The Trouble With Theatre in Chicago

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/28/06 at 12:57pm

From the Tribune review of 110 in the Shade:

"A Broadway revival of '110 in the Shade' is planned for spring 2007, starring Audra McDonald, but it's hard to imagine it being much better than what's on display in this short local run, directed and choreographed for Light Opera Works by Rudy Hogenmiller."

I will preface to say that my boyfriend and I went to this show (though luckily, paid half-price, so we did not feel totally robbed) on the basis that we saw the Light Opera Works production of Candide a couple of years ago and it was stunning.

We left this awful production at intermission. It was bad community college at best. There were a couple of good actors, notably Stan Q. Walsh and James Rank, but the direction and choreography were hideous (artistic director also served as director and choreographer). With a sparse set, the director attempted to create spaces that were not clearly defined and left us baffled as to whether the characters were indoors or outdoors. The same house in one scene seemed to be indoors (unless the family have a tendency to undress outdoors and leave their clothes lying around outside) and yet the exact same set (consisting of a door and window flown in and a wooden bench set downstage) had people running on and off through what was previously established as the walls and windows in every direction. A simple change in placement in the same set pieces (or even just the bench) could have clued in the audience that we were still at the same house, but in a different location. This was just one of the many examples in the lack of creativity in this production.

The choral singing was ok, but while Lizzie was on pitch, her tone was quite affected with a somewhat nasally foghorn quality that produced a wince-worthy sound totally devoid of emotion, expression and character. This probably could have been fixed early in rehearsal, but it appears the director did nothing other than basic blocking and first-grade recital choreography, and then run-thoughs until opening night. And unfortunately, this is par for the course for the majority of theatre in the city of Chicago. And as usual, it gets heaps of praise simply because of the reputation of the company and/or the director (who mysteriously won Jeff awards, but then so did the recent production of Parade, so that cannot be much of an indication of anything, either).

I get the feeling either the critic has friends in the show or didn't see it at all. And unfortunately, this happens CONSTANTLY in Chicago. I have been burned on too many shows from glowing reviews of obvious crap. So how is anyone able to determine if a show in the Chicago area is good?

If it weren't for the delightful production of A New Brain by the La Costa Theatre Company, I might have given up on Chicago theatre entirely. With just a couple of forgiveable flaws, they pulled off a moving, energetic, emotionally charged show on a shoestring budget. There were a couple of new takes on characters and staging while leaving the intent of the original intact. This little company of low (or non) paid actors wiped the floor with Light Opera Works, which employs Equity actors as well as a full orchestra of musicians. After almost four years, small groups liek Backstage or La Costa could possibly convince me to go back to the stage. But these glittering little companies are few and far between, whereas the critics want you to assume they are as common as Irish Pubs in the windy city. Boy, do they lie....
`Shade' is nearly a note-perfect show

[uncamark]

Posted: 8/31/06 at 8:31pm

And we're supposed to take seriously the comments of someone who uses as his sig a quote from a CW reality show.

Exactly what Chicago theater have you seen--have you seen any straight plays, or are musicals all you've seen?

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 8/31/06 at 9:29pm

I've only been in Chicago for a year, but as someone who grew up in New York, I can tell you that people in Chicago theater simply have lower expectations. And how could they not? If you're a New Yorker and you see Broadway shows all the time, of course a production like Light Opera Works' "110 in the Shade" (which I saw) is going to seem less fantastic in comparison. But it's unfair to compare all theater to Broadway shows. Most regional theater productions don't have multi-million dollar budgets and therefore can't always afford to have amazing sets and cream-of-the-crop actors (although frequently, they do). That's also why tickets cost less. Although Light Opera Works charged Broadway ticket prices for their production (which I admit, was far too much money), unless you're seeing something at the Goodman or something, you're paying, at the most, half of what you would for orchestra seats to a Broadway show. And generally, you get what you pay for.

But Chicago theater is still great, and I've seen stuff here, even non-Equity productions, that were as good as anything I've seen on Broadway. And also, I've seen stuff that was very amateurish. But you will find that in theater wherever you go, even on Broadway (David Hasselhoff, anyone?). Yes, of course, generally speaking, Broadway theater is at a higher standard than regional theater. Yes, it is true that Chris Jones and Hedy Weiss (yes, Hedy too) often fawn all over productions that would have been crucified in New York. But that's why Broadway is Broadway, and regional theater is regional theater. And as far as regional theater goes, Chicago is at the top of the heap.

P.S.--I agree that the set for 110 in the Shade sucked, but with the exception of the woman who played Lizzie (who, frankly, just wasn't very good), I thought the rest of the production was excellent. And this is coming from a highly critical (former) New Yorker
Updated On: 8/31/06 at 09:29 PM

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

Posted: 8/31/06 at 9:36pm

Some harsh wards...

I LOVE 110, I think it's just a great show, but I have not seen this production. The production I saw (in Houston) was amazing.

[uncamark]

Posted: 9/1/06 at 10:30am

And I have to admit on my part that I found LOW's "110" mediocre in the extreme. I was hoping that Elizabeth Haley was just off that night, because she's done solid work in the past.

The reason for those LOW ticket prices are because you're paying for those 28 pieces in the pit, who are all AFofM stalwarts, even if LOW is not really an Equity operation (it does guest artist contracts for key roles and a CAT contract for its fall studio show in the inhospitable former grade school auditorium in Evanston it uses--its operetta productions generally don't use any Equity actors).

And that may be a lingering problem--LOW was founded not so much as an American musical theater company but as a home for Gilbert & Sullivan and mittel European operettas. It only started doing American musicals because the operetta audience is aging--really aging. LOW's audience still skews more elderly than some other theaters (a lot of canes and walkers the night I was there). Because of that skew, they tend to be more conservative in their tastes and appreciate pretty sets and costumes, pretty voices and non-electronic musical instruments more than they do innovation or bold artistic moves. And when three of your four shows every season only have two-week runs, you have to tailor the product to that audience. LOW will never do "Rent" or "Godspell" or "Hair" in our lifetimes.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 9/1/06 at 2:09pm

Yeah, I too figured that what we were really paying for was the 28-piece orchestra. Thankfully I got half-priced industry tickets!

[Popular]

Posted: 9/1/06 at 2:13pm

I didn't read the previous posts, but I have to say that the problem with Chicago theatre is that I don't have a ticket to Pirate Queen when it gets there!! HUGE problem, someone fix this immediately :) thanks