The question got a nice healthy laugh, then one of the actors made the point that to make that argument then would have been to acknowledge that Calvinism and predestination had some validity. Quite true.

In my mind, if she’d chosen to make that argument to the Board of Directors, it would also have been with more than a touch of irony, one of the many tools with which her character seemed ably equipped.

The question I wasn’t clear on, however, was, according to Calvinist doctrine, “can one change one’s fate?” Could Mrs. Packard by caring for her children change the eternal fate of a child who has been predestined already for salvation? Or if predestination is chiseled in stone, why need one be a moral person at all?

POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD…

Listening to the comments of the people on either side of me who seemed to think it was “heavy” and seemed to be more of the Broadway-musical-with-a-happy-ending-crowd, I thought to myself, “Gosh, I hope they aren’t indicative of the Princeton audience because this play needs to be done and needs to be seen.”

I chatted with the nice lady next to me and decided to resist the temptation (due to time constraints) to get into a conversation about how this play actually did have a happy ending of sorts—Mrs. Packard illustrates the heroic qualities of mankind (which would have been true whether her character lived or died), most importantly, but she also spearheads real change and achieves some sort of immortality from her writings while all others fade into obscurity.

Anyway, during the talkback afterwards, I was pleasantly surprised when a great number of the audience stayed and asked very thoughtful questions. So it seems that Princeton audience IS rather sophisticated after all. My bad for being a snooty New Yorker!

I asked the question, “Can you give any more insight on Calvinism? For example, in her meeting with the Board of Directors, why would Mrs. Packard not make the argument, ‘I cannot possibly ruin the children, as they are already predestined to either heaven or hell! So I might as well be allowed to come home.’ Is there any way to change one’s fate?”

One of the actors, who played Dr. Brown and others, made the observation that people who were successful were seen as being predestined for salvation…and added with a sly smile that this was a Republican idea.

Emily Mann, to the audience’s delight, soon after joined the discussion as well.

One question that was asked to the actors was, “How do you prepare to play a villainous character?”

Mrs. Bonner (Fiana Toibin) and Theophilus Packard (John C. Vennema) were on the panel and fielded that question. In particular, Ms. Toibin said that she needed to completely understand and empathize with her character, to not judge her. Given the time period, her character probably survived tremendous hardship in Ireland with the Potato Famine and saw these women as spoiled and stubborn given the horrible things she’d seen.

However, in my mind, the real villain of the MRS. PACKARD story is Dr. McFarland. The actor was not at the talkback, understandably after being on stage much of the show, I’m sure he needed to rest between performances.

Dr. McFarland seems to be an enlightened man unlike Mrs. Bonner and Mr. T. Packard. He understands very well that Mrs. Packard should not be there, even admires her spirit, yet because of a number of complex reasons, he is unwilling to protect her. His great pride and egotism as well as an unflappable belief that he has right on his side makes him unwilling to admit to the horrible conditions and practices carried out in his name in the hospital.

I’m sure the comparison to a few our leaders, two in particular (one now resigned), who have created an environment where Abu Ghraib would inevitably occur, was not completely accidental by the esteemed playwright. And further, like some of our leaders, though perhaps this is true to a lesser degree for Dr. McFarland, greed is a factor. I think it was stated early on that he received funding for each of the women, so as long as they remain, it seems to me, he gets paid. So perhaps there is a smattering of greed that colors his diagnosis for each woman.

It seems also that a part of him maybe even dreams about being Mrs. P’s protector (and dreams about even more licentious connections where it concerns her), but that he lacks the courage to change.

I was amazed at the end when Mrs. Packard took the hand of the doctor after the trial. I thought to myself, “Wow, what a magnanimous gesture. I wonder if that was in the original script or if that came out of the rehearsal process.”

All the cast was top notch, but Kathryn Meisle, as Mrs. Packard, was a luminous force on stage. Great performance.

Break a leg in Washington, MRS. PACKARD.

I really like your image of dramaturg as chameleon, because it’s true, we are always adapting ourselves to the needs of the particular play or production.

One thing pointed out was a reference to sandwiches in the play. My British friend said, “You should check on when the Earl of Sandwich invented the sandwich. May not have had them in 1815.” And then of course, the issue arises, what exactly did they offer if someone came calling, but it wasn’t a sit down meal? (BTW, if Wikipedia can be trusted, sandwiches invented in 1762.)

I think in some ways I had to act as my own dramatrug, out of necessity, because I was the one preparing the “packets” of information, maps, pictures of artwork of the time, clothing, customs, transport. I imagine it must be very helpful indeed for a playwright to have someone like you at his/her side during the process.

I wonder, Doug, do you comment much on structure or character during the process? Dialogue? In some ways the dramaturg seems like a bit of a chameleon. Is it fair to say that you adapt your role based on what sort of support is needed for a particular play?

Was it easier or harder because the playwright and director were the same person? I think it made things easier, since there was one person to go to with notes about the play and the staging. If text questions came up in rehearsal, Emily often joked that she would need to go home and check with the playwright.

This play must have presented you with many interesting challenges as dramaturg. Would it be the job of the dramaturg to find such things like the “Peter, Peter pumpkin eater,” fascinating little tidbits (which serve to make the play richer and more authentic), or did you have other duties as well? What sorts of stuff does a dramaturg do during rehearsals besides blog?

And was your job easier or harder because the playwright and director are one in the same? I’d assume that you’re more an advocate for the playwright.