Gerald Slavet: 1973

Early in 1973, the Wayside Foundation for the Arts announced that Gerald Slavet had submitted his resignation as Artistic Director.  Chairman, Frank Armstrong, III, stated the Board would accept Slavet’s request, but noted they had requested that he “delay his resignation until May 1 and to select the summer season’s shows, hire staff, and otherwise attend to details for a smooth transition and assure a continuity of all the Wayside’s programs.”  Armstrong praised the work Slavet had done during his time at Wayside, mentioning his links to the community as seen most recently with “Wayside Theatre on Tour, in-school performances accompanied by a heritage studies program” and most especially Slavet’s establishment of a board of directors with strong links to the community.  Armstrong assured everyone that “Wayside Theatre will continue to provide exciting summer theatre with our Equity companies and to serve as a major cultural and educational resource to the community” (“Slavet Will Leave ….” WES. 17 Mar. 1973).

The six very successful years that Slavet was with Wayside were recognized by the increase in the numbers of people who attended productions mounted on Wayside’s stage.  Slavet’s work was summed up by Roy Meachum of Metromedia News who wrote, “to do what Slavet has done, in attracting both the production talent and actors in this tiny theatre … mix them up and have productions turn out so well takes something approaching genius” (“Theatre Plans ….” Wayside Inn. 1973).

Slavet’s work at Wayside was also recognized by a Washington writer published in Variety of the “vest-pocket summer theatre in the Shenandoah Valley … developing local enthusiasm and it appears to have paid off.”  After listing the current season and naming the cast, the article concludes with an overview of Slavet’s success.  “Stretching a little a long way, and working actively with the surrounding communities, Slavet has built a professional summer theatre in an unlikely spot - - and then filled [it] with enthusiastic new audiences …. He’s already gone a long way, and it looks as though he’ll go further yet” (Michie. “Shenandoah Valley ….” Variety. 15 Aug. 1973).

Michie also comments about the playbill design.  He liked the format that was “kept for the entire summer with only the cover changed along with the theatre bill” (Michie. “Shenandoah Valley ….”). This format of using the same playbill for the entire season, however, was not something new with Wayside as it had begun ten years earlier.  The playbills from 1964 were small, consisting of thirteen or so pages, that contained actor bios, a note from the artistic director, along with business ads.  A single sheet was inserted with information on the play, such a cast list, the scenes, and the production staff.  Copies using this format can be found in the Archives.  A few years later, the playbill became thicker, as it included not only the cast and staff information, but some information about the theatre’s history, actor bios, schedule of acting classes, and ads from various businesses. Over the ensuing years, there were even more changes in the playbill configuration, ending with the magazine-size format used during the final years.  

Other items of interest in the Theatre’s archives for 1973 include a short write-up about the Curtain Call Café designed by Herb White.  It seems, about a year and a half earlier, Phil and Pam Unger took over the curatorship of the café bringing with them many changes.  These

seasoned proprietors initiated private parties with special hors d’oeuvres and
folk music recitals …. Bluegrass music, a part of the local heritage, became very
popular … and last winter, the ‘young’ generation found there was finally a place
where they could go to have a beer and listen to good rock music in comfort.

When the summer season began, the Unger’s “started to serve delicious omelettes francaise … with your choice of ham, cheese, sauteed onions or peppers, salad and hot garlic bread” (“Café Curtain Call.” Wayside Inn. 1973). 

The Film Series, usually referred to as Cinema Circus, continued for six Sunday showings that began in early March.  In addition, Board chairman, Frank Armstrong III, states that the theatre has undertaken no major renovation since it began in 1963 and no redecorating in the past six years.  “In addition to altering the somewhat worn and shabby appearance of the interior of the theatre, the new slip-covered seats will be reconditioned, upholstered and repositioned to allow for more leg room and increased comfort for long-legged audience members” (“20-Year Rent Free ….” WES. 14 June 1973). 

Once again, the 1973 summer season was very successful.  In one clipping, Slavet is quoted as saying that A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum was so popular “we were forced to turn away nearly 500 people after filling standing room for many performances” (Clipping.  1973 Scrapbook).  While Forum may have been a popular show, the subject matter raised objections from some members of the local community. “I had to go to the meeting of the Rotary Club and defend it, as some objected to the content of the show” said a member of the theatre staff (Swink. Interview, 2011). 

The popular play, Mister Roberts, gave opportunity for a large male cast that included local actor, John Gilpin, who went on to have a very successful New York career.  In that play, “Nannie, the goat, borrowed from Winchester-Livestock was ‘a real scene stealer’ …. Every time the apprentice in charge of Nannie puts on her leash, she heads straight for the stage door, ready for her big entrance!” (“Nannie – Always ….” WES. 2 July 1973).

Among the New York actors that visited the Shenandoah Valley was Broadway star, Donna McKechnie, who starred in Wayside’s production of  Irma La Douce.  Commenting  about the pressure of getting a show up and running in only two weeks, McKechnie states 

I’ve never operated this way before in my life.  Here I am with the score in my hand, improvising some dance steps with the fellows.  I’ll say something like, ‘What if I do a big kick here?’ and then I’ll jump on their shoulders and they aren’t even half expecting it.  We staged the whole ‘Dis, Donc’ number in an hour and a half.  We’ve got so little time to put it together, there’s this enormous thrust into the material.  It’s driving us all berserk and I love it (Richards.  20 July 1973).

The local papers had a field day when it was announced that McKechnie had been hired by Wayside (“Donna McKechnie Has ….” WES. 17 July 1973).  One issue included a full page photo spread with McKechnie, cast, and director in rehearsal (Williams, L. “Broadway Dancer Stars ….” WES. 22 July 1973).  A glowing review of the show begins, “What do you say about a musical that has a superb star,” and when she has the stage to herself, “[she] blossoms [and] fills the stage with her spirited choreography and her faultless styling” (Tulley. “Miss McKechnie ….” WES. 25 July 1973). One could ask how a big Broadway name found her way to Virginia.  Slavet summed up the question by saying,

No one would have thought Miss McKechnie, who is the only dancer they really
talk about these days on Broadway, would condescend to appear, three weeks
running in a midget-sized summer theater in the middle of the Shenandoah Valley
… [but] offer the big names something no one else can or does: the chance to do
a role they’ve always drooled over at a salary so low they have to do it for love
(Richard.  “Giving Tarts ….” NVD.  13 June 1973).   

McKechnie states that the above is partly true.  She recalls that, while she had met Slavet, the actual offer to do Irma came through her agent, and, as it was a role she was eager to do, she accepted.  McKechnie has nothing but the fondest of memories from her time at Wayside, savoring the lovely scenery of the area, and performing in the “cabaret-like space.”  She also recalls that in 1973 the only way to go from stage left to stage right was to go out one door, cross behind the theatre, and come in the other side.  In rainy weather, “it can play havoc with a hair-do!” (McKechnie.  Telephone call.  13 Nov. 2017).

Once again, the talented John Lee Beatty was the set designer for Wayside’s 1973 season.  One reviewer commented on Beatty’s talent for dealing with the limits of Wayside’s small stage stating that for Irma La Douce, “[he] has a knack for overcoming such minor inconveniences and has produced some beautiful sets that take up a minimum of space on the crowded stage” (Williams, L. “Broadway Dancer ….” TWS.  22 July 1973).  In addition to his fabulous stage creations, Beatty displayed his other talents by presenting a puppet show called “Puppet Personalities … a revue of song, dance, and comedy with assistance by members of the theater company.”  As a professional puppeteer, Beatty also had his own company, The Silly Strings (“Puppet Personalities ….” TWS. 31 July 1973).

The musical review, It’s Funny … closed out the summer.  The show was written and directed by Sue Lawless, who also performed in it.  Libby Powell’s review begins, “How do you describe anything as clever, as bright, as original and as funny as the ‘good old fashioned revue.’  Anyone wanting to enjoy the fun of laughter, at humor with the original slant given to it by Sue Lawless, should run, not walk, to the theatre this week for the last show of the season.”  The revue seemed to have poked fun at a wide range of topics, “at women’s lib, at the Watergate, at the Jesus movement, at pornography, student riots … sex education, advertising, commercials, TV serials, and ‘Tricky Dicky” (Powell. “Wayside’s ‘It’s Funny.’ ” TDM.  28 Aug. 1973).  After the Middletown performances, the revue, with its all-star cast, set and costumes, was transported from Middletown to DC’s Theatre Club for a two-week run.  Records indicate that this was the first Wayside production to be performed in another location (Lawless. Interview. 18 Dec. 2014).

Despite the glowing reviews of the summer’s productions, Slavet felt there was a serious need for renovation of the interior space, as that area had not been touched since 1964.  The condition of the seats was referred to as ‘worn out’ or ‘tattered.’ A sketch of the proposed interior renovation was presented to the community in a ‘before/after’ comparison showing two sketches as a center-fold section of the 1973 playbill:  one showing the theatre in its present configuration, the second showing what it would look like should sufficient funds be raised for a renovation. One will note that at that time, there were two aisles with seats on either side.  The center section, between the aisles, contained 9 or 10 seats per row.  To the right and left of this section were rows that abutted the outside walls, each row containing only three seats.  One can imagine there might have been some difficulty in selling these three-seat side rows, especially if a group of four were attending a performance together.  The same problem existed if two seats in a row were sold, as it left an isolated single seat.  

The sketch for the proposed remodeled theatre space depicted a center aisle replacing the two side aisles, along with a slightly different stage configuration. (SEE: Appendix. Theatre Interior). Below the sketch of the 1973 seating arrangement is written:  “During the six years since Wayside Theatre was last redecorated, at least 624 people have sat for approximately 1560 hours in the [present] seats … and the interior of Wayside Theatre has had no major renovation since it was opened eleven years ago.”  Evidently people had commented on the “tired appearance” of the theatre and also voiced concern about patron comfort, the major complaint being “lack of leg-room and insufficient air-conditioning.” It seems the budget did not include monies for the renovation of the interior space, as the paragraph ends, “Our efforts and all available money have been spent on the continuous upgrading of the quality of our productions” (Playbill, 1973).

For the proposed remodeling, the Board of Directors made several suggestions, such as creating a center aisle, as shown in the sketch, improving the air-conditioning, and addressing the issue of legroom.  In addition, “rearrangement of the seats, reupholstering the seats, carpeting at least the lobby and aisles, covering the cinderblock walls, painting, and improving the general décor” were other suggestions for the updating of the theatre space (Playbill, 1973). A look into the future reveals that both the seats, the reconfiguration of the seating space, along with the expanding of the stage area, were changed several years later.