In the Economic Maelstrom, the Gypsy is King

Written by Don Hall

Chris Jones pens a quick entry on The Theater Loop exposing the result of a downturn in our economy on local theaters that bemoans the fate of those theaters that are “being forced to shack up with someone else” in order to produce their work (Click here to read the full article).

Given the economic downturn, sharing of space may turn out to the new paradigm for Chicago cultural institutions. But even though the benefits of splitting costs, pooling resources and putting arts venues to maximum productive use are obvious, sharing performance space is a lot trickier than it seems. Especially if it takes place on less-than-equal terms.

In the article, Chris trumpets both the Harris Theater for Music and Dance and The Theatre Building Chicago as examples of possible alternatives to owning a building (he, of course, cites The House Theatre as an example of one of the downtrodden in the financial melee, a fact that I’m certain makes the scores of Off Loop theaters that don’t have a Tribune cheerleader and a healthy budget smirk). Both examples are great spaces although both are essentially egalitarian rental houses.

What Chris misses in his overview of the situation are two major points: in the world of the homeless, the Gypsy is king and that the best program IN THE NATION for this specific problem resides at the corner of Randolph and Michigan Avenue.

One of the enduring truths of the Chicago Theater Scene has been that almost anyone with the desire and a few bucks can put up a show. Granted, this means that the pool is littered with floating turds but it also means that, unlike New Yawk, you don’t have to mortgage your future to get a show up for a nominal run and get some press coverage for it. While the larger (and even mid-sized) institutions in town have flourished or fallen due to finances, there are scores of tiny, motivated theater companies that have consistently managed to travel from place to place, “shacking up” in itinerant spaces, putting up productions of both original and previously produced work without ever receiving a major grant or relying on the fat wallets of the monied class to do it.

These Gypsy theater companies and artists will feel some of the pinch of our economic malaise but will still continue to, often unheralded or championed, crank out the art.

And while renting out a space is the Go To option, Chicago is home to one of the most amazing and supportive theater and arts programs in the entire country: The Chicago Cultural Center (and specifically the DCA Theater Program.) The catchphrase used by the program is so simple it reeks of the best possible mission statement to indicate exactly what it does: Keeping Off-Loop Theater in-the-Loop.

Read more »

The Ritual of Critique

For those of you who did not attend last night’s panel discussion, “The Ritual of Critique,” you missed a rare opportunity to hear four prominent Chicago critics and three distinguished directors speak candidly about their obligations to one another, their roles in the theater community at large, the sometimes frustrations of their jobs, and ultimately, their satisfaction with the state of affairs of theater criticism in Chicago.

The discussion aptly took place in the Claudia Cassidy Theater at the Chicago Cultural Center. The spirit of Cassidy, a long-time Chicago critic known for her biting reviews (as reflected in her nickname “Acidy Cassidy”) was acknowledged, but not tangible during the two hours of mostly constructive and friendly exchanges between the critics and directors.

Veteran reviewer Jonathan Abarbanel, one of WBEZ’s “dueling critics” and a freelancer for several local papers, made the observation that despite the usual gripes over dwindling word counts (Tony Adler of the Reader confessed he only gets 125 words per review), Chicago’s theater ecosystem is relatively healthy because of the diversity of its press. Unlike New York, where the Times can throw the silver dart which either dooms or validates the success of a particular show, neither the Tribune, the Sun Times, the Reader, Time Out, nor the Windy City Times (and the list goes on) is the single source for trusted criticism. As illustrated by the weekly radio appearance of the “dueling critics,” the public values a variety of opinion and ultimately will decide the worth of a play for themselves.

Kerry Reid, a freelancer for the Chicago Tribune talked about the integrity of the critic and their responsibility to avoid reviewing shows in which they have a more than a casual relationship with a member of the cast or director. She also lamented that the critic is usually self-conscious of their place in the audience and is sometimes irked when asked “So, did you like it?” in the lobby of the theater. She uses a night’s rest and her own writing process to distill her thoughts and crystallize her opinion about the production.

Christopher Piatt of Time Out Chicago, brought the panel’s title, “The Ritual of Critique” to the forefront when he talked about the long tradition of writing reviews and how the format has remained largely unchanged over generations—the critic experiences a production, distills his/her experience into a concise summary, and presents it to the public with wit and intelligence. Likewise, Tony Adler pointed out that a bad review and a negative review are not necessarily synonymous.

Piatt also acknowledged the role of the critic as cultural archivist. All theater productions are, in the end, “perishable,” he said. What continues to exist postmortem is the written commentary about them. Ann Filmer, Artistic Director of the 16th Street Theater in Berwyn also views criticism as a public record and is clearly interested in setting that record straight, when possible. She expressed a desire for more dialogue between the directors and the critics and looks to her reviewers for valuable feedback about her plays. When they see something in her show that she had never considered or intended, she wants to unpack that observation and get to a deeper understanding of how and why they perceived what they did. 

Bob Scogin, Artistic Director of ShawChicago, also sees the critic as a purveyor of valuable feedback for directors and actors. “If the audience was allowed to throw rotten fruit on stage every time they didn’t like what they were seeing, a guy [actor] would get better pretty fast.” Scogin called for critics to both “lighten up” and “knuckle down”—to take themselves a little less seriously (“after all, they’re just plays”) but to also be a stickler when something in the show isn’t up to snuff.

On the other hand, recent OBIE recipient David Cromer (Direction, Adding Machine), downplayed the significance of the critic on the director’s creative process. He holds the philosophy that one should simply accept reviews—good or bad—and not put too much emphasis on their potential impact on theater-goers. He wasn’t disparaging of critics, by any means, but seemed less focused on reviews and more interested in simply putting up quality performances and letting the press chips fall where they may. 

The moderator, Mark Sutton of the Annoyance Theater and The Second City, neatly wrapped up the conversation by asking each panelist what was one thing they would change about the director-critic relationship, if they could. Though you might have expected the panelists to run with this opportunity—a live mic and a receptive audience (after all, as Piatt remarked, even critics are “drama queens”)—the response was mostly equivocal. What was a dynamic and informative discussion ended with a collective shrug—or, if you like, a metaphorical hug. It turns out directors and critics in Chicago don’t have as contentious a relationship as one would assume. They largely consider themselves part of the same community with the same basic goal—to increase the quality of life in Chicago through art.