Why Is Studio Theatre’s David Muse Stepping Down?

Since it launched in 1978, Studio Theatre has had only two artistic di­rectors: its founder, Joy Zinoman, and its current creative leader, David Muse, who has occupied the position for the past 15 years. Muse has had a big impact, overseeing more than 125 productions at Studio—including over a dozen world premieres—and leading a major renovation and expansion of the facilities on 14th Street, Northwest. Studio now has four theater spaces, including the new flagship Victor Shargai Theatre.

In July, Muse announced that he will step down in 2027. Where is he planning to head next? Nowhere in particular. “This is not the typical way this happens when artistic leaders re­tire,” he says. “Usually, they’ll figure out the next job and then announce they’re leaving.” We met up with him to talk about his tenure and the state of DC theater.

So why did you make the decision to step down from this high-profile position?

On some level, I feel like it shouldn’t be that surprising, because I’ve been there 15 years. Two years from now, that’ll be 17—that’s a nice, long run. There’s a sweet spot where you can actually make some impact, leave a legacy, but you don’t overstay. This is a decision, ultimately, that I began to make a couple of years ago. The job is always some combination of wonderful and deeply, frustratingly challenging. And that second half of things felt quite powerful to me; I just felt some diminished enthusiasm.

I also felt like the challenges that were coming my way began to feel familiar, which is fine, but I realized I felt some hunger for a new environment. It was time for contract-renewal conversations to happen, and it felt a little disingenuous for me to not say, “Actually, here’s where I am, and maybe this is what I ought to do.” The idea of a mid-career transition announcement, for understandable reasons, is a little atypical, but I also think it’s healthy. And I suppose that’s another big reason I did it this way, because it’ll give me the chance to wrap things up over a couple of years rather than a couple of months.

By the time you leave this job, you will have led Studio Theatre through a pandemic, a nationwide racial-justice reckoning, and one and three-quarters of two Donald Trump administrations. These are all events that have significantly impacted the theater world, both logistically and spiritually. How do you think the climate in Washington has guided your artistic direction?

Hugely and not that much. We’re a contemporary theater—so of course a lot of what we’re dealing with onstage are the same things that our country is wrestling with. I often talk about how at Studio, we do lowercase-“p” political plays. I feel a little hesitant to do work that feels like it mainly exists to tell you how to think about something.

We’re a mile from the White House, and people who come see plays live in that universe all the time. One of the things we get to do is let them step out of that for a second and participate in something that feels quite human. That reminder of shared humanity is really what we can provide to a Washingtonian at the end of their day. When Trump was elected for the first time—or for the second time—a lot of peers felt compelled to somehow respond with the program, and I felt some of those things. But I also felt like part of the answer is that you just keep on.

It’s a strange time right now because many people are boycotting the Kennedy Center under Trump. What role do you think smaller theaters like Studio should play in upholding and enriching DC’s art scene at a time like this?

I find that question challenging on some level. One of the things that I’m concerned about in terms of the local arts scene at the moment is, because of the challenges of producing theater these days, there’s less of it. Most theaters in this town do less work than they did ten years ago, and they certainly hire fewer people, especially fewer actors.

One of the strengths of the Washington theater community for years has been the robust community of actors who can live and work here. There was an upside for some small but reasonable group of actors—compared to New York, where there’s always dreams of Broadway and film and fame and fortune. You would trade that and live in a place like Washington, and you would know what you were doing for the next year and could work reasonably consistently at theaters across town.

That’s a lot harder now. What can we do about that? We can try to be mindful of what it’s like to be a freelance artist living in Washington these days, and do everything we can to compensate them.

You’re Studio’s second-ever artistic director. What was it like succeeding the founder, Joy Zinoman, who is an extremely prominent figure in local theater?

It was not without challenge. The institution was artistically strong, so at least it didn’t feel like I was succeeding a founder at an institution with a troubled legacy that needed to be completely reinvented. But in terms of culture, it is a challenging thing, because someone’s imprint—especially after 35 years—lives very strongly.

You started your career teaching in DC public schools. What was your subject?

I taught high-school math. I wasn’t a math major in undergrad. Because the need for math and science teachers was so acute, I could [get hired to] teach math in DC public schools. And I was good at it.

So how exactly did you end up making that transition from math into theater?

I’d done theater all through my youth. It was my most serious extra­curricular all through middle school, high school, and college. But I took everyone’s advice who said, “If you can do something else, think about doing something else.”

When I started teaching, the job was so demanding and overwhelming and important-feeling that I really didn’t participate in theater at all. I didn’t even watch it. And then I realized how much I missed it, so I started attending theater again. I took some acting classes. I performed in some plays while teaching. I just really felt at home there.

I applied to grad school and went to Yale Drama, and then I lived in Manhattan for a year. Then the Shakespeare Theatre Company hired me—first as an assistant director and then as an associate artistic director. By that point, I was on a little bit of a path.

Given the breadth of the District’s theater scene, I’m sure you have to spend a considerable amount of time thinking about what makes Studio Theatre unique.

This is actually a more challenging answer to provide now than it was 15 years ago. Because then, I felt as though the lanes of programming that different theaters in town offered were clearly defined. That’s all become a lot blurrier. I’m a little bit responsible for that. Studio has been doing more new work, which used to be the domain of some other theaters in town.

In order to describe what we do at Studio, I need to focus on something that’s a little bit more ineffable and hard to capture, which does have to do with [the fact that] our biggest theater seats 200 people. You aren’t more than 70 feet away from the actor who’s onstage.

One thing you’ve focused on over the last 15 years is coming up with programming that attracts younger, more diverse viewers.

It always felt a bit like Studio’s role was to have its finger on the pulse of what’s happening in the theater world and to bring some productions by writers who are really starting to emerge to Washington—in a way, because the audience has gotten significantly younger and more diverse during my time there. But the impetus had more to do with the projects and the writers than it did with a kind of explicit strategy to program for one audience or another.

Our subscriber audience, our older audience—they’re a pretty hip group, actually. And it’s my sense that traditional, comfortable theater has never been Studio’s thing. There we are, right in the middle of the city, in Logan Circle. It felt like we were just staying true to Studio’s point of view in terms of the art we wanted to produce and the neighborhood we were living in.

Is there anything that you hope to accomplish at Studio before the end of your tenure?

One of the things isn’t especially sexy, but it has to do with fiscal health and institutional sustainability. I’d love to reveal the potential of our new Shargai theater with one or two more productions that really showcase what it can do. That does feel like a big legacy that I’ve left the place. I also just want to allow myself permission to be kind of idiosyncratic about some of the programming choices in my final couple of seasons that I’ll put together— to leave some room for the ones that I just want.

What do you think is likely to be next for you?

I don’t think I’m done with theater and the arts. I wasn’t totally sure of that a couple of years ago, and now I am. I may not be done with institutional leadership, although I feel like the circumstances would have to be just right. I’ve had a really good run, and I wouldn’t want my second run as an artistic leader to feel lesser. That’s going to be a challenge.

This article appears in the October 2025 issue of Washingtonian.

Kate Corliss

Junior Staff Writer