The Chemically Imbalanced Theater Project (sic) has a new show up at the Cornservatory in Chicago that offers some interesting views on extreme behavior, it's entrance into the mainstream, what happens when we ignore issues and behaviors that are outside the lines.
The show revolves around a 4 year's play subject and patterns during one evening while her mother is on a date. She consistently paints vignettes of disturbing and dysfunctional behavior overlaid with her own character's desparate desire for cookie cutter normalcy in the form of mother/father/child playing at 'house' and the introduction of structure where none is likely to occur naturally. The child's characters are all grown, foul mouthed and desparately unhappy, with the startling exception of a truly suicidal 5 year old playmate who is coaxed into the standard, if depressed behavior of the typical American, sport loving, junk food eating male. Ok, I admit it, if the child characters were only about 4 years older, it would be more believable.
Oddly intriguing is the fact that another (not to be named) company is mounting this show in Chicago opening April 5. First, why do multiple companies want to do the same show? I think this is because they do not know who else is doing what else, and hot shows are always of interest. More to the point, the topics covered are truly gripping, universal, the subject has been handled well by the dramatist. This show made me (and other lunatics in the audience) laugh. Sounds callous. Well we weren't, trust me.
Once again I am falling prey to the idea of being ambushed. The point of this show is that these kids are acting out the adult neediness around them. The adults pretend they have no angst so they can elude the guilt gripping them. The kids show us in the fourth wall section what's real.
6 comments:
Having neither read nor seen this play, let me ask a few questions to get started. The playwright incidentally grew up in Grand Rapids--so much for where I live. I think he is also the author of Vigils recently seen at the Goodman. But I could be wrong.
But back to basics.
1. How much reality would you say lives inside these characters or have they been overly manipulated for theatrical and/or ideological effect? In other words, this is a question about character via personhood--the nature of the life inside people not just the ideas they come to represent. In essence, this is both a writing and an acting/directing question. Someone said comics say funny things, comedians make things funny. These are potentially two different types of characters, two different kinds of extremism, and two different modes of crafting.
2. What holds everything together in this play? The work seems to possess a legion of stuff. What unifies everything? In other words, what is the nature of the structure with its inmplied through lines? Put another way-- how does structure in this work serve as a unifying device/force/magnet so that the writing/acting generates an ongoing, rolling, cumulative effect? Or do we have here an interesting play full of funny bits and actions where one laughs momentarily and then moves on to something else--another bit likewise with little before and after?
3. On the issue of dysfuction and its connection to culture--I find all of this very interesting. So now the follow up question: How does the playwright move from dysfunctional people [child, parents, playmate, friends]to dysfunctional culture? Are there implied parallels in the play? Have dysfunctional people been turned into symbols? Is it mostly verbal quips? Or specific kinds of actions? In other words what do these dysfunctional people illuminate/subtly comment on/elborate with regard to actual cultural dysfunction in the society. Or do the cultural connections remain very broad generalities? What role then is the audience asked to play in all of this? I guess in the end this is a craft sort of question, that is, how does one generate humor that has social relevance, is broad in scope, and yet avoids over-generalization? No small trick. One answer in terms of "Mr. Marmalade" is that its author, while gifted, does perhaps over-generalize--that is, he lacks craft at a certain level. He hints at cultural connections/dysfunction but does not effectively link the pieces together, nor does he explore the twin dysfunctions as twins. I should note here that this is not a call for literalism. Rather, it's a call for aesthetics and method, a special way of hinting. Of course, I may also have missed the boat here.
4. As for the cultural elment per se--what is the nature of the cultural dysfuction [extremism] that creates a hypothetical Lucy, and who/what is responsible for her creation? Moreover, where in the culture is Lucy's brand of extremism most clearly seen? Yes--I also want to know how Lucy gets into the mainstream. Oh,dear. Lucy's become a culture war.
5. Is it too farfetched to see this play as a 21st century attempt to look again "Through the Looking Glass?" Poor Alice, she's morphed into Lucy.
Thanks for all the stimulation. Now I want to see the play.
It will be interesting to see if the second production is Jeff recommended on April 5. I'll probably go see it if that is the case.
These comments form a terrific thinking spot for me to start work on an additional post to answer some of your points.
Challenge: how about writing a post on aesthetics?
Hi Gillian,
Its Angie from Chemically Imbalanced Comedy. Thank you so much for your nice comments on the show. I was really surprised to come across them. I was a bit sad that we didn't get Jeff Recommended for this show and was worried it would not be recived well. We did get Highly Recommended by the Chicago Reader this morning and with your nice words it put my mind at ease.
I would love to repost your blog entry on our blog if it is ok with you. Just let me know.
As far as why two groups are doing the same show here is an article in this mornings Reader that will explain it a bit better:
The Two Mr. Marmalades
Chemically Imbalanced Comedy scoops Dog & Pony Theatre Company on a Chicago premiere.
By Deanna Isaacs
Krissy Vanderwarker is –to be polite about it- a little bummed. She’s been waiting three years for her date with Mr. Marmalade and wasn’t expecting to have to share him. As artistic director of Dog & Pony Theatre Company, which prides itself on staging local premieres, Vanderwaker had been chasing the Noah Haidle play-about a precocious four-year-old and her problematic imaginary companion, Mr. Marmalade- ever since Orange Country’s South Coast Repertory first performed it in 2004. “We have friends out there who keep an eye out, and they said, ‘You have to go after this script,”’ Vandrewarker says. “We got our hands on a copy, read it, and promptly started asking for the rights.”
According to Vanderwarker, Dramatists Play Service withheld rights until after the lay opened in New your (at the off-Broadway Laura Pels Theater in November 2005), and then a little longer, probably hoping that and Equity house might want it. Itinerant three-year-old Dog & Pony finally got the rights last spring and immediately set to work on the proposal to mount the show at the city’s Storefront Theater. The city accepted the proposal in May, and Vanderwakere says Dog & Pony then announced the run in a press release and on their Web site. They also listed it in PerformInk’s annual new-season guide, which came out in September. It was then they discovered their production would not be the Chicago premiere. According to Performink, Mr. Marmalade also had a date with Chemically Imbalanced Comedy at the Cornservatory. CIC opened their show March 22 (reviewed this week in Section 2), while Dog & Pony’s will open April 5. Both productions run through the end of next month.
“We called Dramatists Play Service to make sure our contract was still valid with them, and we were assured it was,” Vanderwarker says. Beyond that, there wasn’t much to do. Dramatists Play service doesn’t notify companies of such conflicts, and non-Equity Theaters don’t qualify for exclusive production rights. Even if they had qualified, Vanderwarker says, it would have been too expensive. The possibility that another production could crop up next to theirs is “a risk we take every time we do a play,” she says. Since Dog & Pony was locked into its arrangement with the city, a change in lineup didn’t seem feasible either. But maybe Chemically Imbalanced could be flexible? In October, Dog & Pony literary manger Jarrett Dapier e-mailed CIC to suggest, ever so diplomatically, that they consider producing their Mr. Marmalade after the D&P show closes May 5.
CIC’s executive Producer Angie McMahon responded with an equally diplomatic no, explaining that her company had already signed contracts with the Cornservatoy and arranged for playbill advertisers. Dapier, undeterred, floated another possibility; given that Dog & Pony’s mission is producing premieres, and “a lot of our funding is dependent on following through on this claim,” perhaps CIC, in a charitable gesture, could postpone its production until the next year? “Is this something your company would be willing to do for us? Dapier asked.
For McMahon, history was repeating itself. In early 2006, CIC got the rights to Christopher Durang’s Betty’s Summer Vacation for a September production, then discovered that Infamous Commonwealth Theatre would be producing it on exactly the same dates. In that case McMahon backed off, substituted another during play in her lineup, and turned the potential conflict into a four-theater Durang minifestival, cooperatively marketed. This time, she says, “I wasn’t willing to change my season again-nobody’s willing to change their season for me, and we had already started our marketing. I asked if Dog & Pony wanted to do a cross-promotion-you go see one Marmalade, come to another for $5 off or something-but they weren’t interested.” That was the end of it.
McMahon notes that Dog & Pony is getting some pretty nice perks for its show; free marketing by the city and a League of Chicago Theatres “Theater Thursdays” slot that she coveted. Besides that, she says, come reviewers seem to be ignoring the first two weeks of her show, perhaps biding their time until they can file double reviews. Vanderwarker, who says her schedule won’t allow her to take in CIC’s production, is trying to put it out of mind. “This would have been our fifth premiere in a row,” she says. “But we’ve been in love with this script and chasing the rights for so long, we’re just going to keep focused on what we’re doing and our interpretation.”
McMahon thinks the venues will appeal to different audiences; people who want a “big evening” downtown wouldn’t come “slumming in the boroughs,” she says. But maybe, drawn by the chance to make caparisons (and primed by America Idol), they will. Haidle’s dark comedy delivers inventive social commentary and features over-the-top characters. Which four-year-old is more annoying? Which Marmalade more toxic and delicious? Which of his personal assistants prances off with the show? With everybody wired, it seems theater companies could avoid the sort of conflict, But it might be fun.
angie@cicomedy.com
I am going to try to see "Mr. Marmalade" when the play comes back in April. You have me intrigued. It will also be interesting to compare it with "Vigils" to see whether or not I can find a "voice"--actually a fairly hard task. You, on the other hand, will have the advantage of comparing two productions of the same play. That too should be interesting.
Appreciate being able to read Angie's post. Fills in lots of stuff.
As for aesthetics, I appreciate the challenge. It has become such a broad discipline, but I will try to find different angles on aesthetic topics as posts come my way. This should be an interesting twist for me. Thanks for the push...big push!
Just in case you didn't get enough in my last post here is another article about the situation from performink:
In the case of Chemically Imbalanced Comedy and Dog & Pony, the issue is decidedly thornier, in part because of conflicts Chemically Imbalanced had with two other productions earlier in the planning process. Angela McMahon, executive producer for Chemically Imbalanced, read Haidle’s scabrous comedy about Lucy, a little girl with an unsavory imaginary friend (the role of Lucy was originated by Mamie Gummer, daughter of Meryl Streep), when it was published in the February 2005 issue of American Theatre. McMahon had originally hoped to produce the show in September 2006, but was denied nonprofessional rights by Dramatists Play Service because of the local professional debut of Haidle’s play Vigils at the Goodman in October.
McMahon then obtained nonprofessional rights to Christopher Durang’s Betty’s Summer Vacation and announced it as part of the company’s 2006-07 season. However, when she contacted the League to schedule a “Theatre Thursday” event with the Durang play, she was informed that Infamous Commonwealth Theatre Company had already scheduled an event with the same show during the same time period. CIC decided to go with another Durang play, The Vietnamization of New Jersey, which, though dating from the 1970s, had never been produced locally (though it did open in a New York revival in January of this year).
Says McMahon, “When I contacted Dramatists to ask them about the duplicate rights for Betty’s Summer Vacation, they said that they don’t protect amateur rights. They only worry about professional rights.”
That could not be confirmed with the play licenser. Lack of response on the part of Dramatists Play Service seems to be standard operating procedure. PerformInk made numerous attempts to contact Craig Pospisil, director of nonprofessional rights, and his assistant Danna Call, for comment for this article. They did not return calls or e-mails.
The earlier Durang play ended up doing well for Chemically Imbalanced, in part because they participated with Infamous Commonwealth, Next Theatre, and Oracle Productions in the “Fall of Durang” cross-marketing initiative, which highlighted the fact that all four companies were producing Durang shows in the fall of 2006 and offered discounts to audience members who saw the other Durang pieces.
McMahon then went ahead and obtained the rights in August 2006 for a winter production of Mr. Marmalade, and announced the show in PerformInk’s season preview issue of Sept. 15. Which is where Dog & Pony enters the picture.
Krissy Vanderwarker, artistic director for Dog & Pony, says that her company first did a reading of Haidle’s play in spring of 2005, and obtained the rights in March 2006. The company, which is itinerant, had been in talks with the city’s Department of Cultural Affairs about taking a slot at the Storefront, and their proposal to stage Mr. Marmalade there was formally accepted in May 2006.
“We knew that we were applying for the nonprofessional rights,” says Vanderwarker. “We had no illusions that they were exclusive. We had no idea that they would allow two productions at the same time, especially since we are a company devoted to doing new work. Our funding depends on that, our identity is based on premiering new work in Chicago.” The company has, among other productions, staged the local premieres of two Sheila Callaghan plays, Crumble (Lay Me Down, Justin Timberlake) and Dead City.
Upon reading the PerformInk season preview issue, Vanderwarker noticed that Chemically Imbalanced also planned to do the show and she contacted McMahon, who, though sympathetic, was not interested in re-jiggering her season yet again. “They contacted me and said, ‘We got a grant for doing the Chicago premiere,’” says McMahon. “Understandably, they’re upset that this is happening. They said, ‘We’ve already publicized this.’ And I said, ‘Well, so did we. You read about it.’”
The situation for these two companies is exacerbated by the fact that neither has much flexibility in when they can produce. Chemically Imbalanced is in residence at the Cornservatory and mostly does late-night shows – they have to schedule their mainstage offerings around those of their landlord, Corn Productions.
“If I wanted to run this as a late-night show, I’m not going to get the Jeff committee, and I’m not getting the same audience,” says McMahon. And as noted, Dog & Pony had already booked a slot with the Storefront Theatre.
The conventional wisdom might dictate that whichever show opens first will have the publicity edge. But McMahon notes that there is a tendency on the part of theatre editors to run side-by-side reviews of simultaneous productions, which might harm her Marmalade if they don’t get reviewed until later in the run. She says she did approach Dog & Pony about doing some cross marketing similar to the “Fall of Durang,” but they turned her down.
Says Vanderwarker, “We don’t see a huge benefit to that [for us]. It’s not because of any sort of negativity. We hope that our success in the past and the fact that we’re in the Storefront will help. We’re hoping from the media perspective that people will come and treat the show with the same critical eye that they would have under normal circumstances. Everyone’s goal is to give the public a better idea of what they should be spending time and money to see. We’re not really interested in fostering a competition.”
The League doesn’t keep a master season schedule, though they do maintain the opening nights calendar. “We sent our show forms to the League as soon as we heard from [DCA],” says McMahon. “This was locked and loaded long before. I’m not sure how to avoid this situation in the future unless there was some sort of citywide dialogue. And that seems unviable, since people are always vying for new scripts.”
McMahon notes that when they were first planning Mr. Marmalade for fall 2006, they found out that BackStage Theatre Company had also hoped to do the show. And Vanderwarker tried to get the nonprofessional rights for Rolin Jones’s The Intelligent Design of Jenny Chow, but was turned down because Collaboraction (which is currently producing the play) already had the professional rights. Says Vanderwarker of their Mr. Marmalade, “This would have been our fourth or fifth Chicagoland premiere in a row. Ultimately, the saddest thing about this is that it just fosters an environment of comparison and competition. We should be developing our audiences together as a community, rather than splintering it.”
So given that the licensing companies don’t bother to inform nonprofessional theatres about competing productions and the information available through the League is sometimes incomplete, what can be done? Right now, the onus seems to fall upon those companies seeking nonprofessional rights to ask up front if anyone else in the region has obtained rights for a show – and hope that the licensing companies will give them a straight and timely answer. “It’s such a failing business model,” says Vanderwarker. “How can you run a theatre company devoted to new works if you can’t get exclusive rights?”
Angie,
Gillian here, let me know how to contact you (email address) and make one private disclosure. Then we can get cooking on posting anything helpful I can say. I find that in my newness to blogging, I didn't expect anyone other than some pals to be looking at my posts just yet.
Thanks!
Post a Comment