Showing posts with label Wallace Shawn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wallace Shawn. Show all posts

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 indicate 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” [Martin Grable: 2004] and “Gossip Girl” [Cyrus Rose: 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 [Essays (Haymarket Books, 2010); Sleeping Among Sheep Under a Starry Sky: Essays 1985-2021 (Europa Editions, 2022)] 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.”

[The Wooster Group is a not-for-profit, experimental theater company based in New York City. The troupe’s performance style is highly innovative, often employing audiovisual techniques such as interactive video, live stream, recorded sound, and pre-recorded video into their work. Rejecting traditional psychologically realistic acting, the company favors a more technical, athletic, and detached approach. 

[Though the group, directed by Elizabeth LeCompte (b. 1944), formally took its name in 1980, it spun off from Richard Schechner’s (b. 1934) The Performance Group (1967-80) during the period from 1975 to 1980. The company’s base is the Performing Garage, the home of Schechner’s troupe, on Wooster Street (from which it took its name) in the SoHo neighborhood of Manhattan. The Wooster Group has won nine Obie Awards, six Bessie Awards (for dance and performance art), multiple grants from the Carnegie Corporation, and the 1985 National Endowment for the Arts Ongoing Ensembles Grant.]

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” [Jeffrey Engels: 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991] and “The Good Wife” [Charles Lester: 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 [1828-1906] “The Master Builder,” which became a 2013 film directed by Jonathan Demme [1944-2017], 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).]


28 April 2023

A Biography of Leonardo Shapiro, Part 5

 

[“A Biography of Leonardo Shapiro, Part 5” begins with Shaliko’s last production at the Public Theater and the last show of the original company before Shapiro re-formed it five years later.  It continues with the director’s foray into freelancing—which eventually led to his devastating split with Joseph Papp and his contentious departure from the Public. 

[As you’ll read, Shapiro restarted Shaliko briefly, failed, and then tried again, forging his enduring association with the legendary Ellen Stewart and the La MaMa E.T.C.

[A trip to the Soviet Union introduced Shapiro to Russian playwright and director Mark Rozovsky, whose play Kafka: Father and Son became so meaningful to the American theater man that he staged it three times. 

[The last incarnation of The Shaliko Company moved into Shapiro’s period of “Original Collaborative Work” and the première of the company’s most audience-pleasing production, The Yellow House.  (It was this production that introduced me to Shapiro and Shaliko’s work.)

[As I’ve been saying since Part 2 of this bio series, I admonish readers who are just joining this look at Leonardo Shapiro’s personal history to go back to the beginning and read the first four parts before trying to make sense of Part 5.  Parts 1 through 4 were posted on 16, 19, 22, and 25 April.]

Georg Büchner’s 1837 play, Woyzeck, produced at the Public in 1976 with Joseph Chaikin in the title role, was the last Shaliko play affiliated with the New York Shakespeare Festival (see “Woyzeck (The Shaliko Company, 1976),” 11 and 14 July 2020). 

Shapiro said he chose Woyzeck because he was looking for a play to do with Chaikin, whom the founder of Shaliko had known since his teens when he hung out at the Living Theatre, of which Chaikin had been a member, and with whom Shapiro had participated in workshops with Grotowski in Poland in 1975.  

They agreed that Büchner’s (1813-37) anti-heroic soldier would be a good vehicle for the actor.  The resemblance between the characters of Franz Woyzeck and Galy Gay in Brecht’s Man Is Man, for which Chaikin had won an Obie in 1963 (and which Shapiro had seen), shouldn’t be overlooked as a force in this selection, however. 

Woyzeck was a co-production with Chaikin’s Other Theatre, his successor to the Open Theatre, which disbanded in 1973.  (The Other Theatre was co-founded in 1975 with playwright Jean-Claude van Itallie [1936-2021].  In 1974, Chaikin had co-formed the Working Theater with Peter Kass and Kristin Linklater [1936-2020].)

Shapiro said Woyzeck was the company’s “most normal show,” all planned in advance because the cast included non-company members.  The production, which Shapiro characterized as “a prophetic vision of the devaluation of Man in the modern world,” nonetheless illustrated a recurring Shaliko theme: the lot of the common man.

The production earned widely divergent reviews, but critics generally either loved it or hated it.  Most critics who didn’t like the production invoked, as they had with Ghosts, Shapiro’s violation of the 19th-century values of the play.  Other critics had high praise for the show.  Harold Clurman (1901-80) of The Nation, for instance, concluded that “the production registers; one remembers it.”  

Yet, it wasn’t the critics who drove Shapiro from the Public Theater but his mentor, Joseph Papp.  Two Shaliko actors about whom Shapiro cared most had left the company following Woyzeck and Shapiro disbanded it. 

He decided to try his hand at freelance directing.  As a young director, Shapiro had hired out to the NYU School of the Arts in 1972 to stage The Women at the Tomb by Michel de Ghelderode (Belgian [Flemish]; 1898-1962) with a student cast.  The performances were mounted at the school’s studio space at 111 Second Avenue in the East Village from 8 to 10 May.

So in December 1976, the nascent freelancer started out his independent directing stint with the première of The Youth Hostel at the Public Theater, part of a workshop of three one-act plays by Wallace Shawn.  (The three plays, which are set before, during, and after sex respectively, were presented at the Public as Three Short Plays.  The first and third plays on the bill were Summer Evening, directed by Wilford Leach [1929-88] and Mr. Frivolous, directed by Lee Breuer [1937-2021].)

The 45-minute-long play by itself would be no more than a footnote in Shapiro’s career—except for two points: it cemented the life-long friendship with Shawn the director had had since NYU and it was his entrée as an independent director at the New York Shakespeare Festival.  These both led directly to the abortive directorship of the musicalized Misanthrope in 1977 which generated the rift with Joseph Papp that haunted Shapiro the rest of his life. 

It had been Shawn who convinced Papp to hire Shapiro for Youth Hostel by affirming his belief in his young friend after the director had left the Public Theater the previous year.  It had also been Shawn who brokered the original connection between The Shaliko Company and the New York Shakespeare Festival.  Later, as we’ll see, Shawn brought Shapiro the script of Andrea Dunbar’s The Arbor from London.

Then from 13 to 29 May 1977, the Working Theater presented coo-me-doo, or they’re only made of clay under Shapiro’s direction.  A song-and-dance collage of love imagery (from Chaucer to Ginsberg) conceived by Kristin Linklater, co-founder of the troupe with Peter Kass and Joseph Chaikin.  The piece ran in the company’s Off-Off-Broadway space on West 12th Street in the far west Village.

Some years before staging The Youth Hostel, Shapiro had conceived a musical version of Molière’s (French; 1622 [baptized]-1673) Misanthrope with Shaliko but let the project drop.  The composer, Margaret Pine, one of Shaliko’s original members, had continued to develop the play, and, Shapiro reported, brought it back to the director who convinced Papp to produce it (see “The Misanthrope – The Musical,” 21 June 2021). 

Eventually, Papp and Shapiro argued over the timbre of the production.  Shapiro refused to make changes in the production as Papp demanded, he said, and the impresario fired him after the preview on 6 October 1977. 

Needless to say, the view from the other side is a little different than Shapiro’s own.  From the beginning, apparently, Richard Wilbur (1921-2017), whose verse translation formed the book and lyrics of the musical, expressed reservations about Shapiro’s suitability to direct the production.  Wilbur’s agent, Gilbert Parker (1927-2019), recommended J Ranelli (1938-2019), another of his clients, to Papp, but the Shakespeare Festival remained initially loyal to Shapiro. 

Reports of difficulties in the production reached Papp’s office toward the end of the rehearsal period and the producer began to feel that Shapiro “could not handle” the musical adaptation and that what he and Pine had developed “worked badly.” 

By this time, Papp had also become aware that some cast members were “so discouraged” that they wanted to leave but Papp persuaded them to stay “in the hope that with a new stage director and a fresh viewpoint, the project could be saved.”

After Wilbur and Parker saw the second preview of Misanthrope on 5 October, they “urged” Papp to replace Shapiro “to move the production away from the disastrous course it was taking.”  Wilbur ultimately demanded that his name be removed from all references to the production.

(The New York Shakespeare Festival went on to produce The Misanthrope at the Public’s Anspacher Theater between 4 October and 27 November 1977 with another director, Bill Gile [1942-2011], credited with the staging.  An additional composer and orchestrator were also brought in to “enhance” the score but the show received disastrous reviews and closed with little fanfare.) 

The association with Papp ended acrimoniously, and Shapiro’s departure from the Public Theater left wounds that remained tender.  “I spent, like, two years sulking after that,” said Shapiro.   Even years later, Shapiro recalled the Misanthrope episode bitterly.

Shapiro had very conflicted feelings about his relationship with Joseph Papp.  Twenty years after the event, he would say, “Joe was a very strong force in my life. . . . .  You know, he was like a father.  To me, he was like a bad father so it’s like a big deal.” 

The root of the young director’s problem, he learned, was that “I have problems with authority, and I have had problems with producers . . . .  I want what I want, and I resent not getting it.”  The issue had already appeared in his first professional directing job, Yes Yes, No No, and it would surface again later in the failure of his work on Karen Malpede’s (b. 1945) Blue Heaven and his difficulties with the Trinity/La MaMa Performing Arts Program. 

(I interviewed Malpede twice, once in February 1992 as part of my work on the TDR profile of Shapiro and again on 17 July 1992 for Studies in American Drama, 1945-Present [“An Interview with Karen Malpede,” 8.1 (1993)]; republished as “Karen Malpede” in Speaking on Stage: Interviews with Contemporary American Playwrights, edited by Philip C. Kolin and Colby H. Kullman [University of Alabama Press, 1996].  The July transcript was posted on Rick On Theater on 5 November 2014.)

Following the Misanthrope debacle, Shapiro gave freelancing one more try, apparently successful.  In 1979, Shapiro signed on with Atlanta’s Academy Theatre, the city’s longest-running professional theater, to direct a production of Molière’s Tartuffe (12 January-10 February). 

The Atlanta Constitution dubbed Shapiro’s Tartuffe “a rowdy, bawdy gem, the delight of the year so far.”  Reviewer Helen C. Smith added, “There is nothing subtle about this ‘Tartuffe.’  Guest director Leonardo Shapiro has taken great risks, and for the most part they work extremely well.”

In the Atlanta Gazette, Liza Nelson reported:

Director Shapiro has given the play a physical, almost acrobatic interpretation, with much thrashing and falling about on stage.  He has not, however, lost the emotional edge of the poetry of Tartuffe through the buffoonery.

It went well enough for the Academy to invite him back—and for him to return.  In a press release for William Shakespeare’s (English; 1564 [baptized]-1616) Richard III, part of the troupe’s next season, the Academy noted that Shapiro’s Tartuffe had been “critically acclaimed” and “broke all box office records.”

He led the company’s production of Richard, which ran from 2 to 31 May 1980.  Like his Shaliko productions before and after this period, Shapiro’s Richard III was not strictly conventional.  An Academy Theatre memorandum noted:

The closest I can come in expressing Leo’s treatment of RICHARD III, is to call it “total theatre”.  The production encompasses the entire theatre . . . the aisles, the balcony, players enter from outside entrances, the street.  The back of the house.

In terms that might have described Shaliko’s Ghosts a few years earlier, the memorandum continued:

The theatrical experience of having the play performed in essentially a 360° space, gives the audience a role too—they’re in the play, they could touch the players, can feel the heat of the torches . . . ; their proximity to the action prevents merely passive attention to the play.

Earlier that year, Shapiro directed the première of Friends by Crispin Larangeira (b. 1940), a four-character comedy involving an aging couple who’ve bever been able to forgive each other for staying married so long, their friend on whom they take out their resentment, and the wife’s niece who tries to take the friend away.  It ran 10-27 January 1980 at the New Federal Theatre on Manhattan’s Lower East Side.

Larangeira’s play got a mixed reception, but Shapiro’s staging was judged “ferociously inventive” (Village Voice) and “simple and smooth” (Villager).  Indeed, Tish Dace of the Soho Weekly News said that Shapiro “has an extraordinary capacity for helping actors achieve performances at once natural and ingenious.”

While all the freelance productions received mostly respectable to good reviews—the Atlanta Constitution, for instance, described the classical revivals as “wild and wickedly funny” and “stylish and highly charged” respectively and Marilyn Stasio called Shapiro’s direction of The Youth Hostel “tart” in Cue—Shapiro found he had “totally lost the reason for what I was doing.”

Disenchanted with freelance directing, Shapiro tried to recapture the spirit of ten years earlier when he formed Shaliko.  In 1981, with actress, director, and circus artist Cecil MacKinnon (b. 1945), he attempted to re-form the troupe with a season at Saint Peter’s Hall on West 20th Street in New York’s Chelsea, beginning what Shapiro classified as “Work on New International Plays, Commissions, and Musical Adaptations.” 

Productions in this vein included Daniel Mark Epstein’s (b. 1948) verse play, The Midnight Visitor (December 1981-January 1982); Andrea Dunbar’s (English; 1962-90) The Arbor from England (September-October 1983); Mark Rozovsky’s Kafka: Father and Son from Russia (February-March 1985); Mac Wellman’s (b. 1945) Whirligig (April-May 1989); and the Russian-language première of Kafka: Father and Son in Moscow (spring 1990). 

This second phase of Shaliko ran until 1990—the first phase, from 1972 to 1977, Shapiro dubbed “Meetings with Classical Texts”—but the start was abortive and Shapiro produced only the première of Midnight Visitor in the first season. 

A mystery about a widow, her three daughters, and one daughter’s fiancé gathered in the old family home, The Midnight Visitor attracted Shapiro because of his “weakness for poetry,” which he said had been “one of the few consistent themes in Shaliko from the beginning.” 

Though the production and acting were generally appreciated, the play, described by one critic as “a Gothic opera without the music,” received unanimously bad reviews and Shapiro later concluded that it was simply a bad script. 

After Midnight Visitor, the second production of the new Shaliko Company was to be Molière’s Don Juan starring Christopher Walken (b. 1943) as Don Juan and Wallace Shawn as Sganarelle.  Unhappily, the intended production of what Shapiro said was one of his favorite plays and Molière’s best miscarried for reasons having more to do with Hollywood than New York. 

Because of the death of actress Natalie Wood (29 November 1981; b. 1938), Walken’s co-star on the MGM film Brainstorm (released in 1983), which was in production at the time, the actor’s obligation was unexpectedly extended during the filming and he became unavailable.

Shapiro had everything tied to the plans for the season and when the first play failed and the second foundered, Shaliko lost all its funds and Shapiro was forced to cancel the season.

In 1983, Shapiro tried again to relaunch Shaliko, this time in partnership with Elena Prischepenko (b. 1955), who performed as Elena (or Helen) Nicholas.  (Prischepenko is married to artist and illustrator Scott Cunningham [b. 1956] and sometimes also goes by the name Helen Cunningham.) 

Wallace Shawn had brought a new play, Andrea Dunbar’s The Arbor, from England where it had been produced at London’s Royal Court Theatre to accclaim in 1980, and Prischepenko wanted to produce it in New York.  Shapiro approached Ellen Stewart (1919-2011), who agreed to let him present the play at La MaMa, beginning Shaliko’s association with the Experimental Theatre Club. 

The Arbor provides examples of a number of Shapiro’s principles.  Dunbar, a 15-year-old girl when she wrote the script as a school assignment, had never even seen a play.  An abused child, pregnant and abandoned, she simply wrote down what had happened to her during the day before she went to bed every night, each scene a snapshot of a discrete incident.  

“It’s totally unmediated,” the director explained.  “It is raw experience.”  Shapiro described the play as “about the lumpen proletariat written by the lumpen proletariat,” as if Franz Woyzeck had written Woyzeck.

Allan Wallach described the play in Long Island’s Newsday:

Dunbar didn’t give “The Arbor” a traditional structure or the insights of a writer in touch with her deepest feelings.  The play is a succession of short scenes, most of them as devoid of emotion as snapshots.  Before each scene, the central character [played by Prischepenko], given the author’s own name, provides a brief, Brechtian summary of what will follow.

Wallach also described the play as “a lurid autobiography written in a style which careens between a kitchen table naturalism and an Epic Theater presentational mode” and characterized Shapiro’s production as “energetic.”  Overall, the reviews were mixed, leaning toward the unappreciative. 

Shapiro’s move into La MaMa in 1983 began his second attempt to reestablish Shaliko, but it was a very different company from that disbanded in 1977.  Shapiro acknowledged that the revival was little more than a use of the name to produce shows from project to project.  There was no longer the financial support for a standing company, and many of the original group had left the theater or gone elsewhere to work. 

With their permanent home at the Public Theater no longer available, the freedom to spend months developing ensemble performances was gone.  The length of Shaliko runs was drastically curtailed, reducing the vital contact with an audience they needed to complete the work on their performances and restricting the company’s exposure as well as the chance to build word of mouth. 

Furthermore, La MaMa, more closely identified with a certain kind of theater associated with New York’s East Village than is the New York Shakespeare Festival, did not have the drawing power of the Shakespeare Festival for either audiences or reviewers, and Shaliko productions that might otherwise have attracted valuable attention, like The Yellow House and Kafka’s 1985 première, went under-noticed. 

The association with La MaMa, however, had benefits.  Stewart encouraged Shapiro to rebuild his company merely because she liked him.  She had a reputation since she started the La MaMa Experimental Theatre Club (1961, as Café La MaMa) of supporting non-establishment writers, directors, and theater companies from around the country and the world and she accepted Postmodern theater well before the mainstream culture did. 

She also judged artists not on their proposals, résumés, or track records, but on an almost mystical individual response to their personalities.  Since she never read texts, never did any kind of “in-depth analysis about anybody about anything,” never went to rehearsals unless asked, and seldom even saw a show at La MaMa, Shapiro had virtually complete freedom.  “I don’t go watching what Leo does,” said Stewart; “[h]e’s very secure here.” 

Of course, no strings meant precious little support.  What had always been a rough theater by intention had now become also a poor theater by circumstances.  Stewart provided Shaliko performance and rehearsal space, but didn’t support the company in any other way beyond box office services.  Shaliko even paid its own producer-publicist. 

At the Public Theater, which had given Shaliko no money, Shapiro’d had scene shops, prop and costume collections, and an extensive administrative apparatus available; at La MaMa he had none of these. 

In March 1984, Shapiro and Prischepenko went to Russia with a group of theater professionals under the auspices of the Citizens Exchange Council, a non-profit organization which fostered cultural exchanges between the Soviet Union and the United States. 

The group included director Peter Sellars (b. 1957), director of the Boston Shakespeare Theatre until June 1984 when he resigned to become artistic director of the Kennedy Center’s sort-lived American National Theatre; New York City’s Quaigh Theatre artistic director Will Lieberson (1916-95), and several other directors and playwrights. 

At the Soviet writers’ union, Shapiro made “a rather intemperate . . . speech” about seeing so many plays in Moscow with “happy endings.”  He asked the assembled playwrights why they didn’t “have the courage to talk about life as it really was.” 

According to Shapiro, after the session, Mark Rozovsky (b. 1937; see “Mark Rozovsky & The Theater at the Nikitsky Gate,” 5 October 2020) told him, “I have play, no happy ending, you want?”  They arranged to meet secretly and the playwright turned over the manuscript of Kafka: Father and Son (Russian: Кафка: отец и сын), “[j]ust like . . . a spy novel.” 

Rozovsky had workshopped Kafka, based mostly on a 100-page letter Franz Kafka (Czech; 1883-1924) wrote, but never sent, to his father (November 1919; Letter to His Father/Brief an der Vater) and parts of “The Judgment” (1912), Kafka’s most autobiographical tale, at the Moscow Art Theater studio but the Ministry of Culture of Soviet Premier Yuri Andropov (1914-84; General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union: 1982-84) suppressed it because the Czech embassy protested. 

Kafka was persona non grata in his native country and, the embassy charged, discussions of his works had been the incitement for the start of the Prague Spring of 1968.

Shapiro and Prischepenko smuggled the manuscript out of the U.S.S.R. in their suitcases, and Prischepenko translated it when they got back to the United States.  In January 1985, Shapiro mounted Albert Bermel’s Thrombo, a poorly received political farce about Americans in Africa, as a non-Shaliko production.  In March, he presented the world première of Kafka at La MaMa in a further attempt to relaunch Shaliko as a company. 

Much in line with previous and subsequent Shaliko efforts, Shapiro viewed Kafka: Father and Son as “another exploration of social creativity and repression through the autobiographical lens of the misfit artist . . . .”  It was, he averred, his “most overtly personal piece” and he remarked, “In rehearsal, I find that I am dramatizing my own life.” 

The director also saw Kafka: Father and Son as “a Jewish family play, a play about fathers and sons”—a play about child abuse and repression.  He felt a connection among his father, Joseph Papp, and Hermann Kafka (1854-1931), but the connection to Irving Shapiro was more pervasive even than that. 

“The play struck a very deep chord in me,” Shapiro admitted.  “It spoke to me immediately about my own childhood and my own difficult relationship with my father.”  Everything in the production—the sets, costumes, props, images—was drawn from his childhood “encounters” with his father. 

Unfortunately, the production garnered little of the compelling press attention needed to ignite the effort to restart the company: the New York Times didn’t send a critic and Robert Massa of the Village Voice didn’t like it.  The only timely coverage was a smattering of fringe papers.  Paul Berman of The Nation, writing after the closing of the production, about which he wasn’t entirely positive, lamented:

Kafka: Father and Son, by Mark Rozovsky, arrived at the morgue recently after receiving, as far as I know, no more than two paragraphs of mention anywhere—and those paragraphs a spade and shovel. . . .

The play has some of the intensity of Kafka himself . . ., an intensity that comes from enormous compression of thought and feeling, so that every line carries a truth on the surface and another truth below and an electric charge from one to the other. . . .   [T]here were brilliant aspects, too, which managed to distort the sense of distance between audience and stage so thoroughly that Christopher McCann, who played Kafka the Son, seemed to loom as if in a close-up, like one of those famous photographs of Kafka’s face and haunted eyes. . . . 

And to think that such a play has come and gone without an escort of critics waving and shooting fireworks.

Shapiro changed the design of Kafka for the 1990 version he mounted in Russia and the 1992 revival in New York.  The director continuously reworked his plays, though he seldom got a chance actually to restage them.  (Kafka was the only Shaliko play he remounted not once, but twice—not counting workshops.)

After the first production of Kafka: Father and Son, Shapiro moved into the third phase of his work.  In 1986, with the first professional production of The Yellow House, he began creating what he designated as “Original Collaborative Work.”  Though this effort (from 1986 to 1992) overlapped his work on new plays and commissions (1981 to 1990), it marked a change in the kind of material that occupied most of his attention. 

Instead of finding (or commissioning) texts that spoke to subjects of interest to him, he began creating pieces for what he wanted to communicate.  The performance pieces were far larger in scope than Shaliko’s previous work, and drew on more and more diverse sources for materials and themes. 

Additionally, works like The Yellow House and those that followed were changed, sometimes radically, to occupy each new venue.  The Yellow House also marked Shapiro’s most aggressive efforts to restart Shaliko. 

Shapiro began developing The Yellow House, called The Van Gogh Project in its early stages, in a 1984 workshop with students and faculty of Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, where he was artist-in-residence.  (See “The Yellow House,” 9 February 2018).

Having conceived an intense interest in Vincent van Gogh (Dutch; 1853-90) early in his life, Shapiro spent time at the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam while at the 1976 Holland Festival (1-23 June) with Woyzeck.  He began working on a van Gogh piece six years later, “when I was 36 and thinking of killing myself.” 

He was identifying with the painter who, he believed, had been “suicided by society” (a phrase quoted from an Antonin Artaud [French; 1896-1948] essay about the painter in 1965’s Artaud Anthology) when he was 37, but when Shapiro had finished Yellow House four years later, he was already 40 and “had missed jumping out my window of opportunity.”

Working with composer-singer-violinist Julie Lyonn Lieberman (b. 1954), Shapiro and his team created The Yellow House from letters between the painter and his brother Theo as a vehicle for the “personal testimony about the life and the mission of the artist,” a recurring theme in Shapiro’s work.

As a collaboratively built piece, The Yellow House changed as it developed.  At Trinity, it had been “frontal, chronological, direct [and] biographical,” but when the piece was restaged at La MaMa in February 1986 and then at Baltimore’s Theatre of Nations, UNESCO’s periodic global theater festival, in June, it had become more intricate, less linear, and more metaphorical. 

The Yellow House also reintroduced the Shaliko technique of the multiple casting of one role, which Shapiro had used in 1974’s The Measures Taken, passing the role of the Young Comrade among several members of the ensemble as prescribed by Brecht’s script.  In Yellow House, four actors, including a woman, played van Gogh in various avatars: Young Vincent, the Painter, the Mirror, and Self Portrait.  In one remarkable scene, the three last appeared together as the Painter painted his Self Portrait from his reflection in the Mirror.

Shaliko sets were often interactive and in The Yellow House, when van Gogh went mad, the furniture danced in mid-air, manipulated like marionettes by the actors, themselves, in full view of the audience.  Shapiro also staged the production at TON specifically for the huge, vaulting North Hall of the Peabody Conservatory in Baltimore.  (The site-specific set was designed by Jerry Rojo, a frequent collaborator of Shapiro’s.)

In a climactic scene that couldn’t have occurred at the La MaMa mounting, the director staged his most striking theatrical effect.  Using the high, vaulted ceiling at the Peabody, Shapiro projected van Gogh’s Starry Night 30 feet above the audience’s heads and had one of the actors playing the painter climb up a rope 23 feet into the “sky” where he stood on a pipe to “paint” the picture.

The Yellow House was perhaps Shaliko’s prettiest production.  Though essentially ignored by critics outside Baltimore (there was one review of the New York production in the theatrical trade paper Back Stage), it received excellent notices at the Theatre of Nations.  Non-linear in structure and surrealistic in design, it was visually stunning, captivating audiences and critics alike. 

This is the production that introduced me to Shapiro’s work.  I was reporting on TON and attended as many of the performances as I could.  I also interviewed several of the artists at the festival, one of whom was Shapiro.  I was greatly taken with Yellow House, possibly the most striking production at TON and one of the most memorable ones I’ve ever seen.  (I didn’t see Shapiro again after that for four years.)

The Yellow House, which Shapiro described in publicity as an “image opera,” began the exploration of the synthesis of arts in performance with Kabuki and Beijing Opera as paradigms.  It was an effort to apply practically Shapiro’s impulse to view gesture as language—to make the non-verbal elements of the performance text as vital and communicative as the literary text.

Though previous Shaliko shows had included music and dance—or at least choreography—with The Yellow House, Shapiro began complecting music, sound, dance, movement, speech, poetry, and slide projections—later film and video, too—more and more into his pieces. 

[The sixth segment of Leonardo Shapiro’s biography will be posted on Monday, 1 May.  I’ll be chronicling Shapiro’s initiation of the Trinity/La MaMa Performing Arts Program and Shaliko’s continuation of its efforts to make collaborative theater.

[I hope that ROTters are finding this biographical series as interesting to read as I had in composing it.  Please come back to Rick On Theater for “A Biography of Leonardo Shapiro, Part 6” on May Day.]