Arden Theatre Company
Arden BlogArden Drama SchoolArden on FacebookArden on TwitterArden on YouTube
Welcome to the Arden Theatre Company blog, where we share behind-the-scenes stories and current happenings with you. You will hear from the Arden staff as well as actors and other visiting artists, and we hope to hear from you, too. If you have an idea for a topic, please post a comment about it. We can't wait to hear what you think!

A costume designer is the person who decides what the different people in the play will wear. Here is what Richard St Clair, the costume designer, thinks about being a costume designer and how he thought about the costumes for Beauty and the Beast:

I really believe this—a costume designer has to be one of the smartest people in the room.  You need to know about costume history, art history, world history, psychology, geography, music, pop culture, movies and MANY other things. Each new show gives you an opportunity to learn more things which is very exciting.

Because so much of the storytelling for Beauty and the Beast happens through shadows, I felt that the costumes should give a feeling of time and place (around the year 1800 in England), but be simple enough not to distract us from the shadows.

The costumes focus on three areas:  shape, color and texture.  With these three things the clothing tells the story of Beauty and the Beast.  There are four sets of costumes and each one looks different:

A sketch of Belle's Devon costume

A sketch of Belle’s Devon costume

  1.  LONDON—Belle and Cassandra’s father is a wealthy merchant and they wear expensive looking clothes, made out of very nice materials like silk and brocade. Everything is CHOSEN to look expensive because at this point of the story they are rich.
  2. DEVON—Belle and Cassandra are now poor because their father has lost all their money in the shipwreck. They have matching simple dresses of plain cotton with a rustic weave.  The father has a coat of brown linen with wooden buttons.  The colors are sad and country looking.
  3. THE CASTLE OF THE BEAST—Belle puts on a blue wool hooded cape to travel to the Beast’s castle.  When we are sad, we say that we are blue, and blue felt right for Belle for now. The Beast and the Housekeeper are in shades of black and grey.  They live literally in the shadows, and there is no color left in their unhappy lives. The Housekeeper has magical powers, but Whit, the director, liked the idea of keeping the secret until the ending, so her colors are simple and ordinary—grey with a white collar.

    A sketch of Belle’s red dress, inspired by the color of the roses she loves

  4. TRANSFORMATION—This play is all about transformation—turning one thing into another.  And not just the Beast, who turns into a Prince.  Belle transforms from a frightened girl into a confident young woman.  Cassandra transforms from a selfish sister into a young bride.  We have used very little color since the move to Devon in Act 1, so the director and I wanted the costumes for the end of the play to have a splash of vivid color to create a fairy tale ending. Suddenly the color palette for the show has changed from poor and sad to HAPPILY EVER AFTER!


Now it’s your turn to think like a costume designer!

Richard talks about how many of the people in the play transform from one thing into another. If you were the costume designer for Beauty and the Beast, what would your Beast look like? What clothes would he wear? Would he have a mask? What colors will you use? Now think about what your Prince looks like? Does he wear the same clothes as the Beast or something totally different? Draw the two characters next to each other like you see below.

A sketch of the Prince, after transformation

A sketch of the Prince, after transformation

A Costume Sketch of the Beast's costume

A Costume Sketch of the Beast’s costume

weast_nielsen1Beauty and the Beast is a very old story that has been told many times, in many different ways, and in many different places. Sometimes what the beast looks like changes (a pig, a bull, a monkey, a frog, even a fish!). Here are some of the other versions of the story. You can find these stories, and many others, in your local library.

La Belle et La Bete: The first written-down version of the story titled Beauty and the Beast was written by a woman named Madame Le Prince de Beaumont in 1756. In this version, Beauty has two older, lazy sisters. When their father is about to take a long journey, the sisters ask for expensive things, but the youngest asks only for a rose. From there, the story is very similar to the one you saw at the Arden or might know already.

East of the Sun and West of the Moon: This version is even older than Beauty and the Beast and comes from Scandinavia. In this story, a young woman is made to leave home and marry a bear. It turns out that the bear is really a prince. He was enchanted by an evil troll, and becomes a man again at night.

The Clinking Clanking Lowesleaf: Instead of a rose, in this German version, the youngest daughter asks for “a clinking clanking lowesleaf” from her father. Even experts aren’t sure what a “clinking clanking lowesleaf” is, so it isn’t surprising that Beauty’s father can’t find one. Fortunately, a beast—a giant black dog—is able to help him locate the leaf. But of course, the gift comes with a price!

The Fairy Serpent: In this version from China, the Beast is an enchanted snake, and he insists that Beauty marry him while he is still a snake. He is so nice to her that Beauty comes to like him. Eventually, when she learns to love him, he turns into a prince.

Little Broomstick: This is another version of the story from Germany. In this story, Beauty has a best friend named Little Broomstick who goes with her to the Beast’s castle.

These are just a few versions of the story. There are others from places like Denmark, where the beast is an enchanted horse and Italy, where Beauty is called Zelinda. There are even grown up versions of this story like Jane Eyre written by a woman named Charlotte Bronte and Pride and Prejudice written by a woman named Jane Austen.

Can you tell your own version of Beauty and the Beast? What would your beast look like? What would Beauty ask her father for as a gift? Would Beauty have brothers or sisters or friends?

In this adaptation, six actors play over 40 characters to bring Dickens’ novel to life. That requires actors with broad range who are capable of making each character distinctive and memorable. In addition to costume changes, the actors create characters by changing their voices and their physicality. Here is how Doug Hara, who plays Herbert Pocket and Mr. Wopsle among others, created some of the many characters he plays:

In this play we switch characters so often, and sometimes for just a line or two at a time, so it seems friendly to the audience to make sure I make clear and strong choices and lean deeply into those choices with each character turn.

Herbert Pocket:











Herbert is Pip’s true and loyal friend.  He is highly educated and cultured, so with Herbert I have focused the most on speaking with proper high-class British elocution.  But he also needs to be accessible and likable, so I’ve placed him in a higher register and I always give him a smile to keep him warm.

Mr. Wopsle:











If there is a clown in this play, Mr. Wopsle is probably it.  He is a provincial man with grandiose ambitions.  I’ve given him a bit of a crooked eyebrow-y smile, and an artificially deep resonant affectation.  When I speak I’m conjuring a little Sam the Eagle from the Muppets and Ted Baxter from the Mary Tyler Moore Show…only British.

The Coachman:











I literally say 5 or 6 words as the Coachman.  Years of whiskey and cigars, gravelly and rough and lower class.  A Cockney Tom Waits.

The Sergeant:  He’s an imposing character who interrupts Christmas dinner and hunts down convicts.  As the shortest person in the cast (by a lot), I’ve taken to leaping onto a chair as soon as I enter (Seriously, I stand on a chair so I can look down on everyone.  It totally helps).  I put my voice in as deep a resonance as I can muster without sounding fake.  He’s an authentic fellow.

On an 18 degree January night in Philadelphia in 1868 people lined up on Chestnut Street before midnight, bringing tents and blankets, prepared to camp out in order to be first in line. What were they waiting for? Tickets to see the novelist Charles Dickens, reading selections from his novels. The first six readings were sold out in four hours and the Public Ledger declared “a state of popular excitement that, taken in all its phases, is without parallel on our side of the ocean.” When Dickens left the city for what was to be the last time, the Inquirer wrote: “the remembrance of his visit will be a life-long possession.” In fact, the remembrance of his visits would stay with the city much longer than that.

Despite explicit instructions in Dickens’ will that he be remembered by his words and not by statues, in 1893, the sculptor Frank Elwell createdDickens-Clark-Park1-290x290 a life-size statue of him for the Chicago World’s Fair. Upon the closing of the Fair, the statue was sent to England to Dickens’s family, who, angry at the violation of Dickens’ wishes, returned to sender. The statue never made its way back to Chicago, ending up instead in a
Philadelphia warehouse, where it was purchased in 1901 by Clark Park in West Philadelphia, where it remained the only statue of Dickens in the world for over 100 years, though a few have emerged in the last few years. You can still visit it at Clark Park (4398 Chester Ave).

In 1984, Strawbridges’s and Clothier commissioned artists Ray Daub and Mary Wimberly to create a Christmas display. Daub remembered his family reading A Christmas Carol every year, and so he made the Dickens Christmas Village: a miniature replica of 1843 London with animatronic figures acting out scenes from A Christmas Carol. The Village is such a draw that when Strawbridges’s closed, Macy’s rescued the village and installed it in their 13th and Walnut location on the third floor in time for Christmas. You can still see it there starting November 29th.

In 2012, Philadelphia celebrated “The Year of Dickens” to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the author’s birth. With a year of events, the celebration was one of the largest held outside of the UK. It makes sense. Following Dickens’ death, his relatives sold off many of his possessions in order to make ends meet. Many of them ended up in collections at two of Philadelphia’s most venerable institutions for bibliophiles—the Rosenbach Museum and Library and the Rare Books Department of the Free Library—have impressive Dickens collections. The Rosenbach boasts many Dickens letters, special editions of the books, rare photographs, manuscripts and a few first printings of his novels in installments. These are currently on display in the Rosenbach’s Hands-On Tour for Dickens in which patrons are able to handle some of these rare items under the guidance of a member of the Rosenbach staff (2008-2010 Delancy Street).

The Rare Books of Department at the Free Library has one of the most unusual Dickens’ holdings in the world: Grip, Dickens’s pet raven which was stuffed and mounted after his death. Grip was a minor character in Dickens’s short story, Barnaby Rudge, which Philadelphian Edgar Allen Poe reviewed in his capacity as a literary critic. While Poe enjoyed the story, he felt there was more to mine in the character of the raven. In addition to Grip, who presides imperiously over the Rare Books Department hallway, the Free Library also boasts sam_1151
possession of a desk and chair belonging to Dickens, sets of Dickens’ work in their original parts (the original installations, see image), first additions, and original artwork, including the set of parts for The Pickwick Papers inscribed by Dickens to his sister-in-law Mary Hogarth. All of these can be seen Monday-Friday on the daily tour of the Department at 11am (1901 Vine Street).

Dickens first toured the United States in 1848 and wrote about his travels in his nonfiction book:  American Notes for General Circulation. Of Philadelphia, he writes: “It is a handsome city, but distractingly regular. After walking about it for an hour or two, I felt that I would have given the world for a crooked street. The collar of my coat appeared to stiffen, and the brim of my hat to expand, beneath its quakery influence.” While he was impressed by Philadelphia’s hospitals, libraries, and post offices, he was horrified by a visit he made to Eastern State Penitentiary (2027 Fairmount Avenue) which forms the bulk of his write-up on the city: “In the outskirts, stands a great prison, called the Eastern Penitentiary: conducted on a plan peculiar to the state of Pennsylvania.  The system here is rigid, strict, and hopeless solitary confinement.  I believe it, in its effects, to be cruel and wrong.” Dickens acknowledged the effort to be well-intentioned, but greatly objected to the amount of solitary confinement imposed on the prisoners. Despite his reservations, Dickens returned to Philadelphia a second time in 1868 in which he gave, by all accounts, an energetic, heartfelt, and exciting reading of his novels.

by Sally Ollove, Arden Literary Manager

NOTE: Best read after seeing La Bête.

At the beginning of La Bête, Elomire and Bejart have left their troupe at dinner to discuss unwelcome dinner guest, Valere. Valere quickly follows. In the world of the play, the acting troupe is left alone offstage. The actors who play those characters are left in a very similar situation. Since they don’t appear in Act 1, they must amuse themselves backstage while waiting to go on. Here’s a snapshot of what I observed during the epic monologue delivered by Scott Greer.


Minute 0- I am in the greenroom next to a mound of croissants brought in by director Emmanuelle Delpech for the hard working cast. The only people I’ve seen in costume are the folks on the stage. The rest have over 50 minutes left to get ready before they are pong

Minute 2: I visit the women’s dressing room. Alex Keiper (Madame Du Parc) and Wendy Staton (Madame De Brie) start putting on their make-up.

Minute 3: The greenroom and dressing rooms are equipped with sound monitors so the actors can keep track of where in the play they are so they don’t miss an entrance. Since only Amanda Schoonover who plays Dorine needs to pay careful attention, the actors only half-listen. At minute 3, a huge wave of laughs comes in from the audience—the ladies look up from what they are doing, and try to figure out what caused the laugh. They are pleased for Scott. Alex and Amanda say some of the words with him, mimicking his delivery: “he turns them slowly, slowly on the spit.”

Minute 6: All the women are now busily putting on elaborate make-up. As they do, they chat about the film achievements of Samuel L. Jackson. Amanda keeps one ear on the monitor and plays games on her iPad.

Minute 9: I visit the men’s dressing room. Michael Doherty (Du Parc) is working on play he is writing. Alex Bechtel (De Brie) gets his wig on.

Minute 16: Becca Rose, the backstage dresser who helps the actors with their costumes, wanders in to the greenroom, where there is a television monitor trained on the stage. She checks where we are in Scott’s monologue: Valere is sharing his vision of a play performed in Ghent.

Minute 18: Alex Keiper checks the make-up work of Taysha Canales (Madeleine Bejart). Eye-lashes are tricky to get even, but Taysha nails it.

Minute 19: Alex Bechtel has gotten his wig on and made his way to the piano in the greenroom. He noodles around, then plays “Love Me Like the World is Ending” by Ben Lee.

Minute 20: The music attracts followers. Dito van Reigersberg (Prince Conti) dances into the greenroom, and uses a rolly chair for some dance moves. Alex Keiper, in make-up and wig cap, joins in and Dito offers her a “spin” with the rolly chair.

Minute 22: Request time from the piano player! Dito requests some gritty funk. Alex Bechtel responds with Bill Withers’s “Use Me Up,” which Dito sings.

Minute 26: Alex Keiper does a Sarah Mclachlan impression. Alex Bechtel plays some Tears for Fears, which brings Wendy to the dance party.

Minute 31: Fears that we can be heard onstage breaks up the dance party. Plus, Scott’s almost finished.

Minute 31.31: Scott finishes his monologue and gets applause, from the audience and the backstage audience. Wendy challenges Taysha to a ping-pong match. Both agree that during the course of the run of La Bête, their skill sets will probably dramatically improve. Considering the formidable skills of Arden regulars such as Scott Greer and Ian Merrill Peakes and the amount of time they have to practice, they are probably right.

by Sally Ollove, Arden Literary Managermoliere

With its rhyming couplets, clever wordplay, door-slamming farce, boors and know-it-alls, David Hirson’s La Bête is a fabulous homage to the writing of 17th century comic playwright Moliére. But the inspiration Hirson drew from Molière doesn’t stop at the verse. While the events depicted in La Bête are entirely fictional, bits and pieces of Molière’s real life are woven into the fabric of the play, with references hidden throughout the script for those in the know. Here are a few:


  • The name “Elomire” when unscrambled spells “Molière.” Yet, Elomire is not the real-life Molière. Elomire’s work is praised and criticized for its seriousness and its tragic portent while the name Molière conjures French comedy. Though Molière did aspire to be a great tragic actor, it is hard to imagine the Elomire who leaves the stage at the end of the play being anything other than a career tragedian, much less becoming the funniest and most transgressive writer of 17th century France.
  • Molière’s troupe spent 3 years under the patronage of Prince Conti, who met Molière in school. While in residence with the Prince, Molière and his troupe were able to perform at several of his estates and live well. For a company of traveling actors who lived at the lowest end of the class system, this patronage was invaluable, bringing the group respectability and security. It was only made possible by Molière’s middle class upbringing which afforded him connections unavailable to most traveling players. In 1657, Prince Conti had a religious awakening and kicked Molière and his company out as an act of penitence.
  • Elmire (not quite Elomire) and Valère (not quite Valere) are both character names in Tartuffe, one of Molière’s best known plays. Though the characters are very different (Elmire is a wife and Valére a young suitor), the names are a link, and the central figure of Tartuffe bears some resemblance to La Bête’s Valere. As in La Bête, the characters in Tartuffe can’t agree about whether Tartuffe is a hypocritical con man or a saintly wise man.
  • Dorine is the name of the maid in Tartuffe. Tartuffe’s Dorine is a manipulator and commentator on what happens in the family.
  • Both Elomire and Molière’s troupes included the Béjart siblings—Molière had a long-time affair with Madeleine Béjart. Madeleine and her brothers were founding members of Molière’s troupe, traveling around the countryside with him and then later establishing a theatre in Paris. There is no similar hint of a relationship between Elomire and Madeleine Bejart.
  • Molière’s real life troupe also included the Du Parcs and the De Bries. Marquis-Therese Du Parc (played by Alex Keiper) was a particular favorite. Her beauty (and her scandalous costumes) won her many admirers, including the French playwrights Corneille and Racine. She was rumored to have had many affairs.


opening apasGreetings from Arden Professional Apprentice (APA) Laurel Hostak! Last September, I took my first tour of the Arden buildings, tried out my new set of keys, and—most importantly—met six people who would become my best friends and support system as we embarked on this adventure. Today, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say we own the place. All seven apprentices work in every department, from fund development to production. On any given day we may be selling you a ticket, pouring you a glass of wine, or fixing a faulty snowblower. We know all the nooks and crannies of the building, where to hide your snacks from hungry actors, and, of course, the best places for a quick nap!

One of the most rewarding aspects of the apprentice program is the opportunity to serve as assistant stage manager for one of the Arden’s productions. I’ve been lucky to snag the coveted last-show-of-the-season slot with Michael Hollinger’s Incorruptible, finishing off a whirlwind 10 months in the company of brilliant actors, directors, designers, and technicians. I watched my fellow APA’s go through the rehearsal and performance process, anxiously awaiting my own assignment, and I can’t imagine a more fun show to go out on than Incorruptible. This medieval farce about the mystery of faith has proven itself deeply thought-provoking and uplifting in the final weeks of my season here.

opening incorrStage management is a strange and fluid world. We hover between the artistic and production sides, often serving as liaisons between the show and the rest of the company, caring for the actors, props, and costumes, and facilitating all kinds of unexpected situations. During a recent performance, an actor—Michael Doherty in the role of Jack—cut himself onstage. It was a minor injury, but the actors’ safety is my first priority. Knowing he wouldn’t be offstage until the end of the act, the stage manager, Alec, and I began a madcap scramble to help Mike without stopping the show. We managed to send Josh Carpenter (in the role of Brother Felix) into the fray with a scarf—which he cleverly used as a sweat rag for himself before slyly slipping into the hands of the injured party, who was able to wrap up his cut hand. Meanwhile, I prepared a first aid cocktail just backstage, with Band-Aids, gauze, alcohol swabs, and more, ready to shower Mike with healing gifts upon his exit. The audience was none the wiser. Most days run smoother, without blood or backstage panic, but when crisis strikes, the best person to have on hand is an APA—a trained problem-solver.

As an aspiring playwright, director, and sound designer (you know, the classic triple threat), this experience has been invaluable. Incorruptible not only brought in local playwright Michael Hollinger—who compares playwriting to archaeology (“I know it’s down there somewhere… I just have to dig to find it”)—but gave me the chance to watch master sound designer Jorge Cousineau—who can pull together scraps of wood and wire to create the live sound effect of a guitar breaking—in action, and fostered friendships with Philadelphia actors I’ve been watching onstage for years (I’m still a little starstruck). Such generous artists, under the thoughtful direction of Matt Decker, energized the rehearsal process and the long hours of tech. But the beautiful thing is the realization that I am essential to this process. I have been entrusted with this essential role, and I feel capable.

If you’d like to know more about what we do as Arden apprentices (through a funny, theatrical, sometimes musical lens), join us for the 21st Annual Arden Apprentice Showcase, Fix Your Face, on Sunday, June 22nd at 8pm and Monday, June 23 at 7pm on the Arcadia Stage at the Arden!

– Laurel Hostak, 2013/2014 Arden Apprentice


A reliquary of St. Foy

Though the black market in relics depicted in Incorruptible was perhaps exaggerated in scale to serve the storyplaywright Michael Hollinger drew upon inspiration from historical record. Relics, the physical remains of a holy person, were prized in the Middle Ages for their ability to grant miracles. Some relics were passed down through generations, while others changed hands many times. With the demand for relics came opportunists, capable of supplying a relic even when none were to be had.

In an age characterized by war, disease, and draught, one of the few certainties of the Middle Ages was the power relics had to ward off destruction. Caught a mystery illness? Pray to the relic for relief. Late frost endangering the crops? Pray to the relic for a better harvest. A relic was defined by the miracles it created. In fact, even a fake relic could become a real one if it achieved a miracle.

The need for relics was not solely spiritual. Pilgrims would travel great distances to visit a holy relic. A type of tourism, with the influx of pilgrims into a community would come an influx of money. The presence of a miracle-granting relic could prop up the economy of an abbey or a village.

Rarely was a relic sold or given away. So if one was in need of a relic there were two options—buy or steal. Given the finite number of saints and body parts, and the large population in need of miracles, medieval opportunists were quick to see profit potential. In fact, so high was the demand for relics and so rampant were counterfeits in the Middle Ages, that the leadership of the Catholic Church started to issue authentication tags for saints, although the tags were, as it turned out, very easy to forge. A church in Geneva proudly displayed the brain of St. Peter, until one day the brain was moved and was discovered to be a pumice stone. Since forensic science was somewhat lacking in the Middle Ages, if the relic was a real bone, authentication became trickier. The only real way to identify a fake was if someone else claimed to have the same relic, which happened fairly often. The question over which of St. Foy’s remains are the real ones in Incorruptible would not have been unusual. In his classic treatise on the dangers of revering relics, John Calvin, the Protestant reformer, claimed that if all the relics spread out over Europe and beyond were brought together “it would be made manifest that every Apostle has more than four bodies, and every Saint two or three.” The only way to know a “real” relic was by determining whether it had performed any miracles.

Stealing relics was a frequent recourse for those wary of buying fakes. While Hollinger’s rendering of the theft is fictionalized, St. Foy, the saint in question in Incorruptible, was part of a high-profile Dark Ages crime. St. Foy was housed at the monastery of Agen. Lacking any relics of their own, the Abbey of Conques sent one of their monks to infiltrate Agen. According to one legend, the monk ingratiated himself at Agen for over ten years before finally making his move and absconding with the saint back to Conques. Conques quickly began to prosper, attracting enough pilgrims that they soon required a larger church. The monks were quick to point to this sudden windfall as a miracle, proving that St. Foy was happy in her new home.

hollinger pictureIn 1996, the Arden premiered Michael Hollinger play, Incorruptible, directed by Terry Nolen. Next season, the Arden will premiere Under the Skin, its eighth Hollinger play—and the seventh directed by Terry. An excerpt of an interview of Michael by Terry is below

TERRY NOLEN: Incorruptible is the first full-length play I’m aware of that you wrote.

MICHAEL HOLLINGER: I wrote a play that preceded it that I buried after about two or three drafts.It had many interesting things but it did not begin with a healthy embryo.  By contrast, Incorruptible began with a very healthy embryo; the basic idea was sound.  Therefore, the challenge became how to not mess it up, how to realize the basic idea.  This required many drafts, many readings, and two major workshops of the play in order to find its final form.  And so I think of Incorruptible as my apprenticeship as a playwright.  It began as a play where there were no miracles, only shams, and I gradually realized that the play wouldn’t have integrity unless it could comprise the paradox of sham and miracle; only then did it start to fulfill its potential. Because, are there shams in the world? Yes! Are there miracles? Yes! How do we know the difference? When miracles occur, is there causality? What do these inexplicable events mean? I was more interested in the questions than being able to simply write off all miracles as shams.

TERRY: It’s amazing listening to it now how confident your use of language is: your language, your rhythms, how funny it is to hear this play out loud. As you were writing it, stylistically what were you thinking about? What were you trying to grapple with?

MICHAEL: The play began at a time when there were a lot of televangelist scandals going on, and so religion—popular Christian religion—was at a pretty low ebb in America. “All religious leaders are in it for the money” was a kind of public consciousness.  So that’s the kind of world I started writing the play in.

Early on in the writing process, however, I felt that the church figures had become too easy of a target for me, and I felt outside the play, like I was simply judging the characters: “Oh look at these crooks.” And it wasn’t until I started thinking about the integrity of their vision and their mission — really, their high ideals — that the play became interesting to me. And that became a much more intriguing knot to try to untie, and allowed me to identify with the characters and the dilemma that they’re in, rather than judge them.

TERRY: Jumping to Under the Skin. What was the impulse for that? When did you start writing Under the Skin?

MICHAEL: The notion of “when does it start?” is tricky to pinpoint.  For me, a play basically starts when I open a manila folder. Under the Skin began as a folder called “Rock, Paper, Scissors,” and it had nothing in it but the title. I had been putting my daughter to bed one night and the title ‘Rock, Paper, Scissors,’ came to me, and I thought: “I have no idea what this play is, but I like the title, and I’m gonna start a file.” And sometime after that, I encountered an Ethicist essay [Randy Cohen’s New York Times Magazine column] about a father who needed a kidney, and his two children—a son and a daughter—both wanted to be the one to donate a kidney to him, and they were writing to Randy Cohen to figure out how this should be ethically solved. And Cohen suggested maybe a game of “rock, paper, scissors.” And it instantly occurred to me that maybe this unwritten play had to do with organ donation.  I particularly liked the fact that the phrase had three words in it, that there were three personages involved in this conundrum, and that rock, paper, scissors  is a game of dominance where each player has something over the others, and I thought, that’s a really cool dynamic for a play. I gradually came upon more information over time about kidney transplantation and the way it gets incredibly complex within families. And so, I started to begin to understand the play as a family issues play—or, if you will, a family tissues play….

I’m not usually a fan of conventional family plays – too much whining about the past! – but as I started thinking  of this one as a family play, I realized that there was a present-tense problem that needed to be solved and the clock was ticking — if it’s not solved, a guy dies. And so I found it a really high stakes, very tangible way of looking at family issues.

TERRY: Our audience will have just seen Incorruptible when they read this. How do you think the themes of the plays are connected? Or are they?

MICHAEL: They’re both about body parts. [laughter.]

TERRY: Exactly! Correct.

MICHAEL: I am always interested in the baser matter, and the way that high spiritual ideals — love, creativity, faith — are always brought down to Earth, and how human beings muck about with very tangible things in their quest for these higher values. So, in Incorruptible, there’s that tension between the loftiest spiritual ideals and the fact that we need to make money in order to stay afloat and do the good deeds. In Under the Skin this notion of filial love and parental love gets messed up, complicated by “I need an organ!” So I do think there is a link that way.

TERRY: How about—I’ve never asked you this—what’s your relationship with faith?

MICHAEL: It has, as for many people, evolved over the course of my life. I was raised in a family where both my parents were refugees from Protestant upbringings, and therefore we didn’t attend church.  But Bible salesmen or Jehovah’s Witnesses came to the front door, we were instructed to say that we were “Protestant” and that “we don’t go to church but we believe in God.” That was the party line.  By the time I was a teenager, I was a pretty devout atheist, as many teens are. I wasn’t rebelling against my family background; I was pretty much consistent with my family background. But my mom got involved with AA when I was 15 and it shook our entire house, not just because she was achieving sobriety, but because she was finding a very clear spiritual source there that made everybody in the family wake up to the notion that there might actually be something more, that a spiritual realm was available to us. My dad then went and did the est training, and so did I, and my sister and mom And this began for me a kind of intellectual quest to sample a lot of religious stuff: I read the Baghavad Gita and I visited churches, I meditated—just kind of a general seeking, which lasted for years until I became acquainted with the Society of Friends through my wife Megan who was teaching at Abington Friends School, where my children attend, and began attending Quaker meeting and eventually joined Chestnut Hill Monthly Meeting. Now I’m a very light Quaker — I attend meetings rarely — but I do have a very strong affinity for Quakerism because it is non-authoritarian, because it is non-dogmatic, because the congregation is asked to bear the responsibility of the religious experience. I think one of the reasons I have always felt cranky about most religion is that it involves a group of people facing in one direction while one person is saying “here’s what the nature of reality and faith is,” and I always felt too uppity about that. So that’s where I currently am at. I consider myself a kind of perpetual seeker, and I guess more Quaker than anything.

A great irony in my life is that I wrote this play [Incorruptible] about an irreverent minstrel who winds up being taken in by the Church, and this sort of mirrors my relationship to Villanova University, where I teach. Here I am, this irreverent theatre guy, who’s been brought into the fold of a Catholic institution, and whose function may well be to poke it in the side every now and then and generate laughter. It’s very funny to think of.

OlgaPhoto 11

Olga Prozorov is the oldest sister at 28 when the play starts; she is the matriarchal figure. She starts the play as a schoolteacher, a job she doesn’t love. By the end, she has reluctantly taken a job as headmistress of the girl’s school. Olga is a spinster and often bemoans the fact that she never married, which is one reason she encourages Irina to take Tuzenbach’s offer of marriage.

Will Olga eventually find happiness in her work?

©2009 Arden Theatre Company, 40 N. 2nd St., Philadelphia, PA 19106. For tickets, call 215.922.1122.
Site Search  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use