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

There’s a lot going on at the theater these days. We have our production of The Pillowman continuing in the Downstairs Theatre through November the 12th, and Upstairs, our production of The Bluest Eye plays to student audiences on week day matinees and for general audiences on the weekends. The Bluest Eye then moves to the Duke Theatre in New York for three-week run. This is the first time that we have taken a Steppenwolf for Young Adults production to New York.

We began rehearsals today for Cormac McCarthy’s The Sunset Limited for its run at the 59E59th Theatre in New York. The Sunset Limited will run in New York from October the 24th through November the 19th with its original cast of Austin Pendleton and Freeman Coffey, and its director, Sheldon Patinkin. So for a couple of weeks, Steppenwolf will have two productions running in New York. (more…)

Last week I had the pleasure of attending the Black Theatre Alliance Awards at the Hyatt Regency in Chicago. Pictured with me from l. to r. are actress Ora Jones, Steppenwolf Donor Steward Coordinator, Colette Gregory, and actress Penelope Walker. Penelope last appeared at Steppenwolf in Love-Lies- Bleeding. Ora Jones was nominated for her work in the Steppenwolf production of The Unmentionables as was Kenn E. Head. Jon Hill also appeared in that production and was nominated as Most Promising Newcomer. In addition, Cedric Young was nominated for his work in the Steppenwolf for Young Adults production of “MASTER HAROLD”…and the boys. Steppenwolf is proud to have had these accomplished actors on our stage and we congratulate them on their artistry, performances, and nominations.

The evening was a strong tribute to the extraordinary Chicago community of African American theatre artists, to their art, and to the American Theatre.

I’ll be traveling this week to see a preview of Bruce Norris‘ The Pain and The Itch at Playwrights Horizons in New York. Steppenwolf premiered this play in our 04-05 season, and as she did with the premiere, our ensemble member Anna Shapiro is directing this production.

In addition, Steppenwolf has recently announced that two of our own productions will be transferring to New York this fall – both The Bluest Eye and Sunset Limited will have limited runs there.

The history of our company is in part benchmarked by these moments – dating as far back as the transfer of True West — a singular event that helped Steppenwolf first come to national attention — through Balm in Gilead (my own first experience with a Steppenwolf production as an adolescent) and the Tony Winners The Grapes of Wrath and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

All of this, coupled with my own roots in that part of the country, made me wonder about Chicago’s relationship to New York. Leaving sports rivalries aside (my lowly Knicks have not been much of a factor recently), do we, despite the remarkable theater on offer in Chicago, still think of ourselves as a “second city?” Is it possible to truly “make it”, (if that is one’s goal) without referencing or moving work to New York? And what about the converse: does success in New York bring an imprimatur that is valued here?

After introducing myself as Steppenwolf’s Literary Manager during a recent post-show discussion for The Unmentionables, the first question directed at me was, “What does a Literary Manager do?” For the sake of your sanity, I’ll be brief: my job entails reading the roughly 500 new scripts we receive each year and making recommendations to Ed Sobel, our Director of New Play Development, as to works and writers we ought to consider when programming our season. Today, for example, I’ll be reading a few scripts in consideration for our 2007-08 season – all before our 2006-07 season officially commences. Meanwhile, on our Downstairs Theatre, our 2005-06 season is about to end, as The Unmentionables closes this Sunday.

As a subscription series show winds down its run, two things typically happen. First, friends contact us in larger numbers in an attempt to secure seats to a performance. Second, and more importantly, we are able to take full stock of the production, having seen it from its conception (in the case of The Unmentionables, cutting the check to Bruce Norris that instigated the commissioned play) through its development and growth (initial “table readings” of successive drafts, meetings with designers, rehearsals, previews), and culminating in its birth: performances in front of our audiences over a seven-week run.

Through this blog and our post-show discussions - two-way avenues of communication in service of a medium that is traditionally a one-way conduit - you are able to take stock with us. The Unmentionables closes out our 30th anniversary season, a season dedicated to producing entirely new works. Though this was a giant leap for us - a “normal” season sees us produce between 10-12 works in our 3 performance spaces, of which roughly half is comprised of new plays - we’ve been heartened by the ways in which our audiences were willing to take this trip with us.

In our all-staff meetings, departmental meetings, even around the water cooler (in our case, a Pepsi machine we’ve desperately been trying to get switched to a Coke machine), we’ve been discussing what a slate of exclusively new plays meant to us as a theatre company. But this is a two-way sharing of information, of course, and we’d like to know how you’ve reacted to this past season of work.

Taken as a whole, what, if anything, did this season’s plays mean to you? What, to your mind, is the importance of new work (if any) in the theatre these days?

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?