The Saga of “The Speakeasy”
In the Spring of 2014, Nick Olivero (the co-owner and executive director of The Boxcar Theatre Studios) along with head writers Barry Eitel and Tim Bauer and a host of others, presented the first iteration of “The Speakeasy,” an immersive theatre event in which the audience is present at a Speakeasy in 1920s San Francisco. At the time, I wrote in TheatreStorm that folks should attend “for an experience they’ll never forget.” I added that, “‘The Speakeasy’ is much more than a novelty; it is theatrical art of a high order.” Other reviewers (not all), were similarly enthusiastic. I opined that the show would “run forever,” but it closed after only five months and 75 performances.
In 2016, The Speakeasy returned, now relocated from the Tenderloin to North Beach, and the reviews were even more enthusiastic than before. In TheatreStorm, trying to capture the complexity of the work, I wrote that “All of the stories reflect on universal themes of the passing of time and mortality, of love and its loss, of good and evil, of highs and lows. This is not a collection of gimmicks or casual sketches; this is literature.” The producers, in their program notes, hoped that “‘The Speakeasy’ [would] eventually find it’s place as a cultural mainstay of San Francisco.” I wrote that, “If it doesn’t, I’ll eat the vintage hat you’ll wear when you attend.” In the Chronicle, Lily Janiak’s enthusiastic review was headlined, “The Speakeasy’s” Delightful,” and she wrote that, “‘The Speakeasy’ deserves to be a fixture in the Bay area theatre scene.”
The show continued to play into 2017, but audiences began to dwindle, and “The Speakeasy” closed yet again.
It was at this point that rumors to began to make the rounds of financial disarray, and discontentment among some company members who complained of an uncomfortable work place, abusive management, and a general sense of something not quite right.
I was delighted, though, when “The Speakeasy,” with the aplomb of Dracula, rose again in 2019. However, that incarnation was a profound disappointment. Indeed, I was so disappointed that after attending a performance I refused to write a review. I didn’t want to pan a show which I had so greatly admired. I did, however, write a personal letter to the producer indicating my despair. A friend of mine said I sounded more than anything like a jilted lover. I had, indeed, been in love with “The Speakeasy,” and my disappointment was profound. I wrote that I didn’t feel I could review the show at all because, “…it is no longer theater. It is a themed bar, designed to sell drinks, and nothing more as far as I could tell. Though I and my partner (who had been with me for two previous productions) entered full of anticipation, we were quickly dismayed.”
In short, in 2019, the high art of “The Speakeasy,” had deteriorated into a drunken brawl. I wrote that, “When I remember what “The Speakeasy” once was, and what it is now, I felt like crying.”
I closed my letter by saying, “Clearly the ‘marriage of lowbrow and highbrow’ which I celebrated so enthusiastically in 2014 has ended in divorce, and the highbrow spouse got all the good stuff and has gone off to bemuse some other theatre company.”
I was appalled.
Subsequently, I learned from friends in the theatre community that many cast members of “The Speakeasy,” had been similarly disappointed. The word was that the performances had deteriorated into drunken misery. Cast members complained of being groped by customers, for example, while management didn’t seem to care. Some complained of being mislead or even cheated financially. Many felt that the glory days of “The Speakeasy” had given way to something ghastly.
It was the story of “The Speakeasy” come to life in the real world. The party was a crime. The gang that ran the show was getting its comeuppance. Company members abandoned the sinking ship, and it gradually set beyond the horizon while its theatrical home became a host for other endeavors.
Then, to the amazement of all, “The Speakeasy” has risen again. When the producers announced that they were here for yet another round, many in the community were upset. How dare they? Hadn’t there been enough drunkenness and abuse? Hadn’t they learned the lesson? Why would anybody work for them? Why SHOULD anybody work for them? Who would attend? Who would review?
The buzz was so intense that the San Francisco Chronicle ran a front page story (that continued over several more pages) about the complaints and the traumatized company members who made them. There was little indication that the writer (Lily Janiak again) who described this sordid history had previously raved enthusiastic about the delightful “Speakeasy.”
Producer Nick Olivero assured the Chronicle (and TheatreStorm) that things are different now. The money seems more secure, and there is little doubt that the company is being paid appropriately. Actions have been taken to avoid harrassment. Current company members (some of whom are returnees) report no problems.
Nevertheless, there are some in the community who do not feel they have been made whole from the traumatic experience of earlier incarnations. Can an enterprise like “The Speakeasy” (the show and the criminal world of the real historic Speakeasys) really be successfully reformed? And at what cost?
I am aware that some Bay area critics (I don’t know how many) have chosen not to review the current reiteration and I can understand that. Certainly there are actors in the community who wouldn’t be caught dead working for “The Speakeasy,” and I don’t doubt they have good reason.
Like its gangster prototypes, “The Speakeasy” has an uneasy truce with proper society and the right business practices.
Producer Nick Olivero is no Al Capone, but he’s no Willy Wonka either.
But still besotted with memories of the glory that was, I decided I wanted to try another night on the town with this old friend.
So, accompanied by a famously theatre-loving plus one who had never experienced the show, I set my best fedora on my head and headed to The Palace Theatre for a night of illicit vice.
Kids, it ain’t at all bad. In this revival, the drunkenness that so disappointed me the last time around has been curtailed, and the emphasis has returned to story telling. The cast is smaller than before, and the sense of desperation and tipsiness has been banished. This company is definitely in control and the work is precise. The story telling is not as deep and profound as the original “Speakeasy,” and the emotions are not as wild, but the idea is intact. How did I feel about it? It was like meeting up with a passionate lover from years ago and going on a date: the passion isn’t what it was, but the spark is still there, more ember than flame. Perhaps no company could sustain the intensity of the original “Speakeasy” with its nearly 100 performers (the current cast tops out around 35) and crowds whooped up on aggressively sold booze. I would describe the current “Speakeasy” as one of the best parties I’ve ever attended. It is not too deep, it is not too shallow. It is not as thrilling as it once was, but then it is not out of control, and I do think everybody feels more amused than abused, which is surely a step in the right direction.
Olivero told me they were seeking the right balance between the original literary bent of the piece and the grotesque bacchanalia (my phrase, not his) of the last revival.
I think they’ve succeeded. My theatrically sophisticated plus one, who was experiencing it for the first time, was completely enthralled.
Once again, as the Chronicle trumpeted back in 2014, “The Secret Is Out: The Speakeasy Is A Delight.”
And the saga continues . . . .
“The Speakeasy: Age of Scofflaws” continues through June 29th at a secret North Beach location. For further information, click here.
______________________________
Rating: ***** (For an explanation of Theatrestorm’s rating scale, click here.)
______________________________
TheatreStorm is a proud contributing supporter of the 2024 San Francisco International Arts Festival.
For a full schedule of the upcoming Festival, click here.
TheatreStorm 