While vibrators and sexuality may be no big deal nowadays (you can major in sexuality studies, for God’s sake), the world of Sarah Ruhl’s “In the Next Room (or the Vibrator Play)” is a lot more buttoned up. Thankfully, we no longer live in the tightly bound Victorian era, and the director of “Vibrator” is much more open to discussion than the drama’s characters. Last week, I got to sit down with director Henry Schvey, a professor of drama and comparative literature and a former Performing Arts Department chairman, to discuss his vision, the process and meeting the wonderful Ruhl. Afterward, I also got to talk with the cast about the experience of bringing the play to life. “In the Next Room (or The Vibrator Play)” premieres this week on Friday, April 19, at 8 p.m. in Edison Theatre.

Student Life: Why did you want to direct this play?

Henry Schvey: Well, as I may have mentioned when you were present [at coffee with Ruhl the previous week], I didn’t like it the first time I saw it and was not intending to do it. And then, on reflection, I realized that this play touches so many disciplines that are studied on this campus—it’s almost unbelievable. History, psychology, philosophy, women, gender and sexuality studies, medicine—it’s pretty amazing. So I thought, this is a perfect play for Washington University to do because its tentacles reach out and touch so many things that students are interested in, and that’s really why I chose it. And then I also realized I liked the play a lot. My first reaction was based upon a performance or choices or the reaction to the play rather than my own feeling. I guess I felt like we would be able to do it in a way that didn’t have those—not errors, but that we could avoid the pitfalls I saw in that production.

SL: How was it meeting the playwright?

HS: Fantastic. I’ve met a number of artists, and she was very direct, accessible, warm. I really had a great time. I really enjoyed meeting her. She’s a wonderful person and totally unpretentious. And, you know, artists can be very difficult or whatever, but she was extremely gracious and friendly from beginning to end.

SL: How did her interpretation of the play or her intention with it deviate from the way you planned on putting it on?

HS: I honestly don’t think it did. I asked her about some of my ideas about the play, and I think that her visit confirmed my instincts and my intuitions about what sort of play it is. So nothing was contradicted. I felt like we’re going in the right direction.

SL: So the play takes place in the tightly corseted Victorian era. How do you think that the plot of the play and the characters relate to modern life or the students here at Wash. U.?

HS: I think that, on one hand, it seems to be totally different. But it’s a coming-of-age story and a raising-of-consciousness story, a raising of awareness among women. I think that women of all times can respond to living in a world that may have been designed for patriarchal values. This play is challenging that. It’s challenging it in 1885, but I think that those same challenges are things that we’re still facing socially. Those battles have not been completely won. Certain kinds of assumptions that men make about women’s bodies and women’s psyches are still with us, considering that Todd Akin is running for Senate. The assumptions and the unknowableness, the blindness of men, is really what this play is about as much as it is the coming of age of women. I think that yes, it’s set in a different period, but it’s a period that says a lot about us. I think that’s the magic of the play: not what’s different between us but what’s similar. The way it reaches out to today is the way it deals with technology. The electric light bulb here, the electrical vibrator, is an early instance of technology, and the characters have mixed feelings about it. They’re worried about it, some of them. Dr. Givings embraces it, but Mrs. Daldry is frightened of it. And I think we’re undergoing that same sort of cautious evaluation for digital technology today. It rules our lives, and it’s very persuasive and very tempting. So we are all face-to-face with technology…Does our obsession with the latest invention, technology, take over our more human and humane feelings for one another: touch? So I think it raises a lot of universal questions.

SL: What do you want the audience to gather from the show?

HS: It’s a comedy, so I want them to enjoy it, first of all. But I also want them to think. I think that students here are very bright, and I would like them to feel that this play is not simply speaking to a past age but also speaking to them. That’s the challenge. It’s exactly speaking to your question. We can dismiss this as something that we’ve overcome; women have agency in our society. Women have the right to experience pleasure—we know what a vibrator is. But I think that to see it just as a play about the past would limit the comedy. I think that real comedy makes us think about who we are.

SL: As a segue into my next interview, how was it working with the cast?

HS: Oh, they were a wonderful cast—a blend of quite experienced undergraduate actors and then some freshmen who are new to us. So yes, it’s a challenge but very successful. Everyone has been working extremely hard, and I think that a play like this teaches a lot of things, things that can’t be taught in the classroom because there’s background research. There’s research about the electrical vibrator; there’s the science. So there are things that each of the actors needs to do to prepare. It’s much more than just learning the lines and being there. You have to embody the character and embrace a historical period that is, at least superficially, totally different from ours. It’s harder to do 1880s than it is to do 1660s because people are so uptight, so repressed. And the clothing! It’s a corseted era. But we brought people in to talk to the cast, and I think everyone is doing a great job.

Later, I spoke with cast members, senior Pete Winfrey (Dr. Givings), sophomore Kiki Milner (Mrs. Givings), freshman Dana Robertson (Elizabeth) and senior Gaby Schneider (Annie), about the show, the buzz and their impressions of Ruhl.

SL: What was it like working with the director, Henry Schvey?

Dana Robertson: It was great!

Gaby Schneider: It’s been really interesting for me because he’s also my senior thesis advisor, so I’ve spent kind of a ridiculous amount of time with him this year. [laughs]

Kiki Milner: He was very helpful on a long and sometimes complicated show.

SL: Have any of you ever worked together before or been in a PAD show?

Pete Winfrey: Kiki and I were in a show last spring, “Camden and Lily.”

KM: Brother and sister.

PW: And now…

KM: Now it’s different.

[Everyone laughs]

GS: We [Pete Winfrey and I] were in “Midsummer” [“A Midsummer Night’s Dream”] together, which was also directed by Henry Schvey, and that was two years ago.

DR: And I’ve never worked with any of these lovely people before!

KM: Phoebe [Richards, playing Mrs. Daldry] and I were in “Night Season” together.

DR: Oh, I was in “Oedipus” [“Oedipus at Colonus”] with Phoebe!

SL: Pete, this is your last show as a student. How does that make you feel?

PW: It makes me feel sad that I won’t be able to hold onto these close relationships and enjoy them after the show. I think that’s what’s the saddest point for me. But at the same time, I’m just fortunate to be a part of this show now.

SL: So this play is a good ending, you think?

PW: Yeah, it’s actually a really interesting ending because half the cast is really young, and Gaby and I are older. So it’s great to have people from every age here. So it’s cool.

SL: How did it feel to meet the playwright, and did she change your vision of the play?

GS: I thought it was amazing to meet Sarah Ruhl. She’s been one of my favorite playwrights for a couple of years, and I’ve kind of idolized her. I know Melissa [Freilich, stage manager] feels even more that way. She did talk a little bit about her opinions about acting styles, and that was interesting. I don’t think it really had that much effect on how I went about doing the part because we were already pretty into the process, but it was interesting to hear the playwright’s perspective.

KM: It was really cool to meet her and realize how normal she is. She’s just a mom. She’s really little, too. But she’s this amazingly talented playwright, and it was so cool to meet her. I think it’s such a unique opportunity to get to meet the playwright while we’re working on the play. We probably could’ve kept talking to her for another few hours, but it was cool to have some of our questions answered and to hear how she got the idea for the play. Even “How did you come up with the title?” and things like that.

SL: Did you guys ask her questions about your characters?

KM: I didn’t really ask her anything character-specific. I did ask about one of the parts in the play where Mrs. Givings sings a song that she makes up on the spot, and I was confused about it when I first read the play. I asked her what was the song, what thoughts she had that could be helpful. She just answered very simply that it’s a song Mrs. Givings makes up and that she creates these words. It’s, in very Sarah Ruhl fashion, very poetic and abstract language. It’s an interesting moment to be like, “Oh, OK, even the playwright doesn’t have to know intellectually that it makes sense.” So that was helpful.

Check back on Thursday for a continued Q&A with the cast, including recent exciting purchases, character choices and the strong conflicts in the show.