A Couple of Writers Weigh In
David
Mamet
There was a fellow worked for the Ag. Dept. of the State of Florida.
Florida agriculture was in some sort of a downturn, and this fellow went into his lab and figured out a way to put pulp into the concentrated juice, or somesuch. In any event, he Saved the State, and engorged the coffers of the Juice Magnates, and every one got well.
 |
They asked the fellow to name his reward, and he said, "I don't know...how about a couple more months vacation."
Similarly, Dick Christiansen, whose monument is the current health and world reputation of the Chicago Theater.
signed,
A Beneficiary
Not too long ago, I heard Robert Brustein fulminate against theatre critics. It was at a convention of theatre critics, so he started by saying, "Present company excepted,"–which, of course, nobody believed. At the end of his prepared attack, he opened the floor to questions. Somewhere along the line somebody mentioned Richard Christiansen (who, by the way, was not in attendance). "Ah, well," he said, "Christiansen is an exception." And that everybody believed.
Richard is an exception. I think at one point or another, most of us working in Chicago theatre (including me) have been taken to task by him in public print. And yes, it hurt. But I doubt that many of us let the sting of a bad review obscure the larger truth–that no town has ever had a critic who has been a more constructive part of its theatre scene.
The only comparison I can make is the position Kenneth Tynan had in postwar English theatre. Tynan championed John Osborne, the Beyond the Fringe gang, Joan Littlewood, and Brendan Behan among others. Richard championed David Mamet, Second City, Steppenwolf, Frank Galati, Mary Zimmerman, Robert Falls, Rebecca Gilman, Michael Maggio and my colleagues at Victory Gardens among many, many others. Tynan helped ease the transition from the drawing-room conventions of Terrence Rattigan to more vital, bracing stuff. Richard helped ease the transition of Chicago from a town that mostly hosted touring productions to a town that is second to none in generating its own theatrical excitement and productivity. Let me also note that Tynan stayed at his post a little less than a dozen years (before going on to such diversions as the National Theatre and Oh! Calcutta!). Richard has been on the job for the entire Chicago theatre renaissance. I will go farther–Richard is one of the reasons the Chicago theatre renaissance is happening. (I started to write "happened," but it is still very much in full flower.) He has become that very rare thing–a beloved theatre critic.
Apart from all of this, speaking personally, he holds a place in my heart few outside of family occupy. Years ago, without it being discussed, we seem to have made an agreement: I would write what I write, he would call them as he saw them, and we would not let his inevitable disappointment in some of my work or my disappointment that I hadn’t pleased him get in the way of good conversation. There have been years of swapping stories, debating the relative merits of scripts and productions, and a fair amount of gossip. And when personal matters have threatened to overwhelm me (I verged on the certifiable during my divorce), he has been the best kind of friend–steadying, encouraging, truthful.
If I owned a theatre, I would name it for him. I hope and trust somebody will do it soon, and then put on stuff there that lives up to its namesake.
On this page: