Home News Theater Saracho to Leave Teatro Luna
Saracho to Leave Teatro Luna Print E-mail
By Kerry Reid | Theatre   
3:53 PM, February 05, 2010 | Updated on 12:07 PM, February 07, 2010

After 10 years, the second founding member of Teatro Luna Theatre is stepping down. For Tanya Saracho, the Jeff-nominated writer and actor who co-founded Teatro Luna with Coya Paz, the move is not totally unexpected. According to Teatro Luna managing director Alex Meda, “It had always been the plan that [Tanya and Coya] were going to take us to year 10, and then there would be changes.”

Paz, who is on the facutly of the Theatre School of DePaul, stepped down as co-artistic director last spring when the ensemble decided to go with one artistic leader. Saracho says she had planned to take a year’s sabbatical prior to Paz’s departure, but stayed on. Says Meda, “All year we had been planning that she would go on an indefinite sabbatical. She is booked through 2012, and we realized that the sabbatical wasn’t realistic.”sarachotanya-small

In an interview over breakfast at M. Henry in Andersonville on Feb. 4, Saracho expressed what it had been like to run Teatro Luna even as her own raft of commissions and commitments to other companies had expanded. She currently has two commissions with Steppenwolf, a project with About Face Theatre , a show in development with Teatro Vista , which produced her Jeff-nominated Our Lady of the Underpass last spring, and a few other writing possibilities, in addition to her “day job” as a voice-over and industrial actor.

According to Saracho, she knew things were getting out of hand this past fall as she tried to work on her adaptation of Sandra Cisneros’ The House on Mango Street for the Steppenwolf for Young Adults series and rewrite part of Teatro Luna ’s Lunatic(a)s, a remount of a 2007 show that is now playing again at Chicago Dramatists in an extended run through Feb. 21.

“I was working on Mango from 10 to 6, and then from 7-10, we’re rehearsing Lunatic(a)s,” says Saracho. “I was giving [the Teatro Luna cast] lyrics to new material a week before tech. That’s when I realized it’s costing me, it’s costing them. It came at a price. They delivered, but they had to stay later and work harder.” Saracho also notes, “I was not a good administrator, business-wise. Coya and I always joked that we wish we could fire ourselves.”

“We all feel we owe her a break,” says Meda. “We’re still in the process of hiring an interim artistic director.”

Paz, for her part is "concerned about the health of the company during a difficult transition. But I know that no matter how much the company has been identified with me or Tanya, the strength of Teatro Luna has always been in the collective talent, intelligence, and imagination of the ensemble. I have great faith in the ensemble's artistic leadership, and high hopes for the next phase of TL's life."

Teatro Luna , which has always stressed mentoring Latinas in all aspects of theatre—backstage and on stage—will probably hire both an interim artistic director and interim associate artistic director, according to Meda. The interim AD will probably serve “at least through September,” and the reason for hiring an associate AD is that “we need to constantly have someone in training. So we’re developing this new position. It’s looking like my job may become an executive director or producing director position. We’re really not sure. We really want the artistic director to live in the artistic director’s world of the artistry and have a more sound business foundation backing them up, which is something that I would be doing,” says Meda.

Looking ahead, the company plans to celebrate its 10th anniversary in June at Dramatists with an untitled work, composed of “best-of” pieces from the many ensemble-driven works from the Teatro Luna catalog, as well as brand-new work. (Meda notes that Machos, which won non-Equity Jeff Awards for new work for Paz and for the cross-dressing ensemble playing males from a wide spectrum of life, and S-e-x-Oh! continue to be much in demand as touring pieces and that those “are our main bread-and-butter.”) The company budget, according to Meda, is poised to break the $200,000 mark this year, “which is huge growth, because in 2007 we were just under $100,000.”

Leaving is bittersweet for Saracho, and she characterizes the reactions of the Teatro Luna ensemble as varied. “Everyone has their family reaction to it. Mom doesn’t want you to go away to college, but your little sister who wants her own bedroom says, ‘It’s time for you to go.’” Saracho is most proud of the Teatro Luna Incubation series that she started, which provides workshopping opportunities for new plays and emerging directors.

Meantime, among the non- Teatro Luna projects she’s working on are El Nogales, a loose re-telling of The Cherry Orchard set in the pecan-growing region of northern Mexico in 2011. Teatro Vista , one of the companies participating in the Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs’ “In the Works” series at Millennium Park, will offer a sneak peek of it at the Jay Pritzker Pavilion April 15-17. Saracho is also developing The Good Private for About Face (a company that had its own financial troubles a year ago and has come back—they opened Ann Marie Healy’s What Once We Felt this week). The Good Private, inspired by an NPR report Saracho heard one day, focuses on Albert Cashier, born Jennie Hodgers in Ireland, who fought in the Civil War disguised in male clothing and lived as a man after the war ended.

She is also working with Latina comedy duo, “Dominizuelan” (Wendy Mateo and Lorena Diaz) on a piece that came out of the Incubator series at Teatro Luna . Though she isn’t planning on directing for Teatro Luna in the near future, Saracho says, “I want Teatro Luna to be around in 20 years.”

Meda says, “There’s obviously an element of sadness in passing this kind of moment. But we’re also overjoyed. If Tanya was saying she was leaving and never coming back, it would be different. But the longer she stays in Chicago and the better known she becomes, the better it is for us, too.”

Teatro Luna is in a familiar position for any nonprofit, arts-related or otherwise, that has faced the departure of its founders. Notes Meda, “It’s hard when you have one person [in an ensemble] who is particularly well known. The name and the brand are strong enough, and we had, in some ways, become too artistically dependent on Tanya. Our ensemble has been good soldiers, and now it’s time for them be leaders. We have some powerhouses of talent who hold our aesthetic to heart.”
 

23 Comments

  1. Jessica H makes this comment

    Friday 5 February, 2010

    Did anyone interview Coya or other actual ensemble members for this story? Journalism with a twist.

  2. Kerry Reid makes this comment

    Saturday 6 February, 2010

    Jessica, what is your association with Teatro Luna? I haven't encountered anyone who knows who you are, and I haven't found any connections between the name you signed to your previous email and anyone who has worked with Teatro Luna in the past, so therefore it's difficult to assess your credibility as a source other than as a purveyor of unsubstantiated hearsay. That isn't the sort of "journalism with a twist" I'm interested in, but if you'd like to provide bona fides of your direct experiences with Teatro Luna or Saracho, you know where to reach me.

  3. Jessica H makes this comment

    Saturday 6 February, 2010

    I didn't know I had to be earn credibility with the public to ask a question of you. Anonymity is not a crime and not the issue I raised. Especially when dealing with a theatrical community in Chicago as corrupt and silent in its dealings as the government, I certainly think questions being raised are more important than having a face to the questioner. To my initial question. The answer is no. You did not speak to the ensemble leaving because of the sordid situation. You did not speak to people whos lives have been tangled with Tanya's rumors and silent online maneuvers. You were not able to get the full story when you probably got your lunch paid for by Tanya. Alex is simply trying to save face and save the face of her company, I'm sure. My name is not as important as this city pretending the theatre world isn't as corrupt as it is. Please don't criticize people for commenting on your journalism. Isn't that what you want?

  4. Carrie Kaufman, Editor makes this comment

    Saturday 6 February, 2010

    What I find interesting, Jessica, is that you seem to throw out accusations fueled by emotion, but not backed up by any facts. I think many in the Chicago theatre community would take issue with your characterization of the community as "corrupt." This is not a fact. This is your opinion. Even if your accusations (both here and in your e-mails to us) that Coya was forced out and that Tanya is leaving the company to pursue better things were true, it wouldn't be considered corrupt. Mean-spirited perhaps. Selfish certainly. But corrupt? That word connotes willful and usually illegal misdealings. Is that really what you mean to say, that we're all criminals?

  5. Carrie Kaufman, Editor makes this comment

    Saturday 6 February, 2010

    [cont.] Jessica, have you worked in corporate America? People are forced out and walked over and leave for greener pastures all the time. It's not a crime. You might find it distasteful, but it's not a crime. I guess my question in all of this is if we were to report what you want (and we have contacted other company members), what do you think will happen? What do you want to see happen?

  6. Kerry Reid makes this comment

    Saturday 6 February, 2010

    I never said anonymity is a crime, Jessica -- however, even "unnamed sources" are known to the reporters, if not the readers. I am very willing to talk to anyone who has legitimate connections to a story, but it is the height of "corruption" (or at least bad form) to assume that someone who won't sign their real name or make their real interests known deserves a fair hearing, especially when said person is slinging around accusations about people who are not anonymous. Simply put -- if you insist that I should be digging dirt at your behest, I need to know who you are and what your connection is to this story. Otherwise, I have no way of knowing if you're legitimate or just another online crackpot seeking convenient targets.

  7. Jessica H makes this comment

    Saturday 6 February, 2010

    I will be the first to admit my words are fueled by emotion because I have witnessed what I have stated and am ashamed that because of politics, I cannot verbalize so or provide details under my own name. This is not surprising or new. --- You are correct in the literal interpretation of the word corrupt. --- I would like to see those in authority or who find success to be held accountable for their actions the same way their dealings punish those who are not in authority. There is no way in the arts to hold those authorities accountable other than media/press, since they aren't LITERALLY corrupt, as you have eloquently said. Only distasteful.

  8. Lori makes this comment

    Saturday 6 February, 2010

    Jessica H. .. what you're doing is distasteful. Of course you're entitled to your opinions but have a little finesse woman. It's clear you have issues with Tanya, but is this necessary? You're really very committed to smearing someones name and reputation. You're making knowing who you are become more and more compelling and for someone who wants people to focus on the politics of theater, you sure are making a spectacle of yourself. To the public, who you are trying to entertain, this back and forth is mind numbing. Everyone directly involved wants to make the best out of all of this, and people like you just add fuel to the fire thus ultimately crumbling the effort to keep things peaceful. Please breathe and chill, be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

  9. Jessica Harmon makes this comment

    Sunday 7 February, 2010

    Lori, you're right. Dissent, accountability, opinions are to be hushed in an effort to provide peace. What do you think is peace? And for who? And why do you think it's necessary in this situation? I guess you have a different idea of problem and solution than I do. I think I'm a little closer to situation than you are, but who knows. I might be just another online crackpot. Everyone involved is HAVING to make the best of it without the freedom to make their true puplic opinion known simply because of theatrical reputation and politics. I guess it doesn't matter. I guess I didn't see founded and safe comments as smearing. I guess I thought smearing would be wild, ridiculous, and unfounded. Upon request, I'll go out with a wimper. Noted. Let's all play pretend so we can be tasteful...My apologies to anyone who wasted their time on this spectacle. I wish everyone peace and commentary with finesse.

  10. Hannah Gomez makes this comment

    Sunday 7 February, 2010

    Ok, while this is a bit emotional and unprofessional for my tastes, I think there are several things that are hilarious about this. I am not involved in the situation so I can only comment on what I've read. #"Between the name you signed to your previous email and anyone who has worked with Teatro Luna in the past"--KR, what email? If this JH wrote you an email and you don't find her to be substantial, why are you encouraging her? She didn't get emotional until you responded. All you gotta say is, "Yo, I tried." But I know you want to defend your credibility, too. #"Please don't criticize people for commenting on your journalism."--JH, You are mostly making a comment on a person, not the situation or journalism. This is why you are getting a strong reaction. Emotions and anonymity can ruin your credibility, so either take a chance and use your name to get whatever you seek, or find something more constructive. Because I don't think this is the most constructive thing to do.

  11. Hannah Gomez makes this comment

    Sunday 7 February, 2010

    #"I think many in the Chicago theatre community would take issue with your characterization of the community as 'corrupt.'"-CK, I love you. But you asking this girl questions and trying to put the city on defensive all seems like an attempt to rack up hits to the site. I think when it's one person being singled-out, maybe this isn't the best choice. Maybe. But I dunno--you know a SL more bout this than me. Get those site hits baby! LoL #"There is no way in the arts to hold those authorities accountable other than media/press"--JH, you are not a martyr. People might respect you if you had some testimony you came forth with, but don't play the martyr hiding behind a mask. #"To the public, who you are trying to entertain, this back and forth is mind numbing."--Lori, I dunno. I think the public loves this stuff. Why else would the writers fuel it? I think the problem is that it is directed at a person rather than the situation. It's too emotional and lacks credibility.

  12. Hannah Gomez makes this comment

    Sunday 7 February, 2010

    ###But I think the comment section is a VAL.U.ABLE tool to create dialogue, which the public NEEDS.MORE.OF. I'm sure the Performink people love it because it brings folks to the site. Theatre people love drama and reading this give their inner-TigerBeat-lover a fix. I think the only people who find it "mind numbing" are those who have differing opinions than this JH. In which if they do, they should comment. If they don't, they should comment, too. On BOTH sides of the situation and with legit testimony, though, not just anonymous emotion. ###If you're in fear of your reputation for being honest and truthful about how you feel, then good luck being happy in life. I agree that accountability is necessary, JH, but I also agree with Lori that you could do it with a little more finesse. Because you're suffering to your own politics, JH. Be constructive, girl!*** And my name is Hannah Gomez. What's up? I said it.***

  13. Kerry Reid makes this comment

    Sunday 7 February, 2010

    I just want to clarify what my position is on anonymity: I do not pursue stories that come from people who won't tell me who they are or what their connection to an event is. Period. However, if someone approaches me with a news tip, I know who they are, and I know they have some standing/credibility in terms of their closeness to a story -- but they would prefer to be interviewed for background only, etc. -- then that is fine. It's happened before. Ideally, everyone is on record all the time, but I recognize there are legitimate reasons that people prefer to not go that route. But I don't go digging for dirt because somebody I don't know from Adam insists that it needs digging - and that I'm corrupt if I won't take their word on that.

  14. Yadira C. makes this comment

    Wednesday 10 February, 2010

    I just saw this yesterday. I feel like I must say something as someone who is close to this situation and has a lot of love for Tanya. I speak for myself only, as I cannot possibly decipher or express what lies in anyone else's mind or heart. I'm not one to hang on to the past and I believe that people can only be what they are; imperfect human beings. Thank you Kerry Reid for writing the article and being fair, I knew about this interview and never felt the urge to be part of it; after having read it, there is nothing in it that I would not have said myself.

  15. Yadira C. makes this comment

    Wednesday 10 February, 2010

    We all know that we are welcome to be part of any interview regarding Teatro Luna and if no ensemble member went to be interviewed perhaps its because they did not feel that it was necessary; personally I felt the ensemble was part of the conversation. I was under the impression that there was interest in this story simply because it looks like a recent trend in Chicago Theatre and Tanya is a well known name in this circle; not sure why it has led someone to take this time of change and growth to attempt to discredit Tanya. Those of us that have been around understand where we are, why we are here and where we are going. We are here to work and hold-up our mission; to provide a space for Latina's to experiment and work on their artistry. This is why the incubation series for playwrights and directors are inspiring and important; this is why we have to keep going.

  16. Yadira C. makes this comment

    Wednesday 10 February, 2010

    We ALL just want to do our work. Tanya is writing her plays and we are trying to create a space for the future of these voices to be heard and stories to be told. This should be celebrated, please do not stand in the way of this beautiful dream. Tanya Saracho and Teatro Luna will always be part of the same conversation and although these growing pains hurt right now, we hope to mature into a strong beautiful solid foundation for years to come, not for us but for everyone else because as we all know, this is much bigger than us. Cuidate Jessica and Kerry, I’m sorry you even had to spend time defending yourself. My name is Yadira Correa and I am an ensemble member of Teatro Luna, I love Tanya Saracho and her heart; growing-up is painful.

  17. Oldschooljourno makes this comment

    Sunday 14 February, 2010

    Watergate never would've been unveiled if W and B hadn't pursued what the anonymous Deepthroat gave them. And the question still stands: Why isn't anybody else from TL quoted here? Journalism 101 - single source/one-sided stories are not good stories. If there were attempts to get another POV, why not indicate that by stating that so-and-so had no comment?

  18. Carrie Kaufman, Editor makes this comment

    Sunday 14 February, 2010

    Watergate? Are you serious? Are you alleging that anything illegal happened here that we're not pursuing? Because my view on this is that it's people who may or may not have hurt feelings. Which puts what you want us to do into the realm of gossip. We're not TMZ. If the entire ensemble had walked in protest and there was a possibility TL might shutter, then we'd talk about it. But I'm not seeing that. If there's more to the story here, please tell us.

  19. Kerry Reid makes this comment

    Sunday 14 February, 2010

    For an "old school journo," you are remarkably ignorant of the details of Watergate. Mark Feldt (a.k.a. "Deep Throat") wasn't "anonymous" -- his identity and his connection as a top FBI official (I believe #2 in the agency at the time) were well known to Woodward, who first met him in 1970 and cultivated him as a confidential (as distinct from "anonymous") source. There is a difference between "confidential" and "anonymous" -- perhaps Your Old School Journo Emporium didn't explain this. Further, his role was primarily to confirm information that Woodward and Bernstein had already received from other sources. Perhaps it's time to pick up your dogeared copy of "All the President's Men" and refresh your memory on this account. And again, if anybody who is willing to tell me who they are and what their connection to a story is would like to get in touch with me at any time, I'm ready to listen. But anonymous back-biting and insinuations are of no interest to me whatsoever.

  20. Kerry Reid makes this comment

    Monday 15 February, 2010

    Sorry, I made a spelling error. That should be "Felt," not "Feldt."

  21. Mike McNamara makes this comment

    Sunday 21 February, 2010

    Poor Kerry and Carrie. Leave em alone =) What's tough here is that we are replying to this barbs as if they were being delivered to us in person. Nobody would ever make these outlandish accusations in person - it's the internet, people can be as bold as they wanna be and not be held accountable. I just feel bad that Kerry is having to take the time to craft replies to these "Watergate" comments - Kerry, let em go! You have better things to do! As for Jessica H, I don't think it's that far out of line for her to ask if you interviewed any other members of Teatro Luna - and I don't think she needs to be associated with TL in order to ask - though her way of asking could have definitely been improved. I enjoyed the article - thanks, Kerry!

  22. Maria C. makes this comment

    Sunday 21 February, 2010

    Interesting. Before I even got to the comments, I thought to myself, "Wow, there seem to be a lot of holes in this story. Sounds like there was a lot of hidden division." Then when I got to the comments--Whoa! I've never read such unprofessional, emotional responses---not from readers, but from the editor and writer. What a defensive duo! There were better ways to handle it without the drama. The writer seems to have thin skin, and it seems like the editor never worked for the corporate world. If she would have, she wouldn't have even gotten involved.

  23. Kerry Reid makes this comment

    Wednesday 24 February, 2010

    Maria, my policy is clear and it's in line with how most professional journalists work. I don't pursue baseless conjecture and anonymous character assassination. I work off facts and viewpoints from legitimate sources. If somebody has facts or connections that are relevant to this or any other story, I truly am happy to talk to them -- and if they would prefer to be off-record or interviewed for background only, that is also doable. Had any of the members of Teatro Luna chosen to make public their disagreements (as American Theater Company ensemble members did last year by walking out and issing a press release) or had they approached me and asked to speak off the record about their experiences, that would be one thing. But to call them up and say "Well, somebody I don't know who won't identify themselves or how they're connected to your company claims that you're upset with somebody else -- true or false?" isn't journalism. That is, as Carrie correctly identified it, "Gossip Girl" terrain.

Add Comment



Click to get a new image.