This year is an especially robust one, but every year hundreds of artists take to Chicago's stages in hopes of launching the next “Spamalot” or “August: Osage County.” The million-dollar question: What makes Chicago a magnet for unknown plays? The short answer is that money goes further here, audiences are more welcoming, critics are less powerful and the talent bench is deep.
12 comments:
I wasn’t aware that Chicago provided tax breaks to incentivize starting shows there before Broadway. Even so, I understood that it obviously is less expensive to premiere in Chicago (or really anywhere but New York). I’m not surprised that Chicago audiences are more adventurous than Broadway audiences. Broadway is associated is star power and finished works, basically the Tonys, and that sells tickets. I had never considered the impact of strong journalism on theatre. I agree that there is a correlation, but I’m not sure if it is a good thing. On the one hand, it’s dull to produce a cookie-cutter show for fear a publicized misstep, but at the same time, I don’t think that critics should just be nicer. The initial critical reception can help improve a show before a Broadway run. I think that the benefit of Chicago critics isn’t that they are more forgiving, but that their words don’t carry the same weight as the New York Times.
Such an interesting article!! I knew Chicago was on the theatre map, but I had no idea that it has such a niche. It's inspiring to know that there is a place in this country that exists as a hub for new, professional theatre. The article lays out the reasons for this pretty logically. One of the most interesting reasons to me was that there is no NY Times in Chicago. This seems like a perfectly valid reason to me. I know in directing class we'll read reviews of shows from the NY Times. Having a review in the NY Times carries a lot of weight, people from all over the country might read it. The other reason that was particularly interesting to me was the tax breaks for bridging to Broadway. I don't entirely understand how the tax break works, but apparently it works for Chicago's theatre scene. This article is very interesting and informative. It is, however, a little too "too my own horn" as it is written by a Chicago based editorial. I wonder if more recent theatre college graduates will move to Chicago. Maybe it would even be beneficial to start bringing showcase to Chicago?
I think this is absolutely wonderful to hear. I love the New York theatre scene and how it brings such creative and talented people to one area, however I think it is just as important that more people than those who can afford to live in or travel to New York are getting to see theatre. I’ve heard such great things about Chicago and more specifically the audiences and the design there. I know that numerous Carnegie Mellon alumni have gone to have successful careers in the Chicago theatre scene. I have to guess it is because the industry there is just the right size. You can gain recognition quickly, but there are so many creative, innovative designers. I’ve also heard that Chicago has such a range of productions. It has it’s “Off-off” stuff and its huge musicals. The balance is what is so important in creating a dynamic, thriving theatre audience of varying demographics.
I think it's great that I'm learning more and more about different theater scenes all over the U.S. and the world. Coming from New York City, I was automatically thrown into the theater capital's theater world. However, after coming to Pittsburgh, even seeing the theater world here is amazing because there is so much more than I would have expected. Now, being one of the biggest cities in the U.S., it's a no-brainer that Chicago would be one of the next up and coming theater hubs. This is a great thing because people living in the the entirety of the mid-west don't have to travel all the way to Broadway on NYC to experience theater. I'm still a little shocked how fast Chicago was hit with all these shows. We could all see it happening here on the blog since every week there was some sort of article that explained how another big show was premiering in Chicago and now here we are, Chicago is dubbed as the world premiere capital.
After reading this article, i have only one thing to say-Pittsburgh, take note. While becoming like the windy city in this regard is simpler than picking more new plays to perform, I think Pittsburgh truly has room to grow when it comes to more wide-scale adoption of new works. The author of this article makes some very good points about the reasons why Chicago is able to do what it does, ranging from the sheer size of its collective theatrical audience(much larger than Pittsburgh's-suffice to say, the diminished power of critics, and Chicago's wellspring of performance talent. While Pittsburgh does not have the size of Chicago, the theatrical resources available to companies in the three rivers area is certainly impressive. From the talent powerhouse that is Carnegie Mellon, and the competitive theater programs at universities like Pitt and Point Park, the amount of New talent in Pittsburgh would certainly give Chicago a run for its money.
There's also the matter of the number of independent, high-quality theater companies within the city, who consistently produce new and challenging work. While Pittsburgh doesn't have the size of Chicago, the amount of theater in this city packs a powerful punch, and should be taken into account by playwrights looking to showcase new works.
I have never really thought about Chicago as a theater powerhouse, however now that i am being exposed to more and more theater, I can start to understand why it may be the number one place to premiere a new work. While the spotlight on Broadway is a great thing for ticket sales and interest in theater, it also could limit the shows they would play. I think there is also something to be said for Chicago's ability to host this many shows at the same time, week after week, you hear about the next new show premiering in Chicago, and you never hear about Chicago being unable to host a show. thus i guess they deserve the title of premiere capital.
I knew Chicago had a very robust and exciting theatre scene, but I never thought about what made it that way. I think it's amazing that Chicago's theatre community is so dedicated and supportive of new works being produced. It's so important that people of the theatre world encourage the development of new work. Theatre is forever evolving and that should never stop. I find it really interesting that a tax break is offered to new productions produced in Chicago. Easing some of that financial burden is what can keep art alive.
Even before I read this article I was extremely interested in working in Chicago one day. A guy I worked with in a theatre back home encouraged me almost daily to go out and work in Chocago. For me, there's nothing more thrilling than being at the forefront of the creation of new theatre; and in a city where creativity and risk-taking is encouraged and funded.
I must say that I am surprised at the magnitude in which this article discusses Chicago’s theatre life. I always knew that it was a theatre hub for the world but never did I think it would be titled premiere capital. It is great to see the deep talent and how motivated people are to see the plays. I always thought charismas time was about musicals and seeing seasonal shows but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t spend a weekend night watching a new work. It is nice to see that Chicago has the range of a multi-million-dollar playhouses to off off off loop stages pretty much covering every type of stage there is. Sadly, I have never had the opportunity to reap the benefits of this theatrical petri dish but I hope theatre life during this time continues to boom and one day I will have the ability to see it for myself and maybe even get the opportunity to work on a piece.
Chicago is the perfect incubator for theater that is meaningful. A lot of theater for change is too risky to be a big broadway money maker and experimental theater succeeding on broadway is rare. Shows like fun home have paved the way, but we still have a long way to go. It's nice to see that Chicago is making efforts to keep this quality theater going like giving tax breaks. Historically, providing incentives has worked well for encouraging the arts. Chicago captures a perfect crowd that isn't strongly influenced by critics, as the article says, and therefore gives the show time to grow without being under the watchful eye of the New York Times. Finally, these shows actually have space and money to work. Small shows can't go as far in New York because everything is so expensive to produce and upkeep.
I think it’s really great that new works have found a place: Chicago. However it is a shame that the feel other cities are uninviting until you have a finished product. The process is often times so much of what theater is about. We write and rewrites, design and redesign, rehearse and rehearse again and never figure it out on the first try. Every so often, there might be a brilliant idea on the first try, but through collaboration the idea is refined and worked on until it is even better. The process is what creates the work and I think that more people need to be okay with seeing part of the process rather the just the finished result. In the end, we learn from the process rather the the result. I wish that other cities would be as encouraging as Chicago seems to be but never the less it's great that be have Chicago for theses new works to flourish.
As someone who premiered, along with some CMU friends, a new work in Chicago, I wholeheartedly agree that it is a warm, welcoming place for new works. Just by virtue of the amount of spaces and companies that are willing to put on or help facilitate new work make it an outstanding destination for up and coming theatre companies who want to try new things. The article uses the names of some theatres I'm aware of, in terms of producing small, more intimate works, but also brings up War Paint, which was a huge show at the Goodman that is currently bound for Broadway, which I think defeats the purpose of "new theatre". Theatre that is part of the Broadway machine, even though the exact show may be new, tends to lean towards being the same star-vehicle belt-fest we are used to, and, as such, aren't really "new theatre". Companies like looking glass are more in line with what I expect from new Chicago theatre, since they are a smaller-scale theatre that still have the resources to give new work the base they deserve and the chance to truly succeed amongst the heavy-hitters like Steppenwolf.
I first learned about Chicago’s strong theatre scene when I was applying to Depaul, and it is really interesting to see how a city with so much new, small theatre going on also attracts the big premiers. The idea that the audiences are adventurous definitely makes sense. Premiering on Broadway is hard because you have to appeal to the tourist crowd. If you’re visiting NYC and are going to see one show, are you going to take a risk or play it safe? Many will play it safe.
It’s interesting that the priority of money is a significant enough difference between the two cities. The fact that Chicago has many opportunities and the financial support for new works sets a good example, and shows clear benefits. Allowing new works to develop and speak for themselves is important to creating art that isn’t just economically motivated. I also think that the note on Chicago having a nurturing community of theatre artists an interesting point. Is NYC that much more competitive?
The limited influence of critiques is an angle I did not expect. While critiques play an important part in chronically productions, and informing the public about them, I don’t like to read reviews before seeing a performance. I’d rather see a show because it was recommended by word-of-mouth, and not have my experience spoiled by a critique’s opinion. That said, I sometimes will read a review after having seen the production, to compare opinions. I think reviews are often most useful when you’re researching a production 20+ years later.
Post a Comment