Howard Zinn, considered to be one of the most thought-provoking American historians, who presents history not from the perspective of those in power, but from the experience of “people who had been omitted from textbooks,” has been both praised and condemned, according to the reader’s perspective—from progressive to ultra-conservative.

His play parallels Voices of a People’s History of the United States, an anthology, edited by Zinn and Anthony Arnove in 2004. Voices is the primary source companion to Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States.

By allowing us to see the underbelly of the world’s richest and most powerful country (“we cannot depend on people in the White House”), we learn about individuals who, in their own way, shaped this country. Just as Bertolt Brecht did not write in praise of the pharaohs but the workers who built the pyramids, so Zinn shows us that without the slaves in America, the workers, women, and many marginalized groups, the US would not be what she is now.

Although Zinn died in 2010, his work continues to be read and studied widely and finds new audiences all over the US through performances of his work Voices. It’s now being presented in a new production at Plays and Players, directed by John Doyle, Iron Age artistic director. Philadelphian Bob Weick takes on the role of the brilliant, if much maligned Howard Zinn, supported by a cast of Philadelphia theater artists.

Henrik Eger: What in your background as an American and as an actor made you choose this provocative work?

Bob Weick: My roots are here in Philly, Kensington—working class, Irish Catholic. I came of age during the Vietnam War era, with all the social strife that surrounded that difficult and promising time. I had uncles who were priests and aunts who were nuns. The Church, at that time, was very active against the war. That background certainly shaped my world view. But in a way, I did not choose this work, it chose me.

Long before I engaged with the work of Howard Zinn, a kind soul, Dick Nepon, handed me a copy of Marx in Soho, “This would be a great role for you.” Knowing little about Zinn and next to nothing about Marx, that small act kick-started a new chapter in my life. I did not recognize it at the time, but my life and work was changed at that moment.

The actor inside of me was terrified by the prospect of solo performance, but at the same time felt driven to do work that could perhaps have an impact on society. I wanted to play my part, to contribute to intelligent dialogue, and to wrestle with important ideas. With the help of [Iron Age director] John Doyle, and then encouragement from Howard Zinn, I found meaningful and challenging work. What more could an actor ask for?

Eger: Tell us about your work with Zinn and what impacted you the most about interacting with him?

Weick: Howard [Zinn] loved the Iron Age Theatre production of Marx in Soho, encouraging us to run with it. As time went by, as his new piece, Voices of a People’s History, developed, we saw another opportunity to engage audiences with important ideas. Voices, unlike my solo piece [Marx in Soho], brings a large number of people together, and it is great to share the stage with other committed actors and designers. This cast [at Plays and Players] just tears up the material—goose bumps all around.

Howard was an extraordinarily warm individual, and his enthusiasm and support was wonderful. His most profound ideas stay with me to this day: History matters. Your actions matter. You have a role to play in this crazy world, although it can be hard at times to fight the good fight. Choosing to work with thoughtful people—whatever the results, immediate or long term—makes life both interesting and rewarding.

Perhaps my fondest memory of Howard [Zinn] was sharing the green room with him before a show in Boston, just talking about our families and life in general. Or maybe the time I was trapped in my hotel room near his home because of an ice storm. To my surprise, he walked over to visit me at the hotel to share a meal and hang out.

Eger: How did audience members in those days respond to Zinn and his work? Could you give a few examples?

Weick: Well, I’ve seen it all. I received hate mail and threats and even had one venue in Texas shot up and vandalized—bullet holes in a dressing room is a unique experience for an actor. Marx in Soho is the only piece I’ve ever done where I can feel open hostility as I enter the stage. However, over the course of the play, something happens: ideas begin to resonate; the audience can become unsettled, unsure. I can feel it when it turns.

The post-play discussions are always fascinating. The most hostile audiences are ready and willing to talk after the show. Those who see the work never quite read the news the same way. Some audiences even react as though I’m a rock star, which is fun and rewarding, but going into conservative bastions I like the most.

Eger: Before you became an actor, you were a farrier, working with horses. What made you replace the smithy for the stage? And what, ultimately, made you dedicate your professional life as an actor representing Zinn’s work?

Weick: I still shoe horses, though I now do it part time because of my touring schedule. Also, it’s demanding physical work, and I’m not a kid anymore. In short, I like to shoe-horse and I love to act. And I plan to continue both careers.

Eger: What criticism have you encountered of this play which makes history come alive?

Weick: None for Voices. Of course, no one makes a point to stick around after a show just to tell you they hate what you did.

Eger: You are a popular actor and Barrymore nominee who performed Zinn’s compendium work, Marx in Soho over 250 times all over the US. Is this production of Voices at Plays and Players also going on a national tour?

Weick: We have decided to dedicate ourselves to reaching new audiences, and this seems an exciting possibility. We are in the process of developing a framework to assist with university productions. [Director] John Doyle and I will work on shaping and guiding the theatrical framework and process, while using college students, faculty members, and alumni as the core company. We want to work with them to choose texts that serve as companion pieces to their classroom studies. Some local professors will be seeing the show this weekend with an eye to produce local campus productions this fall.

Eger: History is almost always written from the perspective of the victors and the ruling class. Very few historians take a different path, like Zinn, who presents American history from a “We the people” perspective. Could you give an example or two?

Weick: The key idea we learn from Howard’s work is that all the progress we have enjoyed in this country only happens when people organize, take to the streets, and demand it. Democracy does not come from the top. It comes from the bottom.

The American Revolution was in many respects forced on the Founding Fathers. They were responding to strong messages and demands from average citizens. Similarly, FDR was pushed into the New Deal by an engaged and enraged public.

Eger: Adam Cahnman, blogger of Cahnman’s Musings, condemned A People’s History of the United States as a “discredited book.” What is it about Zinn’s approach to history that gets certain sections of the American population upset with his work? 

Weick: Challenging popular mythologies, whether historical or religious, always upsets those who, for whatever reason, are heavily invested in upholding old myths. Reality can often be much less comforting than fantasy.

Eger: When one can’t argue with some of the worst aspects of exploitation and discrimination in US history, some commentators drag in religion—for example, the claim that Zinn’s Marx in SoHo “is written with an antiChrist spirit.” What responses did you get from your audiences who saw a production of Zinn’s work?

Weick: Some right wing fundamentalists, political or religious, take offense at the play. Some even walk out and it’s ridiculous when they do. Some folks just don’t get it. I have performed Marx for the Sisters at Catholic Workers and for other church groups. They love the message of the play, the call for peace and justice.

Marx was an atheist. The script is honest about that and addresses this and other subjects with humor, goodwill, and a little exasperation. Let’s face it: the play is a fantasy. Marx comes back to present day Philly to clear his name and comment on what has happened since his death. A fascinating premise—with funny moments and an important message.

Eger: You received the highest praise and deepest condemnation of Zinn’s work: “Bob Weick is an excellent actor; in terms of staging and theatrics, his performance was flawless. The ideas behind his performance, however, remain evil. Cahnman’s Musings urges readers to pray for the Lord to lift the veil of deception from Mr. Weick’s eyes.”

Shall we all start praying now—before fundamentalists protest outside Plays and Players?

Weick: Ha! That’s some review! I never saw that one. Well, all are welcome to attend or protest. I’m a big fan of protest, but let there be a dialogue without dogma. While I can’t help but smile at the above comments, it’s not really funny. Dogma is a killer, and the stakes in society are high. We have to respect Marx’s call for dialogue, the dialectic. Fundamentalism, whether religious or political, kills.

Eger: If social justice is at the forefront of both Zinn’s Voices and your work, how do audience members respond to the challenges that you present to them, for example in Q&A sessions afterwards? 

Weick: I love the post-play Q&A sessions. I’ve never met hostility after a performance. Both Voices andMarx in Soho spawn dialogue and the exercise of critical thinking. After seeing the play, audiences no longer reject Marx out of hand. They feel like they have met him. And they like him.

Eger: Do audience members get educational materials to solidify their knowledge?

Weick: We do offer educational support, bibliographies, and links to resources. There are also the Zinn Education Project and the Teaching for Change organizations that provide support to academics.

Eger: The Voices project “also aims to change the way U.S. history is taught and understood, in the classroom and beyond.” Tell us about the progress of this project, and what still needs to be done?

Weick: Well, there are also ongoing initiatives to present Voices. The work is never done, and that’s ok. There is always a need for vigilance. We need to be engaged with the issues of the day. Democracy requires it. As Marian Wright Edelman said, “Democracy is not a Spectator sport.” From what I have seen, more and more people are using Zinn’s work. Sales of his books are still strong.

Eger: Aware of the plight of millions of Americans, Zinn lists as the motivation for his work the fact that “people who seem to have no power [. . .] have a voice no government can suppress.” Given the access that millions of Internet users now have to social media, what do you think are the chances that more Americans will wake up to these vital issues and take action?

Weick: Social media is a great tool for organizing and for sharing information, but people in our society are trained to be submissive, to be obedient. Add to this a natural instinct among people to focus on their daily lives and families. Face to face contact is critical in developing meaningful relationships.

But a time always comes when folks shut down, rise up, take a walk together, march in protest, meet for coffee. Keep it real. Keep it personal.

Eger: There was such a demand for Zinn’s work that Matt Damon, Josh Brolin and Chris Moore produced a film with Zinn and Arnove in 2009. It featured dramatic and musical performances by Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Danny Glover, Morgan Freeman, Pink, Sean Penn, and many more. How deep do you think is the penetration of Zinn’s work in the American psyche, given the status of these celebrities?

Weick: I find it hard to assess in terms of numbers. Millions to be sure. Having known celebrities involved certainly raises awareness.

Eger: Unlike many other plays that set out to entertain or to inform, Zinn’s Voices sets out to “inspire a new generation of people working for social justice.” How close do you think we are in reaching Zinn’s goals in liberating the people and building a more humane future right here in Philadelphia? 

Weick: Philly was born in revolution. I suspect it will play a role in the much needed change, especially as the number of people who are aware of the pending environmental disaster and of economic inequality is growing.

As I travel the country, I see clearly that there are pockets of resistance to the status quo everywhere—even in Texas [he grins]. But these resisters are often unaware of each other. Those of us who care must continue to reach out to others, be willing to speak out, be willing to defend the idea that all people in all countries have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If any government is obstructing these goals, it is the right and responsibility of the people to alter their governing bodies. You can quote me on that!

Eger: It has been observed that Zinn’s dialogues don’t preach, but are filled with mischievous humor. 

Weick: No! [he grins] To receive these gems, you have to see the show. Howard is a great storyteller and has a great sense of humor, as you’ll see.

Eger: Is there anything else you would like us to know about this production?

Weick: Come one and all. Prepare to be offended. Prepare to be moved. Prepare to laugh. Prepare to sing along with us. Come and see for yourself. Judge for yourself. And then let’s have a pint up in Quig’s Pub and explore how we can work for peace and justice—and live our brief lives with joy.

"Interview with Bob Weick, who plays the historian in VOICES OF A PEOPLE’S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES" was published by Phindie on January 29, 2015.

Howard Zinn, considered to be one of the most thought-provoking American historians, who presents history not from the perspective of those in power, but from the experience of “people who had been omitted from textbooks,” has been both praised and condemned, according to the reader’s perspective—from progressive to ultra-conservative.

The play parallels Voices of a People’s History of the United States, an anthology, edited by Zinn and Anthony Arnove in 2004. Voices is the primary source companion to Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States.

By allowing us to see the underbelly of the world’s richest and most powerful country (“we cannot depend on people in the White House”), we learn about individuals who, in their own way, shaped this country. Just as Bertolt Brecht did not write in praise of the pharaohs but the workers who built the pyramids, so Zinn shows us that without the slaves in America, the workers, women, and many marginalized groups, the US would not be what she is now.

Although Zinn died in 2010, his work continues to be read and studied widely and finds new audiences all over the US through performances of his work Voices. It’s now being presented in a new production at Plays and Players, directed by John Doyle, Iron Age artistic director. Bob Weick takes on the role of the brilliant, if much maligned Howard Zinn, supported by a cast of Philadelphia theatre artists.

Henrik Eger: What in your background as an American and as a theater director made you choose this provocative work?

John Doyle: I am interested in the intersection of theater and history. I am deeply connected to our revolutionary spirit and to the 20th century’s great social movements. I, like Thomas Paine, see myself as a citizen of the world as well as of America. This production speaks to that American sprint, while focusing on our global humanity and connectedness. I have and continue to love engaging in work that brings historical figures or situations into an active relationship with the audience—from the Juneteenth events [US Emancipation Day, commemorating the abolition of slavery in June 1865] to Bastille Day [French revolution, July 14,1789, re-enacted] at Eastern State. This type of work is in my blood.

Eger: If social justice is at the forefront of both Zinn’s Voices and your work, how do audience members respond to the challenges that you present to them, for example in Q&A sessions afterwards? Similarly, do audience members get educational materials to solidify their knowledge?

Doyle: Our young audiences have study guides and have had staff from Plays and Players visit the schools. The event feels a lot like a big community meeting. People engage and are commissioned by the cast to take action and join the movement. Zinn’s books are available for purchase at the productions from Wooden Shoe.

Eger: The VOICES project “also aims to change the way U.S. history is taught and understood, in the classroom and beyond.” Tell us about the progress of this project and what still needs to be done?

Doyle: Our educational system is focused on American exceptionalism over honesty. It has gotten lost in statistics that are driven by political agendas, rather than intellectual endeavor. I hear teachers misrepresenting Marx, King, Malcom X, and Unions because pundits have replaced scholarly engagement with “history.” This play and Zinn’s work challenge us to see the world not from the top but from those under foot. Progress is slow.

We are living in a time where standardized testing and entertainment news have prevented or made difficult access to important and neglected facts and ideas. The Zinn Education project is making serious efforts to make a difference. We hope that audiences of all ages who see this production will be affected.

Eger: Zinn presents documents from famous Americans like Frederick Douglass, Emma Goldman, Langston Hughes, John Steinbeck, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., Angela Davis, Noam Chomsky, and many more. They’re all part of the canon of educated progressive intellectuals. How did you engage the audience who may not know gay poets like Allen Ginsberg, trade union organizers like César Chávez, and black authors like Alice Walker?

Doyle: Part of the magic of this piece is that we focus on bringing those unknown or lesser known figures to the fore. Using actors, music, projections and well-chosen and edited texts, we are able to give life to the obscure. Some of my favorite pieces in this production are names never mentioned in a classroom.

Eger: In traditional history books, documents from popular culture rarely get included like letters, diaries, and speeches of ordinary Americans. Zinn, however, includes them as evidence, for example, the defiant call to arms of Shawnee leader Tecumseh, a fugitive slave’s letter to a former master, and testimony of nineteenth-century factory girls on strike in the Lowell mills—history not dictated from above, but history grown organically, rising up. How did you make that process a reality in this production?

Doyle: This has been an organic process. Each member of the cast and production team brings ideas to the table and we respect them. It is an evolution, trusting in the hearts of the creators, no matter how young or old, to bring their special talents to the pieces.

Eger: Tell us more about the amazing cast you have assembled and their roles, including the significance of your color and gender-blind casting in this production.

Doyle: The diversity of the cast is extraordinary. Each member brings both an appreciation for the contact and a set of special skills. We have used actors in gender and racially appropriate roles in some places for clarity’s sake, for example Kathy Simpson portrays Sojourner Truth; Mary Tuomanen presents Helen Keller; while Damien Wallace plays Malcolm X. However, there are other roles where the juxtaposition of the gender or racial contract is meaningful to the text, for example, Bi Jean Ngo as Frederick Douglass, or Gabriella Sanchez as Cesar Chavez.

The work is about our humanity, our unity—not our differences, like gender and ethnicities. We are focused on making challenging and illuminating choices, presented in five different groups: On race and gender; The ignored and marginalized; Class and economy; War, race, and poverty; and Economy and revolution—all beginning with excerpts from the Declaration of Independence. The text has informed these choices.

Several of the cast members have been in our previous incarnation of the show. They have a perspective that adds depth to their performances, for example, Bob Weick as Howard Zinn who opens and narrates the show.

Eger: Anyone else who contributed to this production at Plays and Players in strong ways?

Doyle: Carly Bodnar has acted as my assistant director; her insights can be seen in the work on the stage. She is thoughtful and inventive. Certainly I have to mention Bob Weick’s contribution to the work. He helped filter the pieces, edit them, and spent hours reading the piece aloud to determine its actual length. He is a wonderful collaborator. Amber Emroy, producer and associate artistic director, guided so much of the tone we have included her at the Plays and Players performance. Lucas Fendley is adding live music to underscore the narrations. There are many others; indeed, the entire team has had influence on the production.

Eger: Unlike many other plays that set out to entertain or to inform, Zinn’s Voices sets out to “inspire a new generation of people working for social justice.” How close do you think we are in reaching Zinn’s goals in liberating the people and building a more humane future right here in Philadelphia?

Doyle: The energy among the cast of this production illustrates the power of Zinn’s vision in Philly. There are examples throughout the city of people standing up for social causes, speaking out for victims of injustice and banding together to live more humanely. Zinn believed it was one small step at a time. With each production, each small action, we can turn the tide.

Eger: Is there anything else you would like us to know about this production?

Doyle: It’s unique in the succession of productions of Voices of a People’s History all over the US. We have pushed the theatricality of the work. We underscored cinematically the notations, adding more of a dialogue sensibility to some of the texts. And we staged the piece with a stronger sense of community over individual readers who, traditionally, stand alone on stage. All these elements energize the work.

The piece is crafted to take the audience on a journey. Each piece is connected to the one before and after, building on their ideas and arguing for Zinn’s thesis. In this production we included an accordion, electric guitar, poetry, and passionate recitations of great works. It gives me the chills.

"'This production gives me the chills'" was published by Phindie on January 28, 2015.

Henrik Eger: You once said, “I have a complicated relationship with my nationality—as, perhaps, do most American artists.” Tell us more about that ambiguity, especially at a time when millions of people seem to feel uncomfortable with artificial borders and nationalities and are beginning to search for new identities.

Jen Silverman: I’m American: I have the passport, I was born here, I went to high school and college here. And then also–I’ve spent real time in other countries, as both a child and an adult. A lot of cultural givens for American kids weren’t cultural givens for me. Going to high school in Connecticut was sort of a crash course. My assumptions and norms were so different that I felt like I’d arrived on another planet. As a high school kid, you’re just trying to survive what is essentially a Gulag of hormonal insecurity-driven conformity. After the fact, you get to ask: OK, what parts of my nationality and culture actually resonate with me, and what are the things I learned to “put on” so I could “pass”? It’s complicated.

It remains complicated as an adult and a working artist in that, on the one hand, America’s value and support of its artists is grudging, at best. It’s hard not to think about picking up and going somewhere else. On the other hand, if America’s artists and writers bail, if we abdicate responsibility, then what happens in our wake? I think we’re responsible. There are doctors of the body and doctors of the mind. A country can’t lose either and still function as a healthy organism.

Eger: You were home-schooled until high school, moving from one place to another. How did those experiences impact your ways of seeing life and writing plays?   

Silverman: Being homeschooled is something that people find hard to wrap their brains around. They think I was either raised in the basement with a Bible, or that my parents set me loose to run with the wolves. It was actually a very consistent, if fluidly-structured. My parents are people who think and question and want to know things, and then question those things. They are both scientists with very critical, keen minds. Being homeschooled was about being raised to question everything, be wildly curious, be responsible for that curiosity.

As a kid in Paris, I studied some French grammar, but I also wandered around and talked to strangers and learned French that way. Homeschooling in its best form is about encouraging a child to pursue his or her curiosities with passion and attention to detail, which is also a big part of being a playwright, or any kind of generative artist. You fall into obsession, and then you pursue it like a bloodhound.

Eger: You’ve talked about “my communities.” Could you give a few examples of your identities within those communities—as a person and a playwright? 

Silverman: I think fluidity is integral to my sense of identity, and my communities are often comprised of people who also live with and constantly navigate a kind of fluidity—whether it’s sexual, gender-based, national, linguistic.

Eger: Do you use different languages in your plays?  If so, how do you keep your audience members on the same page? If you only use English throughout, what happens to the authenticity of the various places and people you want to portray?

Silverman: I used to experiment with that, and then I got really interested in playing with the stretch and expanse of English, what it can do, where it fails. English is my native language after all. I speak other languages to varying degrees, but I can’t pretend to be able to use them with the same ease. I think authenticity lies in depth, complexity, compassion.

If I create a character with enough depth and complexity that the audience feels compassion, that could perhaps be considered a success. This is not to say there isn’t real value in using multiple languages in a play and making an audience reckon with them–a number of the playwrights I respect do that well. It just hasn’t been my approach yet.

Eger: Going by the many plays you have written, workshopped, and rewritten, and considering the hundreds of entries on your blog it seems that there’s little time for any private life. 

Silverman: I think there’s an important distinction to be made between the work and the person (who works), even in the arts, where it’s complicated by the fact that our work and our passion and our sense of self all get elided.

I’m fierce about my privacy. I’m fierce about keeping secrets–my own and other people’s. Plays are plays; you craft them and your collaborators help you grow them, and then they become these separate animals that stand up and speak for themselves. [My] blog is half-joke and half-experiment–I think real life is a stunningly absurd thing to experience, and the blog is a place to report back on all of that absurdity. But, there’s an inner life that we have to protect in order to be able to create, and also to be trustworthy friends and partners. That demands a certain rigorously defended boundary–what you’ll share and what you won’t.

Eger: Where and how did you discover your empathy with South Africans? And how did Noxolo, the talented lesbian soccer player who flees her country to escape violent homophobia; her lover, Pretty Mbane, the political activist; and the other characters in this play come into being? 

Silverman: There’s a small but thriving community of South African expats living in Japan. Very close friends in that community first introduced me to a lot of art, music, political satire, and then, of course, the actual political situations that lay under that satire.

Eger: South Africa was one of the world’s worst countries for apartheid, only to become a beacon of hope for equality—not only for ethnic groups, but for sexual minorities as well. At the same time, ongoing political unrest and crime rates show that the country is still struggling with a number of issues. Your play shows Noxolo’s search for her lover which reveals South Africa ignoring the violence against women. How did you come up with the controversial subjects in your play and what were the main hurdles in shaping The Dangerous House of Pretty Mbane?

Silverman: The play was inspired in large part by a petition created by Ndumie Funda of the Capetown organization, Luleki Sizwe. The petition demanded that the South African government acknowledge and deal with “corrective rape.” That was the first time I’d heard of “corrective rape” in those terms, and I started doing a lot of digging, talking to my South African friends, asking questions.

I’d been in Japan during the 2010 World Cup, which was held in South Africa–and (weirdly) coincided with the South African band Die Antwoord [Afrikaans for “the answer”] coming to Osaka. It seemed like every South African in the country came to Osaka for that concert. I was having all of these really intense and honest conversations with my friends and their friends and total strangers about what it was like for them to be in Japan and suddenly hear their country as a common topic of conversation, turn on the TV and see South Africa—what that felt like, what questions it raised about their choice to leave, etc. The convergence of these conversations with Ndumie’s petition was where this play started.

Eger: Thank you for addressing issues that few people dare to talk about.  What’s next?

Silverman: I’m currently in two different rehearsal processes, going between Philly and New York this week, with the draft of a new play commission due shortly.

Eger: Many thanks, Jen, and baie dankie.

"Pretty Mbane and 'Corrective Rape'" was published by Phindie on January 20, 2015.