Christopher Owens: 1991

Wayside Theatre began its 30th season in 1991 with an opening night gala held at the Wayside Inn.  The “sequins, black slinky dress, black ties event” began with a fancy buffet and was followed with patrons parading down Main Street for the season opener, Tennessee William’s Summer and Smoke (Skinner.  “Showtime at Wayside ….” TWS.  30 May 1991).  The paper mentions that this play had appeared on Wayside’s stage in 1963, the Theatre’s first season, along with showing photos of patrons in formal attire walking down Main Street from the Wayside Inn to the Theatre while others rode in convertibles decorated with balloons.  Despite the festivities observing the opening of the new season, it was noted that the theatre “was only half-full, perhaps because the admission price was elevated sharply for the benefit performance (Skinner.  “Showtime at Wayside ….”).  Ticket prices had been raised to “$75 a ticket for preferred seating, recognition in the program and a patron reception after the performance” (Skinner. “Wayside Plans Gala ….”  TWS.  25 May 1991).

At this season’s opener, Artistic Director, Christopher Owens, announced the plays scheduled for the summer season, calling them a “wonderful combination of wild humor and great sensitivity” (Euston, G.  “American classic, gala ….” Un-named; undated source).  Owens commented that selecting a season requires more than whether the play is a favorite of the Artistic Director or will be a draw for the region’s audience.  He added, “Putting together a strong season depends on more than good plays. [One must] consider the constraints of the theater- - its stage is only 30 feet wide and has no wings - - and the complexity of the production because of the theater’s limited resources … Some of the plays wouldn’t work because there are too many scene changes.  We don’t have any wings or a fly to hold different scenes” (Euston.  “American classic, gala ….” Un-named, undated source).   Perhaps the best description of what was involved in choosing plays for a season is when Owens compared the task to that of putting together a meal with a variety of courses.  “You don’t want six main courses. You also don’t want six desserts either” (Euston. Un-named, undated source).

Planning for the 1991 season also required a major organizational change, as the season was extended to a 25 week block of time rather than the 10 week block that was used in 1963.  Under Owens’ leadership, this change resulted in an increase in audience attendance from 50 to 70 per cent capacity.

Another factor to consider in planning for the 1991 theatre season was the various events taking place in the world.  Owens states, “The World is different.  People are concerned about the state of the country both financially and emotionally.  I wondered if people would be looking for escape or just pursuing entertainment” (McCarty. “Three Decades of Theatre.” TWS. 20 Feb. 1991). It was estimated that the state funding for Wayside could be cut as much as eighty per-cent.  Instead of receiving $30,000 in support, this grant could be reduced to as little as $6,000.  Considering Wayside’s small operating budget, this reduction in funds would be a major consideration in selecting a theatre season (McCarty, L. 20 Feb. 1991). 

One way the Theatre attempted to reduce expenses for the 1991 season was by limiting the number of guest directors that were hired, which, of course, put more responsibility on the Artistic Director. “Directing six or seven shows in a row can be a drain on creativity” stated Owens (Euston, G.  “Wayside Theatre has had ….”  NVD.  Undated). Another cost-cutting decision was to reduce the number of shows performed by the touring company to only one title.  Originally, WTOT performed three works: two for adults and one for children.  The single WTOT show for 1991 would be the murder mystery, Deuce or Death.  This change reduced the need for sets from three to one, another cost saving decision.  nd, the children’s show that was performed for schools was eliminated as “grants to public schools were the first target of cuts by the Commission for the Arts” (Euston, G.  Undated).  

The Murder Mystery plays continued to be a part of the Wayside touring program and these “one-night-stands” were performed all over the State.  Although the performance schedule for 1990 is not available, one newspaper announcement states that,
A Vote for Murder will be performed by Wayside Theatre on tour at Wytheville
Community College Wednesday at 7:30 p.m. through the college’s Cultural
Affairs Committee … Audience members will be invited to guess the identity of
the murderer during the play.  The Shenandoah Valley-based Wayside Theatre
has staged several similar murder mysteries, which have become audience
favorites (“Murder Mystery ….” The Roanoke Times. 2 Nov. 1990).

Wayside’s 1991 season opened with Tennessee Williams’ Summer and Smoke, which was first performed at Wayside during its opening season in 1963.  While the announcement was correct in indicating the play had been part of the Theatre’s first season, it erred when it gave the year as 1962.  Following the announcement of the season’s schedule, McCarty writes about guest actor, T. Ryder Smith, who had played the role of John in the 1991 season opener, Summer and Smoke.  Smith, who appears in the TV soap, “All My Children,” tells how he became interested in acting, revealing that Buster Keaton was a great influence on his decision to become an actor. “I had a fascination with him as a child.  I really liked the early film comics.” Smith adds that he thoroughly enjoys performing Shakespeare and dealing with those acting challenges.  “If you can cut your teeth on that, your confidence is built up and you think you can do just about anything” (McCarty. “Buster and the classics ….” TWS.  29 May, 1991).  Skinner’s review of Summer and Smoke praises each of the cast members, and takes note of the costumes and the set, concluding that “Williams’ dialogue stands on its own …” (Skinner. “Examining Both Body ….”  TWS.  30 May 1991).

The season’s next play, Boys Next Door, was summed up as being a series of sketches rather than a play. In addition, it dealt with an uncomfortable topic - - four retarded or mentally-ill young men who share living arrangements and their care-givers.  The acting was energetic and realistic, and was directed in such a way that the play moved between comedy and drama.  While similar to One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, this play “mirrors society’s growing willingness to recognize that such people laugh, and cry, and hurt and love - - just like those of us who, only by the grace of God, are whole” (Fuqua. “Delicate Touch ….” HDNR.  22 June 1991).  Another reviewer summed up her feeling from the very moving performance: “I started out laughing.  Then I felt guilty.  By the end, I just wanted another excuse to laugh” (Skinner.  “A Good Laugh ….” TWS.  21 June 1991). The interesting use of lights was mentioned in one review, “The light changes to blue and the characters alter their mentally retarded status to the realm of what passes for normal.  All in an instant.”  This was extremely effective in a dance sequence as well as in a Senate Committee dealing with one character’s “eligibility for government funding.  It also helps to demonstrate the acting skills of a uniformly fine cast” (Kincannon. “Behind the Scenes: ….”  Blue Ridge Leader.  27 June 1991).

Lion in Winter brought to Wayside’s stage the intense dramatic conflict between Henry II of England and his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, with their verbal battles over which of their sons would inherit the throne.  Frank Anderson and Kathy Lichter, both veteran New York actors, who had previously appeared on Wayside’s stage, played the leads. Labeled as one of the finest plays written in the 20th century, all reviewers hailed each actor in the cast for their strong performances.  The beautiful period costumes and the set with “four mobile medieval arches suggest reception halls and private rooms,” along with lighting with featured cutouts that “project subtle dark shadows of the period’s rose-patterned stained-glass windows” (Studebaker.  “ ‘The Lion in Winter’ roars ….”  LTM,  17 July 1991).  Horan remarks that, “Hillmar’s ingenious set is several cuts above Wayside’s routine … with its gothic portals that ever so slightly, creates the illusion of various rooms in the 12th century castle” (Horan.  “ ‘The Lion in Winter’….”  NVD 13 July 1991.  The production was obviously a visual success with strongly portrayed language.  There was no question that the acting was equal to the beautifully described set. 

Set in London in 1936 on the night that Edward VIII was to broadcast his abdication of the British throne, one finds twin brothers who hate each other.  One brother is rich and highly successful, the other a failed actor and quite poor.  In Corpse, both were played to perfection by Jeffrey Eiche, who, when he takes on another role in the play, almost makes the production a one-man show.  Fellow cast members were equally strong along with a set that transforms from a seedy London flat into a spacious townhouse.  One outstanding moment in the play was when “Frank Anderson, who plays a rather bumbling hit man, has a strenuous time wrestling with the cadaver trying to make the death look like a suicide.  His clever use of the corpse to deceive the landlady, who drops in unexpectedly, is a highlight of the production” (Horan.  “This ‘Corpse!’ comes to ….”  NVD.  3 Aug. 1991).  Another writer concludes, “this is an incredibly well-crafted play, a murder mystery with enough twists in the plot to inspire a Chubby Checker song” (Skinner.  “Eiche’s One-Man Show.” TWS.  2 Aug. 1991).  And, still another concludes, “I appreciated the cast’s comedic and dramatic talents. Their energy, enthusiasm and skill were a joy to experience” (Ballard.  “Wayside’s ‘Corpse’ rivals ….”  TFRN.  7 Aug. 1991).

In writing about the next production, The Price, Horan states that director Owens is to be credited for providing “a polished, richly detailed performance that skimps on none of the emotional peaks of Arthur Miller’s play” (Horan.  “Wayside’s ‘The Price’ is ….  NVD.  24 Aug. 1991).  The four-member cast worked well together, while maintaining the individuality of each character.  “While ‘The Price’ achieves a riveting climax, it is softened by touches of humor, supplied by Jeffrey D. Eiche as the elderly appraiser.  Although his is a stock Jewish character, Eiche goes beyond stereotypes” (Horan. 24 Aug. 1991). 

To close out the season, hilarity returned to the stage with Alan Ayckbourn’s farce, How The Other Half Loves.  The staging must have been very well executed as it is mentioned in all reviews and was described by one as,
Precise and clever staging makes “How the Other Half Loves” unfold like a
map, clearly displaying all the twists and turns in the complicated plot. [The
cast} must have worked hours to perfect the timing of the scenes, in which
both – and often, all three – couples are seen on stage at the same time, but
in separate locations.  To facilitate this complicated staging, technical director
Chuck Arnaud designed unique, double-sided furniture to make things go
smoothly” (Fuqua. “How the Other Half Loves.”  HDNR.  27 Sept. 1991). 

Another writes, Director Owens “pulls the play off on one set, in one living/dining room that serves simultaneously as separate homes for the two lead couples” (Skinner.  “Characters Carry ‘Other Half.’ ” TWS.  20 Sept. 1991). While the cast was quite strong, it was Joseph Parra who seems to have stood out as the fatherly figure who doesn’t ever quite “put all the pieces (of anything) together.  It is Parra’s comedic timing that draws most of the laughs and his scattered attention span that pulls the plot together” (Skinner.  20 Sept. 1991). After the play’s run on the Wayside stage, How the Other Half Loves was transferred to the Alden Theatre in McLean, VA, as had A Walk in the Woods the year before.  No information exists regarding the length of the run in McLean or how this particular transfer came about.

In an announcement about the upcoming production of A Christmas Carol, readers are reminded that this 1991 performance is Wayside’s fourth annual presentation of Dickens’ tale that “tells the story of one man’s old-life crisis and how he resolved it.”  The work of Christopher Owens is singled out for the “magical sets and ingenious methods of moving the actors in and out of walls” making it “as always, a pleasure to behold.”  For this production, the set is,
akin to an erector set, [as] it has various platforms with steps that roll out and
free-standing pieces on wheels that can be maneuvered to look like different
settings.  The scene-changes, though a bit creaky, are unobjectionable because
watching the machinery in action is diverting (Horan. “Christmastime means it’s
time ….” NVD.  7 Dec. 1991).  

All reviews praise the performance of Jeffrey Eiche as Scrooge.  One writes that he “outdoes himself portraying Scrooge’s before-and-after personalities with sheer nastiness and exuberant realization” (Ballard, C. “Wayside’s ‘Christmas Carol’ ….” TFRN. 11 Dec. 1991).  The productions receives a three thumbs up rating, and praise is awarded to all the cast members, both children and adults.

It is around this time, that Wayside’s playbill began listing the financial contributions to the Theatre under the heading of the Wayside Directors Club.  Instead printing an alphabetical list of people who support the Theatre, the names were divided into categories based on the amount contributed:  Members ($100+); Backers ($250+); Angels ($500+); Directors ($1,000+); and Producers ($2,500+).  The names appeared below the statement: ‘Wayside Theatre thanks the following community leaders whose generous donations make possible the presentation of the 30th Anniversary Season.’  In later years, the playbills made a similar listing of contributors printed under the heading, The Patron Society.

With a positive season and financial support from the community, the 1991 season comes to a successful conclusion.