18 March 2026

Wallace Shawn

 

[In late February 1992, I interviewed actor and playwright Wallace Shawn (b. 1943) on the telephone.  I was doing research on avant-garde stage director Leonardo Shapiro and his Shaliko Company for a profile to be published in The Drama Review in 1993 (“Shapiro and Shaliko: Techniques of Testimony,” vol. 37, no. 4 [T140] [Winter 1993]). 

[Shawn was a friend of Shapiro’s from their student days at New York University’s School of the Arts (now the Tisch School of the Arts) and he followed and supported Shapiro’s work from the beginning in the early 1970s.  Shawn was working on an MFA in the Graduate Acting Program of SOA from 1966-68 while Shapiro was studying directing in the undergraduate division from 1966 to ’69 for a BFA.  At the same time, Shawn was working with André Gregory (b. 1934) at his theater troupe, the Manhattan Project, which would become a model for Shapiro’s own Shaliko Company in the following decade. 

[I never got to meet Shawn; our only contact was that phone interview, though the actor and writer was instrumental in many of the early steps in Shapiro’s artistic life (see my eight-part post “A Biography of Leonardo Shapiro” [16, 19, 22, 25, 28 April, 1, 4, and May 2023]).

[As I’ve recorded elsewhere on Rick On Theater, the first service Shawn rendered Shaliko was to broker the connection between The Shaliko Company and Joseph Papp’s (1921-91) New York Shakespeare Festival (now the Public Theater).  The playwright praised Shapiro’s production of Bertolt Brecht’s The Measures Taken to Gail Merrifield, Papp’s wife and the director of play development at NYSF, in 1974 and Merrifield got her husband to see it.  Papp offered Shaliko space at the Public Theater on the strength of that production—only the third troupe to have been accorded such a privilege at the time.

[After Measures moved to the Public, Shaliko produced two more shows there.  After the third one, Georg Büchner’s Woyzeck, Shapiro disbanded his company and decided to try his hand at freelance directing, starting in December 1976 at the Public with The Youth Hostel, part of a workshop of three one-act plays by Shawn. 

[Shawn mediated Shapiro’s return to direct Youth Hostel, overcoming Papp’s reservations by affirming “that he really believed in” the director.  Papp had called Shawn “my favorite writer.”

[The 1976 workshop presentation before subscribers and invited guests was a test to determine if Three Short Plays (as the bill was called in this production), set before, during, and after sex, was suitable for a full staging at the Public.  The one-acts were never put on the NYSF schedule because their explicit portrayal of sex was too seamy for Papp.

[(For the record, the other two plays were Summer Evening, directed by Wilford Leach [1929-88], and Mr. Frivolous, directed by Lee Breuer [1937-2021].  The three plays are published as A Thought in Three Parts [the title under which they were successfully produced in London in February 1977] in Shawn’s Four Plays [Noonday Press, 1998].)

[Shawn later described the workshop as “a disaster,” and the NYSF stage manager’s reports indicates that many spectators left during the performance.  The direction and performances were generally commended and not considered to be at fault for the reception, however, and the forty-five-minute Youth Hostel cemented the life-long friendship between Shawn and Shapiro.

[In 1983, Shapiro, having tried unsuccessfully to relaunch Shaliko, tried again.  Shawn had brought a new play, The Arbor by Andrea Dunbar (1961-90), from England where it had been produced at London’s Royal Court Theatre in 1980, and Shapiro approached Ellen Stewart (1919-2011), who agreed to let him present the play at La MaMa E.T.C., beginning Shaliko’s association with that East Village theater.

[Max Stafford-Clark (b. 1941), the director of the Royal Court, had earlier successfully directed the Shawn one-acts in London under the umbrella title A Thought in Three Parts after they were rejected by Papp.  The production of The Arbor attracted a great deal of attention for its raw power and honesty, so Shawn brought it back to the U.S. and showed it to Shapiro.

[The Arbor by Andrea Dunbar had its U.S. premiere at La MaMa from 9 September to 4 October 1983.  It was generally well received, with Frank Rich of the New York Times asserting, “[T]his modest play . . . is honest and at times affecting in the most plaintive way.  We not only get a completely unsentimental portrait of Andrea, but also a streetwise sketch of a rugged social environment . . . .”

[What I think was the last professional collaboration between Shawn and Shapiro was in 1990.  Shapiro, who’d been appointed artist-in-residence at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1983, directed a production of Shawn’s 1985 play Aunt Dan and Lemon at Trinity in April.  Out of this association with the school, Shapiro launched the Trinity/La MaMa Performing Arts Program in 1987, an advanced theater-training course he administered from the East Village theater and for which Shawn conducted a seminar.

[Shapiro resigned from Trinity/La MaMa in 1992 and closed down Shaliko the next year.  He retired to a mountain cabin in New Mexico, near Taos where he’d lived among the hippie communes doing guerrilla theater from 1969 to 1971.  Diagnosed with bladder cancer, Shapiro died in 1997, a couple of weeks after his 51st birthday.] 

THE NEW YORKER
by Susan Dominus 

[Susan Dominus’s profile of actor-playwright Wallace Shawn appeared in T: The New York Times Style Magazine on 22 February 2026.  The online version, “Is Wallace Shawn the Only Avant-Garde Artist Who Gets Stopped in Times Square?,” was posted on 8 February (and updated 9 February; note bracketed correction below).]

The playwright and actor Wallace Shawn remains possibly the only avant-garde artist to draw tourist attention in Times Square.

After I had lunch with Wallace Shawn, a lifelong New Yorker, he readily accompanied me across town, although it was a frigid Sunday in December and much of the city’s usual post-snow slush had hardened into ice. [The snowfall occurred on 26-27 December 2025, delivering about 4.3 inches of snow to Central Park.] Shawn, who’s 82 and famously small in stature, wore a generic black parka and generic black boots. Before leaving the restaurant, he’d shoved onto his mostly bald head a dark gray wool cap, notable only for a few moth holes. He looked, in other words, like any other city native who could expect to travel invisibly through the streets, except that when we reached the theater where I was meeting my niece, a ripple of jittery energy instantly traveled down the row of people waiting to enter. The two women behind my niece in line nearly jumped when he approached, staring at him in open adoration and amazement. Shawn, who’d already been stopped twice that day by giggly fans, smiled back automatically; such encounters are routine — pleasant enough but also common enough to have little emotional valence.

Shawn showed up in Times Square that day like a one-man tourist attraction, a symbol of the city’s telegenic renderings on shows like “Sex and the City” [2004] and “Gossip Girl” [2021], both of which have featured him as a romantic savior to glamorous Manhattan women in need of a decent (or, really, any) man. He’s also played a New Yorker in such consummately New York films as Woody Allen’s “Manhattan” (1979) — in which he was also cast as an unlikely Lothario — and in the film he wrote and starred in with his friend and colleague André Gregory, “My Dinner With André” (1981), an art house breakout hit in which both men depict versions of themselves as artists. Shawn has earned what he always refers to as a “bourgeois lifestyle” by playing the ultimate funny valentine: his mouth a little weak, his figure less than Greek, all of it superseded by an intelligence and originality that the camera captures at close range.

Although the 30th anniversary of the film “Clueless” (1995) has revived interest in Shawn’s performance as an avuncular teacher, the part for which Times Square tourists may most likely know him is Vizzini, the Sicilian would-be hit man of “The Princess Bride” (1987). His most famous line, “Inconceivable!,” turns up several times in the movie, and Shawn’s wildly varied delivery — distinctively nasal and lisping one moment, cocky and debonair another — made it a kind of meme long before the internet would spread it even further. It’s an earworm of an exclamation — nerdy, beloved, handy. People still shout it at him on the street as he walks by. Even at a Harvard reunion (he attended the school as an undergraduate), teenage children of his classmates called it out as they passed him, something to be reckoned with for someone who once told an interviewer that his goal as a human being, since childhood, was “to be taken seriously.”

Shawn, who describes acting as “this funny thing I took on late in life,” considers himself primarily a playwright — one who has, as he puts it in the introduction to the published version of “My Dinner With André” [Grove Press, 1981], “generously shown on the stage my interior life as a raging beast.” In “Our Late Night” (1975), an urbane party devolves almost immediately into chatty conversations about fornicating and farting; someone vomits loudly offstage, and a man casually tells a woman he’s just met that he’d like to have sex with her, and in what fashion. In 2013, he performed, along with the actress Julie Hagerty and others, in his play “Grasses of a Thousand Colors” [Joseph Papp Public Theater, Off-Broadway, 28 October-1 December 2013 ], in which he envisions a world where a consumable solution to a global food shortage has the disturbing side effect of making humans (even more) obsessed with their genitalia, with other taboos cast aside and recalled as quaint relics of a more uptight time.

Shawn’s works often have the feel of profane fairy tales in which humans aren’t so much transformed into animals but revealed as them. His own creative compulsion seems to lie in exposing his characters’ secrets, their shameful, if universal, instinct to root around for pleasure and comfort, whatever the cost — be it others’ emotional anguish or, on a more global scale, the suffering of the oppressed. Next month, his new play, “What We Did Before Our Moth Days” [opened 5 March 2026], will open off Broadway at the Greenwich House Theater. Shawn, whose own family was defined by a longstanding secret, continues to explore what’s hidden in “Moth Days” — but the play represents something of a departure, a move toward material that is more personal, less pungent or political. Gregory, who is directing it at 91, says it’s a play that has a deceptively simple quality. “The tip of the iceberg is what the audience sees, but the bulk of the iceberg is invisible and underwater,” he says. “So underneath this play is a lifetime of writing and a lifetime of being involved in the world.”

As if in counterpoint, Shawn is also reprising, two days a week at the same theater, his role in the one-person play “The Fever” (1990), which features a member of the privileged class who comes to feel revulsion at the violence inherent in maintaining the global status quo. “‘The Fever’ is a very harsh, cruel depiction of bourgeois people,” he says. “In ‘Moth Days,’ I have a fondness for those people, even a love for them.”

For all his recognition as an important figure in the theater and as a writer (Shawn has published two books that showcase his essays and been honored by PEN [worldwide association of writers] for his playwriting), he is perceived by millions of people, and reminded almost on a daily basis, that he will forever be best known for his screen work, some of which he did decades ago over the course of just a few weeks. It occurs to me, as we talk over lunch, that it might be alienating for Shawn to have his exterior persona — the powerful associations people have with the look of his face, the shape of his body — mean so much to those he regularly encounters, when it’s often because of a piece of work, released years in the past, about which he feels relatively little. “It’s unbelievably strange!” he says, leaning in across the table. “Unbelievably strange!”

The strange, the unsaid, the contrast between our outer and inner selves — these have been Shawn’s preoccupations since he was a precocious and mildly rebellious child of the Upper East Side. When he was 13, he and a friend went to see the first American production of Eugene O’Neill’s “Long Day’s Journey Into Night” (1956) at the Helen Hayes Theatre. The play, which O’Neill [1888-1953] wrote toward the end of his life, is his most autobiographical, the story of family members in pain facing the secrets that made their trajectories both bearable and awful; it’s about sons stumbling in their efforts to build lives beyond the shadow of their outwardly successful father, a man grappling with his own heavy disappointments. [James O'Neill (1847-1920) was an Irish-American stage actor, famous largely for one role: Edmond Dantès. the title character in a stage adaptation of The Count of Monte Cristo.]

The play opened something in Shawn, who didn’t know back in 1956 that he would end up a playwright and actor; he just felt he’d been given a view through a porthole to a universe in which what was real could be expressed and lived, loudly and publicly. “I was thrilled by its truthfulness,” he tells me. “It stuck with me for the rest of my life. And I’d still swear by that. I felt, ‘This is true. Everything else is fake. This is really what’s going on.’”

Shawn announced to his parents that they had to go see the production, which they did — and then pointed out to them afterward that the family in the play was much like their own. “My mother said, ‘What do you mean, dear? I’m not a dope fiend!’” he recalls. “But yeah, there was a secret in my family.” As he says this, we’re sitting in the back of a restaurant near Lincoln Center, although Shawn asked that I not reveal the place to protect his privacy. “I didn’t know it,” he continues. “I had no idea. But kids always know it at some point. And I know I thought, ‘This was my family.’ My mother made fun of the idea. My father wasn’t saying anything. He got it. Of course! He thought, ‘Wallace is picking up something.’”

Shawn and his brother, Allen [b. 1948], who is five years younger, lived their lives in a state of what could be considered true dramatic irony: They were conducting themselves according to certain premises, the falsity of which everyone around them was well aware. Their father, William Shawn [1907-92], the second editor of The New Yorker, was married to their mother, a former journalist, Cecille Shawn [1906-2005]; but he also had a long relationship with Lillian Ross [1918-2017], a writer for the magazine, and was even raising her adopted child with her. The affair was known to many who worked at The New Yorker; it was known, for most of its duration, to his wife. But their playwright-actor son, who lived at home in his mid-20s, didn’t find out about the relationship, somehow, until some three decades after it started, when he was almost 35, after a friend who assumed that he and his brother knew made mention of it.

“A lot of people grow up in families where there’s a secret,” Shawn says. “Fewer grow up in families where there’s a secret that a lot of people know but the kids don’t know. That’s more unusual.”

Unlike many of his characters, Shawn speaks slowly and with many pauses in the service of sentences that ultimately emerge perfectly formed. He is also polite and courtly and at great pains not to offend, so much so that one fears inadvertently violating whatever code of etiquette is obviously almost sacred to him. So private that he asked me not to reveal what he ate throughout our meetings, he nonetheless has written a play whose broad outlines, and even some poignant details, are flagrantly autobiographical. “Moth Days” — those fluttery, flyaway moments before death, as one of the characters imagines them — unfurls the story of a long-running extramarital affair told, in a series of monologues, from the points of view of four people: a father who’s a famous author, played by Josh Hamilton; a son, a philosophizing and wounded searcher played by John Early; a long-suffering mother, played by Maria Dizzia; and a cultured, bookish lover, played by Hope Davis [read a review]. The pacing is slow, the mood wistful and only gently comedic. The set is minimal, as is the staging, so that the storytelling and self-reflections of the actors alone mesmerize the audience. With empathy for themselves and those who disappoint them, Shawn’s characters ponder the preprogrammed compulsions to fall in and out of love, to be overwhelmed by and then lose all desire, “to use the tiny, pitiful words that the creature uses to point to invisible parts of itself, invisible parts that grow so vast that they turn us inside out and then swallow us up and eat us,” as the son, Tim, puts it. One of the play’s most beautiful passages is not about the pain of heartbreak but about the suffering felt by someone who has fallen out of love — someone who had no control over its dwindling course but who must inevitably wreak emotional havoc on the blameless formerly beloved as a result. What’s strange about the world, in Shawn’s work, is how little examined it is for its impossible constrictions, its punishing inevitabilities.

In conversation, Shawn can be benevolent, even beaming. And yet one senses that although it would be hard to say something that would offend him, it would be easy to ask a question that would. As I delicately try to broach the parallels of the play with his own upbringing, Shawn sounds, if not quite sharp, pointed. “I had no complaints about my parents,” he tells me. His work often suggests he is interested in exploring humans’ worst instincts. But even the most venal characters in his plays often describe their fate, in ways that are almost convincing, as the culmination of factors far beyond their control or awareness. “Moth Days” not only has sympathy for a man seeking love outside a marriage; it also gives dignity and dimensionality to a beautiful woman who might have been betrayed, even shattered, but is nonetheless adored by her son for her strength and brilliance. And it reveals a son — a writer who is no rival to his father, a figure who writes sexually inappropriate children’s stories that have gained a cult following — who loves both of his parents and judges neither, even as he feels real pain.

Much of Shawn’s theater is defiant in one way or another, often refusing the conventions of the form altogether. With little direct interaction among the characters, the performance of “Moth Days” has a stillness that calls on the listener to lean in. “It really felt like these four characters were in the psychiatrist’s chair,” says Elizabeth LeCompte, 81, a founding member of the Wooster Group, who saw the play in rehearsals. “And I was the psychiatrist.”

Unlike his brother, Allen, who has excavated his family history in three memoirs in which he also details his mental health struggles, Shawn says he has never been in therapy, with the exception of several months in college when a psychology professor he admired offered to provide analysis as if it were a generous extension of his coursework. But he has little interest in exploring the psychological reasons he’s chosen to delve into this material now, at this phase of his life. The actress Kate Valk, 68, another founding member of the Wooster Group, suggested to me that in the later years of one’s life one feels drawn to more personal material, a notion Shawn dismisses. “I don’t think I could have written that play 25 years ago,” he says. “Because 25 years ago, there was too much interest in the old New Yorker and Mr. Shawn.” If anything, he adds, he wrote it now simply because he’s a different person, composed of different experiences and reflections, so that what he wrote inevitably changed over time in ways he couldn’t predict or particularly control.

In his first memoir, “Wish I Could Be There” ([Viking,] 2007), Allen, the twin of a sister, Mary Shawn, who has autism and was institutionalized, enumerates the various topics, beyond the affair, that were either secrets or unmentionable in the Shawn household: that they were Jewish, and also universally short (Wallace is 5-foot-2); that both parents saw psychiatrists; that they worried about money (their father felt trapped by his job, which he held from 1952 to 1987, but also was loath to ever ask for a raise). Allen, an accomplished composer, turned to music, in which everything is felt but nothing explicitly said, to express himself; his older brother, it seems, chose for his creative outlet a medium that would allow him to say everything that he thought should be said, no matter how shocking or, as some critics have found, morally heavy-handed. “The World’s a Mess, and It’s All Your Fault,” is the headline of a New York Times review of the 2007 production the New Group did of “The Fever.”

[Allen Shawn’s two other memoirs are Twin: A Memoir (2011), which focuses on his relationship with his autistic twin sister, and In the Realm of Tones: A Composer's Memoir (2025), which is about his career and life as a composer and pianist.]

The actor Ethan Hawke, who had shared a dressing room with Shawn for six months during their run of David Rabe’s “Hurlyburly” off Broadway in 2005, was so incensed by the damning review of “The Fever” that he wrote a (never published) letter to the editor defending Shawn’s play, which Hawke, now 55, said inspired his mother to overhaul her life to start volunteering overseas. “What ‘The Fever’ does for many of us is to articulate and validate the ambivalence we feel about the privileged lives we lead,” he wrote. “The liberating effect that ‘The Fever’ had on my mother was to make what she wanted to do seem logical — not heroic or saintly but logical.”

Hawke’s comments made me think back on a moment at the theater to which Shawn had accompanied me. Among the many details of his life that he’d asked me not to include was the name of the play I was seeing at that time with my niece, since he had decided to see it as well. His concerns were less about privacy than about a policy of do no harm. What if I mentioned the play, he explained, and then asked him on the record what he’d thought about it? And what if he didn’t like it or didn’t say one way or the other? Some actors’ feelings might be hurt. And what if he did like it? Someone else, some other friend performing in a different play at the same time, might be hurt that he hadn’t found a way to say a few kind words about that performance.

As we stood outside the theater, he delivered the request firmly, smiling gently up at me, but with some implied apology and resignation, as if other people’s feelings were an inconvenience that required effort to manage but that must nonetheless be navigated carefully, much like the icy streets we’d just traversed. At first I thought his request was overly cautious, even neurotic; but when I played it out, I saw that it had a rock-solid logic behind it, the kind that comes only from someone with a rare and complicated gift for empathy, for understanding the deep vulnerabilities of anyone who puts themselves onstage trying to show what it is to be human.

Before he would find his way to writing plays, Shawn first majored in history at Harvard (an institution he despised, as he was sure to tell its alumni magazine), traveled to India to teach English, then studied philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford, fully intending to become a civil servant. “If you’d met me back then, you’d have thought, ‘This is a very serious person,’” Shawn says, contrasting that first impression with the way he’s so often perceived now — as the funny guy from the movies. Instead, while still at Oxford, he started writing plays, for no reason other than that he felt compelled to. He began mailing them to figures he admired; eventually, he showed them to the writer and critic Renata Adler [b. 1937; author, journalist, and film critic], a family friend who felt the plays — imaginative, literate, at times very witty — had originality and, as she recently recalled, “a music to them — a purity.” She introduced him to Gregory, by then a noted avant-garde director, who shared her opinion. Others did not. In 1971, Peter Brook [British; 1925-2022], the experimental-theater director, whom Shawn revered, agreed to read his work, only to offer a short but withering critique that Shawn can quote word for word more than half a century later. “To make any worthwhile comments about someone’s work, you have to have at least some sympathy with it,” Shawn recites. “But” — and here he slows down, as if to savor the feel of the shiv in his creative soul — “I remained on the outside of your plays.” Those words may still haunt him, but they didn’t sway Gregory (whose self-confidence perhaps surpassed even that of Shawn) from starting to direct and mount his plays, while some of the actors in his group, the Manhattan Project, were arguing with one another over whether to do the work.

Shawn’s early playwriting career landed him in a period of exhausting debt and mindless clerical work, the toll of which he described to the reporter Don Shewey [b. 1959] in a 1983 Esquire profile. “The fact is,” Shawn said back then, “most of my time is spent racing around trying to answer half of my phone calls, doing half of my errands, paying half of my bills, just desperately trying to keep up with the minimum of life. And I have to fight and kill, I feel, to get any free time to do a little writing of my own. I feel I have to be a monster, a murderer, to get 15 minutes for myself!” Although Shawn’s own financial life would gradually improve in the years following the release of “My Dinner With André,” his introductory lines in that movie reflect the contrast between his cosseted early days as a 10-year-old artist in the making, the scion of a literary great, and his sometimes grim life as a working artist: “Now all I think about is money,” his character complains. That he wasn’t more successful as a playwright by his mid-30s came as something of a surprise to Shawn, who’d assumed — maybe given his upbringing, his education or some innate conviction — that his work would be widely embraced by that point in his career.

Shawn occupied an unusual class demographic in New York at the time. Even as he had close friends who shared Thanksgiving with the Kissingers or were thriving in his father’s employ at The New Yorker, he himself was so broke he considered driving a cab, and his girlfriend worked as a waitress. Shawn may have experienced a somewhat hardscrabble life, but he nonetheless was living in a period when an experimental artist could still scrape by in Manhattan — when the arty productions he and his friends mounted, even with small audiences, still got reviewed by critics at major papers, so that it felt like the work, too, had a legitimate home in the city. His writing led him to film and television work after Woody Allen’s casting agent saw him in his first onstage New York performance, at the Public Theater in 1977, in Machiavelli’s “The Mandrake” (1524). Shawn had translated the script, and played the part of a rambling, comical servant only because the director [Wilford Leach] had an instinct he’d be good. A memorable bit part as Diane Keaton’s sexually gifted ex-husband in “Manhattan” resulted in interest from other casting agents, which led to recurring roles on “The Cosby Show” [1987, 1989, 1990, 1991] and “The Good Wife” [2013, 2014, 2015].

[Henry Kissinger (1923-2023) was an American diplomat, political scientist, and politician. He served as the 7th National Security Advisor from 1969 to 1975, followed by being the 56th United States Secretary of State from 1973 to 1977. He served under presidents Richard Nixon (1913-94; 37th President of the United States: 1969-74) and Gerald Ford (1913-2006; 38th President of the United States: 1974-77).]

The work as a character actor, which started in his mid-30s, allowed Shawn to pay off his debt. He says that he and his partner, Deborah Eisenberg [b. 1945], the acclaimed short-story writer, never particularly minded the shabbiness of the humble life they were leading in Chelsea (the neighborhood where they still live). The money he started making as an actor was important mostly because it meant that he never had to choose, he says, between “having a pleasant bourgeois lifestyle and writing my plays. I never had to face any kind of a crisis where anybody said, ‘You know, the problem with you is the type of plays you write — couldn’t you possibly write more enjoyable plays? You would be able to lead a bourgeois lifestyle then!’” His role in culture, high and low, is unique, as if an actor like Jane Lynch only did film and television work so she could continue to choreograph well-regarded but little-seen productions of interpretive dance.

It wasn’t only his educational pedigree and upbringing, of course, that gave Shawn his confidence. Though much of his early work was panned, he was right to think it was worthy of being admired and eventually valued in the canon. “I was wrong until I was 70 or something,” he says. “Then I began to feel that more people respected me.” Eisenberg, he adds, will no longer put up with his complaining that he’s underappreciated.

And yet even Shawn still has to hustle to make the art he cares about. When some funding for the “Moth Days” production fell through, he used all of his considerable social capital to find actual capital. “I went around asking everyone I knew, ‘Do you know anyone who has a lot of money?’” he tells me. (Scott Rudin [b. 1958] [and Barry Diller (b. 1942) are] producing the show.) Shawn sounds proud that he wasn’t squeamish about the topic of money, as his father had been — that he’d brought his own power to bear in order to bring this story of loving, flawed humans to light.

As is typical for Shawn and Gregory, who spent some 15 years rehearsing their adaptation of Henrik Ibsen’s “The Master Builder,” which became a 2013 film directed by Jonathan Demme, rehearsals happened sporadically over a year and a half, rather than mere weeks. Shawn showed up for all but one of them. Early, 38, says the experience was easily the most meaningful of his career. “This play has had the effect of making me embarrassed by most of my other performances,” he tells me. “There’s a difference between memorizing your lines and knowing your lines.”

Gregory’s talents as a director do not lie in the notes he gives, says Shawn, as there are almost none; his gift is in the exquisite warmth and receptiveness, the aliveness, with which he observes. Early says that Shawn brought the same quality to rehearsals, so much so that the intimacy was almost uncomfortable at times. “It’s like you’re staring face-to-face, making eye contact with the playwright, as you’re performing, as if you’re delivering the performance directly to him,” he says.

When Donald Trump was re-elected, Shawn had momentary doubts about the timing of such a personal play. “I wrote this during the Biden era!” he tells me. “At first I was upset because I thought, ‘I really would like to have written a play that explicitly cries out against the murderous regime of Trump and the evil that has happened.’ But now I’m feeling, ‘Well, this gang of people who have clustered around Trump — and Trump himself — they’re violently opposed to sympathy for other human beings.’ So to do a play that is, in a way, subtle, and that deals with suffering human beings somewhat compassionately . . . it becomes political.” Even the act of putting so much care into a play was, as he perceives it, a rebuke to those in power. “The whole enterprise of creating an artistic work is of value. I think the way we’re doing it is sort of intelligent. And that makes a statement in this bizarre time we’re living in.”

So much about the world seems not just cruel or senseless but bizarre to Shawn that it doesn’t seem entirely coincidental that “inconceivable” is the word with which he has become so strongly associated. (In fact, the word turns up in one of his lines that he wrote in “My Dinner With André”: “It’s inconceivable that anybody could be having a meaningful life today.”)

On a Reddit thread in which Shawn participated in 2022, someone asked if it ever bothered him when fans made jokes to him or just shouted one word out at him as he walked by. “I’m sure they mean well,” Shawn wrote back, “but nobody likes to be reduced to something smaller than what they really are.” Another person on the thread countered that, to him, it was far more than a throwaway comedic line; as a lover of Shawn’s work, he saw it as “that tiny little crack that opens into a world of wonder.”

Shawn had just seen a Wooster Group production of Richard Foreman’s [1937-2025] “Symphony of Rats” last spring [27 March-8 May 2024] when someone in the audience stopped to ask for a photo. “I’m sorry, I just can’t do this in the citadel of art,” he demurred; he seemed embarrassed, in front of his fellow avant-garde actors, to be caught in the role of pop-culture celebrity. “He’s a snob,” LeCompte says lovingly, as if no higher compliment could be given. Nonetheless, Valk urged him to embrace the recognition. “Oh, go on,” she told him. “Give the people what they want.”

And in that moment, at least, he did.

[So, what’s wrong with Grand Nagus Zek?  He doesn’t get a mention?  (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, 7 episodes: 1993-99)

[Susan Dominus, a journalist and professor, has been a staff writer at the New York Times Magazine since 2011.  She was part of the winning team for the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service and for reporting on sexual harassment in the American workplace and in 2024, she won a National Magazine Award for an article about menopause.

[Before her current position at the Times, Dominus worked as an editor for eight years at magazines including Glamour, The American Lawyer, and New York before switching to reporting and writing.  She freelanced for the Times Magazine and other outlets before joining the Times staff in 2007 to write the “Big City” column for the Metro section.

[Dominus graduated from Yale University where she is currently a lecturer.  She is the author of The Family Dynamic (Crown Publishing, 2025).]


13 March 2026

AI & Molière

 

[I’ve recently posted several articles on Rick On Theater on the subject of computers or artificial intelligence and art: “Replicating Classic Art Works” (21 February 2026), for instance, is a report from PBS News Hour on using computer technology to examine and analyze paintings and even duplicate them; “AI Art” (26 February 2026) is a 60 Minutes segment on the use of computers to create art with AI.

[“Dreaming the Impossible at M.I.T.” by Philip Elmer-Dewitt in “Computers and Actors, Part 1” (4 October 2021), a Time magazine report, goes all the way back to 1987, almost the dawn of the modern computer age, to look at a then-new, pre-AI experimental computer program that let playwrights test scenes on screen without hiring actors and a stage.  Much later, I reposted “Tilly Norwood, AI Actress” (13 October 2025), a collection of articles on a fictional, photorealistic, 100% AI-generated “actress” whose arrival caused controversy in the film industry. 

[Now we can have a look at something in the offing that was at the center of the recent strikes against film and television producers by the Writers Guild of America (May-September 2023) and SAG-AFTRA (July-November 2023): scripts written by AI trained on the works of an accomplished writer—in this case world-famous but long-dead.  (Could the next step be seeing such a script enacted by the sisters and brothers of Tilly Norwood?)

[Below, I’m reposting a New York Times article on a French experiment in which just such a “new” play was composed by AI in the style and language (literally) of Molière (1622-73), renowned French playwright.  So far, after two years of work, only excerpts of the play, The Astrologer, have been performed.  (When the full comedy is presented in May, maybe the reviews will be devised by writebots.)

[Molière, born Jean-Baptiste Poquelin, was also an actor and director.  Considered the master of comedy in Western literature, he revolutionized theater with satirical plays mocking human vices, vanity, and 17th-century French society, like Tartuffe (1664), a satire on religious hypocrisy, and The Misanthrope (1666), a study of a man who rejects the shallow conventions of society. 

[Born to a wealthy Parisian upholsterer, he was expected to take over the family business but turned to theater, adopting the stage name Molière.  He co-founded L’Illustre Théâtre (‘the illustrious theater’) in 1643, which initially went bankrupt, landing him in prison for debts.  He spent 13 years touring provincial France, developing his craft before gaining patronage under King Louis XIV (1638-1715; King of France: 1643-1715; known as the Sun King [le Roi Soleil]).

[Molière was known for full-length comedies, farces, and comédie-ballets, including The School for Wives (L’École des femmes, 1662), The Miser (L’Avare, 1668), and The Bourgeois Gentleman (Le Bourgeois gentilhomme, 1670).  He died in 1673 after collapsing during a performance of his final play, The Imaginary Invalid (Le Malade imaginaire, 1673).  (He finished the performance—he was playing Argan, the title role, a severe hypochondriac obsessed with illness and death—but died shortly afterwards at the age of 51.)

[His comedies often explored themes of hypocrisy, rigid social conventions, and medical absurdity.  He specialized in creating memorable, exaggerated characters that highlighted human follies.  His plays combined the slapstick of Italian Commedia dell’arte with profound social commentary. 

[Molière’s influence is so pervasive that French is often referred to as “the language of Molière.”  He’s credited with elevating comedy to a position of artistic honor equal to tragedy in French culture.  The national theater award of France, recognizing achievement in French theater each year since 1987, are named Les Molières.  The awards are considered the highest honors for stage productions and performances, equivalent to the U.S. Tony Awards or the British Olivier Awards.]

CHALLENGING A.I. TO MATCH
THE INTRICATE WIT OF MOLIÈRE
by Laura Cappelle
 

Scholars and artists at Sorbonne University worked on a program to imitate the French playwright, resulting i-n a new production.

[The article below ran in the print edition of the New York Times on 8 January 2026 in Section C (“Arts”).  It was reported from Paris.  It was posted to the paper’s website as “Can A.I. Match Molière’s Wit? These Researchers Think So.”]

paris — A tyrannical father, duped by a sham astrologer, promises his daughter in marriage — until she and a clever servant expose the fraud with some farcical tricks.

It sounds like a comedic plot by Molière, the 17th-century playwright who thrilled Paris by skewering paternal authority and pseudoscience. Yet the beloved French author didn’t write that one: It’s the scenario for “The Astrologer, or False Omens” [L’Astrologue ou les Faux Présages], a play written by an artificial intelligence program trained to imitate Molière’s themes, structures and sense of humor.

For the past two years, the French A.I. collective Obvious has been developing the script with the Théâtre Molière Sorbonne, a theater company here specializing in historical reconstructions of the 17th-century repertoire. As part of the digital arts festival Némo, an excerpt will be performed on Saturday at the Centquatre, a Paris arts center, before a full staging at the Royal Opera of Versailles in May.

[Obvious is a Paris-based artist collective formed in 2017 by childhood friends Hugo Caselles-Dupré, Pierre Fautrel, and Gauthier Vernier to explore the intersection of art and artificial intelligence. They achieved global recognition in 2018 with the sale of their first major work, Portrait of Edmond de Belamy, at Christie’s New York.

[Caselles-Dupré (b. 1993), as a specialized researcher in artificial intelligence and machine learning, is the technical lead and research director of Obvious; Fautrel (b. 1993) was educated in digital marketing and communication, before which, he was involved in the electronic music scene; Vernier (b. 1993) has a background in business and economics, providing the strategic and commercial foundation for the collective.

[Obvious served as the technical and creative engine behind "The Astrologer.” During the collaboration with Théâtre Molière Sorbonne for the project Molière Ex Machina, the collective utilized specialized AI models to reconstruct Molière's creative process. With Sorbonne scholars, they trained AI on Molière’s themes, linguistic structures, and humor to write the play’s dialogue. They used AI to generate sketches for historically informed costumes and stage sets that mimicked the aesthetic of the 17th-century French court and to compose music for the performance, ensuring it aligned with the period’s style.

[Also founded in 2017, the Théâtre Molière Sorbonne's mission is to revive the old-fashioned techniques of declamation and acting of the 17th century. A true school-workshop, it is aimed at the entire student community of Paris’s Sorbonne University, passionate about theater, singing, dance, or music and wishing to experiment with a new way of reproducing plays as they were performed in the time of Molière, Pierre Corneille (1606-84), and Jean Racine (1639-99). The Théâtre Molière Sorbonne performs at the Sorbonne as well as on prestigious stages in France.

[The arts center Centquatre, whose name is legally rendered as two words, Cent Quatre, but which was restyled as one in 2010 for graphical and marketing reasons, opened in 2008 in a former funeral hall. The center’s name means ‘one hundred four’ (which in French is properly two words—but the French language predates modern logotypy) and is derived from the former address of the building: 104 rue d’Aubervilliers (now 5 rue Curial).

[Centquatre-Paris, as it’s called (usually in all-caps), is a public facility that serves all forms of art, both creation and exhibition. It has large spaces for displays, exhibits, and performances; studio spaces for creating new work; workshop and rehearsal spaces for resident artists and groups; rooms for lectures and classes, plus restaurants and cafés as well as shops.]

The process was driven by “scientific curiosity,” Mickaël Bouffard, the director of the Théâtre Molière Sorbonne, said. “We’re trying to simulate Molière’s creative process, step by step. Our goal is to be as historically accurate as possible.”

The collaboration was masterminded by the sociologist Pierre-Marie Chauvin, a vice president of Sorbonne University, who said he saw in Obvious “a long-view approach to A.I., and a real interest in cultural heritage.”

The collective is best known for creating visual artworks with algorithms; in 2018, one of its paintings became the first A.I. work [Portrait of Edmond de Belamy (2018)] sold through the auction house Christie’s, for $432,500 [worth $560,000 in 2026]. Obvious opened its own research laboratory within Sorbonne University three years ago, and Chauvin brought its three members to see the Théâtre Molière Sorbonne.

Nobody in Obvious is a regular theatergoer: Its members’ experiences of Molière came primarily from their school days [all three are 32 or 33 now], they said in a group interview. Yet they immediately clicked with Georges Forestier, the Théâtre Molière Sorbonne’s founding director, whom Chauvin described as “extraordinarily curious and technophile.”

Forestier came up with the play’s main theme: human credulity, a fitting topic for an A.I.-written pastiche and one that Molière frequently touched on. Coraline Renaux, a Ph.D. student and a member of the theater company, then suggested an astrologer as a viable antihero. Astrologers are mentioned in some of Molière’s plays, and after his death, his collaborator Jean Donneau de Visé [1638-1710; French journalist, royal historian, playwright, and publicist] wrote a play about astrology, “The Comet.”

[The provenance of The Comet (La Comète, 1681) is messy and confusing, and I won’t try to recount all the theories of how it came to be written.  I’ll relate the most accepted theory of its composition and let curious readers look up the variations and permutations.

[What is certain is that La Comète was written in 1680, to capitalize on the appearance of the Great Comet of 1680 (also called Kirch’s Comet, and Newton’s Comet), discovered by astrologer Gottfried Kirch (German; 1639-1710). The comet passed through the terrestrial heavens between 14 November 1680 and 19 March 1681. It caused quite a frisson in France (and all around the world) and there were many scientific and pseudo-scientific rumors and predictions on people’s lips and in their imaginations. (Kirch’s Comet has an orbital period of 10,000 years, so it shouldn’t be back here until sometime in the 117th century.)

[Most authoritative sources, including the National Library of France (Bibliothèque nationale de France), credit the play primarily to Donneau de Visé and a man named Bernard le Bouyer (or Bovier) de Fontenelle (1657-1757 – no, that’s not a typo; Fontenelle died at the age of 99), a French writer known for his interest in science and philosophy. Donneau de Visé likely provided the commercial instinct and dramatic structure, while Fontenelle contributed the intellectual debates on chance and astronomy found in the script.

[Fontenelle was the nephew of the brothers Pierre and Thomas Corneille (his morher, Marthe, was their sister), both dramatists of some renown. (Pierre Corneille, a tragedian; Molière, a comedian; and Racine, another tragedian, were the three great playwrights of 17th-century France.) Thomas Corrneille (1625-1709) was also Donneau de Visé’s most frequent playwriting collaborator at the time. The younger Corneille brother likely acted in an advisory or editorial capacity as part of the established writing triumvirate.

[With the names of Jean Donneau de Visé, a luminary of the company at the Hôtel Guénégaud (which later became the Comédie-Française), and Thomas Corneille, a star of the troupe at the Hôtel de Bourgogne, one of France’s most important theaters, connected to the project gave it theatrical heft and credibility, especially following the disastrous reception, one month earlier, of Fontenelle’s 17th-century historical tragedy Aspar. (It did the project no harm that Donneau de Visé was also the founder and director of Le Mercure galant, a popular and influential literary gazette where Thomas Corneille was an editor.)]

After Forestier died from cancer in 2024, Bouffard continued driving the project forward. It turned out to be an arduous process. [The] creative team experimented with different prompts and programs trained by Obvious on Molière’s body of work, and struggled with the A.I.’s tendency to forget the beginning of the play once the story progressed. After a few months, Bouffard was almost ready to give up, he said, “because it was so laborious.”

“It took Molière two weeks to write a play, whereas we’ve been at it for two years,” said Gauthier Vernier, an Obvious member.

The quick progress of A.I. models provided the consistency needed to sustain long-form writing. Along the way, a team of Molière scholars provided human feedback on the evolving synopsis — which has been revised 15 times — and on the script itself, a process that is still continuing.

Among them is Lise Michel, an associate professor of French literature at Lausanne University [Université de Lausanne (University of Lausanne), Switzerland]. She said she approached reviewing the A.I. synopsis as “a game,” using her in-depth knowledge of Molière’s plays to identify anything that didn’t sound “quite right.”

Molière’s satirical humor, which blends literary wit and slapstick farce, proved especially hard to nail. The A.I. tended to excessively draw out humorous metaphors or make overly naïve jokes. Feedback from actors helped, according to Bouffard, who added that the A.I. also had “strokes of genius”: “We laughed so hard at times,” he said, “because we never thought it would be able to come up with some of these lines.”

Although the team was careful not to bill “The Astrologer” as a “new Molière play,” not everyone is thrilled by the prospect of the production. Bouffard said some colleagues had warned him that he was “taking on a sacred monster” in Molière.

In a recent Facebook post, Aurore Evain, a director and scholar who has revived forgotten plays by women, called the project a “Tartuffery” and criticized the $1.75 million budget attached to it (which came primarily from private French and North American sponsors, according to Sorbonne University).

[Obvioously derived from the name of the title character in Molière’s Tartuffe, the French word tartufferie (frequently tartuferie) means a ‘hypocritical act’ or the ‘act of a scoundrel.’ (This is the word that Evain used in her Facebook post. A tartufe/tartuffe—the word is both masculine and feminine—is a ‘hypocrite’ or a ‘scoundrel.’) The words both exist in English as well: ‘tartuffery’ means ‘religious hypocrisy’ and a ‘tartuffe’ is a ‘religious hypocrite.’]

The funding didn’t go solely to A.I.-powered writing: Three other models were trained to create historically accurate sets, costumes and music based on Molière’s collaborations with designers and composers. The resulting score and designs will be unveiled in full in Versailles in May before touring dates in France.

The show was conceived as a one-off, but the next step for A.I.-powered performing arts research may be to “complete unfinished plays or scores,” said Bouffard, who likened the idea to the restoration of a painting.

“A.I. has no ego, no taste — whether good or bad,” he said, stressing that this makes it more suited to pastiche than humans. “That sense of neutrality is really interesting,” he said. “It all depends on how we activate it.”

[Laura Cappelle is a Paris-based French journalist and scholar.  In 2023, she was appointed associate professor at Sorbonne Nouvelle University.  She edited a French-language introduction to dance history, Nouvelle Histoire de la danse en Occident (“A new history of dance in the West”; Seuil, 2020), and her new book, Créer des ballets au XXIe siècle (“Creating ballets in the 21st century”), was published with CNRS Éditions in May 2024.  

[Cappelle has been the Financial Times’ Paris-based dance critic since 2010, and the New York Times’ French theater critic since 2017. She is also an editorial consultant for CN D Magazine, published by the Centre national de la danse (CN D; National Dance Center; Paris).

[Little is known about Molière Ex Machina aside from what’s reported in the Times article.  The participants have been closed-mouthed about most aspects of the project; nothing that I could find was even published after the excerpts were performed at Centquatre.

[The plot synopsis put out by the project team is basically what the Laura Cappelle wrote: the play centers on a tyrannical father who is deceived by a fraudulent astrologer into marrying off his daughter, a theme chosen to reflect Molière’s frequent focus on human credulity.

[As Mickaël Bouffard says above, the production was conceived as a “scientific curiosity” to explore whether AI can match the wit and neutrality required for historical pastiche.  There are some details about the creation of The Astrologer that aren’t covered in Cappella’s report.  The “historically accurate” elements, for example, were created by training specific AI models on the work of Molière's 17th-century collaborators to ensure the production felt authentic to the year 1673.

[The costumes, for instance, were designed by an AI model trained on visual archives of Henri (de) Gissey (ca. 1621-73; French draughtsman and designer), the primary costume designer for the Cabinet of Louis XIV and a frequent collaborator of Molière.  Although designed by AI, the costumes were hand-stitched and embroidered by human artisans using 17th-century techniques, materials, and patterns, with no modern shortcuts like zippers.

[The stage design follows the “historically informed” principles of the Théâtre Molière Sorbonne, which specializes in reconstructing 17th-century theatrical aesthetics.  The AI was fed data from period engravings and stage directions from Molière’s time to generate sets that mimic the depth and style of the Palais-Royal or the Comédie-Française.  Designs emphasize the perspective-heavy, painted-flat scenery typical of the Baroque era.

[The Théâtre Molière Sorbonne production aims to simulate a complete 17th-century sensory experience, so an AI model was trained on the works of Jean-Baptiste Lully (1632-87; Italian-French composer, dancer, and instrumentalist; considered a master of the French Baroque music style), who composed the music for Molière’s famous comédie-ballets (like Le Bourgeois gentilhomme).

[Beyond the music, the actors were trained in period-accurate diction and gestures, ensuring that the AI-written text is delivered with the specific rhetorical style of the 1670s.

[Reactions to the AI’s imitation of Molière's style in The Astrologer have been a mix of scholarly fascination, practical challenges during the creative process, and sharp criticism from the theatrical community.  Researchers found that the AI identified patterns in Molière’s work that were so "scattered" they had previously gone unnoticed by scholars, offering new insights into his structural craft.

[The media coverage has been reported as characterizing the work as a comedic plot that “skewers paternal authority and pseudoscience,” successfully imitating Molière’s specific structures and sense of humor—but, as I observed, I couldn’t find any outlets with published reception to confirm this.

[The sold-out excerpts were scheduled at the Centquatre on 10 January 2026 as part of the Némo digital arts festival (11 October 2025-11 January 2026).  A full staging is planned for the Royal Opera of Versailles in May 2026.]


08 March 2026

Theater Kids Revisited

 

[Last June, I posted Theater Kids,” devoted entirely to “How To Tell If You’re a Theatre Kid,” an excerpt from John DeVore’s memoir, Theatre Kids: A True Tale of Off-Off Broadway (Applause, Theatre & Cinema Books, 2024), published on the American Theatre magazine website.  This past January, a New York Times article caught my attention, so now I’m going to revisit the topic of “theater kids.”  I think the titles of the individual articles I’m reposting pretty well reveal what this collection is about.

[In the introduction to the 23 June 2025 post, I define what a theater kid is:

a young person, usually a student, who is deeply passionate about and involved in theatrical performance.  They are often characterized by their enthusiastic embrace of performing arts, particularly musicals, and may exhibit traits like spontaneously breaking into song—almost always one from a musical—or quoting lines from shows.

[I go on to say, “I wasn’t a theater kid,” referencing my autobiographical post “A Broadway Baby” (22 September 2010)—though I acknowledge that that label did fit me.

[The three articles below are the New York Times report that started off a little brouhaha in the theater world, the Playbill article that called attention to that to-do, and a management association article that lays out the insiders’ response.  If you were a theater kid, or you knew one, you might find the exchange interesting—perhaps even touching.] 

HOW ‘THEATER KID’ MORPHED INTO A POLITICAL INSULT
by Sopan Deb 

[The New York Times article ran on 8 January 2026 in “Arts” (Section C).  It was posted online on 21 December 2025 as “Move Aside, Snowflake: ‘Theater Kid’ Is the New Go-To Political Insult.”]

Used as a pejorative, usually by the right, the phrase tags ‘the outsiders, the weirdos.’

Move over Karen and snowflake. There’s a new go-to political put-down: Theater kid.

Last month, the comedian Tim Dillon referred to New York City’s mayor-elect, Zohran Mamdani, as a “theater kid,” arguing that Mr. Mamdani’s victory speech was “a little cringe.”

[Tim Dillon (b. 1985) is a stand-up comic, podcaster, and actor known for his unrestrained satirical humor and social commentary. He hosts the popular podcast The Tim Dillon Show, which covers news, politics, and culture and airs at 9 a.m. (Pacific Time) Saturdays on YouTube (video) and Spotify (audio). The referenced show about Mayor-Elect Mamdani was broadcast on 8 November 2025, four days after Mamdani won the New York City mayoral election.]

After Mr. Mamdani appeared in the Oval Office for a surprisingly cordial meeting with President Trump [Friday, 21 November 2025], Jack Posobiec, a Trump loyalist and conspiracy theorist, wrote on X, “Theater kids always crumble if you actually press them.” (He also released an episode of his podcast titled “MAGA vs The Theater Kids: Do You Want Drama or Do You Want Victory?”)

Mr. Mamdani, a former improv studentactually is a theater fan. But he’s not the only target.

When Senator Alex Padilla, Democrat of California, was forcibly removed from a news conference in June after trying to question Kristi Noem, the [now-former] homeland security secretary, The Daily Caller [right-wing news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C. and founded by political commentator Tucker Carlson and political advisor Neil Patel] published an article with the headline ”Democrat Theater Kid Learns He’s Not Above the Law.”

Weeks later, the conservative publication American Thinker [daily online magazine dealing with American politics from a politically conservative viewpoint] ran an article saying that Mr. Padilla and a Who’s Who list of prominent Democrats were, you guessed it, theater kids. After a group of Democratic lawmakers released a video last month reminding troops that they could refuse illegal orders, Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center [U.S. government agency responsible for national and international counterterrorism efforts], described them as ”theater kids encouraging an insurrection.”

You get the picture, which raises the question: What did theater kids do to attract so much scorn?

It depends on whom you ask.

For Scott Jennings, a conservative CNN commentator, the increased use of the term is a result of “performance-based radicalism” on the left. As an example, he cited a video from 2019 that resurfaced in the final weeks before a special election for a House seat in Tennessee. It showed the Democratic candidate, Aftyn Behn, in tears, being dragged out of Gov. Bill Lee’s office during a sit-in protest, which called for the removal of a state legislator accused of sexual assault. (Ms. Behn lost by 9 percentage points in a district that Mr. Trump carried by 22 points last year.)

“These people are a sandwich board and a megaphone short of the loony bin,” Mr. Jennings said in an interview. “They think it’s actual politics. They think this is something good, and the rest of us are looking at it going, ‘Man, there go the theater kids again.’”

It’s not clear when the term gained currency, but an early example of its use as a pejorative dates to the final weeks of the 2024 presidential campaign when the conservative operative Matt Whitlock said on social media that Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, was “just a theater kid performing a sketch.”

Caricaturing political opponents with simple insults has become a hallmark of Trump-era politics. Think “Low Energy” Jeb Bush. Republicans, led by the president, have elevated name-calling to an art form, but Democrats have dabbled, too, with mixed results.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, called Republicans “weird” and turned it into a calling card of his candidacy. More recently, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, a leading Democratic critic of Mr. Trump who has worked to position himself for a possible 2028 presidential run, has taken to mimicking the president’s approach — calling him “Dozy Don,” among other insults.

Social media has made such put-downs catch on faster.

“In politics, just like in journalism, you’re always trying to make 10 words five, five words three, two words one, right?” Matt Gorman, a Republican strategist, said. “The way to do that really effectively, and we’ve seen this for generations, is you find ways to short-circuit that through connotations.”

Using “theater kids” pejoratively is a way of tagging opponents as dramatic and performative without having to use those words, Mr. Gorman said.

Theater kids became an indelible part of the culture when television series and films like “Glee,” “High School Musical” and “Smash” [see “What I learned from Smash (if I didn’t know anything about theater)’” by RonAnnArbor (9 June 2013)] hit the airwaves, though the popularity of those shows set theater kids up as the subject of parody.

“We are a ton of energy and we can be chaotic, but I find that that’s not actually the qualities that people are pointing out when they talk about the theater kid,” said Zhailon Levingston, a director of the upcoming Broadway production of “Cats: The Jellicle Ball.” “What they’re talking about is the person who refuses to stay silent in the face of something that needs to be spoken to.”

For the last half-century or so, it hasn’t been considered “cool” to be a theater aficionado, said Julia Knitel, who was nominated for a Tony Award for her performance in the musical “Dead Outlaw [2025].

“‘Theater kid’ being the bullied party is a tale as old as time,” Ms. Knitel said. “We’ve always been the outsiders, the weirdos. It’s a quick cultural shorthand to treat us as the underdog.”

Some see a more harmful motive for deploying the moniker as a political insult.

“My initial reaction was just that it feels homophobic,” said Jacob Kerzner, an assistant professor of musical theater at Syracuse University. Mr. Kerzner added that theater is an unusual art in that “you couldn’t replace theater with any other art form in this context.”

“‘They’re all painters now’ doesn’t quite have the same ring to it,” he said.

Daniel Pollack-Pelzner, the author of a recent biography of Lin-Manuel Miranda [Lin-Manuel Miranda: The Education of an Artist (Simon & Schuster, 2025)], said that using the term was part of a larger culture battle.

“A lot of kids playfully adopt the ‘theater kid’ moniker, even with its tinge of attention-seeking excess, because theater offers a space for performing a wider range of emotions and identities than much of our society allows,” Mr. Pollack-Pelzner said in an email. “Since right-wingers want to crack down on exploring gender, race and sexuality in schools, it’s sadly not surprising that they’d try to wield ‘theater kid’ as an insult to discredit progressive politics.”

The dings against theater lovers have come mostly from the right, but not exclusively so. Dhaaruni Sreenivas, a data scientist who has worked for Democratic consulting firms, wrote on X that the perception of the Democratic Party “as a safe space for rule-following theater kids is really bad for our image.” She followed that up with a Substack post [Substack is an online, ad-free platform that enables writers, podcasters, and creators to publish content directly to subscribers via email, while offering options for monetization through paid subscriptions] titled, “Theater Kids and Playing Risk.”

“You know the kids in ‘Glee’? Super cheerful and go-getters?” Ms. Sreenivas, who was a delegate for Kamala Harris at the 2024 Democratic National Convention, said in an interview. “They’re kind of despised by their peers. And it’s a problem because Americans kind of are nerdist. They do not like nerds.”

To Ms. Sreenivas, theater kids are “desperate for the approval of authority figures” and “really want to follow the rules and get rewarded for it.” Basically, she added, “they want to perform being good kids.”

Not everyone minds the moniker. Theater kids, Ms. Knitel said, are emotionally intelligent, empathetic, communicative, charismatic and in touch with their feelings. Those qualities, she said, don’t align with the “current administration.”

“They don’t want us to be empathetic and they don’t want us to care about those around us,” she said, “and they don’t want us to be open to expanding our horizons and feeling things deeply, because then we’re not as easily going to fall in line.”

[Sopan Deb is a New York Times reporter covering breaking news and culture.]

*  *  *  *
IN RESPONSE TO NEW YORK TIMES,
EDUCATIONAL THEATRE ASSOCIATION LAUNCHES
PROUD THEATRE KID CAMPAIGN
by Diep Tran

[Playbill, the National Theatre Magazine, picked up the story with a report on 23 December 2025 revealing that the Educational Theatre Association had taken umbrage at the content of the Times’ article.]

The campaign is in response to an article that said that “theatre kid” is the new conservative insult.

On December 21, the New York Times published an article with the headline: “Move Aside, Snowflake: ‘Theater Kid’ Is the New Go-To Political Insult” [that's the online title; see above]. It attributed the rise of conservative pundits using “theatre kid” as an insult, to denote a performance-based radicalism”—such as a conspiracy theorist calling incoming New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani a theatre kid (though Mamdani has said he listens to Hamilton and Dear Evan Hansen in the car).

In response, the Educational Theatre Association has launched the Proud Theatre Kid campaign to celebrate theatre kids everywhere. Said Dr. Jennifer Katona, executive director of EdTA, “This weekend, our members made it clear that the New York Times article touched a nerve. We felt it was important to stand up as leaders of the theatre education community and affirm what ‘theatre kid’ really means: creativity, discipline, collaboration, and empathy. The response today has been overwhelming, and it underscores the pride and unity of this community.”

The Association asked its followers to share why they are proud theatre kids. One respondent, who is a reverend, wrote: “My son is 14 and is confident, kind, and creative. I couldn’t be prouder! What a wonderful life both of us have found in the theatre. The world needs more of what theatre creates.”

Another respondent wrote: “The best description of theatre that I’ve ever heard is ‘the gym for empathy.’ It strengthened my ability to listen, to express complex ideas, and to put myself in others’ shoes. I can see why that’s threatening to certain politicians and pundits.” 

The Educational Theatre Association is a nonprofit focused on theatre education, serving as a professional association for theatre educators. EdTA is the parent organization of the International Thespian Society, a student honor society that has inducted more than 2.5 million thespians since 1929. Additionally, EdTA operates the Educational Theatre Foundation, the organization’s philanthropic arm dedicated to increasing opportunity and access to school theatre.

Said a representative from EdTA: “At the heart of this campaign is a simple belief: if even one student misses out on the life-changing impact of theatre education, we are all worse off. We want our community to stand together and refuse to let anyone else define what ‘theatre kid’ means.”

EdTA and Playbill are currently collaborating on a new Content Creator Scholarship that will send three students to the 2026 International Thespian Festival.

[Diep Tran is an arts journalist and editor based in New York City.  She is currently the Editor in Chief of Playbill.  Her writing has appeared in the New York Times, NBC News, New York magazine, Time Out New York, Backstage, CNN, Salon, Primetimer, Broadway News, New York Theatre Guide and other publications.  Her previous day jobs include being features editor of Broadway.com and senior editor of American Theatre magazine.  In 2023, she was named on Gold House’s A100 list as one of 100 most impactful Asians.  She loves musical theater, period dramas, and sci-fi/fantasy TV shows.]

*  *  *  *
TEACHERS’ GROUP LAUNCHES
EFFORT TO RECLAIM ‘THEATER KID’”
by Mark Athitakis  

[EdTA’s position and its response were laid out in Associations Now in a 13 January 2026 post.  Associations Now is a daily news platform of the American Society of Association Executives (ASAE), which serves professionals in the association management field.]

The Educational Theatre Association’s #ProudTheatreKid campaign caught attention on social media, providing a boost to its advocacy message. 

A national theater organization launched a pop-up campaign to push back against the increasingly pejorative use of the term “theater kid,” galvanizing its member base in support of its advocacy goals.

On December 21, the New York Times published an article titled “Move Aside, Snowflake: ‘Theater Kid’ Is the New Go-To Political Insult” [see above]. The story showed how the term has been used to criticize New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani, Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA), and other Democratic lawmakers.

The story naturally caught the attention of the Educational Theatre Association (EdTA), which represents theater-education professionals and supports middle- and high-school theater students through its awards and foundation programs. 

“We absolutely felt like there was no space to not respond,” said EdTA Executive Director Dr. Jennifer Katona.

According to Katona, the organization has two million alumni across its 97 years of existence. “That’s two million theater kids,” she said. “The theater kid is our brand. It’s who we are, it’s who we care about, it’s who we talk about every day. We take a lot of pride in that, and we truly believe that a theater program in a school is not just about the performances, but about all the skills that are developed for students’ involvement in that, and also what that program does to the school and the community at large.” [See the post on this blog “The Relation of Theater to Other Disciplines” (21 July 2011).]

Though EdTA’s staff was largely off for the holiday break, it developed a rapid social-media response, using the hashtag #ProudTheatreKid on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn. “Theatre kids are academically strong,” the posts read in part. “They are emotionally intelligent. They are collaborative leaders and creative thinkers.” Readers were encouraged to share their own theater experiences growing up.

The posts struck a chord with EdTA members theater fans in general. The Broadway industry bible Playbill covered the campaign [see above], and the posts drew more than 1,200 shares on Facebook and more than 7,700 likes on Instagram. “If it wasn’t up by that evening, it was the next day,” Katona said. “It’s probably four or five times the reshares, if not more, that we usually get,” she said.

More than just attempting to blunt the use of “theater kid” as an insult, the campaign has given EdTA a platform to promote its advocacy work entering 2026. Last week, EdTA used the term “proud theatre kid” as a way to encourage registration for its annual March advocacy summit, which includes a visit with legislators on Capitol Hill and workshops on how participants can promote theater education in their own communities. 

“This comes at a time of years of their craft being under attack, with no-drag bills, the slicing of budgets, and the way some of our states and teachers have been censored,” Katona said. “So this felt like a line in the sand for everybody. This is really propelling us into action. It goes beyond just asking people to change your Facebook status. It’s: Let’s try to come together and go to DC and talk about the value of what we do. That’s where we’re taking it.”

[Mark Athitakis, a contributing editor for Associations Now, has written on nonprofits, the arts, and leadership for a variety of publications.  He is a coauthor (with Mark Lasswell) of The Dumbest Moments in Business History (Portfolio. 2004).]