Storefront Rebellion

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.

2009: The plays I didn't review

I rode the Red Line home a couple of weeks ago with my friend and colleague Ben Kenigsberg, one of TOC's film critics. We had both stayed late on a Friday night working on our 2009 best-of lists. Ben mentioned that he'd spent quite a bit of time over the previous week or two re-watching his potential picks. Man, I thought, What a luxury. There are so many plays I saw this year that I wanted to see a second time but couldn't—Chicago's a town of limited runs, and too many storefront shows in particular only perform Friday through Sunday and in the same "slots" in the season.

I made note tonight in a Twitter/Facebook message that my final count of plays seen in 2009 was 146 (I first said 145 but revised up when I realized I'd missed one); Dianna Driscoll inquired on Facebook about how many of those I saw for pleasure versus the number I reviewed. The question's a bit more complicated than that—I saw some shows for TOC purposes that I didn't review and also didn't enjoy—but figuring out how many shows I saw but not for review purposes still strikes me as somewhat interesting. The chronological list of 42 shows is after the jump. (For the record, I only managed to make return visits to five shows this year: About Face's Stupid Kids, Strawdog's Red Noses, the Annoyance's Sodomites!!!, Caffeine's Under Milk Wood and Million Dollar Quartet, which I first saw in 2008.)

Chicago Theater 101 in the Guardian

Last Wednesday, I got a call from an editor at the Guardian asking if I'd be interested in contributing a post about Chicago theater to their Stage blog. They were looking for a quick turnaround in a week that was already very busy here; factoring in the time difference, I had to dash this thing off over a couple of very late nights.

It did feel a little odd to me that I ended up using our current New York exports as a way in, especially given what I'd just written here. But for an audience at the Guardian that has up to now only been reading about theater in London and New York, it seemed like a convenient introduction to why they need to keep up with Chicago theater as well. I think I made a pretty good case. This may or may not become an ongoing thing; let me know what you think.

Critics aren't obligated to support theater we don't like.

I'm reading with some fascination the comment debate on Chris Jones's review of Route 66's High Fidelity, which opened Monday night. I was there, but I'm not reviewing the show for TOC, so I'll leave my own opinions of the show aside until John Beer's review hits on Monday. But the bedrock of the comment by "allison" that kicked off the conversation, and some of the comments that follow, deal in what I consider to be fallacies about a critic's job description; they also address some of what I talked about in my post here earlier this week. Not that he needs it from me, but I feel compelled to defend Chris a bit.

Allison says:

chris, theatre in this country is suffering right now. you are a chicago theatre critic. by your own words "america's hottest theatre city." you are supposed to support and encourage theatre in this town.

Bullshit.

Case Studies in Criticism in the Interactive Age

As you know if you follow my thoughts here, at Time Out Chicago or in my various extracurricular ventures with any regularity, one of my favorite hobby horses is the opportunities that the online world provides for interaction among critics, artists and audiences, and how the internet does and doesn't change the game. A few recent incidents on the East Coast offer good examples and bad examples of critical conversation.

More transition stuff

In case you haven't seen the news at The Theater Loop, where Chris Jones was kind enough to let us make our announcement yesterday, TOC has hired John Beer as our new theater writer. John will be taking over my number-two position as I become theater editor next week. He's a terrific, savvy writer who's been reviewing for the section since late 2005, apart from a couple-year stint in New York where he wrote theater reviews for The Village Voice and all sorts of things for the Brooklyn Rail. His tastes complement my own without mimicking them, and I think he'll be a fantastic addition to the staff.

I would like to take the opportunity to address a couple of comments that came up on the Loop:

Oh good. Heaven knows we need more middle-aged white male critics in Chicago.

I was anticipating this one, for the most part—I think John and I both would object to "middle-aged," but I'll grant you the white male part. I've tried to make it known, in my writing at TOC, panel appearances, the Talk Theatre in Chicago podcast a few weeks back, and here at Storefront, that diversity among critics is something of a pet issue of mine; I hope to expand TOC's stable of freelancers over the next several months, and the folks I've already been in contact with are not all white males.

That said, in order to fill this position relatively quickly and smoothly, we needed someone who didn't need an extended trial run, who already knew the TOC voice, and who was willing to work part time. Which brings us to our next comment:

For anyone paying attention, it seems clear that Time Out's theatre section is in serious trouble in its print form. When announcing Piatt's resignation, the Tribune reported that TOC "assured that new position would be full-time." With this announcement, it is clear the position is part-time. Also, a key reason for Vire's promotion was his interest in the TOC online brand. Something tells me that two years from now, TOC's theatre coverage will be online only, if at all.

The actual quote from the Trib's original reporting, which is still accessible because, news flash, this is the internet, read: "Frank Sennett, editor of Time Out Chicago, said that he plans to hire a replacement for Vire, offering a rare job opportunity for a theater critic." (For purposes of full disclosure, my TOC boss Frank Sennett and Chris Jones are pals going back to their shared tenure at NewCity in the ’90s.)

Note that nobody said at the time the replacement hiring would be full-time. That's because a month ago, when Piatt had just given his notice, we didn't know what the plan was going to be. I was just happy that Frank was committing to hiring a replacement at all. I wasn't surprised when we decided that, given current economic realities, it would be shifted to part-time. I'm delighted that part-time status is actually amenable to John.

What this means is that I'm basically restructuring everything about the way our section is run week-to-week, which is a great segue to the next point of this comment: "For anyone paying attention, it seems clear that Time Out's theatre section is in serious trouble in its print form."

Allow me to put on my new editor's hat here. "For anyone paying attention, it seems clear that print media worldwide is in serious trouble in its print form." FIXED.

Christopher Piatt and I have both strived to be transparent in our processes, which is what a lot of Storefront Rebellion has ended up being about. That's why Christopher has made no bones about the fact that he's less comfortable in the online world than I am, and I made a point of telling Chris Jones that the new writer position would be part-time.

Print space is a decreasing commodity everywhere. Our print listings may not be as fully comprehensive every week as I'd like them to be, but every listing will always be on the site. I'm also looking at the possibility of running some reviews as Web-exclusive, as well as increasing our emphasis on blog content and finding new ways to work with online content that the print mag can't provide. That doesn't mean the theater section will disappear in print—we are still primarily a print product, and my first focus will always be on what subscribers get in their mailboxes—but, given that the theater section gets much of the highest traffic on timeoutchicago.com, I don't think it's the end of the world, either.

---

I can't finish this post without acknowledging that it's the first post here at Storefront in two weeks, and the last was pretty much filler. And the theater section at the TOC blog has been pretty active in that time. So I guess I don't know yet if Storefront can continue in its current form—maybe after I've cleared the transition hurdle, I'll be back with enough energy for both. I hope so. This blog has deepened my relationship to the scene I've been blessed to write about for the last four-plus years, and I hope it can remain. What I'm saying is, keep me in your feed reader, 'cause I hope there's more to come.

---

Also-also? The third of the three comments on the Loop blog as of this posting reads only:

Three cheers for Kris Vire!!!

Um, okay! I don't know what I did to deserve that, but consider yourself deeply thanked, "Thrbuff." I really appreciate it.

Much more on ATC

Following up on my last post on the American Theater Company dustup, let me point you to Kerry Reid's take at PerformInk. I have to agree with the anonymous commenters on the TOC story who've snarked that Kerry's version is much more thorough, though I'll point out that Kerry had about 2,000 more words with which to tell the story than our ~750. Not to mention that as a trade paper, PerformInk (to which I've happily contributed year-end essays for the last two years) gets to assume its readers have insider interest, whereas we at TOC have to make a story accessible for general-interest readers in a much smaller number of words.

That said, Kerry's story jibes with my understanding of the issues based on the nearly two dozen interviews we conducted; I wish we'd had the space to tell it as thoroughly as she does. (And, for those who bring up Steppenwolf, Martha Lavey politely declined my request to weigh in on how to successfully run an ensemble.)

Elsewhere, scheduling quirks resulted in an unusually small three reviews in this week's TOC. My takes on Steppenwolf's Tempest and Chicago Shakespeare's Twelfth Night will run in next week's issue, but I might try to get them online later this week.

American Theater Company's messy divorce

As promised, TOC's take on the ATC/American Blues Theater split.

It isn't nearly so cut-and-dried as you'd guess from the minimal details that were reported elsewhere. There are a lot of hurt feelings involved (news flash: artists can be sensitive), but I do believe this will ultimately be good for everyone.

UPDATE: I posted a bit more at the TOC blog. Feel free to comment over there.

Slow news month

Earlier today, someone left this comment on my last post:

7 blogs in a month... I almost wonder why I've bookmarked Storefront Rebellion. Have you grown tired of blogging?

Sorry if you don't feel like you're getting your money's worth, Alex. It's true, things have been a little light lately. I think it's just that time of the season—we're nearing the end of the cycle; even at TOC we often find ourselves struggling at this time of year to find ways to write about things that don't sound like something we've already written this season. Sometimes I intentionally refrain from saying things here that I'm itching to say because I'm working it up as forthcoming TOC content. And sometimes, yes, I might have something in mind to write about here, and when I get home at 10 or 11 at night after a full day of writing about theater at work and catching a show on the way home, I open up my MacBook and find that writing more about theater is the last thing I want to do.

But here's the thing: I've been blogging for eight years, long enough to know that that feeling comes and goes. Inspiration and enthusiasm come when they come. That's why I've never promised any posting quota and I don't worry about my pageviews here. If I were charging for content or otherwise trying to run Storefront Rebellion as a business, that would be different, but I've never had any illusions about "monetizing" SR or any other Web 2.0 bullshit like that. There are plenty of other blogs that do the business of regurgitating press releases, if that's what you want. I write here when I feel like I have something to say. It's nice to know I have readers who care enough to call me out, but that isn't going to change. Thanks for asking.

Magnolia vs. Cherry Orchard

Nine new reviews up at TOC, including mine of Regina Taylor's Magnolia, which opened at the Goodman tonight. (Like most of the press, I attended last night's final preview.)

I was surprised to discover that Taylor's play is very much a point-for-point adaptation of The Cherry Orchard—a fact that wasn't mentioned in any of the advance press materials. (Through this weekend, you can catch Strawdog's Cherry Orchard to compare and contrast.) Even when Christopher Piatt brought up Chekhov in an interview with Taylor a couple of weeks ago, she didn't own up. Maybe after Drowning Crow, her hip-hop–tinged update of The Seagull, got mixed reviews at the Goodman and Manhattan Theatre Club five or six years ago, all parties decided not to draw attention to it this time around? But once you see Magnolia, there's no two ways around it: The secret's out.

I liked several elements of Anna D. Shapiro's production (her first new work in town since August: Osage County), particularly Todd Rosenthal's deceptively sparse scenic design, though my reference to it in the review had to be cut for print space. (Todd's got his August Tony to keep him warm.) Overall, though, as well as Taylor's transposition of Cherry Orchard works technically, it left me a little cold.

And there's this: I didn't realize until I got the program in my hands that Hollis Resnik is Annette O'Toole's understudy. Now, I've mentioned to more than a few people in the past week how much I like O'Toole and was excited to see her on stage. But how much would I rather see Hollis play that part?