This is the second part of my interview with Nick Corley. If you haven't already done so, you should read the first part.

In this section, Nick talked a bit of how the show went from his readings to a full-scale Broadway version, and where it's going in the future.

NR: OK now, we covered what readings are. Can you explain some more about workshops?

NC: Workshops are different. The actors are actually paid. The actors got a nominal fee to do the readings, to cover their transportation. A workshop is where they audition, you cast the show, they meet for a set amount of time and work on the show, and actually rehearse it like they were doing a real production. They're usually off book. Because you go through that process, the actors share in a percentage of the show. There's a workshop contract.

NR: Did Scarlet Pimpernel do workshops?

NC: No, there were no workshops. There were only readings and things were learned from the readings, but they aren't handed new pages every day. They're not there for four weeks rehearsing. Titanic did a workshop. They did a four to six week workshop where they helped develop the show. For Pimpernel, we just did some readings for the authors to look at the material, which is a different thing from working on the material.

NR: Now, interestingly, it went from that to previews on Broadway. There was no out of town tryout. That's a huge jump. How was that decision made?

NC: It was made on a financial basis. It's very expensive to go out of town with a new show. The Minskoff became available. Certain factors just fell into place that made that happen. Ultimately, I don't think it was a good idea for the show. Things that work great on paper may not work in a reading. Things that work great in a reading may not work great on stage. There were a lot of complicated things that needed to be answered. How do you behead people on stage? It's one thing to say with a stage direction, and have someone sit down, and the audience gasps. But, it's a different thing to have that actually happen on stage. It was a hard way to open a new musical, but unfortunately, with the economics of today, it's become the fate of many shows. Titanic opened in town without a tryout and had a hard time also in previews, making major, major changes. You only have so much time. The cast is performing at night, you can only rehearse so many hours a day. To make big changes is extremely complicated once a show is up. Some little thing can affect set changes, underscoring music. One little thing you want to change may take a whole day, to change three minutes of something, because it affects so many departments. You just can't hand pages to the actors and say, "Try this." It's a very complicated process. I know they worked really hard. Peter was terrific. The changeover was terrific. Peter Hunt was always very nice to me. He always thanked me very sincerely for all the work I had done to take the show to that point so that it could then be handed over to him to make it a real Broadway musical.

NR: Did he continue to confer with you after that?

NC: No. Nan invited me to the Opening Night and I saw him after the show. We gave each other a big hug. I was very happy for him to get that big of a show up in town. That's an extremely difficult thing and he deserves a lot of credit for getting that accomplished.

NR: How different was what you saw Opening Night from your readings?

NC: Different. The show started differently. Eventually, what's interesting is that when they cut down the opening during the run, it went back closer to the reading.

NR: You're talking about the original prison scene when they first opened in November, `97?

NC: Right. That was never there. It's hard for me to say. They were just different ideas.

NR: SP1 was much funnier and campier than SP2. Where did your version fit in with that?

NC: I think the show was tighter in the reading.

NR: Then they went back to that.

NC: Yeah. All in all the show was tighter and I think the story was told in a really compact, economical way in the reading.

NR: That's interesting because that's what you hear now about the second version and it was a criticism against the first that they didn't do that.

NC: Yeah. I also think the show was about slightly different things in the reading. I think the relationship between the three main people was tighter in the reading.

NR: Similar to the way it is now?

NC: No, totally different. Bobby's (Longbottom) done a lot of good things to heighten that triangle. I think that triangle was there in the beginning. I think you got a nice mix of the comedy and the swashbuckling and the fops. In putting it up in a huge theater, I think the show got stretched in a way that was maybe not best for the show, that needed to be tightened.

NR: Which is what's going to happen now in the Neil Simon.

NC: Yes.

NR: The main criticism of the first show was that people couldn't follow the story and that you didn't understand the relationship between the three people.

NC: I also think they just ran out of time. It's one thing to get everything up on stage, and then once it's on stage, then it takes a certain amount of time to listen to the audience and hear their response, and to tighten the show and move things. It's an extremely time consuming event and to do that in town is extremely difficult. Usually what you do is you go to a town and you get as much as you can. Then you have that time before you reopen in the next town to make some big changes. You have a week or two weeks. When Victor/Victoria came into New York, they went back into rehearsal for two weeks before they opened, to make the changes. Here, Pimpernel was doing them in public and they ran out of time to make all the changes. I give Peter a lot of credit for getting a huge show up on its feet. And, I think Bobby did an extremely wonderful job taking that and focusing things tighter.

NR: In the concept CD, it seems like the focus is on Marguerite a little bit more than on Percy. Was that true in the readings as well?

NC: I don't know. I think it was fairly even.

NR: It's not really even now. In the first version of the show, it was a lot of Percy. Now it's even more. He's on stage constantly. He goes off to change his clothes, that's about it.

NC: He's on stage more than she is, but she seems to go through a more emotional roller coaster.

NR: OK. He's carrying all the comedy. She doesn't get any of the comedy.

NC: Right. She had some funny moments in the reading. I'm trying to remember things that were different. The whole "Storybook" scene was different. She actually tricked Chauvelin, or he pretended longer. There were lots of little things that were different. That section changed a lot.

NR: I'm confused. In the beginning when she hands him the note?

NC: No, in "Storybook" when she's in disguise (in Act 2). That used to be different in the reading, and then it was different in the first version. There were little details like that in which Nan has played with things, and I don't know whose ideas were those. Were those things that Peter had asked for, or were those ideas that Nan came up with based on things not working? It's hard for me to say because I'm going from memory from two years ago. I've seen the show in so many forms; the full version, then the hour version, then there was the first Broadway version, and then the second Broadway version (the one with the prison scene cut and a few changes there.) Then the Bobby Longbottom Broadway version, and now there will be the new Bobby Longbottom version.

NR: Has she spoken to you about what she's going to do for the new version?

NC: No.

NR: NO????

NC: It's TOP SECRET.

NR: I'm sure a lot of it is top secret. I was just curious if there were any hints. We know it's a smaller theater. I'm guessing, since they're going to take it out on the road, that they're not going to have this huge elevator that they have in the Minskoff.

NC: No, but I don't think the show relies on that.

NR: Well, yeah, but it's such an amazing effect in "Into the Fire."

NC: But, you know what to me was always in my head? When we did the readings, because all we had was music stands, there were no props, there were just the actors. It had a very "story theater" feel, like Nicholas Nickleby, something like that, where it's very minimal yet your mind is making it so much more. To me, playing from that, "Into the Fire" would have been so cool when that change happens if you had someone jump from up above the stage, carrying a rope to hoist the sail. So, out of a trap in the floor, you'd have this person jump down and this huge sail that almost filled the whole stage would come.

NR: So, this was your idea. Nobody's done this.

NC: No, no one's done it. That was just what I saw in my head at that moment. We would have a stage direction that would say, "Percy's study turns into a ship." It's easy for someone to say that. How do you do that on stage? To me, that's what I always saw in my head at that moment, this huge white sail rising instantly, like they do on a sailing ship. To me, that would be very exciting.

NR: I've been trying to think down the road if a community theater group tried to do this show. In that case, when you don't have a Broadway stage or a Broadway budget, how do you stage this?

NC: To me, that's the fun of theater. How can you make things happen in a simple way? I think audiences love that and I think audiences miss that. If the audience is just sitting there and they're handed everything, it makes them slightly inactive when they're watching. If you're relying on your imagination, if what's happening on stage is encouraging the audience to use their imagination to fill things in, and become active in the process of theater, then the evening is the actors' working, but it's also the audience working with the actors and together the actors and the audience are creating this event that only happens that one time. The next night will be different. It will be a different audience, and the things on stage will be a little different. All their minds will meet to create whatever that evening is. To me, that's the excitement of theater.

NR: As a director, looking forward if community groups or other groups look to do this, and they don't have a Percy who's as dynamic and talented as Douglas Sills, is the entire show relying on that one person, or are there other ways to work around that? It seems to me that it really relies a lot on him.

NC: You have to have a very strong Percy, but keys can be changed. That production was built very much around what Doug does so beautifully. The "Peter Hunt blueprint" of that was really built around what Doug does. The goal for each cast is to have the show built around their strengths. You hire people because there's something about them that you feel...who they are as a human being is right for this role. It's not always what they look like. There are certain technical things that have to be met sometimes as far as what people look like, what notes they hit, what style of voice, but the bottom line is there's some quality that they have as a human being that's right for the soul of that character.

NR: Were you involved with any of the casting for the Broadway version?

NC: No, I had nothing to do with that. Civil War is different. I worked on Civil War.

NR: Let's talk about that.

NC: I did all the readings of Civil War, and then I was part of the directing team in Houston. In that show, for the most part, everyone on stage, with a few exceptions, came from Houston, and I cast that production, although Jerry Zaks was there at the casting.

NR: Did he make major changes?

NC: Casting wise? No.

NR: How about the staging?

NC: Oh, absolutely. The whole concept of the show is completely different. When we did it in Houston they weren't wearing period clothes. They were in contemporary clothes that reflected the period. There were no battle scenes. It was more of a concert event. They often sat on stage, listening to each other's stories. It was an extremely theatrical, emotional concert. We weren't trying to recreate the Civil War - we were trying to, through song and words, honor the people who died in the Civil War.

NR: Do you think a concert would make it on Broadway at Broadway prices?

NC: I just think they're two totally different ideas for the show. I'm not saying one is better or worse then the other. They're just two totally different things. This is a much more "Broadway" thing. If you look at Rent, there's microphones standing on stage in Rent pretty much for the whole show. They come forward and sing. Rent in its own way is a variation on a theatrical concert. They don't bring in different sets. There have been cases of things. Chicago is basically a concert version. The orchestra's on stage. It works under a concert format, only highly theatricalized. It's not just a concert. It's just two totally different things. I don't know if one would have worked better or not. It's just two totally different ideas of what the show is. I think Jerry did a great job and the cast is tremendous. I'm so proud of them. The voices are amazing. For the most part, that's the company that was in the show when we did it in Houston. There were a few changes here or there, but not any major changes.

NR: Now, you've worked with Frank twice now. What is his take on all of this? It seems like he can't win with some people. The bashing is just incredible. It's almost as if they don't even bother to listen. They just assume they'll hate it in some cases.

NC: I think Frank writes what he believes in, and he has to write what he believes in. For Frank to try to write a show like Stephen Sondheim in order to please the critics is pointless.

NR: I agree. How does he feel about all of this? Does it bother him or does he let it roll off him?

NC: I think he lets it roll off him. Frank has an extremely loyal following. A whole new generation of theater audiences come to see his shows. I think the dismissiveness of the critics of his work has got to hurt. I'm sure he feels that, but I'm sure it's not going to deter him from doing what he believes in, nor should he let it. I have a lot of respect for Frank. Frank cares a lot and he's trying different things and pushing things. He can only do what he believes in. You have to give someone at least the respect that they're putting themselves on the line for something they believe in. That's just like Pimpernel - putting yourself on the line for something you believe in. So, there's a part of Frank that's very much like Percy - going against the odds, doing what he believes is right and what his heart and soul believe in. There's a part of Frank that's very much Percy, although I don't think Frank would want everyone to know that it bothers him. I don't think he would let anyone know that. But you know, your works are like children. I don't think he takes it personally, but to have people say negative things about your children...To put up a new show is a hard birthing process. You create this thing that you really love, and then to have everyone say that your baby's ugly, is really hard. Sound of Music didn't get great reviews when it opened, yet Sound of Music is considered a classic of American theater.

NR: A lot of shows didn't get great reviews. I just look at the audience response and the fact that everyone I've ever brought to Pimpernel absolutely loved it. It's a wonderful show.

NC: It is a wonderful show. Some of the people that have gone through the show in the cast are some of the nicest people. I've worked with them in different things on various readings and I see them at openings and parties, and they are just lovely, lovely people. Nan is so talented. She's got such a great fighting spirit and a sense of justice. I don't know if it comes from being a tiny person. She's got this huge heart and passion and drive and energy. She's remarkable. They're all tilting at the windmills, and I think that's great.

NR: So, what's ahead for you?

NC: Lots of things. I just did a reading of a musical version of Summer of `42. We're waiting to hear what's going to happen with that. Things might happen with Eliot Ness...in Cleveland. I have a new show that I'm co-writing with a new composer. So, lots of interesting things are going on. What I really want to do is make interesting theater that has something to say, and make enough money to have an apartment. (laughing) Those are my goals - a place to live and doing work that I really love doing.

Nan and I talk often about working together again because we just love each other so much and love working together. It's such a positive thing. I would love to work with Frank again on something else. I've worked with him twice now and they've both been incredible learning experiences for me. I think things happen as they're meant to happen. It's interesting, when we were in previews with Civil War, we'd go upstairs after the show. Frank would always say, "OK, what have we learned tonight?" It was a great attitude. It wasn't, "This has got to change" or "This isn't working," but "What did we learn tonight?" We would go around the room and say whatever. When things don't turn out the way you hope they will, I say, "What did I learn from that?" If I'm going to walk away from that experience... I find that you're meant to go through certain things to learn certain things. That's how you grow as a person and I can't thank Frank and Nan enough for giving me these opportunities to learn and to grow, and for trusting me with their material at these early stages when things are so fragile. Because, if things don't go right then, people won't give you a second look. This city's tough. The fact that they trusted me with the Pimpernel at its earliest stage, and the same thing with Civil War, is a huge honor. I have no regrets about turning them over to other people. I believe I was meant to take them to a certain point and that the other person was meant to take them from here to there. That's OK. You take the hand and you go on the journey as far as you're meant to, and then maybe it's time to then give the child's hand to someone else who can then take it through whatever perils and stuff on that next leg of the journey that they know how to protect the child during.

NR: That's great. Thank you so much.

NC: You're welcome.

I'm very grateful to Nick for sharing these stories with me. It was fascinating to learn about events concerning The Scarlet Pimpernel that occurred before most of us were aware of the production. The evolution of this show has been so incredible, and it appears that SP3 is coming full circle by heading more towards the intimate version that was directed by Nick three years ago. Based on his comments, I look forward to yet another chapter in the saga of The Scarlet Pimpernel.

Questions suggested by:

Renee Girard, Lois Colpo, Jody Uyanik, Thom Rosati, Jennifer Ahlborn, Leona Hoegsberg, Kathy Thurlow, Peter Williams, Susan Cassidy, Nesha Sellers, Shari Perkins, Josie Smith, Amy Lovett, Marc Roselli