When Cincinnati-based director Blake Robison was a child, his father would take him and his older brother along on business trips to New York City. Before he went off to his meetings, their dad would send Blake and his brother off to Times Square with a wad of cash and the mission of picking out what show they would see on Broadway later that night.

"Keep in mind," Robison joked, "This is back in the ’70s, where walking around Times Square with a wad of cash as a 12-year-old boy maybe wasn’t the smartest parenting decision on his part."

Still, the tradition worked. Decades after being inspired by seeing original productions of "A Chorus Line" and "The Elephant Man" (starring David Bowie) on Broadway, Robison is now a director himself. His latest show is "Peter and the Starcatcher," the multiple Tony-winning prequel re-imagining of Peter Pan’s origins – arriving in Milwaukee just months before a similar story is told on the big screen in Joe Wright’s "Pan."

Before it begins its run at the Rep on Tuesday, April 21, OnMilwaukee.com got a chance to chat with Robison about this particular retelling, making actors fly and why revisionist fairy tales are currently all the rage.

OnMilwaukee.com: What intrigued you originally about "Peter and the Starcatcher" as a director?

Blake Robison: I am passionate about cross-generational works of theater – what you might call family-friendly events. That said, I think it’s extremely difficult to find pieces that speak equally well to young adults and older folks who may not be attending with a kid. I love to go to a piece of theater and see a grandparent, a parent and a kid all sitting together and enjoying the same play on their own level.

"Peter and the Starcatcher" is a great example of that. It’s not children’s theater. We’re not doing "Three Billy Goats Gruff" or "Sleeping Beauty" or something like, but it’s not exactly Eugene O’Neill or Shakespeare either. (Laughs)

It lives gloriously in between those two extremes, like a good Pixar movie. It works on multiple levels. The younger folks in the audience have a lot of physical humor – there’s some lowbrow stuff, let’s be honest, like fart jokes and silly things like that – but there are also some very cagey and clever verbal jokes and contemporary references that sail right over the kids’ heads but land for the parents.

OMC: It’s interesting that you bring up Pixar since they are the model for kids entertainment. It seems that there’s often a stigma around the phrase "family-friendly," seemingly landing more toward childish than in the middle, like you said. How does this story attempt to avoid that stigma?

BR: I think it’s the sophistication of the script itself. You start with the source material – the "Peter and the Starcatcher" trio of young adult novels – and then Rick Elice comes in, condenses them into a single play and adds his own witticisms and humor. Something about that alchemy has managed to keep it interesting for all the age groups.

I’d also say that there’s a lot of interest for all generations in the making of the story on stage and the theatrical devices that we use. This play does not rely on special effects in a big flashy way like a huge Broadway musical, nor does it have green screens and CGI and all those Hollywood things at its disposal. It relies on good, old-fashioned theatrical storytelling.

We can take some pieces of wood and a swath of fabric and some old antique light bulbs, and spark your imagination and transport you to lots of different locations – just with the manipulation of those props or a change of lighting or an actor changing his or her physicality. That’s fun, and that appeals to classic theatergoers. That’s the reason many people fell in love with theater in the first. Whether your eight or 80, you’re going to respond to that kind of storytelling.

OMC: The New York Times review of the Broadway production described its obsession with "a simpler magic" and referenced the recent movies like "Hugo" and "The Artist" that also hearkened back to that old-fashioned entertainment sensibility.

BR: Absolutely. There are several instances – there’s three – where people fly or float in some way. We don’t have Flying By Foy coming in; we don’t have the "Spider-Man" people coming in to make it all fancy. We show you how it’s all done. It’s done with ropes and boards and pulleys and simple theatrical devices. So for the audience, there’s not only the joy of the story itself, but there’s a fascination and wonder and discovery when you see those old-fashioned mechanics making it happen.

OMC: How do you juggle all of the props and devices making that all happen, especially for a magic-heavy story like "Peter Pan"?

BR: Well, we spend many weeks in rehearsal figuring that stuff out. You make a game plan going in; some of it works out, and some of it doesn’t work out, and then you’re standing in a room with 12 actors saying, "OK, best idea wins! How are we going to make this happen?"

OMC: What was the hardest stunt to pull off?

BR: I would say the more difficult stuff was the stuff at the very beginning of the play, because you’re setting the ground rules for the audience. Whatever kind of theatrical storytelling or conventions you’re using need to be established within the first 10 or 15 minutes of the play, so the audience knows the rules of the game. Because of that, we have to be crystal clear and very specific about how those physical moments are presented.

OMC: Fairy tale re-imaginings, sequels and prequels are all the rage in Hollywood right now; there’s even another Peter Pan prequel coming out in theaters this summer called "Pan." What is it about fairy tales and revisiting them that’s captured pop culture’s imagination? 

BR: These stories are iconic ones that get passed from generation to generation. Parents want to share them with their children. And, presumably, our young audiences will grow up, and there will be another version of "Peter Pan" 10 or 20 years from now. I think that’s how it should be. These famous stories – the ones that seem to touch our collective soul – need to be reinterpreted and reinvented every 10 years or so.

Take "Romeo and Juliet" for example on film; every generation has its new "Romeo and Juliet," whether that’s Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes or it’s Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting. It keeps happening, as it should be I think.

OMC: What do you think is the key to making those new interpretations actually stick or land? How do you balance making them feel right to the original material while also making them feel fresh?

BR: Well, at the end of the day, it’s the audience that decides, right? Every artist goes into a project thinking he or she is shedding brilliant, new light on the story, but only time will tell. (laughs)

I think in the case of "Peter and the Starcatcher," the fun thing is the integration of all of the contemporary references. Some of the anachronistic jokes or some of the fun, pithy dialogue roots it in the present for us.