Connect with us

All Articles

The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail

Thoreau, not in jail

Last night, Peter Sterne, Bwog’s resident expert on theatrical representations of philosophical imprisonment, visited the Glicker-Milstein blackbox theatre for the the Columbia University Players production of The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail.

The CU Players production of “The Night Thoreau Spent In Jail” (written by Edward Lee and Jerome Lawrence, directed by Cody Haefner, CC ’12, and produced by Hannah Kloepfer, CC ’13) is done in the round, with audience members on all sides, rather than on a traditional stage, as the play is usually performed. In addition, the stage is very minimalist, with only a long box and chair on a small wheeled stage in the middle of it. The music, light piano with a splash of flute and bells, is composed by Ben Weiner, CC ’11, and played by Yonatan Gebeyehu, CC ’11.

The play began not with Thoreau in a jail as one would expect from the title, but with a series of quick scenes that served as Thoreau’s memories. They comprised the bulk of the play, with the actual night that Thoreau spent in jail serving mainly as a framing narrative. These scenes quickly established Thoreau, played by Brian LaPerche, CC ’12, as a socially awkward but philosopical and passionate soul. LaPerche adopts a physical stiffness and halting speech patterns that reveal Thoreau’s internal struggle to communicate his enthusiasm for transcendentalist ideas.

His mother, played with a maternal sweetness by Madalena Provo, BC ’12, and his romantic interest, Ellen Sewell, played by Kate Eberstadt, CC ’13,  love him in spite of his disdain for the world. However, his brother John, played by Eleanor Bray, BC ’14, seems to be the only person who truly understands him, though his poor and uneducated cellmate Bailey, played with a raw but endearing sincerity by Olivia Levine, BC ’14, has immense respect for him. In fact, the relationship between Thoreau and Bailey almost seems exploitative. Bailey asks Thoreau to try to understand the world, and Thoreau replies with intellectual and philosophical musings that attack the world’s institutions rather than answer Bailey’s questions.

Ellen, on the other hand, attempts to understand Thoreau’s ideas, though, as Ebestadt’s performance makes clear, she cannot quite fully buy into his philosophy. One of the most meaningful moments in the play occurs when Thoreau takes her for a romantic rowboat ride. The whimsical and romantic nature of the ride is underscored by innovative set design. The wheeled stage actually moves across the theatre as Thoreau “rows” it. This was but one feature of the play’s impressive art direction by Kat Chan, SEAS ’12 (with assistance from Natalie Robehmed, CC ’13, and Cindy Do, CC ’14). The romance continues as Thoreau tries to show Ellen the depth of his transcendentalist philosophy, but it is cut short as he aggressively challenges her worldview and finally absend-mindedly stands in the boat. Eberstadt channels a sense of horrified vulnerability as Ellen, now fully in Thoreau’s power, asks him to “be a gentleman” and row her back to shore.  Thoreau obliges her, requesting only that she spend time with his brother John who also loves her. John is not so lucky, though, as Ellen rejects his proposal, which breaks his spirit and sends Bray into fits of truly disturbing laughter.

Another poignant moment, this time casting Thoreau in the role of victim, occurs when he is forced by Deacon Ball, the strictly traditional head of the Concord school system played with a delicious cruelty by Emily Wallen, BC ’11 (who also plays the less significant but far more hilarious “random drunk passerby”), to flog his students for laughing. LaPerche slowly takes off his belt, calls his students to come forward individually, and proceeds to flog them over a chair. Thoreau whips only air, which in the hands of a lesser actor and director could come across as farcical, but the anguish on his face and the shocked reactions of the audience attest to the scene’s power.

The most signifiant relationship in the play, that of Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson, played by Reni Calister, BC ’11, serves as a commentary on the importance of standing up for what you believe in. Thoreau first hears Emerson at Harvard, and later ends up working for him by taking care of Emerson’s son, Edward, while Emerson is away on speaking tours. Edward is hilariously played by Yonatan Gebeyehu, CC ’11, with relentless enthusiasm and immaturity. Emerson, perhaps owing to his fame, is progressive but not revolutionary, a quality Calister captures in her gentlemanly speech patterns and authoritative presence. Thoreau, who only occasionally goes into town and refuses to pay taxes to show his opposition to the current war in Mexico, accuses Emerson of not practicing what he preaches for paying taxes that support the war and refusing to speak out against it. This manifests itself in a very well-choreographed dream sequence that Thoreau has while in jail, where marching and fighting soldiers take orders from Emerson, who announces he must carefully consider all options before making a decision.


Thoreau is not blameless, though. As Emerson points out,  it’s easy to try to escape society by running into the woods, but that does not actually help others in society. In the end, Thoreau realizes this and, once freed from jail, he resolves to experience the full range of life’s possibilities.

Jailbird from Wikimedia Commons

Write a comment

Your email address will not be published.



  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous I’m holding out for the modern version, entitled “The Night Snooki Spent in Jail.”

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous This writing is embarrassing. Some of these are not complete sentences.

    And once again, thank you for reviewing the play in time for everyone else to go see it. Oh wait, you didn’t.

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous What is the function of this article?

    Congratulations to the cast and crew of “The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail”– sorry this is what you have to read about it afterwords.

  • CC'13 says:

    @CC'13 what the hell is this? this is like a weird summary of the story. how were the actors? what about the production choices? did you have any reactions to it at all as a piece of theater?

    funny thing is i didn’t even see it. i just can’t stand bad writing.

  • aww says:

    @aww calm down everyone! ya gotta learn somewhere. :)

  • sigh says:

    @sigh we get it, bwog. it was supposed to be a philosophical play, so you wanted to talk about the philosophy. but we want to know about the actors! you can’t just talk about what the characters feel, you have to talk about how the acting made it seem like that. and seriously…give some credit to the people behind the scenes. just talking about the moving stage isn’t enough. it’s not a super-bad review (and at least you reviewed this one, unlike wedding singer) but just try harder!

  • Robert E. Lee says:


  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous Someone please tell the marching band to shut the fuck up?

    1. But but says:

      @But but What about the prospies who think we have community on this campus? They wanna–CUMB– to CU!

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous The trouble is that Bwog (I assume) does not want theatre kids reviewing the shows, for obvious reasons. So all the people who write theatre reviews don’t know anything about theatre.

    1. Anonymous says:

      @Anonymous More like theater kids don’t want to review their friends. I don’t think bwog would really have a problem with it. It would be nice to have some more informed reviewers, but I’m sure bwog staff could do just fine by talking to some theater kids about what actually goes into a performance, studying well-written reviews and going to see some off-campus shows. Maybe write a review of a broadway show and compare it to the professionals, stuff like that.

      Alternatively theater kids who are graduating (or even graduated) or just aren’t doing any more cu theater for whatever reason could provide reviews, or maybe department theater kids who tend not to do student theater, and vice versa. And there are actors on campus who just don’t do theater here; maybe bwog could reach out to them?

      Also, bwog does deserve credit for reviewing most of the shows this semester (although wedding singer was a glaring exception), and just like the theater community doesn’t want their shows shat all over, I’m sure the reviewer doesn’t enjoy seeing people bitch about his reviews all the time. Although they are pretty clearly of lower quality relative to professional standards than most columbia theater (which frequently features, well, professionals, so that’s kidna cheating), they at least deserve an A- for effort (insert lithum joke here).

      1. Anonymous says:

        @Anonymous no one on the wedding singer team asked bwog to review their show…typically a review has to be requested.

        1. Yeah... says:

          @Yeah... but you’d think they’d review it anyway. For my part I really loved Wedding Singer, and although I didn’t catch Thoreau, I heard it was fantastic. Congratulations, all!

        2. Anonymous says:

          @Anonymous That used to be true, but I think Bwog has been doing unsolicited reviews lately. Department shows never ask for a review…

      2. Anonymous says:

        @Anonymous melancholy play

  • Anonymous says:


  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous Yay kat chan! <3

  • Congrats guys! says:

    @Congrats guys! great show, cast was phenomenal.

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous Hello!

    To consolidate all the issues about the Bwog performance reviews, here is my personal take on the issues at hand:

    The reviews are not out on time. The purpose of a review is to tell people what to see and what not to see, so as a popular source of many students, the reviewer should see the shows on opening night, and write their review immediately after. That way, on weekends like this past one, in which Thoreau, Wedding Singer, Late Nite, and Fruit Paunch all had performances, people will be able to make educated decisions about what plays, musicals, or other performances are worth their time and ticket. If the review loses this purpose, it becomes merely a way for actors and other members of productions to read about themselves, as no one else really gives a shit about the review.

    Perhaps the issue is that the same person is writing all the reviews, and cannot see all the shows on their opening night. That being said, if you have one person on “theatre review duty,” you should at least tell them how to write a review. Note to Mr. Sterne: while I am in no way judging your character, writing skills, or whatever, please allow me to remind you that a majority of the plot points should be summarized in a paragraph at the beginning of the review, and that simply mentioning the art director (though Kat Chan is amazing) and describing the set does not detract from the fact that your pattern of review is generally a plot summary sprinkled with overzealous praise to actors.

    In conclusion, the purpose of a review is to help people choose whether to see the show for themselves, not to summarize the plot after they’ve missed it.

    Thank you very much, and I’m very sorry if I have offended you.

  • p.s. says:

    @p.s. that being said, this play was phenomenal, the cast was perfect, and every artistic detail (whether under Kat’s or Cody’s direction) was picked out with obvious care .

  • what up says:

    @what up neck beard

  • Have Your Say

    What should Bwog's new tagline be?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    Popular This Week

    Sorry. No data so far.

    Recent Comments

    Thanks for writing this! Definitely enjoyed the easy reading part and loved the art! (read more)
    Bwog Book Club: W.I.T.C.H. (The Graphic Novel Series)
    May 23, 2020
    TRULY GREAT TIPS BWOG 🦁❤️🦁❤️🎈 (read more)
    Open Letter To Our Professors: Zoom Do’s And Don’ts
    May 22, 2020
    I thought she was a great CC prof. (read more)
    Happy Grad Students: Part One in a One Part Series
    May 20, 2020
    I disagree, she was my TA and she was awesome! Really helpful with reading rough drafts of papers, and a (read more)
    Happy Grad Students: Part One in a One Part Series
    May 20, 2020

    Comment Policy

    The purpose of Bwog’s comment section is to facilitate honest and open discussion between members of the Columbia community. We encourage commenters to take advantage of—without abusing—the opportunity to engage in anonymous critical dialogue with other community members. A comment may be moderated if it contains:
    • A slur—defined as a pejorative derogatory phrase—based on ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, or spiritual belief
    • Hate speech
    • Unauthorized use of a person’s identity
    • Personal information about an individual
    • Baseless personal attacks on specific individuals
    • Spam or self-promotion
    • Copyright infringement
    • Libel