Showing posts with label experimental theater. Show all posts
Showing posts with label experimental theater. 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 7 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).]


14 July 2020

'Woyzeck' (The Shaliko Company, 1976) – Part 2


[Welcome back to my reconstruction of Leonardo Shapiro’s staging of Georg Büchner’s Woyzeck, his 1836 unfinished play.  In Part 2, below, I discuss the physical production at New York City’s Public Theater in the spring of 1976 and then present a sampling of the critical reception. 

[If you haven’t read Part 1 of “Woyzeck,” I strongly recommend going back to 11 July and do so before reading this conclusion.  Aside from covering the background of the Shaliko-New York Shakespeare Festival-Other Theatre production of the classic play, I identify and define many of the names, concepts, and terms that recur below.]

Woyzeck’s physical production was relatively simple, even for the Shaliko Company.  It was  entirely made of construction scaffolding—a technique director Leonardo Shapiro would use again in The Yellow House in 1986.

Jerry Rojo (b. 1935), who had worked with Chaikin and the Open Theater previously, was going to do the set for Woyzeck.  The environmental theater designer had also conceived several Shaliko  sets, including 1975’s Ghosts as well as the aforementioned Yellow House. 

The set he conceived for Woyzeck, however, was going to cost $10,000.  Shapiro told the designer, “I’m sorry, we just can’t afford it,” and the director proceeded to design the Woyzeck set out of scaffolding that was $500 including pick-up and delivery.  (The costs are approximately the equivalent of $45,000 and $2,250 today.)

Shapiro recounted:

It was all made out of standard scaffolding, including the boards.  They delivered it.  We put it together in one day.  When the show was over, we called them and they took it back. 

The scheme not only saved the company both money and time, but there wasn’t any waste, pointed out the director.  He was rather proud of that because if they’d have built a set themselves, “When you’re done with it, then you just throw it away.”  His way, the scaffolding company retrieved it.

Rojo didn’t end up designing the final set, but his concept for it,  which Shapiro still labeled “lovely” (irrespective of the cost), held true for the cost-saving alternative.  Rojo characterized Martinson Hall, the production’s venue at the Public Theater, as “an elegant 19th-century room with a high ceiling, clear story [sic; ‘clerestory’] light and fluted columns.”

Rojo asked rhetorically, “So how do we deal with that room for Woyzeck which is brutal, bare and has to do with a class system?  Well, in our idea we agreed that we would play against the room.”

Shapiro said he “wanted something simple, rough, and symmetrical” to fit inside the Martinson’s “beautiful cast iron pillars.”  The scaffolding fit the bill.  As Shapiro explained his vision:

I was interested in medieval wagon shows and Las Vegas runways and Kabuki Hanamichi and vaudeville stage pictures.  I wanted Woyzeck to keep bursting out into the audience unsupported, like a Chaplin drunk.

(Charlie Chaplin, 1889-1977, was one of the few actors Shapiro admired.  The hanamichi is a long, thin, raised platform that runs from the back of a Japanese Kabuki theater, through the audience, to connect with the main stage.)

Shapiro and Rojo, continued the designer, decided to work against the room’s elegance, “so we thought we’d come into it with a kind of violence by using steel pipes and raw timber—rough-hewn timbers growing right out of these white, thin columns.”

The scaffolding was a close approximation of what Rojo had devised—only cheaper  and less labor-intensive.  As one reviewer described the result, it was “all so casual, scaffolding and planks set under the vaultlike interior of the Public Theatre’s Martinson Hall . . . .”  Another writer affirmed that “the setting [coordinated] with the space on which it is set in a uniquely creative manner.”

Two wooden runways (a pair of hanamichi?) formed a cross at one end of the Martinson with the scaffolding around them beneath the “vaulted ceiling and Romanesque arches,” creating what another reviewer dubbed “a dismal Kafkaesque setting.”  The audience viewed the performance from three sides.

Patricia McGourty’s costumes were in the same vein: plain, simple, ragged, and soiled.  Woyzeck, for instance, wore baggy uniform pants that were made from quilted moving blankets or furniture pads, held up by wide suspenders.  Shapiro explained that he “was thinking of early [Bertold]] Brecht and [Samuel] Beckett tramps, Bert Lahr and Red Skelton.” 

In line with both Shapiro’s tendency and Chaikin’s practice, the two artists, who both put considerable emphasis on physical performance, conceived a specific, stylized walk for Woyzeck.  As the director described it, it “was a broken, stuttering deconstruction . . . of Mick Jagger’s runway strut.” 

(Chaikin remarked later that he found himself falling into his character off stage: “I was walking down the street, and about four steps I took was in the walk of Woyzeck without my wanting to at all.  Pieces of the character stick to me.”

The response in the press, which was large, was decidedly mixed and leaned toward the negative.  Douglas Watt of the New York Daily News opened his notice with, “It is with a heavy heart, not to mention limbs, that I bring you news of George Buechner’s ‘Woyzeck’ . . . .”  Watt continued: “Taking Buechner’s . . . creation, . . . the Shaliko people have subjected it to so bald, lifeless, and deliberately untheatrical a treatment that the result is a non-play.”

Watt isn’t kinder to Chaikin, describing him as “short” and “dough-faced” and deemed that he played Woyzeck “so vacantly as to have almost no presence at all.”

In the New York Post, Sylviane Gold found Shaliko’s approach to the play “almost gothic—Woyzeck as a bewildered, bisexual madman,” which Gold thought might “serve if Buechner shared the romantic outlook of his contemporaries [Alfred] de Musset [1810-57] and [Victor] Hugo [1802-85].”  Of Chaikin’s performance, Gold declared that “his Woyzeck takes over the stage from the rest of the company . . . .  But it’s a Woyzeck that’s bereft of humanity, an automaton, a lobotomized stutterer whose words are shouted in a monochromatic voice.” 

Her response to the walk Shapiro and Chaikin devised is that Woyzeck “moves in a dream, heavy-limbed and distracted and understanding nothing.  But Buechner’s Woyzeck understands too much and that’s his problem.” 

The New York Times’ Clive Barnes launched into his review saying that “one would like to welcome Leonardo Shapiro’s production” of Woyzeck, “but in all honesty one cannot.”  He specified his reasons: “Mr. Shapiro’s staging appeared crude, emblematic and undramatic.  The grim setting was not ineffective, but most of the acting had a dull brashness to it.” 

“There was one real exception to the general rule of mediocrity, however, and this was Joseph Chaikin’s performance,” continued Barnes. 

[H]is portrayal here was masterly in its crumbling, shambling dignity.  With bright raising eyes stuck in a gray potato face, with his voice reduced to an oppressed monotone and his gestures imprisoned to the futility almost of grimace, Mr. Chaikin wandered through the play as if subconsciously in search of a better cast. 

Barnes’s colleague at the Times, Walter Kerr, was curiously almost complimentary—he had hated Shaliko’s Ghosts the year before so much that Shapiro answered him back in the reviewer’s very own paper—remarking that

the very shaky Shaliko Company has here done better than customary work.  Apart from some flamboyant symbolism . . . the staging by Leonardo Shapiro is plain but graphic, the figures in this barren landscape could have come from a skilled if academic genre painter, and guest‐actor Joseph Chaikin in the central role is a decided bonus.

Mr. Chaikin, eyes red‐rimmed, mouth working convulsively whenever an interior rage overtakes him, moves from his early pontification to an ultimate animalism about as effectively as an actor can, I think, and is genuinely disturbing as he tries to rid himself of the bloody knife he cannot find water deep enough to hide.

In Long Island’s Newsday, Allan Wallach found that Chaikin’s Woyzeck was “persuasively played” as a “man who expresses his thoughts almost  stammeringly, his eyes rimmed with red, his smile fixed and empty, his movements limp and tentative until, when he commits the murder, they become almost spastic.”

A few days later, in the same paper, George Oppenheimer expressed the opposite opinion.  “The staging by the company’s director, Leonardo Shapiro, and the acting by its members reduce Buechner to incomprehensible gibberish,” he wrote. 

Ross Wetzsteon, the theater editor of the Village Voice, asked several reviewers each to write about the Shapiro-Chaikin Woyzeck, which he dubbed “the most eagerly anticipated production of the season.”  The “debate” was entitled “A Dream Production Falls Flat.”

Julius Novick:  Leonardo Shapiro’s production at the Public Theatre is literal and uninspired.  Worse, its rhythms are all wrong. . . .  Mr. Shapiro’s staging is slow and placid, with the scenes separated by discreet little flute-and-drum-accompanied blackouts that are fatal to the play’s necessary momentum.

[T]he confrontation [of Chaikin and Woyzeck] is a fizzle.  Mr. Chaikin is a cuddly, friendly actor, slightly built and fuzzy-haired, with a soft voice and soft contours. . . .  [H]e is unable to turn himself into jagged, violent Woyzeck.  He works away at it intelligently and conscientiously, with  staring eyes and slack jaw, angular scarecrow movements, and a stammer that develops into veritable seizures of inarticulacy; but in spite of all his efforts he remains essentially a teddy-bear.

Arthur Sainer:  I’m in an obvious minority among my Voice colleagues and the daily press concerning the virtues of the current production.  Despite director Leo Shapiro’s tendency to simplify what seems to me Buchner’s complex and sometimes contradictory vision . . . , I found Shapiro’s production in all its bareness a most compelling one.

First, there’s Joseph Chaikin’s masterly portrayal.  Joe’s Woyzeck is physically like a landscape overrun by the enemy: bruised, scorched, pockmarked; the tanks of the oppressor lie heavily on this terrain . . . .

Joe inhabits Woyzeck’s spirit with feelings of distress and compassion so harrowing that it sometimes becomes difficult to watch . . . .

I like much of what I would call the “dryness” of the Shaliko production. . . .  This dryness, this lack of resonance suggests that Woyzeck’s life is flying by as if in a dream.

What I find a problem is the multiplicity of styles. 

Ross Wetzsteon:  While Chaikin effectively conveys the sense of the fatefully tortured victim (though it must be said that with such an ineptly directed cast, he seems tortured by nothing more menacing than a gaggle of clowns), he utterly fails to convey any sense of complex consciousness.

Some performances give the exhilarating effect of a man walking a tightrope without a net—what’s missing here is not the net but the tightrope.

Terry Curtis Fox:  There is a moment, early in this production, when Chaikin stands stage-center and begins to stutter.  It is not just a moment of speech—the blocked mind causes the entire body to shudder, the tremble’s final emergence as comprehensible sound become the transformation of impulse by will.  It should, of course, be a major statement of character: the blocked Woyzeck released.  It isn’t.  The reason, I think, is that it is instantly recognizable as Chaikinesque shtick . . . .  [T]he power is missing because the rest of the Shaliko Company is not acting in anything approximating a similar style.

Shapiro’s troup[e] acts in an agitprop, caricaturist style which is wholly opposed to Chaikin’s performance:  Where Chaikin attempts to make the unfeeling human, the Shaliko actors drain all the feeling from their parts. . . .  Chaikin behaves like an imported actor doing a star turn in a company whose values differ significantly from his own.

Shapiro has developed neither metaphor nor mechanism.  He has merely given his company an idea of acting, been given by the presence of Joseph Chaikin an opposing idea of acting, and hoped that this clash would provide ample feeling for tragedy.  It doesn’t . . . .  Lacking sufficient control of the acting on stage, Shapiro loses control of the play.

Eileen Blumenthal:  Leo Shapiro’s direction aims at peopling the play in part with just . . . rich stage cartoons, and this strikes me as precisely the right way to deal with the expressionist elements of the play.  The approach is, of course, a fragile and difficult one, and at this point in the production several of the major cartoons have not quite hit their resonance.  But the production is still growing . . . and the cartoons are becoming richer.

And Chaikin’s performance is complex and arresting.  While he plays Woyzeck as a deeply pained, human character, he also gives him a subtle surreal dimension . . . which keeps Woyzeck in the same play as the cartoon-like drum-major, captain, and doctor.

[T]he production . . . probably errs slightly toward presentational—toward showing Woyzeck and his world rather than inhabiting them. 

Erika Munk:  I’m not priggish about the inviolability of scripts—but if you want to mess around with Buchner, you better be Alban Berg.  This production makes a multitude of pointless or condescending changes . . . but there are three crucial distortions: Marie’s character, the role her child plays, and a passive simplification of Woyzeck’s nature.

. . . I think [the distortion] means that while this production might come up with some affection for dead women, it has no use for live ones.

This lengthy critical exchange somewhat exercised Chaikin and he wrote to Wetzsteon (who wrote back).  Referring to the Voice article’s headline, the actor wrote:

It is important for me to make clear that doing Woyzeck was not my dream. . . .  Woyzeck was among six or seven plays which I’ve always found compelling and I hoped that a circumstance would arise, or that I might bring one about, to make it possible to work on—either directing or acting.

Chaikin also said:

The idea of a symposium was a good one, but having “the most eagerly anticipated production of the season” was bound to bring out the sourness even more than otherwise.  I want also to make clear that I feel that there are many weaknesses in the production and in my performance.  In any case, it was a good idea to take many views, but under the heading “Chaikin’s Dream” I experience it as obscene journalism.

To be accurate, Wetzsteon didn’t call the production “Chaikin’s Dream” exactly.  “A Dream Production Falls Flat,” the headline, seems to me to refer not to a dream the actor had, but to one the Voice writers had—or the potential audience for the production—entertaining a vision of the actor’s return to the stage after so long a hiatus in a role seemingly perfect for him.

Now, a tag line above the article’s title did read “theatre: chaikin’s woyzeck,” so Chaikin could be excused if he felt the headline was addressed to him.

We know, incidentally, that Chaikin wasn’t entirely happy with the work on Woyzeck.  He alludes to some weaknesses in his performance, and in a Drama Review article that came out in 1981, the actor confessed:

It wasn’t so comfortable with Leo Shapiro in Wozzeck [sic].  I think Leo is very interesting, and gifted, and it’s not to do with him, but it’s to do with our relationship and that particular material.  I felt if I had an opinion, he had not to regard it because it wasn’t his idea.  I had to stop having opinions.  And he’s a very able director.  I think it was a bind we got into.

It should be noted, though, that in an earlier TDR interview, Chaikin attributed his reluctance to offer opinions not so much to Shapiro’s attitude as to his own fears that because the cast knew him as a prominent director, his ideas would, first, be accepted too easily or, second, be entirely ignored.

In another statement, Chaikin felt that, in comparison to two performances after Woyzeck—his collaboration with Sam Shepard in 1979, Tongues and his and Steven Kent’s adaptation of Beckett’s Texts for Nothing in 1981—he was constrained by the material:

I would have liked to have (had) the same elbow room with Wozzeck as I had with Texts and Tongues in that it’s an unfinished play. . . .   I’m so drawn to the play, but when I was finally doing it, it was just so unrelentingly dark and windowless.

Indeed, Chaikin expressed trepidations about the decision to do the production: “In the beginning, I felt awful about doing it.  At first, I thought it was a real compromise . . . .”

Wetzsteon responded almost three weeks later:

I’m sorry you were so upset about our coverage of “Woyzeck,” in particular that you put so much emphasis on the headline rather than the concept.

The Voice editor defended the use of the term “most anticipated event” and apologized for the headline that had so disturbed Chaikin.  He emphasized, however, “that the important decision was to have a number of critical sensibilities . . . write about this production.”

To return to the press response to the Shaliko-Other Theatre Woyzeck, Marilyn Stasio, writing in Cue magazine (a well-regarded New York entertainment weekly absorbed into New York magazine in 1980), said the play “happens to play like thunder.”  Stasio explained:

Shapiro uses a fluid, almost nonchalant staging technique to relate the story . . . .The tight company . . . slips lithely in and out of its shadowy character roles, conveying with wonderfully economic strokes Büchner’s savage satiric portraits of 19th-century society.

“Joseph Chaikin’s Woyzeck functions as the magnetic focal point of this impressive production,” wrote the Cue writer. 

Confining the poor doomed devil’s humanity to his eyes, Chaikin shrinks his body into a beaten-down, shuffling wreck.  He is Brecht’s Schweik brought to his knees, Chaplin’s tramp crushed by a joke suddenly turned ugly and unfunny.

In the Hollywood Reporter, Charles Ryweck affirmed that “‘Woyzeck’ emerges, in Joseph Papp’s presentation of the Shaliko Company’s production . . . as little more than of perfunctory interest to other than confirmed theatre buffs.”  Ryweck specified that “Leonard[o] Shapiro . . . has not notably helped to bring into focus this admittedly fragmentary play with his non-theatrical direction.” 

The production, the HR reviewer did feel, “is distinguished by the performance of Joseph Chaikin . . . who captures beautifully this trampled upon, desperate little man with intimations of the unleashed demons lurking inside him.”

“The cumulative effect [of the play] should be devastating,” thought the New Yorker’s Edith Oliver.  “But this performance is elaborate and glum and muddled and entirely lacking in the dramatist’s irony; it is also poorly acted by almost everyone in the company.” 

The “almost” in Oliver’s assessment of the acting was apparently a reference to Chaikin, who, the New Yorker review-writer attested, “plays [Woyzeck] with eloquence, most of that eloquence being physical.”

He walks with an odd, shambling gait, like a puppet.  His face, most of the time, is numb and expressionless and his eyes nearly unfocused; suddenly they blaze with overwhelming feeling—hurt or anger.  He shuffles along and then abruptly stops, sensing a movement in the earth beneath him or seeing a vision of blazing light in the sky.  All of the character is in every muscle of his body, and when he speaks, he speaks to a purpose.  None of his lines go to waste.

Harold Clurman, the great 20th-century director and sometime reviewer, described the Public Theater production in The Nation thus:

The more or less young people of the Shaliko Co. under Leonardo Shapiro’s direction present the play on a tier of bare wooden platforms in an expressionism veering between horrifically crude vaudeville and impassioned shouting, with all but two of the actors playing a variety of parts.

Clurman added, “Despite the limitation of means at the company’s disposal and the general patchiness of the attack, manifesting more dedication and ambitious purpose than finished execution, the production registers; one remembers it.”

Of Chaikin’s work, the Nation reviewer observed that he “enacts Woyzeck with a make-up of bloodstained deprivation in a fashion which shows marks of Grotowski training.  He throws himself into the part with sustained physical and vocal energy of unusual ferocity, versatility and clarity of intention.”

Back in the ’70s, there were many press outlets, both newspapers and magazines, that were significant critical voices in New York theater, but either no longer exist (Cue, from which I quoted above, is an example) or are no longer important to theater coverage.  Another one of these was the Women’s Wear Daily (which now publishes as an online magazine under the title WWD—the original paper’s nickname—but doesn’t post theater reviews).

Reviewer Christopher Sharp reported that “the production succeeds in translating Buchner’s powers of narration and poetry onto the stage.”  Sharp admonished that “those who are interested in seeing this forerunner of modern drama to rush to Lafayette St. before this fine production goes away.”

“Chaikin has the perfect look and build for Woyzeck,” asserted Sharp.  “There is a fire in his eyes that clashes against his awkward movements.”

The WWD reviewer concluded, “One gets the impression from this production that we are seeing the play from Woyzeck’s point of view.  The scenes are short and abrupt, and they flicker on the stage like bad cinematography.  There is little doubt that Woyzeck sees images in this way.”

In the Record of suburban Bergen County, New Jersey, Emory Lewis dubbed the NYSF production “both flawed and fascinating at the same time.”  He continued, “Leonardo Shapiro . . . has staged ‘Woyzeck’ with careful attention to its offbeat style.  He choreographs every movement.  In his vision, the parable becomes a dance of death.”

“The actors are superb,” declared Lewis.  “They use their bodies with great skill.  Obviously they all have been thoroughly trained in acrobatics.  Most sing and play instruments.”

Of the lead actor, the Record reviewer found, “Joseph Chaikin . . . is magnificent.  He captures the lost quality of Woyzeck . . . .  I like the way he seems to move in several directions at the same time.”

William J. Raidy of the now-defunct Long Island Press, locally known as the LIP, labeled the NYSF production “a fine revival” with “Joseph Chaikin turning in a superb performance.”  Raidy added, “The Shaliko company, while perhaps making ‘Woyzeck’ too contemporary in its adaptation, has caught much of the outcry and almost comic-tragedy of Buchner’s drama . . . .”  The LIP reviewer explained the former remark as referring to “a few dramatic tricks I feel are not right for the original spirit of this 19th century . . . drama . . . .”

“Leonardo Shapiro has directed this production of ‘Woyzeck’ as if the players were some sort of toys or torn rag dolls,” Raidy reported, continuing that “for the most part, the production works very well.  It is certainly enhanced by Chaikin’s touching performance . . . .”

The LIP journalist felt that “Mr. Chaikin’s an exceptionally gifted performer and for his presence alone, I would recommend a visit to ‘Woyzeck.’”

In addition to the exchange of letters between Chaikin and Ross Wetzsteon of the Village Voice, Chaikin received appreciative letters from spectators.  Two that were preserved include one from an Off-Broadway director and producer who financed the historic 1961 St. Mark’s Playhouse production of Jean Genet’s The Blacks, drama teacher and playwright Geraldine Lust (1920-87).

Lust also directed plays for the Living Theatre and conducted workshops and directed for the Open Theater.  Having studied directing under Lee Strasberg and helped launch Stella Adler’s acting school, Lust wrote on 25 March 1976:

[I] am delighted that [Clive Barnes] appreciated the commitment of your performance.

It is still haunting me, and I am still afraid for Woyzeck’s soul.  If there is any way, during the run of the play that I might see it again . . ., I’d love to.

Distinguished playwright Adrienne Kennedy (b. 1931), who, by 1976 had already won an Obie and been awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship, two Rockefeller Foundation grants, a fellowship from the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Creative Artists Public Service grant, was a member of the downtown theater scene (many of her early plays were produced at the La MaMa Experimental Theatre Club in the East Village). 

On 26 March, she dropped Chaikin a hand-written note:  “I’ll always remember your performance in Woyzeck.”  She added a request: “Wish you’d do my plays some times [sic] even though they’re old.” 

(Chaikin would, in fact, direct one of Kennedy’s plays: in 1995, he staged A Movie Star Has to Star in Black and White at the Signature Theatre in New York City.)

In the early days of his company, Shapiro advocated touring and participating in theater festivals.  Indeed, taking productions to festivals around the world had a special importance for Shapiro.  “It’s important to me for the same reason  that having a company is important to me,” he explained: “To be a citizen and to find some way to have some base in which I can say something about the way things are done.” 

After the NYSF production of Woyzeck ran at the Public, Shapiro took it abroad to the Holland Festival.  The production played at the Mickery Theater in Amsterdam from 8 to 22 June 1976.  (He even took the scaffolding idea with him: the New York supplier picked up its material, as Shapiro had wished, and “[w]hen the show went to Europe, I got scaffolding there.”)

We’ve heard after the fact how Chaikin identified disappointments in his performance in Woyzeck.  Shapiro did, too.  Some years after the production, the director wrote: “Our Woyzeck was softer than I would have liked.  Our Usurer wasn’t Jewish.  Woyzeck stabbed Marie with a rubber knife.” 

Following the run of Woyzeck, Shapiro disbanded The Shaliko Company.  The two actors in the troupe about whom he cared most, he explained, Mary Zakrzewski (who played Margaret, Marie and Woyzeck’s neighbor and Marie’s friend) and Chris McCann (b. 1953; Andres, Woyzeck’s fellow soldier, friend, and confidant), had left Shaliko following the run.  The two had been among the original core of actors Shapiro had recruited four years earlier to form the new company.  

After disbanding the company, Shapiro 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 Wallace Shawn (b. 1943). 

Shapiro and composer Margaret Pine (b. 1948), another of Shaliko’s original members, had developed a musical version of Molière’s Misanthrope.  Shapiro brought it to Papp to produce and the impresario agreed.  Eventually, Papp and Shapiro argued over several aspects of the production.  Shapiro refused to make changes and Papp fired him after the preview on 6 October 1977. 

Thus ended Shapiro’s association with NYSF—and opened a rift between the director and the producer that never healed.  When Shapiro re-formed Shaliko, he had to find a new home.  He connected with La MaMa herself, Ellen Stewart (1919-2011), and the troupe worked out of La MaMa E.T.C. for its last decade of producing—and Shapiro established the Trinity/La MaMa Performing Arts Program, his teaching program from 1986 to 1992 with Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, there as well.

[Only occasionally do I append a list of sources with a post, but it seems useful and interesting in this case to catalogue all the press coverage for the Shaliko-NYSF-Other Theatre  Woyzeck.  Here’s my bibliography for Leonardo Shapiro’s Woyzeck:

  • Albrecht, Ernest. “Runway show never quite gets of ground.” Home News [New Brunswick, NJ] 25 Mar. 1976: 37.
  • Barnes, Clive. “Stage: ‘Woyzeck’ Revived.” New York Times 25 March 1976: 43.
  • Clurman, Harold. “Theatre.” Review of Woyzeck. Nation 10 Apr. 1976: [445-]46.
  • Gold, Sylviane. “A Shell of a Play.” New York Post 25 March 1976: 17.
  • Guernsey, Otis L., Jr. Curtain Times: The New York Theater: 1965-1987. New York: Applause Theatre Book Publishers, 1987. 340 [passing mention]
  • Hill, Holly. “Classics of 19th century good off-Broadway fare.” Reporter Dispatch [Westchester Rockland Newspapers, White Plains, NY] 5 April 1976, sec. B: 6.  [Same review appeared in other chain papers under different headlines.]
  • Jenner, Cynthia Lee. “Disastrous Ego Trip.” Villager [New York] 1 April 1976: 6, 15.
  • Kellman, Alice J. “Joseph Chaikin the Actor.” Drama Review 20.3 (T71: Sept. 1976): 17-26.
  • Kerr, Walter. “Theater: Stage View: The Trouble With ‘Woyzeck.’” New York Times 4 April 1976, sec. D: 1, 5.
  • Klein, Barbara. “‘Woyzeck’ a Waste.” Paterson News [Paterson, NJ] 25 Mar. 1976: 30.
  • Lawrence, Linda. “Neatly staged work lacks feeling.” Chelsea Clinton News [New York] 1 April 1976: 15.
  • Lester, Elenore. “‘I Am The Audience In Action.’” New York Times 7 Mar. 1976, sec. 2 (“Arts and Leisure”):  5, 34.
  • Lewis, Emory. “Lively Arts: ‘Woyzeck’ engrossing.” The Record [Hackensack, NJ] 25 March 1976, sec. B: 18.
  • Malcolm, Tom. “‘Woyzeck’ Fails To Satisfy.” Montclarion [Montclair State College, Upper Montclair, NJ] 23 Apr. 1976: 12.
  • Mullen, Ron. “off-broadway: ‘Woyzeck.’” Where It’s At [New York City] 5.15 (12 Apr. 1976): 16, 18, 20.
  • Oliver, Edith. “Off Broadway: ‘Woyzeck,’ Sort Of.” New Yorker 5 April 1976: 96, 98.
  • Oppenheimer, George. “Theater/II: An Enchanting Evening, by Jove!” Newsday [Melville, NY] 4 April 1976, part II: 9, 21.
  • Pegnato, Lisa J. “Breathing in a Different Zone: Joseph Chaikin.” Drama Review 25.3 (T91: Fall 1981): 7-18.
  • Rabkin, Gerald. “The Human Beast.” Soho Weekly News [New York] 1 April 1976: 32-33.
  • Raidy, William A. “First Nighter: ‘Woyzeck’ fascinating drama.” Long Island Press [Jamaica, NY] 25 March 1976, “Everyday Magazine”: 14.
  • Rojo, Jerry. “Interview: Jerry Rojo: Environmental Theatre.” Performing Arts Journal 1.1 (Spring 1976): 20-28.
  • Ryweck, Charles. “Stage Review: Woyzeck.” Hollywood Reporter 31 Mar. 1976: 6.
  • Sainer, Arthur. “How Is It Going to Come Together?” Village Voice [New York] 11-17 March [1976]: 141, 143.
  • S[ainer], A[rthur]. “Voice Centerfold: Chaikin Puts ‘Woyzeck’ Together.” Village Voice [New York] 15 Mar. 1978: 60-61.
  • Schechter, Joel. “American Dramaturgs.” Drama Review 20.2 (T70: June 1976): 88-92.
  • Sharp, Christopher. “The Theater: ‘Woyzeck.’” Women’s Wear Daily [New York] 25 March 1976: 11.
  • Stasio, Marilyn. “Chaikin Says ‘Yes’ to ‘Woyzeck.’” Cue [New York] 10 April 1976: 21-22.
  • Stasio, Marilyn. “Reviews: Theatre: The Vision.” Cue [New York] 3 April 1976: 10.
  • Wallach, Allan. “In Review/II: Stage: A universe so desolate.” Newsday [Melville, NY] 25 March 1976, sec. A: 8-9.
  • Watt, Douglas. “Overdoing the dumb act.” Daily News [New York] 25 March 1976: 92.
  • Watts, Richard. “The Week in Theater: ‘Vanities’ Looks at Three Women.” New York Post 29 March 1976: 42.
  • Wetzsteon, Ross; Julius Novick; Arthur Sainer, Terry Curtis Fox; Ellen Blumenthal, and Erika Munk, “Theatre: Chaikin’s Woyzeck: A Dream Production Falls Flat.” Village Voice [New York] 5 April 1976: 123-24. 

 [There are 32 articles above, including 24 reviews.  The rest are interviews and other kinds of reports.  Some of these periodicals have online archives, like the New York Times, but some only permit access to subscribers; others don’t go back as far as 1976.  (I’ve quoted from other sources that aren’t on this list, articles and interviews that aren’t specifically about Woyzeck.  Some of these are recorded interviews I conducted and others are unpublished typescripts, neither of which are available publicly.)

[Libraries will have collections of some of the titles above, most notably the New York Public Library (which keeps some in different locations, such as Women’s Wear Daily in the Science, Industry, and Business Library, Cue and the Hollywood Reporter at the Library for the Performing Arts, and the New York Times, Daily News, and New York Post at the Stephen A. Schwarzman Building.  Some of the above reviews and articles are only available as clippings in the files of the LPA at NYPL. 

[Other libraries, such as university libraries, will have smaller collections and may restrict access,  I can only tell you that at the time I gathered this material when I was doing the research, in the years before the Internet, it took me months and years to assemble this collection.  Of course, I didn’t have a handy list off of which to work.]