused by their exposures of the stupidities of comparative dullards.

CLEARLY, SHAW STANDS in admiration for the authority-challenging brashness of his heroine, but what of her religious fervor, particularly her all-controlling visions? What would a one-time atheist turned mystic make of devotion taken to this extreme? The answer, both via Joan’s testimony in the course of the play and Shaw’s direct address of the subject in the preface, are somewhat surprising. While he affords her the possibility, albeit the highly unlikely one of actual discourse with the Divine, he always underscores the extreme rationality of the content of these conversations, giving Joan lines such as: “But what voices do you need to tell you what the blacksmith can tell you? You must strike while the iron is hot,” and “Oh, never mind whether it is pride or not: is it true? Is it commonsense?” In the preface he writes:

Joan’s voices and visions have played many tricks with her reputation. They have been held to prove that she was mad, that she was a liar and impostor, that she was a sorceress (she was burned for this), and finally that she was a saint. They do not prove any of these things; but the variety of the conclusions reached shew how little our matter-of-fact historians know about other people’s minds, or even about their own. There are people in the world whose imagination is so vivid that when they have an idea it comes to them as an audible voice, sometimes uttered by a visual figure…The inspirations and intuitions and unconsciously reasoned conclusions of genius sometimes assume similar illusions. Socrates, Luther, Swedenborg, Blake saw visions and heard voices just as Saint Francis and Saint Joan did…The test of sanity is not the normality of the method but the reasonableness of the discovery. If Newton had been informed by Pythagoras that the moon was made of green cheese, then Newton would have been locked up…As it is, who dares diagnose Newton as a madman?

In the same way Joan must be judged a sane woman in spite of her voices because they never gave her any advice that might not have come to her from her mother wit exactly as gravitation came to Newton. We can all see now, especially since the late war threw so many of our women into military life, that Joan’s campaigning could not have been carried on in petticoats. This was not only because she did a man’s work, but because it was morally necessary that sex should be left out of the question as between her and her comrades-in-arms. She gave this reason herself when she was pressed on the subject; and the fact that this entirely reasonable necessity came to her imagination first as an order from God delivered through the mouth of Saint Catherine does not prove that she was mad. The soundness of the order proves that she was unusually sane; but its form proves that her dramatic imagination played tricks with her senses. Her policy was also quite sound: nobody disputes that the relief of Orleans, followed up by the coronation at Rheims of the Dauphin as a counterblow to the suspicions then current of his legitimacy and consequently of his title, were military and political masterstrokes that saved France. They might have been planned by Napoleon or any other illusion proof genius. They came to Joan as an instruction from her Counsel, as she called her visionary saints; but she was nonetheless an able leader of men for imagining her ideas in this way.

Whatever you choose to make of Joan as a religious icon, her effect on her country and the world is remarkable, not only for its result but perhaps more so for its magnitude—that an uneducated teenaged peasant girl could sow the seeds of Protestantism and lay the foundation for the extreme allegiance to country that is Nationalism is nothing short of stunning. But what is perhaps as inspiring is the willingness to believe of those who followed her into battle. They, along with their unlikely leader, seem to have taken to heart the Inquisitor’s instructions to the court to, “[C]ast out pity. But do not cast out mercy. Remember only that justice comes first.”

PAUL MASON BARNES DIRECTS an impressive cast led by Tarah Flanagan as the fearless Maid, (previously seen here in Lobby Hero), Bobby Steggert as the Dauphin (previously in Shakespeare’s R&J), James Anthony (Twelve Angry Men) as the Archbishop of Rheims, Kevin Orton (Twelfth Night) as Dunois and John Rensenhouse (The Clean House) as the Earl of Warwick. Joan’s other accusers include Christopher Gerson as the Chaplain de Stogumber, Tuck Milligan (Book of Days) as Peter Cauchon and Jonathan Gillard Daly as The Inquisitor. They are joined by Jerry Vogel (Twelve Angry Men), Matt D’Amico, Stephen Paul Johnson, Keith Merrill (Frost/Nixon) and Jason Cannon along with Webster Conservatory students Brian White, Greg Fink, Ian Way, Andrew Stroud, Tyler Beveridge and Sam Hay. Robert Mark Morgan has designed a most intriguing set, Dorothy Marshall Englis has designed costumes that embrace the breadth of this story, and our costume shop has knocked themselves out to build the large number of costumes needed for this production. Peter Sargent is designing the lights and Rusty Wandall is designing the sound for the show.

IN MID-JANUARY, our second Studio Theatre production, Blackbird by David Harrower, will give you quite a bit to discuss. The play won an Olivier Award a year ago for Best New Play and was Tony nominated last season for the New York production. This is a frank and adult story about the re-intersection of the lives of former lovers Ray and Una, 15 years after an abrupt end to their affair. This relationship re-discovery is more difficult than most though, as Una was 12 years old at the time it occurred. Ray was an adult. He went to prison for his crime and has become a responsible citizen. The now-adult Una is compelled to find Ray. Bound together by a past that neither can escape, these two strip away the protective facades they’ve spent years constructing to expose the collective guilt, shame, confusion and pain that have been born out of this undeniably abusive, yet passionate relationship. It is a brilliantly written play that will take you on an incredible journey that you won’t soon forget. In this captivating perspective, Carmen Goodine and Christopher Oden lend faces to what is typically an anonymously taboo topic. Amy Saltz directs this production which runs in the Studio Theatre from January 21-February 8.

WE BEGIN 2009 with two very different looks at young women at tragic points of crises, one dying a terrible physical death only to be made immortal in spirit, and the other whose body survives only to carry around a mortally wounded spirit. Both stories will move and amaze you as they reveal the tremendous capacity of the human psyche for renewal and strength. Have a brilliant new year. Thank you for being part of The Rep family.

See you at the theatre,

Steven Woolf
Artistic Director

NEW YORK REPORT: Shrek the Musical is lots of fun for all ages. Both kids and adults will enjoy the show and laugh a lot at the antics, the players and the clever dialogue and catchy music. The Garden of Earthly Delights is a remounting of Martha Clarke’s groundbreaking abstract dance piece. It has gotten rave notices and has been extended. This is a very different kind of dance piece and a unique presentation of the Bosch paintings. Dividing the Estate is an often funny look at a Texas family trying to deal with estate issues. It is written by Horton Foote and has a wonderful cast.

If you are going to London, War Horse, which has been sold out at the National Theatre for its entire run, is going to move to the West End in March. The artistry it employs to bring to life the story of horses used in World War I is rarely seen in the live theatre. If you are on our London trip in May, you’ll catch the show with us. La Cage aux Folles has moved to the West End from the Menier Chocolate Factory and is a magnificent production. Graham Norton is about to take over the lead, so I can’t really predict how the show will change with him in it. A Little Night Music, directed by Trevor Nunn, runs at the Menier through early March and is worth seeing. Piaf, starring Elena Roger, is a very exciting production about the famous singer. It is a full cast show—not a one-person evening. A magnificent production of Sunset Boulevard has come into the West End from the small Watermill Theatre. In this production, most of the actors play musical instruments needed for the show. As it is not being done on a large scale, the show has been “re-discovered” and is quite a hit—well worth seeing.

P.S. Don’t forget our annual Food and Wine Experience at the Chase Park Plaza on January 24th and 25th.  Please join us for great wine, fascinating food and special demonstrations by celebrity chefs. The doors are open from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday and from noon to 5 p.m. on Sunday with lots of fun in store and all proceeds benefiting the education and community outreach programs of The Rep.

Spring Awakening, the Tony Award-winning musical, will be at the Fox Theatre from February 10-22. It is an inventive, creative piece of musical theatre adapting the Wedekind script with a musical form. Bill T. Jones’ dances are unique and appropriate to the music and the angst of the characters. It is adult material and very exciting theatre. It is about to close on Broadway, so this is the way to catch this most talked about show of last season.