Q&A with Tim Robbins

The Modlin Center at the University of Richmond will open its 2009-2010 season on Sept. 8 and 9 with The Actors' Gang performances of Daniel Berrigan's award-winning play, "The Trial of the Catonsville Nine."

The play captures the courtroom scene of nine Catholic activists who are on trial after they entered the Catonsville, Md., offices of the Selective Service, pulled several hundred draft records from cabinets and carried them into the street. Dousing the pile with homemade napalm, they set a match to it. As the flames flickered and grew, the group stepped back, formed a circle, recited the Lord's Prayer and quietly awaited the arrival of the police.

The Actors' Gang is an experimental theater group based in Los Angeles. It was founded in 1981 by a group of actors, including Tim Robbins, who is the artistic director of the troupe. The group's mission, according to its Web site, is "to create bold, original works for the stage and daring reinterpretations of the classics." In a talk-back session following the performances, Robbins and The Actors' Gang will host a discussion of the piece with audience members. Tickets to both performances are still available at the Modlin Center.

Robbins has starred in various films, including "Mystic River," "The Shawshank Redemption," and "Bull Durham" and is also widely known for his political activism. He discussed "The Trial of the Catonsville Nine," The Actors' Gang and the value of theater and performing arts in a recent interview.

Why did you decide to do a production of "The Trial of the Catonsville Nine"?

We did a benefit reading of it about three years ago. Gordon Davidson, who directed the original production in 1970, has been a friend of The Actors' Gang for years. We asked him to come in and direct this benefit performance and I was really moved by how relevant the play still was, how poetic the language was, and so we decided to produce it. Jon Kellam, the director, decided to take it on and we did our first production of it last winter. It was quite moving and it really speaks to the present in a very important way.

What is the value of this play to a contemporary audience, who might not be aware of the circumstances and events surrounding the trial? Is it necessary to have background or knowledge of the events?

No. I think it is important to understand that the play took place in 1968. But other than that, I think the play speaks for itself. I find it highly relevant because it's asking essential questions about what a citizen's role is in a free society. And if that citizen feels that their government is involved in something immoral, the question the play poses is, "What is appropriate behavior if there is an understanding of immorality?"

What does it mean to you to make a decision that might be considered moral but considered illegal by the government?

Well, not long ago, it was illegal for blacks and whites to get married. Just because there is a law does not mean that it is right. Throughout our history, we have had laws that have served the function of satisfying the ruling classes that in retrospect would be considered ridiculous. From the very first colony in Jamestown, there were laws about fraternization. If you were a white indentured servant, you could not talk to a Native American.

You could not fraternize with any African slaves. You could not even speak to them because there was a fear in the original settlements that the white indentured servants and the black slaves would find common ground, and if they found common ground, they might find common power and would turn against the people that were enslaving them. So laws are relevant to what a society is trying to accomplish and oftentimes have nothing to do with morality or spirituality or anything close to what would be morally acceptable.

What does it mean to premiere this play on tour to a university?

This is probably the most important thing we do as a theater company. We have been in over 40 states with our production of Orwell's "1984." We've toured with "The Exonerated" and "Embedded," a play about journalists, before, during and after the Iraq war. For us, it's an honor and privilege to go out to America and tell these stories, particularly to universities.

We're dealing not only with the ideas in the play, but we're also introducing ideas of theater and what theater can be. Both are subjects that we are very passionate about. Theater has the potential to raise questions and be provocative for a modern audience, and we have very lively post-show discussions throughout the country. It is so satisfying to hear a dialogue on civil liberties in Texas or Utah and see audiences viscerally engaged with the subject matter and see and hear people from both sides of the political aisle finding common ground in a theater.

So the idea is creating communities for brief periods of time wherever we go. Theater is an ideal place to do that, a place where 200 or so people that might not have gathered together in any other circumstance find themselves part of this contemporary community and find themselves in a situation where their voice is heard.

Is there an advantage to using a play for a political statement as opposed to speaking out?

I don't think we make political statements. I hope we don't. This is about raising questions and telling a story. We have always found that the essential is the emotion, not the idea. And if we can address the subject and find emotional truth in the stories that we tell, then and only then can questions be raised. So our job is first to tackle the primary job of theater. Who are these people that we're portraying? How do we give them emotional truth? How do we tell this story in a unique and exciting way? The rest is for other people to decide or discuss or write about.

What are your thoughts on teaching acting? You once mentioned that you didn't really believe in acting coaches and teachers.

Let me be more specific about that because I've run into drama teachers that have said to me, "What was that all about?" That was an interview I did in relation to what I feel is an exploitative situation - particularly in L.A. and New York to some degree - acting studios or theaters that subsist on the dreams of young people, charging thousands of dollars for training. Oftentimes, the relationship between acting coach and student is one based in what I view as a kind of twisted guru mentality that perpetuates the student's presence in the class. And so what I was talking about in that interview was a belief I have that this kind of thing should be shared, but it should be shared in a more generous way. Of course some people have to make money, but maybe they can train actors without some of the abusive language I've heard in some of these courses. And if you're someone like me, I feel there is a responsibility, and part of my job in life is to give back.

I've never charged for the training that I do with my company. We have always had a policy at The Actors' Gang that actors do not pay for training. They are also free to leave at any point. They are not bound by any contract. Before I start training any actor I say: "This is something that has worked for us but it might not work for you. And if you leave, you have to leave with every bit of the passion and beliefs you had in yourself as an actor that you had when you came in here."

There have been great actors that have not been able to do this kind of work. But that does not make them less of an actor or a person. You have to protect yourself in your journey so you have to be generous with yourself. I don't want to be in a situation where any kind of work we're doing is causing an actor to go backwards.

And I saw it happen at my university, UCLA [University of California Los Angeles]. I saw great actors destroyed by acting gurus. That said, some of the most generous people that deal with and inspire young actors are within universities. One of my chefs in life, George Bigot from the Theatre du Soleil, transformed my idea of what theater is in a very positive way.

Who inspires you?

Right now, my children, my wife and my company.

What are you currently most passionate about? What else is in the works?

We're about to start a major arts festival here so we're programming that. In January, I will probably be opening the next show that I directed and wrote. It will be a year-long project of a number of plays. We're embarking on telling the story of the history of the United States. It should be an interesting journey.

What compelled you to start The Actors' Gang?

We were a bunch of punk rockers and outcasts. We didn't quite fit in with the theater department at UCLA. They had great one-act programs and courses there. So there was a lot of opportunity to find your voice. We were either disinterested in or not cast in the main stage shows. What kind of turned me on at the time was European theater - surrealism, Dadaism, expressionism. And I gravitated more towards that and brought a kind of punk rock aesthetic to this material.

So our first production we did at midnight in Hollywood. We did "Ubu the King" and it was a hardcore, funny, scatological journey and it was a big hit that ran for six months. We found our legs with that production. What happened after that was we survived year after year by our desire to do this particular brand of theater. Pretty much throughout, my salaries in show business have given us the luxury of having rehearsal rooms and theaters that we could rent.

Eventually, after seven or eight years, we found a home and started doing a lot more. We were itinerates until then. We survived year after year not really knowing that we were going to be around. When we finally grew up, we realized we needed responsible adults running the company. Once we figured that out, we were able to do the absolute essential thing, which is community outreach. We work in prisons, doing training to incarcerated inmates. We have after-school programs for children, which are free. We do free theater in the park. Every Thursday show has a pay-what-you-can performance. Those are the kinds of things that are absolutely essential to the survival of a company because otherwise it becomes a very self-indulgent and self-serving world.

When you're making theater that is fulfilling egos, you tend to do a certain kind of theater and it tends to have a certain kind of tone to it. For us, that would be death. The best actors, the best artists, are those that are able to continue to grow the empathy and that only happens with outreach, with generosity and with the idea that the artist is more than just a creator of art. They're also people that have to be walking in their own communities and serving their own communities.

Contact staff writer Nick Mider at nick.mider@richmond.edu