Production photo from “Terra Nova” at William Jewell College, photo courtesy of Jewell Theatre Co.

Cal Perkins is a senior theatre major at WIlliam Jewell College, having made his directorial debut with his 2025 production of “Terra Nova.” Written and published by Ted Tally in 1980, the play follows Robert Falcon Scott’s fatal expedition to the South Pole in 1911. In an interview with The Hilltop Monitor, Perkins shared his thoughts about the play’s significance and modern relevance.

Firstly, thank you for taking some time to answer some questions about your production. It was a real privilege to experience it first-hand.

Thank you so much for this opportunity! It’s so relieving and affirming to have someone so affected by my production. 

What did your responsibilities entail regarding the production of “Terra Nova” at William Jewell College?

Well, when it came to responsibilities, I had my plate full from the start. With the announcement of no (zero) budget for the Theatre Department in August of 2024, I had to make some split-second decisions. How was I going to put on the show I wrote (“Animal Farm”), when it was budgeted for $300 in the planning stages? I decided to do my backup project, “Terra Nova.”

When it came to a method for finding how to pay for the rights, I was relieved whenever [Professor] Wyman approached me and informed me that I had an anonymous sponsor for my capstone. From there, the responsibilities took off. For auditions, it was up to me to set the date and time, along with cutting sides or pages from the script for the auditioning actors to read. After, I did the same for callbacks. Immediately following callbacks, my production team went to the PLC to discuss the actors and which roles would fit who. It took around 2 hours total to get the final cast list, to which we announced immediately. 

Rehearsals mostly fell to my team, as they accumulated things for me to remember and things to do. But I made the creative decisions to make the concessions for the show fit the theme, the blocking, full directing and rehearsal schedules. I had to manage the program and design it, look into designing/hiring my friend to finalize the poster and so much more. Pretty much everything that came out of the final look of the show was between me and my crew. 

How old were you when you first encountered “Terra Nova” and what impression did it leave on you at the time?

Funnily enough, I saw “Terra Nova” as a One-Act Competition piece in 2019. I was a Junior in high school in Sand Springs, OK at the time – around 17 years old. 

When I first watched the show begin, I was interested in the least amount, to be honest. It was a chopped up amalgamation of scenes to fit in the key points of the show in thirty minutes, so it was a burst of information in such little time. However, Evans’ death scene was what spoke to me more than anything. We thought the actor for Evans was having a seizure on stage. Genuinely. He was so engrossed in his role and from there the rest of the deaths would happen between Oates and the final three of the Polar Party. 

I’m very interested in uncanny or depressing historical events, as painful as it is, and this one spoke to me deeply. It only spoke deeper as I read the play itself. Ted Tally is a true writer, which you can see in his poetical stage directions and descriptions. If you enjoyed the show, I cannot stress enough how much I encourage experiencing a full read of the script. It is a masterpiece on a horrific scale. 

Nonetheless, after looking up the actual events, it haunted me. It just stuck itself as the number one play of all time in my mind and there it still stays!

In your director’s notes, you presented a compelling interpretation of “Terra Nova” as a critique of nationalism. Based on your understanding of the playwright’s intent and the production’s historical context, do you believe this theme was deliberately embedded in the work? Additionally, do you think audiences at the time of its original production resonated with this message, whether intentional or not?

Nationalism, if stated so or not, was certainly a major theme in Ted Tally’s original view. At least, that’s what I believe. What really solidifies this for me is the scene with Amundsen and Scott in Act I. They go into a verbal spat about which way to get to the pole. Amundsen says something along the lines of, “You, a gentleman, and I a barbarian. A killer of dogs.” To which Scott declines, [and] Amundsen replies, “A foreigner, then. It’s the same thing to you.” 

This is what instantly set the theme in my mind. That and the constant use of derogatory language toward those of other nationalities. In a scene which I unfortunately had to cut for time purposes, the crew hallucinates an enormous dinner banquet with Amundsen as their server. This scene has a barrage of slurs toward other nations and countries. 

I feel that many people don’t see this, at least not clearly. That’s why I decided to make my author’s note more of a caution toward nationalistic perspectives. When I first saw the show, I didn’t get it. But it is the core and the key message of the show, one that is very important in these current times. 

How do you see the themes of “Terra Nova” reflected in today’s geopolitical climate? In what ways do you think the play remains relevant to contemporary international relations?

Right off the bat, after the effects of January 20th, there is importance to this message. From what I see President Trump doing, he appears to try and alienate the United States from the rest of the world. Whether it be through media, fearmongering and other uses. Same thing goes for Russia, as Nationalism is an enormous topic over there in a consistent pattern. 

Extreme nationalism is bad. That’s a given. Most people understand this. But a majority of Americans may be blinded by patriotism that may leak into nationalism. A nationalistic eye blinds others from the outside world, its influence and other cultures. If Scott studied with the Inuits, such as Amundsen did, perhaps he’d have a better chance. But the British always colonized and never adapted. 

Today, it’s a message that many people are not speaking about, but it is a vital element to keeping our history intact and growing. If we close ourselves off and foster this pride for ourselves and ourselves only, we only step further back in time and limit ourselves as a result. 

The production featured some incredibly intense and emotionally charged moments, brought to life through powerful performances by the cast. As a director, what was it like navigating these darker elements of the play? Was there ever a struggle with “taking the play home with you” between yourself, the cast, or the crew? 

As I mentioned before, darkness is kinda where I thrive. Not to be edgy. I just find such life in the trauma and darkness of some stories. The arc of action and consequence is something I just thrive in, especially regarding theatre or fictional stories. 

I had no problem taking home that darkness. However, with my cast, we wanted to keep things lighthearted and we wanted to make sure it stayed in the theater. Emma Kelly led decompressions at the end of rehearsals, where we laid on the ground and meditated for around ten minutes. It was very productive, especially what I’ve heard from my cast. 

Aside from that, we kept it pretty fun in rehearsals. While balancing the weight and the true events of the show, we encouraged deep character research and ways to really thrive and merge with that character in a healthy, productive way. By the end, I felt like everyone knew that we would leave the death on the ice and would come back into it only in rehearsals. Everyone did such a great job helping one another. It was just such a relief to have a healthy, communicative production. 

Looking ahead, what are your plans for your future in theatre? Do you see yourself directing “Terra Nova” again at some point, or perhaps auditioning for a role in another director’s adaptation?

For my future plans, I’m currently looking into being a Professor of Theatre. But that’s kind of changing at the moment. I really found a huge passion in directing, so I’m potentially considering a future as a creative director of some sort. Not too sure! 

As for “Terra Nova,” I’d love nothing more than performing the full-length show someday – and stepping into that tundra myself. Evans is certainly a dream role of mine, so I’d love to take a chance to play him. 

This show will certainly never leave me. This entire experience was so fulfilling, especially after my Duke Colloquium presentation last year. I’m just so elated that I had this opportunity with such a talented cast and crew. 

The Hilltop Monitor thanks Cal Perkins for his insights into a complex and important story—one told with passion and care on our campus. We look forward to seeing where his passion and skills take him next!

“Terra Nova” 2025 production poster, illustrated by Cal Perkins.

The year 1936 has gone down in European history as the year of the Berlin Olympics under Nazi Germany. Three years before the outbreak of the Second World War, these Olympic Games were seen by Hitler as a propaganda tool to send a strong message to the world: Aryans are superior athletes. This belief was rooted in the eugenics theory that racial superiority could be explained by genetics. Of course, eugenics is at the heart of Nazi ideology and these Olympic Games of the past were the ideal opportunity to prove the hegemony of Aryan athletes; and thus defend the relevance of this ideology. However, African American athletes enjoyed enormous success in 1936, in particular Jesse Owens, famous for being the first African-American athlete to win four gold medals at the same Olympic Games. His success also left its mark on history, as Adolf Hitler refused to acknowledge Owens’ victories or shake his hand. Indeed, this famous episode, experienced as a humiliation by Hitler, underlines a major theme in sports and politics: the instrumentalization of sports by authoritarian regimes.

 But why is this so important today? Sports have been, and still are, an important form of soft power used by authoritarian and democratic rulers all over the world. In this article, I will attempt to analyze the limits and dangers of the instrumentalization of sports by authoritarian states and propose a broader description of sports as an effective geopolitical weapon for democratic states.

What does “Authoritarianism” really mean ?

Authoritarianism is a vague concept to a lot of folks. Its true meaning is poorly understood, yet roughly 40% of the world’s countries are ruled by an authoritarian leader. Simply put, authoritarianism is a political system whose main objective is to maintain the power of the ruler, come what may. regimes ignore the rule of law and democratic principles and their mandate does not depend on the consent of the people. To stay in power, authoritarian leaders use a range of strategies, from violent coercion to propaganda. Sports are a soft power tool used by authoritarian rulers to convey an ideology. But is this method effective? ? 

Firstly, sports bring people together and help build a nation. Secondly, it promotes the state’s official ideology and reinforces authoritarian narratives of national greatness. These characteristics are particularly true of totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany or present-day North Korea, whose ultimate goal is to create a utopia. In this sense, sports can be a vehicle for the state sponsored ideology. Nevertheless, sport is not always used as a means of conveying an ideology, and many authoritarian states see it simply as an effective weapon, an extension of the state’s political and economic power.

Sport and Authoritarianism: Dangers and Limits? 

These days, sports are primarily a revenue platform for authoritarian states. Several Middle Eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, are increasingly financially involved in all kinds of sports, particularly soccer and Formula 1. In 2024, sports are attracting considerable attention and have become a global phenomenon that appeals to more and more people. The amount of money invested in and the revenues generated by the sports market are increasing rapidly, with an expected growth in revenues of over 60% by 2028. However, as sports revenues rise, so does the economic cost of hosting sporting events. 

A common trend has been observed over the past decade: unstable democracies and authoritarian states are increasingly hosting major sporting events. These states are often oil-rich countries such as Qatar, Bahrain or Saudi Arabia. As explained previously, these states use sports to convey broader political messages and achieve popular cohesion. Unfortunately, staging major events such as Formula 1 races, the World Cup or boxing matches, is financially draining and does not always benefit the economy as a whole. In fact, in many cases financing global sporting events ends up creating a greater financial burden for the population. For example, the 2022 World Cup in Qatar cost 220 billion American dollars, a huge sum that will take decades to repay, and has contributed to  the financial disparities within the country.

The protection of human rights is another major concern when it comes to authoritarian regimes hosting sporting events. In fact, most authoritarian countries lack the appropriate infrastructure and facilities to host sporting events, so they usually build these infrastructures from scratch, specifically for the events in question. Construction is often very intensive and these regimes do not hesitate to violate international laws. Most recently, Qatar, which hosted the 2022 World Cup, was targeted by numerous international organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Right Watch over the abuses committed against migrant workers and the hundreds of workers injured during the construction of half a dozen brand-new stadiums in the space of just a few years. The Qatari government has denied most of the allegations. Therefore, Qatar’s problematic situation has given rise to a real debate on the legitimacy of authoritarian regimes hosting such sporting events. 

But Why should Democratic States Care?

Colossal amounts of money are involved in hosting major sporting events, often creating significant conflicts of interest. Despite the mobilization of athletes and humanitarian organizations to denounce the abuses of host countries, democratic states have often turned a blind eye to the issue of sports in authoritarian countries. Recently, the situation has changed somewhat with the resumption of war in Ukraine. The Russian invasion of Ukraine represents the biggest ground war in Europe since  World War II. In this context, sports represents one of the many points of tension in the conflict. Sport became a veritable soft power weapon, helping to raise Russia’s profile. 

Since 2022, many Russian athletes have been denied the right to take part in sporting competitions, with the aim of penalizing Russian “soft power” and sending a strong message of support for Ukraine. One of the first victims was tennis player Danil Medvedev, who was unable to take part in a number of major tennis tournaments, including Wimbledon 2023. Despite being ranked No. 2 in the world, Medvedev and his fellow Russians and Belarusians were banned from that year’s Wimbledon. Similarly, the Russian and Belarusian delegations were banned from taking part in the 2024 Paris Olympics, a heavy sanction seen as a humiliation by both countries. Nevertheless, sports seem to be increasingly used by many as a way to condemn injustice and punish acts of impunity. For instance, Seven-time Formula 1 world champion Lewis Hamilton has repeatedly spoken out to call out Formula 1’s involvement with authoritarian and repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia, which fail to respect human rights.

With all that said, the financial and ideological stakes of sports make it a powerful weapon for sanctioning authoritarian states and defending liberal democratic ideals, notably the protection of human rights and freedom of expression. The current state of Putin’s war in Ukraine transcends any concept of human justice and in this context, the instrumentalization of sports to attack Russia’s image and soft power seems more than appropriate. While the intersection between sports and geopolitics is not intuitive, it is essential to understanding complex power dynamics. As guardians of democratic values, it is imperative that democratic states reclaim sports as a platform to oppose oppression, foster international solidarity and lead a global commitment to justice and human dignity.