Where I've Been

Well, the answer is, not on this blog. To the people who read the blog (and I'm hoping some are left after this three-week absence), I'm sorry to have left for so long. I tend to get very tense when my favorite bloggers don't update daily, so I would judge my own three-week absence as utterly inexcusable.

However, I haven't been completely lazy. Most importantly, I've been moving. My boyfriend Adam and I have finally taken the plunge into domesticity, and have gotten an apartment together in Oak Park. Leaving the city limits initially met with some qualms from me, but Adam's job is in Naperville, and the commute from the north side would have been brutal. Also, seriously, the place is gorgeous, and my commute is virtually the same duration now as it was when I lived in Uptown. And I live right north of the main library and across from a park! Anyhow, as you can imagine, my time and brain have been largely occupied with that. Indeed, I still sometimes burst out with spasms of real-estate speak, despite the fact that we moved into the place on the 15th. It's hard to retrain your mind.

As a side note, one of the bizarre side effects of my lurches into adulthood is that I'm getting excited about things that I never imagined being excited about. The most recent example is cleaning products. It's sad to say, but Mr. Clean Magic Erasers had me almost giddy with joy this weekend. It's like a sponge, but you wet it and rub it on stains on a wall (i.e. from furniture--pretty prevalent at the old apartment) and they DISAPPEAR! It's amazing! And I can rationalize my excitement by the fact that it's not really the cleaning product that excited me so much as not having to scrub. Oy, I'm becoming mature whether I like it or not.

What time I didn't spend moving was occupied with the various theatrical ventures I'm working on, rather than writing about. The biggest time investment was DrekFest, which had three utterly delightful evenings, and presented eight fantastic plays, four of which went on to become semi-finalists. The grand loser was Jake Lindquist's hilarious Man Vs. Carp. The whole event was a whole lot of fun, despite a few mishaps along the way, and I can't wait for next year.

I also spearheaded my first major initiative as Co-Literary Manager at Stage Left: several valiant ensemble members and I slew the dragon that is our pile of script samples. It had grown far beyond the ability of one person to read and sort through them, so a bunch of us took piles of ten and decided which ones merit a further reading. It was huge--and still has to be followed by the huger task of letting the playwrights know if we want to read their plays or not. On into the breach.

Anyhow, more than enough personal nattering has happened. What of the wider world of theatre! Well, August is a pretty quiet time for it. Most of the more established companies are briefly dormant, and as I took the month off from Centerstage, I didn't get to see what the smaller ones were up to. The one show I did see that really stuck out was the remount of Red Noses at Strawdog. Overall, it was really wonderful--a defiant statement in favor of joy and laughter, even when perched on the edge of the abyss. The cast was fantastic and the awesome Matt Hawkins (Is he directing anything in the 2010-2011 season? If not, why not?) staged it with immense creativity and incredible passion and punch. I had some issues with it--there were apparently significant script cuts, and while they did wonders for the running time and sense of pacing, they sometimes left characters and relationships feeling a little sketched-out. But overall I really loved it. After this and The Good Soul of Szechuan, Strawdog is fast getting onto the list of my favorite companies in town. I'm excited to see what they have coming up.

And finally, a small note on the coverage of theatre in Chicago. Chris Jones has managed to make his blog at the Trib into what is probably the most-widely read single source of press coverage on Chicago theatre. It's doubtless where a lot of people turn first, and a rave review from him can seriously alter the fortunes of a show for the better. (Just ask Suicide, Incorporated or Harper Regan.) Some take issues with his critical skills and style, but that's an occupational hazard of the profession. Few would deny that he's one of the fiercest and most public advocates for Chicago theatre. And part of his professional project appears to be a promotion of Chicago theatre as a brand. Someone might reading his articles would probably use adjectives like smart, scrappy, gutsy, intimate, in-your-face, fearless, making up in quality what it sometimes lacks in flash. (Not that he only praises shows with this type of aesthetic, or finds them in shows that don't have them, but he certainly mentions them when they are present and promotes them as Chicagoan.) People could certainly argue over whether such qualities are more present in Chicago's thatre than in other cities'--a question I couldn't even begin to answer. But I still think the promotion of a Chicago brand is a good thing--especially for people whose ideas of theatre are limited to a narrow aesthetic. The coverage promotes Chicago's home-grown shows and hopefully creates interest in everything the city has to offer.

But, as with many concepts, this Chicago brand can be over-used. Another issue is the fact that the nebulous concept of the Chicago brand is often evoked with a simple phrase: "Chicago-Style." And that's unfortunate. I love theatre in this town, but when I read the phrase "Chicago-Style," I think of pizza. And hot dogs. And when you put "Chicago-Style" in both the headline and the final sentence of a review, it's awfully difficult to concentrate on Frost/Nixon and keep the mind off of Lou Malnati's.

I understand that space is at a premium and punchy phrases are hugely useful to getting across ideas, and I certainly am in favor of Chris Jones' work in helping to promote the brand of theatre in Chicago. It's a wonderful thing and I hope he continues. I just think this particular phrase doesn't quite work.

Thoughts?

Fugard Chicago

Thanks to Benno for pointing this one out: TimeLine, Remy Bumppo, and Court are all producing plays by the great South African playwright Athol Fugard in the spring ('Master Harold'...And The Boys, The Island, and Sizwe Banzi Is Dead, respectively), and have decided to package the three productions together. They've created a website with information on the plays, links to the websites, and the ability to buy a pass. Impressively, the pass itself costs only $75 for admission to all three plays. Given the price ranges for individual tickets at the theatres, this is a fantastic deal--especially because from what I've been able to tell from the website, there are no date restrictions. (By my quick calculations, you could easily save over $50.)

I'm certainly going to try to see all three, either as press or a civilian. I've never gotten to see Fugard's work onstage (I've read a couple), and am really looking forward to the chance to get a perspective on one of the most important playwrights working today--not to mention one of the best.

And I particularly want this to succeed because this kind of thing is what more theatres should be doing.  As of now, the Rogers Park Flex Pass is one of the only other things like this out there. But bring on packages based on theme, author, or geography. (I'm looking at you, Theater Wit and Theatre Building Chicago.) It helps get people into the habit of theatregoing, and engages them with theatres outside of their standbys, not to mention making Chicago shows into events. So best of luck to Fugard Chicago 2010, and here's hoping you inspired imitators galore.

"I just wish there were marks in it"

I'm about to make an entirely uncontroversial statement: The History Boys at TimeLine Theatre is really, really wonderful. (By the way, thank you Uncle Lou and Aunt Jeanne for this wonderful birthday present!) I could be contrarian, just to go against the nearly six months of sold out houses and bouquet of admiring to ecstatic reviews, and say it's not that great, but that would be perverse. (And it's not that I'm scared to be contrarian--Jersey Boys has met with inexplicable critical and popular success, and that doesn't make it any less of a hash of cardboard characters, melodramatic plotting, and wildly overstated sentimentality.)

That it's been such a success is all the more remarkable for the fact that it's three hours long, filled with obscure references and complex debates, and, despite its high spirits, has a current of darkness and a decidedly downbeat ending.

One of the things that's exceptional about the play is how uncompromisingly intellectual it is--these characters are smart people, and act like it. I can't imagine there are very many audience members who don't get lost at some point--I certainly did. But because the play refuses to talk down to the audience, either intellectually or emotionally, they want to keep up with the difficult parts.

So what about this production (the last two weeks, by the way, are sold out, but trying to get on standby is well worth your time) makes it work so well?

We have to start with the script--Bennett has written an incredibly rich and complex play. It follows eight students, three teachers, and a headmaster at a boy's school in the North of England in the 1980s--Margaret Thatcher is in power, education is changing, and being an adolescent sucks.

(By the way, reading the program essay of Margaret Thatcher reminded me of what a horrible leader she was--particularly because of her closeness to Ronald Reagan. Which takes me back to one of my favorite themes: we don't spend nearly enough time or energy hating Ronald Reagan these days. He may be gone, but his ideas live on, and they make things worse and worse. So think about it--have you thought or said anything mean about Reagan or Reaganism today? Have you worked against his legacy of disdain for anyone who isn't white, straight, male, Christian, and wealthy? Have you combatted the fiction that he was anything other than a disaster as president? If not, DO. Your country needs you. Now, back to our regularly scheduled meditation.)

Though some students are inspired by the "knowledge for knowledge's sake" Hector (Donald Brearley) and others by the "anything to get ahead" Irwin (Andrew Carter), this is anything but an "inspirational teacher" story--both men are horribly flawed. But that doesn't make their achievements less real. And perhaps the best part of the script is this willingness to accept complexity. Nobody is all good or all bad, most brilliant things come with a catch, and that's simply how it is. This lack of sentimentality is all too rare--in theatre and other media, now and in the past--and it's what's making the show so popular.

It doesn't hurt, of course, that it's very funny, and makes the audience feel smart for enjoying it and keeping up with it, and gives twelve actors the chance to do wonderful work.

And this brings us to Nick Bowling's production. The most discussed part is doubtless how he and set designer Brian Sidney Bembridge use the space: the area that is usually TimeLine's lobby is taken up by representations of the boys' bedrooms, and there is no separation between that area and the rest of the stage. With the audience seated on two sides of the action, that leaves a lot of space for the staging, and Bowling uses every inch. He's created some exceptional visual moments, and the play always feels like it's in motion--it evades the trap of being static that such a talky play could easily fall into. But in addition to the big-picture sweep of the play, the production gets the little details--the atmosphere of the staff room, the casual cruelty in the boys' banter, and on and on. Every character gets an arc and has real depth. I would mention the excellent parts about individual performances, but then this would be even longer than it was. Suffice it to say that everyone on that stage has a chance to do exceptional work, and they all take advantage of it.

So congratulations to everyone who worked on the show--particularly the cast replacements, who meshed perfectly with those who've been in it since April--and TimeLine, for getting such an exceptional run out of such a difficult piece. We need more like History Boys in this town, and I hope that the theatres here will step up to such a great example.