Nine Years and a Day

September 10th, 2010 § 0 comments § permalink

As I write this on in the late afternoon of September 11, 2010, I am sitting on lower Sixth Avenue in New York City. Had I been sitting here nine years and one day ago, I assume I would have had a view of the upper floors of the World Trade Center towers. I would not have been sitting here nine years ago, because the towers would have already fallen that morning, and lower Manhattan was simply nowhere to be.

Nine years ago today, I was about 125 miles east northeast of Manhattan, on the grounds of the Eugene O’Neill Theatre Center, where I was just about a year into my tenure as Executive Director. The O’Neill, for those who’ve never had the opportunity to work or visit there, is a bucolic spot on the Connecticut shoreline at the junction of Long Island Sound and the Thames River, quite close to all major amenities, but (at least then) still blessedly a seemingly isolated retreat. It was, supposedly, on that very plot of land that Josie Hogan attempted to soothe and perhaps save the tortured James Tyrone, Jr.

When news of the first plane striking a tower reached us, shortly after 9 am, it was not because we had a TV on. In fact, there wasn’t a working TV in the building. One of the staff either had read it on the internet or heard it on the radio; I don’t really recall. All that got to me was that a plane had hit one of the towers. I assumed it was an unfortunate accident and went about business as usual. When the news emerged about the second plane strike, it was clear that this was no accident. I have no memory of when I learned about the crash of the plane that we ultimately learned had been Pentagon bound.

When the towers fell, we received the news, as if in some earlier age, only via radio. It was for me, and I mean this in the literal sense, incomprehensible. I truly couldn’t imagine the towers burning and collapsing. I had no visuals to provide me with proof.

By this point, of course, staff was glued to the radio and it was quite apparent that no work would be done that day. Reports began to come in of school closings, of business closings, of the State of Connecticut closing all offices.

Since I didn’t need to gather the staff, who were huddled around the best radio, I then made a snap decision. I told them that unless they had children who were being released from school which they had to attend to, we were not closing, like seemingly everyplace else. Radios would be turned off, discussion of the tragedy needed to stop, and we would face the day as normally as possible. We needed to do this, I said, because of the kids. The kids had nowhere to go, and what message would we send if we fled the campus while they stayed, but for a skeletal staff?

‘The kids’ to which I referred were the students of The O’Neill’s National Theatre Institute (NTI), a semester long-theatre intensive which drew some thirty students from colleges around the country to live and learn on The O’Neill campus. The kids had arrived for the semester but two days earlier, and here they were in new territory, with peers and teachers they barely knew, as a national tragedy of untold proportion and impending threat unfolded. And I was scheduled, as I was each semester, to greet and speak with them at 11 am.

My primary goal was to make sure the kids felt safe. By the time we gathered, the news had spread, not through staff gossip, but because of parents calling kids to check on them and, in doing so, to tell them the news, and in turn, students calling parents to check on them. So when the kids, and the full staff, gathered in the cafeteria, I, not yet 40, with no spouse, partner or children of my own, had to be the wise and calm adult – indeed, the father.

Churning in my trivia-laden mind was a fact that I had learned in college: that southeastern Connecticut, home to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy and the defense contractor euphemistically named Electric Boat, which was in fact one of only two manufacturers of U.S. nuclear submarines, was strategically considered to be first strike territory in the event of a major foreign incursion. What horrible knowledge to have at such a time. For once in my life, I kept trivia to myself.

I can only paraphrase what I remember saying to the students that morning, since I had neither the time nor the concentration to commit thoughts to paper in advance. But I faced a room filled with anxious 20-year-olds, other people’s children, children who I did not know and who did not know me. There was no buzz, no boisterousness; there was no need to quiet them down.

David, the director of the NTI program, introduced me and I asked each staffer to introduce themselves with their name and their title, as we always did. Then it was my turn to say something.

I acknowledged that there had been a tragedy that morning in New York, and assured them that if they had not already spoken with their parents, we’d make sure they had time to do so very shortly. Then I said that they were probably sitting there thinking — that, in the face of massive tragedy, their pursuit of theatre study, or a theatre career, might now seem insignificant, or perhaps frivolous.

Then I told them why they should banish those thoughts. They needed to continue on with exactly what they were planning at that point in their lives. They should not be swayed by whatever had occurred that morning (since we knew only of the results of actions, not the source or human toll, as I spoke). If they already loved theatre enough to spend a semester away from home and from their school among strangers in order to learn more about it, then surely they could feel, as I did, that theatre was the only means we had to express our feelings about the world. I had committed my life to theatre 16 years earlier, upon college graduation, because I had no other choice. Theatre was what fascinated me, moved me, fulfilled me and challenged me. It was also the means through which I had come to understand life and other lives, cultures, even worlds.

I urged them not to see theatre as irrelevant, as expendable, in the face of horror, but instead as profoundly necessary. I believed, and hoped they would too, that theatre, and indeed all artistic expression, might be more essential now than ever, since perhaps through the arts we could come to express our own feelings about what had happened and help others to come to terms with it as well. I told them, using a phrase that I would later find many were using, that unquestionably the world had just changed. But I also said that the world had changed a lot since the days of Greek drama, and that theatre had survived and continued to be meaningful to many people. Then I told them to use the phones or send e-mails if they wished, to return in an hour for lunch, and go back to class.

I do not think my talk was revelatory in the grand scheme of words spoken that days or in the days, weeks and even years that followed by people wiser, better known and better spoken than I am. But apparently it served well enough for my small audience, because the staff stayed, pretending that this was just another work day, the kids returned to class, and the semester continued as planned, as, slowly, America returned to a new type of normal.

When I finally went home that night, and turned on the television, I was very grateful for the O’Neill’s lack of televisions in that too stingy for cable, pre-broadband internet-era, because as I saw the images of that morning’s tragedy, what had been inconceivable became all too real. Had I seen them, I wonder whether I would have had the strength to keep the staff on site (an unpopular decision with them at the time) or to give the talk I instinctively and perhaps impulsively gave. And that talk, while hardly the St. Crispin’s Day speech, had achieved its own theatrical goal, even as I had given vent to my truest feelings about theatre in my life, in the face of great tragedy.

* * *

A coda:
Two weeks after 9/11, NTI had booked a trip to New York, for a day of theatergoing with the students. David and I debated the wisdom of taking such a trip so soon, but, with no official caution given by the government, we decided to stick with our plan of business as usual. David did have to grapple with one parent, who had heard from a friend with a friend at the FBI that there was a new threat, and wanted his daughter to stay away from New York. David successfully convinced the concerned father that if his daughter was pulled from the trip, a domino effect would ensue, and that the trip would be ruined for all. I joined the group for the journey, since if I was actually advocating risk, I should share in it.

The day passed without incident. The NTI group saw some other matinee while I saw, with unintended irony, Strindberg’s Dance of Death. I accompanied the students to an evening performance of Mary Zimmerman’s transcendent vision of Ovid’s Metamorphoses. At 11 pm, we were on our bus headed back to Waterford. In the darkness of the bus, pierced here and there by an overhead reading light, we passed through Westchester, and David and I turned to each other almost simultaneously, confessing our mutual relief. Theatre has its power, but there’s nothing like heading, safely, home.

 

This post originally appeared on the American Theatre Wing website.

The Day: “Hosting Miss Hepburn”

July 1st, 2003 § 2 comments § permalink

Katharine Hepburn, with Henry Fonda, in “On Golden Pond” in 1981

Upon hearing of Katharine Hepburn’s death in June 2003, I wrote this piece, hurriedly, as an op-ed for The Day, New London CT’s newspaper, while I was executive director of the Eugene O’Neill Theatre Center in adjacent Waterford. They accepted it and ran it almost immediately, as Miss Hepburn’s home in Fenwick was part of the paper’s distribution area on the eastern Connecticut shoreline and her passing, while international news, held special meaning for those who lived near her for so many years.

By the winter of 1991, six years into my tenure as the public relations director at Hartford Stage, the prospect of meeting a celebrity had lost its allure.  Starting when I was in college, I had many opportunities to pass in and out of the celebrity sphere – interviewing Ian McKellen for the school paper, attending small readings by Isaac Asimov and Jerzy Kosinski, exchanging pleasantries with Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly at a fundraiser.  At Hartford, we had famous people in our shows and other famous people attending our shows.

Proximity had brought a realization: while I might stop a conversation by saying, truthfully, “Grace Kelly put her hand on this shoulder,” the story really had nowhere to go after that.  These encounters were so fleeting, that I know I didn’t register with these idols, nor could I claim any knowledge of them beyond what I knew before.  Simply meeting someone for a moment meant very little.

So I was nonplussed – if not mildly put out – when my bosses summoned me to ask a favor.

Sam Waterston (pre-Law and Order) and Cynthia Nixon (pre-Sex and the City) were appearing in Ibsen’s The Master Builder and Sam had a special request.  He had a guest coming to the Saturday matinee whom he wanted to have “looked after,” but both of my bosses had immovable prior commitments.  So would I come in on my day off and attend to the needs of Katharine Hepburn?

In light of her passing this week, it is perhaps inconceivable to that I viewed this as an imposition.  Mind you, I admired Miss Hepburn as much as any self-respecting film buff would, particularly for The African Queen and The Lion in Winter.  But the fact remained that I was going to give up a whole day to say hello as she breezed into the theater, offer her a drink at intermission and make sure she got to see Sam after the matinee.  What a way to waste a Saturday.  And after all, this was the famously blunt and aristocratic Katharine Hepburn; one wrong word and she’d probably take my head off. Nonetheless, I agreed.

On the designated day, my first surprise came at 1:30, a full hour before the performance, when a member of the house staff rushed up to me to say, “She’s here.” I  hustled out to the box office just as Miss Hepburn – alone – advanced to the box office.  I quickly introduced myself.

“Who do I pay for these?” she demanded.  “I insist on paying.”

In a moment of consummate tact, I responded, “That’s fine.  We’re happy to take your money.”  So much for savoir faire in the face of celebrity.

I offered to escort her directly into the theater, where the seats were comfortable and she would not be on display for everyone who entered.  A companion joined her, and I took her to her seat.

Once she was seated, I expected our perfunctory tete-a-tete to be at an end.  But no: could I tell her about the production?  Could I tell her about how Hartford Stage was doing? What other shows would we be doing this season? And thus three-quarters of an hour went by, with her questions and my answers ending only once it was clear I was blocking seat access for other patrons.

Well, that was pleasant enough, I thought.  Now I’ve got to kill three hours until the show is over.

But at the first intermission, when I went to offer her a drink, the questions began again, specifically about Cynthia.  Who was she?  Where did we find her?  Isn’t she marvelous? Doesn’t Sam respond to her so well?

Now, to be honest, I’m charmed.  Here is this 83-year-old icon of cinema, and she enthusiastically wants to hear whatever I can tell her.  She’s oblivious to the audience around her – she’s simply a consummate fan, and we spoke until the lights went down again.

At the second intermission, she was content to chat with her guest.  Since I noticed that the audience members were leaving her alone (giving her the same respect and distance I had seen people give to John Houseman a few years earlier), I let her be.

At the play’s conclusion, the plan was to let the theater empty out, and Sam would come down from his dressing room to see her.  “Nonsense,” said Miss Hepburn, “Let’s go see him.”  And she insisted I lead her immediately to her friend.

When they connected, I watched Sam, who had been very reserved with me throughout his time in Hartford, light up with what could only be joy.  He leaned down and she kissed him, like an aunt, or even a parent.  He glowed with evident delight as she praised him and the production.  I watched as a patrician icon and an imposing actor of a younger generation basked in the pleasure of seeing each other.

For all her famous candor, her single-mindedness, her independence, her privacy, Katharine Hepburn revealed in those few short hours her vitality, her intellect and her capacity to take pleasure in plays and people.  She transformed my afternoon into a great experience, a singular encounter. And how did she insure that?

As she parted from Sam, and I walked her back to her waiting car, she was quiet, moving slowly.  But as we approached, this legend suddenly turned, took my hand, and said, “Well, you’ve been pretty goddamn nice, haven’t you?”  I imagine I smiled, beamed, grinned, just as Sam had minutes before, absorbing the full effect of her warmth. I can’t even remember replying.

Tough, feisty Katharine Hepburn thought I had been nice.  Well, who would have thought it?  So was she.  So was she.

The Daily Pennsylvanian: “From Amadeus to D.H. Lawrence”

October 22nd, 1981 § 0 comments § permalink

The following article was my first effort at writing journalism and the first celebrity interview I ever conducted; I reproduce it intact, save for addressing some non-existent copy editing and failed proofing. After trying to break into writing for the entertainment magazine at my university’s newspaper throughout my freshman year, I was given this assignment early in my sophomore year by the entertainment editor because, in his words, “We’ve been offered an interview with Ian McKellen and nobody here knows who he is.”  Obviously that is unimaginable now, but this was 1981, years before The Lord of The Rings and the X-Men films. Given the path of my theatrical career in the 30 years that followed, there’s tremendous irony in many of my subject’s comments in the first part of the interview; I had completely forgotten them. The thrill of this interview came full circle in 2010, when I recorded an hour-long podcast with Sir Ian in London, even referencing this interview during that conversation.

“As an actor I certainly learn as much from bad acting as I do from good acting, perhaps rather more. It’s easier to see what’s gone wrong when it’s bad,” muses Ian McKellen, discussing the Broadway season which he dominated with his performance in Amadeus. He pauses, thinking. “There must’ve been something I really enjoyed…I think it was a rather lean year and it’s difficult to recommend for most of the people. It seems as usual that as far as plays go, Off-Broadway is more productive than Broadway.” So how does McKellen react to the fame he garnered through his Best Actor in a Play Tony Award for Amadeus while aware of his lack of competition?

“Well, it’s very nice, isn’t it? I try not to believe it,” chuckles McKellen, “because it doesn’t really make any sense. The best dressed man, the most beautiful baby, the most glamorous grandmother…The Best Actor. There is such determination that through The Tony Awards, seen by 250 million people throughout the world, that New York should be advertising its pre-eminence in the show biz stakes. It is a sort of publicity event to publicize New York. And as New York’s fortunes have dipped in the past few years, so the Tonys’ have come up. When one understands that one is caught up in that, it’s easier to keep a sense of proportion.”

Countering this critical view, McKellen continues, “However, everyone is so pleased on your behalf, in England, in the press, the people I meet in the streets. Everyone in New York concerned with getting on seems to see Broadway and anyone who’s on Broadway as a symbol of their own success. It’s wonderful; they’re terribly pleased for you. They’re not envious, they just want to come shake your hand. I think it sort of confirms that they’re on the right lines, that the American Dream won’t die if you work hard enough and, with a bit of luck, you’ll make it.”

McKellen can afford such ideals. A six-year fixture in the Royal Shakespeare Company, a Broadway star in Amadeus and now a film star in Priest of Love (portraying novelist D.H. Lawrence), it would seem that McKellen could well be the next Olivier or Scofield. But he retains a certain humility, casually observing the newfound glitter in his life and the actions of others in the same situation.

“I was backstage with Elizabeth Taylor at The Tony Awards and she was drinking a glass of champagne. She was the only person there who was and I asked her for a sip and she said, ‘You’re going to share a glass with a loser?’ She felt she had lost. It really won’t do if you’re in the business.”

McKellen, coming from a mining town in northern England, began his love of theatre early, acting in amateur productions and going to all the shows he could. But English Lit at Cambridge interfered and McKellen avoided Drama out of insecurity. “I’d seen far too many good actors and I didn’t think I was good enough to be a pro. But one or two people said I was, so I thought I’d give it a whirl. And I’m still whirling.”

That whirling spun McKellen into the Royal Shakespeare Company and then into the London production of Bent, originating the role of Max, the homosexual concentration camp victim made famous in the U.S. by Richard Gere. From Bent he whirled in Amadeus. As Antonio Salieri, the embittered rival of Wolfgang Mozart, McKellen carved a theatrical figure which remains permanently etched on one’s memory. And yet, “It’s the kind of performance which at home I’ve really tried to stop giving,” he notes. Elaborating, McKellen compares the part to 19thcentury British drama where “reality was more displayed. It was safe to say,” and he bellows, “’The bells, the bells, the bells!’ It was absolutely alright. You know, ‘God’s in his heaven and he’s an Englishman.’ Now we’re not quite so certain about things. It’s a bit more neurotic.” And McKellen prefers the latter style, “this other level of reality.”

This reality is easier to portray in films and that is McKellen’s new direction. Though no plans or contracts are on the horizon, he hopes to work more in movies, since Priest of Love is his first film in 13 years and his first starring role.

“It was a bit unnerving to get up each morning, touch up the beard, dye the hair red, put on the 1920s clothes, look in the mirror and say, ‘Well, good morning D.H. Lawrence.’ But it also feels quite good to walk onto a set and people refer to you as Lawrence rather than as Ian. It’s a bit of a compliment.”

Clearly enamored of the character of D.H. Lawrence, McKellen expresses many views on Lawrence’s life, his portrayal and his own life.

“I can understand all the constrictions which he felt in that small northern community. The puritanicalism which he kept throughout his life, which I’ve got inside of me, which I keep measuring myself up against.”

“There was another strand of his character that was very appealing to me, for me to be understandable of course, is that he loved acting. He loved the music hall, the red-nosed comics, vaudeville. He was obviously often aware of the effect he was having. He wasn’t the retired little actor.”

“There was evidence that Lawrence’s heterosexuality wasn’t as secure as he presented it. There were many young men in his life that he was obviously attracted by, not saying that he slept with them. I don’t think he ever admitted to himself that he could be a homosexual, but I think he was. Or maybe bisexual, but  not practicing.” More personally, he adds, “I don’t see much difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. They seem to be about the same. If you’re in love, you’re in love. If you’re having sex, you’re having sex.”

Despite his fame and brilliance, Ian McKellen remains personable and direct. In discussing Lawrence’s attraction to his wife and hers to him, he remarks, eyes sparkling, “Oh well, maybe they just liked fucking.”