Steppenwolf Theatre Company Blog – Chicago Theater, World-Class Ensemble

I had planned to move on to some other topic today, but as I write there is a bit of a storm brewing in our theatrical community tea-cup, over the actions of one of our city’s critics. I thought it germane to our previous thread.

This critic attended and wrote reviews of a festival of new musicals being “workshopped”. The reviews came to the attention of some of our colleagues, nationally. The result is a letter from the President of the Dramatists Guild, John Weidman, and accompanying artists, including Edward Albee, Christopher Durang, Tony Kushner, and others. For the complete letter and comments, you can find it here.

But here are excerpts from the letter:

[The]… decision to review these eight shows at this early stage in their development, in violation of the express wishes of the theatre, was a shocking and irresponsible betrayal of one of the fundamental understandings which makes the creation of new work possible.

These musicals were presented in workshop. Every musical in workshop is understood to be a work in progress. Workshopping a new musical provides an opportunity for writers to evaluate their work as it evolves, protected from the consequences of critical appraisal. This security allows writers to take chances, to be bold, maybe even to embarrass them¬selves—in short, to do their work.

Art isn’t easy, as Stephen Sondheim wrote. It becomes close to impossible when the creative process is violated as casually and unprofessionally as it was in this case…

She [the critic] owes each of the bookwriters, composers, and lyricists involved an apology, one as public as the premature review which appeared in your newspaper.

More important, however, is what happens next. What happens to the next writer whose work-in-progress play or musical is being workshopped in Chicago? What happens to the writer who is reluctant to have his new play or musical workshopped in Chicago at all because of what happened this year at Stages 2006? What happens to the writer who drops out of the workshop process altogether for fear that her work will be reviewed before it is ready?

In light of the debacle at Stages 2006, we hope …[the newspaper] will make it clear to its editors, feature writers, and reviewers, that henceforth, new work which is specifically identified as work in development, new work which a theater explicitly asks critics to leave alone until it is finished and ready to be evaluated, will be accorded this fundamental professional courtesy.

Your food critic would not judge a restaurant by bulling her way into the kitchen and tasting the dishes when they were half-cooked. Playwrights, composers, and lyricists deserve the same consideration.

And the critic’s response:

I am stating the facts regarding the review of Stages2006 below. You might want to consider them, even at this late date, before launching any further attack on my ethics. 1. At no time, either by phone, e-mail or in person, was I EVER told not to review these workshops. In fact, the presenters of Stages2006 not only invited me to see the shows many times, but they provided me with tickets, elaborate press materials, and photos to accompany my review. What’s more, after seeing the work and choosing the piece I thought most promising, I even asked the public relations person for the project to specially e-mail me a photo for that show because it was not on the CD….my assessment of last year’s showcase just happened to be far more positive….. and I would bet anything that a copy of my review was submitted as supporting evidence for grants, etc., that the Musical Theatre Writers’ Workshop made to funding organizations this season. You simply cannot have it both ways, though that seems to be precisely what the producers of Stages2006 want. I would NEVER write about any work that I was told was “not for review.” The producers in this case are being dishonest in the extreme to suggest I was asked not to write; they knew very well that I expected to do so and expressed not a single hesitation or concern. In addition, it should be noted that the Stages series is not like workshops held in New York, where special invitations are issued to closed readings, etc. This festival was advertised and listed in the press, tickets and passes were sold and it was a fully public event. …I hope you will consider the facts of this situation, not the extreme distortions of the truth that are being so widely disseminated. I have NEVER reviewed any show that I was not expressly invited to see and write about, and Stages2006 was no exception.

As we’ve noted, the circumstances and criteria around “reviews” and “workshops” can be murky, as they clearly were in this case. What I do find encouraging about this entire escapade as it unfolds, is the attention and concern being shown to new work, and also that a number of these artists cite Chicago as a vital contributor to the national picture.

This entry was posted by Edward Sobel on Tuesday, August 29th, 2006 at 3:26 pm and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.