The best of 2016 in Chicago theater
Kelly and Jonathan's picks from the past year on Chicago stages, with notes on productions at Rivendell, Steep, Goodman and more.
Dueling Critics presents a podcast built on the long-standing Chicago tradition of theater reviewers who refuse to soften their verdicts. Each episode invites listeners into a conversation where two voices wrestle over the same production, often arriving at sharply different conclusions. The format leans into disagreement as a feature rather than a flaw, treating critical friction as a path to deeper understanding of the work on stage and the assumptions each critic brings to the theater. The show's perspective is rooted firmly in Chicago, drawing on the city's vibrant and sprawling stage scene. From large established houses to smaller storefront companies, the podcast surveys a wide spectrum of productions, treating regional work as worthy of sustained attention. Listeners familiar with the local landscape will recognize the rhythm of openings, closings, and the constant churn of new work that defines a theater town of this scale and ambition.
Each installment typically centers on one or more recent shows, with the two critics offering independent takes before comparing notes. The structure allows room for both consensus and disagreement, and the conversation often drifts into broader questions about taste, craft, and the evolving state of the art form. Because the hosts come to the work with different sensibilities, a single play can sound like two entirely different productions by the time they finish debating it.
The criticism on the show is conversational rather than academic, prioritizing clarity and personality over jargon. Episodes tend to unfold as extended discussions rather than formal reviews, with humor, impatience, and occasional exasperation all part of the texture. That tone invites listeners to form their own reactions, using the hosts' opposing views as a starting point rather than a verdict.
Attention to playwrights, directors, and ensembles is a recurring thread, with the hosts frequently weighing how a production's collaborators shape the final experience. They are as likely to debate the choices of a director or the design team as they are the playwright's text, reflecting an understanding that theater is an inherently collaborative medium. This approach gives the podcast a layered quality, treating each show as the sum of many deliberate decisions.
The podcast also engages with the wider cultural conversation around theater, including questions about representation, audience, and the role of criticism itself. When productions touch on contemporary themes, the hosts tend to interrogate both the work and its reception, asking what a piece is attempting and how successfully it lands. That willingness to step back from pure evaluation gives the show an essayistic edge that complements its more playful exchanges.
Listeners can expect a steady rhythm of episodes tied to the Chicago theater calendar, with coverage that tracks premieres, revivals, and the occasional unexpected hit. The hosts make a point of sampling a range of venues, acknowledging that some of the most interesting work in the city happens outside the most prominent stages. Over time, this breadth turns the podcast into a kind of informal map of the local scene, charting trends and surprises as the seasons unfold.
The title Dueling Critics is taken seriously. The hosts do not soften disagreements for the sake of harmony, and they do not perform outrage for entertainment. Instead, they argue as colleagues who respect each other's craft even when their conclusions diverge. This balance of conviction and generosity gives the podcast a distinctive voice, one that takes both theater and the act of criticism seriously without taking itself too solemnly.
For newcomers, the show offers an accessible entry point into Chicago theater without requiring prior knowledge of specific productions or venues. The hosts tend to provide enough context for unfamiliar titles, and their back-and-forth style naturally surfaces the kinds of questions a curious viewer might ask. Whether used as a preview guide, a post-show debrief, or simply as company on a long commute, the podcast fits comfortably into a range of listening habits.
Above all, Dueling Critics treats criticism as a living exchange rather than a finished judgment. Episodes capture a moment in time when two people sat down to think carefully about what they had seen, and the recording preserves the texture of that thinking. That sense of immediacy, paired with sustained attention to a single vibrant theater community, gives the podcast its particular character and keeps listeners returning to hear what the critics will argue about next.
