Author Archive for Matthew Reeder

The Conversation

Thursday, March 11th, 2010

When Nick Keenan and I were in the early stages of redesigning BSTC’s website, we both agreed early on in the process that the new website should be blog-based.  There were a number of logistical reasons for this, not the least of which were financial.  Like most small theatre companies, we did not have a fortune to invest in the creation of this new website, and in most cases, blogging is pretty affordable.

But the interest in developing a blog-based site went beyond the need to keep our spending in check.  During our brainstorming sessions (primarily directed by the always inspiring Mr. Keenan) we decided that we wanted to use our site to not only promote our mission and our seasons, but to engage directly with our growing audiences.  We wanted to the new site/blog to be a kind of constant conversation between the artists and the audience that make up our theatre family.

Our seasons are a carefully programmed, thematically linked trio of productions that we hope will spark an open conversation between the artists and the audience.  We want our audiences to take part in the conversation; both positive and critical, in the stories that we are, essentially, programming for them.  Our stories are are both a challenge and a gift to those who come to see them.

So today, we are thrilled to unveil a extraordinarily simple but vital new feature of our website.  We are turning on a new feature that will allow our audiences and our artists to respond to each individual show, right on the show page.

What does this mean?

This means that an audience member will be encouraged go to our website after attending a BSTC production and leave a comment, a question or even a mini-review on the very page that is the central hub for information and news on the show.  That means that anyone who buys a ticket to the show through our website (our primary gateway to tickets) will be able to see the user-generated reviews and comments, and the responses left in turn, by the the producing artists: us.  Potential ticket-buyers will be able to see the conversation that is already happening around the shows before they buy their tickets.  The idea is not without risk: it could surely backfire if we don’t live up to the high artistic standards we set for ourselves.  (And we commit ourselves to leaving the negative responses up with the positive.)  But the risk is worth it.   It is an effort to increase transparency: to localize and popularize the narrative surrounding the experiences that our audiences have when attending our shows.  We want our audiences to learn from us, and we want to learn from them.  That is the point of any meaningful conversation.

So here we go!  From here on out, any show you see at BackStage Theatre Company is open for discussion.  Let’s start with Orange Flower Water.  Seen it yet?

If so, tell us what you thought.  Start the conversation.

Matthew Reeder

Artistic Director.

Journey To Dan

Monday, November 23rd, 2009

Brenda BarrieWhen I first met Aunt Dan on the page, it was clear to me that she is passionate and bold, and that she lived her life with an almost violent intensity.  I absolutely fell in love with her free spirit—with her Victorian blouses and nineteenth century men’s caps—and I was drawn in by her worldliness and non-conformance to societal rules.  Aunt Dan seems to let every moment of her life on earth have its richness.  I knew upon my introduction to Aunt Dan that getting to know her was going to be both a treat and a challenge.

Lemon recalls so vividly that some of Aunt Dan’s favorite memories included a week long rendezvous with a married man eating decadent foods and hardly leaving the bed as well as that pivotal moment of falling in love with a woman sitting stark naked on the sofa sharing the secrets of her life.  And just as I was enjoying learning about this interesting woman Lemon calls Aunt Dan, (though of no relation), I was stunned to find this whole other complicated layer.  Something took Aunt Dan off guard, shaking her inner being and coloring the rest of her life–and that something makes her fight hard to give everything she can to Lemon while destroying a very close friendship with Lemon’s mother.

As I got further into the play, it became clear to me that this “wordy” play, as some critics have complained, is rather a complex set of images, thoughts, powerful moments and truths—and though on the surface there’s no action in the play, I’ve learned that the action is in these characters’ hearts and minds—the evolution of the thoughts and emotions is the action.

As I sat with Aunt Dan, taking her on word for word, her firm concepts on war blew me away.  I became afraid of letting myself become this woman on stage.  She faces the heart of conflict and the ugly truths of war dead on and sharply asks “what about the things that would have happened the next day if the bomb hadn’t been dropped?”  She tears downs critics and journalists who mock our country’s leaders, saying they would be begging for help if they found themselves in the middle of the jungle facing the enemy.  She continues to say that these critics and journalists are cowards who never had to make such weighted decisions and instead they live this great way of life that is only possible because of our country’s leaders making grave choices.  Her intense views on Henry Kissinger’s role in the Vietnam War simply shocked me.  I do not share the same views as her, or at least I didn’t think I did at first—and this has been challenging to me as an actor.  How am I supposed to let awful images pour out of my mouth and with such venom?  And such things that people argue to this day are war crimes?

In preparing for rehearsals, I sifted through the events of the Indochina War leading to the Vietnam War and read through excerpts of the book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger.  But then I found that reading the black and white of the war still distanced me from the core of emotional truth that Aunt Dan harbors towards Henry Kissinger and why she so strongly believes in preemptive war.  My homework has had to become more visceral, looking at images and reading personal accounts of Vietnam and even the atomic bombs dropped in WWII.  The more I search to the find the truth in what Aunt Dan’s saying, the more I understand where she’s coming from—and that scares me beyond belief. War is happening right now, but that doesn’t cross our minds as we’re sitting in Starbucks.  I don’t know, it makes sense that I was initially stunned by some of Aunt Dan’s ideas, but they started to make sense.  She says “if there are people attacking our friends in Southeast Asia, you and I don’t have to go over there and fight them with rifles—we just get Kissinger to fight them for us . . . all these other people use force so we don’t have to, so we can sit her in this garden and be incredibly nice.” I had moments where I felt uncomfortable by how much I could begin to understand her perspective.  I have to think–if we believe our friends in another country are being murdered by power hungry people who are confiscating our friends’ farms and raping their children, why wouldn’t we fight to end that?  And if there are only one or two countries where this is happening, why would we wait until the number of countries we’ll have to fight are twice the number we’d have to fight now?

This piece is wildly intimidating–as Wallace Shawn states and doesn’t shy away from, evil triumphs in this play.  It’s as if the actor and audience is asked to let their mind ponder darker thoughts of what would happen if we truly were outright killing for power.  I am thankful that director Matthew Reeder dedicated the entire first week of rehearsals to discussion, table work, and several full read throughs of the play.  We started to dissect and digest this play from the onset, and as we put this play on its feet, the questions and discussions didn’t stop.

This play takes us through some very dark and murky places, but I have to say I am captivated.  I read something somewhere that if it doesn’t scare you, it’s not courageous.  I am sitting here right now so thankful for BSTC’s courage, my fellow cast member’s courage, and I am very much looking forward to seeing the audience take this journey with us.

–Brenda Barrie

Aunt Dan and Lemon: Stepping Into The Dark.

Tuesday, October 6th, 2009

I admit with a certain amount of professional anxiety that I am about to embark upon a theatrical journey that scares the life out of me.  Here I am, sitting at my desk just hours before the first read-through of Aunt Dan and Lemon, nursing the feeling that already, this play has executed a kind of preemptive strike upon my artistic sensibilities and has, to a certain degree, prevailed. It is very disconcerting for a director to stare at a script that he has read a zillion times over and still have so many damned unanswered questions.

When they are staged, Wallace Shawn’s rarely-produced plays tend to garner a lot of critical praise, but John Simon, critic for New York Magazine, famously hates this play. And on a surface level, his criticisms have merit. Aunt Dan and Lemon seems to be completely unconcerned with the universal rules of playwriting. The play has nothing that might resemble traditional dramatic action, has little dramatic conflict and offers very little in the way of answers for the myriad questions it raises throughout the course of the evening.

And yet, after that very first reading nearly a year ago, I was left absolutely gobsmacked at the final page.  This play has no right to be as compelling as it is.  It has no right to succeed.

After several weeks of attempting to invent for myself a million pragmatic reasons why programming this play would be a huge mistake, I brought this play to our ensemble for a reading.  The truth is, those well-formed, pragmatic excuses were steadily losing the battle against the ghostly whispers that lingered in the crevices of my brain every time I read the thing.  The ensemble reading was, I guess, an attempt to excorsize those whispers, so I could shelf this beast and move on.  It couldn’t possibly hold up in a reading.

But of course, it backfired beautifully.  The ensemble reading was a monster.  This astonishing play was even more compelling and mysterious and frightening when it was read out loud.  What was worse, it was perfectly castable within our own ensemble and the play fit our mission like a glove and was easily producible on our shoestring budget.  It was a done deal.  There was no going back.

In the months that followed, the unanswered questions that linger around the edges of this play are still thick and palpable, and the question of its ability to “succeed” has made me question the set of parameters by which a play’s success is typically measured.  Does a piece of theatre really “succeed” only by engaging in the high drama of conflict?  Is a play “successful” only if it tells its story through riveting action?  I remember the mantra of one of my early playwrighting teachers:  ”Show us, don’t tell us.”

In most cases, I believe these Artistotlian rules of drama to be of enormous use to playwrights, and in most cases, plays with little propulsive action, little conflict and that offer very little in the in the way of stabilizing resolutions are doomed to fail miserably on the stage.  Not only are these the basic guiding principles of drama, but they are tools that we as human beings employ every day as a means to organizing our very real world.  What Shawn does by eschewing these typical rules of dramatic organization is remind us that real life is rarely lived in high conflict; that despite the constant influx of information from every conceivable source, sometimes the most dangerous ideas are passed in the form of whispers from people who are closest to us.

Come closer, this play seems to ask.  Step inside.  Listen carefully, and dare not to be spellbound.  John Simon is right:  ”nothing happens” on the stage.  But this is not an arbitrary decision.  Shawn, by asking the audience to listen deeply, seems to be more concerned about what happens in the troubled consciences and hungry souls of his audience as they are pulled closer to the heart of Lemon’s secret.  When Wallace Shawn claims that Aunt Dan & Lemon is “about the audience,” he means it.

This is going to be one hell of a journey for everyone involved.  It’s been a long time since I have felt so excited and so beautifully freaked-out before I began a process.

It is time to clench my fists and step into the dark.

Our Mission Can Change the World. Can yours?

Monday, September 7th, 2009

This is our mission, in case you weren’t aware of it:

BackStage Theatre Company is a not-for-profit ensemble of theatre artists dedicated to the exploration of family. Through the creation of bold and eclectic productions, we question and examine what family means socially, spiritually, economically, emotionally, politically, and culturally. Our BackStage family is committed to the growth of all families.

I am constantly challenged and exhilarated by this mission.  And yes, you read correctly; I believe that this mission of this little theatre company can help to change the world.

All one has to do is to turn on the television or listen to NPR or read the titles of the books that silent commuters read on solemn trains and one gets the very clear sense that in some essential way, our national seams are loosening and we are slowly coming apart.  Politicians, religious leaders, pundits and “self-educated” talking heads increasingly see only one side of any argument and seem to thrive on sundering any consideration about the collective “we” into the bitterly divided camps of “us” and “them.”  Our great experimental nation has gone from being an epicenter of new, connective ideas, to a breeding ground for shallow, divisive political and religious one-offs that draw schismatic lines-in-the-sand and splinter our collective consciousness into paranoid camps of who is righteous and who is wrong.

What does this have to do with our mission?

Everything.

By embracing this complex mission; by considering the multifaceted idea of “family,” our mission becomes an antidote to this widening national trend of divisiveness.  By choosing this mission, BackStage has committed itself to the careful examination of the basic and initial means by which all human beings attempt (successfully or not) to connect to one another.  Despite what many of todays loud-mouthed pundits claim, the idea of family is not self-defining, nor are its values.  In fact, the reality is very different.  The American Family is becoming increasingly heterogeneous and complex.  The Family is the primary human institution, worthy of constant and careful consideration, and its “values” are dense and varied.  According to certain ideologues, the family is a simple institution with a clear, simple code of ethics.  In reality, the family is an emotionally complex and often volatile institution that constantly challenges the limits to our patience, our self-image and our capacity for forgiveness.

A family cannot be defined by its values, but it can be defined by our universal human journey within it.  We are born into the family, we leave the family, and in one way or another, we ultimately return to it. The connectivity of that universal journey has inspired the greatest mythological and dramatic explorations this human world has ever seen, and it is that journey that our mission calls us to explore.

Now, I am certainly aware that claiming that a small storefront theatre could somehow help to change the world might seem to be a grand flirtation with pretentiousness.  Well, so be it.

I have long lived with this quote by Peter Brook:

“We can talk about housing on TV.  We can talk about heaven in the empty churches.  In the theatre, we ask why it’s worth living in the house and if we want to go to heaven.  Where else can we do this?  We can talk about shorter hours of work in the weeklies and about leisure.  If  we don’t examine the living of our leisure in the the theatre, where else will we do so?  In the loony bin?”

Now is the time to raise voices, to ask big questions, to make bold claims and to stop shouting into the void.  If we have something to say, it’s time to say it. It is time to stop telling stories in the vacuum and hoping the audiences show up.

So, in honor of our 10th Anniverssary Season, I make the claim that our mission can help to change the world.

Can yours?  If so, I cannot wait to hear about it.

“Why can’t you live without it?”

Tuesday, July 21st, 2009

I have been having a conversation with a very talented and once quite successful friend about his inclination to return to the musical theatre stage after an almost ten year hiatus in the 9-5 corporate world.  This inclination apparently resulted from a particularly potent burst of (of all things) shower-singing.  He claims (and I don’t believe him, but the story is better this way) that once he made the decision to give up the stage he essentially quit singing, cold-turkey, even in the shower (mm-hm).  But recently, his stage-diva heart broke through his well-crafted armor, and he broke down and sang his lungs out, and apparently something essential shifted inside and he suddenly and deeply and painfully missed it.

Since then, he has been timidly inquiring about the present state of the Chicago theatre scene.  His equity card is long defunct and he is carrying a ten year gap in his performance resume.  He asked if I thought he was nuts for considering a return to the stage at the old age of 35.

“Of course you’re nuts.  Don’t do it,” I told him.  ”Unless, of course, you can’t live without it.”

A day or so later, I found myself thinking about my own pronouncement.  Being the artistic director of a theatre company with very limited resources more often than not places the artist in the backseat to the detail manager.  Amongst cash-flow questions and budget resources, season planning, strategy retreats, rights acquisitions, casting, production staffing and networking, I find myself with very little time to remember why the hell I chose to do this . . . why I can’t live without it.

I can point to an onstage moment almost twenty years ago when my geeky teenage life was broken open by the first of a series of I-Can’t-Live-Without-This moments.  The moment occurred while singing the final bars of the “Moonfall (Reprise)” in the latter half of the Mystery of Edwin Drood.  Standing in the arms of a pretty teenage soprano, we blasted our untrained lungs into the darkness beyond edge of the stage.  And it was in that instant that I sensed for the first time, that perfect, widescreen silence between our final notes and the eruption of the applause.  And it was that tiny moment of pure, church-like silence that stopped me in my adolescent tracks.  To me, that silence was proof that something real and good had been exchanged between myself and the audience, and in that brief moment of silence, we had been somehow unified; sharing an experience that was full and warm and giving and true.  I felt generous and at home in that silence.  I felt I had given a small, deep gift, and that gift had been accepted with grace and humility, without the clutter of politics.  It was a powerful, deeply human moment of connection, and it spoke to something missing in my everyday encounters with everyday people.

Twenty years and two degrees later, that silence still profoundly motivates me.  And the perfect expression of that unifying silence alludes me, thank God, so I keep looking for it in the stories I choose to tell.  I tell stories in the theatre because the theatre allows a sonorous silence of unity to explode in a room full of disparate, noisy creatures.

It is difficult to talk about something that is without sound or color, something so rich and so personal.  But there it is.  It is why I cannot live without it.

So what I want to know is: Why can’t you live without it? I want to hear your story.

Opening the doors on our 10th Anniversary Season.

Monday, June 1st, 2009

I suppose that it is worth noting that this past season has been a challenging one, not only for BSTC but for many emerging theatre companies around the country who suddenly find themselves struggling to hold onto the small audiences they worked so hard to develop. Global socio-economic woes has kept the philanthropic institutions as well as the general public close to the tickers on CNBC and to their wallets. People are losing jobs, families are suffering, and artists are having to face the reality of programming to a public that is acutely and justifiably distracted.

The general whisper in the theatrical breeze sounds something like this: attendance is down, funding is way down and underpaid artists are having to focus their already overtaxed efforts on simply making ends meet. To complicate matters in a profoundly mindblowing Only-In-America fashion, the state of Texas apparently passed a bill that all but outlawed the profession of theatrical lighting design. All of this adds up to a massive loss of confidence, not only from the general public but from the normally resilient artistic crowd. The theatre-tech blog “Theatre For The Future” puts forth one of the most thought-provoking and eloquently angry examples of this growing feeling of helplessness.

And yet, like the blogger above, BSTC is not quite ready to give up the ghost. In the face of such widespread disenchantment and national distraction, we will continue to proffer the only gift that we know how to give. BSTC has re-committed itself to its distinctive mission and its transformative medium.

All great art attempts to remind us of our undeniable common humanity. I cannot think of a time in recent memory when we needed that reminder as much as we presently do. Theatre, with its uncommon ability to reach through the fourth wall, possesses the unique ability to unify a dark roomful of strangers. And by exploring the universal bonds of family in all its glory, glitter and gore, the BackStage mission endeavors to set the national trend of divisiveness aside, and examines instead the multitude of ways that human beings attempt to connect to one another.

In November of 2009, BackStage Theatre Company kicks off its 10th Anniversary Season. In this powerful triad of complex plays, BackStage invites you to step inside a thematic series of doors. Through the light that spills through the cracks of the family room, the bedroom and the nursery doors, we will afford our audiences intimate glimpses into the lives of three very recognizable, very complicated families. It is our ultimate hope that as the lights go down on the final show of our 10th season, you might be able look around you and feel a little less alone in the dark.


The 10th Anniversary Season:


Door one: the family room.

Aunt Dan and Lemon, by Wallace Shawn

Nov/Dec at the Chopin Studio Theatre

BackStage Theatre Company begins its 10th Anniversary Season by asking you to step inside the home of a woman called Lemon. Lemon has a story to tell. What begins as a deceptively simple coming-of-age yarn about her seemingly ordinary family soon becomes a complex meditation on the persuasive power of intimacy. Written by one of the more controversial playwrights of the contemporary American theatre, Aunt Dan and Lemon is a both a mordant comedy and a chilling cautionary tale about the subversive nature of influence.


Door Two: the bedroom.

Orange Flower Water, by Craig Wright

Early Spring at the Chopin Theatre

After years of maintaining a close, platonic friendship, David and Beth begin an inescapable love-affair with heartbreaking consequences. Through a series of theatrical, voyeuristic scenes which all take place on or around a single bed, we see the painfully intense unraveling of both troubled marriages and, eventually, the construction of a very fragile but authentic new beginning for everyone concerned. Written by one of the most promising young playwrights of this generation, Craig Wright’s “Orange Flower Water” is an unsparing but ultimately hopeful examination of the unremitting need that humans beings have for one another.


Door three: the nursery.

The Play About the Baby, by Edward Albee

Late Spring at the Chopin Studio Theatre

Two chairs stand in a private room inhabited by a gleefully naive couple whose youthful desire for each other is hardly interrupted by the coming of their first child. Soon, however, their playfully sexual exploits are bizarrely interrupted by a mysterious and nameless older couple who may (or may not) have sinister motives. Penned by one of America’s preeminent playwrights, The Play About the Baby is an absurdist black comedy, reminiscent of burlesque in it’s high spirits and banter, that grapples with such issues as reality and the games we play to define it, the ambiguity of existence, and the agonizing bonds between parents and children.

Toward Season’s End

Friday, May 8th, 2009

We reach the end of our final week of rehearsal-room exploration for “On An Average Day.” This has been a breakneck process built around a muscular piece of theatre. As always, the director wants another week of rehearsal, but that is a luxury that we (like so may other smallish companies who rent rehearsal and performance space) literally cannot afford. So here we are.

And as the week comes to a close, as I look out over the approaching onslaught of a whirlwind tech process, I feel charged by the lingering snaps of dramatic electricity that have slowly developed in that tiny room during these last few weeks. Despite a full-blown viral invasion that eventually compromised the health of both actors, forcing me to actually cancel an actual rehearsal (a first, ever) the story stands strong on its skeletal legs. The actors are pointed headlong into the arc of this comic near-tragedy with strong hearts and hungry instincts.

Kolvenbach’s play is a delectible challenge: a visceral two-hander about two decent, flawed men who are battling to hold together authentic lives in the shadow of a mysterious and distant father. It is a play about men written by a man concerned with the increasingly inarticulate nature of the male heart.

On a technical, structural level “On An Average Day” appears to be a back-to-basics excersize: Kolvenbach has placed two complicated characters in a claustrophobic room, loaded them with a volcanic set of given circumstances, and set them loose on each other. And yet, there is something else, something spooky and intangible that lurks around the edges of this seemingly conventional setup. Something like a strange face in an old photograph, or footsteps in an empty hallway, or a sourceless smell. Something haunted, and theatrical.

For the last three weeks, we’ve been thrashing out the story in our tiny flourescent room. In three short days, we take that story, step into the dark, and attempt to turn it into theatre.

Notebook: Considering the Story

Tuesday, March 24th, 2009

When considering the idea of story, any story told anywhere in the world, the question of origin always comes into question. Every story ever told contains both a grain of truth and the seed of a lie. Human tells story, human hears story, human remembers story, human tells story. Between the time that the human changes from the hearer to the rememberer and finally to the teller, the story shifts, taking on characteristics of each subsequent tellers’ history; their own sense of self. Certain details are either emboldened or diminished, and the thrust of the story shifts. The identity of the teller comes into clearer focus as he becomes a summary of the stories he remembers and chooses to call his own. The tellers’ identity is revealed not only by the stories he chooses to tell, but how he chooses to tell them.

“Memory of Water” closed this weekend. In one of the funnier moments of the play, the three sisters bicker over the reliability of a prominent childhood memory. Catherine tells the story, and Mary claims actual ownership of the story’s circumstances. Teresa confirms Catherine’s inaccurate recollection of the story. Mystified, Catherine cannot fathom this new truth. “You appropriated it, because it fits,” Mary explains. In spite of the fact that the events of the story didn’t actually happen to her, the story had become a inextricable facet of Catherine’s identity.

This is the way story infiltrates our lives. For as long as there have been stories and a campfire to tell them around, human beings have used the strands of narrative to bring order and meaning to our own lives. Stories provide us with tangible identities and ground us in a chaotic world. In the course of a lifetime, we collect the stories that float around us and put them to use. The way we use those stories says more about our identities than the origin behind the stories themselves.

At its’ core, a theatre company is simply an organized collection of storytellers. A very wise father of a very wise friend observed that the function of storytellers in a community is to unlock the grip of broken stories and to engage the community in working ones. Soon, BackStage Theatre Company will present its’ final show of the 2008-2009 Season. John Kolvenbach’s “On An Average Day” directly addresses the dire consequences of living a life within the parameters of a broken story.

We, as storytellers and as human beings, need to constantly reexamine our universal stories. To endure, a community needs new stories, and it is our job as theatre artists to tell them. These days we light our campfires from the grid and color them with gels, but we still gather in the dark to hear a good story.

BackStage Stays Busy

Thursday, March 12th, 2009

We at BackStage Theatre Company are quite busy these days. On February 27th, we opened our Jeff Recommended production of Shelagh Stephenson’s “The Memory of Water,” which plays through March 28th. We are also now in full pre-production mode for the final show of our 2008-2009 season, “On An Average Day” by John Kolvenbach. At the same time we are shoring up preparation for our upcoming 10th season.

And yet, our ensemble still manages to find time to make impressions in the greater theatre community.

We currently have five ensemble members participating in three Jeff Recommended productions around town. In addition to Rebekah Ward-Hays and Ron Kusava appearing in our own “Memory of Water” (with scenic design by our very own Heath Hays), BSTC Ensemble Member Michael Pacas is currently playing in Griffin Theatre’s Jeff Recommended production of “The Robber Bridegroom.” And BSTC Ensemble Member Brenda Barrie is turning some serious heads and making a major critical impact with her much lauded performance in LifeLine Theatre’s Jeff Recommended “Mariette In Ecstasy,” now playing at Lifeline Theatre.

And now, BSTC Ensemble member and Managing Director, Katherine Keberlein, is currently rehearsing to join the cast of the much ballyhooed mega-production of “Don’t Dress for Dinner,” now playing at the Royal George Theatre. Katherine was least seen in BSTC’s 2008-2009 revival of “How I Learned to Drive.” We are thrilled for her!

You can check out a feature article about Katherine and the extension of “Don’t Dress” here.

Exciting times for our Ensemble!

Reflection on Water

Tuesday, February 10th, 2009

Observing a mid-process, rehearsal-room run of “Memory of Water,” I was awestruck by a particular passage of Stephenson’s remarkable writing. In this mysterious scene, Mary appears to be having a conversation with the ghost of Vi, her mother. As is the case with all great writing, nothing is exactly as it seems. But the enigmatic exchange is full of mystery and regret, pain, and longing.

“VI: You invent these versions of me and I don’t recognize myself–

MARY: I’m not listening to you–

VI: I’m proud of you, and you’re ashamed of me–

MARY: I am not–

VI: I hear you say it all the time. I’m not like my mother, I’m not. I’m like my father. Look in the mirror. Why can’t you see it? Everyone else can. Look at the curve of your cheek, look at your hands, the way they move. You’re doing it now. That’s me. I got it from my mother. She got it from her mother. And on it goes, so far back that we don’t know who began it or on what impulse, but we do it, we can’t help it–

MARY: I’ve inherited some of your gestures. So what?

VI: Don’t try and reinvent yourself with me. I know who you are.

MARY: You don’t know anything.

VI: I look at you and I see myself.

MARY: Have you finished?

VI: Never.”

This remarkable passage of dialogue, so dense with the inescapable legacies that our families imprint upon our psyches, is a paradigmatic example of the kind of thematic questions that BackStage hopes to raise. Enjoy the writing. Come see the show.