INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in "sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department.

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.

UniversiW Micrcxilms International 300 N. ZEEB RD,, ANN ARBOR. Ml 48106 1317367

MEDGYESY, LAURA LOUISE CHICAGO'S GOODMAN THEATRES THE TRANSITION FROM A DIVISION OF THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO TO AN INDEPENDENT REGIONAL THEATRE

THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, M.A., 1981

University Microfilms International 300 N. ZEEB RD.. ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106 PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy.

Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark■ £ _

1. Glossy photographs or pages.

2. Colored illustrations, paper or print _

3. Photographs with dark background

4. Illustrations are poor copy ______

5. Pages with black marks, not original copy.

6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page.

7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages.

8. Print exceeds margin requirements______

9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine ______

10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print.

11. Page(s) ______lacking when material received, and not available from school or author.

12. Pagefs) ______seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13. Two pages numtaered______. Text follows.

14. Curling and wrinkled pages ______

15. Other______

University Microfilms International CHICAGO'S GOODMAN THEATRE;

THE TRANSITION FROM

A DIVISION OF THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO

TO AN INDEPENDENT REGIONAL THEATRE

by

Laura Louise Medgyesy

submitted to the

Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences

of The American University

in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree

of

Master of Arts

i n

Performing Arts

Signatures of Committee:

Member

[ember

Dean of the College

fat 1981

The American University Washington, D.C. 20016 tHE IM ^IC A N U N IlC îlS ifï £IBHABY CHICAGO'S GOODMAN 'CHEATRE:

THE 1EANBITI0N FROM

A DIVISION OF THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO

TO AN INDEPENDENT REGIONAL THEATRE ty

Laura Louise Medgyesy

ABSTRACT

This thesis will consider the issue of new directions for the Goodman Theatre of Chicago, The history of the metamorphoses, from 1925 through today, will be examined from a management standpoint. This work will focus on the

transition to independence, tracing the series of events and people involved in the separation from the Art Institute

of Chicago in 1977# The ramifications of these actions for

the present producing organization, the Chicago Theatre Group,

and for the community will also be investigated. Source

material was gathered from personal interviews, legal and

financial documents, scholarly works, and management files.

This thesis presents a contrasting example in the history of

regional theatres, as well as a chronicle of organizational

evolution. The research indicates that the changes during

the 1970s have generated the revitalization of the Goodman,

enabling it to become a significant theatrical institution

for Chicago and for the nation. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge my indebtedness to the many people who encouraged me in my studies and in the development of this work.

Special thanks are accorded to my advisor, Valerie Morris, who nudged me toward completion of the Arts Management program.

I am especially grateful to the people of the Goodman

Theatre, who became invaluable resources with their openness, involvement and patience. My gratitude extends particularly to

Stanley Ereehling, whose vision provided the topic for this work.

I would like to thank my typist, Islay Laing, for her assistance.

Finally, I am forever indebted to my family, whose guidance, good humor, support, and belief in my abilities have sustained me throughout this endeavor.

11 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... 11

Chapter I. A LOOK AT THEATRE TODAY: THE GOODMAN THEATRE AND REGIONAL THEATRES...... 1

An Overview of the Goodman Theatre...... 1 An Introduction to Regional Theatre...... 10

II. METAMORPHOSES: A HISTORY OF THE GOODMAN THEATRE...... 15

Beginnings: 1925-31...... 15 A Closed Enclave: 1932-57...... 22 Reich's Reign: 1957-72...... 25 Changes: 1972-81...... 33

III. THE IDEA OF CHANGE...... 52

Origins and Supporters: 1966-76...... 54 Discussions...... 69 Matters for an Agreement...... 71 Other Considerations...... 75

IV. A NEW BEGINNING: 1977-81...... 78

The Structure of the Chicago Theatre Group...... 78 The Finances of the Chicago TheatreGroup ...... 86 Relationships of the Goodman "Clan"...... 93 Community Relations...... 96

V. CONJECTURES AND REMARKS: TODAY AND TOMORROW FOR THE GOODMAN THEATRE...... 103

A New Agreement...... 103 Potential Changes...... 105 Growing Pains...... 108 Conclusions...... 113

APPENDIX 1. PRODUCTIONS AT THE GOODMAN THEATRE...... 117

Narrative: 1972-73 through 1980-81 Seasons 117 Table of Flays and Artists: 1971-72 through 1980-81 Seasons...... 131

iix APPENDIX 2. ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE GOODMAN THEATRE/ CHICAGO THEATRE GROUP, INC...... 137

1977-7 8...... 137 1978-79 ...... 144 1979-80 ...... 151

APPENDIX 3. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE CHICAGO THEATRE GROUP.. 158

30 June 1979 and 1978...... 158 30 June 1980 and 1979...... 167

APPENDIX 4. LETTERS AND REPORTS REGARDING "THE IDEAOF CHANGE". 177

Percy B. Eckhart Letter, 21 October 1958...... 177 Oliver Rea Report, 20 June 1966...... 179 John Reich Letter, 16 January 1970...... 182

APPENDIX 5. CHICAGO THEATRE GROUP STAFF MEETING, 13DECEMBER 1980— DISCUSSION QUESTIONS...... 186

SOURCES CONSULTED...... 189

IV CHAPTER I

A LOOK AT THEATRE TODAY:

THE GOODMAN THEATRE AND REGIONAL THEATRES

The Goodman Theatre, now in its fifty-sixth season, is the oldest producing theatre in Chicago and the second oldest continuing resident theatre in the nation. Since its founding in 1925 the character of the Goodman has often been recast, thus in its history many facets of American theatre can be discerned. It was part of the "Little

Theatre" movement with a permanent acting company at first, then a school of drama with a professional slant, next host to professionals as guests in student productions, and most recently, a "regional" theatre. These changing labels apply only to levels of productions at the Goodman; however, for in its long existence there has been only one significant shift in governance. In 1977 the Goodman Theatre changed from museum division to independent producing organization, from part of the Art

Institute of Chicago [AIC] to outlet of the Chicago Theatre Group

[CTG]. This was a new beginning for an old theatre— innovation and tradition intermingling— effecting a transition in thought and action for the people of the Goodman Theatre.

The Goodman today is a vital theatre, making the most of its dynamic youth and its rich heritage. Its existence is validated through its activities, ranging from the MainStage season to workshops for young people to staged readings of plays-in^progress. Sustaining the life of the Goodman are people, working to provide visions and experiences of meaning and excellence. 2

The fundamental program of the Goodman Theatre le the MainStage season, with six pleurs running five weeks each, from October through

June. For the 1980-81 season over 18,000 people have subscribed to the series consisting of The Suicide by Nikolai Eirdman, Harold Pinter's

Betrayal. Plenty by David Hare, the American premiere of Mustapha

Matura's Play ffas. and Dwarfman. Master of a Million Shanes by

Michael Weller.^ In addition Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol is 2 presented during the holiday season, with 55»425 viewers in 1980.

In September 1979 the renovated Studio theatre was reopened to house many different types of theatrical experiences. 1980-81 Studio bookings have included Beckett Directs Beckett; Endgame/Krapp's last Tape. Still

Life by Bnily Mann, three one-act plays by Tennessee Williams, Burr

Tillstrom's Kukla and Ollie Live, and a return engagement of the Flying

Karamazov Brothers. Since the mid-1970s Goodman Theatre productions have traveled to Broadway, the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., the Abbey

Theatre of Dublin, Annenberg Center in Philadelphia, Princeton's

McCarter Theatre and toured the state of Illinois.^

This year the literary manager of the Goodman has initiated two programs— "Writers in Performance" which has featured Studs Terkel and

Tennessee Williams among others, and staged readings of new plays, encouraging the participation of playwri^ts and Goodman staff. The

Educatioml and Community Services department was launched in 1979 î its activities now Include a Young People's Drama Workshop, a Summer Theatre

^Interview with Katherine Murphy, Chicago, 11 February 1981.

^Ibid.

^Goodman Theatre program of A Christmas Carol and Kukla and Ollie Live. December 1980, p. 4# 5 Workshop, adult education classes, student matinees, lecture series at three city arts centers, and the publication of study guides for each

MainStage production* Less structured programs at the Goodman involve volunteers working in various departments, administrative and technical interns, theatre tours, a speaker's bureau, and suburban "Inner Circle" groups. Serving as amenities for theatre patrons and as additional sources of revenue are the Goodman store with gift items and play scripts, bar and beverage service during intermission, and "Ingrid's" which features buffet dinners and post-show snacks

The ever-expanding scope of activities at the Goodman is matched by the lengthening staff list. Led by the artistic and managing directors, there are now 56 full-time employees in 15 departments, with up to 20 part-time workers and roughly I40 actors, directors and designers each year,"^

Gregory Mosher has been artistic director since 1978*79 season, having previously served as Goodman Stage 2 series director since 1974*

Thirty-one years of age, Mosher is one of the youngest artistic directors of a major regional theatre. Working with his associate artistic director, playwri^t David I'femet, and associate directors playwright Richard Nelson and lighting designer Jennifer Tipton, Mosher selects the plays for each season, of which he directs several, and finds works to be presented in the Studio, Assessing Mosher's work, theatre critic Scott Fosdick wrote;

^Ibid,, pp. 6, 9, ^Interview with Murphy, 11 February 1981, Mosher has topped it [ previous artistic director William Woodman's last season ] . He's topped it with a dazzling adaptation of Hichard Wright's "Ifetive Son" (which Mosher himself directed), with a sumptuous staging of "A Christmas Carol," with the premieres of challenging works by Richard Howard and John Guare and with a delictiul revival of Phillip Barry's "Holiday" • • • future critics and historians will undoubtedly say of Mosher's first season that it took an important step in the development of Chicago Theatre,®

Fhnaging Director Roche Schulfer has been at the Goodman since

1973 , having worked in the box office, group sales, as assistant to the managing director and as general manager. His principal duties from

1974-79 involved the management of the Stage 2 series of experimental

dramas. He was appointed acting managing director in Iferch I98O

following the resignation of Janet Wade, and was confirmed in the post

in June of that year. While overseeing the programs and personnel of the

Goodman, Schulfer also serves as primary liaison with the CTG board of 7 Directors,

On 1 January 1981 Allan Turner, an executive with Hyatt Inter­

national Corporation, became chairman of the board of CTG, having

earlier served as president. The first chairman of CTG was Stanley

Freehling, a stockbroker who had been active in the Chicago arts

community for thirty years. Freehling first became involved with AIC

in the 1950s, then devoted his energies to the Ravinia Festival,

eventually becoming its chairman. In 1971» Leigh Block, chairman of

AIC, asked Freehling, already an AIC trustee, to take charge of the O standing committee on the Goodman Theatre and School of Drama,

^Scott Fosdick, "Goodman gamble pays off for Mosher," Arlington Heights (Illinois) Herald. 18 May 1979, sec. 4 , P, 1. 7 Interview with Roche Schulfer, Chicago, 7 January 1981, Û Interview with Stanley Fceehling, Chicago, I4 January I98I, Freehling led the efforts to find new bases of operation for the deficit- ridden programs, culminating in the founding of CTG and the move of the

School of Drama to DePaul University, During his tenure as CTG board

chairman, Fceehling directed the "Founding Fund" campaign which garnered

over #2 million in two years. He also worked with AIC on the transition,

expanded the size and capability of the board and helped with the

program development and promotion, Roche Schulfer noted that "Stanley

got us to where we are now. As a board member it was his vision that 9 did that .... He created something and set it in motion,"'^ Fceehling will continue to serve on the CTG board as honorary chairman and on the

AIC committee on the Goodman Theatre.

The Goodman Theatre under CTG had an annual operating budget of

B2.1 million in fiscal year 1979-80* Box-office income met ôCÇé of

expenses, due in part to a 35% increase in paid admission from 1978-79*

In Chicago 175*000 patrons equaled 30)i of house capacity, and over

30,000 people saw Goodman productions on tour.^^ Unearned income

amounted to $780,000, of which approximately 80% came from private

sources (over 18 foundations, IO7 corporations, over I5OO individuals),

7% from government sources at all levels, and 13% from the final

installment of the AIC transition subsidy.Restricted program

funding is provided by a Chicago Sun-Times grant (for the production of

A Christmas Carol), a two-^ar CBS grant ($90,000 for the education

workshop) and a $100,000 A. V. Mellon Foundation grant (three years;

9 "^Interview with Schulfer, 7 January 1981.

^^Goodman Theatre (GT) Annual Report : 1979-80. p, 7*

^^Interview with Marie O'Connor, Chicago, 12 February 1981. 12 for the production of a classic drama annually). In addition, the

Goodman is a member of the Corporate Theatre Fund through which seven 15 theatres receive support from 65 corporations. A functional analysis of expenses reveals that program service (artistic, production, advertising) were allocated 61%, support services and fund raising

3% in fiscal year 1980-1961.^

Critic Richard Christiansen, in Fferch 1980, wrote an article entitled "Now Showing at the Goodman Theatre: New Zest, New Life."

In this survey of the Goodman's activities he attributed many of the changes to the advent of CTG and to its leaders Stanley Freehling and 15 Gregory Mosher, The most significant changes from an organizational standpoint were the formation of a board of directors legally responsible for the operation of the Goodman, and the authority to develop an independent fund-raising base. As master of its own destiny the Goodman under CTG has become more vital and confident, taking responsibility for its presentations and remunerations. From a committee of 24, the board has been carefully expanded to a membership of 52 with

"accountants, advertising executives, and other politically and financially well—placed movers and shakers who can do the theatre the most good in influence, An executive committee meets every three

^^GT Annual Report: 1979-80, pp. 10, 16,

^^Ibid., p. 24.

^Chicago Theatre Group CTG , "Financial Statements and Additional Information; June 30, 1980 and 1979," p, 9, 15 "^Richard Christiansen, "Now showing at the Goodman Theatre: New Zest, new life," Chicago Tribune. 16 March 1980, sec. 8, p. 2. ^^Ibid. weeks; other committees include finance, operations, artistic, develop- 17 ment and nominating, A Women's Board was established in 1979» its

47 members plan benefits throu^out the year, help on opening ni^ts and subscription campaigns, and provide other support services.

Fund raising has been a high priority for CTG since its inception,

T hou^ estimates had been made of AIC's annual support of the theatre operations, the actual difference between revenues and expenditures was greater than expected,^® A five-year transitional plan was drawn up in

1977, with the "Founding Fund" campaign slated to remedy cash-flow problems and provide a cushion of support. The $2 million goal was surpassed in just two years and the success of this effort was promoted in other solicitations, CTG gained much-needed credibility when it received a first-round Challenge grant from the Ifettional Endowment for the Arts in its first year of operation; soon major locetl and national 19 foundations and corporations jumped on the funding bandwagon. Until mid-1978, fund raising duties were handled by the Charles R, Feldstein firm; at that time an in-house development department was launched.

The director of development and her assistant concentrate on government funding (along with all record-keeping) while the Annual Guarantor's 20 Committee of CTG solicits support from the private sector.

Interview with Barbara Janowitz, Chicago, 13 February 1981,

^®Interview with Schulfer, 7 January I98I,

^^Interview with Janet Wade, Cleveland, 3 December 1980, 30 Interview with O'Connor, 12 February 1981, 8 The Goodman Theatre building wae also affected by the change in management. Renovation of the lobby began in 1978» with the cost shared by CTG and AIC, the building owner. Four local foundations and others 21 gave nearly $200,000 to CTG for this work. To meet government

accessibility guidelines a passenger elevator was installed; at the same

time, the lobby space was reshaped to include a gift shop, coat room,

concessions area and expanded washroom facilities. In 197®» the Goodman

School of Drama moved to DeBaul University; space that had been utilized 22 by faculty and students was reconstructed for CTG use. The next

projects were financed throu^ Women's Board benefits— in 1979 the Studio 25 theatre was refurbished and fitted with new lighting and sound equipment,

in 1980 the actors* lounge was redecorated and new equipment bought for

the costume shop and food preparation,^^ In addition, the administrative

offices have periodically been reconstructed in response to the needs of

various departments, MainStage technical personnel boast of the

recently-installed Century Strand computer-controlled memory light

palette which supplements the venerable Izenour pre-set lighting control 25 system.

Deliberate efforts have been made to make the Goodman's activities

more visible. The first promotional imdertedcings of CTG highlighted the

"new" Goodman, and the news of the separation from AIC was reinforced

^^GT Annual Resort: 1979-60, pp. 10, 16, 22 GT Annual Report; 1978-79. p, 5,

^^Ibid,, p, 7,

^^QT Annual Report; 1979-80. p, 8,

^^Interview with Philip Eickhoff, Chicago, 11 February 1981, 9

throu^ fund-raising solicitations. The advertising firm of Foote, Cone

and Belding has directed much of the promotion since 1976— planning

separation feasibility studies, audience surveys and various strategies.

Upon assumption of the post of artistic director in 1978, Gregory Mosher was quick to become accessible to the news media. To further this end,

the high-powered firm of I/hrgie Korshak and Associates was retained as

Press Representative in 1978; their efforts on behalf of the Goodman to

attract local and national attention have been extensive. Promotion of

the Goodman name throu^ the touring of various productions began in the

mid-1970 's. While more expensive and risky in the 1980s, touring is still

looksd upon favorably by CTG management. Visibility in Chicago is

pursued through many outreach programs, most notably those of the new

Educational and Community Services department. Over seven thousand

people participated in these activities in 1979-80, the department's fiirst

year of operation, Much is made of the new lobby amenities in

promoting the Goodman, especially following the acquisition of liquor

and food service licenses in the 1979-80 season,

"Activity, activity, and still more activity, all of it surrounding 27 a central core of cultural performance," wrote Richard Christiansen,

There was activity at the Gocdmein long before the formation of CTG, but

the scope of and approach to programs have changed since 1977* The

Goodman Theatre, today as always, is art, money, society, craft, thought,

labor and time; existing for both the product and the process of theatre.

^^GT Annual Report 1979-80, P* 1*

^^Christiansen, 10

What makes the Goodman a regional theatre? While not a precisely defined label, "regional" theatre can be linked with certain character­ istics, Today, these theatres are not-for-profit, professional, resident theatres— though not all started that way. Some have permanent acting companies, some work in rotating repertory fashion, but all regional theatres can be distinguished by their commitment to a community, be it

Seattle, Lower >îanhattan or deaf people, Paula Cizmar suggests that

"perhaps the most important distinction between the 'regionals' and other locally operated theatres is that the best of the regional houses 28 are willing to take risks and to develop new plays and play-wri^ts, "

The Goodman definitely supports that conclusion, presenting American and world premieres of plays every season; engaging associate directors

David Tfemet and Richard Nelson to develop new works (their own and that of others); and using an in-house literary manager to scout out and stage plays-in-progress, Classic dramas have always had a place in regional theatres and at the Goodman, though over the years the balance has shifted somewhat in favor of the production of new plays over old.

Even so, Stanley Freehling declared* "Who else is going to do Ibsen,

Shakespeare and Shaw? We [the Goodman] have to do it • , * nobody else 29 could afford to do it," Every regional theatre works to define its role in the community through its endeavors on stage and off.

For many observers, Washington, D,C, *s Arena Stage is the

^®Paula L, Cizmar, "American Theatre and the Rise of the Regionals," Irish Times, 19 April 1980, Books and Arts,

^^Interview with Freehling, 14 January 1981, 11 prototypical regional theatre. Pounded in 1950» Arena Stage began as a for-profit operation, changing to not-for profit in order to qualify for

Ford Foundation and other contributed support* Zelda Fichandler has led the theatre through myriad changes, artistic and organizational, including three different locations, four acting companies and the construction of its present three-stage home. She has always been eager to experiment with the art and craft of theatre, utilizing an arena rather than proscenium stage, setting up a training program for actors, playing in rotating repertory (these two enterprises were unsuccessful), fcrming a group to work with children, creating a "plays-in-progress" workshop, and taking two productions to the Soviet Union,In 1976 the Antoinette Perry ("Toixy") award was bestowed upon Arena Stage in recognition of its achievements. To Joseph Zeigler, "the award symbolized an embrace of the regional theatre by Broadway theatre— and a quick hug back,thus it was a significant event in the history of an artistic movement founded in reaction against the

Broadway theatre.

Zeigler has drawn from the cases of Arena Stage and other regionals in his book Regional Theatre; The Revolutionary Stage, Analyzing their history, he states*

The first thrust of the regional theatre was toward stability, and it was primary from the beginnings of the form until the middle of the 1960s, The stability thrust was characterized by the overriding concern of each

50 Julius Novick, "The Theater," in The Performing Arts and American Society, ed, W, McNeil Lowry (Englewood Cliffs, N,J, * Prentice-Hall, 1978), pp, 101-121 passim,

^^Joseph Wesley Zeigler, Regional Theatre; The Revolutionary Stage (New York* DaCapo Press, 1977)» P* 269. 12

theatre for its own survival and security • • « The thnæt was climaxed hy the emergence of the theatre as part of the Establishment, * , , In the middle years of the 1960s, the thrust toward quality was uppermost, , , • This was also a period in which better known and more experienced talents were introduced into the regional theatre. As a result, the quality of the work improved significantly during this period. After 1968 , , • the third thrust became evident: the thrust toward centrality. Having survived and having improved the over-all quality of their productions, regional theatres grew concerned about what the world knew of them and thou^t of them. In their eyes, through professional decentralization they had created a solution to the problems of the American theatre. The leaders now had a new though perhaps subliminal goal* to achieve for their theatres a central place and so to influence the future rather than simply preserving the past, , . . In personal terms, the three thrusts also contributed to the regional theatres's malaise. The thrust toward stability bred uneasiness over the theatre's service function in the community. The thrust toward quality bred a horror of sameness among theatres. The thrust toward centrality bred fears that the thrust itself might not succeed. These last fears constitute the regional dilemma* the nagging suspicion in people who have given their lives to the movement that they might have thus relegated themselves to a minor position on the p e r i p h e r y , 52

Zeigler was also interested in exploring the nature of and rationale for the movement. Examining its relationship to and role in

American society and American theatre, he proposes that*

Institutionalism is the official basis of all regional theatre, I believe that the more oonq>elling basis, however, is individualism— the essential need in each situation for a single, messianic leader to give it character, spirit, direction, and inspiration. The leader must be willing to abnegate himself for his theatre while fulfilling himself through it, , * , The leader must also be willing to function in isolation from a large concentration of similar minds and spirits, often in a relatively hostile environment. How he

^^Ibid,, pp, 199-200. 13

relates to that environment determines not only the theatre's personality but also its destiny. . . . Beyond institutionalism and individualism, there is a third basis of the regional theatre, and that is decentraliz­ ation, The regional theatre phenomenon has been a major and determined attempt to spread American culture thrcutout the country and even more to create a new basis of theatre not dependent on Broadway, The purpose of decentralization has been less to spread the wealth than to triumph in an ideological war between institutional theatre and the commercial theatre. Those in the fore-front of the regional theatre see it as a way to strip Broadway of its power* The primary force of their crusade has been centrifugal, "55

Zeigler's thesis is essentially valid today, although some of the specifics have changed. Regional theatres no longer work in isolation for the most part, especially since the creation of a service organization, the Theatre Communications Group [TCG] , in 1961, Through its conferences, administrative consultations, and informational and artistic resource programs the Theatre Communications Group has helped the regional theatre movement define itself, its needs and its aims. In his opening remarks at the 1980 Theatre Communications Group conference, chairman Gordon Davidson listed recent regional theatre accomplishments:

, , , The Pulitzer Prize-winning plays for the last five years all originated in TCG constituent theatres, , , , And still the Pulitzer committee refuses to consider a play as a prize candidate unless it receives a New York production, , , , Five Tonys for regional theatre achievements , , , , Approximately 40 productions originated by TCG theatres continued their lives in New York productions on and off Broadway between 1977 and I960, , • , Not counting work for actors, 165 theatres listed in Theatre Profiles 4 [listing TCG constituent theatres] give over 8800 employment opportunities, everyone from play-wrights to directors to designers, , , , Total performances at all TCG theatres combined since 1978 have increased by nine percent, the number of productions ,. has gone up six percent, , , • attendance has gone up 28 percent,

55ibid,, pp, 3-4,

5^Theatre Communications Group, Proceedings of the I960 National Conference (New York* Theatre Communications Group, 1980), pp. 14

The ascension of regional theatre has marked an era of tremendous change in American and in its art. Roughly thirty years old, the regional theatre movement has altered the perspectives and goals of those who create theatre, challenging them to explore new interplays of art and society. But with process and success come doubt, one of the concerns addressed indirectly by the I960 Theatre Communications Group conference. In his final remarks Gordon Davidson noted*

Speaking personally about the last few days, one is beset with conflicting emotions. On the one band, the language these days has been "mediocrity," "obsolescence," "burn out," "irrelevance," "death," and "deadness," And I think these are an indication not of negative things, but of profound tremors , , , a potential earthquake that could shake things up in a very good way. And there is a cross-current that I detect* a stronger sense of ourselves as artists in society; a tremendous sense of responsibility to ourselves and our community and our society; and the power to be the articulate voice of intellect, of dreams, of passions and of visions, , , , American theatre strikes me not so much as being at a crossroads, suggesting different roads to follow (although maybe it is), but maybe at a pregnant pause, wanting to be eased or pushed or shoved into motion again. Infinite growth is not possible, but stagnation is, and that's what I think we've all been sensitized to here, , , , Letting these institutions dictate to you, rather than you leading the institutions, is the beginning of the e n d , 55

Just as the Goodman has changed, so will regional theatre; as the Goodman survives, so will regional theatre.

^^Ibid,, p, 86, CHAPTER II

METAMORPHOSES s

A HISTORY OP THE GOODMAN THEATRE

The Goodman Theatre was certainly not the first dramatic organization in Chicago, Theatrical events had been presented in the city since 1837» the year of its incorporation. In 1847 the first building intended strictly for theatre productions was constructed, and Chicago welcomed local and touring companies, attempting in part to upgrade the city's image. B y I9IO Chicago had become an important production center, its eleven theatres rivaling those of New York in the presentation of new works, Chicago audiences gained a reputation of having cultivated tastes, thus a successful run in Chicago was touted in other towns,^

The rosy forecast that Chicago would be second to none in theatrical activities did not come to pass, for several reasons:

, , , the triumph of the New York Theatrical Syndicate over regional production centers, the demise of the stock companies and the total dominance of the touring star system, the inroads made by the movies into the mass entertainment market, the lack of new original material and the depression of the war years.

While the fortunes of Chicago's commercial theatres turned downward smaller ventures came into existence, A precursor of the

James Samuel Newell, "A Critical Analysis of the Development and Growth of the Kenneth Sawyer Goodman Ifemorial Theatre and School of Drama, Chicago, Illinois, 1925-1971" (Ph,D, dissertation, Wayne State University, 1973)» PP# 36-39#

^Ibid,, p, 39. 15 16

"Little Theatre" movement was the Hull House Dramatic Association, organized in 1897, while the movement itself is generally held to have originated in I9IO with the Wisconsin Players, The "Little Theatre" movement spread throughout America, its adherents establishing Maurice

Browne's Chicago Little Theatre (1912), the Arts & Crafts Theatre in

Detroit (1915)» the Washington Square Players (1915)» the Provincetown

Players (1915)» and others . ^

The "Little Theatre" movement, like much of early American culture, can be traced to European activities. In the last decades of the nineteenth century an amateur theatre movement grew in Europe, producing

"new theatres, new playwrights, and , , , new production methods,

American artists, including Robert Edmond Jones, Lee Simons en, Sam Hume, and Ffeurice Brown, traveled to Europe and brou^t back the "new stagecraft" and different concepts of theatrical production. Leading groups, such as that of Max Reinhardt, the Abbey Theatre, the Vieux

Columbier and the Moscow Art Theatre toured in America, directly influencing the development of the "Little Theatre" movement, James

Newell noted that:

However similar the approach between the new theatre movement in Europe and America, there was a basic difference in philosophy, For financial reasons, they both cultivated subscription audiences, renovated small old buildings for theatrical use, utilized volunteer amateur and professional talent and presented plays that were superior to the standard commercial fare. However, the European movement existed as an outlet for many new playwri^ts denied an audience of any kind, , , , In America, the major purpose of the movement was an outlet for amateur dramatic expression

5ibid,, pp. 29-30» 39,

^Ibid,, p, 23. 17 and to satisfy the theatrical appetite of a hinterland audience starved by the decline of the road show and the centralization of professional theatre in New York,5

The Goodman Theatre is linked with the "Little Theatre" movement through

its "Founders" — Kenneth Sawyer Goodman, the man in whose memory it was

established and Thomas Wood Stevens, the man who brou#it it to life,

Kenneth Sawyer Goodman was born in 1683, the only heir to a vast

Midwestern lumber concern. While at Princeton he became interested in

playwritingj later a job in his father's plant in Wisconsin led to

Goodman's involvement with the Wisconsin Players, There he met Thomas

Wood Stevens, an art instructor at the Art Institute of Chicago who had written some pageants for the Players, In Chicago Goodman and Stevens

collaborated on several "masques" and started a publishing house for their

plays in Igll. Goodman was a founder of the Chicago Theatre Society; the

activities of this group brought him into contact with the British actors

Whitford Kane and B, Iden Payne, who later helped Stevens in the

establishment of the Goodman Memorial Theatre, Goodman continued to

write after 1912, collaborating with Ben Hecht at one time. His one-act

plays were in great demand, produced throughout the country by "Little

Theatres" and published in various anthologies. In 1918 Goodman entered

the military and was stationed at the Great Lakes Naval Training Station,

where he succumbed to influenza during an epidemic and died in November

1918,^

By 1922 the parents of Kenneth Sawyer Goodman had decided upon a

suitable memorial to their son. In a letter to the Art Institute of

Chicago [AIC] Mr, and Mrs, William 0, Goodman wrote: " , • , we know it

^Ibid,, pp, 24-25.

^Ibid,, pp. 44-49. 18 was his [k # S, Goodman's] ambition to have the Institute equipped with a n theatre and dramatic department*" To this end the Art Institute received ^5250,000 for the theatre constructiorv and an endowment fund producing $10,000 annually for the support of the repertory company and school of drama* On July 15, 1922 the gift was accepted by the board of trustees, and Howard Van Doren Shaw extended his services as an architect in a personal tribute to the Goodman family* K* S, Goodman's friend and collaborator T*V, Stevens was engaged to organize and direct the theatre in December 1922* He had excellent credentials for this type of enterprise, having established the Department of Drama at Carnegie

Institute of Technology in 1914, the first collegiate-degree granting program in theatre* The site selected for the Goodman memorial was on the lakefill of Grant Park, adjacent to AIC and close to the downtown area* Excavation and construction began in 1924î due to a city building ordinance Shaw had to design an "underground" theatre with a simple street-level entrance and no vertical housing for curtains or backdrops*

The lack of height was offset by breadth with scenic elements designed for a large plaster cyclorama and wide backstage areas* The continental

seating (i*e*, no center aisles) of the main auditorium is an early

example of this plan; the design also called for rich oak paneling and

crystal chandeliers, creating a comfortable, luxurious area with

excellent acoustics and sightlines. The smaller Studio theatre was later Q built to house productions by the students of the drama school*

^Mr* and Mrs, William 0, Goodman, letter, quoted in Newell, p. 56.

^Newell, pp* 56-60» 19

The Kenneth Sawyer Goodman Memorial Theatre and School of Drama began operating in January 1925# By that time Stevens had created a

Department of Drama for AIC consisting of a repertoiy company which doubled as a faculty and nineteen students. Although the theatre building was not yet finished the group managed to present a series of g dramatic readings to AIC members,'^ In the June 1925 bulletin of AIC

Stevens promulgated his "Plan of the Drama Department":

• • a The basic idea is to give to the membership and the public an opportunity to see plays which could not, in the usual course of theatrical entertainment, be presented. • • • . Our Repertory company intends to give, each season, as many good plays as can be adequately produced, allowing time for the performance as well of about an equal number of new plays, any one of which may disclose elements of lasting interest, When you attend the Goodman Theatre you may come upon a classic which has not seen the light of stage for years, or a play by one of the important modern authors who are accepted by the critics but unregarded in the commercial market ; or you may find yourself assisting at the first public test of a play with a futureeven more exciting evening's work. That is why the inscription of Kenneth Goodman's was chosen for the stone lintel over the entrance : 'To restore the old visions and to win the new, • • • Another side of the work of the Department of Drama is in the Studio, where young people come for a stern professional training in the arts and crafts of theatre, in acting, playwriting, producing. The performances of the Studio group will be, for the present at least, more highly specialized, but here too a breadth of experience in many types of plays must ultimately be attained. These students are continually assisting in the Repertory productions, made at slightly more deliberate intervals, and devoted more intensively to the study of the accepted plays of the past, will be a factor in the programme of dramatic entertainment offered by the Theatre,

Steven's conservatory approach can be regarded as the culmination of the

"Little Theatre" movement; skipping the preliminary stages of amateur and

^Ibid,, pp. 61 -63 ,

^^Thomas Wood Stevens; "The Plan of the Drama Department," Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago XIX (June 1925), pp. 67 -69 , quoted in Newell, pp. 4-5* 20 community theatre and creating a structure for professional "art" theatre.

The dedication ceremony for the theatre and school took place on

October 20, 1925# in a program payingtribute to K.S. Goodmanthrough speeches by AIC and theatre leaders and repertory company performances of three of his one-act plays. Two nights later the theatre opened to the public with the American premiere of John Galsworthy's The Forest.

There were e i ^ t professional productions in the first season, ranging from Everyman during Lent to the controversial post-eapressionist Gas by

Georg Kaiser to Moliere's Don Juan. At the Goodman the lives of popular plays were extended in various ways— they would run beyond the allotted three weeks, be carried over into subsequent seasons or receive a summer engagement. The repertory company presented from nine to eleven productions each season in the years 1926—30, e i ^ t of which per season were new,^^ But the character of the Goodman Theatre and its activities were altered after 1930, buffeted by the Depression and storms within

AIC.

In the first years the Goodman School of Drama developed at a steady pace. The efforts of the students were channeled into four areas; classes in theatre theory and practices. Studio productions (seven in the first year), establishment of the Children's Theatre program, and participation in repertory company presentations through performance and backstage work.

It was a comprehensive training program, taking advantage of all of the

Goodman's resources. Stevens was astute in the selection of instructors and favored their initiative in projects, one of which became the Children's

Theatre* This venture was part of Stevens' master plan, not AIC's; it

^^Newell, pp, 65-80, 21 began quietly in 1925 as various works developed In classes seemed more suitable for younger audiences. Unobtrusive promotion yielded appreci­ ative audiences for Saturday morning presentations of four works each season, and the expenses were euLways covered by box office receipts, 12 making it an ideal project in the eyes of management,

By 1930 the name and programs of the Goodman Theatre and School of Drama had become fairly well-established in the community. Unfor­ tunately so had the theatre's deficit. Five seasons of production had engendered a shortfall of nearly $35,000, understandable in view of the newness of the organization, its devotion to art and excellence, and its limited physical and journalistic visibility, but the amount of the deficit was untenable in the eyes of the AIC trustees. The Goodman Theatre could not hold its own financially, despite increased ticket prices, greater percentage of capacity audiences each year and Mr. and Mrs. Goodman's additions to the endowment. The theatre's finances and the AIC board's displeasure with artistic policy led to the resignation of Stevens in

1930. His action was supported by many in the company, especially those he had brought from Carnegie to Chicago, Critics, directors, and

Chicagoans decried the setting of artistic policy by committee rather than by an independent leader, and regarded AIC's new direction as a quest for cold commercial success. This impression was reinforced by the engagement of Hubert Osborne as director for the 1930-31 season; he was a Goodman associate director and writer of the libretto for a successful

Broadway musical. The matter became more snarled throu^out the summer of

I93O; subscriptions were cancelled, letter were written to the AIC director.

""^Ibid., pp. 88-90. 22

Irate critics were wooed by trustees, and the relative merits of art vs. entertainment and an integrated company vs, guest artists were discussed, often in printThe AIC board stood firm, stating that

Stevens had presented unappealing plays in productions of less than adequate quality, and that the AIC committee would select works that had

"entertainment value" as well as "artistic merit,

Hubert Osborne's choices for the 1930-31 season did not include any difficult or experimental works and he engaged several popular guest stars; nonetheless a deficit of over $19,500 resulted in just one season.

In May 1931 AIC announced the abandonment of the Goodman Theatre repertory company. Many had stated that a theatre such as the Goodman could not

support itself; the AIC board refused to subsidize it any longer; and

William Goodman proposed that the company be dismissed and the school be

continued. In doing so Mr, Goodman contradicted the stated intentions of

his gift, since his son Kenneth and his friend Stevens had championed the

European conservatory approach to theatre. They believed that community

subsidy, not commercial success, would ensure the development of the

symbiotic drama school and professional company, benefiting the artists

and the community.K.S. Goodman's hopes were betrayed in his memorial, and an extraordinary member of the "Little Theatre" movement retreated

into obscurity for the next twenty—five years,

From 1931 to 1957 the Goodman Theatre and School of Drama was

directed by F&urice Gnesin, who had previously served as head of the school,

^^Ibid,, pp. 93-104 passim,

^^Ibid., p. 111.

^^Ibid., pp. 112-18. 23

Gnesin, born in Russia, had studied philosophy at various American universities, taught theatre with George Pierce Baker at Yale, and directed in several civic theatres. In 1930 he came to the Goodman. The

Goodman was also guided by another Russian, David Itkin, who had joined

the staff in 1929.^^

Gnesin and Itkin were determined to train their students to be professionals— performers and technicians readily accepted into the commercial, university or community theatre. They favored a long comprehensive program with practical experience on stage as well as classroom theory; to this end they continued the Children's Theatre series and created the "Art Institute Member's Series." Starting in 1931

AIC members annually received coupons for six student productions on the rfeinStage, given for five performances each (this was changed in the

1932-33 season to eight productions, nine times each). Attendance was good, but drama critics no longer felt it necessary to review the non­ professional, non-commercial, semi-private productions, a situation which prevailed until 1957* Gnesin preferred the classic dramas and some recent European and American works, but allowed little experimenta­

tion in acting or design. Faculty members, most notably Itkin, often

took roles in the productions; there was little change in the operation

of the theatre until 1945, when a permanent acting company and staff was 17 named.

Seeking to become more recognized and accepted, AIC, in

conjunction with the University of Chicago, created a four-year academic

^^Ibid., pp. 120-121.

^^Ibid,, pp, 120-33 passim. 24 and technical program which led to a degree of Bachelor of Dramatic Arts or Bachelor of Pine Arts, In 1955 full accreditation was granted to the Goodman School of Drama; approval for a Master's degree in directing and design was secured in 1944; and a wider scope of theatre courses was adopted hy 1951* The Studio theatre was used by the faculty and by directing students for the most part. The reputation of the Goodman during the Gnesin-Itkin years was in a constant state of flux, affected by the shortage of men during the war, the varying caliber of students, the G.I. Bill, and the personalities and health of the leaders and faculty. Enrollment, attendance at performances and profits were also unstable: the student body ranged from 98 (1933) to 214 (1955)» the audience low was 23,500 (1933), the high was 171,300 (1955); there was a $4 ,300 deficit in 1933 and a $29,000 profit in 1949 (these are not absolute comparisons due to the number of performances per season, differing bases of reporting and lack of information for some years).

Even so, the alumni list from those years show much talent: actors Sam

Wanamaker, Geraldine Page, Karl Malden, Shelley Berman, HEirvey Korman, 18 Lois Nettleton and director Jose Quintero.

Another turning point for the Goodman came in 1957* Gnesin died of cancer that year, and Itkin, suffering from heart disease, retired to California. Their poor health was reflected by the state of the theatre and school, where a lack of energy, quality and high artistic standards had become increasingly evident. Theatre professionals no longer looked favorably upon Goodman graduates, the subscription list had dropped to 1200, and AIC was considering the alternatives for theatre and

18 Ibid., pp. 124-51 passim. 25 school. It was proposed that the school he closed and that another organization or group of individuals undertake the operation of the theatre.

AIC's legal counsel stated that either action would invite a legal challenge— the Goodman heirs could argue that the terms of Mr. and Mrs.

Goodman's gift of the building funds and endowment were breached; the

Chicago Park District could point to decisions that "no one but AIC can use AIC premises, which are on property under the control of the Park

Board. Rather than alienating the public and potential donors by violating a trust, the AIC board decided to fulfill its moral obligations by finding a new leader for the Goodman. By the summer of

1957 the search was over and John Reich, a producer, director and 20 educator, was hired to rebuild the Goodman Theatre and School of Drama.

John Reich, born in Vienna, was the first student of Max

Reinhardt's theatre school, youngest stage diieotnr of Austria's national theatre, a director with Reinhardt's company for six years and with the

Salzburg Festival for four summers. Reich came to America in 1938, teaching, directing and upgrading the drama program at Ithaca College while earning a Ph.D. at Cornell University. Not content to work only in an educational setting, he frequently directed plays and opera elsewhere, and by 1945 had moved to New York City at the urging of CBS.

For twelve years he had four simultaneous vocations: CBS television director, on-and off—Broadway director and producer, professor at Columbia

University, and adaptor of European plays for staging in America. The trustees of AIC invited Reich to Chicago to consider the post of

19 •^Percy B. Eckhart, letter to Samuel A. Marx, 21 October 1958, p.l. 2 0 Newell, pp. 142-55 passim. 26 director of the Goodman; he made his acceptance conditional upon the dismissal of the previous administration and upon the use of professional actors in productions. The trustees agreed to his stipulations, but warned Reich that he would have to find his own sources for actor's salaries, Reich quickly began preparing for his initial season, hiring the distinguished drama educator Charles McGaw as his associate and waging an intensive public relations campaign, assisted by PR wizard 21 Danny Newman,

Reich's first season put the Goodman back on the map of Chicago,

The theatre was no longer the city's "best—kept secret" (in the words of one critic), the exclusive province of AIC members and drama students,

Reich sought to interest a wider public, admitting the press to performances for the first time in nearly thirty years to further this aim. The Chicago critics reacted favorably for the most part, applauding

Reich's play selections and his use of professional guest stars in the productions of advanced students. The six play subscription series and other performances were well-attended, the Children's Theatre had a good season, experimental student shows continued to run in the Studio

Theatre, and a lecture series by eminent theatre professionals was 22 initiated. By May 1958 critic Roger Dettmer submitted a positive assessment:

"Camino Real" [the fourth production of 1957-58], . . did, more than anything during the first year of John Reich's administration, serve to focus city-wide attention on the Goodman renaissance.

^^Ibid., pp. 155-59.

^^Ibid., pp. 160-66. 27

Dr, Reich has said that Goodman's entrance standards will he raised, as they must he; but he knows, . . » that a school, to raise its standards, first must attract widespread attention and.respect. This Goodman has done in a single season's time*

In the 1958-59 season it was Reich himself, not his work at the

Goodman, that was the focus of attention. The Ford Foundation was

starting a funding program for professional resident theatres; program

director McNeil Lowry awarded $10,000 each to ten producing directors

that he judged best and most promising. The recipients were to study

the European theatre system firsthand; Reich saw no reason to do so

and petitioned the foundation to alter the terms of the grant. The

foundation was reluctant to rewrite the conditions, but Reich promised

that he, not AIC, would determine the use of the grant. In this

skirmish Reich gained in two ways; he attracted n-^ess and public

attention to his work and goals for the Goodman, and he secured funds

to further his crusade for professionalism— he would hire five stars

of stage and screen to perform in Goodman productions. The MainStage

student productions of the 1958-59 season welcomed several "guest artists'J

but the "star" policy was launched with the engagement of Murray

r'fetheson for the last production. The Imaginary Invalid, Prodded by various publicity stunts, the public gradually realized that noted

professional actors were actually working at the Goodman, and attendance

during Reich's third season rose to over 90?^ of capacity, with a rapidly

growing subscription audience, Reich had not neglected the school

during these years; he and McGaw had brought in new faculty members.

25 Roger Dettmer, "Hope for Future Rests with Goodman Theatre," Chicago American. 18 Rhy 1958, quoted in Newell, p. 166, 28 reshaped the ourrioulum, and boosted student morale throuf^ the challenge of working with professionals*^^

Belch's efforts to improve the Goodman continued in earnest during the 1960s. A wide variety of plays was presented, from American and European classic dramas to avant-garde works* The finest actors, both stars and the lesser-known, were sou^t out; Morris Camovsky returned several seasons in a row to considerable acclaim, other guests included Leo G* Carroll, Lillian Gish, Signe Basso, Sam Wanamaker and

Eugenie Leontovich (who joined the staff in 1963 ). Reich and McGaw directed most of the productions in the early sixties as the critics watched the Goodman carefully, Chicago's hyper-critical Claudia Caasic^ damning some and lavishing praise on others, and Howard Taubman of the

New York Times applauding the progress and the potential of Reich's programs* By I964 the Goodman was working at full steam— over 10,000 subscribers, record seasonal attendance of 208,000, standing-room-only at the Children's Theatre performances and capacity enrollment of the 2*5 school. In his analysis of the Goodman James Newell notes that*

A definite pattern was emerging at the Goodman* Due to a lack of funds Reich was prevented from having a guest artist for each production, thus ensuring press coverage and subsequent publicity for the production and modicum financial suooess [ sici at the box office event if reviews were bad. The reviewers would not come to see all-student shows and the budget could not provide the needed publicity to fill the houses for these shows, Reich was beginning to feel the pressures involved in running a school of drama, providing adequate theatrical training and exposure for actors and technicians, and at the same time trying to

^^Newell, pp, 166-76.

^^Ibid., pp. 176-87 passim. 29

maintain a production center under professional standards. The theatre, however, was at best semi-professional. No matter how advanced the student might be, working with the professional actor he was still an undergraduate actor. The critics, rightly or wrongly, were constantly pointing out this discrepancy between amateurism and professionalism, even when conceding that certain productions were the best theatrical entertainment in Chicago. Reich's goal was a fully professional resident company at the Goodman, but financial realities, artistic considerations and the political ramifications of balancing educative and commercial values forced M m to move much more slowly than he would have desired,

Reich was not satisfied with M s progress, so in I966 he moved in another direction. He wanted to present a fully-professional production, prepared by the Goodman staff, and determine whether CMcago was ready to support such activities. For the initial test he secured AIC approval to use the staff, garnered a $15,000 Rockefeller Foundation grant, and found a willing partner in the UMversity of CMcago, w M c h donated a lecture hall for the staging, Reich's production of The Misanthrope with George Grizzard and Barbara Baxley was the sole fruit of the venture, since civic and financial support was not realized despite 27 laudatory reviews.

In 1967 Reich was confronted by a new problem: the beady eyes of

Actor's Equity Association, The professional actors' union had taken careful note of the changes at the Goodman and decided that a new agreement regarding the employment of Equity actors was in order. After an interview with Reich,Newell wrote that*

Starting in 1957 the Goodman Theatre had operated under a special concession from Actor's Equity, TechMcally a theatre could not mix professional and amateur actors in a prime urban area. The union had waived t M s rule in 1957

^^Ibid., pp. 181-82,

^^Ibid., pp. 188-90, 30

for several reasons. First, Reich was a co-founder of the Actor's Equity Theatre Library in New York and the union owed him a personal favor. Secondly, the union realized the advantage of young actors in training working with seasoned professionals. However, by I967 the Goodm^ had grown to an annual subscription list of 15,000 members while maintaining a low priced ticket. The union was afraid of setting a dangerous precedent and they delivered an ultimatum to the Goodman— either turn the theatre into a full Equity house under Equity regulations or revert to total amateur productions. The Art Institute finally accepted the inevitability of the situation and set about meeting this commitment. The theatre was give a two-year grace period and in that time new scenic studio were built [sic] the theatre was air-conditioned, a new rehearsal room built, a lounge for the actors, and new rest room and dressing rgom facilities, all the amenities of a professional house,

Reich's dream of a decade would soon be fulfilled, though through no action on his part; revitalized, he set to work on the last semi- professional seasons, James Earl Jones, Carrie and Len Cariou were among the guest artists during the I966-67 and I967-68 seasons appearing in Reich's customary melange of works, Chicago's Mayor

Daley honored Reich's tenth anniversary as producing director by proclaiming the I967-68 opening to be "Goodman Theatre Week," In

June 1968 it was disclosed that AIC had not found the financial support for fully-professional productions, and Equity granted a year's extension of the professionalization waiver. The future of the Goodman and of Reich were subjects of much speculation during that year— woxild the Goodman go wholly amateur once again?, would Reich become the leader of a traveling troupe of Goodman graduates?, would McGaw resign if the

MainStage turned professional, leaving only the Studio for students?, would Reich create a professional company for one of Chicago's commercial ’aouses? In an attempt to get the AIC board moving Reich

^®Ibid,, pp. 190-91 . 31 revived hie extra-curricular Misanthrope at the Havinla Festival in

August 1968 ; good response once again, but no action on the part of

AIC, So Belch pulled together another "last" semi-professional season, attracting the attention and compliments of New York Times critic Clive 29 Barnes.

In April 196 9 Reich learned that AIC had determined the budget for the Goodman and that funds necessary for the operation of a professional theatre had been allocated, A press conference was held to inform

Chicago about its "new" professional theatre; Reich's plans included*

• • • Douglas Seale, a well-known British actor and director, would join the Goodman staff as associate production director to work in conjunction with Reich; as in the past, six plays would be offered on a subscription basis • , • [tMee] under Seale's direction, the Goodman would recruit a professional company of local and New York talent, to include a minimum of thirteen Equity actors, as well as guest artists as needed, and six graduates from the school's advanced acting ranks; all members of the professional company would be offered 39"4feek annual contracts with the stipulation that they make Chicago their place of residence; Goodman's undergraduate students would continue to perform backstage functions as a part of their academic training; the three other productions • • • would be staged, one each, by the rest of the Goodman directorial staff, Reich, Patrick Henry and Joseph Slowik; Bella Itkin [David's dau^ter] would continue as director of the popular Children's Theatre; each of the six professional plays would have four ni^ts of previews, available to interested subscribers, at a reduced price; regular performance prices, however, would be increased twenty percent to defray professional production costs. To placate the students tdio would henceforth be deprived exposure [sic] and training on the main stage, the Studio Theatre was to be renovated and remodeled for a greatly increased program of shows under the aegis of Charles McGaw, • • • Ohese shows, for the first time, would be open to the public at a nominal admission charge. . . . The playing season, at that time 28 weeks, would be expanded to 35 weeks, and each play would run 3I performances, including matinees, . . . Prices would be increased from $2.50 to $3 ,4 0 .50

^^Ibid,, pp. 190-97 .

^°Ibid., pp. 198-99. 32

Reverting to its original incarnation, the Goodman as permanent resident professional theatre with an educational adjunct was feted at the season

opening on 23 October 1969. The first MainStage productions drew mixed notices, but the critics (including Clive Barnes) gave high marks to

the last three works. Reich was elated, seeing progress in every activity of the organization— the students had a place to truly express

themselves, there were new subscription programs, audiences and critics were interested in and responded well to the changes, and the company

had become a cohesive ensemble.

In his chronicle of the regional theatre movement, Joseph

Zeigler links Reich's ambitions with the state of theatre in Chicagot

The fact that Chicago had no professional theatre beyond the Goodman had long been an embarrassment. In fact, even Mayor Baley had formed a committee to study the need for a regional theatre during the middle of the 1960 s. . . . But because it was far down on the list of Daley priorities, a full-fledged regional theatre never got under way in Chicago. Finally Reich stepped in to fill the gap. He engaged [Douglas Campbell and Douglas Seale ] f together they set out to redress Chicago's lack by significantly altering the Goodman Theatre. In making the change to a fully professional company, Reich sacrificed the close relationship that professional guest actors and students had had in the earlier days, at least when working on stage together, but he gained the quality he had sought and, most notably, a much more imaginative repertory because he no longer needed to program plays that would serve students' needs without revealing their inadequacies.52

The 1970-71 season at the Goodman was far from successful, even

t h o u ^ Mayor Daley gave the opening a boost in the form of another

"Goodman Theatre Week." Only one production proved popular and its

^^Ibid., pp. 198-209 passim.

Joseph Wesley Zeigler, Regional Theatre1 The Revolutionary Stage (New York: DaCapo Press, 1977/, PP. IO9-IIO. 33 extended run oonld not disperse the aura of failures— artistic, critical and financial— that hung over the theatre. The resident professional company was disbanded-the principal victim of the theatre's $211,000 deficit, and separate casting for each production was instituted for the next season.

The Goodman Theatre was becoming less stable with each passing season, and change was in the air in 1971-72. There were five Goodman productions and one work imported from the Long Wharf Theatre (New Haven); except for one world premiere, it was a "safe" season. Elsewhere at the

Goodman four works were done by the Children's Theatre; the Studio

Theatre series of eight weeks was sold-out through subscriptions. When a new commissioned musical was not ready for MainStage production the

Goodman received permission from Richard Rodgers to stage a revival of his musical The Boys from Syracuse, which proved to be a box-office smash and ran from April through August,Critic Richard Christensen wrote:

"The Boys from Syracuse", , • is a show aimed at helping to move Goodman's image from stodgy, stuffy, and traditionally dull playhouse to new, improved and thorou^ly profession­ alized theatre center of Chicago. . « , A qualified success at best, "The Boys from Syracuse" nevertheless is interesting to watch as a clue to Goodman's direction, althou^ whether this plunge into glitz and razzle-dazzle is an aberration or an inclination in the theatre's future remains to be seen,54

This speculation about the artistic future of the Goodman was the result

of an administrative shake-oip during the 1971-72 season. A combination

of forces, particularly the AIC trustees' concern about Goodman

^^The Art Institute of Chicago F Ai d Annual Report: 1971-72. pp. 21, 24. 54 "^^Riohard Christiansen, "The Boys from Syracuse," Chicago Daily News. 19 April 1972, p. 47. 34 finances, led to the ouster of Reich, ostensibly due to AIC's mandatory retirement policy. Reich, like T.W. Stevens before him, was doomed by the inability of the AIC board to reconcile the needs of an institution celebrating art, the attainment of financial stability, and the ambitions of artists.

The announcement of the change in leadership was made on 18 January

1972; Reich remained as producing director until 1 July 1972* Following the recommendation of the Goodman Theatre committee's newly-appointed chairman Stanley Freehllng, the board of AIC named Kenneth % e r s as executive director. Myers had worked in New York commercial and not- for-profit theatre, principally in management. He envisioned the

Goodman as a performing arts center, operating throughout the year, with a wide spectrum of activities appealing to all sectors of the community.

"Imaginative," "exciting," "challenging" events were planned, with little mention made of art or quality. The school would continue under the leadership of McGaw, whose misgivings about the professionalization of the MainStage and the estrangement of the students were becoming more apparent. Myers* concern with the Goodman budget was quickly made evident, as each audience member had to pay for his seat (i.e., no complimentary house seats), the run of a successful play was extended as long as possible (contrary to standard regional theatre practice), and a touring program of works for children to area schools was abandoned.

In August 1972 My@rs announced the "Goodman Artist and Dance Series," six ?fonday night entertainments to produce revenue during the theatre's customary dark time.

^^Newell, p. 216 * 35 Myers was not to serve as artistic director; instead, a Director's

Season" with six guest direotors was organized. The 1972-73 season was to he holding pattern, as the operations of the theatre and school were assessed and a permanent artistic director recruited,There were local premieres of works hy Pinter, Heiner Kipphardt and A,J,

Gumey, and the directors included Michael Kahn, Gene Lesser, William

Woodman and Stephen Porter. The notices for the season were mixed, but attendance was fairly good, and the success of the season finale

Pal Joey permitted an extended summer run. Other Goodman activities included the Children's Theatre, Studio productions and the Science 57 Playhouse— a new project at the Museum of Science and Industry."^'

The evaluation of the Goodman's administration continued throughout this period, and thought led to action on the part of the AIC committee beginning in I*hrch 1973. William Woodman was appointed as artistic director for the 1973-74 season; he planned to commute between the

Julliard School of Drama and the Goodman. The situation changed dramatically, however, in July 1973, when Nyeva "resigned for personal reasons," ascribed by observers to AIC board dissatisfaction and internal problems. Woodman was put in an awkward position by the abrupt departure of his friend Myers; by August he decided to become artistic director full-time, and backed the promotion of Goodman's general manager 30 John Economes to the post of managing director.

While the cast of characters in the theatre management changed, the

^Ibid., pp. 216-21.

^^AIC Annual Report* 1972-73, PP. 22-23.

^®Interview with John Bconomos, Chicago, 12 January 1981. 36 character of the school of drama was also being recast. In April 1973 a press release from the University of Illinois revealed that the

Goodman school would move to the Chicago Circle campus within three years, with the transfer of management starting in September 1973# The division of production between the theatre and school created in I969 would become permanent, and the emotional breach between the two was altered by the news. As the critics and students questioned the plan the AIC board became defensive, stating that it was committed first to finding a good home for the school, then to resolving the matter of the theatre. The students felt that they were subject to both present and future jeopardy— the theatre's deficit undermined the school's budget, and the intimate world of the school would be overwhelmed by the immense 59 campus.The Goodman theatre and school were swept up in the winds of change at AIC; the museum's devotion to the visual arts affirmed through a $46 million cons Induction project, and its reluctance to support the performing arts evidenced in the uncertain direction of the Goodman during the early 1970 s.

Once he had decided to serve as artistic director on a full-time basis. Woodman quickly set out to establish the direction of the Goodman

Theatre. The plays for the 1973-74 season were selected with care, as a new audience mlY was sought. In his campaign to bring the Goodman into the mainstream of American regional theatre. Woodman offered the theatre as a casting center for the Midwest; this enabled him to look at local talent and to meet artistic directors in the area. Woodman also

^^linda Winer, "Protest on the periphery of the Circle," Chicago Tribune. 20 May 1973, sec. 6, pp. 7-8# 37 hoped to improve the relationship between the school and theatre, exchanging talent whenever feasible; and decided to add a new professional series

Woodman's first season was devised according to regional theatre norms, with a mix of a Shakespeare, an Ibsen, a musical, an ethnic play, a contemporary work and an American premiere. The last was Brian

Friel's the Freedom of the City, which was widely—praised and became the first Goodman production to travel (to Washington's Kennedy Center and to Broadway), The musical in the sixth slot set a new box-office record in its non-extended run, and income for the MainStage series hit a new high. There were five events in the successful Artists and Dance series, and the usual Goodman School of Drama productions,^^ In his assessment of Woodman's first season Christiansen wrote:

• • • Goodman has been taking a few risks this year and finding that the adventure, while full of hazards, also has its thrills. Part of the reason for this willingness to take chances was the theatre management's realization that this year Goodman was either going to get better or not go on. After four seasons in which the concept of a professional theatre has started, stalled and shown signs of languishing, several board members of the parent Art Institute were not in a very sanguine mood about the Goodman's future. Besides the ever-nagging problem of running a deficit operation, there was the fact that few of the theatre's recent productions bad captured the public's enthusiasm, [The 1973 -74 ] season was not an overwhelming suooess, but it was a season of slowly rising quality and growing oonfidence,42

^^Jack Eaffehkamtp, "Now Presenting Woodman of the Goodman," Chicago Daily News, 1 September 1973, P* 15 (Panorama).

^^AIC Annual Report: 1973-74. p. 21.

^^Christiansen, "Good news year at the Goodman," Chicago Daily News. 18-19 May 1974, p. 2 (Panorama). 38 The talks with the University of Illinois regarding the fate of the school were continuing, with the managerial transfer reslated to begin in September 1974, and a physical phase-out over three yearsThe changing identities and relationships of the theatre and school are reflected in the AIC annual report— what had been the "report of the

Goodman Theatre and School of Drama" was split into the "report of the

Goodman Theatre Center" and "report of the Goodman School of Drama" in 1974. The second season under Woodman started auspiciously with the announcement of a Goodman Theatre sweep— best production, direction, scenic design, costumes and actor in a musical— of the fifth annual

Joseph Jefferson ("Jeff") awards for outstanding theatre work in

Chicago,*^ The reviews for the 1974-73 season productions were fairly good, and for the first time critics noted a thematic unity among the plays selected,^^

Woodman's ambitions and talents were evident not only in the artistically and financially successful MainStage series, but also in his launching of an experimental series, Goodman Stage 2# Underwritten by a grant from the Illinois Arts Council, Stage 2 was conceived as an outlet for theatre professionals and for works that would not normally have access to the Goodman. The four play series was coozdinated by Gregory Mosher, who had been a student of Woodman's at Juilliard.

^^AIC Annual Report t 1973-74, P* 21.

^Christiansen, "Goodman's Freedom tops Jeff awards," Chicago Dally News. 15 October 1974, sec. 2, p. 19.

^^Dettmer, "Finally the Goodman fulfills an 18-^ear-old promise," Chicago Tribune. 18 May 1975, sec. 6, pp. 4-5* 39

Performanoee of four works (one American and three world premieres) took place in the Goodman Theatre lobby, rehearsal hall and Studio Theatre, and were regarded favorably by critics and audiences

The Goodman School of Drama had become increasingly isolated during the 1970s. Some exchange activities with the theatre were continued, mostly in the form of lectures and seminars by the professional actors and directors, but mutual respect and interest deteriorated into hostility and infighting. The theatre and school had always bemoaned the lack of space in the Goodman building, but by 1975 the expanded professional operations and record school enrollment had produced a continual tug-of-^mr over room occupancy, and compromise on any issue became difficult. The school's jitters were exacerbated in the spring of 1975 when AIC announced that the University of Illinois deal had fallen through and that a new team of consultants would consider the future of the schoolApparently the university had "reordered its priorities" when it realized the extent to which the school was a deficit operation and had learned of its limited endowment. The school's pride in its wide-ranging curriculum, thirty-five annual production projects and its status as the only non-collegiate profes­ sional theatre training institution in the Midwest had been badly battered and it slipped into the role of unwanted stepchild of AIC.

Past, present and future intersected in the 1975-76 season at the

Goodman. It was the theatre's fiftieth anniversary, a celebration of

^^AIC Annual Reports 1974-75, P. 26.

^’^Ibid., p. 27. 40 the nation's bicentennial, and a year of decision regarding the fate of the institution, The results were given mixed notices by all concerned parties, including the theatre staff, faculty, students, people at AIC, and critics, but the show went on.

Before the season, in order to accommodate present needs and meet revised city building codes, the electrical system of the theatre was upgraded at a cost of nearly $225,000, The work forced the cancellation of a festival of the arts scheduled for August, leaving mary staff members disgruntled,^^ Their unhappiness was soon exceeded by that of the school faculty and students, when, on 9 September 1975, the board of trustees of AIC voted to phase out the school over a three year period.

Faculty membei^ saw it as the culmination of the estrangement created in 1969 with the advent of the all-professional MainStage, students were bitter but decided to persevere, and McGaw, the dean, worked with school alumni to find a new life for the unique institution, A three year phase-out plan was adopted so that the 180 students could complete their programs and the obligations to the 25 faculty members would be discharged. Unwilling to comment on the widely-held perception that the devitalization of the school was primarily due to the lack of support and attention from AIC, in discussing the reasons for the decision, the museum's spokesman focused on the school's $200,000 annual deficit and 49 the reassessment of priorities necessitated by an inflatioiary econoqy.

Having evaded the executioner the Goodman Theatre was not sure

^^Interview with Philip ELckhoff, Chicago, 18 March 1981,

^^Glenna Syse, "Why is the Goodman School going down the drain," Chicago Sun Times. 28 September 1975, P* 2 (Show), 41 whether it should tiptoe or carouse throu^ the 1975-76 season. It did a bit of both: belt-tightening toward a less-obtrusive deficit, and proclaiming a season in celebration of American theatre during the

Goodman's golden jubilee. Plays by Shaw, Thornton Wilder, Preston Jones, and others were presented in the attempt to examine America and Americans; the uneven productions garnered mixed notices and different levels of attendance. Despite the varying response Woodman considered it

"consistently the strongest season in my three years here . , « because CQ no play fell below acceptable professional standards,"*^

The second season of the Stage 2 series was not linked with the

Mainstage 50th anniversary and national Bicentennial hoopla, but it had its own gratifying successes. The budget was almost doubled to $35,000 with continuing support from the Illinois Arts Council; over 800 people signed up in the first subscription drive; and the Ruth Page auditorium on the Near North side housed the productions. Stage 2 coordinator

Mosher held to the concept of choosing works which were worthy of professional productions yet inappropriate for the MainStage, and again 51 used Chicago actors sind designers,'^ There were five attractions, including two double-bills, and the critics were quite attentive to the efforts. For the most part the work of Stage 2 was well—regarded, as

Chicagoans praised its commitment to eqierimentation and suggested that

50 Quoted in Christiansen, "Goodman Theatre is alive and— - er, well, " Chicago Daily News. 5 June 1976, p, 5 (Panorama).

^^AIC Annual Report: 1975-76, p, 26 and Winer, "Stage 2: steps in the right direction," Chicago Tribune. 23 May 1976, sec, 6, p, 14* 42 52 it should strive for greater consistency,'^

The leaders of the Goodman Theatre were heartened hy the response to Stage 2 hut they were still enmeshed in problems. The 1975-76 season had been an adminis-krative as well as an artistic challenge, and the theatre's perpetual "identity crisis" was severely aggravated by the school phase-out announcement. Subscription and single-ticket sales dropped because of the confusion as to which part of the Goodman was closing; and uncertainty over AIC's plans made Goodman staffers move carefully and pinch pennies. In the assessments of the season concern was expressed about the Goodman's problems, both present and fu'ture:

One tends to expect much of the Goodman without consideration for its backstage difficulties. Woodman needs a cool head indeed to look ahead amid all the lack of definition surrounding the name of G o o d m a n , 55

Woodman met a Goodman already loaded with a 50-year umbilical cord to Art Institute funding and the schizoid self-image that combines "establishment" fat cat ties with stepchild insecurities, academic stigma, plus public confusion over whether the Goodman is basically a school or a professional outfit— this year,^^

The critics also mentioned that the theatre would probably be allowed to seek independent funding soon— the first affirmative statement on this matter after years of hints from Stanley Freehling (of the Goodman committee) and E, Laurence Chalmers (AIC president). In the articles the critics intimate that Woodman and the Goodman had to resolve the image problem if they hoped to achieve onstage significance and success.

The MainStage season of 1976-77 was another mixed bag in terms of

^^AIC Annual Report: 1975-76 and Winer, 23 May 1976.

^^Christiansen, 5 June 1976.

^^iner, 2? May 1976. 45 play selection and critical reception. It was a season of Shakespeare,

Moliere, O'Neill, Coward and David Rate, with both conventional and adventurous stagings. Critic Glenna Syse's review of The Show-Off, by

George Kelly, can be viewed as an assessment of the Goodman artistic dichotomy: "a season that attempts to include all styles of theatre can make mistakes, , . . The period sets and costumes , , « were excellent, repeating once again Goodman's persistent technical skill at portraying 55 a time and place with accuracy, authority, and imagination," In all but a few cases the execution of the theatre's work was perceived as flawed and uneven despite the abundant talent and skill applied.

Stage 2 continued to flourish in the 1976-77 season with over 1200 subscribers, five premiere productions and several tours, Mosher directed two productions, continuing his collaboration with Chicago playwright David Mamet on A Life in the Theatre, Four of the Stage 2 presentations received sterling notices and favorable audience response, and the out-of-the-ordlnary work often revitalized the artists of the

Goodman,^^ In November 1976 Actor's Equity ruled on the operation of

Stage 2: the actors' contracts had to be upgraded to the level of the

Goodman's MainStage contracts or to that of other regional theatres

(as negotiated by the League of Resident Theatres), In addition a "New

Playwrigd^ts Project" had to be discontinued because it was open to the public though no admission fee was charged and no actor was paid; these 57 practices were contrary to Equity policy. Despite these setbacks the

^^"A blank dotted line for this productions, "Chicago Sun Times, 7 January 1977, P* 45*

^^ATG i|imual Report: 1976-77, p. 22.

^^Winer, "Stage 2 and Equity," Chicago Tribune, 17 January 1976, sec. 2, p. 10. 44

Goodman and its steiff continued as active members of the Chicago theatrical community; in the role of resource center,it provided expertise and materials in technical and administrative areas to the

city's newer enterprises. Managing director Economes regarded this as some of the Goodman's finest work; rather than worrying about

competition, the staff s ou ^ t to enrich Chicago's theatre in all forms

throu#! contributions to others and through the employment of local

talent.^®

The most significant event of the season came in January 1977# when

ÂIC announced that a phase-out of financial support of the Goodman

Theatre would begin in the next fiscal year. The Goodman committee had

developed a mechanism to circumvent AIC's legal responsibility to the

theatre: a not-for-profit corporation, the Chicago Theatre Group [CTG] ,

would produce plays for AIC and solicit funds for this purpose while

AIC would continue to own and operate the theatre itself, including the

building. The phase-out would be accomplished over three years. On

1 July 1977 the Goodman staff would become employees of CTG and there

would be a $600,000 subsidy for the period (thus the amount of the

Goodman Theatre's annual deficit would be disbursed in decreasing

portions over three years). The board of CTG consisted principally of

AIC-Goodman committee members who were willing to work toward a goal of

a self-sufficient theatre by the 1980 deadline. [ The organizational

transition will be discussed in subsequent chapters, ]

While the theatre staff cleared the way to a new kind of independence

Interview with Economos, 12 January 1981, 45 the Goodman School of Drama members fought against the death sentence

Imposed upon their institution by AIC. Onstage and in the classroom the work of the faculty and of the student body continued during the second year of the school phase-out. Negotiations were undertaken with several schools, including Shimer College (Mt, Carroll, Illinois), and

Roosevelt University (Chicago),but none of the efforts was successful.

The recently-formed alumni group continued to look for solutions and in I%y 1977 sponsored a benefit to raise money for the coordination and 59 expansion of the rescue campaign.

The first season of the self-proclaimed "new" Goodman was 1977-78.

There was a new producing entity with a board of directors headed by an old friend, Stanley Freehling; a new managing director, Janet Wade

(John Economos had become AIC director of special events); and an imminent change in artistic leadership. Woodman had decided that he would leave the Goodman at the end of his fifth season, in June 1978,

Chicago theatre critics were surprised by the announcement, since it came in June 1977, "during the theatre's subscription drive and its attempts to convince new investors of its internal stability [and when]

Woodman's uneven reputation never has been higher."^® By September

1977 a new artistic director was named— Gregory Mosher would move from

Stage 2 to the head office. Other offstage activities included the reorganization of various departments affected by the separation

59 Winer, "Faculty heeds a sinking Goodman School's SOS," Chicago Tribune. 15 May 1977, sec. 6, p. 5,

^®Wlner, "Resignation of Goodman's director stirs rumors in theatrical circles," Chicago Tribune. 8 June 1977, eec, 2, p, 10, 46 from Aie, and the CTG "Founding Fund” campaign to raise operating funds and an endowment, with a two^nillion dollar goal.

The efforts to publicize the "new" Goodman found a splendid vehicle in the opening production of the 1977-78 season: Shaw's Saint Joan and its star, Lynn Redgrave. The campaign succeeded to a certain extent, helped by an enjoyable mix of the classics and the new. The critics were generally supportive of the artistic intentions,but felt that

Goodman productions were still uneven. In the Goodman-CTG first annual report the Goodman's finances were discussed in detail for the first time: attendance averaged 87% of capacity with many sold-out weeks, admissions income rose sixteen percent to 9927,545, and expenses totaled 91,480.929.^^ Before the 1977-78 Stage 2 began, the Goodman presented a week- long "New Plays Festival", This event took place at the Chicago Cultural

Center; participants in the seven staged readings, discussions and symposia included prominent Chicago directors, critics, actors and 62 playwri^ts. Stage 2 presented a four-play series beginning in January

1978, and response from audiences cuad critics was favorable for the most part. Most reviews noted that "considerable talent was on display

[ giving credence to Mosher's description of] Stage 2 as a laboratory for the development of young talent

The Chicago Tribune published an editorial in July 1978 entitled

"The New Goodman" :

®^Goodman Theatre T GTl Annual Report: 1977-78, pp. 3, 11,

^^Ibid., p. 6,

^^Larry Kart, "Scrawdyke hurt by miscalculation," Chicago Tribune, 12 January 1978, sec. 2, p. 6. 47

The Goodman Theatre has just completed its first full year of independence from the Art Institute, and it was a promising first act. We foresee a long run for the new management arrangement. • • • Chicagoans generously supported the Goodman for its first year and have been well repaid for their help,”4

The "new" Goodman had gotten off to a fine start, with momentum supplied

by the dynamism of its leaders, the belief of its contributors^ and the

openMHindedness of the local press and audiences. The theatre was not

without problems, but its board and staff now felt more assured about

the basic question of survival and about the need for the Goodman,

The Goodman School of Drama, for the first time in many years,

received good news during 1978# The 1977-78 season was to be its last,

but on 8 February 1978 AIC and DePaul University (Chicago) announced

that the school would become one of the nine schools of BeBaul,

effective 1 July 1978* The Goodman committee had negotiated with the university since October 1977, after several other attempts to find a new

home for the school had failed, DeBaul was willing to develop new

spaces for the school, and a fund raising campaign to finance the move was launched immediately by the committee members. Student and faculty

recruitment efforts were undertaken, and an agreement with AIC ensured

the continuation of Children's .Theatre performances on the Goodman main

stage for five years. The deal contained something good for everyone—

the Goodman Theatre could refurbish the space vacated by the school for

its own use; De%ul acquired the use of the Goodman name (for five years),

the goodwill and the faculty of a venerable professional training

institution; and AIC did not have to "preside over the funeral of the

^^Chicago Tribune. 13 July 1978, sec, 3, P, 2, 48

Goodman School, The joy was somewhat muted by the death of Charles

McGaw, dean emeritus of the school, in April, which brought to a close a long chapter in the history of the Goodman,

Gregory Mosher was reponsible for the production of nine plays in his first season as artistic director of the Goodman Theatre, His commitment to experimentation and the support of local talent was in evidence in both the MainStage and Stage 2 series. It was a spectacular season in terms of critical and audience response, with three world premieres and highly—successful productions of A Christmas Carol. Bosoms and Neglect and Holiday, with only one real dud. The season opened with a revival of Native Son, capacity houses, and critic Linda Winer's statement that "Mosher's masterly vision gives the new Goodman a present to celebrate and future to watch with real hope,"^^ The leaders of the Goodman were pleased with their progress, as more diverse audiences were attracted, revenues rose, the successful fund raising caapaign proceeded at a lively pace, and the theatre's role expanded in the community and in the theatrical world.

Mosher continued to coordinate Stage 2, and directed one of the three presentations of the 1978-79 season. The series had shifted locations once again, and the critics were not as enthusiastic as they had been in the first years of Stage 2. By the summer of 1979 the management decided to alter the Stage 2 concept. The series had become

^^Christiansen, "Last minute reprieve saves life of Goodman School," Chicago Tribune. 19 March 1978, sec. 6, p. 6.

^®Winer, "Native Son at Goodman a cause for celebration," Chicago Tribune. 14 October 1978, sec, 1, p. 21. 49 more formalized over the years, as the energies devoted to the develop­ ment of a subscribing audience and to production became regimented and less flexible. The Studio Theatre within the Goodman building had become available with the departure of the school of drama, and it was designated as the site of "non-MainStage" presentations. The Studio could accommodate booked—in events as well as Goodman productions, and its proximity to the administrative and production offices would enhance its flexibility. Another reason for the restructuring of Goodman production was Mosher's belief in integrating a spirit of adventure 67 and experimentation into the MainStage series.

The mix of premieres and classic dramas was continued in the

1979-80 MainStage season, which was sold as a five-play series plus a revival of A Christmas Carol. There was considerable interest in the

October opener. Death and the King's Horseman, a Nigerian play which later traveled to Kennedy Center. The winter offerings of works by

Ibsen and Richard Nelson were less successful, but the last two plays,

Talley's Folly and Cyrano de Bergerac were cheered by critics and audiences. The Studio Theatre was reopened for professional presentations in September 1979, with a Goodman revival of David Mamet's popular A Life in the Theatre. The remainder of the Studio season was filled with booked-in productions featuring the puppets of Burr

Tillstrom, the San Quentin Drama Workshop doing Beckett, and the

Flying Karamazov Brothers.

Educational programs were launched in the fall of 1979 as the

Goodman sou^t to enlarge its community base and to fully utilize its

67 Interview with Roche Schulfer, Chicago, 7 January 1981. 50 resources. The Goodman staff hoped to avoid the lack of integration between the performing and educational arenas that had existed previously, thus the newly-created department of educational and community services is considered equal to but not separate from other departments. The initial undertaking, funded by a grant from CBS, was a Young People's

Drama Workshop, tau^t by professionals from the Goodman and other theatres. Adult education classes were soon added, and the department became responsible for many outreach activities, including student matinees and volunteer services among others. The department has provided an excellent vehicle for a formalized commitment to and innovative programming for the community.

For the 1980—81 season Mosher continued his practice of selecting works that were bound by a thematic thread; this unity, discussed in

the MEiinStage playbills and the educational seminars, held firm despite various last^ninute cancellations and schedule changes. There was no

classic play produced; instead, current world drama was sampled, with

two British works, one Russian, one Trinidadian and one American.

Public and critical response was for the most part supportive, with

several box-office hits in addition to the annual holiday Dickens.

The Studio Theatre was almost continuously utilized, with both booked-

in and Goodman productions during 1980-81. The San Quentin Drama

Workshop returned from a Goodman^sponsored tour of the British Isles;

later Tennessee Williams decided to stage several of his short plays in

the less-pressured Studio environment. Chicagoans and theatre

professionals were becoming aware of the Studio's place in the Goodman

scheme of things, and the Goodman leaders enjoyed its flexibility and

informality. 51

The Goodman Theatre, in various guises, has produced plays for 55

seasons. The goals and achievements of the artistic directors have been different, but each sought to utilize the resources of the Goodman

to the fullest. As the people of the Goodman have endeavored to create

a distinctive identity for the theatre, to be of value to the commuaity

and to work in a consistent fashion, it has produced a unique record in

the theatre of America, CHAPTER III

THE IDEA OP CHANGE

The concept and reality of change had long been a part of the

Goodman Theatre and School of Drama, The character of the Goodman has been transformed often since its establishment, as artistic and management goals and methods came into conflict and were reshaped. Hut

the idea of change took on particular significance during the 1960s and

1970s as the leaders of the Goodman began to question the nature of the

organization in relation to the world. Since the 1950s the Goodman

Theatre and School had essentially been a closed enclave, but with the

arrival of John Reich in 1957, it threw open its door and began to

interact with the world at large. Confronting the Goodman were new

types of theatrical expression, new concepts of the role of theatre in

society, and most importantly, new kinds of theatrical institutions.

Regional theatres had come into their own in the 1960s, demonstrating

that not-for-profit organizations could produce excellent theatre and

serve a wide range of audiences. So the traditional "identity crisis"

of the Goodman— do we exist for students? for professionals? can we

exist for both?— was enmeshed with different issues. The old questions

were asked in new ways, and the longest and most significant

reinterpretation of the idea of the Goodman began.

At the Goodman change has been evidenced in the shifting

equilibrium of the theatre and the school. The first director, T,W,

Stevens, devoted equal energy to both parts, but during the Gnesin-Itkin

52 55 years the school was the predominant element. Reich sought to establish a new balance, channeling his efforts toward the revitalization of the theatre and putting the school in the capable hands of Charles McGaw.

For twelve years Reich worked to cultivate two symbiotic units, each functioning well on its own but strengthened through its relationship with the other. He achieved this by the introduction of the "guest artist" program, in which professionals interacted with students on stage and in the classroom. Despite his success with this program, Reich set about to alter the Goodman further. In his professionalization of the theatre Reich not only hoped to reincarnate the original Goodman but believed that he could make it a significant institution in American theatre. His ambitions regarding the improvement of Goodman productions had long been evident; his aspirations concerning the Goodman's place in Chicago and in the theatrical community were less apparent. The latter had been fueled by his perceptions of the changes in theatre, his knowledge of Chicago, and the development of regional theatres. In the mid-1960s Reich's shifting attitudes struck a common chord in others, and the possibility of change at the Goodman became a probability.

In its various metamorphoses the Goodman had never stood alone.

Its internal workings had, for the most part, been in reaction to or determined by an external body, the Art Institute of Chicago [AIC ],

The AIC had been appointed as parent to the theatre and school in the gift of Mr, and Mrs, William 0, Goodman, creating an unwieldy and unsatisfying relationship for both parties. While the collection and preservation of works of art may be well served by committee,...the creation of art is generally not. The board of trustees of AIC have made it an important institution, but the same board has lacked the 54 vision and expertise to establish a great theatre. The trustees* sense of obligation as parent and their commercial sensibilities overrode their good intentions, which were evidenced by their employment of talented theatre professionals, and the theatre suffered. By 1931 the leaders of AIC and the Goodman had recognized and sought to resolve their fundamental conflict— the Goodman Theatre was constituted in such a way as to virtually ensure an annual deficit from operations ; AIC was an institution averse to subsidizing the theatre to the extent needed,

AIC was willing to operate a school of drama since tuition income would offset expenses; this scheme was followed until the leaders and reputation of the school lost their vigor, Reich had plans for the rejuvenation of the theatre, agreeing to seek funds for this purposej

this professed lack of dependence on AIC largess made him acceptable

to the trustees. Throughout the years AIC has cast about for a solution

to the quandry of the Goodman, and in the climate of changg of the

1960s new investigations began.

Similarly the leaders of Chicago were seeking new directions for

the city in the 1960s, working to strengthen its industrial and

commercial bases and to improve the quality of life of its citizens.

The official vehicle for the formulation of new programs was the f&yor's

Committee for Economic and Cultural Development of Chicago, made up of

prominent executives. This committee and its Cultural Advisory

committee submitted to Mayor Daley in the summer of 1966 a report

entitled "A Resident Professional Theatre for Chicago," Simultaneously

the Chicago Community Trust received from the committee a proposal for

the funding of the activities related to the planning for such a

theatre. The report of the committee was the product of two years of 55 discuBsione and interviews with Chicagoans and many eminent figures in the performing arts, including Zelda Fichandler (Arena Stage), W,

McNeil Lowry (Ford Foundation), Danny Newman (audience development consultant), and George Izenour (cultural facilies engineer)*

The "Resident Professional Theatre for Chicago" study began with the conclusions of its drafting committee:

. . a superior resident professional theatre . . . is feasible, desirable, and necessary. . • .such a theatre has a reasonable probability of success if, and only if; 1. It is, from the very beginning, composed of personnel of recognized ability, including a director of recognized stature and importance in the field, 2, It is able, in the long run, to meet, most of its operating espenses out of theatre admissions. 5. It maintains admission prices reasonably within the reach of all Chicagoans interested in theatre. 4, It maintains a season of at least 20 weeks, gradually increasing to one of 40 weeks, 5, It i# housed in a facility seating between 1200-1700 persons, 6, The financial support necessaiy for the creation of such a theatre can be developed from foundations, government sources, corporations, and, of vital importance, interested individuals. This project will have the greatest chance of success through the construction of a new theatre facility in or near the central area, , , ,Experience indicates, however, that the initial Investment will be between five million azKi ten million dollars. This figure would include a fund of at least one million dollars to cover any operating losses the theatre might incur in the first years of its existence. The Committee believes that a significant portion of the required funds may be forthcoming from national charitable and educational foundations, once the major portion is raised in Chicago,^

The first section of the report concerned the concept of

this type of theatre, linking it with European models and with American

%yor*s Committee for Economic and Cultural Development of Chicago, "A Resident Professional Theatre f w Chicago," July 1966 , pp. ii—iii. 56

"regional” theatres. Tie need for such a theatre was outlined next;

the four principal arguments were* l) other cities have a resident

theatre, 2) a theatre would increase [the amount of] tourism, conventions, and after-hours business downtown, 3 ) "Chicagoans love good theatre and have not and are not receiving it,"— instead we have touring plays,

summer and dinner playhouses, non-professional theatres, revues (Second

City) and semi-professional (Goodman), and 4 ) great cities have "significant 2 cultural life" and Chicago lacks one element. The third topic covered was the potential audience for resident theatre in Chicago; the statistics

for touring plays and for other regional theatres were presented.

Theatre operating costs were outlined with the Minnesota Theatre Company

(now the Guthrie Theatre) serving as a model; the committee stated that

"resident professional theatre should, because of its large potential

audience, ideally be able to effect a balanced budget each year after

the first few years — certainly not a generally-held opinion with

respect to not-for-profit theatre. Tie issue of income was examined

next, with an analysis of ticket price scales and percentages of audience

capacity vis-^i—vis the number of performing and dark weeks and

corresponding expenses. The committee felt that a "sufficient" audience

exists in Chicago, but that a contingency fund will be necessary to meet

initial deficits. In the following sections, technicalities of theatre

engineering and real estate, including the variables of audibility and

stage types, preferable locations and ancillary commercial considerations,

were enumerated. Later sections concerned artistic policy and the

determination that Chicagoans must be willing to shoulder the funding

o % Ibid., pp. 3-4, ■^Ibid,, p. 5. 57 burden and demonstrate their commitment. Finally the possible responsibilities of a steering committee were listed, covering fund raising, site selection and personnel recruitment. The report closed with a statement of the committee's goal— the first performance of a

Chicago Resident Professional Theatre, operated by a not-for-profit entity, in three years,^

Meanwhile, back at the Goodman, Reich was pondering the future of that institution. As a member of the Cultural Advisory Committee he had participated in the development of the Mayor's Committee report, perhaps marking the growing resemblance of the resident professional theatre model and the Goodman, Reich asked Oliver Rea, the administrative director of the Minnesota Theatre Company to come to

Chicago and evaluate the theatre and school, Rea came in I966 , looked at the Goodman and also spoke with members of the Mayor's Committee,

In his report to the AIC Committee on the Goodman Rea addressed the issues of the future of the school and the possible links with the proposed resident theatre. On the subject of actor training in this country, Rea expressed his belief that no American actor received serious training and thus the "repertory" companies suffered; that

American universities were unsuitable for the job and that the best vehicle for actor training was an independent school associated with a resident repertory company, Rea stated that the Goodman School program attained "minimum professional standards" but that its facilities and curriculum had to be restructured if it was to survive,^ Rea then

^Ibid,, pp, 6 -17 , passim,

^Oliver Rea, "Goodman-Chicago Report," 20 June 1966, pp, 1-2, 58 discussed the proposed theatre, stating that*

It would • • • he absurd to consider the creation of a Chicago theatre without a close alliance with the NEW Goodman School of Theatre • • • close physically as well as organizationally • • • • Â union of Goodman and the new theatre would be the very first step in firmly establishing^ an early uniqueness [expressive of the Chicago community ] •

He cited the mid-1960s establishment of drama schools linked with the

Lincoln Center Repertory Company and with the Minnesota Theatre Company as evidence that the union of theatre and school answered a deeply—felt

need. Commenting on the T&yor's Committee report, Rea speculated that

the new theatre would have a "built-in annual deficit" and pointed out

that the Minnesota Theatre Oompaqy figures quoted were no longer 7 accurate, thus new budgets for the project should be developed,'

It is probable that John Reich used Rea's report in his arguments to

professionalize the Goodman Theatre, especially when Actor's Equity

forced the issue in 1966,

From 1966 to I969 the preparations for becoming an Equity house

kept Reich busy. It was a period of uncertainty, as AIC wavered in

its commitment to the Goodman and balked at the cost of a professional

theatre ; as the idea of an official Chicago resident professional

theatre lingered on in the twili^t zone of city bureaucracy; and as

the specter of accreditation proceedings hung over the AIC schools. In

1969 a consultant was engaged to examine both the AIC School of Art and

the Goodman School of Drama and to recommend courses of action for

their improvement and possible reorganization. One of the fimst changes

came with the appointment of a "Director of the School of AIC" in the

fall of 1969 , at vdiich time the deans of the art and drama schools

suggested that the new director be given overall responsibility for both.

®Ibid,, p, 3 , ^Ibid,, pp, 4-5* 59

Other shifts in the governance and administration were adopted in the following years; these included the attendance of the deans at the meeting of both relevant AIC board committees, the sharing of various services and facilities (library, cafeteria, maintenance, course selection), and efforts to draft uniform faculty regulations. The goal was to preserve the autonomy of the schools with respect to their

internal affairs, while eliminating duplicated services and facilitating

communication. The consultant also recommended that long-range 0 planning and development programs be initiated for the schools. Such activities were undertaken, but the turmoil of subsequent years

neutralized their impact to a large extent.

The ambiguous status of the Goodman School of Drama was remarked

upon in the report on the schools;

The School of Drama is a highly professional oriented institution which prepares students for careers in the theatrical arts. It traditionally has been closely related to the performance endeavors of the Goodman Theatre, , , , [ The newly-introduced Goodman] professional conpany and the School of Drama are now administered as one unit. The Goodman School of Drama, however, is engaged in a major educational endeavor, sharing many academic and professional concerns with the School of Art,9

Reich had known that questions regarding the place of the school would

arise when the professional company was established; even so he was

disturbed by the recommendations and consequent actions. Supporting

his contention that a union of the School of Art and the School of Drama

O Art Institute of Chicago, "The Schools of the Art Institute of Chicago— School of Art and Goodman School of Drama," 1971?* PP* 4-5*

^Ibid,, pp* 4-5. 60 would not be in the beat interests of the Goodman he made the following points: a) that the School of Drama was a "specialized craft school rather than a college preparing students for a teaching degree," b) if the drama school must grant degrees, separate accreditation [from the art school ] should be possible, c) the Goodman School's 165 students seek individual attention and would be overlooked in the midst of the art school's I9OO students, d) the Goodman School has "pioneered and specialized in training actors for • • • resident professional theatres" and belongs with the Goodman professional company, and e) the School of Drama and the Theatre "profit immeasurably from collaboration" which includes the sharing of faculty, administrative personnel, budgets and the MainStage.^®

Those comments were made in a letter to the public relations consultant to the Mayor's Committee, which was still considering the issue of theatre in Chicago* In the letter Reich expresses his assessment of the situation at the Goodman in 1970, stating several times that his opinions should not be held to be the intentions or policies of AIC* "I am convinced that the Goodman Theatre's all- professional company is the natural and organic basis for THE resident professional theatre of the City of Chicago," declared Reich* He lists the accomplishments of his administration: expanded staff, more subscribers, theatre improvements, and the assembly of a distinguished acting company* In his next point Reich links his ambitions to engage more and better actors with the increased funding and local recognition that would result from the Goodman's appointment as Chicago's official

^®John Reich, letter to Jean Eardulli, 16 January 1970* pp. 3- 4* 61 theatre. Foreshadowing the discussions and events of the mid-1970s

Reich observes that:

With prices and salaries rising dangerously, the Art Institute— already strained from running a museum, a children's museum, an educational program, an art school and the Goodman Ihrama School— cannot long be expected to foot the deficit for the Goodman Professional Company, which as a division of the Art Institute is now dependent on a single fund-raising and development effort of its parent company, I am convinced that in order to survive and protect the enormous investment in talent, dedication, work and money that have gone into the Goodman in the last few years it must become a somewhat independent entity like the lyric Opera or the Orchestral Society but with the inqportant modification discussed below. Under the original deed of gift from the Goodman family, the Art Institute undertook to run the Goodman Theatre "for the good of all people of Chicago," Then, in 1929# under the impact of the depression, the theatre was turned into a school, and only in October, 1969# has it been restored to the donor's original intentions. Therefore, the Art Institute cannot and should not cast off the Goodman Theatre but share the responsibility for making it THE OFFICIAL PROFESSIONAL THEATRE OF CHICAGO with leading citizens outside the Art Institute and with public officials, A method can surely be worked out so that funds for its deficit operation (for quality in drama requires a deficit operation as in a symphony, an opera house or a university, though not as costly) derive from the Art Institute— perhaps in the form of free use of the facilities, upkeep and housekeeping— also from private individuals of means, from corporations enlightened enough to appreciate the mind- expanding value of the best classical and modern writing— and perhaps finally from the City government itself. That sharing of the responsibility for providing inspiration rather than drugs to the new generation with its expanding leisure time has worked out in most of the municipal, state, and private theatres of Europe and especially well in the United Kingdom,

The professionalization of the Goodman Theatre was scrutinized by the

Ifeyor's Committee, which was still seeking support for its plan from

M ^ o r Daley and the private sector. When it became less likely that this endorsement was forthcoming, the committee decided that the altered

^^Ibid,, p. 2, 62

Goodman could, serve as the city's resident professional theatre. Another factor in the committee's decision to scuttle its plan for a wholly-new organization was the increase in theatrical activity in Chicago 12 generated by the off-Loop and suburban theatres.

The leadership of AIC began to think and work differently in the early 1970s. The economic and institutional climate for museums was changing and new perspectives on the future were needed, AIC chairman

Leigh Block and his board of trustees decided that a realignment of management would facilitate the resolution of various problems, and hired

E, laurence Chalmers, Jr. in the newly-created post of president to get things moving, Chalmers shifted away from the traditions of the museum world and instituted modern management practices, reshaping AIC as a responsible and responsive corporation. The trustees' determination to serve the institution and the community led them to seek new directions and new leaders, especially for the most problematical division— the

Goodman Theatre and School of Drama, In 1971 the chairmanship of the

Goodman committee passed from William Hartmann to Stanley Ereehling, an

AIC trustee of long standing, Freehling had revitalized and expanded

Chicago's Ravinia Festival and had the imagination, energy and connections to work toward the best possible Goodman,

Freehling was familiar with the operations of arts organizations and with the workings of Chicago, After surveying the scene in 1971 he apparently concluded that the Goodman needed change. He may have surmised a slow and painful death for the theatre and school unless new blood was introduced, generating new energy and power. The reorganization

12 Interview with William Hartmann, Chicago, 19 Iby 1981, 63 of the school was being considered by other committees, so Freehling went to work on the theatre, Reich was still struggling to make his dreamed-about professional theatre successful, but his vision may not have meshed well with Freehling's, Reich was retired; and a man Wiose work was grounded in the commercial reality of theatre was chosen to run the Goodman, Kenneth Myers was named executive director, a title which reflected his preoccupation with the execution rather than the artistry of the theatre's work. Like Chalmers at AIC, Myers worked to professionalize the management of the institution, abandoning some

traditional practices and eliminating deadwood. After their initial analysis of the Goodman itself Freehling and Myers conducted further studies, considering its artistic direction and its place in the community. The first reconnaissance mission was completed with the appointment of William Woodman as artistic director; he was to use the resources of the theatre to explore his world and relate to that of the audience.

To investigate the roles and the value of the Goodman a marketing research firm, Leo J, Shapiro and Associates, was engaged. Its findings appear in two reports submitted to the Goodman committee in

îferch and June 1972, The introduction to the report stated: "the overall purpose of this study is to develop information concerning the capability of the Goodman Theatre to operate independently of the Art

Institute,

The first Shapiro report was developed from three lines of

^^Leo J, Shapiro and Associates, "The Goodman Theatre, " 6 Iferch 1972 , p, 1, 64

questioning: "l) growth of the performing arts in Chicago; 2) reputation and image of the Goodman Theatre; 3) how people think the Goodman is

supported,A parallel study conducted in 1966 (not available)

provided comparative data for a historical perspective, [ Information for

the 1972 study was gathered from a cross-section survey of 2100

Chicagoans and from box office audits of 78 local theatres.] The findings

included:

1, Theatre patronage has increased by a third in the past five years • , • most notably among men and in theatres outside the downtown area, 2, Among theatres in the downtown area, Goodman appears to be the strongest, [in terms of number of people who have been there in past year, percentage of available seats sold and actual attendance of professional, studio and children's productions ] . 3 , The image of the Goodman has shifted in five years sharply away from that of a theatre for children toward that of a regular theatre competitive with other theatres in the metro area, , • • 4 , Goodman's offer of season subscriptions is as strong as offers made by other theatres [ and arts organizations] , , , [but] expansion of Goodman's operating base may have to come from sources other than the sale of season tickets, 5 , Goodman is clearly competitive with other Loop and near-Loop theatres, , , , 6, The Goodman's downtown location may be both an asset [greater accessibility, better parking, believed to be less costly than other Loop theatres, possible use as performing arts center of Chicago] and a liability [fewer trips to Loop, more outlying theatres] , 7 , People are not clear about how the Goodman is financed. About 15 percent think it is self-supporting [ ticket sales, tuition] , eighteen percent said it %ras supported throu^ contributions, two percent think it is supported by AIC [ in 1966 20% said AI C ] ...... , Goodman's growing image as a "regular theatre" appears to have given it a base independent from its parent organization,^5

These findings indicated that progress had been made in the establishment

^Ibid,

^^Ibid,, pp, 1-2, 65 of an independent identity for the Goodman and that the theatre should work to consolidate its gains, as well as explore new avenues of support,

"The attitudes of corporate executives and of the public toward corporate contributions to support the performing arts"^^ was the focus of the second Shapiro report, Particular attention was paid to the feasibility of the Goodman receiving substantial support from corporate contributors. Information was obtained in 23 interviews with corporate giving officers and two cross-section surveys 1967: 574 adults, 1971 :

423 adults •

According to this second study the public was confident that corporations gave to deserving causes, and many believed that the cultural institutions should be a low priority for corporate gifts.

This belief was not echoed in the attitudes and actions of corporate givers, who appeared to favor performing arts causes. The Goodman was perceived differently from the other cultural organizations which frequently solicited and received corporate gifts, thus it had a low ranking for probable support. One finding was that

, • • there isno reason to believe that Goodman would be denied corporate contributions should a strategy be formed and pursued systematically. However, funds may not flow Immediately and in large amounts, Gotnpanies are not yet accustomed to being solicited by Goodman and decisions to contribute appear to be made most easily by precedent,^'

Suggestions regarding fund raising strategy included a pyramid scaling of the number of donors v i s ^ —vis the amount of their contribution.

^®Leo J, Shapiro and Associates, "The Goodman Theatre II," 28 June 1972, p, 1,

^^Ibid,, p, 5. 66 highlighting and expansion of the Goodman's educational and community service programs, and continued promotion of the Goodman as a "good 18 theatre" rather than just a "good cause". The Goodman could not legally raise funds for its own work, and perhaps was not ready for separation from AIC, hut the reports became the basis for further thought and action. Members of the Goodman committee became more aware of the importance of contacts in corporate circles and of visibility in the community. The idea of an independent Goodman was firmly planted in the minds of some AIC trustees, and they set out to make the theatre and school as healthy as possible to ensure a successful split.

The Goodman committee knew their ultimate goal for the organization, but were uncertain regarding the course of action in the interim. The

1971-72 "director's season" had given the leaders time to find a suitable artistic director; someone who would forge a strong artistic and promotional identity for the theatre. Once Woodman had been appointed to the post, the committee directed its attention toward the management. Various factors led to the conclusion that Myers would not provide the proper leadership to meet the anticipated challenges, so he left the Goodman, The committee redefined the position of managing director at that time, and decided that tyers* assistant John Economos had the appropriate background and attitude for the job, Economos worked with the committee to restructure and streamline the Goodman administration for mAYimnm effectiveness.

Economes also sought to stabilize the relationship between the

^®Ibid,, pp, 16-17, 41-4 2 , 67 theatre and the school of drama. By the mid-19703 the most troublesome

Issue was no longer the exchange of students and professionals, but the use of space. The evolving estrangement and lack of common viewpoints and goals might be discerned to a limited degree in the elaborate room schedules. The Goodman committee considered the attitudes of the school and AIC leaders, and began their search for a beneficial alteration of the school. The grafting of the school onto a university seemed to be the most reasonable solution, so negotiations with the

University of Illinois-Chicago Circle began and the proposed move was announced. The drama school faculty and students expressed resentment and apprehension, but their isolated position within AIC left them little chance to fi^t. It was the collapse of the University of

Illinois deal that marked the beginning of the crisis mentality, causing each party— AIC, the Goodman committee, the theatre and the school— to assess its position and worry about its options.

Fifty years after its founding the Goodman was apparently on its last legs. Its overlord AIC was compelled to concentrate on its fine arts programs by the pressures of inflation and an unfortunately-timed building program. The new leaders of the Goodman had injected some badly-needed dynamism into the lumbering theatre, but audiences and the media were being enticed away by the burgeoning off-Loop theatre movement. The drama school maintained its professional orientation but was less able to compete with university theatre programs which offered a comprehensive education, sometimes at a lower tuition rate,

AIC decided to grapple with the problem of the Goodman school first— it was the least legally encumbered unit, it was least allied to the goals of AIC, and it was the most limited in terms of growth potential. 68

These factors outweighed the fact that its annual deficit (i.e., amount of support from AIC) was $200,000 while that of the theatre was

$600,000, one-half of AIC's annual shortfall* Failing to find suitable

"adoptive parents" and unwilling to leave it an orphan the AIC trustees voted to close the school in 1978 after a three year phase-out. The establishment of a definite deadline was a positive action on the part of AIC after many years of indecision and inattention; it also provided a focal point for renewed interest in the plight of the Goodman from the media and arts activists. In a decision that proved to be astute and fair the AIC board set a three year grace period, allowing both for the fulfillment of various obligations and for the emergence of any better solutions.

Having made the first move in its budget-cutting campaign while resolving one facet of the Goodman dilemma, the AIC committee intensified its scrutiny of the theatre, Freehling had supported the school closing decision, feeling that Goodman resources could then be w e d to strengthen the theatre operations. After several seasons of inconsistent work and an uncertain future with AIC Freehling and Woodman realized that they had to "convince their theatre-going constitutency that the Goodman is not only worth preserving, but worth encouraging 19 and expanding," The theatre leaders would no longer be engaging in squabbles with the school hierarchy and could focus on their own goalss solidifying the Goodman's position in the community and joining the ranks of nationally important regional theatres. Each advance in

^^Hichard Christiansen, "At 50, how goes the Goodman?," Chicago Daily News. 7 October 1975# P* 2 (Panorama), 69 these campaigns brought the theatre more attention and credibility and increased the probability of a successful separation, Freehling hoped to achieve Independence in several stages, starting with a semi- autonomous Goodman board, then a separate fund raising program, and finally, a limited AIC subsidy in the form of free rent and utilities for the theatre and some cash, Freehling and Chalmers were becoming less close-mouthed about the possibility of trustee approval of the plans; both feeling less pressured about the school situation, and anticipating a climate more conducive to change with the advent of 20 James Alsdorf as AIC board chairman in November 1975#

The discussions regarding the future of the Goodman Theatre began in earnest during 1976. The various parties felt it to be an appropriate time to move, so they did. The trustees may have had some lingering doubts but were for the most part convinced that the theatre was a viable organization artistically and financially. According to Economes

AIC did not pursue a policy of abandonment— the board needed to know that the Goodman could stand on its own and determined that the theatre had a chance to succeed while the school did not. Soon the basic principles of the separation were agreed upon, as were the various plans to promote the survival of the theatre, including the three year phase- 21 out and subsidy.

For the Goodman independence had to be attained on two fronts s the public and the private. Die separation from AIC was an organizational

^°Ibid. 21 Interview with John Economos, Chicago, 12 January 1981. 70 and legal aot; the leaders of the Goodman also had to consider the impact of the change upon the community. Freehling and the others looked upon it as an opportunity to clear up the "identity crisis" once and for all, jettisoning the confusing ties with AIC and the school of drama. To take full advantage of this chance to create a new Goodman image consonant with its new reality, Freehling called upon David

Ofner, an executive with Foote, Cone and Belding (a large advertising agency based in Chicago). Ofner and his staff volunteered to conduct research and to map out strategies to meet the Goodman's public relations needs. The Goodman staff did an informal telephone survey of

their patrons in July 197&; Foote, Cone followed up with a series of focus group studies in October 1976 and an extensive annual audience 22 survey starting in June 1977» These findings were used to shape the media campaign during the separation, as well as the efforts relating

to the short-term goal of increased ticket sales (including

subscriptions) and to the long-term fund raising.

The discussions concerning the separation continued throughout

1976 . The adversary relationship between AIC and the Goodman, long- felt but unacknowledged, was recognized through the use of two sets of

legal counsel— AIC's customary firm Eckhart, MoSwain, Hassell and

Silliman, faced by Gardner, Carton and Douglas, the firm retained by

Freehling. The other participants in the discussions were Chalmers and

Robert Mars (vice president for administrative affairs) for AIC, Freehling and the Goodman committee acting as liaison and conciliator, and

22 Foote, Cone and Belding, "The Goodman Theatres Report of Three Focus Groups," October 1976, p. 1.

^^Interview with Terry Peigh, Chicago, 1 April I98I. 71

Economos and Woodman for the theatre. The meetings were small and informal as each person worked in his area of expertise, then consulted with Freehling and the lawyers. Economos spent much of his time determining the financial and organizational shifts involved, and maki ng financial projections with Ifersj the day-to-day operations of the theatre in 1976 were managed by Janet Wade and Roche Schulfer,^^ The lawyers advised that the least objectionable mechanism for the split would be a not-for-profit corporation, so in January 1977 Freehling and the Goodman committee founded the Chicago Theatre Group, Inc. [ CTG] .

This name was used for the new corporation because AIC wished to retain 25 the rights to and goodwill associated with the name "Goodman". The public announcement of the separation came on 13 January 1977» as the lawyers and staff continued to draft an agreement which would govern the AIC-CTG relationship after 1 July 1977.

The purpose of CTG, as stated in its articles of incorporation, was to provide events which promoted the theatre arts and to engage in any activities germane to this purpose, including fund raising, education and building. No mention was made of the Goodman Theatre;

this link exists because of the AIC—CTG %reement executed on 28 March

1977. According to the agreement AIC wished to present a series of plays for three seasons (October 1977-Jïuie 1978 through 1979-80) and

CTG wanted to provide complete productions for this endeavor. This relationship is reflected in the program billing, which reads

^^Interview with Economos, 12 January 1981.

Interview with Robert Kfars, Chicago, 22 January 1981. 72

"Goodman Theatre of the Art Institute of Chicago presents a Chicago

Theatre Group, Inc, production," CTG is free to raise funds for and produce theatrical events and other activities in addition to the six-

play seasons stipulated in the agreement, hut the aforementioned billing

must be used for all performances at the Goodman Theatre. In its fund

raising solicitations CTG could only use "AIC" and "Goodman Theatre"

when referring to play production and presentation; and all advertising

HTiri publicity had to have AIC approval. Cooperative effort has

lessened the strict observance of one clause, which states that AIC shall

advise CTG as to plays selected and performance schedules, but AIC does

have ultimate authority regarding the completeness and suitability of

each produotion.

A major stumbling block emerged soon after the negotiations began.

AIC had been given the r i ^ t to construct and occupy buildings on

Chicago Petrk District property throu^ a deed of gift executed in the

1880s (with later additions). In the fine print was a paragraph stating

that AIC did not have the r i ^ t to transfer occupancy to another

corporation or to authorize an independent operation on the premises.

The lawyers for AIC refused to risk the possibility of legal action by

the Park District, thus a relationship that would not jeopardize the

museum's right to occupy the buildings had to be devised.After

much discussion a scheme was developed which satisfied all of the

lawyers— first CTG would be incorporated with the legal address of a

post office box, then it would contract with AIC to provide theatrical

26 Art Institute of Chicago and Chicago Theatre Group, Inc., Agreement, 28 March 1977» PP* 1-^,

27 Interview with Mars, 22 January 1981. 73

productions. The legal counsel for AIC advised that there only he

production offices in the Goodman building, but for the sake of

practicality AIC has allowed CTG's administrative staff to operate pQ within the theatre.

In order to reinforce the inq>ression that CTG was conducting

business on behalf of AIC certain financial arrangements were spelled

out in the agreement. The funds earned by CTG in its role as a

producer of dramatic events for presentation by AIC were to follow a

circuitous route for the sake of legal appearances. AIC would set the

prices and terms for tickets, subscriptions, programs and program

advertising; CTG would conduct the sale of those items and deposit all

proceeds with AIC. CTG would then present evidence of expenses incurred

(actual or estimated) in the production of the plays, and AIC would give

back the ticket and other income it had collected. AIC could advance

money to CTG, and during the term of the agreement it would help

underwrite any CTG deficit. For the 1977-78 season it would pay up to

$300,000; for 1978-79, up to $200,000; for 1979-80, up to $100,000.

AIC supported the efforts of CTG through this subsidy and through the

furnishing of rent-free performance and production spaces and the

payment of utilities costs for the theatre building. CTG was responsible

for the costs of all performances, including artistic, administrative

and service salaries, production expenses and materials, advertising, 29 and all royalties and fees for each play.

Any business conducted by CTG that did not directly relate to the

go Interview with Roche Schulfer, Chicago, 7 January 1981.

^^AIC-CTG, Agreement, 28 Ifarch 1977, PP. 2-5. 74 presentation of plays was not regulated by AIC through the agreement*

Aside from the restrictions on the use of the AIC and Goodman names, CTG was free to solicit funds to meet the expense of play production and other activities. Unearned income was deposited directly into CTG's bank accounts, as were the receipts from the sale of food, liquor and gift shop items.

The funds remaining in the "Maintenance Fund" endowed by Mr, and

Mrs. Goodman were kept by AIC and the income was used to offset some of the physical plant expenses (which amounted to over 8100,000 per year for energy, repairs, janitors and guardsThe endowment, created by contributions of $100,000 in 1923 and 850,000 in 1928, has been substantially depleted by the ravages of the Depression and operational 51 deficits of the theatre and school.^

The agreement stated that CTG was to carry and pay for insurance; the type of coverage and amounts were determined in later negotiations between Mars and CTG representatives. AIC approves all policies and is 32 indemnified by CTG with respect to any claims or suits. One paragraph of the AIC-CTG agreement spells out the particulars on the use and ownership of the theatre property and fixtures and ultimate possession of any purchases. There are two termination clausess the lapse of the term of the agreement on 30 June I960, and termination by

AIC after a breach by CTG, AIC may cancel performances if CTG has failed to provide a conqplete production as scheduled (which may lead to termination) or if the Goodman theatre is "rendered unsuitable" for

^^Interview with Mars, 20 May 1981.

^^Chicago, Archives of the Art Institute of Chicago.

^^Interview with Barbara Janowitz, Chicago, 13 February 1981. 75 performanceB; in either case AIC will make refunds to tioket-holders and other third parties, and CTG will reimburse AIC''^'^ — another instance of flow—through bookkeeping deemed necessary by AIC.

Several matters discussed by the representatives of AIC and CTG were not set down in the 1977 agreement. Realizing that CTG would have to focus on generating funds for onstage activities in its early years

AIC decided that, in addition to giving CTG use of the Goodman Theatre building and Grant Place scene shop and deficit underwriting, it would provide the custodians and guards at no charge. This plan would ensure the most efficient disposition of AIC resources and personnel, and would allow the use of a single security system for the entire AIC complex.

Following the negotiation of various financial matters Economos asked

Janet Wade to supervise the establishment of a CTG business office and coordinate other transition tasks. Wade had to set up an accounting system, various payroll accounts and establish credit with suppliers.

Wade, Economos and Mars worked on the transfer of approximately

35 engaloyees and their benefits from AIC to CTG that would take place on

1 July 1977 — CTG made provisions for Social Security and unemployment and set up pension, fringe benefit and employee insurance packages similar to those of AIC. CTG also had to establish relationships with the various labor unions recognized by the Goodman Theatre and become a party to the artists' contracts; the reasons for the organizational 35 shift were explained and the unions accepted the change well.

^^AIC-CTG, Agreement, 28 Whrch 1977, PP* 5-7.

^^Interview with Schulfer, 7 January I98I. 35 Interview with Economos, 12 January 198I. 76

In Its efforts to guard the "Goodman" name AIC consulted Kenneth

Sawyer Goodman's dau#iter, Mrs, Marjorie Graff, regarding the proposed separation. AIC had always been wary of the Goodman heirs, and fearing action on their part the museum had on several previous occasions decided against closing the theatre, Mrs. Graff supported the change, and has kept in touch with the theatre through her husband's membership on the Goodman committee (until 1978) and CTG board.

The Goodman Theatre has evolved in response to external and internal conditions throughout its existence. In the 1970s the idea of change took on new significance, and the fundamental character of the institution was questioned and ultimately altered. The leaders of the theatre were willing to undertake an extremely risky venture, countering their uncertainty with the assertions of the value of the theatre and its work. Freehling had assessed the feasibility of independent funding for the Goodmein Theatre and School of Drama, deciding that the theatre had the greatest chance for success. He now feels that his fund raising efforts could have sustained the theatre and the school, 37 but in 1974 he did not want to risk the lives of both,"^' At the time of the separation from AIC there were genuine questions regarding the survival of the Goodman Theatre and CTG, questions concerning the leadership (Woodman had announced his resignation in June 1977, effective one year later), funding (the commitments of AIC and the

National Endowment for the Arts helped considerably), and image.

^^Interview with Schulfer, 7 January 1981. 37 Interview with Stanley Freehling, Chicago, 14 January 1981. 77

Everyone was gambling that subscribers, unions, suppliers and the media would accept the organizational transition; the early response was encouraging. The trustees of AIC put their faith in the leadership of

Freehling and the others, and worked to make the shift as successful as possible. The agreement, through which "AIC has final authority to accept or reject a gift [ each play as an in-kind contribution from

CTC] and to determine the terms and conditions of that acceptance, is a complex but essentially fair document, AIC needed it to safeguard its position with respect to the Chicago Bark District; it has given

CTG a framework for the conduct of its business. In the agreement there is no consideration of an ongoing relationship between AIC and

CTG for, in the words of many, "it is viewed as a noble experiment which we hope will succeed— it's rather iffy." Through hard work, imagination, courage, and unswerving devotion to excellence the Goodman Theatre has been kept alive, confirming the validity and value of change.

^^Interview with Schulfer, 7 January 1981, CHAPTER IV

A MEW BEGINNING— 1977 - 1981

On 1 July 1977 a new Goodman Theatre came to life. No longer an uncared-for stepchild of the Art Institute of Chicago AIC , the

Goodman was the outlet for a not-for-profit corporation, the Chicago

Theatre Group, Inc. CTG . This group would finance and produce plays at the Goodman, making the theatre more like a regional theatre than it had ever been before. From that date the character of the Goodman

Theatre has been colored by the old and by the new, by its tradition and by its innovation.

The Structure of the Chicago Theatre Group

The new beginning for the Goodmem Theatre has not signaled by upheavals on stage and off. The artistic and productions operations were barely affected by the separation from the museum. Significant evidence of the change, however, is found in the administration of the theatre, couched in legalities. There was a new pattern of governance, a new managing director, a new business office, and a new issuer of checks. CTG had, in taking over production at the Goodman, become the employer of the staff and artists of the theatre. A change of affiliation similar to that made by the enqployees was undertaken by a number of Chicagoans interested in the theatre. By establishing CTG, various members of the AIC standing committee on the Goodman Theatre and School of Drama sou^t to provide a future for the theatre, which

78 79 had been threatened with extinction by AIC budget constraints and shifting priorities. The CTG board members, leaving the confines of the museum hierarchy for the risky new venture, declared their commitment to the preservation and rejuvenation of an important cultural resource.

The first chairman of the board of CTG was Stanley Freehling, who served as chairman of the AIC committee on the Goodman. His vision and energy had animated the process of separation of the theatre from AIC and the creation of CTG, as he took charge of the sometimes stormy negotiations and the risk—filled first years of the new organization.

The willingness of many AIC committee—turned-CTG board members to construct a new framework for the Goodman and to follow through on these efforts certainly contributed to the unanticipated stability of the transition. In his projections of success Freehling had counted upon this continued interest in and involvement with the theatre on the part of his associates, and he expended considerable effort in the complementary tasks of finding new board members and fund raising.

There was no nominating committee of the CTG board until 1980; instead,

Freehling served as principal recruiter, bringing in new board members when the need for a specific aptitude was recognized or contact established with leading members of the community. The CTG board has grown considerably since its establishment— JO members in June 1978, 40 in

1979, and 55 in 1980,^ Freehling worked to build a multifaceted and well-balanced board, mixing scions of prominent Chicago families with

^Goodman Theatre TGTI Annual Reports: 1977-78. p, 12; 1978-79. p. 12; 1979-80, p. 14. 80 media pereonallties, leaders of the business community and important representatives of the public sector# The primary qualifioation for membership was a commitment to not-for-profit theatre (which now entails a subscription to the Goodman MainStage season); there is no contribution or residency requirement#

From the beginning, Freehling has endeavored to forge a talented, flexible, dynamic and effective board of directors for CTG. He got the organization off to a good start with his substantial fund raising efforts, careful structuring of the board, conception of various committees, and extensive interaction with the staff and constituencies of the Goodman; but Freehling wanted others to take over and lead the theatre in new directions. To accomplish this he has gradually shifted away from omnipresence, letting others discern and assume the responsibilities of running a major arts organization, while maintaining his interest and influence.

CTG, in its first year of existence, was governed by two interlocking bodies: major policy decisions were made by the entire board of directors which met two or three times annually, while a smaller executive committee met approximately once a month to consider the nitty-gritty needs of the theatre. In subsequent years other board committees were formed, including finance, operations, artistic and development. To widen the base of support, to assess potential board members and to provide vehicles for specific activities two appendages to the CTG board were created— in 1977-78 a high-in*ofile Women's Hoard was founded, and since 1978-79 corporate and individual contribution solicitations have been channeled througii the Annual Guarantors Committee.

The leaders of CTG had recognized the exigency of the Goodman's 81 financial plight during the negotiations with AIC, thus they began their development planning well before the separation. A local fund raising consulting firm, Charles E. Feldstein, was retained to develop various strategies and materials in 1977* The keystone of CTG's initial fund raising efforts was the "Founding Fund" campaign, designed to elicit two million dollars over five years to help finance the transitional period and to build a cash reserve. The premise of this solicitation was the matching of two funding pledges— an equal match of the $600,000 AIC subsidy, and a three-for-one match of the $200,000 2 Challenge Grant from the National Endowment for the Arts. Freehling and others took their proposal to corporations, foundations and individuals, getting generous endorsements and meeting the goal before the campaign period was half over. In accordance with the organizational schedule, the Feldstein firm was phased out and an in-house fund raising department established during CTG's second year, and development efforts gained new dimensions. The development office coordinates the activities of the Board of Directors, the Women's Board, Annual

Guarantors Committee as well as planning for new programs and long-range fund raising.^ This mix of insiders and outsiders, as evidenced by the interaction of CTG development staffers and members of the boards, has provided the necessary expertise, contacts, and diversity of perspective vital to effective solicitation.

One of the board of directors' most important functions is the engagement of suitable leaders for the organization. CTG was to be

g Chicago, Files of the Chicago Theatre Group [CTG ] , Development brochure, 1977*

^GT Annual Resort1 1978-79. p. 5* 82 operated according to a dual leadership system, as the Goodman bad been since 1975# The sharing of responsibility and power by an artistic director and a managing director would, personalities permitting, foster stability and effective operation. CTG was fortunate in that

Janet Wade was willing to organize the transition and become managing director when John Economos shifted to AIC at the time of the separation.

Wade had been on the Goodman staff since 1969 and was familiar with the operations of the theatre and of AIC, which made for a less jarring transfer. Having overseen the creation of the business office the realignment of several departments and the stabilization of the corporate and production activities Wade decided in early 1981 to accept a position with the Cleveland Play House, and the mantle of managing director passed to Roche Schulfer, the general manager of CTG* Schulfer had participated in the transitional planning, worked with AIC regarding the physical plant and scheduling, coordinated the productions of Stage 2 and various tours, and served as liaison between the managing and artistic directors, production manager and house manager.

His thorou^ grounding in the operations of the Goodman and CTG, and his harmonious working relationship with artistic director Gregory Mosher have led to another smooth leadership change.

Further mingling of Goodman old and new exists in the position of

CTG artistic director. At the time of the separation from AIC William

Woodman announced that his fifth Goodman season would be his last. CTG had a year to find a new artistic director, and the board decided that

Mosher, the coordinator of Stage 2, would provide dynamism, innovation and leadership. His youth, devotion to experimentation, and ambitions

for national recognition would set the tone for the "new" Goodman, 83 while hie commitment to regional theatre, Chicago and teamwork would signal his belief in the long-lived institution. Mosher has broadened the perspectives of the Goodman by engaging several associate artistic directors and by widening the contacts with various constituencies, including the local and national theatrical communities, the media, audiences and other supporters, Energy and vision are tempered with a good grasp of producing and management practices, facilitating Mosher's communication with the board, staff, artists and others. To some extent the increased media coverage of Goodman activities under CTG can be attributed to Mosher's expansiveness and outlook as much as to his play selection and directing.

The organizational structure of CTG was carefully considered in the period preceding the separation. Several members of the CTG board worked with Economos on the assessment of Goodmsm employees) when

Economes moved to the museum he submitted his personal recommendations to the theatre management.^ The leaders of CTG needed people who were committed to the idea of an Independent Goodman and who would work for its success; those who might have been locked into past realities and who were unwilling to innovate in the face of new challenges were replaced. According to Wade one striking benefit of the separation was its effect on personnel— morale was boosted because CTG staff members felt that they were on a peer level with AIC employees, no longer looked upon as the "poor relations".''^ The staff was receptive to the dynamism

^Interview with John Economos, Chicago, 12 January 1981.

•^Interview with Janet Wade, Cleveland, 3 December 1980, 84 of the CTG leaders, and their attitudes and hard work contributed considerably to the successful transition and rejuvenation of the

Goodmwi.

An organizational chart for CTG can be sketched, but the departmental interrelationships have become increasingly complex of late, due to the enlargement of the staff. There have been several staff reorganizations, with concomitant spatial reshapings; most recently the box office and subscription office merged to form a department of ticket services. When Schulfer became managing director it was decided to split the responsibilities of general memager between the business manager and an operations manager. The latter was a new position, created to take care of the physical plant, supervise the house manager and the concessions operations, and handle the routine contacts with

AIC. The business and operations departments are within the

jurisdiction of the managing director, thou^ their work touches all areas of the theatre. The only other exclusive realm is that of the artists—

the playwrigiits, directors, actors and designers whose activities are guided and assisted by the artistic director, his associates, assistants, interns and the literary manager.

Most CTG departments operate in the domains of both the managing and the artistic directors, working with whomever the situation demands.

The production manager develops schedules and budgets in conjunction with the managing director, then communicates with designers regarding

staging and construction, and supervises the production masters and

crews. While primarily a component of the artistic area, the department

of educational and community services is also active in audience

development progzwns. "Qiese outreach efforts (to be discussed later) 85

also involve the public relations department, which serves as a strong bridge between the artists and the management. It is hoped that all of these activities will generate work for the ticket services staffers, who handle the subscription campaign, order-filling, and single-ticket sales, as well as assisting in group sales efforts. The development department staff is the widest-roaming, collaborating with the board of directors and its affiliates, with the artistic director regarding program development, with ticket services for subscriber solicitation, and with the public relations department.

Less directly involved in the working of CTG are several entities.

Three craft unions operate at the Goodman— the actors and stage managers fall under Actor's Equity, the designers and scenic artist are members of United Scenic Artists of America, and most directors work under the

Society of Stage Directors and Choreographers agreement. No other labor unionization is foreseen, thou^ the carpenters initiated, then withdrew from affiliation negotiations in 1980.^ CTG is a member of the League of Resident Theatres, which negotiates the basic agreements for actors and directors; other service organizations in whose activities

CTG participates include the League of Chicago Theatres and the Theatre

Communications Group. For several productions casting assistance has been sougiit tbrougdi the associate directors and a commercial agency.

The administration has utilized the services of several firms, including financial audits by Price Waterhouse and Gonq)any, public relations work by Ibrgie Korshak and Associates, and advertising and audience survey

^Interview with Barbara Janowitz, Chicago, 1) February 1981. 86 assistance from Foote, Cone and Belding.

The Finances of the Chicago Theatre Group

While there was a sense of artistic continuity in the Goodman transition from AIC management to CTG, there was a definite break in the area of finance. The leaders of CTG, particularly Freehling and

Wade, were well-versed in the finances of the performing arts, and recognized the need for financial stability and credibility for the "new"

Goodman. Wade and several board members painstakingly developed the business office procedures and accounting systems, working to design reports that would supply appropriate information to CTG board members, staff, funding sources and government authorities. A fundamental document for these parties is the product of the annual audit,

"Financial Statements and Additional Information," an analysis of which follow.

According to the CTG financial statements of 30 June 1980 CTG had assets totaling $1,172,983 and liabilities of $967,649, creating a fund balance ("entity capital") of $205,334* In the 1979*80 fiscal year CTG realized revenues of $2,101,764, of which 65% was earned throu^ sales of tickets (split evenly between subscriptions and box office sales) and concessions. Unearned income included $683,826 in grants and contributions, and $58,36? in interest and dividends. Revenues equaled

94*8% of expenses, thus CTG recorded its first deficit of $145,018,^

The statement of expenditures reflects the complexity of CTG's activities; two sets of figures are presented, broken down into functional

^OTG, "Financial Statements and Additional Information, June 30, 1980 and 1979," PP* 2, 3* 87 aiKi direct/indirect tables. Program services concise 60,5% of CTO's expenses; this category includes artistic (52% of program, 51% of total expenses), production (40Çé of program, 24% of total), advertising

(7% of program) and Studio (0.4% of program). Support services totaled

36 %; included here enre general and administrative (68% of support, 25% of total), subscription (14% of support), concessions (l2% of support), education (5% of support), and miscellaneous (l% of support). In

1979-80 the function of fund raising consumed $78,064 (5.5% of CTO's resources); this represents 11.4% of the support generated. The renovation of the Goodman building is presented in a separate section of the statement: the $51,196 expenditure in 1979-80 was paid with 8 $20,000 in contributions and $31,196 in operating funds. Also presented in this document is a statement of revenues and direct expenses by play for the 1979-80 season, which has a limited value in the budgeting process but can be badly abused when applied to artistic matters, (e.g., if the artistic director reads the statement to see whether comedies, existentialist dramas or classics did the most at the box-office and plans his season accordingly, his decision is misguided.

If, however, one uses the statement to initiate or monitor cash-flow planning, or to check various revenue axul expense components, this is a more appropriate application.)

Comparing some of the figures above to those of 1977-78 one finds that admissions income rose by 37% in two years, and that the 1977-78 deficiency from operations was $403,863 while that of 1979-80 was

®Ibid., pp. 3, 9. 8 8

$524,584, a 29% increase. Less directly conqparable are certain expend!tares— the 56% rise in the general and administrative component includes the cost of expanded staffing; different reporting of Stage 2 expenses to a certain extent skews the artistic (14% increase) and production (104% increase) areas. While there is an absolute decrease

of 24% in grants and contributions, these figures do not reflect the

shift from large block grants (AIC, National Endowment for the Arts) 9 to diverse smaller contributions.

The balance sheet of CTG reveals the results of the "Founding

Fund" campaign, which was launched in 1977 to establish a cash reserve

for operations during the transition. Similar to an endowment, this reserve has provided entity capital and substantiated CTG's claims of

fiscal responsibility and solidity. The results of this financial

planning appear in the fund balance section— on 30 June 1978 it amounted

to $299,995, the $50,357 excess of revenues over expenditures in

1978-79 boosted it to $350,352, and the 1979-80 deficit brought the

total to $205,354*^^ In addition to the "goodwill" it generates, the

entity capital is carefully invested to provide income, in the form of

interest and dividends.

Admirable objectives, hard work and good luck have served CTG well

in the pursuit of exceptional grants. The National Endowment for the

Arts was one of the first fundora to believe in the fledgling

organization and has continued its support; thus far there has been a

$200,000 Challenge Grant (awarded in 1977, matched at over 4*1), a

^GT Annual Resort: 1977-78. p. 9#

^^GT Annual Resortsi 1977-78. p. 9; 1978-79. p. 9| 1979-80. p. 9. 89

$95,000 matching grant (i960, 2:1 match), and grants for administrative and advertising expenses totaling $249,500 (1977-80), Another government agency, the Illinois Arts Council, has funded the Goodman, particularly

Stage 2 production, since 1973-74* Three private entities have provided funds for programs beginning in 1979-80; $90,000 from CBS for the first two years of the Young People's Drama Workshop, the Chicago Sun-Times underwriting of the second and third annual productions of A Christmas

Carol, and the three^ear $100,000 grant from the Andrew W. Mellon

Foundation for the production of a classic drama (used in 1979-80 for

Cyrano de Bergerac, deferred in 1980-81). CTG has also established relationships with Chicago's major foundations, receiving substantial gifts from the Chicago Community Trust, Joyce, Woods, Kresge and

McCormick Funds among others. AIC, as a not-for-profit institution, technically cannot grant money to another organization, but it did provide CTG with the $600,000 transitional subsidy. In 1978-79 it was agreed that AIC and CTG would split the cost incurred in the renovation of the theatre lobby. CTG was able to raise $185,000 for this purpose over two years| the remainder of its obligation ($53,769) was paid from 11 operating funds.

Despite its fast pace out of the starting gate, it is exceedingly difficult to predict CTG's financial future in these tempestuous times.

Certain trends can be discerned, but their relevance and impact can only be guessed at. The ravages of inflation have endangered the life of every performing arts organization, exacerbating the perennial income-expense

squeeze. For CTG the cost of materials for production and other

^^Ibid,, 1977-78. p. 10; 1978-79. p. 10; 1979-80. pp. 10, 16. 90 activities continues to rise sharply. The cost of labor will undoubtedly

increase in the wake of the League of Resident Theatre's negotiations with Actor's Equity and the Society of Stage Directors and Choreographers regarding the basic agreement for 198I and beyond. CTG cannot recover

the full cost of these expense components through an equivalent ticket price increase because such an action would cause a drop in ticket sales. To narrow the income gap, CTG must extend its base of support and develop other sources of income.

By separating from AIC, the leaders of the Goodman sought to remove

their organization from the museum melting pot of funds. Funds for the

Goodman would no longer be subject to AIC budget constraints and

channels, but would be applied to CTG's productions for the theatre.

Using this premise of direct "investment" CTG successfully expanded the

scope of solicitations on behalf of the Goodman emd realized significant new funding. Freehling stated that this "was my basic theory— that we

[ the Goodman] were losing money because they [ major Chicago

foundations] would give money to AIC which in turn didn't flow to the 12 Goodman— now they all are donors to Goodman as well as to AIC." CTG

continues to work to solidify its base of support and reach potential

contributors; to this end it published a series of articles in the

1980-81 Goodman programs which introduced theatre patrons to the

financial realities of the performing arts. The program for the final

production of the season contains a 1980-81 funding report, with

breakdowns of income, expense and contributions. The income and expense

profiles are similar to those of the previous year, while that of grants

12 Interview with Stanley Freehling, Chicago, I4 January 1981. 91 and contributions reveals the shifting percentages due to the lapse of the AIC cash subsidy. The sources of unearned income are corporations

(35%), foundations (30%), individuals (19%), the National Endowment for the Arts (15%), and the Illinois Arts Council (3%). This support, which comprises 34% of CTG's revenues, is used for operating expenses unless 13 restricted to specific programs.

Other articles in this series concerned private philanthropy in

Chicago, members of the CTG Annual Guarantors Committee, and the proposed cutbacks in federal funding of the arts. This last topic merited two articles as the National Endowments budget debate heated up in the spring of 1981 and arts advocates decried President Reagan's recommendation of a 30% reduction in the agencies' funding. The chairman of the CTG board urged Goodman patrons to write to legislators, presenting statistics which suggest the Arts Endowment's effect as a catalyst upon the arts in America.^ As of this writing the outcome of the battle is unknown, but the disastrous repercussions of a monumental cutback have been predicted by nearly all concerned.

Reagan's budget formulators believe that corporations and foundations will pick up the slack in funding, without reckoning on the effects of the Endowment's "seal of approval" on small or avant-garde organizations, or on the multidimensional value of a Challenge Grant to a mainstream group. If CTG is unable to Increase corporate and other funding quickly enough to compensate for any decline in government support

Iteehling has spoken of another option. CTG could appeal to the Chicago

13 ^Goodman Theatre program of Dwarfman. Master of a Million Shapes. May 1981, p. 6,

^^Ibid., p. 4. 92 Park District for a tax levy similar to that received by the museums on

Park District land— in 1979-80 AIC's share of this funding was over two million dollars CTG could argue that the Goodman serves Chicago

throu^ its productions and educational programs and that it was deserving of civic recognition with such funding.

In Its quest for non-admissions revenue CTG has worked inside as well as outside the Goodman Theatre's walls. The renovation of the lobby made the expansion of concessions operations possible, thus CTG created a snack area, and a gift shop which sells play scripts, theatrical artifacts and apparel. In the fall of 1979 AIC decided to abandon dinner

service at the museum's restaurant, leaving Goodman patrons at the mercy

of inconveniently—located downtown eateries. Freehling moved quickly,

convincing his friend Ingrid Kostrubala to set up a catering operation

in the Goodman rehearsal room three evenings a week, Ingrid's buffets were critically acclaimed and reasonably well-patronized, and have

expanded ever since. CTG was granted a liquor license in early 1980 after lengthy legal wrangling, and bar service began in the lobby and

eating areas before curtain time, during inteimission, and after the

show. The concessions operated at a loss in 1979-80, due for the most

part to kitchen set-up costs and some inefficiencies, but CTG's

management continues to believe in the value of these services in terms

of profitability and public relations. The educational programs also

generate some income, in the form of tuition from the adult education

classes. Given the various portents for the difficult future of

performing arts organizations, the ingenuity of CTG's management will

^^Interview with Freehling, 14 January 1981. 93 be tested offstage as well as on, as it seeks to alleviate financial pressures through income maximization and expenditure control. Time, and the financial statements, will reveal the results.

Relationships of the Goodman "Clan"

The activities of CTG are conditioned by various legal documents which codify its relationships with other organizations. Of primary importance is the CTG agreement with AIC (1977)» under which CTG creates productions for presentation by AIC at the Goodman Theatre, This agreement provides a framework for CTG's endeavors, while a corollary pact governs some of the day-to-day workings of the theatre. The latter was drafted in 1978 by John Bconomos in his capacity of director of special events for AIC and involved four groups who used the facilities of the theatre— AIC, the School of AIC, the Goodman School of Drama at DeEaul

University and CTG. Eventually the parties were satisfied with the stipulations of this "use agreement", and with the complex scheduling of

CTG MainStage and Studio presentations, DeBaul Children's Theatre on the MainStage, scenery construction at the Grant Place shop, and lectures for AIC and its School, [A copy of this document has not been released to this writer, thus its other features cannot be discussed. ]

Economes hoped that the scheduling discussions would occur each year and keep the relationships open; instead it is assumed that the 1978 agreement is in force, with minor changes made as circumstances dictate

Acting for AIC with respect to the Goodman and CTG are Robert

Mars (vice president for administrative affairs), and Kevin O'Brien

16 Interview with Sconomos, 12 January 1981. 94

(present director of special events). Mars is in contant with Schulfer when major items are being considered, works with the CTG board on the agreement and related issues, and attends meetings of the Goodman

Committee of AIC, This committee, with a roster of five AIC trustees and four CTG executive committee members and Freehling as chairman, is being restructured but not renamed. Its immediate task is to determine whether AIC should expand its presentation of special events, taking

into consideration the museum's objectives, facilities, and schedules.

In any case the committee is charged with the monitoring and maintenance

of the AIC-CTG relationship, rfetters involving the Goodman Theatre physical plant are handled by O'Brien and CTG's operations manager;

these discussions regarding construction, traffic, utilities and repairs

form the bulk of AIC-CTG interplay. In accordance with the 1977 agreement there is a financial relationship based upon the deposit and payment of Goodman admissions revenue— this involves physical and paper

transfers of box office and subscription receipts, and creates a 17 relationship between the organizations' bookkeepers. Despite Economes'

efforts to foster an open and healthy rapport between AIC and CTG, the

two organizations have not been the best of friends. This may be due

to incompatibility of large and small, old and young, preservation-

minded and innovation-oriented, or to residual resentments of Goodman

staffers, to personality conflicts, or to misapprehension of objectives,

Whatever the cause, the result has been minimal dialogue; though some

have expressed a desire to improve relations and move ahead.

For the Goodman School of Drama the big change came not in 1977

^^Interview with Robert Mars, Chicago, 22 January 1981* 95 with the advent of CTG, but in 1978, when it became one of the nine schools of DeEaul University, Slated for death because of financial difficulties, the school was in the final year of a three year phase-out of operations when the University and AIC announced the good news. The legal instrument for the shift was an agreement between DeBaul and AIC, running from 1 July 1978 through 30 June 1983# [ A copy of this agreement has not been released to this writer; discussion of this

subject is therefore rather limited,] The school would be named the

DeBaul Goodman School of Drama for the term of the agreement, then the

Goodman name would revert to AIC, The University promised to provide

adequate space and to eventually build special facilities, while AIC

allowed the school to use the Goodman ThinStage and Grant Place scene

shop "in the traditional manner" for five years* AIC also transferred

approximately $73,000 in scholarship and other restricted funds to

DePaul. The AIC—DeBaul relationship is now similar to that between the

museum and CTG, with fhrs and O'Brien communicating with John Vatts, the 16 dean of the school, on various issues.

Since 1978 the only link between CTG and the School of Drama has

been the use of the Goodman MainStage and Grant Place shop. The 1978

use agreement sets the ground rules, while annual discussions between

the production managers determine the scheduling, A system of "change-

over" has been established, as the CTG productions vie for backstage

and construction space with the School's Children's Theatre operation,

which presents thirty performances of each of its three annual

productions. Stage crews must switch the settings and other

paraphanalia between each CTG and school performance, a complicated and

^®Ibid. 96 time-conBuming task; and CTG's Grant Place workers most keep their projects separate from those of the students. Shared facilities and employees has entailed shared expenses, including utilities, some construction materials and maintenance costs, CTG is reimbursed by

DePaul for a portion of the salaries of the change-over crews, 19 technicians and box office staff. A certain amount of the bad blood built up since the early 1970s remains, as the students and professionals keep their distance in the unusual working relationship.

The name "Goodman" continues to provide a bond between the differing philosophies and objectives of the people of the museum, the theatre, and the school, despite the recent legal and physical separations.

Community Relations

The arrival of John Reich as the Goodman's leader in 1957 marked the beginning of the theatre's move into the community. Slowly the

"members only" doors opened, inviting Chicagoans to partake of the pleasures found in the work of the Goodman, This trend accelerated during the late 1960s and 1970 s as administrators and fundors, particularly the National Endowment for the Arts and major foundations, set guidelines for the expansion of AIC's (and consequently the Goodman's) activities and audiences, The concept of outreach became solidly entrenobed in the minds of many, and new programs were developed to serve the community and find new constituencies, CTG has pursued and elaborated upon this policy, bringing it under the jurisdiction of the public relations department in 1978, and engaging an educational and

^^Interview with Janowitz, 15 February 1981. 97 community service staff in 1979# The outreach programs of CTG can be viewed as falling into a series of concentric circles, each serving a community which is more involved in the Goodman— Chicago at large on the outermost ring, Goodman patrons next, and members (i.e., the

Women's Board) at the center. The theatrical community is a special case, benefiting not directly from specifically-targeted programs, but from the Goodman activities in general. The leaders of CTG are strongly committed to the establishment and maintenance of relationships with each group, believing that the interplay of arts institution and community is essential to the well-being of both.

The most wide-ranging outreach activities are handled by the audience development staff of CTG, These programs are designed to establish links with various segments of the community and to implant the name and the activities of the Goodman in the minds of Chicagoans.

Plans are developed on a per-show, season or year basis, and seek to entice new patrons into the theatre, make them satisfied subscribers and generous donors. Certain I^inStage or Studio productions are suitable for special promotional efforts, e.g., veterans groups were contacted regarding Still Life in the fall of 1980, and black groups learned about Death and -hhp King's Horseman and Play Mas. The "Inner

Circle" program, modeled on the Bavinia Festival guilds, was launched in 1979 to facilitate Goodman infiltration of city and suburban neighborhoods. There are now three "Inner Circle" chapters composed of

Goodman subscribers who meet throu^out the year for social and educational programs, and who work in their neigdiborhoods promoting the Goodman, These groups and other groups participate in the subscription campaign during the spring and summer, setting up booths at 98 art fairs and other local events to answer questions and boost the 20 theatre's image.

An important component of the audience development program is group sales, which was formerly handled by the box office or subscription staffers. Extensive lists of groups in Chicago and the suburbs have been compiled over the years, and various campaigns are undertaken to sell them season subscriptions or tickets to individual shows. The group sales program is being revanq)ed for 1961—82, with several types of discounts being consolidated into a single group rate.

Tbrou^ the "Spotlight" program, inaugurated in 1980, teachers and group leaders are invited to learn about each Goodman MiinStage production, as the director, designers, and actors discuss their perceptions of the work and goals on the first day of rehearsal. This special "audience" has responded quite well to the presentations, and sales to groups have increased. CTG board approval is now pending on a revised corporate sales plan, which would tie subscription rates for corporations and their employees to corporate donations. On occasion there have been

"get acquainted with the Goodman" programs for local firms, but the special presentations have met with only limited success. No longer is there a student subscription campaign| instead, the group sales manager keeps college activity directors and appropriate teachers informed of

Goodman activities and encourages group sales to individual shows, often to the student matinees for selected productions. The latter is an example of the joint ventures of the audience development and educational

20 Interview with Carol Ball, Chicago, 11 June 1981. 99 staffs, most of which have been recognized as excellent marketing opportunities. Â significant success this past season has been the

"Study Guide" created by the education department for each MainStage production— when asked to state their preferences regarding subscription perquisites in the recent audience survey, Goodman patrons gave the 21 highest marks to the study guides.

The Educational and Community Services department was established in 1979 to manage the CBS Young People's Drama Workshop, Its activities have since mushroomed, and its objectives have similarly expanded.

Working to enrich the experience of the theatrical arts for Goodman patrons, students,and members of the community, the educational director and his assistant develop programs which cover individual productions, theatre history and performance technique. Study of and participation in the practices of theatre form the core of the student programs— the Young People's Drama Workshop (fall and spring), the

Summer Performance Workshop, and the Advanced Performance Seminar

(summer). Programs for adults are designed to explore the ItoinStage productions, introducing the community to the work of the Goodman and enli^tening those who already attend. The Illinois Humanities Council co-sponsors a popular series of lectures called "On Stage at the Goodman" at six Chicagoland libraries and arts centers. At the Goodman itself are the "Touch of Class" courses— four seminars on each MainStage production which examine the literature, artists and stagecraft involved.

Next season there will be pre-show as well as post-show discussions with actors and others; the educational staff also runs the speaker's bureau, tours of the theatre, services for the handicapped, a prison

21 Ibid. 1 0 0 drama workshop at Statesville, and special professional seminars (e.g., op Jennifer Tipton on lighting design).

Another group contributing to the vitality and visibility of the

Goodman is the CTG Women's Board, High-profile and forty-six members strong, the board plans various social events throughout the year, participates in the fund raising and audience development efforts, and provides various amenities for Goodman artists (rehearsal coffee parties,

Sunday suppers). The proceeds of their annual benefit event have been used for the refurbishment of several areas of the theatre, including the actors lounge and the Studio, % e Women's Board has been involved in the operation of the "Goodman Store", and has contacted many local merchants to encourage the design of window and other displ^rs promoting the Goodman. To a certain extent relations with various communities are developed through the activities of the CTG Board of Directors and the Annual Guarantors Committee, but this is not their primary function.

The three boards are part of the CTG power structure and can be quite effective in the communication of the Goodman image and objectives, and can thus be perceived as an indirect marketing tool.

In recent years the Goodman has become more involved in the

theatrical community, on both the local and national levels. Some of the

literary programs are designed to encourage the participation of local

talent, and to promote the image of the Goodman among theatre

professionals. CTG managing director Roche Schulfer organized, in 1976,

the Off-Loop Producers Association, which became the League of Chicago

Iheatres. Schulfer is an officer on the board of directors of this

^^nterview with Stephen Scott, Chicago, 10 June 1981; and Goodman Theatre program of Dwarfman. pp. 12, 14. 1 0 1 organization which serves commercial and not-for-profit theatres in

the Chicago area. The League has stimulated communication between the theatres, and promoted the sharing of resources; in the latter area

Goodman personnel have acted as consultants in many situations, and the

theatre has established a rental policy for equipment and materials.

The most ambitious cooperative effort has been the "Hot Tix" booth, which opened in late 1980, Located in downtown Daley Center, this booth sells half-price tickets to shows at League and non-League theatres, and provides various promotional services; the program has been well received. The League also commissioned Foote, Cone and

Belding to conduct audience and marketing surveys for its entire membership; these studies have helped the Goodman to define its market 25 segment and to plan its image-building campaigns. ^ Locally Goodman plays the role of leader, by virtue of its age, size, budget and expertise, and the role of colleague, working for the good of the

theatrical arts and of Chicago.

Gregory Mosher, the artistic director of CTG, has led the efforts for national visibility of the Goodman, Working principally along a

Chicago-New York axis, Mosher has come into contact with writers for influential publications, theatrical movers and shakers, and major fundors. The Goodman has also garnered national attention through the

tours of various productions and recent collaborations with Tennessee

Williams and Samuel Beckett. The associate artistic directors, David

Mamet, Richard Nelson and Jennifer Tipton, are nationally known and serve to widen the Goodman's contacts with artists and others, and to

^^Interview with Janowitz, 13 February 1981, 1 0 2 enhance ite reputation. Working from an organizational standpoint CTG has increased its participation in national forums, including the

Theatre Communications Group and the League of Resident Theatres, The latter promotes resource sharing and communication among members throu^ its semi-^innual conferences and other activities; it also sets up the not-for-profit theatre management's negotiating committees for the collective bargaining with labor unions. Seeking to become securely ensconced in the national theatrical pantheon, the Goodman of CTG hopes to be lionized and supported at home in Chicago, in much the same fashion as the Chicago Symphony Orchestra under Georg Solti,

Like any fledgling organization CTG has had its share of successes and disappointments, both on stage and off. And like the most stable arts organizations of today it has acknowledged the need for professional management in addition to visionary artistic direction.

The elements of the CTG formula— the plays, programs, budgets and personnel-^re continually being evaluated and adjusted, as the leaders work to create a significant institution. The people of CTG have carefully considered their unique situation, and have sou^t to make the most of a new beginning for an old theatre. CHAPTER V

CONJECTURES AND REMARKS:

TODAY AND TOMORROW FOR THE GOODMAN THEATRE

For the Chicago Theatre Group [g TG], 1980 was a year of important changes and 1981 has been a time of reassessment, CTG has managed the

Goodman Theatre for nearly four years, funding and producing theatrical events on behalf of the Art Institute of Chicago [AlC]. On the surface, tody's Goodman operates much as it did when it was a division of AIC, but the reality is quite different. The leaders of CTG have struggled to create a new Goodman, striving to ensure peaceful co-existence between the ties to the past and the ambitions for the future. The uneasy mix of tradition and innovation is a major element in many of

CTG's dilemmas, affecting the formulation of objectives, development of programs, engagement of personnel, establishment of an image, and formation of relationships.

Various events have encouraged the recognition and réévaluation of some of the problems at CTG and the Goodman, Of major importance have been the negotiations regarding a new agreement between CTG and

AIC, The original agreement, which lapsed on 30 June 1980, detailed the relationship in which CTG produced plays for presentation by AIC at the Goodman Theatre, Representatives of CTG and AIC have discussed the new agreement matter since early 1980; examining the first agreement, determining new positions, and working toward compromise.

In the meantime, CTG has produced a season of plays at the Goodman

103 104 MainStage and Studio without a governing document,

CTG entered the negotiations hoping that the new agreement would

reflect the actuality of its operations with respect to the Goodman, In

1977f CTG was a brand-new corporation assuming responsibility for a

troubled theatre ; by 1980 it was a financially independent, stable, and well-regarded producing organization, AIC, concerned about the good

name of the Goodman, had inserted various legal safeguards into the

1977 agreement. For instance, AIC would approve the productions, .

promotional materials, and other offerings of CTG, These clauses

regarding day-to-day supervision were not strictly observed; nonetheless,

the leaders of CTG felt that their devotion to excellence had been amply

demonstrated by I98O, and that they should be afforded more freedom,

CTG argued that the Chicago Bark District and the courts would recognize

that the terms of the nineteenth-century AIC Deed of Gift were

unreasonable and counterproduotive in this era, but AIC refused to alter

its position, fearing that the entire operation would be jeopardized if

CTG appeared to be autonomous,^

The negotiations reached an impasse when AIC voiced its demands

regarding finances. Not only did AIC want to continue the flow of

admission revenues from Goodman to AIC to CTG, it also wanted to recover

some of the costs associated with the use of the Goodman Theatre

building. According to Stanley Freehling, AIC proposed that GTG psy

$36,000 in 1980-81 and over $100,000 in 1981-82, To do so, CTG would

have to invade its entity capital, since such expenses were not built

into the annual budget. Yet Freehling felt that "as long as there is

^Interview with Roche Schulfer, Chicago, 26 June 1981. 105 an Ale standing committee on the Goodman, there will be no rental charges, no custodial costs, no heating and lighting and air conditioning charfes levied against the Goodman [ CTG], Apparently, most other items from the original agreement will remain unchanged; the new agreement would be made retroactive to 1 July I960 and would run for three years.^ The progress of the negotiations beyond the payment to

AIC of $38,000 has been kept quite hush-hush. All parties state that compromise is imminent, but as of this writing (July 1981), no agreement has been signed.

Looking into the future, there are many realms in which change is probable for CTG, Different leaders, new programs, and altered relationships will certainly affect operations at the Goodman, as will the interplay among these elements. Starting at the top, i.e., the

Board of Directors for CTG, there is a new chairman, Allen Turner,

Turner is an attorney who has worked his way up throu^ the ranks of the board, most recently serving as president. It is too early to assess his style of leadership and objectives (he assumed the post in January

1981), but, apparently, his hallmark is a preoccupation with detail, especially in the area of finance, Memaging director Roche Schulfer feels that the position of board chairman is evolving; instead of the powerful and visionary style of Freehling for many years, there will be lower- key manager types serving one or two years. This change may not be evident

2 Interview with Stanley Freehling, Chicago, 14 January 1961,

^Interview with Robert Mars, Chicago, 22 January 1981, 10 6 to the public, but the growth of CTG has necessitated wider distribution of responsibility on the board.^

Schulfer began to serve as managing director in March 1980; his first real priority was working with the board of directors and establishing a more effective relationship. Next on his list was expanding communication with staff and artists on both present and future matters, CTG had moved beyond the initial phase of the organizational transition— survival— and could begin longer-range planning, Janet Wade, CTG's first managing director, was financially- oriented and concentrated on the short-term, while Schulfer has an academic background in economics, work experience in all aspects of production, and a good working relationship with Gregory Mosher, the artistic director of CTG, Schulfer, Mosher, the board, staff, and artists have started to examine and define the work and objectives of CTG and the Goodman, recognizing that the transition is not complete, but feeling better able to direct the process. According to Schulfer,

"We've established a lot of the things we want to pursue in the future; our main goal is to get the resources to improve the quality of what we do,"^ Schulfer*s outgoing personality, eagerness to leam, and balance of managerial and artistic sensibilities bode well for CTG* His sole limitation may be the fact that he has worked professionally nowhere but at the Goodman.

Outreach activities will be continued, but probably not greatly expanded given the outlook of GTG management and the state of the economy.

^Interview with Schulfer, 7 January 1981.

^Ibid, 107

The educational and community eervioee department is working with present Goodman patrons and students involved in the theatrical arts; there is no extensive program to recruit outsiders. Just as the various subscription packages are being consolidated, so, too, are the audience development activities. The expense of direct mail and other campaigns has increased and the rate of return is less certain due to the effects of inflation on personal disposable income. More careful targeting and intensified solicitation are the most likely watchwords of the marketing and fund raising efforts for CTG in the near future,

CTG's relationship with AIC has changed throughout this past four year period and the negotiations regarding the new agreement carry the seeds of further alteration. The specter of building-use reimbursement to AIC looms large over CTG, Even so, Schulfer has attempted to improve the relationship by discussing common marketing strategies and other mutually-benefioial activities,^ The revitalization of the AIC-Goodman committee will also affect future relations, whether it serves only as a liaison between the museum and theatre or becomes involved in special events programming, Freehling was glad to have the opportunity to continue to serve the theatre as committee chairman feeling that AIC's interest in sustaining the committee indicates that "it is not walking

7 away from its commitment to the Goodman,"' The AIC-CTG relationship is also affected by the activities of the Goodman—DePaul School of Drama—

AIC on a contractual level and CTG in terms of production space and

^Ibid, 7 Interview with Freehling, 14 January 1981, 108 schedules. If, at the termination of the present agreement in 1983»

DePaul requests that the shool be granted continued use of the

Goodman name, the MainStage, or the Grant Place shop, the AIC-Goodman committee will study the matter and make a recommendation to the AIC trustees. In its preferred scenario, however, AIC foresees no ongoing relationship with DePaul and full recoupment of Goodman Theatre costs 0 from CTG when the respective agreements expire in 1983.

The leaders of CTG have recently begun to address the issue of the growing pains of their organization. In three years, the budget went from $1,4 million to $2,1 million, the deficiency from operations from

$400,000 to $524,000, and the fund balance from zero to over $200,000,

The quantity and quality of personnel have similarly increased.and the ambitions of CTG have become more wide-ranging. This burgeoning of activity and thought has also bred problems, most notably in the area of communication, CTG has had to struggle with the Goodman's perpetual difficulties in projecting an image to various publics. It has also had to deal with the vestiges of ineffective internal communication. This inside-outside tension has been both energizing and debilitating, forcing CTG staffers to attempt to define and promote the unique nature

of the Goodman,

The Goodman Theatre's "identity crisis" has been acknowledged for many years. It was recognized as Chicago's premier theatre by virtue of

its association with AIC, its ties with the school of drama, and its budget, but rarely considered distinguished in terms of artistic achievement. Related to this was the split personality of the Goodman,

®Interview with Mars, 20 May 1981, 109 the result of perennial questioning as to whether it was or should he principally a training center or a professional production outlet. This probing was discontinued when the school was phased-out and relocated.

The initial inq)etus for the Goodman split from AIC was financial, but this action subsequently involved a reassessment of the theatre's programs. The campaigns regarding the "new" Goodman successfully reflected the sense of rejuvenation of artists and management, but going beyond this corporate dislocation and impression of "difference" has proved considerably more difficult. The interplay between the sought- after and the achieved in the realms of audience mix and artistic policy has been carefully considered by the leaders of CTG as the artistic and marketing staffs work to both strike a balance between, and exploit the potential of, new and old, CTG's unceasing pondering of questions such as "what are our artistic objectives?" and "who do we want in our audience?" can foster flexibility of program and promotion, but may also ultimately create confusion on all sides. Since the beginning of the transition, CTG has faced an image-building dilemma: whether to ignore the previous state of the Goodman and just overlay the uniqueness of CTG, or to work through the past and build up a new identity from a solid conceptual core. Without having fully resolved this quandry,

CTG has undertaken several local and national promotional efforts, a risky thou^ quite understandable course of action considering the financial pressures of the day. Even with the uncertainties, however,

CTG has effected alterations in the public's perception of the Goodman- recent surveys for the League of Chicago Theatres indicate that "the

Goodman is becoming stronger in its unique image [i,e,, an image as 110 being unique among Chicago theatres ] One interested observer, former managing director John Economos, attributes this public image improvement to the expansion of outreach activities and to the projection of a sense of artistic continuity,In this area, Goodman artistic director Mosher has proven adept at summarizing the rationale of each MainStage season and at communicating his views to artists, patrons, and media representatives.

As a sidelight, one might look at the experience of the regional theatre movement with respect to the formation of an identity. In 1972 noted stage director Alan Schneider wrote*

Uhe best evidence of its [regional theatre's] durability, in fact, lies in the number and grievousness of the faults ascribed to it even by those of us who have had a part in its development, • , • The regional theatre, everybody always said, belonged to its region, Whenever a regional theatre sought deliberately to become regional, either in its choice of pleqr material or in its personnel, it was too provincial or folksy. When it wasn't doing new plays, we blamed it for timidity and conventionality. When for varying reasons and under varying pressures it started to do that and when the new plays increased in both quality and quantity, we said it was just interested in doing tryouts for Hew York, When companies of actors began to stick around for a season or even two at a time, we criticized the theatres for merely imitating their European antecedents or for encouraging mediocrity. When companies succumbed to casting for individual productions, we accused them of selling out to the Broadway system. At a time when theatres were doing the classics, we were sure they were just playing safe; when they weren't doing the classics, they were afraid. If a theatre failed, it failed becawie it wasn't much good; if it happened to survive, that was only because

^Interview with Terry Peigdi, Chicago, 1 April 1981,

^^Interview with John Economes, Chicago, 12 January 1981, Ill

it was too conservative* Because the regional theatre, after its first decade or two, has not produced world- shaking talents, scintillating personalities, and absolutely original production styles, it acquired a reputation of being dull and unimaginative. When after another decade it did produce such exciting phenomena, we observed that it lost them almost at once to New York and Los Angeles* . « .as we enter a new decade [ 1970s] it is astoundingly clear that the regional theatre may be pulling away to new heights of artistic leadership and responsibility.^^

There really can be no offhand assessment of the regional theatre movement during the 1970s, but significant advances have been declared by some. It remains to be seen whether the Goodman will evolve in a similar fashion, continuing to recognize and deal with its strengths and weaknesses.

Progress in the campaign to overcome the identity crisis, build an effective image, and settle other problems has not been realized on all fronts, as evidenced by the agenda for the CTG staff meeting of

13 December I98O. Although non-recreational gatherings of the entire

Staff are rare, participants on this occasion included artistic, managerial, and production personnel as well as two of the associate artistic directors. Schulfer and Mosher had called the Saturday afternoon meeting in order to consider matters beyond the day-to-day operations of the theatre with the staff. To facilitate more expansive discussions, questions on general and specific issues were developed and distributed to the staff several days in advance, [ These and consequent questions can be found in Appendix 5.]

] 1 Alan Schneider, Forward to Regional Theatre* The Revolutjnnary by Joseph Wesley Zeigler (New York* Da Capo Press, 1977)• PP. ix-x. 112

Mosher opened the meeting with comments on the state of the Goodman and regional theatre in general, and spoke of the need for new directions and organizational forms. Schulfer asserted that the theatre needed to provide challenges to the staff as well as to audiences and discussed his philosophy that management must serve the artistic staff, acting as a 12 catalyst in the production of theatrical events. The staff was divided into four groups, and discussion of the written questions and individual concerns took place for the next two hours. When the groups reassembled, each moderator was asked to summarize the group's prL .'"eding. The topic mentioned by all was the need for statements of both Mosher's and the Goodman's artistic objectives. Staff members were aware of Mosher's stated theme for the 1980-81 MainStage season, but were unsettled by his various choices and by the absence of a classic drama production. Also debated were the communications problems, especially those between the artistic and administrative divisions.

These difficulties were exacerbated, in the minds of some, by Mosher's frequent casting and promotional trips to New York in the fall of 1980,

Questions about the perceptions and aspirations of CTG's leaders, with respect to the Goodman's status in local and national theatrical arenas, followed in this line of discussion. The general consensus, at the end of the day, was that the meeting had been an effective encounter, working both as a gripe session for airing frustrations and workaday aggravations and as a forum for the discussion of broader questions,

Mosher and Schulfer said that they were not surprised by many of the

12 Gregory Mosher and Roche Schulfer, remarks at meeting of Chicago Theatre Group staff, Chicago, 15 December 1980, 113 concerns expressed by the staff, and that they were pleased by the openess and depth of the discussions; they considered the meeting to be an 13 important first step in creating meaningful dialogues, It was then proposed that meetings of the entire staff, together and in groups, be scheduled at regular intervals, to allow the staff to step out of their usual roles and contribute to the Goodman in out—of—the—ordinary ways.

To a certain extent, the staff meeting of 23 June 1981 served as a follow-up to the December gathering. Here Mosher and Schulfer gave their assessments of the season and answered questions. Other topics discussed were the recent meeting of CTG's board of directors, the budget, and matters relating to the 1981—82 MainStage and Studio seasons. One cannot predict whether these efforts to resolve CTG's communications difficulties and get the staff more involved will prove fruitful, but at least the problems have been acknowledged and action taken.

Even while conclusions are being reached, there are still questions about the Goodman Theatre, John Economes stated that "if the

Goodman maintains a spirit of doing major works of high caliber, it deserves a place in the community— it has not failed that yet,"^^

Economes has personal definitions for "major works," " h i ^ caliber," and "community," but have the leaders of the Goodman determined their criteria for artistic excellence, effective community service, and other matters? The most pressing, and least easily-met, need for the Goodman is the creation and communication of a sense of coherence by

^^Ibid,

^Interview with Economes, 12 January 1981, 114 integrating artistic, administrative, and service objectives in both short- and long-term planning. Bringing together all that is necessary may prove quite difficult in an organization of the Goodman's size and scope, but much of the essential thou^t and energy are already present and preliminary efforts have been made. Working against integration and a push into the front ranks of American theatre are several factors— artistic, financial, and organizational. The artistic director of the

Goodman may be able to formulate a theme for each season, but securing suitable plays, directors, actors, designers, and budgets is enormously difficult, îfosher's "success" rate is amazing considering the various factors and their interactions, yet at each production someone always declares that it could have been done better. This dissatisfaction may provide motivation, but when insensitively or ineffectively handled, it can be demoralizing and enervating.

Another troubling topic at the Goodman, on a philosophical level, is that of the identity of CTG, The leaders of CTG must determine whether there is a need for the corporation to disassociate itself from the Goodman and AIC, or whether the close linkage is more advantageous.

Few Chicagoans are aware of CTG's function with respect to the Goodman; therefore, a process of distinction must begin soon if CTG is considering working beyond the Goodman, Contenplation of this possibility began, in part, because of the difficult AIC-CTG agreement negotiations, but also because of the limits on the potential growth of CTG operations resulting from the size of the Goodman auditoriums and scheduling constraints.

Also clouding the horizon for CTG is the question of funding. The threat of reduced government support at all levels and the gradual retreat of various foundations from support of the arts have added new uncertainties 115 to that mysterlous art of reaching out into the unpredictable known as fund raising. Other elements of the CTG budget may prove unstable in the coming years* CTG's management, however, has an admirable track record in this field, given the unfavorable odds at the time of the corporation's establishment* Unless all of these and any other questions simultaneously become crises, it is highly probable that CTG and the

Goodman will live on in the 1980s, working to serve artists and Chicago in the best way possible.

In the end, questions can become conclusions. One may ask, "The

Goodman Theatre— what is it, who is it, why is it?" In examining various aspects of this institution, one may conclude that it is a theatre built on belief. From its very beginnings, people have found something to believe in at the Goodman, When mixed with vision, energy, and organization, this faith has generated much— ^irtistry, craftsmanship, funding, fulfillment, and, always, a will to do more, to do better,

Stanley Freehling, expressing his belief in regional theatre and in the

Goodman, declaredi

I think our obligation is to be more than a local show- house, I think we should be experimental; we're going to have lots of failures, but we'll have some hits too. That's what I think our charge is. And that's my major interest, that we continue this because we're the only theatre in town that can afford to do what we do, , , . Our budget is ten times that of [small off-Loop theatres], we have a marvelous house with all the facilities, and if we don't do these sort of things, nobody else will do them. Either we do this or we shouldn't be in existence,

Freehling supplied much of the leadership, imagination, and dynamism

^^Interview with Freehling, I4 January 1981. 116 which propelled the Goodman through a decade of change. His commitment has convinced staff members, audiences, theatre professionals, and others of the value of the Goodman and has effected the theatre's reorganization and revitalization. As both an institution and an outlet for art, the Goodman probably should, and will, remain in a state of flux, but care must be taken so that flexibility does not become lack of direction. In pursuit of new directions, the Goodman has been transformed as the leaders of the theatre have sought the organizational form, personnel, and funding necessary for the production of great

theatre in Chicago, The transition from museum division to independent producing group is certainly not the first metamorphosis of the Goodman

Theatre; given the nature of art and of humanity, it is probably not the last. APPENDIX 1

PRQDUCTIOl© AT THE GOODMAN THEATRE— 1972-81

The following information on Goodman Theatre productions from the 1972-73 season through 1980-81 is provided as an update on the dissertation of James S. Newell and as an expansion of Chapter II on this thesis.

The Goodman Theatre's newly-appointed executive director Kenneth

Myers organized a "Director's Season" for 1972-73, inviting six noted stage directors to participate in the unusual venture. The grab-hag approach was necessary while a permanent artistic director was being recruited and the theatre operations evaluated. The season opened with Pinter's Old Times, directed by Michael Kahn of Connecticut's

Shakespeare Festival, Harold Stone directed A.R, G u m e y Jr. *s

Scenes from American Life; the next play was In the Matter of J, Robert

Qpuenheimer. written by Heiner Kipphardt and directed by Gene Lesser,

These three productions were local premieres, drawing 78 percent of

capacity and receiving mixed notices* In the fourth slot William

Woodman of the Juilliard School of Drama staged a revival of the

Hecht-MacArthur farce Twentieth Century. At this point critic Richard

Christiansen wrote " it has been a shakedown season in which the Goodman has once again managed to oome through with signs

that it intends to be around for a while, , , , The on-stage results,

while distinctly mixed, on the whole have been better than the

past Goodman norm,"^ The fifth production was

^Richard Christiansen, "Onward, auid— well, onward— at the Goodman," Chicago Daily News, 3-A ^brch 1973» P* 3 (Panorama),

117 118 Christopher Pcy's Oüie lady*s Mot for Burning, directed by Stephen Porter; the critics were not kind, The season finished with a smash in the form of Pel Joey, the Hodgers-Hart-0*Hara concoction directed by Melvin

Bernhardt, a Goodman staffer. This was the third work to have an extended snmmer run and break attendance records, A new activity began in the 1972-73 season— the Science Playhouse— four plays produced at the

Museum of Science and Industry, with excellent response from local schoolchildren. The Goodman School of Drama presented four Children's

Theatre productions, seven works in the Studio Theatre (which continued to be sold—out by subscription) and three plays which toured the 2 community.

In March 1973 William Woodman was engaged as artistic director; he planned to commute between the Goodman and Juilliard during the 1973-

74 season. The resignation of KÇjrers in July 1973 led Woodman to resign his post at Juilliard and work full-time in Chicago,"^ Woodman soon made evident his ambitions to move the Goodman into the top ranks of

American regional theatre and to expand its horizons in other ways.

For the first production of his season Woodman had traveled to

Ireland and secured the rights for the American premiere of Brian Friel's

The Freedom of the City. The response from critics and audiences was highly favorable, attendance records were broken, and the Goodman received national publicity when the production traveled to Washington's

Kennedy Center and to Broadway, The next production had been lined up

^Art Institute of Chicago F Ai d Annual Henortt 1972-73, pp. 22-25,

3Interview with John Economos, Chicago, 12 January 1981, 119 for some time; it was A Doll's House directed by Tormod Skagestad of the Norwegian State Theatre, The conventional staging drew large audiences and adequate reviews; while controversy was the watchword of the third production* Sam Shepard's The Tooth of Crime, The efforts of director Michael Kahn and actor Robert LuPone shocked some subscribers, pleased many critics, but did not draw the expected young audiences.

The dud of the season was To Be Young. Gifted and Blackt the attempt to attract black audiences backfired due to terrible reviews. Woodman then staged Henry IV. though it received mixed notices it was "an important and significant show . . . it gave Goodman a sense of high purpose and distinctive identity, both of which it sorely needed," according to one critic,^ Once again in the final slot was a musical,

Guys and Bolls, directed by Gene Lesser, Even though this play did not have an extended run it set a new box-office record, euid income for

the MalnStage series hit a new high. The Artists and Bance series also did well, with five attractions; the students of the Goodman staged a

total of eighteen productions in the Children's Theatre, Studio and

Workshop programs.^

In October 1974 the fifth annual Joseph Jefferson awards ("Jeff") which honor outstanding theatre work in Chicago, were announced. It was a Goodman sweep— best productions, direction, actor in a musical,

scenic design and costumes,^ The 1974—75 MainStage season also got off

^Christiansen, "Good news year at the Goodman," Chicago Daily News. 18-19 May 1974, P* 2 (Panorama),

^AIC Annual Reuortt 1975-74. p, 21,

^Christiansen, "Goodman's Freedom tops Jeff awards," Chicago Daily News. 15 October 1974* sec, 2, p, 19, 120 to a good start, with Brian Murray's staging of The Cherry Orchard garnering splendid notices. Next came the American premiere of Edward

Bond's The Sea directed by Woodman which received one "yay" and two

"nays" from the Chicago newspaper critics. The Goodman decided to participate in a pilot project involving the exchange of regional theatre productions; the 1974-75 entry was McCarter Theatre's

(Princeton) 'Tis Pity She's A Whore directed by Michael Kahn, about which 7 one critic wrote a review entitled "dated gore is a modern bore." The fourth work was Christopher Eampton's The Philanthropist directed by

Michael Montel; the critics cheered and the Midwest premiere production moved to Washington's National Theatre. The Goodman introduced Brecht's

The Resistable Else of Arturo Ui to Chicago audiences and their interest in the allegory of Chicago gangsters and Hitler's rise to power broke box-office records. The season closed with Feydeau's Chemin de Fer: for the first time critics mentioned thematic unity in a Goodman season, Q discerning the examination of decadent societies in Woodman's choices.

The season was later lauded by the "Jeff" award committee with two acting 9 awards, two design awaxJs aind the best production award.^

Woodman had decided that the Goodman should go beyond the

MainSiage series, so he launched the alternative Stage 2 in 1974.

^Roger Dettmer, Chicago Tribime. 8 January 1975, sec. 5, P* 6, O Bettmer, "Finally the Goodman fulfills an 18*^ear-old promise,” Chicago Tribune. 16 Ifey 1975, sec. 6, pp. 4-5* o Bettmer, "Goodman, Forum dominate Jeff awards," Chicago Tribune. 21 October 1975, sec. 3, P. 2. 121

It vas conceived as a showcase for experimental works staged hy theatre professionals from the Chicago area. Woodman called upon his former student at Juilliard, Gregory Mosher, to coordinate the series, and secured funding from the Illinois Arts Council* The not—ready—for—

MainStage plays and artists were presented in the lobby, rehearsal room and studio of the Goodman; critics and audiences were pleased by the three world and one American premiere works

The 1975-76 season was one of celebration; it was the fiftieth year of operation of the Goodman and the nation's bicentennial* Woodman selected plays which commemorated America and its theatre, and the fWnStage season opened on a festive note with an anniversary dinner and the production of Our Town. Thornton Wilder's work, staged by

George Keathley, garnered glowing reviews, record attendance and six

"Jeff" award nominations.^^ Next came Robert Lowell's Benito Cereno with uneomplimentary notices, aiui Woodman's version of Mourning Becomes

Eleotra. which was considered "still stupendous," "done with staggering 12 beauty, " and "far from memorable" by Chicago's top critics. The Last

Meeting of the Knights of the White Magnolia, part of a Preston Jones trilogy, was the fourth production; followed by the world premiere of

Israel Horvitz's Our Father's Failing and the season finale, Shaw's

The Devil's Disciple directed by Woodman, All three were viewed as uneven inroductiens and the initial attendance gains were not sustained.

Annual Reportt 1974-75. p. 26.

^^AIC Annual Report: 1975-76. p. 26, 12 Christiansen, Chicago Daily News. 9 January 1976, p. 24; Linda Winer, Chicago Tribune. 9 January 1976, sec. 3, p, 3; Glenna Syae, Chicago Sun-Times. 9 January 1976, p. 2 (Show). 122

Despite the varying response Woodman considered it "consistently the

strongest season in my three years here • . • because no play fell below acceptable professional standards,

The Stage 2 series opener was Chicago playwri^t David Mamet's

American Buffalo, directed by Mosher. The production was praised

highly and played to large audiences, and Mosher's staging traveled to

New York, Adaptations of fifteenth century Chinese fables. Three Plays

of the Yuan Dynasty, followed; the critics found the production charming

but the works trivial. In the third slot was a double-bill of

Heathcote Williams* The Local Stigmatic and Sam Shepard's Chicago.

lauded by all and prompting Christiansen to write "with [these plays]

Stage 2 reasserts itself as an important, vital force of contemporary

theatre in Chicago, , , , if Stage 2 continues at this pace it may well

give Goodman's MainStage a run for the money in artistic honors,"^

Woodman's staging of Dandelion Wine received mixed notices, broke box-

office records and went on a tour of Illinois, A double-bill closed the

series : Janet L, Neipris ' Statues and The Bridge at Belharbour directed

by Mosher and tolerated by critics. Stage 2 had managed to retain its

spirit of experimentation and willingness to be inconsistent while

becoming respectable, with continued support from the Illinois Arts

Council, a substantial subscription audience and a move to a real

auditorium,

^^Quoted in Christiansen, "Goodman Theatre is alive and— er, well," Chicago Daily News. 5 June 1976, p, 5 (Panorama),

^ " 8tags 2 soars with 2 short plays," Chicago Daily News. 30 January 1976, p, 31*

^^AIC Annual Reporti 1973-76. p, 26, 125

Offstage, 1976-77 vas a season of considerable administrative turmoil; onstage there was a hodgepodge of works and sly les, to which the critics and audiences bad mixed reactions, Two popular successes.

Design for Living and Richard III contributed substantially to the record-breaking box-office revenues. The season opened with Noel

Coward's Design for Living, given a stylish presentation by Woodman.

The critics were divided on George Keathley's staging of A Long Day's

Journey Into Night and on The Show-Off. George Kelly's 1924 comedy directed by Gene Lesser, In the fourth slot was Richard III directed by Woodman, which was accorded two raves and one ho-hum notice by the

Chicago critics, David Rabe's Streamers, directed by Mosher, sparked controversy among critics and audiences but held its own at the box- office through substantial single-ticket sales. The season closed with

Christopher Hampton's version of Moliere's Don Juan: the critics were not enthusiastic about Woodman's slapstick staging,Critics were concerned about the discrepancies between the works, the styles of execution chosen, and the production values; apparently they felt that the artistic talent available at the Goodman was being abused, 17 engendering flawed and uneven productions.

Stage 2 thrived in 1976-77, with over 1200 subscribers, five premiere productions and several tours. The first production was

Sizwe Banzi Is Dead written by three South Africans and staged by Mosher,

The work was well-received in an extended Chicago run, traveled around

^^AIC Annual Reportt 1976-77, p. 22. 17 'Glenna Syse, "A blank dotted line for this production," Chicago Sun-Times. 7 January 1977, p« 45» 124 Illinois and to Philadelphia, and received three "Jeff" awazrds, including beet production# The next arrival was Ann Jellicoe's The

Snort of My Mad Mother with excellent notices ; then another episode in the Mosher-David Mamet collaboration— the world premiere of the letter's A Life in the Theatre. This production was loudly endorsed by record-breaking audiences and major national critics and traveled

to New York. Peter Handke's Kasnar was regarded favorably as an

"engrossing" production, while George Jean Nathan in Revue by Sidney X8 Eden slipped away quietly. Some changes in operation were made in response to rulings by Actor's Equity regarding actors' contracts and a "New Playwri^ts Project"*^^

1977 was an important year for the Goodman Theatre— in January

it was announced that production and funding responsibilities would be

shifted from the Art Institute of Chicago to the Chicago Theatre

Group, Inc., a new not-for-profit corporation organized by the

leaders of the museum's committee concerned with the theatre. Then .the

June Woodman announced his resignation, effective in July 1978; in

September Stage 2 coordinator Mosher was named artistic director.

Onstage the 1977-78 season opened with Shaw's Saint Joan, starring

lynn Redgrave and directed by her husband John Clark. Critic Linda

Winer found the production "two-thirds clunky old well-intentioned

Goodman and one-third the best of what we hope to get from our major

regional theatre. . . . not terrible . . . just ordinary, . . . but it

^^AIC Annual Report 1 1976-77. p. 22.

^^Winer, "Stage 2 and Equity," Chicago Tribune. 17 January 1976, sec, 2, p. 10. 125 PO was an attention-getter. " The Sea Gnll. directed by Mosher was next, receiving mixed notices, A book of oral histories by Chicago writer

Studs Terkel was transformed by director Stephen Schwartz and various composers into the musical Working. The Goodman world premiere production was praised for its concept and performances, but the lack of polish and cohesion noted by Chicago critics apparently remained when it opened on Broadway, closing after a short run. In the fourth slot was Much Ado About Nothing directed by Woodman, which traveled to

Princeton's McCarter Theatre. George Keathley returned to stage

The Might of the Iguana to uncomplimentary reviews, and the season finale was Simon Gray's Otherwise Engaged. Woodman's last directorial undertaking at the Goodman, The Goodman presented a week-long "New

Plays Festival" which took place at the Chicago Cultural Center ; participants in the seven staged readings included prominent Chicago 21 directors and critics as well as professional actors. In January

1978 Stage 2 opened with David Halliwell's Bail Scrawdvke. praised for

its performances but chided for the loss of its British essence,

Annulla Allen was a one-woman show written from the reminiscences of

Mrs, Allen by Emily Mann; it was deemed charming but slight, Ifosher's

direction of David Freeman's Battering Ram was lauded for its power,

and Prague Spring by Lee Kalcheim closed the season.

The 1978-79 J&inStage season, Mosher's first, included three world premieres of American plays, two m o d e m classics and the revival

20 "New Goodman stages a mixed St, Joan. Chicago Tribune. 50 September 1977, sec, 2, p, 5, 21 Goodman Theatre Tg t I Annual Resort: 1977-78. pp. 5, 11, 126 of Richard Wright's Native Son, The latter was staged hy Mosher as the season opener, receiving lavish praise on all sides and playing to capacity houses. It was followed by A Christmas Cayni. adapted by

Barbara Field for the Guthrie Theatre (Minneapolis), Chicagoans fell in love with its heart-warming holiday spirit and the lavish production 22 values ; the sets and costumes were honored with "Jeff" awards,

Two-Part Inventions by Richard Howard was the third production, pleasing the critics but limping at the box-office due to fierce winter weather.

Playwright John Guare asked the Goodman to produce the world premiere of his Bosoms and Neglect before it played on Broadway; the script, the staging by Mel Shapiro and the performances of Kate Reid, Marian Mercer and Paul Rudd garnered effusive critical and popular acclaim. Next came

Philip Barry's Holiday, a stylish light-hearted romp enjoyed by critics and audiences. The season ended with Mosher's staging of David Mamet's

Lone Canoe or tbm T?hm1orer. which had the misfortune to premiere during a national drama critics convention in Chicago; the play's shortcomings were trumpeted throughout the country, Mosher continued to coordinate

Stage 2 and directed the initial 1978-79 offering, TkiicrAs by Slawomir

Mrozek, The reviews were mixed, as were those of Sam Shepard's

Curse of the Starving Class, staged by Robert Falls, a noted Chicago

"off—Loop" director. The last Stage 2 production was Scenes and

Revelations written by Elan Garonzik and directed by Betsy Carpenter,

Mosher's assistant. The performances were presented in the auditorium of the Latin School of Chicago on the Near North side, Mosher wanted to

^^inor, "Jeffs reward Chicago theatre," Chicago Tribune, 23 October 1979, sec, 2, p. 6, 127 integrate experimentation into the fW.nStage series, thus the need for

Stage 2 was diminished. Goodman management decided to use the newly- refurbished Studio Theatre for the "alternative" productions, feeling that they could return to the original Stage 2 concept of flexibility 25 and informality.

The 1979-80 MainStage season opened with Death and the King's

'ffoTsemftn by Nigerian playwrigjht Wole Soyinka, Mosher had negotiated for two years to secure the rights and to engage Soyinka as director, and his hard work paid off handsomely. The tragedy and spectacle of the challenging work were enthusiastically received by critics and audiences, which included many new patrons. The production moved to the Kennedy

Center and was greeted with vigorous applause. The second production was a revival of the crowd—pleasing A Christmas Carol, sponsored by the

Chicago Sun—Times and attracting audiences from all over, Mosher then directed Arthur Miller's adaptation of Ibsen's An Eaemv of the People and was praised for his sensitive handling but critics harshly reproached the script. The Goodman production traveled to Annenberg Center

(Philadelphia) after the Chicago run, Richard Nelson's Dal was next, staged by Mosher and judged by critics as unbalanced— superbly produced yet essentially a flop in the eyes of critic Syse,^^ The theatre scored big with the delights of Lanford Wilson's Talley's Folly, directed by

Marshall W, Mason, which moved to a Chicago commercial theatre following its Goodman engagement. "A rousing conclusion to Goodman

^^Interview with Roche Schulfer, Chicago, 7 January 1981.

^^"Bal is one huge contradiction," Chicago Sun-Times. 7 March 1980, p, 58, 128 aeason"^^ was Cvrano de Bergerac directed by Michael Maggie, which received admiring reviews for its ambitious, dynamic staging.

For the first time in fifty years the Studio Theatre housed a professional product!on--«. revival of David Mamet's A Life in the Theatre. staged by Mosher, The work was welcomed by critics and audiences, and was viewed as a fitting opening of the Goodman alternate stage.

Subsequent presentations in the Studio during the 1979-80 season were not produced by the Goodman; these included Kukla and Ollie Live! created by puppeteer Burr Tilstrom, Beckett Directs Beckett; Kraup's Last

Tape, and juggling act The Flying Karamazov Brothers. The Beckett work was staged by the San Quentin Drama Workshop and critics found it 26 "rewarding . . . a stellar performance." Under the sponsorship of the

Goodman Beckett and the Workshop staged Krapp's Last Tape and Endgame

(its first presentation in English) in London, Dublin and Edinburg in the summer of 1980,^^

Mosher believes in structuring a season thematically; for the 1980-

81 I%inStage series he expressed his interest in "the way in which those people [ of more human stature] search for something of lasting value in pfi a world changing at a mindboggling pace." The Soviet Union after the

Syse, "Cyrano full of passion, power, poetic pulse," Chicago Sun Times. 30 May I960, sec, 2, p, 15, 26 Syse, "Flawless beat of Beckett's distant drummer," Chicago Sun Times. 11 January I960, sec. 2, p. 18.

^^GT Annual Report; 1979-80. p. 3. 20 Gregory Mosher, "Welcome to the 1980-81 season at Goodman," Goodman Theatre program of The Suicide. October 1980, p. 4, 129 Revolution provided the setting for Nikolai Erdman's The Suicide, directed hy Mosher from an adaptation by Richard Nelson, The critics thou#it it tolerable, noting the uneven acting and direction as well as the good design, A Christmas Carol had become the official holiday offering, warming the hearts of Chicagoans and filling the coffers of the Goodman,

In the third slot was Harold Pinter's Betrayal, a love triangle chronicled in reverse. The critics were entranced: " it is a pleasure to see - a thoughtful, thoroughly polished production that imaginatively adds color and resonance to a spare, fascinating play" 29 and it was also a popular success, Mosher stepped in to direct David Hare's Plenty when the author became unavailable. Jack Kroll of Newsweek found it "a big, excitingly intelligent production"'^ and was impressed with the state of the

Goodman; local critics also gave the show admiring notices. In the fifth slot was a tale of Trinidad and revolution, Mustapha Matura's Play Mast it was a box-office success. The previously announced Rip van Winkle or the Works by Richard Nelson was not sufficiently complete and has been rescheduled for the 1981-82 season,In its place was the world premiere of Michael Weller's Dwarfman, Master of a Million Shapes.

This bright and goofy mix of comic book fantasy. New York reality, and mid-life crisis delighted audiences and many critics, closing the

Goodman's fifty—fifth season on an upbeat note.

29 Christiansen, "Goodman doesn't betray Pinter's romantic drama," Chicago Tribune. 26 January 1981, sec, 2, p. 6, 50 Jack Kroll, "From England with Fury," Newsweek. 23 March 1981, p, 82. 51 Interview with Katherine Murphy, Chicago, 12 June 1981. 130 There was Increased activity in the Studio Theatre in the 1980-81 season, starting with four productions in three months during the fall

of I960, The San Quentin Drama Workshop returned with Beckett's

Kraup's Last Tape and Endgame. Emily Mann staged her docu-^ama on the aftereffects of the Vietnam war Still Life; it was panned by the critics.

In their search for new works Mosher and his associates had learned that playwright Tennessee Williams was considering production alternatives to

Broadway; in the fall of 1980 Williams accepted an invitation to work at

the Goodman, He brou^t three one-^ct plays. The Frosted Glasc Coffin.

A Perfect Analysis Given by a Parrot and Some Problems for the Moose

Lodge and stayed in Chicago to aid director Gary Tucker in their staging.

The critics were fairly supportive, appreciating Williams ' motives for

working at the Goodman. At Christmastime Kukla and Ollie Live! returned with Burr Tillstrom to the delight of audiences and critics. Running

in April was Williams' expanded version of Some Problems for the Moose

Lodge, re titled A House Not Meant to Stand, Avner the Eccentric visited

the Studio in June 1981, and the Flying Karamazov Brothers return became

a Goodman spoiMored presentation at Chicago's Apollo Theatre Center,

This exchange program will be reversed when outside producers present

comedienne Lily Tomlin on the Goodman MainStage in July 1981.

Goodman productions in the past ten years have little in common,

but they can be characterized by the striving toward excellence in

conception and execution, and by a diversity of work and response. 131

I

M 1

§ 1 1 & 1 f I 1 1 1" 1 1 z -g Z z: I U ? 1 uJ uJ üJ a1 d 1 5 d d d ü 11 I I [£ ÜL 1 I O I e- I I IÎ Î1 5 I I I

ÎI I f I (C I I 8 1 1 II t

1 1 ir 11 je â II I I I I II S I

I 5 ^ £ Î ïll ï| £ i 1 X 6 ë I 1 II l u I

IL i I X I SS B i g ^sll 132

I I

<3 X |j .9> £ I I IL 5 U- 11, mt I ■§ IÛ£. t ■g *o s I S 11 c II § I I ï I " 3 a II S IÎ II

§ II I I j I üII g g ! I Té g 1 £■ ; I og 4 12 1 o w î g X I I' t I !l 1 a. ï

1 g

B 1(M UJ É UJ (A lu i Il I il 133

I I S' S i g I i Ô (3 5; 6 S 5 .s 6 I I I I 1 1 t I I 5 £ â & & CÛf CÛf I 1 1 E I K :S ii I II 2 5 8 a i i I I I I 1 1 u I I I I 1 I I 2 g 2 r IÎ I fill I If l i l t il I & I if 1 ,3t i3 l5 I ill ■8 I g3: g I t 3 S' Ç S' I I o 4 as 5 V Î I III 0 11I o 1I S I £ £■ b Î ÿj 1 If Is 6 ■5 ■=- Î s I If 1 I ll I

t 5l B P i ll ! III lit 134

Ç Ck

Hf E 5m f

Ü z; f s I V) V A V II V I I g 1 1 5 I H 1 1 ÜL g â i I t taf mt 1 = ■g I I I ll I I ÙL I I i I -) I li iJ is :2 8 I I I I _ a I 1 I 11 I J s 2 Ë i I ■o ■O 1 iiH îil II 6 I I £■ I 11 iO I I I f I II S

I ? g! KIl M ï ÏÜ i 135

I IS

{J g 6 I I Im

g .% S ÿ 4 g 1

§

11 o i s g- I H i T3

5 l| h ^II g 1 g i % ^ "2 s

g# 136

01 s (D 1111 ! g T) III" z0) tü n3 0 i i 1 1 h4 -f JI ô u i£6 1 ê s1 1 £ •Oeu f—I XiI 01 01 nj CO uJ cfl 4-J (%) ■ d I II I

5- 8 ï

I i

§ 5 0 Ib ï I ti : 1 1 I i s iSÎSS AP P E N D I X 2 ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE GOODMAN THEATRE/ CHICAGO THEATRE GROUP, INC.

CD IE ID O O

fcrrmir 138

is

■6 I! ililililîl Ijflflfiill'Ifisllllillsilli:iisfiiiiiiii

i : g IS

B 139

U M i m I

III (I illllBrillllllll l a

iJiflfelM SI fill #

| k 4 5 .1 1 1 t H | 0) I I s I . g" I I! I £ Q . iS CM i f «>11 | l fill ISi If If i r f I I 13 I ë I I g 1 Ifli 140

y ill

B

» 1111

É « r il

IA â i

• î j i i i 141

O) ?«S;S SggEC g II 11:1 I: ë CL 3 2 0

1 I

15 8. Il II •Fil ilO S*l If

0 ç CL 1 0 f (■B 1 I I* lu i§ ü 142

III

mm i f l i

mu- il m 143

III j

IK j

CM 144

I; S

I tfiE-EM'ZIC ‘£0909 *louim 'o&Bîmo «AUQ«nqUJnTO mnogOOZ

0 j ) e e m i e m 145

il Il 111È i

9 @ e

f 111 H f L i i î 111 -îlti PO I- L/) lO I 11lii 146

fe j i l C, ♦XT. f:' « i i i I l i l l O = ^ IliJ â i iiii S

t'5 I jjjl % s y i | ^ !i 3 & ^ 1 f l l i" Æ-S |t£ #ia%f=C S-S ïllîlllllijai ill i i 111 J *îH

fc:0

© © 0 5 147

Vft

!'d i iîll* iTÎlfîîlîJîill liitirllljl îîfüHÎ! [Ht «t tiîîiîp Jîlî

(A C o Io JÎ V c -u ^ s |ï|i

iWi'u ^ F '

sîïi^t 148

Ii

II

WM 1I 1ÎI hî? 41m U

y

II !Jl ■■ ■ -- U l

II

III

@ 0 SO 149

m |g ^ E'S; iiiiiiSI Ê P. m f s=“‘s Bjs; I liiiili

§;|' si É i l is # M l #

V s g g, ë§ R| II I S g tS Cig-' 11' ill V! p. s i■ Is I 2 S I S’ R I il s s* 150

tO

îi i l Js R ii . ii’llffliiili ililiililîijiilS I i! V < IR iy îllîîs lilîî

îaJ muiiuùimuéiiiiiimiûimii

m i i m lillB iiy iiiiië liii 151

E ID O O O 152

m m m n ü 153

m n m

v m u iirillil i m 154

I

IHÎ iSlll *0 f i

i î l M l H i

M

§ I 155

liijlirti .=55 SS I I S = F RE g I n I il;|{I iililii; flr -71 IIII I ill ^ I. %. I e.s i.i lifllllli; il

Î Î i Ï i l l I Hill I III Ï I#)! i l l # I I HI

P u u i i i J A m m i m

.ill liJiS'E iiyiriiiii i

111 I ii

i i P l f 156

[iplé HikiiiimiiiiiUni illjîJrsÜ. B9 t II i iUiU-éiièié

? ifidù??

? ii I iiîliîM Iiliîi I l i H ü m i

||l|| liifl»gs tiii I I h IIs m iliiilli L*lt! I

l a l l l i y 157

îîliilîlïyliyiËiÉililHIli

iiiümm

u n wi m l m IPIHI

VAPA

î M n r

PB(X< APPENDIX 3

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE CHICAGO THEATRE GROUP, INC.

CHICAGO THEATRE GROUP. INC.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

JUNE 3 0 . 1979 AND 1978

YA^Iiiiouse 158 159

200 EAST RANDOLPH DRIVE chicaqo.illinois eoeoi ^erhouse&Ca 312-565-1500

A ugust 15, 1979

To the Board of Directors of

Chicago Theatre Group, Inc.

In our Opinion, the accompanying balance sheets and the related statements of activity and entity capital and of changes in financial position present fairly the financial position of the Chicago Theatre Group, Inc. at June 30, 1979 and 1978, and the results of its operations and the changes in its financial position for the years then ended, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied. Our exami­ nations of these statements were made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, and accordingly included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.

Our examinations were made primarily for the purpose of forming our opinion on the financial statements, taken as a whole. We also examined the supplementary information, presented on pages 7 to 8, inclusive, by similar auditing procedures. In our opinion, the supplementary information is stated fairly in all material respects in relation to the financial statements, taken as a wholt. Although not essential for a fair presentation of financial position, results of operations and changes in financial position, this information is submitted as additional data. 160

CHICAGO THEATRE GROUP. INC.

BALANCE SHEETS

June 3 0 , Assets 1979 1978

Current assets; Cash 5 68,514 5 30,431 Certificates of deposit, at cost 400,000 100,000 Marketable securities, at cost which approximates market 18,201 5,000 Accounts receivable from the Arc Institute of Chicago (Note J) 150,893 260,742 Grants receivable from the National Endowment for the Arts (Note 4) 37,635 Ocher receivables 26,740 18,544 Prepaid expenses, principally for the 1979/1980 play season 73.146 59.501 Total current assets 737,494 661,853 Honeurrenc pledges receivable (Mote 2): Unrestricted 251,307 279,735 Restricted 20,000 - Equipment, at cost, net of accumulated depreciation of 56,416 and $1,023, respectively (Note 2) 27,562 17,392 Deposit required under union contract 26.000 26.000 -S995.46P

Liabilities and entity capital

Current liabilities; Accounts payable S 97,010 S 57,896 Deferred subscription revenue (Note 2) 298,694 347,854 Deferred restricted grant (Note 5) 45.000 Total current liabilities 440,704 405,750 Deferred contribution revenue (Note 2); Unrestricted 251,307 279,735 Restricted 20.000 Total liabilities 712,011 685,485 Entity capital 350.352 299.995

2 1 .062.363____ $ 9 1 3 .

See Notes to Financial Statements.

• 2 - 161

CHICAGO THKATHE CHUUP. INC.

STATEMENTS OF ACTIVITY AflP ENTITY CAPITA!.

Year enJrd Junu 30, 1979 1-i/M

UnrtaCrlctcd Rea trlccui) Î2 Ç .0 J . Toc.il iL'nrestr * u Revenue and tnipporc tor opuraclons: Individual and group ticket sales 3 307,571 5 307.571 S 338. 7 16 Subscription Income 636,756 636.756 5.18. Ai)-) Total admissions Income 944,327 944.327 J .'.

Interest and dividends 37.007 37.007 8.41L Concessions 9.413 9,410 I1.7A9 Miscellaneous 30.576 30.576 35.0V) MEA and other operating grants 107.000 107.000 8 7.500 1.128.320 1.128,320 1.S77. l'i 6 Expenses :- Direct expenses of producing plays : Artistic 506.684 506.684 518.4.15 Advertising 81,266 81,266 .86.5)3 Production 202,649 202.649 1:4.8 :; 790.599 790.599 749.895 General artistic 66,343 66,343 68.14 3 General production 185,932 185.932 135.915 General and administrative 403,987 403.987 351 . .'29 Subscriptions 98,942 98,942 101.32 7 Stage 2 52.090 52.090 73.929 Total expenses 1.507.893 1. 597.893 1.480.9 29 Deficiency from operations (469.573) (469.573) (403.34)) Public support: Contributions 407,713 407.713 306.647 NEA Hatching Grant 200.000 Subsidy from Art Institute of Chicago (Note 3) 200.000 200.000 300.000 Fund-raising costs (85.210) (85.210) '102.784, 522.503 522.503 703.358

Theater renovation (Mote 6): Contributions SI 65.000 165,000 Renovation costs (2.573) (165.000) (167.573) (2,573) . . (2.5731 Excess of revenues over expenses 50.357 50.357 299.9)5 Entity capital : Beginning of period 299.995 299.995 End of period S 350.352 S ..S 350.352 S 299.(15

See Notes to Financial Statements.

3 - 162

CHICAGO THEATRE GROUP. INC.

STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION

For the year ended June 30.

1979 1978

Financial resources were provided by? Excess of revenues over expenses $50,357 $299,995 Add - Item not requiring working capital depreciation 5.393 1,023 Working capital provided by operations 55,750 301,018 (Decrease) increase in deferred contribution revenue (8,428) 279,735 Total 47,322 580.753

Financial resources were used for : (Decrease) increase in noncurrent pledges receivable (8,428) 279,735 Acquisition of equipment 15,063 18,915 Deposit required under union contract 26.000 Total 6,635 324.650 Increase in working capital $40,687 $256,103

Changes in Components of Working; Capital

Increase (decrease) in current assets: Cash $ 38,083 $ 30,431 Certificates of deposit and marketable securities 213,201 200,000 Accounts receivable (189,288) 371,921 Prepaid expenses 13,645 59.501 75,541 661.853

(Increase) decrease in current liabilities; Accounts payable (39,114) (57,896) Deferred subscription revenue 49,160 (347,854) Deferred restricted grant (45.000) (34.954) (405.750) Increase in working capital S 40.687 .$256,103

See Notes to Financial Statements.

- 4 - 163

CHICAGO THEATRE GROUP. INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

JUNE 30. 1979 AND 1978

NOTE 1 - NATURE OF ORGANIZATION:

The Chicago Theatre Group, Inc. (CTG) is an Illinois not-for-profit corporation established for the purpose of promoting interest in the theatre arts in Chicago. During the year ended June 30, 1979, the CTG*8 activities included the production of six main stage plays and three plays on stage 2.

NOTE 2 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOll^TlHfi POLICl'EgTT

For financial statement purposes, CTG has applied the following policies :

Basis of reporting:

Revenue and expenditures are accounted for on the accrual basis.

Admission revenue:

Ticket sales are recorded as admission revenue on a specific performance basis. Subscriptions for the coming play season are shown as deferred subscription revenue in the balance sheet.

Contributions :

Enforceable pledges are recorded as a noncurrent receivable (at their net realizable value) and deferred contribution revenue in the year the promise to contribute is received. The pledges are recog­ nized as contribution income in the year CTG has the right to receive the cash.

Capital expenditures and depreciation;

Fixed asset additions are recorded at cost and are depreciated over their estimated useful life on a straight-line basis.

- 5 164

NOTE 3 - AGREEMENT WITH THE ~A!tT IK5TITUTE OP CHICAGO"'

Under an agreement with the Art Institute of Chicago (AlC), CTG will present six plays a year at the Goodman Theatre for three years commencing with the 1977/1978 play season. CTG will not be charged by AIC for the use of the Goodman Theatre, adjoining office space, and maintenance and utilities. The value of these offices and services is not reflected in the accompanying financial statements, as no objective basis is available to measure the value of such services.

The agreement further states that AIC will provide CTG with a subsidy of $600,000 during the first three years of operation ($300,000, $200,000 and $100,000 in years ending June 30, 1978, 1979, and 1980, respectively). In addition, the proceeds from all ticket and program sales must be deposited with AIC, which will pay CTG the proceeds within one month.

NOTE 4 - GRANTS FROM NATIONAL ENDOWMENT fOR THË ART?8 ;

During the years ended June 30, 1979 and 1978, CTG was awarded grants of $79,500 and $75,000, respectively, from the National Endow­ ment for the Arts (NEA) to support the administrative and advertising costs of the main stage and Stage 2 productions. In addition, during the year ended June 30, 1978, CTG was awarded a matching grant of $200,000 from the NEA to support operating expenses and initiate an endowment-like reserve. CTG attained the requirements of the matching grant and recorded the grant as unrestricted revenue during the year ended June 30, 1978.

NOTE 5 - RESTRICTED GRANT FROM CBS, INC.;

In May, 1979, CTG received a two-year grant of $90,000 from CBS, Inc. for the purpose of establishing a young people’s dramatic workshop taught by theatre professionals. The funds received through June 30, 1979 have been recorded as a deferred restricted grant at June 30, 1979 and will be recognized as revenue when the costs of operating the workshop are incurred in future fiscal years.

NOTE 6 - THEATRE RENOVATIONS:

During the year ended June 30, 1979, the Art Institute of Chicago (AIC) began renovation of the Goodman Theatre lobby at a cost of approximately $355,000. CTG has agreed to raise funds for this renovation and contribute to AIC one half of this cost. During the year ended June 30, 1979, CTG incurred $167,573 in lobby renovation costs (principally contributions to AIC under the above agreement) and raised $165,000 in restricted contributions for lobby renovation.

- 6 - — \.o rs.

C'J O r-^ CM rj r-H 01 O CM fM r*l r*H vO Oj; O AO GO 00 m CM Ul « 0\ O ON O GO m CM CO i-H VO to

00 m o CO ul fl O'* O ul O m \o CM ul vo m Ul X CD Cl Ul ON Ul CM O GO 1-4 o r~ f—* CM O 04 i-H

O tn VI 00 O O n rs. irt CT> X* \f> m Ul 00 X. *Lf VO ON IT* C"- v£) X c 4-i m O i/1 VD vo o n o V m o Cl r*k m CM O OJ (U »-H )H u X to- 1 <0 to \o o vO ul 1— 1 CM O n OJ (d U) to u u o> 0. -H >3-101 8 T3 CO tf> •rH Æ t O ifH (U z U W o (A1-H c u #—1 o o a & 0\ CM i-H ri CM VO â c g BQ 2 X m w a o. O 02 =) < / > 02 1—1 X X» X X X X o o f—ito #—*(0 J—I<0 m-4cti (d #—4to o r-H n . c w to tr* 2 U3 O w X . o > < U4 w o > tn O' ON r-. o o 02 a: O O \C ul O Ul 00 U l H-1 E- o\ cr* O Ul r-H X. s Lk X » « a. o O s to O' m CM Ul o o f—« \ 0 VO O* t-H CM rn u . O h 2: H W tAOf to G w Q> 0) w c e* ê •Ho a w 4J S 5 ‘ I w U w •rW (A OJ w c E 01 IH c a o •o CO AO > X r-H «0 c c c *o OJ ^ t o 4-1 0) •H o 3 a Ck o W ♦H X rH •H U to *W 01Ü) •* 'H ki OJ 4J W U u O W CJ > O tA U 3 o C D W H U *H OJ *o E-i (A 01 c -o ^ a w > O CA W C 0 OJ M -o u > M CO W < C Ck 01 & V •H O « K Q tS r w O r a O —rivJ f /» O • I 9 «0 O •À» * • a it ^ > - « «» J- '-4 7» O IÏ* J: -it-. 166 “Ii

nO.HOru.f oOrnCriiH «0 •4 C»»H ' -* -4 o « f o a »x «* «4*>4i4 4* 90 I—»«"- ^ «m —» — r« O fa ^ vO H *H f. r« J I—, rf' w. "%) kf" w\ fH IN* o *' T) ; n #* wi M 4^ *n : » & >\ “?3Ï “?rsi

!, ou 4# V» <* #". « O uJ ^ • 4 » e- > «)^>-r^4««s4vaia fw *" f «0 (*"«»'- —46 —I«H JCV- .f4» ^ — fH 4*100 f- 4C 4■3SÏ s

«0 <0 «0 fH ^ ^ ^ „r4 V« s; r> rn fN «4 ro .,4 40 O rw f > ao ^ «H ,f f.

<4 -SS oreoos ssE

ii II II

ii Si •5

SI

Ll tô f-s:! i3« i li.i il Ï - i l i .. sl «T> «U ** ■*'•1*0—«ft cÇ # & ko g #II w MP a ^:tîfï::;s‘g-ë;.Ê-: o w w c g w #-4 *— #tÆ #,-t :ij :-aiï--v2=»& *,WÊ.«*4o34a# >>i«B«o»«Ba.«r-ceo.*jio— M U i X O f r a (hw • _ „ _ _ iî 3SS3Ui:,i.‘;.55£35i3= 3'3S33S££££3£3553 167

CHICAGO THEATRE GROUP. INC.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

JUNE 30. 1980 AND 1979

"Merhouse &ùc. 168

200 SAST RANDOLPH DR»VE X iL .C r - ______—------CHICAGO,ILLINOIS 00*01 "aterhouse ^Co>

Sepcember 24, I960

To Che Board of Directors of

Chicago Theatre Group, Inc.

In our opinion, the accompanying balance sheets and the related statements of activity and entity capital and of changea in financial position present fairly the financial position of Chicago Theatre Group, Inc. at June 30, 1980 and 1979, and the results of its operations and the changes in its financial position for the years then ended, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied. Our examinations of these statements were made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and accordingly included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.

Our examinations were made primarily for the purpose of forming an opinion on the financial statements taken as a whole. We also examined the additional information, presented on pages 8 to 9 inclusive, by similar auditing procedures. In our opinion, this additional information is stated fairly in all material respects in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. Although not necessary for a fair presentation of finan­ cial position, results of operations and changes in financial position, this information is presented as additional data. 169

CHICAGO THEATRE GROUP. INC.

BALANCE SHEETS

June 30, 1980 1979 Assets

Current assets: Cash 119,190 $ 68,514 Certificates of deposit, at cost 350,000 400,000 Marketable securities, at cost which approximates market 19,436 18,201 Account receivable from the Art Institute of Chicago (Note 3) 185,846 150,893 Grant receivable from the National Endowment for the Arts (Note 4) 95.000 Pledges and other receivables 172,922 230,227 Prepaid expenses, principally for the next play season 76.293 73.146 Total current assets 1, 018,687 940,981 Noncurrent pledges receivable (Note 2); Unrestricted 67,371 47,820 Restricted 20,000 Equipment, at cost, net of accumulated depreciation of $15,624 and $6,416, respectively (Note 2) 58.425 27,562 Deposits 28.500 26.000

,172.983 ?1 .062.363 Liabilities and entity capital

Current liabilities :- Accounts payable 8 65,686 $ 97,010 Deferred revenue; Subscription (Note 2) 474,260 298,694 Grant and contribution (Notes 2 and 4} 263,665 203,487 Restricted grant (Notes 5 and 6) 78.333 45.000 Total current liabilities 881.944 644.191 Deferred contribution and grant revenue (Notes 2 and 6): Unrestricted 52,371 47,820 Restricted 33.334 20.000 Total liabilities 967,649 712,011 Entity capital 205.334 350.352 $1.172.983 $1.062.363

See Notes to Financial Statements.

2 - 170

£ 5 Sssll 5 H R S 5 2 S S S 3 s s o 4 lA «>•>. la a «r S ! l c g is

|o ei ,, ËSV»Sw^

s 3 Jj Sisii 113 :3232Z8 =§3 s !n 3 n S 2 5 z g* is

si; 3 i i 1 1 s 3 o 5) 3S 2SS "5 E2 S

II sS *

5*^ f"! g 23 's r<« iA 0 •# r % i 1 s s 35 |S| S3: 5 5 i §S » s I I

Üt«« %gg i? S.-0 ° il ïlç £ 5g H' i 3 g a. w » >^15 = ll“ . ^lii ii' I J? s. sz: IS*S Ælii%* w u # # s -Is" s51 1^1 = ssSII 3 =gii éé e c * w a ? !.?a= JJIIlls •M AU

CHICAGO THEATRE GROUT. INC.

STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION

For Che year

1980 1979 Financial resources were provided by ; Excess (deficiency) of revenues over expenses ($145,018) $ 50,357 Add - Item not requiring working capital - depreciation 9.208 5.393 Working capital provided by (used for) operations (135,810) 55,750 Increase (decrease) in deferred contribution revenue 17.885 (211 .915) Decrease in noncurrent pledges receivable 449 211 .915 Total (117.476) 55.750 Financial resources were used for: Acquisition of equipment 40,071 15,063 Increase in deposits 2.500 Total 42.571 15.063 Increase (decrease) in working capital (9160.047) ... .?._â,9^.7

Changes in Components of Working Capital

Increase (decrease) in current assets: Cash $ 50,676 9 38,083 Certificates of deposit and market­ able securities (48,765) 213,201 Accounts receivable 72,648 14,199 Prepaid expenses 3.147 13.645 77.706 279.128 (Increase) decrease in current liabili­ ties : Accounts payable 31,324 (39,114) Deferred revenue (269.077) (199.327) (237.753) (238.441)

Increase (decrease) in working capital (9160.047) 4 . 0 . . m

See Notes to Financial Statements.

• 4 - 172

CHICAGO THEATRE GROUP. INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

JUNE 30. 1980 AMD 1979

NOTE 1 - NATURE OF ORGANIZATION;

The Chicago Theatre Group, Inc. (CTG) is an I Illinois not-for- profit corporation established for the purpose of promoting interest in the theatre arts in Chicago. During the year ended June 30, 1980, CTG's activities included the production of six main stage plays and four second stage (studio) presentations.

NOTE 2 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES-.-

For financial statement purposes, CTG has applied the following policies :

Basis of reporting;

Revenue and expenditures are accounted for on the accrual basis.

Admission revenue;

Ticket sales are recorded as admission revenue on a specific performance basis. Subscriptions for the coming play season are shown as deferred subscription revenue in the balance sheet.

Contributions ;

Enforceable pledges are recorded as a receivable (at their net realizable value) and deferred contribution revenue in the year the promise to contribute is received. The pledges are recognized as contribution income in the year CTG has the right to receive the cash.

Capital expenditures and depreciation•

Fixed asset additions are recorded at cost and are depreciated over their estimated useful life on a straight-line basis.

NOTE 3 - AGREEMENT WITH TH E ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO:

Under an agreement with the Art Institute of Chicago (AIC), CTG presented six plays a year at the Goodman Theatre for three years commencing with the 1977/1978 play season. CTG was not charged by AIC

- 5 173

for Che use of Che Goodman Theatre, adjoining office apace, and maintenance and utilities. The value of these offices and services is not reflected in the accompanying financial statements, as no objective basis is available to measure the value of such services.

The agreement further stated that AIC provide CTG with a subsidy of $600,000 during the first three years of operation ($300,000, $200,000 and $100,000 in years ending June 30, 1978, 1979, and 1980, respectively). In addition, the proceeds from all ticket and program sales were deposited with AIC, which paid CTG the proceeds within one month.

Negotiations have begun regarding the continuance of the operating agreement between AIC and CTG. Management believes an agreement will be reached and intends to continue operations at the Goodman Theatre in fiscal year 1981.

NOTE 4 - GRANTS FROM NATIONAL ENDOWMENT'EOR THË~ÂRTS:

During the years ended June 30, 1980 and 1979, CTG was awarded grants of $100,000 and $79,500, respectively, from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to support the administrative and advertising costs of the main stage and studio productions. In addition, CTG has been awarded a matching grant of $190,000 by the NEA ($95,000) and private donors ($95,000) to support operating expenses during the upcoming fiscal year 1981. CTG solicited and attained the requirements of the matching grant during the year ended June 30, 1980 and accordingly recorded the grant as current deferred revenue for the year ended June 30, 1980.

NOTE 5 - RESTRICTED GRANT FROM CBS, INC.:

In May, 1979, CTG received a two-year grant of $90,000 from CBS, Inc. for the purpose of establishing a young people's dramatic workshop taught by theatre professionals.

As of June 30, 1979, $45,000 was received and recorded as deferred restricted grant revenue. The balance of the grant was recorded as a receivable and deferred restricted grant revenue at June 30, 1980. Revenue is recognized as the costs of operating the workshop are incurred in fiscal 1980 and 1981.

NOTE 6 - RESTRICTED GRANT FROM THE ANDREW W . MELLON FOUNDATION

During the year ended June 30, 1980, CTG received a three-year grant of $100,000 from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to be used in the production of classic theatrical literature. CTG recognized $33,333 of this revenue during fiscal year 1980 to offset the costs of producing "Cyrano de Bergerac". The remainder of the funds were recorded as deferred restricted grant revenue at June 30, 1980 and

- 6 “ 174

will be recognized as revenue when the costs of producing theatrical classics are incurred in future fiscal years.

HOTE 7 - THEATRE RENOVATIONS:

During the year ended June 30, 1979, AIC began renovation of the Goodman Theatre lobby at an estimated cost of $355,000. CTG agreed to raise funds for this renovation and contribute to AIC approximately one half of the cost. During the year ended June 30, 1980, CTG incurred, as its share of the total cost, $51,196 ($167,573 in 1979) in lobby renovation costs (contributions to AIC under the above agreement) and raised $20,000 ($165,000 in 1979) in restricted contributions towards the costs. The balance of $31,196 in 1980 ($2,573 in 1979) was paid to AIC from operating funds.

NOTE 8 - RECLASSIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS:

Certain reclassifications have been made in the fiscal 1979 financial statements from amounts previously reported to conform with classifications used in the current fiscal year. Such reclass­ ifications had no effect on previously reported results of operations.

7 - Ds •—< f-4 o4 *4 m OsOO 175 so f". UA o rv. ufd sO ^ 'O *4 o < CM r- ^ OOO CM i/y

o O -4 m r~ 4 ■4 O CO (AO CM 40 T3v4 m fn go ^ CM CM CO 0 O u OQ sO CM ^ CM^4 UÎ cz> o «/> CO

CM CM (A (A o UD W CO CM go sO 40 CMO CO SO > o *.t *n O r~* O so cr CM r-4 CM •-* cn r* *A cu fW CM CM sO i/y I Os •4 OS o m CM O n T-( sO CA CM -u V Li r*. oo lA ^ O O CM m W CLÜÜ >1 - - O I Id >o lo CM 4 O soOS O CM CO 41 Ü -4 «0 CM OSf-4*A "-4 CM -Mo c f-l 0k4 4J OU cO **4 0 c M ^ «M J3O «5 >vOC V 4» U AJ L t 1 -4 «4- (Tl M>sOsO oo -J CD m CO CM O CM UA H V > U-l 4i 0 O ^ 00 o Ml o r~ CM r~ ^ tûB OJS ^ tu 41 «0> CM I-H fA CO 40 fA C w >% COTJ f-4 ^ CM oo ^ m CM —4 *»8C- w PU •4 1—4 P* 41 >H O CO OOO Xu X M M £3 -H *.4 « fC C w n) U O r~ H cd < n m 00 40 o o* U w CM CD ^ CM lA =p lU X Pu CM o oc X v> (A 04 I-) >y m Q} (d cs 4 u G o w a UJ CO OO .0,00 rs. 0« Oa CU CU Ou A« 04 Q CM #-4 CM -4 - o 5 >* o > UÜ 3 ë X oo un fO CM —« *4 4s X U, H mlA oo«4 CM *T» r* so 00 CA u o 04 > O v> 1 L l 4P > 0 « oc V 4P u a e C3 OJ 4P & > M a t g 4P > s (d U SM i-M u O o . 4P a L l > s a . TJ > s X <1 * o V c w s CO rM 4P 4P DO C 41 (d v 4 (4 (0 oO 4J LP C o 4P g 5 H W a . CL U «• -o at « 4 J Ü a t > u « M i J >«4 V ut O u w > U» 4P Ü < < 4P U iV l l OS i_i ** «* • -t • *1 f * ***.# f a «* —I a3332a3g2gzsi&3:g #«m«a fl m'« I ^ 176 «-#,** ** *# 'm « ♦*( I ;

' * * * ## *S f» I l •) Or*a^O<>4^««AP#Ju *p«» M ifaanOAP»*

■*Ao^w*»jr-r»2 ja

as

«■l ^ t> »^l-* J J * #»»vi P^*>0Ok4D-*«o o

#■* •!■*»» pe 1^ * * r» » PI .** ,* f. > a«-*or*i a r* o a -« «oso ■1^ P4 a '« o > *« u\ a pw f»4T - » P4 o a *« p* « 0 » m 8 m C i I I 5 ga II

ïs;

'i * i : .. S |g i i U ï ;3 IS.c tif £ % S3 :s M«•!*- APPENDIX 4

LETTERS AND REPORTS REGARDING

"THE IDEA OF CHANGE"

Letter 21 October 1958 From; Percy B. Eckhart Eckhart, Klein, McSwain and Campbell To: Samuel A. Marx

Last summer you received a letter from Mr. Arnold Maremont which contained a proposal relating to The Goodman Theatre. The letter was in turn forwarded to Mr. Graff who has asked me to communicate with you about this subject.

1 also acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 15th, and am happy to have this opportunity of expressing my views to you.

Mr. Maremont suggests that The Art Institute close the School of Drama and turn the operation of the Goodman Theatre over to some other organization or group of individuals. 1 believe that this proposal is objectionable on moral and legal grounds, and would result in detriment to the reputation and public relations of The Art Institute.

When in 1924, Mr. and Mrs. Goodman gave us $350,000 to build the Goodman Theatre and $150,000 to endow it ( a consider­ able sum at that date), it was their understanding, and ours, that the Art Institute would operate the Theatre and School in connection therewith as a memorial to their son who was killed in World War 1. We have not the slightest doubt as to our moral obligation as well as our legal duty in this connection. Both the Theatre and the School began operations in 1925 and have continued uninterruptedly to this time. Both Mr. and Mrs. Goodman observed the School and the Theatre in operation and approved The Art Institute’s procedure in every petrticular.

1 think you will agree that our moral obligation is clear and our legal one is equally obvious. The Art Institute, since its organization nearly eighty year ago, has never, to my knowledge, violated a trust or failed to live up to its agreement or to the provisions of any conditional gift or

177 178 bequest made to it. Certainly the Institute has been scrupulous and successful in endeavoring to fulfill all of its legal and moral obligations during the thirty-five years that I have been a Trustee.

We have just concluded litigation which went through all of the Illinois State Courts:and the Supreme Court of the United States, where the claim was made that the Trustees of The Art Institute had betrayed their trust in the handling of the income payable from the Ferguson Fund by constructing the B.F. Ferguson Memorial Building as a "monument" under the Ferguson Will. These claims were outrageous, unwarranted, and unfair, and the courts have unanimously approved the actions of The Art Institute. However, as the result of rising building costs during the period of litigation, the building has cost nearly a million dollars more than originally contemplated. During the course of this litigation The Art Institute received some very unfortunate publicity probably as the result of the Press' unfamiliarity with the legal question involved, and also as the result of a desire by certain reporters to make an unusual story by attacking the unsullied reputation of The Art Institute.

Should we now betray our obligations to Mr, and Mrs. Goodman we would, 1 think, suffer a truly serious impairment of our reputation and an additional and substantial injury by reason of the fact that prospective donors might well lose confidence in our reliability.

In addition, 1 should like to call your attention to the fact that there have been many decisions by the Park Board and at least one decision by a local court which establish beyond doubt that no one but The Art Institute can use The Art Institute premises, which are on property under the control of the Park Board.

Even if the Trustees were willing to neglect their trust responsibilities and to turn over the operation of The Goodman Theatre to others, 1 am certain that the Park Board would raise forceful and effective objections which would also be voiced by citizens who could prevent the transfer and proposed use of Art Institute trust property by injunction proceedings instituted by the Attorney General of Illinois in the Illinois Courts,

For all of these reasons and other reasons 1 believe that the proposal should not be considered further. This is my opinion on the established facts and the law, as General Counsel for The Art Institute of Chicago, and has nothing to do with the incidental fact that 1 am Chairman of the Goodman Theatre Committee. 179

Goodman-Chicago Report 20 June 1966 From; Oliver Rea To; William Hartmann, Chairman of the Art Institute of Chicago Committee on the Goodman Theatre and School of Drama

I am a theatrical manager. I have never been connected with, or for that matter, ever gone to a professional school of the theatre.

I was asked by John Reich of the Goodman Theatre to journey to Chicago to consult with members of that organization with regard to the question, "Wither the Goodman?" To my suprise, upon arrival in Chicago I found myself spending a majority of my time discussing a possible Resident Repertory Theatre for Chicago, Out of these discussions, coupled with conversations with various personnel of the Goodman, I have come to the following conclusions : 1. The Goodman cannot stand still; it cannot continue its present curriculum in the face of a rapidly changing national viewpoint toward actor training. For that matter it cannot even continue its present curriculum with the existing physical facilities. 2. From my very personal point of view there does not exist today an even satisfactory actor training program in this country. I believe this viewpoint is shared by most of working theatre professionals. Out of the hundreds, perhaps thousands of existing schools, I would rate Goodman and Carnegie Tech as the only two who meet minimum professional standards. 3. During the past two years some of us in the resident theatre movement have given the subject of actor training considerable thought and have reached the following conclusions ; A. The American actor is untrained for serious repertory. B. Until there are three or four proper actor training programs throughout the country, repertory companies will suffer with mediocrity. C. Under existing curricular, admissions and policy demands of the American university, a proper actor training program cannot take roots on the campus of the American university. D. Conversely, the ideal milieu for a proper acting program would be an independent school of acting, free from the curricular and admission binds of the university, not ham-strung by tenure and operating in close cooperation with a resident repertory company of stature. It is important to state here that the actor training program must be sufficiently financed by tuition, subsidy, endowment, foundation grants and/or a combination of all in order that its production program will not find itself in the impossible situation of creating box-office income for the survival of the school. 180

The three days in Chicago made it obvious to me that the establishment of a major resident repertory theatre is very much in the wind. That brief sojourn also made it clear that there are a number of groups, individuals, etc., who are in some way engaged in at least investigating the possible formation of a repertory theatre. Nothing could be more detrimental to the establishment of such a theatre if opposing groups were not unified under one command or committee. A theatre for Chicago would be a major effort and would require the united energies of all parties. Specifically, it would, in my mind, be absurd to consider the creation of a Chicago theatre without a close alliance with a NEW Goodman School of Theatre. And by close, I mean physically as well as organizationly [sici. This makes immense sense artistically and financially. Although the student would not, undoubtedly, participate with the theatre company until, at the very earliest, his last year at the school, he would by osmosis and proximity deeply benefit from the close association. The financial benefits of close physical proximity are obvious ; business management, bookkeeping, maintenance etc., could become a shared financial burden. I would also add that there could be a mutual sharing of teaching and artistic staff; i.e. a teacher of voice production could service both the Goodman and the proposed theatre. The salary could be shared, therefore enabling the enterprize to woo the best person available.

In the current rush of many communities to launch repertory theatres a vital factor is often forgotten. You cannot impose a theatre on a community; a successful theatre must grow from the need and demand of the community and if that theatre survives, it will in one way or another reflect the uniqueness and singularity of the community. A theatre for Chicago must in many ways express "Chicago". Conversely it cannot be merely a duplicate of Minneapolis or New York. A union of Goodman and the new theatre would be the very first step in firmly establishing an early uniqueness. It is also quite obvious that much serious thought must be given toward searching for additional uniqueness of a Chicago theatre; anybody can import the Royal Shakespeare Company to Chicago for a season but I believe that Chicago wants a bit more than that.

As to the proposed union of Goodman and a repertory theatre, let me finish with the following statement; The Lincoln Centre Repertory Company in New York will have a union with an entirely new drama school at the Juilliard School of Music. The Minnesota Theatre Company in Minneapolis has received a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation to start an independent actor training program in 1967. Both these major companies feel a deep need for the union, a need so deeply held that new theatre schools are being formed to fill the need. I personally feel that if Chicago launched a repertory theatre without a close alliance with Goodman it would quickly be seeking funds to establish their own school, or would be 181 going to Goodman, on their knees, begging for the alliance.

I would like at this time to briefly comment on the Mayor's Report for a Chicago Repertory Theatre. As I do not have a copy of this report, I comment from a cursory first reading.

Professor Izenour's belief that it is "now" possible to build a "convertible" (combining both proscenium and thrust stage) theatre to the best of my knowledge has not been proven to any responsible theatre professional. We all would welcome a convertible theatre but all of us remain convinced that ah all purpose theatre is a no purpose theatre. Jo Mielziner, the designer of the Vivian Beaumount at Lincoln Centre, is most vocal and convincing on this matter. After recent exhaustive research, the British National Theatre has decided to build first a thrust stage theatre and then, funds permitting, build a new proscenium theatre. The thrust stage is not just a current vogue. It is a permanent fixture in world theatre. It has limitations, though far fewer than the proscenium, but its limitations in most cases become its strength.

Without the Mayor's report and specific Minneapolis costs at my fingertips, it is fruitless for me to comment on the cost figures quoted in the report. An "off the top of head guess" would be that a suitable theatre would cost no less than four million dollars, exclusive of land. A three year deficit fund of $300,000 would be essential to the firm establishment of the theatre. Many of the figures quoted in the Mayor's report come from the first annual statement of the Minnesota Theatre Company. These figures have altered considerably during the last three years and a new interpre­ tation would be necessary. Bluntly, it would be my guess that a Chicago Repertory Theatre would have a built-in annual deficit. The dimension of which would depend a great deal on what charges the acting company were saddled with. An example of the above is that the Minnesota Theatre Company pays approximately $90,000 for use of the building and other physical services. At last report the Lincoln Centre Company paid $500,000 for the same services and use of the building. Herein lies causes for deficit and the who and the what and the why pays for these costs is most important to work out in early planning days, for quite frankly, dreams of Federal, State and Foundation support is strictly "apple pie" talk. . . .frosting on the cake. The main burden of such a project must rest with the community. 182

Letter 16 January 1970 From; John Reich, Producing Director, Goodman Theatre To; Jean Fardulli

At the request of Mr. Paul Zimmerer of the Mayor’s Committee and with the consent of Mr. William Hartmann, Chairman of the Goodman Theatre Committee you and 1 have met twice to discuss some of your pertinent questions which you posed in your capacity as a public relations expert for the Mayor's Committee of Economic and Cultural Development.

1 have to emphasize that all my opinions which 1 gave you orally and also in this letter are solely based on my experience since 1931 in the field of Professional Theatre and that everything 1 am saying here represents my own views, and not the intentions, policies or ideas of the Art Institute of Chicago, the Goodman Theatre or its Committees and Board of Trustees.

Here then is my personal evaluation and opinion of the situation we have discussed: 1. 1 agree that it would be beneficial to form an Arts Council of Greater Chicago because the Illinois Arts Council seems to be more interested in the State than in the City-- which probably is as it ought to be. On the other hand, the money and the interest in culture reside in this city. 1 suggest that this matter be discussed in detail with the Director of all the Arts Councils in the country who has acted as an expert to the Goodman Theatre once before; he is Oliver Rea, 1564 Broadway, New York, New York, Executive Director of the Associated Arts Councils of America. 2. 1 am convinced that the Goodman Theatre's all-professional company is the natural and organic basis for THE resident professional theatre of the City of Chicago. These are some of my reasons ; (a) In twelve years of unceasing effort, a production and design staff, a technical and literary staff, and a subscription audience of 16,000 (up from 1800 when 1 came here) have been assembled by the Goodman. (b) In the last three years, the theatre's technical equipment and physical plant have been improved and the facility now allows for almost year-round service to Chicago theatre-goers. (c) Within the amazingly short period of only four months we have been able to assemble the nucleus of an acting company which even a theatre with a lavish budget could scarcely improve on: Douglas Campbell, leading actor is the man whom Sir Tyrone Guthrie has twice insisted no theatre of distinction could open without; Ann Casson, Sybil Thorndike's daughter, was the leading character actress of London's Old Vic 183

as well as at Stratford, Ontario, and the Tyrone Guthrie Theatre; Fionnuala Flanagan is the foremost young actress of Ireland, the star of Broadway and National Companies of LOVERS and winner of a coveted English award for the most promising young screen actress. Douglas Seale, our associate produeter and principal stage director, has been internationally acclaimed as Sir Tyrone Guthrie's successor and is the only artist to have successfully directed at all three Stratford Festivals: in England, Canada and Connecticut. A core group of this quality has not even been assembled by the Lincoln Center Repertory Theatre vdiose deficit last season was one million and a half. 3. It is my conviction that, given not much more money and the kind of city-wide recognition which Milwaukee gives its resident theatre, it will be possible to expand the Company by including more actors (we now operate on a minimum basis) and engage performers of more experience and talent to bridge the present gap between the international artists mentioned above and the local Chicago talent which we are now forced to use to save money. However, the top acting and directing talent resident in Chicago ought to be further trained and used. 4. With prices and salaries rising dangerously, the Art 1nstitute--already strained from running a museum, a children's museum, an educational program, an art school and the Goodman Drama School--cannot long be expected to foot the deficit for the Goodman Professional Company, which as a division of the Art Institute is now dependent on a single fund-raising and development effort of its parent company. 1 am convinced that in order to survive and protect the enormous investment in talent, dedication, work and money that have gone into the Goodman in the last few years it must become a somewhat independent entity like the Lyric Opera or the Orchestral Society but with the important modification discussed below. 5. Under the original deed of gift from the Goodman family, the Art Institute undertook to run the Goodman Theatre "for the good of all people of Chicago.” Then, in 1929, under the impact of the depression, the theatre was turned into a school, and only in October, 1969, has it been restored to the donor's original intentions. Therefore, the Art Institute cannot and should not cast off the Goodman Theatre but share the respon­ sibility for making it THE OFFICIAL PROFESSIONAL THEATRE OF CHICAGO with leading citizens outside the Art Institute and with public officials. A method can surely be worked out so that funds for its deficit operation (for quality in drama requires a deficit operation as in a symphony, an opera house or a university, though not as costly) derive from the Art Institute--perhaps in the form of free use of the facilities, upkeep and housekeeping--also from private individuals of means, from corporations enlightened enough to appreciate the mind- expanding value of the best classical and modem writing-- and perhaps form the City government itself. That sharing of 184 the responsibility for providing inspiration rather than drugs to the new generation with its expanding leisure time has worked out in most of the municipal, state, and priviate theatres of Europe and especially well in the United Kingdom. 6. A special solution would have to found concerning the Goodman School of Drama which currently not only teaches but runs the Goodman Children's Theatre and the Studio Theatre plays. The latest thinking has been to ally the Drama School more closely with the Art School, a combination \diich has been superimposed by the influence of two outside professors who have to decide on academic degrees. While this writer is certain of his evaluation in the preceding five points, he is not sure of the wisdom of the course recently embarked upon by Mr. McGaw and Mr. Irving, and for the following reasons; (a) More and more students and drama instructors nationally view th Goodman School of Drama as a specialized craft school rather than a college preparing students for a teaching degree. Indeed it can be demonstrated that in the last few years more of our graduates are active in the communications arts than in teaching. (b) If a degree seems an absolute necessity, which this writer somewhat doubts, then it should be possible to receive separate accreditation for the Drama School which has more Ph.D's and equivalent academic degrees on its small faculty than the Art School has on its large one. (c) It would seem that a school of drama which must be based on the personal development of an individual talent might be overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of the disproportionate relationship of 164 to the 1900 art school students and the resulting discrepancy in attention which a Director of both Schools would be able to provide for the Drama School. (d) A drama school which has pioneered and specialized in training actors for the 43 resident professional theatres in this country would seem to belong with the professional company that could draw its supply of new talent from it. The present Goodman Professional Company has been doing that by accepting six best recent graduates of the drama school and integrating them into the Company. (e) Organizationally and financially the Professional Company and the Drama School are profiting immeasurably from collaborating with each other in many ways. To mention only a few: (i) The Professional Company and the School share the services of the producing director, the associate producing director, two other teacher-directors, the speech department, the operations manager, and practically all the faculty members in the design and technical fields. 185

(ii) They share the main stage which serves both both the Professional Company and the Children's Theatre. (iii)They share all management, financial, and box office personnel as well as all students in design, technical theatre, and stage management. Indeed the Professional Company having organically grown out of the Drama School is so thorughly integrated with it that it would be almost impossible to separate them from each other budget-wise. While this writer cannot be as definite in his judgment of point 6 as in points 1 to 5, he feels strongly that the Goodman organization has something very precious and important in the continuity it offers students from the day they enter the drama school to the day when the most talented of them may become permanent members of a resident professional company.

The thoughts expressed above represent my current views on the immediate future of the Resident Professional Theatre in Chicago and of the Goodman School of Drama. I repeat that all suggestions made by me are in on way intentions or policy decisions by the Board of Trustees of the Art Institute of Chicago which is the only body that can make official statements.

Best regards and warm wishes for your efforts in behalf of Chicago theatre. APPENDIX 5

CHICAGO THEATRE GROUP STAFF MEETING

13 DECEMBER 1980 - DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

Questions developed by the leaders of CTG (Gregory Mosher, Roche Schulfer, and others):

1. THE THEATRE IN GENERAL

....What our perceptions of the volume and quality of theatrical activity in Chicago and nationally? Are we seeing more theatre and enjoying it more or less?

....What are the criteria for theatrical quality? What is the index for measuring that quality? How do we generally define success in the theatre? What do we perceive to be the valid critical reference points?

....Who do we perceive the audience for theatre to be? Who should it be? Do the words "elitist" or "populist" still have any meaning regarding theatre?

....What is the general impact of economic conditions on theatres and artists and audiences?

2. THE GOODMAN

....What are our artistic goals and values and to what extent are we realizing those goals and adhering to those values?

....How should we evaluate ourselves, what are the critical reference points? To what extent are we in competition with other theatres locally or nationally?

....What are the consideration in planning a season? What should they be? How important are each of the following in the process : marketability, cast size, artists availability, production schedule?

....What is our relationship to the Chicago theatrical community? What should it be? Are we an equal part or an entity apart? Should we be a leader? Should we be an active or passive leader? How do we balance being both a local theatre and a national theatre?

186 187

....Who is our audience currently and who should the audience be?

....What is the organizational structure at the theatre? What is the philosophy of management? What does the board of directors do? How is the organization different from pre-CTG days? What growing pains are we suffering?

....How can we regularly communicate about the aesthetic of the theatre so that true collaboration can take place?

....What is our purpose in pursuing educational programs and other community service programs (lectures, speakers bureaus, etc.)? To what extent are we defined by these activities? Are they desirable or necessary beyond practical benefits (P.R. and fund raising)? What about our relationship to Goodman School/DePaul?

....Is a resident company important to us? How do we define a resident company?

....What is the annual budget? What was it three years ago? Where will it be three years from now?

Who or what are TCG, LORT, AAA, LCT, USA, AEA, NEA, IAC?

....What is our relationship currently with the Art Institute of Chicago?

Issues and questions raised in the group meetings:

..Need for an artistic goal statement--seasonal & long-term.

..What kinds of audiences are we trying to attract?

..Can we afford to fail artistically?

..Can we afford to fail financially?

..How do we educate audiences?

..How is the budget composed?

..What do we do about the deficit?

..What is the future of fund raising?

..Communications problems--questions of functions, accessibility of executives, chain of command. Communication up but not down,

....Need for evaluation after productions. 188

..Lack of ensemble feeling, especially between office and artistic staffs.

..Lack cfrecognition.

..Need for "family" feeling.

..What is the function of the associate artistic director?

..What is the Goodman's function in the Chicago artistic community?

..Can there be collaboration between artistic directors and staff--can we see your decision-making processes?

..Staff needs more feedback on their work.

..Fuzziness on long-term/short-term planning--what is their interaction? Who does what?

..Why has the possibility of a resident company been raised?

..How do we fit in with other regional theatres?

..Are we more flexible than most theatres? SOTJHCES CONSULTED

Materials in General Circulation

Books: Novick, Julius, "The Theatre," In The Performing Arts and American Society, pp. 96-129, Edited by W. McNeil Lowry, Englewood Cliffs, N,J, : Erentice-Hall, 1978.

Zeigler, Joseph Wesley, Regional Theatre : The Revolutionary Stage, Eoreward by Alan Schneider, New York: DaCapo Press, 1977 .

Articles in Newspapers and Magazines: Arlington Heists (Illinois) Herald. 18 Ifey 1979*

Chicago Daily News. I9 April 1972; 3-4 March, 1 September 1973» I8-I9 May, 15 October 1974* 10 September, 4 October 1975; 9 January, 30 January, 5 June 1976,

Chicago Sun Times. 10 September, 28 September 1975; 9 January 1976; 7 June 1977; 7 March, 30 May 1980,

Chicago Tribune. 19 April, 20 May 1973; 8 January, 18 May, 10 September, 21 September, 9 October, 21 October 1975» 9 January, I7 January, 25 May 1976; 14 January, 15 May, 8 June, 30 September 1977; 12 January, 9 February, 12 February, 19 March, 13 July, I4 October 1978» 23 October 1979» 16 March 198O; 26 January 1981.

Irish Times. 19 April I98O,

Newsweek. 23 March I98I.

Materials Obtained through Private Sources by location, accessibility date

Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois: Art Institute of Chicago Annual Report, 1971—72, 1972—75» 1973 -74 , Ï974-75» 1975 -7 ^» 1976-77» 1977-78» 1978-79» 1979-80,

189 190

"The Schools of the Art Institute of Chicago— School of Art and School of Drama," 1971?

Archives. Piles on Mr. and Mrs. William 0. Goodman, Goodman Theatre and School of Drama,

Chicago Theatre Group, Inc., Goodman Theatre, Chicago, Illinois; Goodman Theatre ('Chicago Theatre Group. Inc.) Annual Report. 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80.

Chicago Theatre Group, Inc. "Financial Statements and Additional Information," 30 June 1979 and 1978, 30 June 1980 and 1979.

Goodman Theatre programs of The Suicide. October 1980; A Christmas Carol and Kukla and Ollie Live!. December 1980; Dwarfman. Master of a Million Shanes. Avner the Eccentric, and The Flying Karamazov Brothers. I%,y 1981.

I*feyor's Committee for Economic and Cultural Development of Chicago, "A Resident Professional Theatre for Chicago," 1966. Mayor's Committee for Economic and Cultural Development of Chicago, "A Proposal to the Chicago Community Trust," 1966,

Leo J. Shapiro and Associates, "Goodman Theatre," 6 Iferch 1972.

. "Goodman Theatre II." 28 June 1972,

Foote, Gone and Belding. "The Goodman Theatre: Report of Three Focus Groups," October 1976.

Art Institute of Chicago and Chicago Theatre Group, Inc. Agreement: Production and Presentation of Plays for the 1977-78 through the 1979-80 seasons, 28 March 1977.

Files of the Pknagement, Public Relations, and Development Departments,

Other : Chicago, Chicago Public Library, Special Collections, Goodman Theatre Archives.

Newell, James Samuel, "A Critical Analysis of the Development and growth of the Kenneth Sawyer Goodman Memorial Theatre and School of Drama, Chicago, Illinois, 1925-1971." Ph.D dissertation, Wayne State University, 1973» Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 73-31,F61, n.d. 191

Theatre Communications Group. Proceedings of the 1980 National Conference— Toward Expanding Horizons and Exploring Our Art. New York: Theatre Communications Group, 1980.

Interviews

Ball, Carol. Chicago Theatre Group, Public Relations/Audience Development Director, 1981-, Interview, Chicago: 11 June 1981.

Economos, John, Goodman Theatre, Managing Director, 1973-77* Interview. Chicago: 12 January 1981.

Eickhoff, Philip. Chicago Theatre Group, Production Manager, 1977-. Interview, Chicago: 11 February, 18 March 1981,

Freehling, Stanley, Art Institute of Chicago, Chairman of the Committee on the Goodman Theatre and School of Drama, 1971 — Î Chicago Theatre Group, Chairman of the Board of Directors, 1977-80, Honorary Chairman, I98I-. Interview, Chicago: I4 January 198I.

Hartmann, William, Art Institute of Chicago, Chairman of the Committee on the Goodman Theatre and School of Drama, 1965 —71 » Chicago Theatre Group, member of the Board of Directors, 1977-, Interview, Chicago: I9 May 1981.

Janowitz, Barbara, Chicago Theatre Group, Business Manager, 1977 -. Interview, Chicago: 1? February I98I.

Mars, Robert. Art Institute of Chicago, Vice President for Administrative Affairs, 1975-* Interview. Chicago: 22 January, 20 May 1981.

Murphy, Katherine, Chicago Theatre Group, Business Office Manager, I98O-. Interview. Chicago: 11 February, 11 June 1981.

O'Connor, Marie. Chicago Theatre Group, Development Director, 1978 -. Interview. Chicago: 12 February I98I.

Peigh, Terry, Foote, Cone and Belding, Account Executive, Interview. Chicago: 1 April I98I,

Schulfer, Roche. Goodman Theatre, Assistant to the Managing Director, 1975-77Î Chicago Theatre Group, General Manager, I977 -8O, Managing Director, I98O-. Interview, Chicago: 7 January, 26 June 198I.

Scott, Stephen. Chicago Theatre Group, Educational and Community Services Director, 198O-. Interview. Chicago: 10 June 1981. 192

Wade, Janet. Goodman Theatre, Business Office 1969-77; Chicago Theatre Group, Managing Director, 1977-80, Interview. Cleveland: 3 December I960,