Open Rehearsal: The Court Theatre Blog
March 22, 2010
Is The Illusion a Classic?
Is The Illusion a classic? Is Tony Kushner’s “free translation” of L’Illusion Comique too unfaithful?
One audience member, via their audience feedback form, thinks so:
Fed up with your adaptations. Please do more classic stuff like in the old days.
Our commenter Andrew agrees:
The way the play itself butchered Corneille’s in its pretentiousness was very disappointing. In the hands of Newell and Kushner Corneille became some kind of sitcom. Especially disappointing was the ending…just read Corneille’s ending and you will understand. I hope the Court will get back at doing Classic theater and stop serving us adaptations and musicals. As it is the Court has lost its true identity!!!
Another audience member liked the play, but thought less of our other shows this season:
First play of the season worth coming to. Classic theater. Be true to your audience. If we want au courant stuff, we’ll go elsewhere.
Yet another audience member put it most succinctly:
NO MORE IRMA VEP.
These remarks come from a small but fiercely loyal section of our audience who sees The Illusion as a return to our core values (or, in Andrew’s case, a disappointing missed opportunity). There’s certainly no arguing that Court’s programming has evolved over our fifty-six year history. Just compare three different seasons across time:
1975:
The Doctor in Spite of Himself by Moliere
Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett
Much Ado About Nothing by William Shakespeare
1997/98:
Tartuffe by Molière
The Philadelphia Story by Philip Barry
Carmen by Prosper Mérimée, adapted by James Robinson
Travels with My Aunt by Graham Greene & Giles Havergal
Old Times by Harold Pinter
2009/10:
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom by August Wilson
The Mystery of Irma Vep by Charles Ludlam
The Year of Magical Thinking by Joan Didion
The Illusion by Pierre Corneille, Freely Translated by Tony Kushner
Sizwe Banzi is Dead by Athol Fugard
These seasons speak to our evolving definition of “classic.” If you compare them to thirty years of syllabi in University of Chicago core humanities classes, you’d likely witness the same evolution. Am I disappointed that we don’t do more Greek Tragedy, more Jacobin Drama, more Shakespeare? Absolutely. However, I’m also grateful that we’ve adopted a more inclusive definition of “classic” that allows us to explore “modern” classics (Sizwe Banzi is Dead), plays that are in dialogue with the classics (The Illusion), and plays we believe should be counted as classics (The Mystery of Irma Vep, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom). The plays in this season have expanded my own opinion about what makes a dramatic text really exceptional, testing my own narrow vision of what I consider to be a classic play.
Occasionally, however, Court will take on a play that cannot by any definition be deemed a classic. Caroline, or Change was one of those plays; so, too, is every play we produce by Tom Stoppard (often mistaken for a Dead White Man). This season, that show was Joan Didion’s The Year of Magical Thinking, a recent adaptation of a recent bestselling memoir, and an astonishingly powerful piece of text that nevertheless has stood no test of time, no proof of its cultural endurance: it is simply too young of a play. However, while I maintain that The Year of Magical Thinking is not a classic, I also maintain that it was chosen and produced in the spirit of Court Theatre’s mission: it is a play rich in language, timeless in theme, and perfectly suited to our intimate space. Moreover, it was a text that powerfully affected its director, haunted him on a personal level, and proved for him a formidable artistic challenge. Quite often, we are suspected of having cynical or purely commercial reasons for producing non-classic shows, but in fact, it is those shows that often represent the greatest risks for us.
I believe our production of The Illusion is doing what Court Theatre does best: the production of a classic text that interrogates and doesn’t assume, that engages and doesn’t embalm. Even though Kushner hasn’t translated directly any lines of Corneille’s, his adaptation is in close dialogue with the original—and I maintain that his reading of Corneille is playful, insightful, and sheds new light on the original text.
What did you think of The Illusion? And what do you think of our recently announced 2010-11 Season? Leave your thoughts in the comments below!
11 Responses to Is The Illusion a Classic?
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!? re: aud. feedback. seriously, what play ever done is not ‘interpretation’? may we remind them of the Bard, king of interpreting other stories/plays
The path the Court is on? To that I say, stay on it. ‘no more Irma Vep’? in a real world that is neck deep in bad news this is what theatre should do—make us laugh until it hurts and take us away from reality. on the flipside of this, seeing Joan Didion’s reality helped some up process our own very similar realities. very cathartic.
part of theatre is the art of constantly recreating and reinterpreting for our audience. if the original ‘The Illusion’ was presented would be curious how many modern day audiences would ‘get it’.
Wondering, does Shakespeare Rep get the same type of feedback for constantly reinterpreting Shakespeare? I mean how many audiences today could sit thru some of his plays completed unedited?
By Moira Tuffy on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 pm
We come to the Court Theater for what it advertises: “classic theater.” Not something that someone thinks “should be” a classic, admitting thereby that it’s not, not something that just got written and so can’t be a classic. There are plenty of theaters, in Chicago and elsewhere, that offer that kind of fare, and there is a reason we subscribe to the Court and not to any of tthem. After a season like this one, though, we have to wonder if we should continue.
By Robert Berliner on March 24, 2010 at 4:44 pm
I gave up on Court several seasons ago. Sadly the quality just seemed to decline.
If classics are the mission of the Court, let’s wait until a play becomes a classic before it is given that regal title. This takes time. To claim to return to ones roots of classic theatre by simply changing the definition of the word is not valid.
All plays get interpretation. That the prerogative of the director. There are good interpretations and bad interpretations. There are interesting new interpretations, classic interpretations and ego centric interpretations that have nothing to do with the ideas of the playwright.
Would certainly like to get back in the habit of going to Court. You can never have enough good theatre.
By Marc Cohen on March 24, 2010 at 5:06 pm
I am a volunteer usher and therefore saw this play at a daytime performance for high school students. They seemed to like it, so maybe that’s the age group and level of theater experience it is aimed at. I found it boring, cliche-ridden and inane. Acting by the more experienced cast members was excellent, but the actress who played the ingenue was not up to the old Court Theatre level.
By Janice Rosenberg on March 24, 2010 at 7:08 pm
I remember attending a performance of a clearly defined classic play a few seasons ago and being astounded by the empty seats. And this season I’ve seen nothing but full houses…so all you people who think these aren’t the plays Court should do clearly don’t sway the audience.
I personally really enjoyed “The Illusion” and thought it was fun to see a modern playwright’s take on a classic. As for the original Corneille, I don’t speak French…
Court makes great theatre. That’s enough for me.
By Jenny on March 25, 2010 at 9:50 am
Thanks for all your comments so far, friends. We appreciate your honesty.
(I’d like to request one ground rule: let’s keep the actors and their performances out of the debate, at least on this blog. Our actors perform eight times a week, and even though they weather reviews of their work all the time, we’d prefer to keep our home turf neutral. Thanks for understanding.)
As for Marc, Robert, and Michael’s comments: I’m saddened that you can’t find a Chicago theater that answers your demand anymore. No theater likes to hear that their subscribers feel they’ve been betrayed. However, my defense of Court’s right to grow and transform as an artistic institution still stands. The growing pains of Court over the last ten years have seen the addition of musicals and operas, African-American drama, and visiting companies like SITI; and those growing pains have shed audience members while gaining new ones. We hope that this ever-fluxing audience, especially our subscribers, will commit to us and join us in taking risks—risks like the 2009/10 season—and risks that we always think are worth your time as a theatergoer.
But certainly everyone has a tipping point—right? In The Illusion, Pridamant declares “This isn’t what I paid for!” when Alcandre shows him a vision that’s “off-mission” . I don’t mean to be crass; both Pierre Corneille and Tony Kushner insist on a dialectic between art and money, and if Court isn’t selling what you’re buying, then I think it’s a valid choice on your part to take your arts money elsewhere. But because you all seem to be engaged, thinking audience members—and because (it’s true!) we also want you to keep subscribing—our doors are always open if you choose to come back.
Drew Dir
Resident Dramaturg
By Drew Dir on March 25, 2010 at 12:26 pm
I know the Court says their mission is “classic theater” but basically I like what I see, and trust them to choose…isn’t that the point…if it were all Shakespeare and greeks and moliere it would get boring. they’ve done great work, and until they stop doing great work, I’m along for the ride.
By Eva on March 26, 2010 at 7:18 am
Audience for theatrical classics should be, for me, an audience that
1) is interested in plays the challenge them to think and challenge what is presented on the stage and in the script and
2) who have a lively interest in the history and traditions of western theater.
I understand that African-American culture was denied access to that history and those traditions for a long time and had to invent its own. I find that fascinating, so I also like the inclusion of those plays. Also if I have to put up with Seneca, people who don’t like August Wilson can put up with him, he’s a classic.
I also think that there are modern playwrights that have an excellent chance of becoming a part of the history of theater. For that reason, I always react to plays by the likes of Stoppard, Pinter, Ruhl, Kushner in the same way I would react to the announcement of a classic play. I know some people won’t accept them, and will accept some playwrights that I wouldn’t, but that’s my reaction.
There is a difference between plays I’m happy to see and those that are classics. I liked the Fugaard 2010 plays (two so far) but he is not a classic. He is a playwright who wrote what he knew and felt about South Africa at a time when we needed to hear it, and I’m still moved by the plays seeing them now, but he isn’t a skilled as the best playwrights we’ve ever had.
Orlando is a risky project that could go spectacularly wrong, and I wish they weren’t going to do it, but there is no doubt it is a classic. And if it works out, I will be thrilled to change my prediction in a hurry.
The big problem for the recent Court announcements is that in the 9 plays announced for the 2009-2011, there is too little before 1900. Corneille is adapted – an adaptation by a classic author, but he is not before 1900. Comedy of Errors – the announcement quite clearly on the website – the director (who I think is first rate) is mentioned first, the odd interpretation that this is Shakespeare’s “funniest” play is second, what issues the play is “about” is third, and any interest in the characters that we will be watching during the performance is omitted to leave room for talking about Irma Vep and What the Butler Saw.
Would we permit such a performance of the (not classic, but I thought is was a great night of theater) The Year of Magical Thinking? The announcement is, “I don’t have anything to say about Joan Didion, but I have a great new interpretation and it relates to Irma Vep and What the Butler Saw.” Who could possibly get excited about that?! If you wouldn’t do it to a modern show, why are you doing it to Shakespeare?
Porgy and Bess is also too risky, and I have to trust O.J. Parsons on Home, which I don’t know anything about. But I definitely want to see what Graney does with Comedy of Errors and Parsons has earned a lot of trust, so I’m coming back. Hopefully no more seasons with two such risky projects as Orlando and Porgy – one of those per season is really enough.
In any event, that is my wish for future seasons – two or three productions of plays or novels from before 1914 presented because the theater thinks each tells a great story and marketed in that way. For the nine plays announced, two are quite risky, but no one play I think was a mistake. I think the first of the criteria at the top of this email have always been met. For the second criterion and the balance of the seasons as a whole, I think there’s some room for improvement there.
By EM on March 26, 2010 at 1:05 pm
I guess I’m not very hung up on “classic”. Although I was happy to see a Shakespeare again in next year’s calendar
This was an amazing play. I’m glad for an adaption, since I have no French.
I often enjoy a modern adaption of an older work such as this
By Sandra on March 30, 2010 at 3:27 pm
I am sort of flabbergasted by the hostility of some of the above comments.
I think that an adaptation (by a Pulitzer-winning playwright!) of a Corneille play certainly falls within Court’s “classic” mission. And besides that, what’s more important as an audience member? Seeing a show that strictly adheres to a set of criteria (which can be subjective anyway) or seeing a show that challenges, moves, enlightens, or entertains you? This production did all of the above for me. I loved it.
And I know we’re not supposed to comment on performances, but I have to completely disagree with Janice Rosenberg. I thought the actress who played the ingenue was excellent. She brought a lot of depth to a role that could easily have just been “the girl.” I’ve been seeing shows at Court for years and think they’re lucky to have her and everyone else in this wonderful cast.
I’m excited for next season.
By Laura on March 30, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Leave a Reply
To help prevent spam, comments will be submitted to a moderator before publishing.
I’ve seen and read many plays by Corneille and none was as inane, vacuous, and boring as this silly adaptation, For shame. I used to love The Court Theater. It was the one place in town where you coul see the real thing. Alas.
By Michael Rosenberg on March 24, 2010 at 10:18 am