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

I read responses to the initial posting on the subject of our First Look Rep and critics with keen interest, and thank those of you who entered the conversation.

Some comments on this strand address precisely the significance and difference of First Look. First Look is a developmental process culminating in public performances, for which, yes, we charge admission. But we are trying to create a relationship with our audience that is not purely transactional, i.e. money in exchange for product. Instead, we are seeking to engage them in the process of making a play, an endeavor much more difficult to describe within the current model of “reviews”. First Look requires innovation and imagination from both the artists and audiences. How can we stimulate a similar sense in our critics?

Further, most theaters, including Steppenwolf, charge less money for tickets to “previews” than for tickets after opening – but they still charge. It is (or used to be) considered a breach of etiquette for critics to review a production during the preview process, rather than at opening. The entire run of First Look is much more equivalent to a preview process than the run of play. Is it possible, or reasonable, to ask critics to both perceive and report the difference? How can one communicate all of this, without inhibiting their genuine response?

One writer drew the analogy to buying tickets with investing in a company, and citing the notion that analysts hold companies to the same standards regardless of whether they are new.

I find the comparison provocative of further questions. Generally, we would invest money with a company only after doing significant research and verifying the bona fides of the analyst recommending it. (If you are like me, you get five pieces a day of spam from “analysts” urging me to invest in some company or other.) Do we do that with critics, or do we take the critic’s (or media outlet’s) word that s/he is qualified to express an expert opinion? Or do we not see critics as “experts”, but simply as citizens like ourselves who have the good fortune to have a larger mouthpiece? Do we build trust with a critic over time – e.g., we see things about which they have written, and find ourselves agreeing with them – and how seriously do we take a “betrayal” of that trust? In the democratizing days of the internet, anyone can set themselves up a web-site, say “ImATheaterCritic.com”, call themselves a critic, and issue their opinion to as many people as are willing to read it. How does this affect our notion of critics?

One last volley: the question of “critics”, as opposed to “reviewers”. Good criticism offers observations about a work, acknowledges its context, resists the temptation to fully dismiss or overly praise, and places the work of art at its center, rather than the critic. I note that Chicago is the birthplace of the “thumbs up - thumbs down” critical nomenclature, and ask does Chicago need critics or reviewers? As consumers of media, and theater-goers, what is in your best interest?

Last weekend, Steppenwolf played host to theater professionals from around the country who were invited to attend our First Look Rep.

With representatives from a wide range, (literally from New York to California and Minnesota to Florida) we had a wonderful opportunity both to display the work of our writers, and have more informal, collegial time together. This same weekend, elsewhere in the city, the Goodman Theater was hosting its Latino Festival, and the Association for Theater in Higher Education was holding its annual conference. For several days, Chicago seemed the national hub for theater. (more…)

As summer seems to fly by, we approach the closing weekend of the three First Look Repertory plays, Spare Change, 100 Saints You Should Know, and The Butcher of Baraboo. The ancillary events offered to the First Look 101 participants have included table readings of the three plays, first rehearsals including designer presentations, working rehearsals, and technical rehearsals. All of these events provided insight into what it takes for a play to reach production and performance.

Throughout this process, along with Director of New Play Development, Ed Sobel, and First Look Assistant, Meghan McCarthy, I have a had the great pleasure of leading discussions with our First Look 101 participants. These discussions at times have included designers, directors, and actors. They have been engaging, smart, and provocative. And now, so quickly it seems, we approach the closing weekend. (more…)

We practitioners in the theater often bear an uneasy relationship with one of the other members of our community: the arts media – a.k.a. critics. Our First Look Rep presents particular challenges. On the one hand, we certainly want the city of Chicago, and the theater community nationally, to be aware of the work we are doing. That is part of the point of the program – to bring these plays and writers to general attention and foster productions of their work. On the other hand, First Look Rep is a process, rather than product, oriented program. The plays are presented in an advanced stage of development, but not necessarily in their final version. On the other hand, (at Steppenwolf we always juggle with three hands - it is a job requirement) we are presenting the work publicly and charging admission. Critics may feel a responsibility to “review” them.

This conundrum led me to some provocative questions, which I will share in a later posting, but for the moment, I’d like to ask your opinion. To what extent, if any, do critics matter to you? Do they help you interpret a work you see? Do you go to see a play based upon what critics say? If so, do you follow or trust one particular critic, or is it more when opinion reaches, if you will forgive the pun, critical mass? Are there factors that are more important, both in your transactional decision (buying a ticket) and artistic one (your opinion or interpretation of the work)?

I’d be grateful for any thoughts you care to share.

Always a little strange having Mom and Dad in the audience. I warned them in advance that some less-than-wholesome things happen on stage, and it is in no way a reflection on their parenting (They liked the play).

You know that sappy Hallmark-moment thing that parents say: having kids allowed them to experience the world again for the first time because, suddenly, everything is brand new to this little person who has never pet a dog, or run through the sprinklers on a hot summer day, or learned the hard way that Cheerios go only so far up the nasal cavity before the inaugural trip to the emergency room. The Butcher of Baraboo became a whole new experience for me sitting next to somebody who doesn’t know what’s coming next. I wish that I could induce a state of temporary amnesia on myself so I can know what it would be like to experience a play I wrote for the first time. But I can’t. So that vicarious experience of a first audience is the next best thing. I personally like to be a part of a first audience for stuff. I may not be seeing the most polished, assured production so early in the run, but I get to be a part of something a little more wild and uncharted. (more…)