Wrong! It was another performance space. Inside, crews from WildClaw Theater were preparing the tiny black box for that evening’s offering, a play called “Second Skin” that local reviews had called eerie and creepy.
Those were compliments; WildClaw’s aim is to “bring the world of horror to the stage.”
3 comments:
Chicago is a hub for theater activity. It is one of the few places in the nation where theater lovers can find a variety of plays and productions to choose from according to what they might want to see.
It is a place where major productions either take birth or reach new heights of success. This can be attributed to several things. The diverse collection of productions in the area combined with the openness of the audiences to see whatever new the city has to offer. This strength that the city exercises over the audiences and the world map allows Chicago to be in a position where it can attribute or even change the landscape of the theater world.
And it is able to do so because it is doing this one at time: one theater, one genre at a time. The strategy that the city is employing is impressive to the core: enticing the audiences to be eager for their performances one at a time. It is not throwing all that it has to offer in one go: it waits for the audience to grasp the presence of all the available options and choose wisely and review carefully.
Not only is the Chicago theatre scene changing the map of what is considered possible, it’s also spreading. I had the privilege of acting as PSM for a company visiting Holyoke, MA. Most of the people in the company are Puerto Rican, and a major part of their mission is presenting culturally-specific work. When they performed in a MA storefront (in a space only recently reclaimed for habitation), I learned that they were already accustomed to the storefront lifestyle. However, they were also used to having a (limited) set and a full complement of props, and there were many moments in rehearsal when someone stopped, asking where X prop was. The producer and director chose not to let them have all their normal props and costumes, because they felt it made them inflexible as a company, and largely ran counter to what they wanted to be doing. In the world of small, independent theatre companies outside Chicago, there’s often a sense of limitation because of a lack of a dedicated physical space. I think companies like this one and Firebrand, as described in the article, are showing that you really don’t need anything, except an audience, to do impactful, important work.
It was interesting to read about the variety of theater that Chicago has to offer, primarily to “storefront theater movement.” The small scale and the amount of focus that goes into maintaining a mission so concise was fascinating and I was happy to hear that everyone has a place to work on the content that they really care about. Because that is the most important thing an artist can do. If you don’t care about what you’re making, then you shouldn’t be making it.
I was most interested in Red Tape theater. Not only because they aim to make theater accessible to everyone by providing free admission, but because they produce avant-garde and political material. I think theater is inherently political and that a lot of productions nowadays are not taking advantage of their impact and reach. I love the idea of making the audience uncomfortable and making them think. I disagree with the thought that theater is simply a place for entertainment. It should be a thought-provoking piece of art, and whether or not you agree with the message, you should leave feeling something and thinking about why you’re feeling what you’re feeling. Not just “I liked it” or “I didn’t like it.” But why or why not.
Post a Comment