Parabasis

Two Broadway Blurbs

I just saw Passing Strange last night, and let me say, I'm very sad that it's closing on Sunday.  The show is smarter and more thematically rich than Sunday in the Park with George (not to mention much better directed) and rocks harder than Spring Awakening. In a world with any theatrical justice, Daniel Breaker would be a household name. I've seen that guy do everything from Shakespeare to Stew now, and I'm convinced that he's one of the best working in New York today. Hopefully the forthcoming Spike Lee taping of the show will help rescue it for posterity.

I also saw [Title of Show] this week which I quite enjoyed.  I agree with much of what Sir Charles has written about it here. I should add, however, that i found it both a deeper and more affecting experience that he did.  I think our differences can be summed up this way: he thinks [TOS] does a good job of portraying the obstacles that artists go up against in creating their work and trying to be successful. I think it does a good job of portraying the struggle these obstacles cause.  It's a subtle difference, but an important one.  I really felt for our four heroes, particularly Susan Blackwell, who not only (if the show is to be believed) was the least successful of the four stars, but also walks away with just about every scene she's in.

Neither piece is flawless or without its issues.  Passing Strange's pre-European exodus section is too long by half, and if the word "real" was mentioned one more time, I think I might've punched someone in the face. A couple of [Title of Show]'s musical numbers don't really work in the larger space (particularly the opening number and a parody Schoolhouse Rocks number about writing a script) and the show lags towards the end. And it is unclear what $100 ticket buyers are going to make of it.  But the woman sitting next to me who knew dick about musical theater thought it was hilarious, and i haven't laughed that hard in a long time. 

Second Stage to Purchase Broadway's smallest house

You've probably already read about this in the TImes, but in case you haven't, here it is: 

Second Stage will raise $35 million to buy and renovate the theater, the company’s founding director, Carole Rothman, said. The Helen Hayes is likely to be renamed.

With the Helen Hayes, Second Stage will become the fourth nonprofit theater company in the city to own and operate a Broadway house, joining the Roundabout Theater Company (which leases the American Airlines Theater), theManhattan Theater Club (the Biltmore) and Lincoln Center Theater (the Vivian Beaumont). It is the latest example of how the lines are blurring between the commercial and nonprofit theater. With the rapidly escalating costs of mounting Broadway shows, the tradition of independent producers has given way to multiheaded producer consortiums and to the larger nonprofit theaters.

Second Stage is set to take over the Helen Hayes in 2010. I was totally taken aback when I read this article, I guess I didn't really know Second Stage was poised to become a company of that size. This will bring them up to three theaters (the Helen Hayes is the only one they'll own) and they plan on doubling their annual budget.  Wow. I wrote about my thinking about these sorts of moves here.

Some Good News

Courtesy the Calgary Herald we learn of PBS' plans to reignite their performing arts programming:

"My goal is to bring opera, dance and live theatre back to PBS," Kerger said. "There is a great appetite and interest in the arts that is not being served by the rest of the media. Being able to bring arts to a much broader audience, particularly those people who don't have either the resources or the geography to access the arts on their own, is what public television was envisioned as doing when it was first created. I feel very strongly about that."

As part of its new arts initiative, PBS will broadcast the full Royal Shakespeare Company performance of Shakespeare's King Lear, directed by Trevor Nunn and featuring Sir Ian McKellen, in the fall. The performance marks McKellen's return to the RSC after a 17-year hiatus.

Kerger said PBS's new arts emphasis will encompass ballet, modern dance, opera, regional theatre, performance art and jazz, folk, rhythm and blues, classical and Latin music recitals. A new four-part multimedia series, Latin Music USA, will bow in January, Kerger announced. 

RTWT here.

Status Update

Thanks to everyone who came out to the reading for Their Back Pages last night.  Considering how totally bizarre the piece is, I was worried by what people would make of it, but they seemed to get it (and find it funny which is very important) and follow its logic, which is totally internal to the piece.

Anyway, due to other professional commitments, I'm pretty much in meetings all day today and tomorrow, so I'm going to say right now that I'm going to delay the final two parts of RE:HTFA until Monday and Tuesday of next week.  Those two parts are Funding Priorities (Buildings and People) and Organizational Structures.  

I'll still be blogging until then, just not posting those two things until Monday and Tuesday.  In the meantime, if you'd like, please read over the first three and comment!  Making a Living can be found here, Institutionalization can be found here, and Hiring Locally can be found here.

RE:HTFA 3: Hiring Locally

When I set out to do a week of posting on the issues raised by How Theater Failed America, I thought I'd be like Mike, pick a few good titles, and let the artistic juices flow. Which is another way of saying, I knew I wanted to talk about these five issues (making a living, institutionalization, local labor, priorities, organizational structures) but wasn't sure what I was going to say, or how.

And now we come to Hiring Locally and... well... what can I say? I think more theaters hiring local talent would be a good thing, and I think more people moving to areas that need more local talent would also be a good thing (and for those commenters asking why I'm not doing that myself, I'll only say it is something that I have considered and continue to consider and haven't make up my mind about yet).  I could make a very long winded case about it, but there are many other blogs that focus quite heavily on that issue (like this guy!) and I'm guessing you probably already read some of them.

So instead I wanted to talk a bit more personally for a moment about the DC theatre scene that I grew up in, and what a difference localish actors made and continue to make to that scene.  Why localish? D.C. is very close to New York City (four hours by car, two and a half by train, sixty minutes by plane).  Many (but not all, maybe not even most) actors who regularly worked in DC maintain NYC addresses and 212 area codes, or at least, they did when I was young.  At the same time, they spent the vast majority of their time as actors in DC.  As Karl Miller describes here, this has its own problems for theaters, but that's not the point right now. The point is what it means for Washington, D.C. to have its own collection of well known regulars. 

In How Theater Failed America Mike talks about how bizarre it would be to go to a baseball game and suddenly have your home team replaced by a bunch of people you haven't heard of, but some of whom have been on Law and Order.  The more I think about it, the more apt the sports team analogy becomes in this particular instance, because part of becoming a regular theater-goer in DC meant (at least for me) learning about this stable of actors, what kinds of roles they played, whether they were stretching themselves or returning to form, what they were like in comedies, tragedies, contemporary plays, classics etc.  Part of the thrill of going to the theater had to do with what my home team was going to do in the game that night. Or to put it another way: When Fred Schiffman appears in a show, he will get the kind of applause that greets movie stars making their Broadway debuts.

And part of what has helped this in DC is that several of the larger theaters have either a company of some kind or a loose confederation of regulars they work with.  The three theaters I subscribed to growing up were the Studio, the Shakespeare and Woolly Mammoth.  Each had its own (loosely defined) team, with some people regularly playing in more than one theater.  And then... when I was in High School... actors from Shakespeare theater started appearing with more regularity at Studio and Woolly.  It was actually, in a dorky way, really super-exciting.  Here were these great actors who we knew from the classical world (and a theater that reflected in general the aesthetics of Michael Kahn) and now they would be tackling Pinter and Brecht and Regina Thomas etc. etc. and so forth.  And then we got to watch them go back to work at the Shakespeare in classical plays and see that, actually, they had changed as actors, somehow shaking up the routine had improved them as artists, and the work collectively got better.

I'm bringing this up because i think it's easy to say well, it's all well and good to talk about hiring locally in principle, but where's the real benefit? But I've experienced that benefit first hand and I'm not sure I'd love theatre nearly as much as I do today without it. 

It's easy to take this for granted living in New York City because most actors who perform in NYC are local NYC actors (it's also easy to take this for granted when you work primarily in theaters that can't afford to cast out of New York).  Every show I go to now has that kind of home court advantage (Although thanks to celebrity casting, that's deteriorating a bit on New York stages as well).  

We think of "good art" as something that is purely aesthetic.  You get a bunch of talented artists with good taste in a room, they work together, they apply their considerable talents and taste to the creation of art and there's a pretty good chance that it will be "good".  But there are other components to "good art" beyond how the end product looks, and one of those components is whether the production matters to the people who see it.  And yes, aesthetics can accomplish that, and even when they can't accomplish that alone, it's still important. But given that theatre is a localized art form by its very nature, part of what makes it matter is that localization.

Food For Thought

Readest thou the excellent Karl Miller on all subjects related to theater/re and America it's a long so let me just take a sample of one of its many provocative, insightful paragraphs:

We forge theatre in time, space, and people. The production of theatre, the actual live event, requires actors and real estate before it requires anything else. The presence of the playwright -- the veryreality of the playwright -- is the first thing the audience pretends away when they suspend disbelief. Contra Albee (Mamet, et al) good writing cannot redeem bad acting the way great acting can redeem mediocre writing. A quick perusal of any New York theatre review will tell the same basic story: competent, even compelling acting put in the service of bad directing or playwriting. This critical distinction persists because it is not the actor's job to imagine the intentions or inner conflicts of the playwright. However, it is the job of the playwright to imagine the intentions and inner conflicts of genuine characters. To sustain the illusion central to live theatre, actors employ the (intensely creative) art of forgetting. We must unlearn the plot, the ending, the secret appraisals of other characters, previous productions in history and previous performances within the current production. In a sense, we must also unlearn the identity/pathology of the playwright.

RE:HTFA 2: Growth Model of Success / Institutionalization

A serious of points, thoughts and questions in lieu of a more structured essay:

(A) These conversations can devolve into an artists vs. administrators catfight.  I increasingly find those kinds of conversations unhelpful. Almost everyone working in theatre could make more money doing the same job in another industry. Setting the "administrator class" against the "Artist class" is one way to ensure nothing changes.

(B) A major point made in HTFA, which I had heard before but was glad to hear articulated in the piece itself: An institution's primary goal is to perpetuate the institution. We can see this in all kinds of non-theatre institutions as well.  The Democratic Party (a political institution), stopped meaningfully differentiating itself from the Republican party on National Security and Foreign Policy issues after 9/11 and now is in the process (in fits and starts) of differentiating itself again. Marriage (a social institution) will soon expand to include gay marriage because the alternative is the rise of civil unions for both gay and straight couples, which will hurt its long-term interests.

(C) We live in a capitalist country and it is thus totally understandable that market-driven values would affect our arts culture, thus we get to the idea of success = growth for theatre organizations. I think this equation deserves some serious questioning and challenging, just as the equation maximizing profits always = good deserves some serious questioning and challenging.

(D) Also, I should note that there are all sorts of kinds of growth, however, and growth is not in and of itself a negative thing. The issue is what kind of growth gets recognized as success by funders, board members, contributors and by the stewards of arts organizations, just as the issue in the market is what kind of growth gets recognized as successful by stock holders, brokers, venture capitalists etc.

(E) And thus, as Mike discusses, this can lead to growing in such a way that destroys the organization, either financially (when you build a building you can't afford for example) artistically (when you up the house size to such an extent that you must change your programming around it for example) or both. 

(F)  So just as we live in the era where "sustainability" of our products is in vogue, it's time to start talking about sustainable organizational behavior.  Two examples I'm familiar with: Under Daniel Aukin's tenure at Soho Rep, the theatre grew by increasing salaries for artists and staff and increasing budgets for their shows, rather than increasing programming (Which they are now in a better position to do, and which they are doing under the leadership of Sarah Benson).  The Studio Theater in Washington, D.C. has had a series of building campaigns but has always made sure to have raised adequate funds for construction and, while they now have several performance spaces, each space is the same size (roughly 200 seats) thus ensuring that the work remains the kind of work that they made a name for doing in the first place. Now, we could talk about whether or not Studio should've been spending that money on creating an acting company etc.  but my point is simply that the building campaigns have neither destroyed the company nor significantly altered the kinds of plays that they do. 

(G) Institutionality is problematic. When the mission statement changes from its original form to perpetuation, things get conservatized toot sweet.  

(G.5) I went to a small used book store and was talking about the proprietor about book stores and he said "the problem with most book stores these days is that they are businesses that happen to sell books. Used to be in New York, there were all these places focused on books where you could also buy them.  But no one can afford to have these places any more."  This is a perfect articulation of one of the dangers of institutionalization.

(H) I don't want to make it sound like institutions are evil. I don't think they are. Many of them do good things, and are struggling to do better.  Two major theatre institutions in NYC are creating smaller theaters to do newer, riskier work in which I think is a good development. Institutions have certain advantages to offer. They (in general) have a lion's share of the funding including from the government because they provide a certain amount of reliability and stability. Everyone wants to pick a winner, and institutions have already won. 

(I) How can you tell when a theater has become an institution?

(I.5) Would more midsize and small theaters and fewer large theaters be a good thing?

(J) Would we want a theatrical landscape with fewer institutions or less institutionalization? Such a landscape would probably include a lot more flux, with a lot more theaters closing or being taking over by other companies etc.  Are we willing to take that risk? Would it be a good thing?

(K) Expecting institutions to act as other than they are is a recipe for disappointment. Or, to say it the way an industry friend of mine said it, "Expecting large theaters to do riskier programming is like expecting my 90 year old grandpa not to be racist, sure it'd be great, and I'll try to encourage it, but at the end of the day, he's probably still going to rant about `the blacks' over dinner".  This does not mean fatalism is the answer, or that not-trying is the right idea. But simply that getting institutions to change is really hard.  

(L) A lot of this also comes down to priorities. Many in the theatrosphere (painting with broad strokes here, folks) would like those priorities to center around creating more interesting, relevant work, paying labor better and being more involved in their communities. And I think many in theater companies would at least nominally agree with those priorities, but the struggle to pay for them (and a company or institution's other goals) can take over to the point where it's the only game in town.

RE:HTFA I: Making a Living

Two fundamental assumptions underpin How Theater Failed America.  First is that it should be somewhat easier for theatre artists to make a living from their art, second (and related) is that more theatre artists should be making their living from their art. I agree with both of these assumptions to such an extent that I didn’t even see them as assumptions.  What I’ve realized in pouring over the theatrosphere’s discussion w/r/t HTFA lately, however, is that there is some disagreement as to whether or not the goal “more theatre artists making a living” is worth pursuing, especially given all the other problems facing theatre (and theaters!) today.  I believe wholeheartedly that part and parcel of improving theatre in America is making it a better living for artists involved in it.

Before I start enumerating why it would be good for the art form, not just the artists working in it, let me just pause for a moment and talk a little psychology and culture. When I went to see a career counselor a few years ago and she asked me what my (practical, not artistic) career goal in theatre was, I said “to make a living doing it”.  Let’s pause for a moment at that.  There are few other professions or callings I can think of where a career goal would be to make your living doing it.  Most places, your starting point is making a living doing it.  But things are desperate enough that an (At that time aspiring artist of 24) can say “things’d be going great if I could make a living doing this”.  It’s always been hard for artists to make a living, and I think an end result of that difficulty is that we’ve internalized our state of affairs in a kind of Panglossian way—since this is the only system of theatre making, it must be the best of all possible systems of theatre making.

This leads in a number of different directions, none of which are helpful.  The first is an antipathy towards the business side of making the art and especially towards those who are good at the business end, and those (aka development folk) who make it their business to be good at the business end so that art can be made. (For more on this, check out Mark Armstrong's excellent post on the topic of AD salaries).  Next is the glamorization of the difficulty of making a life in the theatre. Third is the dismissing of protestations about the living and working conditions of theatre artists as whiners looking for handouts.  Finally, and this is the justification under which most of the nonprofit world functions w/r/t its employees on all levels, is the idea that if you love doing something, it’s okay not to adequately compensate you for doing it.  I have myself so internalized most of these that I actually found writing this post extremely difficult, and find myself nervous hitting the “publish” button.  So let me say this right now, in case it is not clear: I do not believe that someone should be paid a living wage simply by declaring themselves an artist.  I do think, however, that a system by which it were easier and more possible for theatre artists to make a living doing their art would be better for the art form.  Not necessarily easy, just easier.

Let’s start with the economics perspective. Making it more possible to make a living in the theatre will incentivize entering and remaining in the art form.  Some view this as a bad thing, and generally when I ask people why they view it as a bad thing, the answer I get is that the incentive will only work on mediocre artists, but this assumption is not borne out by my experience. I know many extremely gifted theatre artists who have moved to LA and make their living off of commercials and bit roles and day player work rather than practicing their art on stage. Other countries have created entire theatre scenes simply by making it possible to make a good living in the theatre. Especially for those interested in a Regional Movement Revival (including me), this kind of incentivization is key. NYC might not need more people staying in and choosing theatre as a life path, but certainly other places do.

Second (and interrelated) is an economic cultural perspective: we value what we’re willing to pay for.  This works two ways, the first is respecting the artists we are hiring; the second is destigmatizing theatre as a life choice which is part and parcel with getting theatre back on the cultural radar as something worth paying attention to.   It’s all interrelated. Theatre is always to some extent going to be a home for the outsider, and I think this is a good thing, but it shouldn’t be considered so simply because you’d be insane to try to do it.

I also believe that better work results from a system in which more people are making a living from their art. I witness this every time I hold auditions or go into a rehearsal room.  Many people who want to work in theatre and also not starve find one of several different options for subsidizing employment. They either (a) work a full-time day job that they do not care about, (b) work a full-time job that they do care about, (c) work a part-time or sporatic job (like temping) that they do not care about or (d) work a part-time or sporatic job that they do care about.  I know very few people who belong in category b, who are capable of having two simultaneous work passions that take up fourteen hours of their day.  I know a lot of people in Category A, and it is largely those people that I’m talking about here.

I am lucky.  Anne and I have worked out our finances so that I don’t have to do much in the way of daytime employment while I’m rehearsing.  We did this because during periods when I tried to do both, I was exhausted and my work suffered; my choices were less thoughtful, my patience was thin at all times (and you must be patient to be a director), and I developed some sloppy work habits. Most actors, designers and fellow directors I talk to mention similar things from having to balance full time day work and a busy rehearsal schedule.

I have also worked with actors who are lucky enough to either have part-time work or make a living from their art, and the difference is recognizable.  There’s a big difference to being able to sit at home and memorize your lines and frantically trying to learn them on the subway.  There’s a big difference to going into an audition rested and relaxed and going into it on your lunch break.  And there’s a difference in being able to rehearse something for six hours a day and being able to rehearse something for three.

Making a living in the theatre as an artist is also hard enough right now that it forces people to adopt some not great working habits. Let’s take directors for a moment.  I was once having coffee with a pretty big up and coming director (Yale grad, directed off Broadway and in midsized LORT theaters).  He told me his rate when he did a regional show was around $5,000.  This means he would have to direct seven shows a year just to make $35,000. Doing a show right generally takes time, time to develop ideas, time to meet with people, time to do research, time to rehearse. Directing seven shows a year all over the country doesn’t really allow the time to do that. Designers frequently work on multiple shows in disparate parts of the country simultaneously. Our current system revolves around shortening the necessary time as much as possible, and sometimes more than a play (or an artist) can really bear. 

I want to just take a moment to pause here and say that my point is not that no good work is going on, or that it is impossible to make good work in the current circumstances, or that actors who make their living from theatre are necessarily better than actors who don’t.  There are really good artists out there who have figured out how to make this system work, and many training programs are essentially helping people adapt to this in ways that makes good work possible.  My point is about creating an environment where it could be better for both the people involved and the art they make.

Finally, I will also mention that there is a human cost to all of this, and that human cost again can bear out on the artwork itself. The system as it stands creates an environment in which it is more possible (not inevitable, but more possible) for people to become Theater Grotesques. For more successful artists on the migrant circuit, there’s the constant grind to make that living, the traveling that makes forming relationships with people difficult to impossible, the unsettled lifestyle etc. Some people feed off of this and it makes them better artists, but many do not and there should be other options available for them.  For those of us who don’t make a living from our art, there’s also the not-really-having-a-life problem, where between the struggle to make money and the struggle to make good art, our other life activities and relationships suffer.  I am actually taking the Fall largely off from the rehearsal room so that I can see people’s shows, go to museums, read more, be with other human beings in non-rehearsal hall settings, grow my relationships with people, help Obama get elected, start to codify elsewhere and what we’re about, study theatre etc.  All of this other stuff, this non-rehearsal room stuff is important for being a more well-rounded human being, but it’s also important to being a good artist.  And again, I’m not saying this is the only way to be a good human being or a good artist or make good art, but rather simply that it should be more possible to pursue this, should one choose to.  

When I talk to people who are leaving or have left theatre as a career, they inevitably mention the human cost above, as well as the cost to their relationships with other people, as chief concerns.  Making it easier for artists to make a living from theatre will not cure these problems, but it will help them. 

(for more on this, read this Denver post article with a tip of the hat to Adam S.)

UPDATE: Devilvet writes a post saying "Almost nobody cares. When that changes, then the economic possibilities will change." I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see the goals of making art that is more relevant to people's lives and thus more important culturally and more artists making a living at theatre are mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd say they're deeply interrelated. For more on that, we link back to more Mike Daisey. Also here's a relevant Scott Walters post from today on similar subjects.

The Barksdale has a blog?

Why yes, it does.

Gimme Something To Look Forward To...

Here are a few announced upcoming productions over the next season that caught my interest.  I'll note that most of these productions are at mainstream Off-Broadway houses, but that is more owing to the fact that mainstream Off-Bway houses tend to announce plays a lot earlier.  (I'll also just say there's  a lot in the Public Theater's season to look forward to, including new plays by John Guare, Craig Lucas and Mike Daisey and a new Sodheim musical, check it out here.)

Got something you're looking forward to?  Drop a line in the comments.

SUMMER:

 At the OHIO Theatre, we have the Ice Factory festival. Although the Ice Factory's line up has been announced (and advertised in this week's Time Out) it is not on their website.  One of the features of this year's festival will be a performance by Edinburgh Fringe darlings The Riot Group. I've never gotten to see their work, but I'm looking forward to Victory at the Dirt Palace, their "totally faithless" retelling of King Lear. Performances are August 20th-23rd at 7PM at the Ohio. Tickets can be purchased here.

Classical Theater of Harlem is presenting free performances of Melvin Van Peebles' Ain't Supposed to Die A Natural Death at various City Parks.  The production touches down in my Borough July 25th and 26th at Von King Park.

Fall/Winter: 

BAM Next Wave has at least three pieces I'm interested in checking out. First, Bill T. Jones/Arnie Zane Dance Company presents A Quarreling Pair, a new dance work based on the play by Jane Bowles. Meanwhile, Rosas (the dance company helmed by Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker) is presented Steve Reich Evening, a night of three pieces based on Steve Reich's Eight Lines, Drumming Part 1 and Four Organs. Their dance piece set to Reich's Music for 18 Musicians was one of the best things I've ever seen in my life, and while I'm not a huge Four Organs fan, Eight Lines and Drumming Part 1 are both excellent. Later on in the festival, The Builder's Association returns with another multimedia spectacular called Continuous City. 

Do I get a sentimental pick? If so, Playwrights Horizons is presenting Three Changes, a new play by Nicky Silver directed by Wilson "KIller Joe" Milam.  When I was in high school, I fell in love with Nicky Silver's writing (primarily through the productions of it at Woolly Mammoth and through reading his first collection of plays, Etiquette and Vitriol) and directed two of his plays in college, but I must admit his post-Raised in Captivity output has left a little to be desired. Maybe this'll be a comeback. Who knows? 

If anyone can make baseball interesting, it's probably the superstar team of writer Itamar Moses and director Daniel Aukin. I fell in love with Moses' writing when I saw Bach at Leipzig at New York Theater Workshop, and Aukin is one of the best directors working today. Their collaboration Back Back Back premieres at MTC  in October.  Daniel and Itamar are also two thirds of the creative team behind a forthcoming musical based on Jonathan Lethem's The Fortress of Solitude (the other third would be Michael Friedman), so I'm looking forward to seeing their work together on this show.

Also, Peter "Holy Crap, It's Peter Brook" Brook is coming to New York Theatre Workshop.  His production of The Grand Inquisitor will run from October to November. An adaptation of The Grand Inquisitor portion of The Brothers Karamazov.  To make a wide six-degrees-of-NYTW connection, Tony Kushner once wrote a play that features Laura Bush reading that exact section of Los Hermanos K to the ghosts of dead Iraqi schoolchildren. Hotness!

In November, Page 73 and Soho Rep will co-present a new play by Dan LeFranc, directed by Anne Kauffman titled  Sixty Miles to Silverlake.  I don't know much about the play, but I really like Dan's writing (and Anne's direction) and given that everything else I've read of his work is maximalist craziness with huge casts, masks, impossible stage directions by the bucket-full, complicated dramatic invention and gorgeous poetic speechifying, I'll be interested to see what his version of a two-hander about a father and son's relationship is like.

Also in November, if you feel like making a pilgrimage to Troy, NY, you can go see Elevator Repair Service's GATZ which still can't be performed here in NYC. 

SPRING:

Classic Stage is doing a version of the Oresteia as translated by poet Anne Carson. If you want a preview of her translating style, you can pick up a beautifully put together NYRB edition of four plays by Euripides that she translated under the (somewhat unfortunate IMHO) title Grief Lessons. Of the two parts, I'd place my money on the version of Orestes by Euripides, directed by Paul Lazar and Choreographed by Annie-B Parson.  Lazar and Parson are better known as the masterminds behind Big Dance Theater.  Also, I gotta say, of all the plays written about the Oresteia, Euripides Orestes is definitely my favorite, and also the basis of my favorite Chuck Mee play, Orestes 2.0. Runs from March 18th-April 12th.

Signature Theater Company is devoting their entire season to the work of the Negro Ensemble Company, a group whose fascinating history can be read all about right here. I'm personally looking forward to Zooman and the Sign, a 1980 play about "the devastating aftermath of violence on a family and an entire community" written by Pulitzer Prize winner Charles Fuller, which runs from March 3-April 19th.

This is only scratching the surface of interesting stuff in New York (heck it doesn't include PS122, hERE or The Brick yet!) so we'll have future installments as more stuff is announced. I should also add that all three of the shows at The Vineyard look worth your time.