The BackStage Blog

The Conversation

by Matthew Reeder - March 11th, 2010

6 Comments - Join the Conversation »

When Nick Keenan and I were in the early stages of redesigning BSTC’s website, we both agreed early on in the process that the new website should be blog-based.  There were a number of logistical reasons for this, not the least of which were financial.  Like most small theatre companies, we did not have a fortune to invest in the creation of this new website, and in most cases, blogging is pretty affordable.

But the interest in developing a blog-based site went beyond the need to keep our spending in check.  During our brainstorming sessions (primarily directed by the always inspiring Mr. Keenan) we decided that we wanted to use our site to not only promote our mission and our seasons, but to engage directly with our growing audiences.  We wanted to the new site/blog to be a kind of constant conversation between the artists and the audience that make up our theatre family.

Our seasons are a carefully programmed, thematically linked trio of productions that we hope will spark an open conversation between the artists and the audience.  We want our audiences to take part in the conversation; both positive and critical, in the stories that we are, essentially, programming for them.  Our stories are are both a challenge and a gift to those who come to see them.

So today, we are thrilled to unveil a extraordinarily simple but vital new feature of our website.  We are turning on a new feature that will allow our audiences and our artists to respond to each individual show, right on the show page.

What does this mean?

This means that an audience member will be encouraged go to our website after attending a BSTC production and leave a comment, a question or even a mini-review on the very page that is the central hub for information and news on the show.  That means that anyone who buys a ticket to the show through our website (our primary gateway to tickets) will be able to see the user-generated reviews and comments, and the responses left in turn, by the the producing artists: us.  Potential ticket-buyers will be able to see the conversation that is already happening around the shows before they buy their tickets.  The idea is not without risk: it could surely backfire if we don’t live up to the high artistic standards we set for ourselves.  (And we commit ourselves to leaving the negative responses up with the positive.)  But the risk is worth it.   It is an effort to increase transparency: to localize and popularize the narrative surrounding the experiences that our audiences have when attending our shows.  We want our audiences to learn from us, and we want to learn from them.  That is the point of any meaningful conversation.

So here we go!  From here on out, any show you see at BackStage Theatre Company is open for discussion.  Let’s start with Orange Flower Water.  Seen it yet?

If so, tell us what you thought.  Start the conversation.

Matthew Reeder

Artistic Director.

A Farewell From Lemon

by RWHays - December 21st, 2009

2 Comments - Join the Conversation »

ADL Press Small (1 of 1) A Farewell from Lemon…

…I really feel I’ve had a great life, because of what I’ve learned from the people I knew.

– Lemon, “Aunt Dan & Lemon”

At the end of this wonderful adventure with “Aunt Dan & Lemon”, this line is one that leaves the strongest impression, as we finish yet another chapter in the BackStage family story.

I thought about all the lines of logic and argument Lemon and Dan share with the audience, the political, moral, and social considerations and challenges Wallace Shawn presents, and the obvious “family” issues present in Lemon’s childhood.

But as I pondered how I wanted to say goodbye and what words would best convey my feelings about this incomparable experience, what I am left with is the family I gained through this production – “the people I knew”.

Matthew Reeder, Artistic Director of BackStage Theatre, and our fearless leader for “Aunt Dan & Lemon” taught me to have faith in not knowing.  To trust the unseen, the formidable “gray”, and know the truth lies within.

Brenda Barrie showed me an artist’s path that exemplified grace and poise.  Her questions or times where the journey to Dan was less clear were never larger than her quiet strength and determination.

Ron Kuzava is a warrior – an actor who never let a personal challenge interfere with finding and gloriously executing a role made for him.

Eric Paskey is fearless.  Let me tell you, this man knows how to play. He spent many nights in rehearsal owning the room and setting, then raising, the bar for fun.

Anita Deely is an actor that lives in the present – all the time.  I learned how to accept each rehearsal and performance for their own splendid individuality, accomplishment, and success – and released expectation for empty duplications.

Caitlin Emmons reminded me to see things new – from the beginning of an actors’ journey – with anticipation and excitement.  She is eager to learn and wise beyond her years as a result of her brave vulnerability.

Michael Reyes is a force of positivity.  He took each day and saw its gifts.  Our strides and growth as a family were constantly celebrated by him, and our mistakes were brushed away with love.

Jen Poulin, Heath Hays, Brandon Wardell, Tom Haigh, Joanna Melville, Elise Kauzlaric, Geoff Coates & Megan Frei created a magical world for us, and generously listened and addressed every concern and idea.  The ability these artists possess to see a world from several new lenses and then collaborate, bringing the best of each to an astonishing collective whole, reminded me of every piece’s value – seen and unseen.

Our board and donors, our staff, our subscribers – you showed us commitment and dedication in the midst of uncertainty with this controversial play.  Your championing of BackStage Theatre humbles me to be a part of such a strongly supported vision.

Part of finishing a story is accepting you’ve reached the end, but the amazing thing is that still, in my memory, what I’ve learned from the family of “Aunt Dan & Lemon” will continue on and on…

And I will be forever grateful.

Rebekah Ward-Hays

Journey To Dan

by Matthew Reeder - November 23rd, 2009

1 Comment - Join the Conversation »

Brenda BarrieWhen I first met Aunt Dan on the page, it was clear to me that she is passionate and bold, and that she lived her life with an almost violent intensity.  I absolutely fell in love with her free spirit—with her Victorian blouses and nineteenth century men’s caps—and I was drawn in by her worldliness and non-conformance to societal rules.  Aunt Dan seems to let every moment of her life on earth have its richness.  I knew upon my introduction to Aunt Dan that getting to know her was going to be both a treat and a challenge.

Lemon recalls so vividly that some of Aunt Dan’s favorite memories included a week long rendezvous with a married man eating decadent foods and hardly leaving the bed as well as that pivotal moment of falling in love with a woman sitting stark naked on the sofa sharing the secrets of her life.  And just as I was enjoying learning about this interesting woman Lemon calls Aunt Dan, (though of no relation), I was stunned to find this whole other complicated layer.  Something took Aunt Dan off guard, shaking her inner being and coloring the rest of her life–and that something makes her fight hard to give everything she can to Lemon while destroying a very close friendship with Lemon’s mother.

As I got further into the play, it became clear to me that this “wordy” play, as some critics have complained, is rather a complex set of images, thoughts, powerful moments and truths—and though on the surface there’s no action in the play, I’ve learned that the action is in these characters’ hearts and minds—the evolution of the thoughts and emotions is the action.

As I sat with Aunt Dan, taking her on word for word, her firm concepts on war blew me away.  I became afraid of letting myself become this woman on stage.  She faces the heart of conflict and the ugly truths of war dead on and sharply asks “what about the things that would have happened the next day if the bomb hadn’t been dropped?”  She tears downs critics and journalists who mock our country’s leaders, saying they would be begging for help if they found themselves in the middle of the jungle facing the enemy.  She continues to say that these critics and journalists are cowards who never had to make such weighted decisions and instead they live this great way of life that is only possible because of our country’s leaders making grave choices.  Her intense views on Henry Kissinger’s role in the Vietnam War simply shocked me.  I do not share the same views as her, or at least I didn’t think I did at first—and this has been challenging to me as an actor.  How am I supposed to let awful images pour out of my mouth and with such venom?  And such things that people argue to this day are war crimes?

In preparing for rehearsals, I sifted through the events of the Indochina War leading to the Vietnam War and read through excerpts of the book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger.  But then I found that reading the black and white of the war still distanced me from the core of emotional truth that Aunt Dan harbors towards Henry Kissinger and why she so strongly believes in preemptive war.  My homework has had to become more visceral, looking at images and reading personal accounts of Vietnam and even the atomic bombs dropped in WWII.  The more I search to the find the truth in what Aunt Dan’s saying, the more I understand where she’s coming from—and that scares me beyond belief. War is happening right now, but that doesn’t cross our minds as we’re sitting in Starbucks.  I don’t know, it makes sense that I was initially stunned by some of Aunt Dan’s ideas, but they started to make sense.  She says “if there are people attacking our friends in Southeast Asia, you and I don’t have to go over there and fight them with rifles—we just get Kissinger to fight them for us . . . all these other people use force so we don’t have to, so we can sit her in this garden and be incredibly nice.” I had moments where I felt uncomfortable by how much I could begin to understand her perspective.  I have to think–if we believe our friends in another country are being murdered by power hungry people who are confiscating our friends’ farms and raping their children, why wouldn’t we fight to end that?  And if there are only one or two countries where this is happening, why would we wait until the number of countries we’ll have to fight are twice the number we’d have to fight now?

This piece is wildly intimidating–as Wallace Shawn states and doesn’t shy away from, evil triumphs in this play.  It’s as if the actor and audience is asked to let their mind ponder darker thoughts of what would happen if we truly were outright killing for power.  I am thankful that director Matthew Reeder dedicated the entire first week of rehearsals to discussion, table work, and several full read throughs of the play.  We started to dissect and digest this play from the onset, and as we put this play on its feet, the questions and discussions didn’t stop.

This play takes us through some very dark and murky places, but I have to say I am captivated.  I read something somewhere that if it doesn’t scare you, it’s not courageous.  I am sitting here right now so thankful for BSTC’s courage, my fellow cast member’s courage, and I am very much looking forward to seeing the audience take this journey with us.

–Brenda Barrie

Risk and Reward, Part 1

by Aaron Andersen - November 16th, 2009

Leave a Comment »

My least favorite course in business school was Investments. My professor was a lunatic: a paranoid, condescending, insulting lunatic. True story: he once tried to get a stranger arrested for standing in the back of the lecture hall and watching, convinced the stranger was trying to steal secrets worth millions… from an intro investments course. While he does still teach investments in Chicagoland, it is not at my school. I pity those poor kids to the north, though.

Despite Professor Lunatic, I did learn a few things, especially about the definition of risk. Most people in the finance industry publicly define risk as volatility (the variance from what is expected). But this professor insisted that risk is something you should rationally expect to get rewarded for, not just any degree of uncertainty. Every investment entails some risk that you will lose your money, of course. But if you expect the same gain, on average, from two different investments, and one of them has more ups and downs on the way, you’d be stupid to take the more volatile one, right? His point was that risk is what comes with reward, and any additional “risk” beyond that point is not risk–just bad decision making.

Semantics, perhaps? Yes. The English language is rich enough that the word risk can carry with it lots of subtle texture and shading. Half the time, when I hear the word risk, I think of Kamchatka. But lets get to the lesson from this. We mentally connect risk and reward, as well we should! Great rewards often require great risks. Getting married is a pretty big risk in this culture. The rational approach to marriage is not to insist that a couple is immune to this risk for whatever reason. The rational approach is to determine whether the potential rewards from marriage are worth the risk. That is not only rational, but much more romantic.

See? There is romance in rationality. Which brings us to theatre. Theatre carries LOADS of risk. Each practitioner risks economic stability, mental health, and relationships. Each company risks economic stability, reputation, and audiences. Audience members risk their consumable income and their time. Donors risk the chance to support somebody else that will reflect better on them, and foundations even risk their mission. Why? Don’t give me “for the love.” We all take these risks because we think that we’re going to get something profound in return. If we don’t think we’re going to get something profound in return, truly, then it isn’t really a risk–just bad decision-making.

And, so what? How should theatre approach decision-making that contains uncertainty? How do you choose a season or a new AD? Or decide to go for your first Equity contract? Or try to take a production to NYC?

  1. Decide what rewards you really want. This hopefully, goes beyond survival as a company. More on this in part 2.
  2. Look at each path towards your goals, and figure out what risks will be required to get you there. Whenever you have multiple roads to the same goal, be smart and choose the one with the least volatility. Don’t take a risk that doesn’t have a bigger, and more preferred, payoff than your less risky option. This will help keep the drama onstage.
  3. Examine all the risks you’re currently taking, and determine which ones take you to rewards you really don’t want (or the ones that don’t take you anywhere).  As we’d say in investing, close those positions. Realize that was a bad decision, and get out of it.

Part 2 will discuss some examples, particular to Chicago storefront theatre. If you’d like to contribute to that discussion, or weigh-in on this one, please comment below!

Aunt Dan and Lemon: Stepping Into The Dark.

by Matthew Reeder - October 6th, 2009

7 Comments - Join the Conversation »

I admit with a certain amount of professional anxiety that I am about to embark upon a theatrical journey that scares the life out of me.  Here I am, sitting at my desk just hours before the first read-through of Aunt Dan and Lemon, nursing the feeling that already, this play has executed a kind of preemptive strike upon my artistic sensibilities and has, to a certain degree, prevailed. It is very disconcerting for a director to stare at a script that he has read a zillion times over and still have so many damned unanswered questions.

When they are staged, Wallace Shawn’s rarely-produced plays tend to garner a lot of critical praise, but John Simon, critic for New York Magazine, famously hates this play. And on a surface level, his criticisms have merit. Aunt Dan and Lemon seems to be completely unconcerned with the universal rules of playwriting. The play has nothing that might resemble traditional dramatic action, has little dramatic conflict and offers very little in the way of answers for the myriad questions it raises throughout the course of the evening.

And yet, after that very first reading nearly a year ago, I was left absolutely gobsmacked at the final page.  This play has no right to be as compelling as it is.  It has no right to succeed.

After several weeks of attempting to invent for myself a million pragmatic reasons why programming this play would be a huge mistake, I brought this play to our ensemble for a reading.  The truth is, those well-formed, pragmatic excuses were steadily losing the battle against the ghostly whispers that lingered in the crevices of my brain every time I read the thing.  The ensemble reading was, I guess, an attempt to excorsize those whispers, so I could shelf this beast and move on.  It couldn’t possibly hold up in a reading.

But of course, it backfired beautifully.  The ensemble reading was a monster.  This astonishing play was even more compelling and mysterious and frightening when it was read out loud.  What was worse, it was perfectly castable within our own ensemble and the play fit our mission like a glove and was easily producible on our shoestring budget.  It was a done deal.  There was no going back.

In the months that followed, the unanswered questions that linger around the edges of this play are still thick and palpable, and the question of its ability to “succeed” has made me question the set of parameters by which a play’s success is typically measured.  Does a piece of theatre really “succeed” only by engaging in the high drama of conflict?  Is a play “successful” only if it tells its story through riveting action?  I remember the mantra of one of my early playwrighting teachers:  ”Show us, don’t tell us.”

In most cases, I believe these Artistotlian rules of drama to be of enormous use to playwrights, and in most cases, plays with little propulsive action, little conflict and that offer very little in the in the way of stabilizing resolutions are doomed to fail miserably on the stage.  Not only are these the basic guiding principles of drama, but they are tools that we as human beings employ every day as a means to organizing our very real world.  What Shawn does by eschewing these typical rules of dramatic organization is remind us that real life is rarely lived in high conflict; that despite the constant influx of information from every conceivable source, sometimes the most dangerous ideas are passed in the form of whispers from people who are closest to us.

Come closer, this play seems to ask.  Step inside.  Listen carefully, and dare not to be spellbound.  John Simon is right:  ”nothing happens” on the stage.  But this is not an arbitrary decision.  Shawn, by asking the audience to listen deeply, seems to be more concerned about what happens in the troubled consciences and hungry souls of his audience as they are pulled closer to the heart of Lemon’s secret.  When Wallace Shawn claims that Aunt Dan & Lemon is “about the audience,” he means it.

This is going to be one hell of a journey for everyone involved.  It’s been a long time since I have felt so excited and so beautifully freaked-out before I began a process.

It is time to clench my fists and step into the dark.