Showing posts with label playwriting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label playwriting. 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).]


04 January 2026

Tom Hanks, Playwright (Part 2)

 

[Below are three reposts that constitute Part 2 of “Tom Hanks, Playwright.”  The first piece is excerpts from the interview of well-known film star Hanks by Stephen Colbert, host of CBS’s Late Show, on 3 November 2025.  Following on that posting are two reviews of the Off-Broadway production, the première of This World of Tomorrow, the play cowritten by Hanks with James Glossman, which ran at The Shed from 18 November to 21 December 2025.

[In Part 1, which I recommend reading before the installment below, I posted three articles from the New York Times announcing the coming production, covering the opening night, and presenting Hanks’s own discussion of his inaugural venture as a dramatist.  Those articles contain information that will be referenced below and explanations and commentary from me, including the background and details of the play, that I have not repeated in the second part.]

STEPHEN COLBERT INTERVIEWS TOM HANKS
3 November 2025
(Late Show with Stephen Colbert; Season 11, Episode 31)

[Below are excerpts from the guest appearance of Tom Hanks on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert (CBS-TV; Channel 2 in New York City) of 3 November 2025.  Hanks talks extensively about This World of Tomorrow, which was in previews at the time of the broadcast, but he talked also about a number of other, unrelated subjects as well.  I have, therefore lifted only the passages concerning the Off-Broadway play for this posting. (Omitted sections of the show are marked with ellipses.)

[There is no video of this LSSC episode that’s in one take, so this post is taken from YouTube, which posted the show in segments, four of which are devoted to the Hanks interview.  (When the show was broadcast. Colbert did his customary opening, including a monologue, before the first break and after the Hanks interview, he had a musical guest, Mavis Staples, a rhythm and blues and gospel singer and civil rights activist, who performed the last segment of the show.)

[The YouTube videos are broken into separate posts at each point in the show when Colbert takes a commercial break.  (The link above, for those who want to view the whole interview, is the first segment (“It’s ‘Tom Hanks Riding The Subway’ Season In New York City”); the following three segments are at: #2 – “They Are Gonna Have A Real Hard Time Firing Me’ - Tom Hanks On His Play ‘This World of Tomorrow’"; #3 – “If You Could Spend 12 Hours In The Past, Where And When Would You Go? - Tom Hanks”; #4 – “Why The Original ‘Toy Story’ Movie Had To Be Thrown Out - Tom Hanks.”  I didn’t look for videos of the opening or closing segments, Colbert’s monologue and Staples’s performance.)

[The transcript published on Rick On Theater is based on the verbatim transcript from YouTube, which is computer-generated.  It’s full of inaccuracies, omissions, and mistranscriptions, so I emended it myself from the audio of the recordings, creating a hybrid.  It’s more accurate and complete than the ones accompanying the YouTube videos online.]

Stephen Colbert: Hey, welcome back, everybody! Give it up for Louis Cato and the Late Show Band, everybody!

Ladies and gentlemen, my friends – you know my first guest tonight, because he is Tom Hanks!

[cheers and applause]

Tom Hanks: Thank you, thank you!

. . . .

Hanks: I’m doing a play right now called – down at . . . uhh –

Colbert: I’m doing it right here [takes out playbill for this world of tomorrow].

You’re in town – you’ve cowritten and starred in a new play, This World of Tomorrow.

There you are – there it is. It’s at The Shed –

Hanks: It’s at The Shed. Directed by Kenny Leon and cowritten by James Glossman. I can’t tell you how much we love the cast.

But – you say you’re on Broadway and everybody knows where Broadway is. We are on Broadway right now. 

[The Ed Sullivan Theatre, where The Late Show is recorded, is a 1927 theater at 1697 Broadway at West 53rd Street, formerly a legitimate Broadway house first named Hammerstein’s Theatre (and then under various names). The Columbia Broadcasting System leased it in 1937 as a radio studio; it was converted for television use in 1949. The theater housed The Ed Sullivan Show from 1953 to 1971, as well as other CBS shows; it was renamed after Sullivan (1901-74) in 1967. The Sullivan was purchased by CBS in 1993 and has housed The Late Show since that year, first under David Letterman, then under Colbert since 2015.]

Colbert: You’re literally on Broadway.

Hanks: Anybody in the world can come to New York and say, ‘Take me to Broadway.’ Or they can walk to Broadway themselves if they know where it is.

You come to New York and say, ‘Come to The Shed,’ and they’re like, ‘What? For discount garden tools?’

It’s an art installation – it’s a space for art and it’s downtown in Hudson Yards. But letting everyone know where The Shed is, is a bit of a challenge. So if I could have a slight shuffle beat.

[scats a beat for the band. the band joins in.]

Yeah, okay.

Ready?

[rhythmic chant. hanks, seated, keeps time with hand and arm gestures as he shifts his upper body and makes animated facial expressions.]

It’s The Shed
Off the High Line
By the Vessel
In Hudson Yards.
It’s The Shed
By the Vessel
Off the Highline
In Hudson Yards.
Wanta see
A show
At The Shed?
Well, just head down
To Hudson Yards.
It’s The Shed
Off the Highline
By the Vessel
In Hudson Yards.

There you go.  So, come on down!

[The High Line is an elevated public park and greenway in New York City, built on a disused freight rail line on Manhattan’s West Side. It extends from Gansevoort Street at Washington Street in Greenwich Village to West 34th Street and 12th Avenue near Hudson Yards.

[The Vessel is an interactive public landmark and art installation in Hudson Yards. The structure is 150 feet tall (equivalent to about 12-15 stories) and consists of 154 interconnected flights of stairs, nearly 2,500 steps, and 80 landings, forming a massive, climbable, honeycomb.

[Hudson Yards is a real estate development on the far West Side of Midtown Manhattan, built over a functioning rail yard, a storage yard for Long Island Rail Road trains. The 28-acre site includes, aside from The Shed and the Vessel, a landscaped public plaza, high-rises with both residential apartments and corporate offices, and a seven-story mall with shops and restaurants. Most of the offerings are strictly high-end.]

Colbert: We have to take a quick break, but we will be right back with more Tom Hanks, everybody. Stick around.

. . . .

Colbert: Hey, everybody, we are back with the star of This World of Tomorrow at The Shed, Mr. Tom Hanks.

Tell the people what it’s about, if you don’t mind.

Hanks: it’s from a collection of short stories. Jim Glossman – I published some short stories. And Jim Glossman said we could string these together under the theme of – let’s just say time travel.

It’s about a guy who decides to – a franchise out of what is now the Milford Plaza Hotel.

[Renamed the Row NYC in 2014, the Milford Plaza Hotel (at 700 Eighth Avenue, between 44th and 45th Streets, in Midtown Manhattan) opened in 1928 as the Hotel Lincoln. It changed hands many times, and was renamed by each new owner. In 1956, it became the Hotel Manhattan; in 1969, it operated as the Royal Manhattan; and it reopened in 1980 as the Milford Plaza Hotel.

[Somewhat typical of the reviews the hotel received over its lifetime, New York magazine said in 2022 that “the reason most people stay here is location; its proximity to the city’s brightest [Broadway theater] marquees ensures theatergoers can be in bed shortly after the curtain drops. Otherwise, the 1,300 rooms are slightly antiquated."]

You may not know this. The Milford Plaza Hotel used to be the Lincoln Hotel and it’s at Eighth Avenue and West 45th Street, and Room 1114 has what is called volume authenticity to allow access to a 12-hour time-bond echo to June 8th, 1939.

[I tried to decipher what Hanks is saying here, thinking he’s using standard or recognized mainstream science fiction terms. According to one source, he isn’t. He’s using terms like “volume authenticity” and “time-bond echo” as technobabble—invented scientific language—to explain the mechanics of his character’s time travel.

[“Volume authenticity” is a fictional scientific requirement in the play. It refers to the idea that for a “time jump” to work, the physical space (i.e., Room 1114 of the Milford Plaza) must perfectly match the historical details of the destination date. The more “authentic” the room’s physical “volume” (decor, smell, newspapers, and atmosphere) is to 1939, the easier it is to “tether” to that time.

[“Time-Bond Echo” is the play’s term for the actual window or “link” between two points in time. It describes a temporary connection (a bond) that allows someone from 2089, the play’s “present,” to interact with the “echo” of 8 June 1939.

[In the play, there is also a 12-hour limit for Bert Allenberry’s (Hanks) technology to allow him to access this “echo” before he is pulled back to his own time, which is why he must keep returning “again and again” to the same day to see the woman he loves (Kelli O’Hara).]

So you can go back to the World’s Fair on June 8th, 1939. And I play a fellow who does that again and again and again, because he just cannot get enough of the World’s Fair.

Now – this is a game around the dinner table. I’m gonna tell you right now, okay – here’s the rules of the game. You get to go to any time in the past you want to for 12 hours. Name the place, name the event. However, homicide is not allowed. You can’t go back and – you know.

Colbert: April 1865, Ford’s Theatre and I prevent a homicide. Is that legal?

[laughter and applause from the audience.]

[President Abraham Lincoln (b. 1809; 16th President of the United States: 1861-1865) was assassinated by actor John Wilkes Booth (1838-65) on 14 April 1865 as he and the First Lady, Mary Todd Lincoln (1818-82), were attending a performance of Our American Cousin, an 1852 farce by English playwright Tom Taylor, at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C.

[Ford’s Theatre ceased presenting plays for 103 years after Lincoln’s death. It became a museum dedicated to Lincoln until 1968, when it was restored and reopened. The presidential box remains as it was in the 1860s, but is never occupied. Since its reopening, the theater has not restaged Our American Cousin, and has said that it never will out of respect for the assassination.

[(This vow is attributed to Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall (1920-2010; in office: 1961-69), whose department includes the National Park Service, which is responsible for the physical stewardship, preservation, and historical interpretation of the Ford’s Theatre National Historic Site, which includes the government-owned theater building. The non-profit Ford’s Theatre Society oversees the site’s artistic programming and educational initiatives.)]

Hanks: Here’s the problem with that. I believe that show was sold out.

Colbert: So I cannot get a ticket.

Hanks: And those laws [are] adhered to. You don’t just get to appear magically. You have to eat the food and go to the bathroom and take a shower – and if you break a leg, you’ll have a broken leg.

So those are the rules. But the fellow I play cannot stop from going back to 1939, for reasons that are evident once you come see the play.

Colbert: That is the World’s Fair, 1939. Did you have a particular fascination with the World’s Fair?

Hanks: Something about the World’s Fair.

Here’s a question. There was a line from the “Futurama,” which was the most attended attraction at the fair, run by our good friends at General Motors.

Colbert: Cars of the future.

Hanks: It was 1939, showing you what 1960 was going to be like and it had this fabulous line that said: “The present is but an instant between an infinite past and a hurrying future.” And if you think about it, that’s a great theme that Jim Glossman and I’d been working on.

[The General Motors exhibit at the 1939 New York World’s Fair was titled “Highways and Horizons.” The core attraction and most popular attraction at the fair was a massive, immersive diorama and ride called “Futurama.” Designed by theatrical and industrial designer Norman Bel Geddes (1893-1958), the exhibit presented an idealized model of the world 20 years into the future (around 1960), characterized by vast suburbs and extensive, automated highway systems.

[Visitors sat in moving, sound-equipped chairs that conveyed them over a massive, 35,000 square-foot scale model of the American countryside and cities. The Futurama exhibit fit closely with the fair’s overall theme of “The World of Tomorrow” and is credited with popularizing the concept of modern interstate highways.]

You cannot do anything about our infinite past. That’s gone, baby, gone, right? And the future’s going down the pike. Who knows what’s gonna go happen [sic]?

But the present, we have a little bit of control over that, don’t we? And we also know what you’re hurrying future’s going to be, don’t we [a reference to Paramount’s cancellation of The Late Show after May 2026]. And you can’t do nothin’ ’bout the things that got you in trouble, my friend.

So you’re just going to have to make hay right here, right now.

Colbert: Exactly.

Hanks: That’s right.

. . . .

Colbert: We have to take another break here, but stick around. We will be right back with more Tom Hanks, everybody.

. . . .

Colbert: Hey, everybody! We’re back with the star of This World of Tomorrow, Mr. Thomas Hanks.

You’ve done lots of theater.

Hanks: I’ve done just enough, sir, to call myself a professional actor.

Colbert: And last time you were live on stage here in New York, it was 2013.

Hanks: Yes, we did Nora Ephron’s Lucky Guy at the Broadhurst Theatre – yes.

Colbert: Now you’re back at The Shed, and we know where that is.

Hanks: Where’s The Shed again? Well, I’ll tell you where it is. It’s –

[chants as the band comes in.]

By the Vessel
And the High Line.

Colbert: Is it different to go on stage knowing that you wrote it?

Hanks: Yes, it is. Number one, because they are going to have a real hard time firing me. If I screw up.

Colbert: Have you gone up on your own line?

[In theater, ‘to go up’ means to forget one’s lines on stage during a performance or rehearsal.]

Hanks: Oh, God, yeah, year. I disappeared the other night, as a matter of fact. And when it happens, Kelli O’Hara on stage, or Ruben Santiago-Hudson – they all just kind of look at me and go, ‘Come on, Man.’

Colbert: If you don’t know it –

Hanks: ‘If I learn my lines – You haven’t – [why] haven’t you learned yours?’

The huge difference between film and stage is, in film, the director is the governor of the story. He can change it, not say it, don’t say that, don’t say this.

On the stage, if it’s not on the page, it is not on the stage. The writers are the definitive arbiters of what is being said.

So, on one hand, you have a discussion. ‘What – what sounds better: “Hey, guys, we better get going because we have a problem,” or, “Hey, guys, we better get going because we have a situation”’?

We had some previews the other night. Kenny Leon said when we’re in rehearsal, the play is ours; when we are performing, the play is theirs. Meaning, that audience gives you something that is just undeniable. And we were out there and we had a difference between blah-blah-blah-blah problem – and the audience was like hmm [making a hand gesture indicating “flat”] – blah-blah-blah-blah situation, and they go, ‘Oh, a situation?’ And this is where you start playing around with it. It’s a very, very malleable, exciting thing.

And being one of the cowriters is just a pleasure and a joy, but it is also as terrifying an experience as I have ever had.

Colbert: Why terrifying?

Hanks: Well, because you just wake up and – ‘problem,’ ‘situation,’ ‘problem,’ ‘situation’ [making hand gesture of weighing two alternatives].

And will they know how to find us. You know how they find us – well,

[chants and snaps his fingers.]

By the Vessel
Off the High Line
Is The Shed
In Hudson Yards.

Colbert: We’re gonna take another break here.

Hanks: I think we should.

Colbert: We’ll be right back with more Tom Hanks, everybody.

. . . .

Colbert: Hey, everybody.  You know who that is, that’s Tom Hanks.

. . . .

Colbert: So, Tom – wonderful to see you, as always.

Hanks: Thank you so much.

This World of Tomorrow is currently in previews at The Shed [30 October-18 November 2025]. And where’s The Shed?

Hanks: I will tell you right now, The Shed is . . .

[chants]

By the Vessel
Off the High Line
Is The Shed
In Hudson Yards.
By the Vessel
In the High Line

Colbert: Officially opens November 18th.

Hanks:

[continues]

This World of Tomorrow
Is a play you all can see
Where? At The Shed
By the Vessel
Off the High Line
In Hudson Yards.

Colbert: Tom Hanks, everybody.

We’ll be right back with a performance by Mavis Staples.

*  *  *  *
TWO REVIEWS OF THIS WORLD OF TOMORROW

THE WORLD OF TOMORROW REVIEW –
TOM HANKS RETURNS TO THE STAGE 
FOR TIME TRAVEL CHARMER
by Benjamin Lee

[Of the two reviews of This World of Tomorrow I selected to repost, the one from The Guardian of 18 November 2025 was the more positive.  The critical reception of the play was mixed, most giving some form of praise for the performances accompanied, but less enthusiasm, as you’ll read in the second example, for the production (that is, directing and design) and the script.]

The actor indulges his love of the past in a breezily enjoyable play about a man falling for a woman from the 1930s, played by a standout Kelli O’Hara

Tom Hanks [b. 1956] is a star who’s always had one foot squarely in the past. As an actor he’s forever been likened to James Stewart [1908-97; years active: 1932-91], a reincarnation of the charming, essentially good American everyman, a from-another-era lead who’s increasingly been more comfortable in period fare (in the last decade, he’s appeared in just four present-day films [see note below]). As a producer, he’s gravitated toward historical shows such as Band of Brothers [2001; HBO], John Adams [2008; HBO] and The Pacific [2010; HBO] his directorial debut was 60s-set music comedy That Thing You Do! [1996; Twentieth Century Fox] and his undying obsession, outside of acting, is the typewriter, collecting and writing about its throwback appeal.

[Between 2015 and 2025, Hanks’s “present-day” films (out of 19 productions, including the animated Toy Story 4) have been A Hologram for the King (made in 2016, set in 2010; Lionsgate, Roadside Attractions, Saban Films), Sully (made in 2016, set in 2009; Warner Bros. Pictures), Inferno (made and set in 2016; Sony Pictures Releasing), and A Man Called Otto (made in 2020, set in 2020 – with flashbacks to 1960s and mid-2010s; Sony Pictures Releasing).]

In his new play, The World of Tomorrow [sic], his fondness for the “good old days” has led to the inevitable, a story about a man with a fondness for the “good old days” who actually gets to experience one of them for himself. It’s a loosely familiar tale of time travel, based on a short story written by Hanks that tries, and half-succeeds, to bring something new to a table we’ve sat at many times before.

[Several press outlets mislabel the play by substituting ‘The’ for ‘This.’  As I note in Part 1, the play’s title, This World of Tomorrow, is distinct from the official motto and theme of the 1939 World’s Fair, which was “The World of Tomorrow.”  The choice by Hanks and Glossman was deliberate to distinguish their creative work from the historical event it depicts and to shift the focus from a broad, corporate vision of the future to a specific, personal reality experienced by the characters.]

The gimmick here is that while time travel might be possible in the future, it comes with hard restrictions. Firstly, it’s prohibitively expensive, leaving it up to the select few to take advantage (asides about the state of the world in 60 years time are . . . not optimistic). Secondly, it’s only possible to go back to specific places at specific times, reliant on certain spaces remaining the same and certain “echoes” allowing for movement. Hanks plays Bert, a scientist whose trips to the 1939 world fair in New York become more frequent after he meets Carmen (Kelli O’Hara), a local woman treating herself to a day off with her precocious niece (Kayli Carter, a 32-year-old actor fighting a losing, and increasingly grating, battle playing an 11-year-old).

It’s not just love at first sight that keeps him going back, it’s also his fetish for nostalgia (Newspapers! Lower prices! People saying “swell”!) and the alluring promise of a future that never really came. Each time he returns to the present, after a strict cutoff of 11pm [sic], he regales his skeptical colleagues with ideas of how to forge ahead differently. While whimsy is mostly prioritized [sic – British spelling], the dark shadow of reality often threatens to intrude. Bert’s fawning over the past is briefly interrupted when Black colleague and longtime friend M-Dash (played by the wonderful Ruben Santiago-Hudson, who tries hard to add weight to a lightly written dynamic) tells him that the idea of travelling back is less appealing for him, a sharp reminder that the good old days weren’t that good for many people (as he predicts, almost all of the service jobs during Bert’s visits are taken on by Black workers). It’s also the summer of 1939, just weeks away from the second world war [German troops invaded Poland on 1 September 1939, marking the start of World War II in Europe], and Nazism has already started to appear in the US, the dreaded swastika showing up on pin badges.

But Hanks, as ever, chooses light over dark and his focus, with co-writer James Glossman, is the thrill of an impossible romance, a choice that takes a little time to convince (the setup, like in his classic romcoms Sleepless in Seattle [1993; TriStar Pictures] and You’ve Got Mail [1998; Warner Bros.], could have easily warped into a creepy thriller). Before intermission, it’s hard to fully understand why Bert would make the expensive, and increasingly dangerous, choice to keep going back for Carmen, as effervescent as O’Hara might be (like many an adaptation, the writing often suffers without the gap-filling depth of a narrator).

Yet in a far superior second half, after she’s gifted with a piercing monologue, we’re whisked along with them. Visually, the journey is smooth throughout thanks to Tony-winning director Kenny Leon guiding the way. While his recent take on Othello [2025; Ethel Barrymore Theatre, Broadway; see “Film Stars Twinkle on the Great White Way, Part 1” (27 March 2025)] might have underwhelmed on many levels, his decisions here are far more astute, working with what seems like another blockbuster budget but this time allowed to spend it on more than just A-list casting. The stage is filled with rectangular pillars switching between various video-screened backgrounds, from a futuristic conference room to a pokey Bronx apartment, and despite one hiccup (a prop that wouldn’t budge that Hanks himself helped to save), it felt as sleekly transporting as something the actor would have made for the big screen. Its commerciality does also make it an easy fit for a Hollywood transfer, perhaps one that could easily tighten the script, excising the scene-sinking niece and some extraneous diner and home scenes (it’s over two hours and could benefit from being under).

Hanks, who was last on the New York stage in Nora Ephron’s 80s-set newsroom drama Lucky Guy, develops real last-act chemistry with O’Hara, who manages to perfect period intonation without becoming schtick-y. He’s comfortably in his wheelhouse here (also nailing the delivery as expected), but there’s none of the autopilot laziness we often get from actors known for sticking to certain character types. He might be stuck in the past, but it’s hard not to get stuck there with him.

[Benjamin Lee is the east coast arts editor at Guardian US, based in New York.  He was previously deputy editor of the style and culture website ShortList.com.]

*  *  *  *
DAWN OF A DULL DAY:
TOM HANKS IN THIS WORLD OF TOMORROW
by Jackson McHenry 

[The review on Vulture (the online platform of New York magazine) that was posted on 18 November 2025 was a largely negative assessment of the Hanks-Glossman play.  As you’ll read, reviewer Jackson McHenry had numerous objections to This World of Tomorrow, both to the script and Kenny Leon’s production.]

Whatever is happening at the Shed right now, it’s not really a play. It’s play-shaped, and actors put on costumes and wander around onstage for a couple of hours, repeating words they’ve memorized. But I’d be more comfortable calling the staging of This World of Tomorrow — starring Tom Hanks, written by Hanks and his collaborator James Glossman, directed by Kenny Leon, and based off elements of Hanks’s short-story collection, Uncommon Type — something more along the lines of “a flight of fancy,” “a doodle on a napkin,” or “a college-drama-club project with the express purpose of making one person happy.” There are plenty of talented folks around Hanks who have been roped into making this, and plenty of people in the audience who might be paying a lot to see him, but they don’t factor into the equation. This thing is entirely about admiring its star. Hey, at least there are some fun hats.

This World of Tomorrow is not malicious in its intent. Tom Hanks, the moral nice-guy mayor of Hollywood, is the closest thing the film industry has to a Jimmy Stewart, and I’m happy to believe that his forays into writing have developed out of genuine artistic interest in good-hearted Americana. (Inevitably, a character speaks admiringly about a typewriter.) Whether a theater company should spend its time and resources developing and staging what he has written is another question. (No.) This World of Tomorrow, largely based on the Hanks story “The Past Is Important to Us,” has him playing Bert Allenberry, a rich tech titan from around the year 2100 who keeps taking expensive daylong trips to the 1939 New York World’s Fair via a company called Chronometric Adventures. He justifies the cost by telling his colleagues that he’s enthralled by the way the past imagined a better future than the one we got, but it becomes clear very quickly that he’s really doing it because he’s infatuated with a winsome divorcée named Carmen Perry (Kelli O’Hara, at home in any role where she wears gloves). Carmen is visiting the fair with her spunky niece, Virginia (Kayli Carter, fumbling for any texture to play and landing on “loud”), and Hanks runs into her by accident, then comes back again and again. In each time loop, Carmen doesn’t remember Bert, he so [sic] keeps reseducing her, using a little more information each time, an unsettling dynamic that’s a blend between Groundhog Day [1993; directed by Harold Ramis; Columbia Pictures], Midnight in Paris [2011; directed by Woody Allen; Sony Pictures Classics], and maybe even the deranged sci-fi drama Passengers [2016; directed by Morten Tyldum; Sony Pictures Releasing], all films that aren’t known for their sensitivity toward women’s agency.

There’s where you might expect a play to develop some dramatic friction, perhaps as a commentary on the dangers of nostalgia or on one extremely rich man’s sense of entitlement. Any such turn might be a current, if obvious, direction for a play like this. But one thing you can say about This World of Tomorrow is that it doesn’t do much of what you might expect. There’s little tension anywhere or really any significant attempt to undercut Bert’s rosy gaze on the past. Hanks and Glossman have written a few throwaway lines that acknowledge the racism of the 1930s — Black members of the ensemble are often called upon to roll their eyes at Bert’s cheeriness about 1939 — and in the play’s announcement, Alex Poots, the Shed’s artistic director, told the New York Times [see Part 1] that “there is reference to the rise in authoritarianism,” which I can translate as “there is a line about how Bert should have used time travel to kill Hitler.”

I wouldn’t say that This World of Tomorrow embraces Bert’s nostalgia, either, so much as it just lets his quest for Carmen happen. The script is too rudderless to navigate toward any specific theme, and Leon, who has become the go-to director for soggy celebrity-driven drama, hasn’t pushed his cast toward any specific idea. (According to a conversation in your program, Leon said the play is about “time and love”; one is a concept an actor can’t play, and the other is something no one is convincingly playing.) Somehow, despite what must have been a substantial budget, the set looks cheap. Derek McLane’s design resembles a cybernetic wilderness, a spare set of moving columns that indicate new locations and settings through screens and projections. If Bert’s so enamored with the innovations of the World’s Fair, couldn’t we see re-creations of a few of them onstage? Why not show us the famous robot or the celebrity cow?

Instead, in the space of where it could allow for wonder and enthusiasm, This World of Tomorrow tends toward overexplanation. The script is remarkably heavy on the technobabble and the scenes in which Hanks’s colleagues from the future throw nonsense time-travel-related nouns around while wearing Star Trek outfits. I couldn’t care less about the acids that supposedly accumulate when you go back and forth in time. The script’s most engaging indulgence is a series of scenes that occur in the second act as Bert and Carmen meet in the 1950s at a Greek diner, which is run by a grumbly Jay O. Sanders. Sanders almost convinces you that you’re watching a real play about a real man, commanding the stage with a gruff bark and mining humor from his character’s insistence on teaching everyone Greek vocabulary as he picks up some English. I’m not sure how his presence is supposed to relate to the rest of the story or why Hanks felt it was necessary to include it — perhaps his wife, the Greek American actress and producer Rita Wilson, had his ear — but at least it’s an interestingly idiosyncratic gesture.

Yet the audience isn’t at the Shed for idiosyncrasies. Hanks is the be-all and end-all of This World of Tomorrow, and, sure, when you’re sitting in the audience a few dozen yards away from him, it’s hard to deny his loping movie-star magnetism. He has something of the energy of a beloved and aging family dog, padding up to you to lay his paws on your lap. It’s hard to judge Hanks’s strengths as a stage actor given that this script gives him so few challenges, but when he delivers several jokes about Bert’s discovery that they have real milk at the World’s Fair — presumably, an unspoken environmental collapse has eliminated dairy — he is deeply charming. In those moments, the audience lets out a sigh of relief, as if to say, Ah, yes, the celebrity we’re here to see is giving us the performance we wanted. It’s his own persona he’s performing, not a character. We come to see plenty of stage actors for a taste of their familiar forms, from Kristin Chenoweth to Laurie Metcalf, but perhaps putting a movie star onstage and asking them to actually perform in a play is an extra hurdle we needn’t ask them to clear. Why not just revert to something more direct, more medieval and churchy? Do away with the scripts, with the directors, with the rest of the ensemble, with the pretense. Have them stand there, in pristine and golden-lit silence for two hours at the center of the stage, and bask in the awe and admiration. Audiences could think of it as a pilgrimage to visit a holy relic — or its own act of sacramental theater. He’s not performing, after all. You are.

[Jackson McHenry is a Vulture critic covering theater, film, and TV.  He’s been covering theater, film, and television since 2015, with a focus on arts and entertainment, pop culture, and cultural movements.  In addition to Vulture, Jackson’s work has been featured in Variety, Magzter, and Entertainment Weekly.]