If we're the theater capital, let's start acting like it.

The second line of Chris Jones's two-line Theater Loop post this morning, about the latest extension of David Cromer's outstanding A Streetcar Named Desire at Writers' Theatre (my review here), is quite the tease: "And given the critical acclaim enjoyed by the show, a remount somewhere other than Glencoe would hardly be a surprise."

Now maybe he meant a transfer into the Chicago city limits, which would be terrific. But given Chris's predilection for New York transfers of Chicago work—and Saturday's glowing review by Charles Isherwood of the New York Times—that's where my mind went. And I panicked.

As Writers' executive director Kate Lipuma tweeted to me this afternoon, the company is "exploring everything" when it comes to a further life for Cromer's Streetcar. For the sake of argument, though, let's assume we are talking about New York. My feelings about New York transfers of Chicago shows are complicated.

I think there’s definite value in the cultural exchange between our cities’ theater scenes, which are quite different both practically and philosophically. At this year’s TCG conference, which just concluded here in Chicago on Saturday, the frighteningly smart Jonah Lehrer gave a keynote speech. One of his many complicated but well-illustrated points involved the higher creativity that’s been observed in cities, which may be attributable to the higher rate of random encounters—“bumping into people on the sidewalk.”

To borrow from something Tony Adams tweeted at me earlier, maybe there are sparks in the sidewalk-bumping theater artists do on the metaphorical highway between New York and here. As Kerry Reid’s recent PerformInk piece illustrates, it is possible for some theater folks to make a multi-locational life, and to find the impermanence enriching.

And I’m all for the positive attention that Chicago theater has received and that’s seemed to pile up in recent years, when such productions as August: Osage County, Adding Machine, Our Town, Graceland, A Steady Rain, The Elaborate Entrance of Chad Deity and Superior Donuts have made the move, with varying degrees of involvement from the Chicago artists with whom they started. Lots of nice things have been said about those Chicago artists in the New York and national press because they went there, which is lovely.

But when we send our artists, particularly our actors, to New York, oftentimes they don’t come back. I’m thinking here of Our Town’s Jennifer Grace, Superior Donuts’s James Vincent Meredith, Chad Deity’s Desmin Borges. That’s why I worry about the hypothetical prospect of transferring Cromer’s Streetcar—for which the high-profile reviews have all praised its strong, all-Chicago cast—moving there. Do I want Stacy Stoltz and Matt Hawkins to receive broader notice? Absolutely. Do I want that if it means I don’t get to see them on Chicago stages again anytime soon? Thank you, no.

A number of out-of-town critics have praised Chicago as America’s real theater capital over the last several years. What if, instead of continuing to export our stuff elsewhere for praise and dollars, we embraced what London’s Michael Billington, Toronto’s Richard Ouzounian, New York’s Terry Teachout and others have written and sell ourselves, not New York, as said theater capital?

If Cromer’s Streetcar deserves more viewers—and it surely does—why shouldn’t they come to Chicago to see it? Instead of courting the Scott Morfees and Jeffrey Richardses of New York, maybe Gigi Pritzker’s ready for another go at producing theater in Chicago after Million Dollar Quartet.

As Alan M. Berks notes in the first installment of his TCG report from the Twin Cities, one of the unofficial themes of Chicago's TCG conference was the awesome, non-hierarchical nature of Chicago's theater scene. Mayor Daley said a lot of great things to the nation's theatermakers Saturday morning, as he did to the city's press a couple of weeks prior when marking the tenth anniversary of the downtown theater district, in the presence of NEA chair Rocco Landesman, about the value of theater and other arts in building a world-class city.

So what if, instead of continuing the New York–centric 20th-century model, we make our city a theater tourism destination? With others so willing to call Chicago the real theater destination of North America, wouldn’t it be great if we embraced that label ourselves? What if theater audiences actually had to come to Chicago to see Chicago-style theater?

Comments

[Eric Weiss]

The name "Broadway in Chicago" is tragic? Don't be a drama queen, Penny. The name "Broadway in Chicago" signals that people interested in Broadway shows can see Broadway shows in Chicago; they don't have to go to New York. And like it or not, Broadway still has a mystique that Chicago, for all its international acclaim, can't begin to match. There is also an audience for Chicago theater (nonprofit, serious, more intimate), but tourist marketing is about numbers, and the numbers are there for Broadway shows, not Chicago theater. (And by Broadway shows I specifically mean musicals; the attendance at non-musical theater in America is significantly lower than the audience for musicals.)
So why try to compete? Do what you do as well as you can and get the audience that wants it. And -- here's an idea -- try pressuring the local nonprofit theaters (the big guys, like Goodman and Chicago Shakespeare) to pay Chicago actors a decent wage so they don't have to relocate to NY to make a living.

[Eric Weiss]

The name "Broadway in Chicago" is tragic? Don't be a drama queen, Penny. The name "Broadway in Chicago" signals to people who want to see Broadway shows that they don't have to go to New York to see those shows, they can see them here. And that's good for the city.
There is ALSO an audience for "Chicago theater" (smaller, more serious, nonprofit theater). But does the audience for Chicago theater come close to matching (in size) the audience for blues clubs and ballgames? I don't think so.
Marketing is about numbers. Like it or not, New York/Broadway (i.e. "Broadway") has a mystique Chicago can't begin to match. And by New York/Broadway I really mean musicals -- the audience for non-musical theater is significantly less than the audience for musicals.
So stop whining, do your work the best you can and reach the people who want what you have to offer. And -- here's a thought -- pressure the Chicago nonprofit theaters to start paying actors a living wage so they don't have to relocate to New York to sustain a career.

[Eric Weiss]

P.S. Eric Ziegenhagen asks "What is Blue Man Group doing right?" The answer is, they're not doing "Theatre," they're doing ENTERTAINMENT.

[Monica Reida]

Penny, Broadway in Chicago's name describes exactly what it is: It brings in the tours of plays and musicals to Chicago. Since Fuerza Bruta is currently running in Chicago and being presented by them, it is a bit of a misnomer because Fuerza Bruta is an off-Broadway show. I am dubious that Broadway in Chicago is what the city's theater scene is synonymous with because of the existence of Second City. I know of more people that know of Second City than of Broadway in Chicago. And how many people would know of Steppenwolf, Goodman, Lookingglass or even House Theatre because of the coverage in national publications?

Another problem is that a lot of storefronts probably don't have the money to spend on marketing.

I would also like to point out that some regional theaters are now looking to Chicago when it comes to picking their seasons because what is popular on Broadway might not work for their audience.

It would take a really long time for Chicago to become a "theater destination." I think that something that might need to be worked on is showing people outside of Chicago why people come to the city to create theater because I know a lot of people that don't understand that. They don't know what makes Chicago different.

[Penny Penniston]

I don't think I expressed myself well re: The Broadway in Chicago point. "Tragic" is too strong and dramatic a word, yes. And it's not my intent to sound like I'm complaining. I actually think Broadway in Chicago is a tremendous asset to the city and the local theater community. My only point is, that from a branding perspective, the name "Broadway in Chicago" advertises Chicago as a great place to see a New York Play. And because Broadway in Chicago is the biggest clearest marketing voice, an unfortunate side effect of their success is that their branding message bleeds into the branding of Chicago Theater in general. Yes, Chicago is a great place to see a New York play. And anyone who is looking for the Broadway experience should definitely go to Broadway in Chicago. I just think that the Chicago Theater community also has other experiences to offer. And we don't have a marketing vehicle to communicate that fact.

Eric, you make the point that "New York/Broadway (i.e. "Broadway") has a mystique Chicago can't begin to match." That is true. But it's partially true because, as John Pinckard mentioned in his post, Broadway spent "gazillions of dollars" supporting that mystique. Those were marketing dollars. In marketing, mystique can be bought. It's freaking expensive, but it can be bought. If we had that same kind of marketing money to spend here, we could create Chicago mystique- a mystique that's unique to us and to our community. It would never rival Broadway and New York. (I don't think it should be our community's goal to rival or imitate Broadway and New York). But it could communicate the depth, breadth and uniqueness of theater in Chicago. And it would encourage even more people to see theater- both local residents and tourists.

And Monica, you are correct. The money for such an organization couldn't come solely from theaters. Frankly, we can't even begin to afford it. (The League of Chicago Theaters does do advertising on behalf of our community, but they don't have the marketing budget to make it truly effective). It would take an alliance of business, theater, and city funds to do it right. However, if it could ever be organized, I think it would be an excellent civic investment. Look at the economic benefits NYC has received as a result of them investing in the branding of Broadway.

On a positive note: even though we don't have a marketing vehicle to communicate the depth and breadth of Chicago theater, we do have other vehicles. The most obvious is press. Whenever a particular production, actor, writer or director provokes passion and excitement among local and national arts journalists, the whole community benefits. And if each member of our community, whenever he/she has one of those successes, can take it upon themselves to mention their Chicago connection in interviews or appearances, that also helps build the Chicago brand.

If we don't have gazillions of marketing dollars, the only way to sustain ourselves is to be really really good at what we do- so good that other people want to talk about our work for us. For free. So the simple solution to our problem is for everyone to be brilliant. All the time. No pressure...

[Overseas calls]

I really appreciate the effort of posting such relevant post. This is interesting and refresher. There is a great info that we can get from it. Thanks a lot for sharing such brilliant post. Keep up the good thoughts coming. More power.

[Chanel Bags Outlet]

“I love San Juan Capistrano, our lifestyle, the people, the city’s small town atmosphere. Both my wife Chris and I are active in our community every day.”

[nursing covers]

Unity is simply the answer.

[asian bridal]

A household changes! A found paradox perceives the supposed arrow. The name escapes over a slippery agony. A frown evolves the reminiscent counterpart over the sister. The peasant cashes my race. The wrapped friend marches inside a five rot.