Lou Furman: 1976

From its earliest days, Wayside Theatre never had an abundance of financial resources.  And, the year 1976 was no different.  Despite limited funds, sufficient monies were available to support the 1976 season, which permitted Furman to serve a second year as Artistic Director.  And, it was a season that received abundant coverage in the local newspapers.  

In addition to the reviews of the performances, Furman was recognized for his leadership.  An undated, unsigned, single page, typewritten report found in the Archives is a tribute of the Theatre’s work.  It was most likely read on a local radio broadcast and begins,

The old saying about ‘Quality being better than quantity’ seems to apply to a small Middletown institution which has gained a national reputation.  It’s big enough to have those green signs erected by the highway department and to have busload excursions from metro areas … we’re talking about about Middletown’s big package in a small wrapper, the Wayside Theater. 

The tribute continues by stating that Furman took over the leadership of Wayside in 1975, and gives the following statistics “To date some 93 plays have been performed with some 485 actors, 60 directors and 280 backstage people” along with “workshops, film festivals, children’s theater and a touring theater ….”  The tribute concludes,

The fact that a small theater in a town with a population of 583 people has
become a nationally-known cultural influence is almost a miracle in itself.  The acceptance of the institution and its growing areas of interest mean that it is a
healthy, growing part of our community and deserves our support.  We think that Wayside Theater deserves a standing ovation (Un-named source. WINC/ WRFL).

Half-way through the season, a great deal of publicity was generated when the theatre’s 200,000th ticket was sold, an event widely covered widely by the local press.  The winning ticket was held by twelve-year old Lisa Chisholm, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Mike Chisholm of Winchester.  The gifts were presented by cast members of the current show, Li’l Abner, which included a corn-cob pipe and a can of Kick-A-Poo Joy Juice, two subscriptions to Arena Stage’s 1976-77 season, eight tickets to Wolf Trap Farm Park, two subscriptions to Wayside’s winter and summer season, and a copy of “Jubilation T. Cornpone’s Contributions to the War Between the States.” Presenting the award to Lisa at the pre-show ceremony was Marjorie Lewis, President of the Wayside Foundation for the Arts Board of Directors (“Wayside Theatre Honors.” TMJ.  2 Aug. 1976).

The sale of 200,000 ticket festivities coincided with the national observance of the US bi-centennial anniversary and Wayside celebrated both events with champagne toasts in the lobby during intermission of Li’l Abner (“Wayside Theatre Honors.” 2 Aug. 1976). 

At some point during the year, the press interviewed Furman regarding his time at Wayside, asking him about his goals for the theatre.  Furman is quoted as saying that he hopes to develop a Winter College Series that would showcase productions from the drama departments of nearby colleges, and have them presented on the Wayside stage. Furman felt that such a showcase would be an excellent way to expand the role of theatre in the Shenandoah Valley, as it would provide a venue for students to display their talents among their peers by performing in a professional setting. (SEE: Appendix:  Winter College Series.

In another 1976 interview, Furman expounded on his plans for spreading the theatre’s mission still further into the community, adding that his immediate hope would be to have “three or four major operations going on simultaneously.” Other long range plans would “call for the construction of a new theatre in the Middletown area.”  But, he cautiously observes that “no business can survive without community support,” and explains, “Sometimes there is a tendency to consider the theatre as an ‘outsider’ because of its recognition, but we don’t think of ourselves as an high and mighty organization.  I don’t consider the Theatre an outsider.”  He continues with what he perceives to be the community’s attitude towards Wayside, stating, 

I hope someday in the next few years the people of Middletown stop observing
our operation and come inside … we have to become more a part of the community
if we have any chance to survive … if they don’t [support us] we will be forced to drop
to the level where we were 10 years ago.

Concluding on a more positive note, Furman speaks about specific improvements within the building, saying that this season patrons will notice “a new seating arrangement and better lighting in the balcony” (“Wayside Theatre Going Strong.”  TWS. 20 Jan. 1976).   

In August of that year, The Winchester Evening Star featured an editorial recounting the success of Wayside Theatre and how it had become a solid part of the community.  No author is credited for this editorial which reads as follows:

The Wayside Theatre at Middletown passed an important milestone Friday night
– for itself and for the community it serves.  It counted its 200,000th ticket holder
since its opening.  And that ticket holder was Lisa Chisholm, 12, of Winchester.  

The tearing of that ticket marked a special occasion for the 262-seat theatre, now
in its 14th summer since its opening in 1962.  For one thing, it focused on the fact
that legitimate theatre has been accepted in the area over the years.  Now, 93 plays after its opening, Wayside has become an important part of the community.

Plays, though haven’t been Wayside’s only contribution.  There have been various workshops, several forms of children’s theatre, film festivals, crafts exhibits, artists’ displays and concerts - - all part of the Wayside Foundation for the Arts.  This year, besides the summer season of six plays, Wayside goes out into the community with touring theatre to schools during the spring and fall.  Also there is Wayside’s Winter Season of College Productions.

Wayside Theatre is solidly an important part of the community’s cultural and artistic
life.  It deserves continued support and we wish it success.  Hopefully this valuable community asset is here to stay (“Wayside and Success.” Editorial.  WES. 3 Aug. 1976).

Another newspaper writes about the fourteen years of Wayside’s fine work.  It should be noted that in the previous quotation, the theatre’s opening is incorrectly stated, while in the following quote, the correct date for the Theatre’s origin is given.    

Wayside Theatre opened its doors to the public in 1963 and is now in its 14th
season.  In these 14 years it has grown from short summer schedules of professional theatre to a community institution with many ramifications in the field of the theatre
arts.  [It receives support] from the National Endowment for the Arts, the Virginia Commission on the Arts and Humanities, and the West Virginia Arts and Humanities Council [to present programs to] the public schools.  This consists of taking live theatre into the public schools during the winter months …. Wayside has come a long way in these 14 years in Middletown.  And, we suspect it has a long way to go.  Our hopes for this excellent community organization is that its best years are still ahead (“200,000 Is ….” NVD.  30 July 1976).

Despite words of praise in the press, there is also the question regarding the quality of the productions for that year. Except for a few reviews, most criticss felt that the 1976 summer season did not meet the standard achieved by productions from previous years. One writer felt this was due to the poor selection of plays and lays the blame for this on the Artistic Director. Others report that, in addition to grumbling about the selection of plays, there were complaints about the poor technical quality of the productions, recalling the high quality of plays from previous years, singling out those produced during Slavet’s leadership, such as The Price, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.

This discontent is also seen in the reviews of LUV, the opening production of the 1976 season. One critic wrote, “Unfortunately, this was probably the poorest technical job this reviewer has ever seen at Wayside (Wagner. “ ‘Luv’ Not Loved ….” TMJ.  7 June 1976).  Another writer faults LUV as being “almost like a one-joke play. By the end of the first act, the audience as well as the performers are physically exhausted, but mentally unscathed” (Kincannon. “LUV at the Wayside.” PV.  9 June 1976).  Still another felt that the director “allows the absurd elements in the characters and dramatic action to undermine the play’s lighter comic devices,” adding that in previous seasons, Wayside “has led its audience to expect more than this overproduced … Broadway hand-me-down, especially to open the season” (Cataldi, “Wayside Offering ….” DNR.  3 June 1976).  Despite being directed by the highly competent and respected Norman Gevanthor, who had achieved great success in Wayside’s earlier years, one critic places the blame for the gloomy atmosphere of the season opener “which prevailed after the show at the opening night party, [and] must be laid at Lou Furman’s feet [as he] is the individual solely responsible for the selection” of this particular play.  The reviewer then reconciles her opinion by stating, “However, as one game does not make or break a ball club, one show does not a season make” and concludes on a positive mood, “This reviewer fully expects to see lots of good theatre at Wayside this summer” (Wagner. “ ‘Luv’ Not Loved ….” TMJ.  7 June 1976).  Despite the general negative feeling about the production, another reviewer felt the play “succeeds because, when the play is over, we leave the theater with [a] renewed desire to find ‘it,’ [and] with a renewed conviction of the worth of genuine love” (McGuire, R. “ ‘Luv’ Sends Audience ….”  NVD. 3 June 1976).  

While the majority of reviews agree that LUV was not only a poor choice to begin the season and that it was poorly done, there was one exception.  Gale Christie felt that LUV is a great “comedy to watch, but not review” and added, “If ‘Luv’ is any indication of what Wayside has to offer for the rest of the summer, it’s a season not to be missed.” She continues, “it would be an oversight not to mention Kathleen Armstrong’s beauty of a set - - can that be a real cement bridge balcony on the Wayside stage?” (Christie, G. “ ‘Luv’ Will Open ….”  The Clarke Courier.  3 June 1976). 

The season’s second offering,  In One Bed and Out the Other, fared better,  One reviewer wrote, “Wayside’s artistic and technical staffs have done a super job … and it is apparent they have had fun doing it.”   She gives kudos to her favorite actor, veteran actress Lindé Hayen, writing “Ms Hayden’s [sic] maturity and total knowledge of her profession is plainly evident in her characterization of Alice de la Granville.  This woman is a total delight every minute she is on stage” (Wagner. “Comedy returns ….” TMJ. 19 June 1976).  Yet another writer saw the production as a dismal failure blaming Douglas Wagner for “weakly directing” the show, panning two young actresses as being hindrances to the performance, and condemns another for “her slowness to pick up her lines and her unorthodox delivery [which] seem to indicate a severe lack of concentration.  Whatever the reason, the rest of the cast would be justified in refusing to work with her again.”  The same reviewer praises Lindé Hayen, who “knows the art of insinuation and gains more laughs by a slight twist of the head than some actors receive in an entire night” (Cataldi. “Artistic problems ….”  HDNR.  21 June 1976).  The costumes and set were mentioned by an unnamed reviewer, who observes the overabundance of doors required by the script and credits the director for maneuvering the actors “into and out of the half dozen doorways in the set achieving, at points, an almost ballet-like effect” (1976 Scrapbook).  In total contrast to this, Claire Kincannon felt there was nothing worthwhile in the production except when Kathleen Lindsey and Lindé Hayen appeared “in a scene or two which comes … all too late in the second act.”  Kincannon writes that one person was so “miscast as the mistress or lover of somebody or other that it made me twitch and squirm in my chair whenever she launched into her awkward speeches laced with gawky mannerisms” (Kincannon. “An unfunny farce ….”  PV.  23 June 1976).

Despite the negativity towards the season’s opening two shows, there is a unified feeling of praise for the third production, In Praise of Love.  Kincannon felt that this show “has given an uplift to the summer season at Wayside … a magic night of theatre that you shouldn’t miss” (Kincannon. “ ‘In Praise of Love’ earns ….” PV.  7 July 1976).  Part of the reason for this success could have been that three actors of the four-member cast were mainstays at DC’s Arena Stage: Halo Wines, Stanley Anderson, and Terrance Currier. “It’s good to see such fine drama once again,” writes one reviewer (Powell, “A Beautiful ….”  TDM.  7 July 1976), while another states, “we join in the praise … with recognition that it is tragic that a husband and wife have to share a tragedy to discover they deeply love each other” (Diehl. “Dealing it out.”  Unknown.  3 July 1976).  Still another writer praises the entire cast stating, “If you are in the mood for a melancholy confrontation with your own heart and life, you will find the play quite worthwhile … it presents a reality so truthful that the audience will risk the falling of a few tears” (Kern. “ ‘In Praise of Love’ ….”  WES.  2 July 1976).

For the same production, another reviewer gives it high marks by pointedly condemning the season’s earlier productions.  He writes,

A breath of fresh air is sweeping the Northern Shenandoah Valley.  After two
years of stagnation - - offering the tried and true theatrical form - - Wayside Theatre
has, at long last, decided that the dramatic play has value.  For those of us who
rather enjoy the challenges such a play suggest, we say ‘thank you’ to Louis J.
Furman … for choosing In Praise of Love … to be the third play in the ’76 season
(Wagner.  Untitled.  TMJ).

Regardless of the season’s earlier efforts, the hit for the 1976 season was the energetic musical, Li’l Abner.  It had a huge cast “that seems always in action, coming from all directions, from the audience and on the stage, always happy and always entertaining” (Powell. “ ‘Li’l Abner’…. ” TDM, 20 July 1976).  The strength of this production lay not only in the light-hearted script, but in the strong leads, particularly Jonathon Frakes, “[who] sings his way into your heart with his shy, cute way, all the while convincing you that he is the All-American down-home Abner.  He effortlessly struts around the stage … and emerges as a real entertainer” (Kern. “ ‘Li’l Abner’ …. ” WES. 16 July 1976).  Kincannon adds that the cast is “young, vivacious, eager to please and numerous, although some play dual and even triple roles.  The tiny Wayside stage swirls with activity and much dancing saves the performers and the audience from the draggy pace of the script” (Kincannon. “Wayside’s Li’l Abner.”  PV. 28 June 1976).

However, there were apsects of Li’l Abner that caused some dissent.  One reviewer felt the the musicians, consisting of piano, banjo, and drums, were poorly located, stating that the play’s director

… must be rapped for the huge mistake of placing the orchestra upstage center
in full view of everyone.  Not only does the orchestra not play an integral part
in the script, it offers no esthetic value to the set …. And the space the orchestra
took up made the sets almost impossible to be more than just drapes around
musicians and limits the space which would have been allocated to dancing
(Wagner. “ ‘Li’l Abner’ at ….” TMJ. 19 July 1976). 

Despite these condemning words, the reviewer liked the show even if she felt the dancing was less than adequate.  By contrast, another critic wondered why the theatre even bothered with a work that was “anything but literate” and that the actors did not

… have much with which to work, so they do not appear to be really enjoying
themselves …. I would rather see them use their talent in other projects.  But
Wayside chose “Li’l Abner” and they do a nice job of it.  But I still don’t know
why they bothered (Pope. “Abner: Why Bother?”  LTM.  25 July 1976).

An interesting bit has surfaced regarding the Li’l Abner production. The intern cast to play Stupefyin’ Jones had a serious accident in the scene shop and was replaced by another intern to fill the role. She writes,

After a whirlwind prep time with the choreographer (who stood in the wings with
for the Sadie Hawkins Day Ballet and tossed me onstage at the correct musical
points) and costume fitting, I was whisked onstage by ‘Available Jones’ for the
first appearance and shoved into the Sadie Hawkins Day Ballet at the appropriate
moments by the choreographer. I played the role for the remainder of the run.
(Slonaker. Email. 5 June 2021).

A pair of melodramas, “In Spite of it All” and “The Widow’s Plight” billed under the title Jeers, Tears and Cheers, next graced the Wayside stage.  This well received production was the only one Furman directed for this season. The audience was urged to boo and hiss the villain and to cheer when good prevailed in “this lighthearted comedy that dares to portray the ridiculous” (Kern.  “ ‘Jeers, Tears and Cheers:’….” WES.  7 Aug. 1976).  One writer noted that Furman “skillfully manuvers his actors across the stage successfully accenting the flowery language and deliberate posing that makes the acting style so fascinating” and urges audiences to “take advantage of this rare opportunity to experience a dramatic form which is no longer with us” (Markley. “Wayside melodramas ….”  PN&C.  12 Aug. 1976). 

The season’s final production erased the poor impression that marked the season’s beginning with the well produced, Man with a Load of Mischief.  High praise was bestowed upon the very strong cast, many of whom were actors associated with Arena Stage.  Norman Gevanthor was the director and the prodution starred Gloria Zaglool, “recreating the role of the Lady which she performed with the New York company” (“ ‘Mischief’ opens ….” PN&C.  12 Aug. 1976).  Another critic observed,

Mr. Furman has gathered the most complete and talented artistic group of the
season and they - - along with the best efforts of this summer’s assembled tech-
nical staff - - have ended the season (one that began with such a low note with
the vulgar (“Luv”) on a lilting, lingering note - - one that makes us look forward
eagerly to next Summer’s offerings (Wagner. “Romantic Musical …. ”  TMJ.  23
Aug. 1976). 

The twenty or more songs in the show were accompanied by a trio of piano, flute, and cello that were “poignantly melancholy, at times boisterously comical, but always exquisitely beautiful and completely absorbing.” The singing for this production must have been excellent, as one reviewer notes, “… this is a singer’s show, and there is not a weak voice in Wayside’s fine cast” (Markley. “ ‘Man with a …’ ” TWaS.  19 Aug. 1976).  But, another reviewer criticized the singing of the male lead, saying he “is neither a powerful singer nor an especially enticing leading man, and since he is crucial to the piece’s shifts of mood, there is a basic void at the center of this production” (Richards, D. “Wayside Refreshingly …. ” TWS.  24 Aug. 1976).

A season, that enlisted divided opinions from reviewers, came to a unified and positive close.