Interview: Alan Donahue, "Crossing California" Onstage

By Kristen Romanowski in Arts & Entertainment on May 24, 2007 1:19PM

If we could pick one piece of fiction we’d like to see adapted to the stage, it would probably be George Gipe’s 1985 novelization of Back to the Future, itself based on the screenplay by Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale.

It’s got everything, really—time travel, Libyan terrorists, an Oedipus-complex subplot, and a high school principal who’s always ragging on the guy who just wants to skateboard and rock out on guitar. Plus, we’d love to see how a stage adapter would deal with internal monologue and backstory such as this: “During his frequent moods of quiet self-analysis, George McFly managed to dissect his psyche, for he did worry about his own lack of grit. He thought it all went back to one occasion in grade school when he was accosted by the class bully.”

Entertaining, yes. But cake—fluffy, poppy cake—compared with Alan Donahue’s latest work for Lifeline Theater. In his stage adaptation of Adam Langer’s Crossing California, Donahue aimed higher than our poor minds would have thought possible. (Turns out the theme of crossing the class boundaries of California Avenue is better developed than Doc Brown's explanation of crossing the space-time continuum.)

With its intricately linked cast of characters set in West Rogers Park during the Iranian hostage crisis and Jane Byrne’s mayoral tenure, Crossing California is no less than 474 pages of the politics and humor of bat mitzvahs, high school drama club, race, class, father-daughter relationships, teenage pot-smoking and sex, public radio, and, above all, growing up. Chances are probably good you read this wildly popular novel and are well familiar with the Wasserstroms, Rovners, and Mills. If you didn’t, what are you waiting for? The movie?

Alan Donahue first read Crossing California shortly after it was published in 2004. “I love the sort of inspired way that he creates all these coincidences in their lives that draw them all together and thought that very possibly could make something interesting on stage,” he said.

Lifeline specializes in original literary adaptations, “using imaginative, unconventional staging to portray sprawling stories in an intimate space.” A scenic designer for Lifeline, Donahue has also done previous stage adaptations for the theater, which sits next to the Morse Red Line stop in East Rogers Park. Their motto, “Big Stories, Up Close,” well summarizes the way Donahue morphed the story from a lengthy and complex novel into a two-hour play. We peer into his process, after the jump.

Chicagoist: So, as you were reading the novel, you were already thinking it could be turned into a play?

Alan Donahue: I went in hoping that it could be, so there might have been a little bit of projection there. Ultimately, because the characters struck me so strongly—I had such an immediate and strong reaction to them—I think that’s why I really felt like it could be a play.

C: I read that Adam Langer wrote this story as a novel because he didn’t think he could make it work onstage. But you obviously made it work.

AD: Well, I worked very hard to make it work. It’s a complicated thing because everybody’s lives are involved with each other. And so you’re constantly saying, well, I could probably get rid of this scene in relationship to this character at this point in their time and where they’re going, but, boy, it sure is a convenient way to drop this piece of information in for this other story I’ve got going on beside it. And so all the decisions were made that way.

C: I saw the play on Friday and was trying to figure out what you could have possibly cut from it, but I couldn’t, because everything is so intertwined.

AD: We’re a little longer than any of us would like to be, but we felt like this is the story that we needed to tell. It’s obvious you need to concentrate on the youthful characters because they’re the real core of the story. But I think to dismiss the parents and their stories any more than I have is really a mistake. I really love the fact that we’ve maintained Muley [Scott] Wills’ mother Deidre in the story and kept her integral and [have] given her two nice little story lines. Although, she’s probably the character that, if we wanted to be cruel and say, well, we just have to cut another 15 minutes, she probably would have been the one that suffered.

C: How did Adam Langer feel about you adapting the story? Was he open to it at first?

AD: He was open to it. He had a professional relationship with Dorothy Milne, our artistic director. They had worked together on certain productions before he left town. The fact that she could call him up and talk to him made it much easier for us to get the rights and do it. He was very trusting of the fact that Dorothy would not ask him unless she felt confident that I could do it.

We did include him and sent him drafts, particularly the first draft that we went into rehearsal with, which was like the third or fourth draft of the play. And he had a few broad, general comments on it, but, essentially, he said, you know what, reading it, what I realized is that it’s all too personal to me, and to comment on it with any sort of detail would be asking you to turn it into the adaptation I’ve chosen not to write. And so, do what feels right, but I have real affection for these characters, and it seems that you do too, and I just hope that you continue to have that.

C: This is one of the last books I read where I cared so much about the characters that I didn’t want the book to end. I wonder if you felt pressure, or a danger, in bringing the characters off the pages and out of everyone’s minds.

AD: You always have to make certain changes. Storylines in novels are always more complicated than an audience can generally follow on stage, and so you have to simplify certain things with the characters, insofar as the actions they take and the consequences and all of that. And so my interest, when I made a change, was to make it more clear to an audience, and not to improve or change the novel in any fashion.

I leave characters at the end of the play in somewhat slightly different positions than they are at the end of the novel. It’s a lot more ambiguous about Muley and Jill [Wasserstrom] and where they are headed at the end of the novel, but I felt like we had to suggest a brighter future for them than perhaps the novel takes a step to do. Same thing with Deidre and Mel [Coleman]. [In the novel], they have the coming together that we see in the play, but then it’s immediately followed by a distancing because she comes to view Mel as another version of her husband. But it didn’t really serve me any purpose to take that next step, because I needed to conclude and end the play.

I did, as I was finishing the very first draft of it, read The Washington Story [the sequel] to get a sense of where Adam had positioned the characters. I said, oh look, Deidre is with Mel. Okay, that sort of justifies the direction that I’m taking. And Muley and Jill, although it’s just as rocky in that story as in this [one], ultimately come together, so it makes perfect sense that I can do that also and not feel that I have imposed a change on his characters, which I think would be a bad thing to do.

C: A man behind me in the audience said he hadn't read the book and was a little confused in the first act, particularly because certain supporting actors play several characters. Do you think people who haven’t read the book or who aren’t familiar with Rogers Park are attending? Or, do you think they would get as much out of it?

AD: We’ve certainly made every attempt to make it open to everybody. I think our natural audience is everybody’s who’s read the book. It was such a popular book in Chicago because it was Chicago themed. There have been various impulses at various times, from both [director] John [Hildreth] and I and other people, to make it even more specific, so far as locale, with maps or street signs or whatever, to try to hammer that home.

To a certain extent, my decision was, when we’re doing one of our costumed 19th century British novels that a lot of people know us for, a lot of times I have no idea exactly where we are in time and space in a particular moment. But I feel like if I know where the characters are, in their internal path, I just simply follow along with that and it’s not important. For the people that are from the neighborhood, I felt that we had to throw in the local references that they all expected to hear. But, to a certain extent, I figured that people would say, oh, it happens in the North Side of Chicago. I think you look at it, and it translates into your experiences when you were the same ages as the kids.

C: There’s also a lot of profanity and pot-smoking and sex, and I wonder if that was a concern when staging it.

We all were committed that that was what the book was and that to sanitize it was not something we were interested in doing. We also knew that a certain portion of our audience would be rather shocked that we were doing it, and we decided, well, I guess we’re going to shock them. We certainly don’t want to run anybody away, but, once again, I think you have to be true to the novel and true to the characters that are in it, and that’s what they were. I don’t think at any time in my life I talked as profanely as the most profane of these characters do, but I certainly knew people that did, and I certainly talked a lot more profanely at that age than I do now, at 50.

C: Do you have a favorite character?

AD: I would say that Michelle [Wasserstrom] is probably the favorite character. In a way, she’s a maddening character, because I’m not sure she’s intended to demand as much focus as I think she does both in the book and in the play at times. Really, I think we are supposed to be caring about Muley and Jill dominantly, and then she’s the sister that’s outrageous and all these things. But it’s a character that just sort of overtakes both the novel and the play. She’s so strong and so outrageous and also so articulate and well-spoken that you really can’t ignore her.

C: Had all the actors read the book, or was that a requirement?

AD: We really don’t require that. We make it available to people. I think that in this cast almost everybody read it. I know that Katie [McLean, the actress who plays Michelle] was reading it during our tech week. She put off until the point at which she felt like the character was secure in what she had found in the play before she read the book. Other people immediately wanted to read it so they could gleam the little things about the characters that they could include.

C: How have audiences responded to the play?

AD: The local community, most of them have responded very positively. We’ve been able to get some people we haven’t had into the theater before. They recognize that this is about their neighborhood, and so suddenly they come in, and that’s exciting to us. And very strong feedback from people who have read the book. Predominantly saying that we’ve done a really nice job, but, gee, why didn’t you include such and such?

C: Is there anyone or anything in particular that people wish you’d have kept?

AD: Almost everyone mentions Ellen Rovner, that she’s the character they were really surprised was missing. She just had too much story once you got into her.

C: The Sun-Times said the play felt “cartoonish” at times. What do you think of that?

AD: Right now, the reviews that I’ve read have not been particularly good. And that’s always sorrowful. And for a little while after you read it, you hate yourself for reading it because you just feel bad. But the “cartoonish” reference, I was not exactly sure what she was referring to. I think there are a few times where we push an image, but not in a way I feel uncomfortable with. I think that the characters, in the framework of what we can work with, are pretty well rounded and realistic.

C: When you read critical reviews but also get good feedback from the community, is it more important that people coming to see the show like it?

AD: The general audiences are the important thing. Unfortunately, critics have the tendency to affect box office to a certain extent, so it always hurts when they don’t like what you’re doing. But it’s the game you play. You invite them in because you want them to love you and to help your box office and make your play a success that way, and unfortunately you’re never going to do it every time.

C: Has Adam seen the play?

AD: Adam came on opening night, which I thought was very brave of him, and he seemed to enjoy it. I would have been scared if he’d been loudly effusive, because then I would have thought he’d have been putting on [an act], because he’s a fairly low-key guy from the little I know of him. He seemed in a good mood, and he came as long as he could to our opening night party, which I think he would have avoided if [he didn’t like the play]. So I think he’s pleased. He’ll be back on the 27th for his author event. From a rehearsal report last night, I hear his mother was here yesterday afternoon, who still lives, I believe, in West Rogers Park.

You can ask Adam Langer and Alan Donahue any burning questions of your own this Sunday, May 27, during a post-show discussion. The free event starts at 8 p.m. at Lifeline Theater, 6912 N. Glenwood. Langer will also be signing books Sunday from 4-5 p.m. Shows run Fridays at 7:30 p.m., Saturdays at 4 p.m. and 8 p.m., and Sundays at 5:30 p.m through June 24. For tickets, call 773-761-4477.

Photos: Top, Alan Donahue; second from top, Jill (Kate Nawrocki) and Muley (Darren Myers); second from bottom, Michelle (Katie McLean). Photos by Suzanne Plunkett. Bottom, Adam Langer.