Stage Right

Stage Right's life has been busy...

2009-06-23T11:51:00.000-07:00

And that is why I haven't had much time to post here....

Sorry all. Keep checking on me at Big Hollywood and I will continue to add thoughts beyond the theatre here aas well.

President Obama: Anti-Science.

2009-05-08T10:54:00.000-07:00

One of the most infuriating arguments that President Obama made in the 2008 election was that President Bush and his administration were "anti-science". It appeared as though this charge was mainly aimed at the ban for federal funding on stem-cell research.

In an incredibly in-elegant and classless display (surprising actually considering I find the man quite classy and elegant) President Obama used the occasion of his inaugural address to make this charge while his predecessor sat eight feet away. And, true to form, within weeks of his swearing in, President Obama used the power of the Executive Order to institute federal funding for stem-cell research. His supporters rejoiced and some Republicans who were uncomfortable with being labeled "anti-science" because it made them feel like they were arguing that the world was flat quietly cheered as well.

But hold on a second progressives. Wait just a minute all of you "pro-science" Republicans. Did anyone catch this part of President Obama's speech made the day he lifted the ban on funding?:

"We cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction," Obama said. "It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society."

Ummm... isn't this a little bit ANTI-SCIENCE? If Michael J. Fox were to believe that the cure for Parkinson's disease could be discovered through human cloning, would he make a commercial supporting it?

President Obama labels human cloning as "dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society". But, why? Why is it so wrong? And, more importantly, why is he allowed to draw HIS moral line in the sand at cloning and not be considered "anti-science" yet President Bush drew HIS line in the sand at stem-cell research and he is a reactionary neanderthal worthy of ridicule as a back-woods rube holding back medicine in deference to make-believe Gods?

Why? Oh, you know why.

"Christian Conservatives Want a Theocracy"

2009-05-08T10:31:00.000-07:00

Yesterday's National Prayer Day non-event at the White House inspired a fascinating discussion on the always-reliably-entertaining Dennis Miller Show yesterday.

A woman called in and stated that she was repelled from the Republican Party because the extreme Christian Right wanted a theocracy and to push their religious views on the country. Miller pressed and she had no example.

Miller's trusty liberal side-kick, Sal tried to chime in with the idea that the extreme Christian right wanted to "tell people when they should pray" (an idea I had never heard before) and, again Sal could not support this with any actual example.

Finally a caller came in and cited the Christian Right's position against assisted suicide and stem cell research as examples of the Christian Right's attempt to "push their religious beliefs on the country. It occurred to me at that moment that this charge has been levied for decades and never really fought against in any intelligent or logical way by our party's leaders.

Well, allow me.

I believe that most of my liberal (oops.. I mean PROGRESSIVE) friends would agree with the following statement:

"The Republican Party and the religious right wing that lies within it would like to try to push their religious views on the country by banning gay marriage, banning abortion, banning stem-cell research, banning assisted suicide, and re-instituting prayer in public schools."

I would venture to say agreement with this statement is the essence of many people's aversion to the GOP.

But, look at how this argument has been formed and the conclusion reached in a logical way for a moment.

Abortion, banning school prayer, stem-cell research, assisted suicide, gay marriage. Each of these issues are radically new and controversial ideas in the relative history of civilization. Putting abortion and school prayer aside for a moment since they are already allowed due to arguably suspect Supreme Court dictum, the last three, assisted suicide, stem-cell research and gay marriage were completely outside of the realm of normative societal practices.

So what changed? Liber... Oops.. PROGRESSIVE forces in our society proposed to CHANGE current law, long-standing law, based on centuries of reasoned and legitimate arguments on the ramifications to civilization if these things were to be allowed. They are the ones who PUSH their beliefs and force these issues upon the rest of society. We traditionalists, or those attempting to uphold these long-standing ideals by which we have built a triumphant and flourishing society, resist these attempts at radical change and then WE are accused of pushing our beliefs on the rest of the country!

Who is pushing who? Because we do not want to up-end centuries of legitimate and well-reasoned laws at the whim of a minority of PROGRESSIVES we are then accused of wanting a theocracy. How did we end up here?

And please, can someone show me how we can get back?

Stage Right Humor

2009-03-06T18:43:00.000-08:00

Last night I saw a play at the Pasadena Playhouse.

This was my dialogue with the ticket taker:

Ticket Taker: "Thank you sir, you are to the right."

Me: "Oh boy, you don't know the HALF of it!"

Feel free to steal it... I want it to become a trend.

Hear my voice!

2009-03-05T14:56:00.000-08:00

Over this past weekend I recorded an interview with the crazy guys at Threedonia.

They just started a podcast, Radio Free Threedonia and it was a thrill for me to get on and talk about the conservative's role in the American theatre industry.

Considering my blue tooth went out in the middle of my opening rant and they had to edit a continuation of the conversation from later when I picked up the handset, it sounds pretty seamless.

I realize that for the small handful of poeple who I have corresponded with as "Stage Right" and yet also know me in my actual identity, they might be able to figure out who I am by listening to this... but, I'm starting to prepare for that inevitable day.

More on that later.

Enjoy the podcast.

A View From Stage Right; Part 2 by Stage Right

2009-03-05T14:53:00.000-08:00

A View From Stage Right; Part 2by Stage Right
Part 1 of what I half-jokingly called my “Manifesto.”
In a fiscal conservative’s utopian dreamworld, there would be no federal funding for the arts (or so many other government agencies or programs for that matter). This has been our position since the inception of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in the early 1970’s. We’ve been saying that if elected, we would abolish these misguided programs and departments and bring our government back to the bare-bones constitutionally described role that it has and leave everything else to the states.

We’ve held the influential bully pulpit of the presidency for twenty of the past twenty-eight years, and what has happened to the NEA? It has grown. While we have stood on principle, we have also stood on the sidelines. The founding fathers would be outraged that the federal government is funding art with taxpayer money, but because we are on the sidelines standing on our principles, all of that money is going to the people creating art with messages that undermine our very existence.
But, I will also say that as long as the NEA exists, and as long as art is to receive funding by the government, we conservatives are on the wrong side of the argument. There is no way to combat the perception that we are “anti-art” or in favor of closing down the local museum by taking away its funding. I know, there ARE logical arguments to combat that perception, but again I ask: How have those arguments been working out for us?
The “Fairness Doctrine” for arts funding.
At the risk of enraging my fellow conservatives and all of you libertarians, I propose that we re-think our position on the NEA given the realities of the past 35 years. The NEA is here and it’s not going anywhere in the near future. And instead of ceding the cultural ground in our country to the leftist voices and artists who have won the lion’s share of all of that funding over the past three decades, it is time for conservatives to get our asses into the game. It’s time for a “fairness doctrine” of sorts when it comes to arts funding.
It’s the stated policy of the NEA to not discriminate due to the content of the art, so I say we make them put OUR money where their mouth is: Start doling out grants to playwrights and organizations who speak to so many Americans who are disenfranchised at the theatre.
The ESTABLISHMENT is the vast network of institutional theatres who have been living high on the hog in their publicly owned “Performing Arts Centers” or “Civic Theatre Complex” and managing their multi-million-dollar budgets under the guise of the altruistic and benign mission statement of “Bringing theatre to the community.” The Lincoln Center Theatre and The Public Theatre and the Center Theatre Group and the Seattle Rep and The Arena Stage and the Goodman theatre… those guys are “The Man” and I’m tired of “The Man” keeping my people down!
A few decades ago, there was a perceived crisis in the American Theatre for the lack of “voices” from black playwrights, Asian playwrights, female playwrights, Latino playwrights and gay playwrights. Almost every single college and major non-profit theatre dutifully set up specific, targeted programs to nurture these playwrights from these target groups, in the name of diversity.
Well my friends… what voices are missing in non-profit, regional theatres today? OURS! We need to demand a full-throated, passionate and intelligent depiction of the conservative “experience” in America. Also, don’t tell me that a revival of “Carousel” counts as a production reflecting “traditional American values.” The crises the theatre community in America faces today is not that there are not enough revivals.
The Audience is staying home.
Go back and look at the comments from my first post on this subject. You will hear from many people who say they are no longer going to the theatre. And, unlike the conventional wisdom we’ve been hearing at non-profit regional theatres for the past thirty years, it is NOT because of a lack of arts education in the schools. It is NOT because theatre is too inaccessible. The people are choosing not to go to the theatre because of WHAT is being produced. Because, believe it or not, my liberal friends, an adult person does not like to spend over $50 to sit in the dark and get yelled at or called names for two hours.
Unlike any other business, the theatre people who inhabit your local non-profit regional theatre do not look at their PRODUCT and wonder why people are not buying it. They first wonder what is wrong with YOU. I wonder how many folks in that regional theatre in your downtown actually reflect on the content of the plays they are producing and wonder if perhaps the answer to their “audience development” needs lies in the simple fact that about half of the people who live in their area are not interested in hearing the preaching contained within the stories they are telling, no matter how talented the people are in telling them.
For those of you who still find yourselves patronizing the regional non-profit in the major metropolis near your home, I bet you experience something like this: You get to your seat and open your program and three or four pieces of paper fly out. One is an envelope suitable for a donation. One is a letter from the development department or artistic director decrying the current state of funding for the arts. Maybe it mentions that audiences are declining because of the lack of arts in the schools. Another sheet is a survey they want you to fill out (they never give you a pen or pencil). The survey asks questions about your race and age and income and TV or film habits. You look around…. all of these pieces of paper are littered about the floor under the seats around you. Clearly part of the theatre’s green initiative.
Then the house lights dim to half and the excitement builds, it’s curtain time… get ready for the magic of theatre… I love the excitement of that moment, here comes the…. pre-show curtain speech? Oh no! The artistic director or a board member or someone from the theatre staff bounds onto the stage and starts the spiel. First, they describe all of the items that just dropped out of your program and they beg you to read them, fill them out and stick a check in them. These days they throw in a line like: “Thankfully, we now have a president dedicated to supporting the arts and theatre, but we still need …. blah blah blah” - It never occurs to these folks that half of the people in the seats didn’t vote for President Obama. And they often say in their speech some patronizing line like, “We are your theatre, we are a part of this community, we want to hear from you, please give us your feedback, theatre is a living breathing art form and your participation is vital to our growth…”
But, I have a secret to reveal to you: They don’t really think that. Oh, they want you to participate, by subscribing and donating, but it ends there. If you want to meet with someone and express your distaste with the artistic choices, good luck. If you want to complain that too often they bring left-wing politics onto the stage, you’re given lip service. Send a letter asking for an uplifting play that reflects the good in America or perhaps the heroic deeds of our military or perhaps a play reflecting on the negative consequences of the misogyny and patriarchy in the hip-hop culture, and the letter will be treated as a joke from a right-wing wacko bigot. Sometimes the letter is shown around the office and laughed at. They don’t really want to hear from you unless you are calling to make a donation or to tell them how great they are.
If it ever crosses the minds of the artistic decision makers at the major non-profit regional theatres that there may be something about the content of their plays that is negatively affecting their subscriptions or their single-ticket sales, they never consider that it might have to do with the overall message or themes of their plays. They think it’s because they are choosing plays that are risky or edgy and the older, conservative folks out there are just not ready or sophisticated enough to appreciate it. And then they dig in and take an artistic stand. But the problem with the plays has more to do with the themes and the political message they are trying to communicate, not with the edgy characters or nudity or cursing.
Example: A theatre produces “Angels in America” and receives complaint letters about the content. The powers that be at the theatre write it off to homophobia or gay-bashing or just some intolerance from the religious right and they are emboldened with the knowledge that they have made a bold artistic choice and brought this fresh and daring message to their community. But the objection to “Angels in America” that I have and that I’ve heard from others is not that it is fresh or daring, it’s that it’s the same old “Reagan did nothing about AIDS” and “Ray Cohn was an evil closet-case hypocrite” and “Mormons are repressed homophobes” kind of story that we’ve been hearing for years.
But, what if a theatre commissioned a play about the life of the heroic writer Randy Shilts? Shilts was an openly gay journalist who wrote “And The Band Played On” which chronicled the early days of the AIDS epidemic in San Francisco. He rightly campaigned for the closing of gay bath houses as a logical way to help stop the spread of HIV and he was very vocal in his opposition of the trend to “out” prominent but closeted gay and lesbian actors and politicians. For his efforts he was spat upon on Castro Street. Bob Ross, editor and publisher of the Bay Area Reporter, described Shilts as a traitor to his own kind. This would be a play that deals with the same subject matter as “Angels” but it would take a different political perspective. Most of those conservatives complaining about “Angels” would not complain about this play, I guarantee you that the vast number of complaints would come from the LGBT community and GLAAD and all of those other acronym agencies paid to say the same thing.
Trouble is, this play does not exist. Nor does a play exist about the fall of the Berlin Wall, the single most significant international event in the past fifty years. Nor does a play exist about the heroism of our military fighting in Iraq, or about the negative repercussions of abortion in America over the past thirty years. Nor is there a play written in the past twenty years in America showing a member of the Catholic clergy in an unambiguously positive light (unless a drunk priest is there for comic effect). These plays don’t exist because the environment in the artistic corridors are not interested in telling these stories.
******
I promised a solution to this problem in my last post, and I have a few humble suggestions. I’m looking forward to the next round of comments, e-mails, and Facebook messages with your ideas:
A Modest Proposal
I maintain that at the root of this problem is a problem of equal employment.
I remember attending a symposium where a bunch of theatre professionals were getting together to talk about how to get a new audience or keep their existing audience and it was all about educational programs and free tix for children and adding more writing programs for African-American playwrights and I wanted to get up on the stage and say: “Please stand up if you voted Democrat in the last presidential election”… I had no doubt most of the room would stand up… Then I would say… “Look around you… the last presidential election (it was Bush/Gore) was almost exactly 50/50. Now, one of two things is happening here… either your organizations are not ideologically inclusive and that is reflected in your programming and how you represent yourself to your community of ticket-buyers, or some of you are afraid to sit down right now and reveal yourselves as Republicans… either way, we have a BIG problem!”
How can we truthfully say that we are a part of a community and we reflect the sensibilities and tell stories that emotionally move the members of that community when our organizations are staffed with people whose views only reflect half of the community? We can’t, and we don’t. And the results are affecting the bottom line.
Theatres should consider creating a special position, an “ombudsman,” who speaks for that 50% who might have a problem with the message the theatre is putting out. They can also respectfully and sensitively respond to the complaints that might come in and then actually communicate those complaints effectively to the powers that be at the organization. They could also set up after-show dialogues with the writers and encourage people to voice their annoyance at the preaching they are receiving from the stage. I guarantee you that after about a year after the silently suffering patrons are empowered, programming changes will begin to take effect.
Another crucial role for the “ombudsman” would be to solicit plays from a conservative point of view, identify a handful of them that are worthy of development and work with those playwrights to have, at the very least, a main-stage staged reading open to the public so that the artistic decision makers could actually see these plays up on their feet and in front of an audience. Put them in the position where they must justify why they are not producing these plays so we no longer hear quotes like this:
André Bishop, artistic director of Lincoln Center Theater for 16 years, said he reads about five plays a week, and from thousands over the years he could not think of a single one that would fall on the right end of the spectrum. “I’m trying to think if I ever read a play that I would call conservative,” he said, pausing a few moments. “I don’t think I’ve come across one.”
Mr. Bishop, if you agree that this is a problem, hire someone to actively find and nurture these plays. If you had gone two decades without ever seeing a gay play or a black play or a Latino play or a feminist play it would not have been acceptable. So, now what are you going to do about us conservatives?
The Artistic Director and the Board President should introduce this conservative watchdog with their arms around him saying “this is our guy and a valuable member of this team.” The Jackie Robinson of conservative theatre could emerge hence.
The above concept is modest because it really amounts to token change, but, it’s more than we have now and it’s pretty easy to achieve. The ideal situation would be to achieve a little more than just an evening of staged readings with the hope of getting a full production. Ideally, the plays in question would be developed and mounted in full production from the get go.
******
So, beyond my “Modest Proposal” I also have a “Not-So-Modest Proposal” and I have “A Guargantuan Proposal.” Looks like there’s gonna be a Part 3!
Stage Right is on Facebook.

Another Frank Rich in the making?

2009-02-27T15:49:00.000-08:00

Rob Kendt (The Wicked Stage: Prophetic Brit(s)) highlights a Jeremy McCarter Newsweek article from December which uses Caryl Churchill's 2001 play "Far Away" as touchstone for what the Bush era.

Kendt doesn't draw out the quotes from the McCarter piece which I think says more about McCarter as former reviewer for New York Magazine and now Senior Writer covering arts, culture and entertainment for Newsweek.

George W. Bush's presidency hasn't been especially accomplished, or ennobling, but it has turned out to be awfully fantastical. Almost by the month, things that once seemed barely imaginable became all too real: an election better suited to a banana republic than a mature democracy, airliners converted to lethal weapons (see also exploding sneakers, powdery letters of death), an American city left to drown.

And then there's:

When the play reached New York in 2002, the final scene's vision of all-out war offered a twisted but true-to-life reflection of the paranoia we were feeling in those post-9/11 days. Six years later it speaks well of Churchill's prophetic powers that the other scenes now seem just as timely. The nighttime beatings that Joan witnesses (and the sorry excuses her aunt supplies) anticipate waterboarding, "stress positions," rendition. The hellish parade of hat-wearing prisoners now seems a grisly metaphor for the way that soldiers toyed—sometimes fatally—with inmates at Abu Ghraib.

Finally:

The fact that we've fought two wars, abrogated a treaty here and there, and squandered the affection of much of the species doesn't necessarily mean that fashion-show executions are nigh. But after all the strange twists of the past eight years, we might wake up to a reality that's weirder still.

Again, this speaks to the pervasive attitude that though most main-stream Americans would see these characterizations of the past 8 years as a matter of opinion and worthy of debate, within the bubble the typical theatre critic lives these are given facts.

It seems McCarter is no longer just reviewing plays, but also making social and political commentary in the spirit of NY Times Frank Rich. God help us all.

A View From Stage Right; My Manifesto. by Stage Right

2009-02-26T18:53:00.000-08:00

A View From Stage Right; My Manifesto.by Stage Right

There is a problem with the American Theatre.

The vast majority of plays produced on our stages are intimidating, antagonistic and often downright offensive to 50% of Americans. I know this because I am one of them and I see that half of the country votes like I do.

This is not to say these plays aren’t entertaining; many of them are. The actors are often terrific–one of this country’s rich artistic resources is its acting community. Ditto for our directors, designers and the crews who execute these artists’ visions.

But, the content of these plays are anathema to many of us.

Other than New York, San Francisco and much of Los Angeles, the majority of theatre goers in America find these plays antithetical to their personal beliefs. When this is brought up to Artistic Directors in Middle America, when they are confronted and told that they are producing plays that are offensive to their subscribers, they usually respond: “Good! That is my mission, to challenge the audience, to not just entertain but to make them think and re-think their deep beliefs and to see another part of society.”

The trouble is, it doesn’t work both ways. It’s not like the Artistic Directors of theatres in Berkeley or San Francisco or Manhattan are challenging their audiences by making them re-think their beliefs. The sad fact is that the majority of subscribers at non-profit institutions maintain their subscriptions not because they enjoy the plays, but because they don’t want to lose their season seats. And the people who run these theatres know it. In fact, they count on it. Therefore, they have carte blanche in choosing plays that will antagonize and offend many of their supporters. It’s the classic co-dependent, dysfunctional relationship, and it is a big problem.

This is an issue I’ve been wanting to cover here at Big Hollywood from the moment I was given the theatre beat. Today, I finally found my jumping off point.

I stumbled upon a mediocre review of what seems to be a typical, feminist, anti-misogyny, anti-religious right, offensive off-Broadway play. I was looking for a “big picture” issue to set the show up as an example of the ongoing problem in how plays make their way to the stage in the American Theatre World. In a feature article in Time Out, I found what I’d been looking for:

In telling the tale of a pair of feminist vigilantes slaughtering Christian
right-wingers and gleefully blogging about their spree, Callaghan mashes up Abu
Ghraib and Bon Jovi, Harold Pinter and Jane Fonda’s workout videos. Blood,
Jell-O and other fluids feature heavily.
So does Fonda herself, who appears
as a kind of clueless muse. Putting her onstage as a character began with a
challenge from Fagan, for whom Callaghan wrote the play while in the midst of
fulfilling a series of more straitlaced assignments for theaters like South
Coast Repertory and Playwrights Horizons.
“I was all commissioned up, but I
had other material that I wanted to put into a play and no one to write it for,”
Callaghan explains…

Did you catch it? “I was all commissioned up…” This playwright, Sheila Callaghan, has multiple commissions from mainstream, non-profit theatres to develop her work. You and I finance those commissions, as I explained in a previous post. I want to show you a bit of what you’re paying for.

First, let’s examine her current play, That Pretty Pretty; or The Rape Play. Let me be clear, this play is being produced on a shoestring budget in a 99-seat theatre in lower-Manhattan by a small non-profit called Rattlestick Playwrights Theatre. It is NOT one of the commissioned plays at a larger, non-profit theatre. However, the existence of those commissions allows this playwright to write plays like this. She makes a point to say that mainstream theatres probably would not touch this play, but, because Rattlestick is a non-profit, 501(c)(3), you and I subsidize their existence by allowing them to forgo any kind of tax burden. This is how the Rattlestick Playwrights Theatre web page describes the play:

A pair of radical feminist ex-strippers scour the country on a murderous rampage
against right-wing pro-lifers, blogging about their exploits in gruesome detail.
Meanwhile, a scruffy screenwriter named Owen tries to bang out his magnum opus
in a hotel room as his best friend Rodney (“The Rod”) holds forth on rape and
other manly enterprises. When Owen decides to incorporate the strippers into his
screenplay, the boundaries of reality begin to blur, and only a visit from Jane
Fonda can help keep worlds from blowing apart. Sheila Callaghan’s THAT PRETTY
PRETTY; OR, THE RAPE PLAY is a violently funny and disturbing excavation of the
dirty corners of our imaginations.

By the way, they omitted the fact that the character of Rodney (”The Rod”) is an Iraq War veteran. That’s the guy who “Holds forth on rape and other manly enterprises.”
The mission statement for Rattlestick Playwrights Theatre is also on their web page:

In order to best foster the future voices of American Theater, Rattlestick
Playwrights Theater is committed to the development and production of innovative
new plays.

Our mission is to provide a positive, nurturing experience for
emerging playwrights, to present diverse and challenging plays that otherwise
might not be produced, and to foster the future voices of the American
theater.

Rattlestick is supported, in part, by New York City Department of Cultural Affairs and the New York State Council on the Arts. Ever want to complain about the sales tax or hotel tax when you visit New York? The good folks at Rattlestick thank you for your support.

Two productions ago they featured the 10-year-old play Corpus Christi by Terrance McNally (McNally is hardly an “emerging playwright” in need of a “positive, nurturing experience”). Corpus Christi is infamous for its subject matter; it depicts the final days of Christ with the twelve apostles. Oh, and by the way… Jesus and the apostles are all gay!!! The Last Supper scene cannot be described here.

The production before Corpus Christi was Lady by Craig Wright, creator of ABC’s Dirty, Sexy Money (he too needs a “positive, nurturing experience”?). Here is an excerpt of one reviewer’s take on Lady:

Craig Wright has done a masterful job in cleverly camouflaging his anti war,
anti Bush sentiments within the confines of a hunting trip gone sour. As Vice
Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s son prepares to deploy to Iraq this play
resonates in a most timely manner.

What makes me think that if Andrew Breitbart, Gary Graham and I were watching this play, Mr. Wright’s politics wouldn’t seem too “cleverly camouflaged?” I think you get the picture…

So, let’s reset the stats here:

Sheila Callaghan was “all commissioned up” but wanted to write another play about two mass-murdering feminists who target right-to-lifers. One of the only male characters is an Iraq-war veteran who “holds forth on rape and other manly enterprises.”
The play is being produced by a non-profit theatre (that means they do not pay any taxes on income, meaning you and I are subsidizing their efforts) which claims they are producing “diverse and challenging” plays that “otherwise might not be produced.”
In the last calendar year, they presented a play that most Christians would find offensive and blasphemous written by one of America’s most-produced playwrights,
and a play written by a creator of a prime-time network show in which he “has done a masterful job in cleverly camouflaging his anti war, anti Bush sentiments.”

OK? Everybody with me so far?

Time for my “Big Picture” thesis: Broadway continues to present left-wing, anti-traditional American values, anti-religious, feminist, pro-radical gay agenda plays because that is where the non-profit money is. Yes, Broadway is a commercial enterprise and plays there live or die by the ticket-buyers, but the REAL money for playwrights prior to their big Broadway break is found in all of the commissions and grants doled out by Artistic Directors and Dramaturgs (a position within a theatre that deals mainly with research and development) in non-profit and college theatre institutions all over America. And these Artistic Directors and Dramaturgs are all protected financially by you and me. By living in the protected environment of non-profit status, they are operating in corporations that are not burdened by America’s draconian corporate tax laws and they are not worried about having to actually sell tickets to an agreeable audience for their survival. They get their paychecks guaranteed by the efforts of their Development Department, not by producing quality entertainment.

So, how do these plays get chosen? The Dramaturgs or Literary Managers at a non-profit theatre have many research and development roles within the organizations, but a major component of their role is to be the main gateway for the Artistic Director by evaluating script submissions. Dramaturgs are prime magnets for a whole host of interns who eagerly work for prestigious non-profits as a stop on the road to their dream job as a director or playwright or…dramaturg!

A typical dramaturg has a disheveled office with piles of submitted scripts on the floor around her desk. She has at a master’s degree (if not a doctorate) and her thesis (or dissertation) was probably an analysis of Shakespeare’s patriarchal paradigm or O’Neill’s racist subtext or a revisionist take on Medea as a modern-day Sarah Palin. She only listens to the early Indigo Girls (before they went corporate and sold out) and she never misses the opening of a Michael Moore film. She has a TV but no cable or satellite; it is tuned only to the local PBS station and is otherwise used to watch DVDs of obscure documentaries, foreign films, and Robert Altman movies. If she’s in New York, she takes the bus, not the subway, and if in LA, she drives a Prius or takes the subway. She lacks a sense of irony.

Her staff is a group of graduate students who require certain days off to attend the local anti-globalization rallies yet insist on using iPods, iPhones and Macbooks all built by slave labor in Chinese Contract Manufacturing plants. Irony is lost on them, too. They have fine leadership qualities, so much so that they are now the RA for their dorm and are in charge of conducting sensitivity training and sexual-harassment seminars reminding all of the co-eds that “one in four women in college will be sexually assaulted,” and they believe it. They also believe that the non-profit they work for is too corporate and misogynistic and needs to be more diverse, inclusive and “push the boundaries” of the western theatre paradigm.

These are your gatekeepers. These are the people who will read through three or four scripts a day and boil them down to one page summaries for evaluation and judgment. Which types of plays do you think they will recommend? What have they been trained in college to judge as art? What subjects do they find entertaining? If they are looking to embrace a play with a serious message, what message do you think is worth endorsing?
******
Sheila Callaghan’s play is absurd. I think she would agree. It is meant to be absurd and to ridiculously reflect the over-the-top violence depicted in Tarantino movies. It is also meant to point out the absurdity of rampant pornography and the insidious waltzing partners of voyeurism and exhibitionism found on the Internet that young men and women are embracing with alarming aplomb. The sad irony and infuriating reality is that my fellow center/right thinkers in the entertainment industry agree with the hazards of the disintegration of the culture and the demeaning depiction of women in the media. The real targets of Ms. Callaghan’s 90-minute diatribe should be the liberal music executives promoting gangster rap acts or the leftist network executives at MTV who finance disgusting reality shows that do more to objectify women than any issue of Playboy ever could. But the only indictment of the music business is the use of White Snake album art in the poster design for the play. Let’s please note that the standard audience for White Snake is young, white, Mid-Western males. But which is more relevant to the culture of 2009 America, White Snake circa 1983, or Chris Brown and Akon? The rap industry is not targeted because of obvious political correctness considerations.

But even more frustrating is that statement in the Time Out feature: “I was all commissioned up, but I had other material that I wanted to put into a play and no one to write it for.” All commissioned up. According to her bio, Ms. Callaghan received awards or commissions from South Coast Repertory Theatre in Orange County, California. Playwright’s Horizons and Cherry Lane Theatre in Manhattan. New York State Council for the Arts, New York Foundation for the Arts, The MAP Foundation, The Susan Smith Blackburn Award, The Whiting Writing Award, The Jerome Fellowship… all organizations, foundations and civic entities giving grants to playwrights to support them while they create their works. If you go to the web pages for these organizations and look at their mission statements, you will see pretty much the same thing: “…makes grants that support emerging artists in the creation, development and production of new works…” blah blah blah. Nothing in there about politics. Nothing about pushing a specific agenda. Nothing about challenging the audience with an extreme viewpoint or philosophy.

But the recipients of these grants all tend to do that. Coincidence? I doubt it. I bet if we take a look at the people evaluating the plays and playwrights who receive these grants, they’ll look a lot like our friendly neighborhood dramaturg and her staff. And so it goes… on and on… the circle continues… all the while talented playwrights who celebrate traditional American ideals with stories of hope lose out to those who proclaim the false courage of “pushing the envelope” of societal norms. And I do not begrudge Ms. Callaghan her livelihood or her well-earned honors. I think she is a talented playwright. My beef is with the ideological vacuum in which she is allowed to create her work. Wouldn’t the American theatre be much more vibrant if ideas and voices were allowed to flourish from all sides of our political and cultural zeitgeist?

This is the problem, or more accurately, the root of the problem with American Theatre today. And the solutions are not easy or cheap but they could actually take effect with relative haste and with very real results. The solutions? You’ll have to wait for Part 2 of this manifesto.

Stage Right is on Facebook

Sunday Matinee: Oscar Special… “The Sound of Music” by Stage Right

2009-02-22T15:20:00.000-08:00

Sunday Matinee: Oscar Special… “The Sound of Music”by Stage Right
This week’s Sunday Matinee is dedicated to Hollywood.
Because it’s Oscar Sunday and the whole world is focused on the Kodak Theatre and the red carpet parade about to happen, it seems fitting that Broadway throws Hollywood a bone today. Also, considering every other Broadway show these days seems to be a staged version of a popular movie, (”Shrek”, “Wedding Singer”… Really?) it seems appropriate to shine a little light on a Broadway Musical that has been adapted to film.
My opinion is that in most cases, Broadway musicals are rarely improved by their film adaptations. Even the good film versions of musicals are still not as theatrically thrilling or as emotionally impactful as the experience of seeing these shows live. “Chicago”, “Hairspray” and “Phantom of the Opera” are all very recent examples of fine film adaptations. But I contend that even in the case of ”Chicago”, an Oscar winner, the theatre version was superior.
However, there are a few exceptions and in one extraordinary case, the film version is so superior than the stage version, that it is almost painful to sit through the original theatrical piece. That exception is “The Sound of Music”.
The film version of “The Sound of Music” is superior to the original play in every way. In fact, lately many local amateur productions of the stage version of “The Sound of Music” have even adopted some of the changes made for the film and implemented them on stage.
Since I come from the theatre perspective, it’s difficult for me to fully analyze what makes a film great, but I will point out the major differences between the original stage version and the brilliant movie.
Locations, locations, locations.
The biggest difference, and in many ways the most significant, is that through the film version we are actually transported to the beautiful locations discussed in the show. We actually SEE Maria singing at the top of her lungs on a beautiful mountain on the Vienna/Swiss border. We follow the children through the streets of Vienna as they learn to sing. We are caught in a high-speed chase as the family flees the Nazis in the dark of night. Austria is one of the characters in “The Sound of Music” and when you have to sit and watch a stage version you really miss those beautiful scenes in the film.
Nothing, nothing, NOTHING beats this incredible opening sequence and it can ONLY be done on film:
Now THAT’S a nun I could fall in love with.
OK, I know its a bit of theatrical heresy to state my next point, but thankfully, I am still anonymous and the theatre police will not come after me and lock me up for whispering a truth that we all know but are not supposed to reveal: Mary Martin was never really that great. I know, I know, she’s a legend and she has more Tonys than a good Little Italy restaurant and she was box office gold… but, come on! Do you really believe that Captain Von Trapp would mess up a good thing with a baroness to take a chance on Sister Mary Martin? And, wasn’t she a little too old to be a young novice? I think she could have been a Mother Superior back in 1959.
Meanwhile, Julie Andrews was nothing short of perfection. Her’s is a timeless performance and she is utterly believable not only as a young, innocent nun, but also as a beautiful romantic love interest and as a mother figure to the children.
Also, Christopher Plummer is brilliant in the very thankless role of Captain Von Trapp. Again, believable as a stern but loving father, but he also makes a perfect transition to romantic love interest. A huge improvement over the original Broadway casting of folk singer Theodore Bikel.
A few of my favorite things.
When the film version of “The Sound of Music” was written, the creators made a few structural changes to the show and re-arranged a few songs. The minor adjustments they made are so incredibly logical and improve the flow of the story and the pace of the first act that it almost seems a crime that the original stage version is not officially re-written to reflect the film version’s structure. The major differences are:
On Broadway, during the rain storm when the children all come to Maria’s room to hide from the thunder and lightening, the song Maria sings to make them feel better is “Lonely Goatherd”! Can you even imagine that song in that context now? “My Favorite Things” is the PERFECT song for that scene and how they didn’t put it there in the first place is a mystery.
Wait, it gets stranger… in the original Broadway version, “My Favorite Things” is actually a duet between Maria and Mother Superior sung at the convent prior to Maria going to join the Von Trapp family as a governess. Mother Superior sings it to Maria to give her confidence to leave the convent.
In the Broadway version, the characters of Max and Elsa (the baroness) are given a couple of ill-advised songs, “How Can Love Survive” and “There’s No Way to Stop It” that are wisely and thankfully excised from the film. Max and Elsa don’t need to sing, and keeping these songs from them does not diminish their characters, in fact it gives them more weight and importance by keeping them “straight”.
The love song between the Captain and Maria on Broadway is a real clunker called “An Ordinary Couple” which sounds more like an older couple planning their retirement years rather than two star-crossed lovers throwing convention aside and following their overwhelming emotional desire for each other:
An ordinary coupleIs all we’ll ever be,For all I want of livingIs to keep you close to me;To laugh and weep togetherWhile time goes on its flight,To kiss you every morningAnd to kiss you every night.
We’ll meet our daily problems,And rest when day is done,Our arms around each otherIn the fading sun.
An ordinary couple,Across the years we’ll ride,Our arms around each other,And our children by our side…Our arms around each other.
Zzzzzzzzzzzz….oh, I’m sorry, is the song done yet? Compare those lyrics to the ones written for the film version:
Perhaps I had a wicked childhoodPerhaps I had a miserable youthBut somewhere in my wicked, miserable pastThere must have been a moment of truthFor here you areStanding thereLoving meWhether or not you shouldSo somewhere in my youth or childhoodI must have done something goodNothing comes from nothingNothing ever couldSo somewhere in my youth or childhoodI must have done something good
Doesn’t that better reflect the seriousness of the romance? And the way it is filmed is romantic and kinda hot!
So this may be the only time you hear me say it, but if a stage version of “The Sound of Music” is playing near you…. ehhh…. skip it. Get the DVD of the amazing film, and make your kids watch it. The movie’s got EVERYTHING:
GREAT songs
GREAT cast
Cute kids
Beautiful scenery
Funny nuns
Beautiful romance
And the bad guys are NAZIS! What more do you want??!!??
What better song for this week’s finale than: “So Long, Farewell”? ENJOY THE OSCARS!
One more encore….
OOPS! I almost forgot the trivia! I ALWAYS like to share a little trivia or an inside theatrical anecdote about the shows we discuss on Sunday Matinee. So… This week, I’ll merge the two themes: “The Sound of Music” and award shows!
1960 is still one of the most debated and talked about Tony Award seasons ever. It was chock full of competition and incredibly surprising winners.
In the Best Musical category “The Sound of Music” was up against another classic: “Gypsy”, as well as “Fiorello!”, “Once Upon a Mattress” starring Carol Burnett in here legendary Broadway debut AND “Take Me Along” starring none other than Jackie Gleason in his triumphant return to Broadway. Also starring in “Take Me Along” and nominated for Best Actor in a Musical: Robert Morse and Walter Pidgeon… also nominated for Best Actor in a Musical: Andy Griffith in “Destry Rides Again”!
There’s more… while you were in town and you wanted to see a play instead of a musical, you could have seen: Sidney Poitier in “A Raisin in the Sun” or Jason Robards, Irene Worth and Maureen Stapleton in “Toys in the Attic” or George C. Scott in “The Andersonville Trial” or how about Melvyn Douglas in “The Best Man”? Or, Geraldine Page and Rip Torn in “Sweet Bird of Youth”! Or, perhaps you couldn’t get tickets to those plays… you could settle for Anne Bancroft in “The Miracle Worker”! Meanwhile, Jane Fonda in “There Was a Little Girl”, Roddy McDowell in “The Fighting Cock” and Warren Beatty in “A Loss of Roses” round out the “youth movement” in the 1960 season.
Imagine that season: Jackie Gleason, Carol Burnett, Mary Martin, Ethel Merman, Andy Griffith, Robert Morse, Walter Pidgeon, Sidney Poitier, Jason Robards, Irene Worth, Maureen Stapleton, George C. Scott, Melvyn Douglas, Geraldine Page, Rip Torn, Anne Bancroft, Jane Fonda, Roddy McDowell and Warren Beatty… top ticket price: $5.00
So, since this is awards day, let’s reveal the winners from 1960:
Best Musical: A very rare TIE! And NOT the two shows you expect: “The Sound of Music” and….. that timeless classic, the often revived and unforgettable….. ”Fiorello!” That’s right: “Fiorello!”… NOT “Gypsy!” NOT Jule Styne and Stephen Sondheim and Arthur Laurents and Jerome Robbins creating a masterpiece of American Musical Theatre… no, instead we honored “Fiorello!”. What were they thinking (drinking)? (Makes that whole “Shakespeare in Love” over “Saving Private Ryan” & “Life is Beautiful” almost acceptable, doesn’t it?)
Best Play: “The Miracle Worker” beating out “Toys in the Attic”, “The Best Man”, “A Raisin in the Sun” and Paddy Chayefsky’s “The Tenth Man”!
Best Actor in a Play: Melvyn Douglas over Poitier, Robards and Scott.
Best Actress in a Play: Anne Bancroft
Best Actress in a Musical: NOT Ethel Merman giving a performance anyone would give there right appendage to have witnessed. NOT Carol Burnett in a performance anyone would have given their OTHER appendage to have seen… no, the winner that year was…. Mary Martin…. seriously… Mary Martin. {sigh}
Best Actor in a Musical: The man who never won an Emmy Award for his groundbreaking work on television… Jackie Gleason. How sweet it is!
Stage Right is on Facebook

Sunday Matinee: Fiddler on the Roof by Stage Right

2009-02-15T15:19:00.000-08:00

Sunday Matinee: Fiddler on the Roofby Stage Right
1964’s Fiddler on the Roof (Book by Joseph Stein; Lyrics by Sheldon Harnick; Music by Jerry Bock) is a timeless classic of the traditional musical theatre format and reflects the tumultuous times of America in the 1960’s better than Hair could ever dream of doing. You better not be thinking: “What? Fiddler on the Roof? THAT old chestnut!!???!!” Today, I hope to enlighten you on the resounding voice contained within Fiddler and its relevance to the past century, this century and centuries to come. Fiddler demands respect, and despite the myriad of amateur and school productions you’ve probably had to sit through over the past thirty years (as well as the somewhat misguided but beautifully filmed movie version), its original form is actually one of the more sophisticated, influential and artistic achievements in the American musical theatre.

As I did last week, I like to start Sunday Matinee with a little-known fact: Many people know that Fiddler is based on a play written by Arnold Perl called, Tevye and his Daughters, based on Shalom Aleichem’s story, Tevye the Milkman. But, the title “Fiddler on the Roof” as well as the iconic imagery of the Fiddler used in the production does not come from that original source material. It comes from a series of paintings by Marc Chagall, the foremost Jewish/Russian painter of the 20th Century. Several of his paintings utilized the fiddler image to represent the precarious life of the Jews living in Eastern Europe at the time. The creative team of Fiddler recognized the powerful and poetic imagery and used it not only in the text of the show, but also set designer Boris Aronson used Chagall inspiration for the original Broadway production’s scenic elements as well.
I’m not going to bother with a *Spoiler Alert* on this post because if you haven’t seen Fiddler yet, I genuinely feel sorry for you and reading and learning the plot will actually do you some good! The full Fiddler plot is here.
Tradition:
When you first think of Fiddler, 9 times out of 10 you probably think of the lead character Tevye, with his hands raised singing If I Were a Rich Man. It is one of the many iconic images and phrases from Fiddler. But despite that, Tevye’s anthem of yearning for money and a comfortable life free from work should not be mistaken as the song representing the theme of Fiddler. It’s not even the main motivation for the Tevye character. The show’s theme and Tevye’s focus are revealed within the first five minutes of the show: (Editorial note: For any video examples in this post, I am purposely linking to high school productions so you can enjoy the purity and transcendent genius of the show. If teenagers can make it work, it’s a strong piece! Also, the energy and exuberance from a youthful cast and a youthful audience always makes the hair on my arm stand up straight.)
YouTube
“A fiddler on the roof. Sounds crazy, no? But in our little village of Anatevka, you might say every one of us is a fiddler on the roof, trying to scratch out a pleasant, simple tune without breaking his neck. It isn’t easy. You may ask, why do we stay here if it’s so dangerous? We stay because Anatevka is our home. And how do we keep our balance? That I can tell you in a word-TRADITION!”
Traditional values. Traditional families. Traditional gender roles. Traditional societal norms. Traditional religious rules and dogma. And, unquestioned adherence to those traditions: “You may ask, ‘where do these traditions come from?’ Well, I’ll tell you… {pause}… I don’t know. BUT IT’S A TRADITION!” This was the paradigm presented by Fiddler in its opening number. And the greatness of this opening number goes beyond the introduction of the themes and structures in the show, it also instantly introduces the audience to major characters, their personalities, the importance of the matchmaker, the penchant for loud and boisterous social conflicts which will be further revealed in the show, and the under-lying conflict with the gentiles. When one musical number can introduce all of this and set the stage for the plot and the social themes to be addressed, and yet still be entertaining and hummable, then you’ve got true greatness. When we discuss a great opening number, it’s time to address the master of the great opening number: Jerome Robbins.
Legendary director and choreographer Jerome Robbins has always preached the importance of an opening number. Robbins would frequently ask, “What is this show about?” until he got a satisfactory answer from the writers. When they reached the conclusion that ultimately Fiddler is about a complete breaking down of a former way of life and the ushering in of a new day full of new ideas, Robbins immediately helped construct Tradition. Robbins famously came to “fix” Stephen Sondheim’s first solo musical, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, which was having big trouble in out of town tryouts. At the time the opening number was a cute song called Love is in the Air, which set the stage for the love story of the show, but the main drive of the production was Zero Mostel and Jack Gifford’s hilarious performances. Robbins advised Sondheim to re-write the opening number to better reflect the bawdy, raucous humor contained in Larry Gelbart’s book. Almost overnight, Sondheim came up with, Comedy Tonight and the rest is Broadway history.
Robbins contribution to the creative process in Fiddler was just as instrumental. This was his first Broadway production with no real dance piece like in West Side Story or Small House of Uncle Thomas in King and I, Robbins last two mega-hits prior to Fiddler. Instead, this show was a triumph of storytelling through the art of staging rather then dance and he became the first director/choreographer to be so intertwined with the writing and creative development of a play. Until then, the formula for success on Broadway was to have a strong writing team deliver a show to George Abbot, and then let Mr. Abbot direct it. After Fiddler, the great directors and choreographers would join the writers in the collaborative effort like never before.
I’ve got FIVE daughters!
After tradition, we follow Tevye’s family through a critical time in their lives. The three oldest daughters are of marrying age and they eagerly await a visit from Yente, the matchmaker, a legendary role created by none other than Bea Arthur in the original Broadway production. The three daughters, Tzeitel, Hodel and Chava sing one of the most charming and elegant forms of the “I want” style of song for the musical theatre. An “I want” song, obviously, is a song where the character reveals to the audience their inner-most desires and allows the audience to root for and be a part of that character’s journey in getting what they desire. Alan Menken is the master of the “I want” song with “Somewhere That’s Green” from Little Shop, or Part of That World from The Little Mermaid. In Matchmaker, we learn about each daughter’s personalities and their desires, their interplay with each other, and the important concern they have about being stuck with a bad match. It is clear in this song, that they have no say in their future husband, a key plot point in Fiddler.

YouTube
Tzeitel:And you have your eye on the Rabbi’s son.
Hodel:Well, why not?We have only one Rabbi and he has only one son.Why shouldn’t I want the best?
Tzeitel:Because you’re a girl from a poor family.So whatever Yenta brings, you’ll take, right?Of course right!
Again, the elegant melding of lyrics and book to perfectly convey the characters needs as well as the major conflict keeping them from their dreams. And all of this put to an impossibly perfect melody that you feel like you will hum for the rest of the week. That’s what makes great musical theatre.
So through Tevye’s three eldest daughters we are introduced to the main conflict in the story: He wants to marry them off to the best possible husbands (based on his traditional criteria) and they wish to marry whom they, themselves choose (a revolutionary idea for Anatevka). And with this storyline comes the main cultural impact and societal message that Fiddler conveys. In 1964, the traditions and societal norms that were so grounded and reliable in the Western World were just starting to be upended (for better and for worse) and through Tevye, the Broadway audience could reflect their own struggles in accepting the radical changes going on around them.
The idea of Tevye resisting his 1st daughter’s desire to love the poor tailor that she has chosen for herself rather than the very old, but wealthy butcher that the Matchmaker has chosen for her seems quaint by today’s standards as well as 1964’s, but as the story progresses, Tevye is asked to continue to waiver and bend on his traditions and beliefs to the point where he cannot bend anymore. At a time when sons and daughters would soon be coming home from college with interchangeable hairstyles and wardrobes, Tevye’s problems resonated with the public, and still do. This was the generation that was about to be targeted with the offensive slogan: “Don’t trust anybody over thirty.” Watching Tevye cope with his troubles was no doubt good preparation for these poor folks and the trouble they were beginning to experience.
L’chiam, TO LIFE!
Another over-riding message in Fiddler is happiness and triumph through adversity. There is no doubt that the people of Anatevka had hard lives. They were poor. They lived in the Ukraine which was not really known for its lovely climate and living conditions. They were religiously and politically oppressed by the Tsarist police state. And yet, these people knew how to party! In the joyous tavern scene when Lazar Wolf, the butcher, is celebrating his engagement to Tevye’s daughter, we watch as the men of Anatevka explode with exuberance and a love of life that teaches the audience that life is for living and enjoying and we are to find happiness no matter what our circumstance. The same in the wonderful wedding scene which starts with the timeless Sunrise, Sunset which, again, conveys characters inner-most thoughts and melancholy at seeing their eldest child get married. The lyrics of Sunrise, Sunset are so wise and clean that it has also gained the status of timeless classic:
Is this the little girl I carried?Is this the little boy at play?I don’t remember growing olderWhen did they?
When did she get to be a beauty?When did he grow to be so tall?Wasn’t it yesterdayWhen they were small?
Sunrise, sunsetSunrise, sunsetSwiftly flow the daysSeedlings turn overnight to sunflowersBlossoming even as we gaze
Sunrise, sunsetSunrise, sunsetSwiftly fly the yearsOne season following anotherLaden with happiness and tears
But after that lyrical and dream-like song, the cast yells “Mazel Tov,” and the wedding celebration begins. A cacophony of dance highlighted by the iconic bottle dance performed by formally dressed, orthodox Jewish characters. This is not your standard vision for a show-stopping Broadway dance number, but when done with control, energy and passion it elicits screams of delight from the audience.
YouTube
L’chiam and The Wedding Dance, as well as Tevye’s overall approach to life with humor and whimsy provide a joyous lesson for the Fiddler audience: “Sure, life stinks, but what choice have you got but to smile and enjoy whatever little pleasures we get.” A smart guy I listen to would use that lesson as a formula for life-long happiness.
Bend, but don’t break.
It is Tevye’s third daughter, Chava, who provides him the greatest challenge. Like Tzeitel and Hodel before her, she presents her father with an ultimatum: Give my marriage your blessing or lose me as your daughter. But this time, Chava is marrying outside the faith. And although we see her fiancee associated with the Cossacks earlier in the play, he has renounced the Tsar and the pogroms in Anatevka because of his love for Chava. The only objectionable thing about him is that he is not Jewish and we discover that this is too much for Tevye to accept. And although inter-faith and inter-racial marriages are so common today, we are sympathetic to Tevye’s decision as it is a metaphor for the line that each of us has within ourselves. We recognize in Tevye that moment when each of us is prepared to say “Enough,” and even at the risk of losing the love of a family member, we must adhere to our principals. In this case, Tevye puts his love of God and how he was taught to observe that love higher than even his daughter and it comes across not as stubborn or bull-headed, it is seen as admirable.
And in the discomfort of this scene, after Tevye pronounces that “Chava is DEAD to us!” when learning of her eloping, the writers reward us with one of the sweetest and unappreciated songs from Fiddler providing the most moving moment in the piece:
Little Bird, Little ChavalehI dont understand what’s happening todayEverything is all a blurGentle and kind and affectionateThe sweet little bird you wereChavaleh, Chavaleh.
Little Bird, Little ChavalehYou were always such a pretty little thingEverybody’s favorite childGentle and kind and affectionateThe sweet little bird you wereChavaleh, Chavaleh
This is careful and brilliant writing. At a moment when our favorite character in the play, the one we have had the opportunity to be alone with on stage while he talks to God, therefore making us part of his conscious as he navigates these moral choices, at the moment when he could, potentially be unlikeable to us, the writers allow him to sing such exquisitely beautiful lyrics. As he wistfully remembers the young girl who had stolen his heart as a child, now breaking his heart as a young woman, we the audience are allowed to weep with Tevye rather than judge him for the choice he has made.
“Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum”
You gotta love any show tune with Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum as a genuine lyric. If I Were a Rich Man is a gift to any actor privileged to play the role of Tevye. In just over three minutes they get to convey, on behalf of Tevye, their humor, their desire, their love for their wife, their reverence, their passion, their pride and their humility all finished with the last tableau of their raised arms to the sky on the final beat of the song (Yul Brynner’s old secret for demanding a rousing cheer from the audience at the end of his solos). And the melody of Rich Man is so infectious that it stays with you forever after one listen.
Often times, the strength of a production of Fiddler is reliant on the strength of the actor playing the role. Therefore, debates have ensued for decades over who is the quintessential Tevye. Zero Mostel originated the role on Broadway and Chaim Topol was awarded the part in the Oscar-winning film. Two different types of actors you will never find. I feel personally cheated that I was never able to see Mostel play this part, but listening to the original Broadway cast recording almost makes me feel like I saw him. His performance leaps out of the speakers and I swear I can see him on stage. I was fortunate enough to see the great Paul Lipson, who actually holds the record for playing the role more than any other actor, more than 2,000 times. He understudied Herschel Bernardi in a production back in 1981 and it was my first exposure to the greatness of the role. I suppose you never forget your first Tevye.
The movie version of Fiddler is an astounding achievement as a film. It beautifully portrayed the realism of life in Anatevka and in being as realistic as it was, it ultimately failed as an adaptation of the stage musical. You see, by being as realistic as it was, it lost all of the charm that the stage production had. The stage production is presented as a whimsical fable that deals with very serious issues. The film comes across as a very serious important film which deals with serious and important issues…. Where’s the fun? The magic of Fiddler is that it addresses these serious issues without ever being too serious, or,worse, taking itself too seriously. It is written in a rhythm and pace that never forgets there is a live audience in the room with the actors. It never gets bogged down in melodrama. The seriousness of the situations sit in beautiful contrast to the joy and lighthearted love that the characters have for each other. In the film, the joy is gone and with it the magic that makes Fiddler so great.
Topol’s performance in the film is solid, it’s not his fault that the realism of the film undercuts his character’s charm and our sympathies for him. But, the good news is that Topol is now touring the USA with what they are calling his “Farewell Tour” of Fiddler, and if it is coming to your town, see it and take a child. Here is a link to the itinerary for the Fiddler tour.
So as the finale for this week’s Sunday Matinee, I offer a rare video of the great Zero Mostel. Out of costume, but bringing that joy and exuberance to the song that will always be his. Enjoy the magic:
YouTube
Stage Right is on Facebook

Pippin: The Original Obama? by Stage Right

2009-02-14T15:19:00.000-08:00

Pippin: The Original Obama?by Stage Right
I saw a really solid production of the Stephen Schwartz’ musical “Pippin” at the Mark Taper Forum in Los Angeles. There was a sequence that made me think of our current political climate. The character of Pippin realizes that his father, the King, is a tyrant and must be overthrown. He delivers an eloquent speech to the people (book by Roger O. Hirson):
I think it’s time for a change. We’ve got to dedicate ourselves to a better world for all people. Peace and justice must be restored to this great land. The tyrant must be overthrown. Terror and bloodshed must be ended. We need a leader with the wisdom and the courage to seep out the old order and create a better world. Down with Charles! Up with ME!
Pippin assassinates his father and assumes the throne. Immediately, he begins to implement the changes he promised:
BEGGAR:Thank you, sire. I am a very poor man. I can’t find work. You have much and I have nothing. Is that fair?
PIPPIN:No. That’s completely unfair. Treasurer? I order you to distribute money to the poor:
(THEY ALL applaud as the BEGGAR thanks him)
LEADING PLAYER:King Pippin, the Charitable:
PEASANT:Sire, I’m a peasant. A simple working man. I own not one millimeter of land on which I’ve worked so hard all my life. Is that fair?
PIPPIN:No. That’s terrible. But I will do something about it. I hereby decree that from now on all peasants will own the land that they cultivate.
(THEY ALL applaud)
LEADING PLAYER:King Pippin, the Just:
NOBLE:Sire, now that you’ve given the land to the peasants, we loyal nobles have no source of income. Therefore, we can no longer pay taxes.
PIPPIN:Well then I hereby abolish taxes.
(THEY ALL applaud)
SOLDIER:You realize sire without taxes you’ll have no money to support an army.
PIPPIN:That’s all right. I don’t need an army. That’s it. No more taxes, no more army.
(THEY ALL applaud)
LEADING PLAYER:King Pippin, the Peaceful:
FIELD MARSHALL:Sire, it is my duty to inform you that the Infidel hun has attacked in the East. He has destroyed three villages, raped hundreds of women. Tortured and murdered thousands of your royal subjects.
PIPPIN:Can he do that?
FIELD MARSHALL:He has. But he will withdraw:on one condition.
PIPPIN:Well, that’s very reasonable. I’m certainly willing to make any small concession. What’s the condition?
FIELD MARSHALL:He demands your head on a pike staff.
PIPPIN:Oh. Well, in that case, I guess you’ll just have to go out and destroy the Infidel.
FIELD MARSHALL:But sire, I have no more men to wage a campaign:I have no money to buy supplies:I have no army.
PIPPIN:Excuse me a moment. Nobles? You remember that decree I made a little while ago about land and taxes?
NOBLE:Yes, sire.
PIPPIN:That’s off.
NOBLE:You mean you want me to pay taxes again and raise an army?
PIPPIN:Yes. That’s right.
NOBLE:But sire, without land I have neither money nor power over the peasants.
PIPPIN:Oh, yes, that’s a very good point. I hereby suspend land reform.
PEASANT:Suspend land reform? Why the hell should I work when the poor get handouts from the royal treasury?
PIPPIN:You’re absolutely right. I hereby revoke charity to the poor.
BEGGAR:Up thine, sire.
PIPPIN:Take that man away and hang him! No. Stop! Wait! Could you just let me think a minute, please.
Now THAT’S a great example of change you can believe in.

Paleo-Feminists Visit Jane Fonda by Stage Right

2009-02-12T15:18:00.000-08:00

Paleo-Feminists Visit Jane Fondaby Stage Right

I knew Jane Fonda’s blog would be a treasure-trove of fun information!
Last night was the first preview for “33 Variations” at the Eugene O’Neill Theatre, and to celebrate her triumphant return to the Great White Way, Blog-erella posted pics of all of the very, very important people who came to see and support her. I suggest you check it out and look at the pics… It is a veritable “Jurassic Park” of feminist raptors!
Gloria Steinem, who according to Jane, lectured the actor playing Beethoven:
“Zach Grenier who plays Beethoven said today that he had a glorious conversation with Gloria Steinem about Beethoven. No surprise to me that Gloria could teach him a few things about the master. She’s so amazing.”
Ugh! Can you imagine THAT insufferable cocktail conversation? You’ve just finished your first preview… you’re trying to relax with a Wild Turkey on the rocks, and here comes MS. Gloria to tell you everything SHE knows about Ludwig Von! CHECK PLEASE!
Eve Ensler, famous for only one thing: Writing an excruciatingly painful-to-watch play about a woman’s body part that rhymes with Regina (long vowel sound on the “i” please)
Rev. Debra Haffner, an ordained Unitarian Universalist Minister who created the Religious Declaration on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing; the National Coalition to Support Sexuality Education; the Commission on Adolescent Sexual Health; and the Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education, Kindergarten - Grade Twelve.
Cristina Biaggi, (Jane spells her name wrong) a doctor in anthropology, a sculptor and an author whose most famous book is, The Rule of Mars: The Origins, History and Impact of Patriarchy. She seems obsessed with “Goddess Culture” and…. oh, I just can’t finish this… you get the picture!!!
The only mention of a human with male body parts is a picture of a stunning bouquet of flowers sent by none other than Val Kilmer, Jane’s neighbor in New Mexico (Those must be really fun block parties).
It’s so ironic that the actress who starred as a prostitute in “Walk on the Wild Side” and “Klute” is now surrounding herself exclusively with feminist leaders and icons. Is she trying to cleanse herself from her notorious past with domineering husbands like Roger Vadim, Ted Turner and even Tom Hayden?
Did you ever notice that Henry’s daughter always seemed to allow the men in her life to shape and mold her persona?
While married to Vadim, she was the international sex kitten movie star who would participate in threesomes so as not to lose her man.
While married to radical leftist Hayden, she suddenly dropped the uber-femininity and became a denim-wearing, hippie-hairstyled, radical war-protester living in a “shack” (as she described it) and funneling all of her millions from her workout empire into leftist organizations.(did you ladies know that when you bought that video you were supporting radical leftist groups set up by Hayden and Jane?)
While married to Ted Turner, she became a tomahawk chopping, Southern-belle wife of a billionaire. She went from living in a shack to living in 28 homes and moved her life to Atlanta and happily gave up her film career (which he requested) to make her man happy.
And now she’s surrounded by feminists of the highest order. I wonder if they’ve ever discussed the fact that Jane used to procure prostitutes for those infamous three-somes with Vadim? Here’s the best part of these stories… Jane characterized the situation as Vadim FORCING her into these threesomes by “bullying” her.. but it doesn’t really sound like Roger had a really tough sell:
Also on “60 Minutes,” Fonda acknowledged that she had participated in sexual threesomes at the encouragement of her first husband, French film director Roger Vadim. “One night Vadim brought another woman into my bed and I went along with it. … I’m competitive … I was going to keep up with the Joneses. It was the ’60s and whatever,” she said.
She told the program she isn’t sure if she enjoyed the ménage à trois, but said she consented because she worried he would leave her otherwise.
Let me get this straight: “I’m competitive,” “It was the 60’s,” and she’s not sure if she enjoyed it? THAT’S the extent of the “bullying” and FORCED sexual activity? Well, this should be easy to clear up… let’s just ask Roger Vadim for his side of the story. Oops! We can’t. Vadim died five years before Fonda wrote her autobiography in which she revealed their intimate secrets and these charges.
What a courageous woman she is.
I love the irony that MS. Steinem all but anoints Blog-erella as a sister in the fight for women, especially given her past track record of exploitation of prostitutes and history of succumbing to and being compliant with male patriarchy. But at the mention of Sarah Palin’s name, Steinem says:
“It’s such an insult,” and she goes on to add, “Having someone who looks like you and behaves like them — who looks like a friend but behaves like an adversary—is worse than having no one.”
“Behaves like them… like an adversary?” Really? You mean like a woman who throws away her career for her husband, gives all of the profits from her business to her husband’s favorite causes, and pimps for prostitues for threesomes rather than alienate her husband’s affections… is that adversarial behavior?
Oh, apparently that is the definition of a feminist.

Frank Rich is a Big Fat Liar, Part 2 by Stage Right

2009-02-10T15:16:00.000-08:00

Frank Rich is a Big Fat Liar, Part 2by Stage Right
Hollywood loves a sequel, and so does Big Hollywood. My post about Frank Rich and his penchant for repeating left-wing urban legends as fact garnered many comments from both sides of the issue asking for the post to be longer or to add more examples. I admit that calling Rich a “Big Fat Liar” with only one example may have been a bit thin. So here is another quick example, and I’ll keep bringing them if Theatre-boy Frank keeps writing them.

Big Lie: “Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies”
In his October 11th column, Theatre-boy Frank cites, “At McCain-Palin rallies, the raucous and insistent cries of “Treason!” and “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” as well as the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets…”. I’ve included all of his links so you can hunt them down yourself. I find it interesting that his three sources are Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, MSNBC and The Huffington Post. What happened to the paper of record as a source for news? Are you really citing another opinion columnist, a left-wing blog and MSNBC as your news sources?
The great John Leo unmasks the lie behind these statements and then concludes: (by the way, I get the irony of linking to his post at the HuffPo considering I just lambasted Rich for sourcing HuffPo, but it’s John Leo for crying out loud, and I’m not the NY Times!)
By the time the outrage on the left reached Frank Rich’s Sunday column, the narrative line about two-person abusive crowd was set in cement. At Rich’s hand, the one racial remark in Clearwater became “the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets.” The one shout of “Kill Him!” aimed at Ayers after Palin’s description of his bombing career became “raucous and insistent cries of “terrorist’ and “Kill Him!” All untrue. This is a classic example of awful journalism. Adam Clymer, the former New York Times reporter and Congressman John Lewis both issued statements alleging that the Palin crowd in Clearwater reminded them of George Wallace. Lewis, who also accused McCain, pointed out that Wallace never killed anyone; he just set the stage for the Birmingham bomb that killed three black children.
But don’t take his word or mine, the Secret Service investigated the “Kill him” remark and concluded:
The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.
See what they did there? It says “when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned,” but reread Dana Milbank’s description of what happened:
“One of his earliest supporters is a man named Billayers,” she said. (”Boooo!” said the crowd.) “And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, ‘launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,’ ” she continued. (”Boooo!” the crowd repeated.)
“Kill him!” proposed one man in the audience.
Clearly, even if you take the report from Milbank as fact, the “Kill him” remark was directed at William Ayers. But by the time Theatre-boy Frank “reported” it, it was right out of Nazi Germany.
Please take a look at the pattern here. Left-wing blogs misunderstand or, in some cases, purposely misrepresent a comment or event and start to spin a tale that paints Republicans in the standard, racist, bigoted, sexist, fascist, homophobic way. It spins on the web for a week or so, and then Theatre-boy Frank puts it in the paper of record and it becomes mainstream media Gospel.
But, at the heart of it is a half-truth and in some cases a lie. And when a voice as powerful as Frank Rich’s in a paper as influential as the NY Times repeats lefty BS from the Huffington Post, it’s worse than sloppy journalism, it’s a Big Fat Lie.
Stage Right is on Facebook.

Sunday Matinee: Les Miserables by Stage Right

2009-02-10T15:15:00.000-08:00

Sunday Matinee: Les Miserablesby Stage Right

Sunday matinee will be a weekly post focusing on an individual Broadway show. I’ll discuss some of its history, trivia and little-known anecdotes as well as analyze the political, social or cultural ramifications of the piece. In fact, let me start with a little-known theatre fact: Did you ever wonder why Saturday matinees on Broadway are at 2:00 and Sunday matinees are at 3:00? My understanding is that years ago, the Sunday matinee was scheduled for 3:00 so the actors would have time to go to a late church service on Sunday morning. Because of the late hour of the prior night’s performance, actors tend to sleep in rather late on Sunday mornings. The Noon Mass is sometimes the only option for church and then a nice lunch after church would have made a 1:30 call way too tight. I wonder how many actors on Broadway these days take advantage of that schedule. Les Miserables I’ll start with a rather blunt declarative: “Les Miserables” is the greatest musical ever written. It’s taken me years to get to this point. “My Fair Lady” was there for a while for me, then “A Chorus Line,” then “Sweeney Todd”… but after over twenty years of reflection from seeing that first invitational dress rehearsal at the amazing Broadway Theatre in the Spring of 1987 and after seeing the under-appreciated revival from two seasons ago I have reached the conclusion that there is no better piece of musical theatre than “Les Mis”. *Spoiler Alert* If you are a regular reader of my Stage Right postings, I assume you have a certain affinity for the theatre. And after almost 25 years I would assume you’ve already either seen the show or at least heard the score. But if you haven’t I have to warn all readers that it will be impossible for me to discuss this show without revealing major plot points. So, if you don’t want to read spoilers, then kindly click on one of the discreet banner advertisements to your right and be on your way! Click this link for a detailed synopsis of Les Miserables. Is the story liberal or conservative? At the beginning of Les Mis when we follow Valjean’s journey off of the chain-gang and observe his attempts to integrate with civilization after 17 years of imprisonment for stealing bread, it is easy to think that this play is about government oppression, law and order versus compassion, social prejudice… you know… liberal crap! And throw in the conditions of the starving and the homeless and the heroic intellectual college student’s stand against authority and on the face of it this is just left of “Hair”. At the end of the day you’re another day olderAnd that’s all you can say for the life of the poorIt’s a struggle, it’s a warAnd there’s nothing that anyone’s givingOne more day standing about, what is it for?One day less to be living. At the end of the day you’re another day colderAnd the shirt on your back doesn’t keep out the chillAnd the righteous hurry pastThey don’t hear the little ones cryingAnd the winter is coming on fast, ready to killOne day nearer to dying!
These lyrics could be the anthem for ACORN for God’s sake. But look deeper in to the story and you’ll see that although the plot does use the plight of the poor and the anger at the aristocracy in 19th Century France as a catalyst for the tragic events to come, the over-riding theme of Les Mis is redemption. And, more specifically, redemption through God. Valjean is the protagonist, and Valjean is the epitome of a conservative. After a bishop shows him mercy, Valjean vows to start a new life and leave his past behind him: One word from him and I’d be backBeneath the lash, upon the rackInstead he offers me my freedomI feel my shame inside me like a knifeHe told me that I have a soul,How does he know?What spirit comes to move my life?Is there another way to go? I am reaching, but I fallAnd the night is closing inAnd I stare into the voidTo the whirlpool of my sinI’ll escape now from the worldFrom the world of Jean ValjeanJean Valjean is nothing nowAnother story must begin!
And what a story it is. In eight short years he has become a factory owner and mayor of Montreuil-sur-Mer, now that’s a capitalist… this dude is Victor Hugo’s Mitt Romney. Within the next twenty minutes of the show, Valjean shows compassion (forces Javert to put Fantine in hospital instead of prison), honesty (reveals himself as 24601 rather than let an innocent man be jailed in his place), and integrity (by keeping his vow to Fantine and going to rescue Cosette). When we next see Valjean in the slums of Paris, he and his now grown adopted daughter Cosette are distributing money and care to the starving homeless. He isn’t petitioning the government for programs, he is using his own funds for charity. He goes to the barricades not necessarily because he believes in the students’ cause, but so he can watch over Marius for the sake of his daughter… what a father would do out of love for his daughter is the greatest example of conservative values. And what is Valjean’s great, second-act show stopping song? A prayer to God. Bring him peaceBring him joyHe is youngHe is only a boy You can takeYou can giveLet him beLet him liveIf I die, let me dieLet him liveBring him home
Finally, on his death bed he sees a vision of Fantine and Eponine welcoming him to heaven and he sums up Victor Hugo’s over-riding theme of the show with the lyric:
To love another person is to see the face of God.
Valjean is a combination of Ronald Reagan, Rudy Giuliani, John Wayne and Pope John Paul II. Les Mis is a conservative show, but, what makes it so great is that liberals don’t know it and they can enjoy it without any qualms. Is it just another big, British “spectacle” musical? The timing of this production (mid to late 1980’s) as well as set-designer John Napier’s affiliation (he had just done “Cats” and “Starlight Express”) allow some people to categorize Les Mis as just one of the many “spectacle” musicals which came out of London at this time. Those shows were all lumped together as, shallow, reliant on sets and special effects, loud, overwhelming… I heard them written off as Burger King of Broadway meant to appeal to unsophisticated tourists, but not real theatre mavens. I’ll utilize another post defending these shows, but despite how you feel about them, it is absolutely wrong to lump Les Mis in with them. True, Director Trevor Nunn’s prior forays into musical theatre were Cats and Starlight, but Les Miserables has much more in common with some of his other efforts like 1984’s “Cyrano de Bergerac” with Derek Jacobi (a production like you have never seen!) and, mostly, his landmark production of “The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby”. Both Les Mis and Nickleby were co-directed by Nunn and John Caird. The fact is, Les Mis is such a huge and sweeping story that it would be nearly impossible to tell the story without major scenic elements. However, other than the giant pieces used for the barricade scene (which also double as the slums in the first act) Les Mis is actually a very spare set. A genius use of turntables in the stage (which is hardly a “special effect”, turn tables have been used for years in theatre) which effortlessly bring minimal set pieces (a table, a gate, some chairs) as well as the various performers sweeping in and out of Valjean’s life give the impression that this show is a technical wonder, but it’s actually a very traditional scenic design, just updated to utilize the computerized stage-animation technologies of our time. And to call Les Mis “loud” is to be too simplistic. Are their loud moments? Of course, they are depicting a gun battle and a rebellion for crying out loud. But the most moving moment and emotionally impactful are the quietest moments. Fantine alone on stage in a spotlight singing “I had a dream my life would be, So different from this hell I’m living, So different now from what it seemed“. When she holds out the note on “seeeeeeeeeeeeeeemed” the music stops for a moment and all the audience hears is the silence in the theatre before she sings the last line of the song. Same thing when Eponine sings “The world is full of happiness that I have never knooooooooooooown.“ In Les Mis, the most meaningful moments occur when we are alone with one character and they are revealing their most personal thoughts to us. That is not spectacle, that is drama.
“But I don’t want to see a show about a bunch of college protesters fighting against the police!” That’s what my Uncle said to me when I forced him to see Les Mis in 1987. And at first glance, I understand that this plot line is a trouble spot for a lot of conservatives. So let’s address this issue. First of all, understand that the students are protesting against an in-effectual government. Their hero is Gen. Jean Lamarque who is often described as a leftist. But the rebels in the June Rebellions of 1832, which are depicted in Les Mis, were rebelling against the monarchy and in favor of Republicanism. In the context of 1832 France, Republicanism stood for self-government with liberty, popular sovereignty and civic virtue. You see, back then, left was right! And even though a good conservative would not advocate street riots to advance one’s cause, the real epitaph of the student rebels is sung by Marius in the stirring Empty Chairs and Empty Tables:
From the table in the cornerThey could see a world rebornAnd they rose with voices ringingI can hear them now!The very words that they had sungBecame their last communionOn the lonely barricade at dawn…… …..Oh my friends, my friends, don’t ask meWhat your sacrifice was forEmpty chairs at empty tablesWhere my friends will sing no more.
Not really an anthem to the cause. More of a song of regret and reconsideration, I think. The greatest Act One Finale of all time I’ve discussed how Les Mis is a triumph of storytelling and stage direction as well as technical theatre excellence, but in the end, this show boils down to a really great score. The music is sweeping and powerful, tender and moving, funny and raucous, and climactic and chilling. And in one song in particular, composer Claude-Michel Schönberg and librettist Alain Boublil achieve all of these things at the same time. Act 1 finale “One Day More” became an instant classic upon its first public performance and continue to be the single most impressive song written for the musical theatre. It borrows much from Leonard Bernstein and Stephen Sondheim’s “Tonight” from “West Side Story” but it achieves even more by expressing to the audience every character’s individual storyline at the end of the first act by utilizing a different musical motif for each character individually, and then in a triumph of overlapping counterpoint the different musical themes heard in songs earlier in the show combine into a cacophony of music that dares the audience not to come back for Act 2! In One Day More the writers manage to convey to the audience:
Valjean’s plan to run away with Cosette to America.
Marius and Cosette’s despair at being separated after falling in love.
Eponine’s heartbreak over Marius.
Marius’ torn feelings of wanting to follow Cosette but feeling obligated to stay and fight with his friends at the barricades.
Enjolras rallying the students for tomorrow’s rebellion.
Javert’s plans to disguise himself as a rebel to undermine their plans.
Mssr. and Mdme. Thernardier’s plans to loot and steal from the fallen corpses at the barricades.
Marius’ final decision to stay loyal to his friends and fight by their sides.
All of these plot points are brilliantly conveyed through song. And what an amazing song it is. Here is the original Broadway Cast, without the benefit of turntable or an on-the-ball sound technician, from the 1987 Tony Awards (with a 1 minute prologue of “At the End of the Day”):
YouTube
Frankly, to see One Day More at the end of Act 1 is reason enough to see Les Mis. Timeless Finally, what makes Les Mis so great is that it is timeless. Its story resonates now as much as twenty years ago and as much as it did in 1862 when Victor Hugo released the novel. I think it would have resonated in 1770 America, and even in Shakespeare’s Elizabethan England and even way back in Euripides’ Greece. Because it speaks to the greatest struggles on human kind. Man vs. himself, Man vs. God, Man vs. Man. And Man’s struggle against power and the wicked, tyrannical use of it. I fully expect to see a breathtaking production of Les Mis with my grandchildren some day (and my oldest kid is not even 10 so it better be a while). Do You Hear the People Sing? If you’re like me, you need a regular fix of Les Mis and, now that the Broadway revival has closed it looks like a trip to London is your best shot where it is currently in its 23rd record-breaking year. But, in the mean time, I highly recommend this 10th Anniversary Concert Version of Les Miserables filmed at the London’s Royal Albert Hall. Watching this proves that this show doesn’t need any of the special effects and technical wizardry to sustain its greatness. It is performed with no staging at all. Just the actors at microphones singing the show. It is an all-star, dream team of Les Mis performers including:
Colm Wilkinson as Valjean - He is the original and the greatest. This role will always be his. Like Yul Brynner in “King and I”, any actor to play this role will not just be playing Valjean, they will be playing Colm Wilkinson as Valjean
Lea Salonga as Eponine - Yes, she is known as Kim in “Miss Saigon”, but her turn as Eponine is the single greatest interpretation of this role. Always tender, always sympathetic, and never whiny like some Eponines are.
Michael Ball as Marius - Yes, he’s a little old and a little chubby to pull it off completely, but his voice is the purest I have ever heard sing these songs.
Michael Maguire as Enjolras - This role sort of became his one-hit wonder. He won the Best Supporting Actor Tony for it but he hasn’t been able to sustain a huge Broadway since. But when 6 foot plus Michael Maguire thrusts his fist in the air holding a rifle and the lights catch his white sleeves and he belts out in a clarion tenor voice “One More Day Before the Storm!” I dare you not to get shivers.
Judy Kuhn as Cosette - The first and only Cosette to not come across a little bit annoying. For the love triangle to work the audience can’t be thinking “My God, what does he see in her? He should totally go for Eponine!” and with Judy Kuhn, you don’t say that. I totally saw what Marius saw in her.
There are a few other great things about this DVD. First it is performed with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra which is a much lusher orchestration than the Broadway production. The additional chairs make the music that much more thrilling. There is also a chorus of hundreds of singers seated behind the orchestra who stand and punctuate the larger musical numbers with a triumphant sound unheard in a theatre production, only in a concert like this.
Finally, this DVD boasts a remarkable finale where 17 different actors from around the world parade down the center aisle with a flag representing their country. It is revealed that they are Valjeans from all of the International casts of Les Mis. They perform a breathtaking rendition of “Do You hear the People Sing” and “One Day More”. Thanks to YouTube, I’ll use it for the finale of this Sunday Matinee: (keep a sharp eye for the Japan Valjean)
YouTube

Stage Right is on Facebook.

Critics Say: “Ferrell is right, Bush is stupid.” by Stage Right

2009-02-07T15:14:00.000-08:00

Critics Say: “Ferrell is right, Bush is stupid.”by Stage Right

I know what’s going on in the advertiser’s office for “You’re Welcome America, A Final Night With George Bush“. Every morning after a show opens the producers assemble with the agency and dissect the reviews pulling out the best quotes to be used in ads, posters and banners on the theatres doors and marquee. Based on the raves, I’m sure they’re having a pretty fun time.

But, as your trusted, center/right theatre observer here at Big Hollywood, I read the same reviews and pulled out my own quotes. You see, the content of the reviews I’ve been reading reveal less to me about what’s going on up on the stage at the Cort, it’s says more to me about the bias of the critics. They are taking the opportunity of this show to send their own, gratuitous shots at “W.”

Here are the quotes I’d like to pull for a poster proving theatre critics are leftists:

“The days when criticism of Mr. Bush could be censured as unpatriotic may be
long gone…” - Ben Brantley, NY Times
“Right in line with Bush’s reinvention
of himself as a tried and true Texan—who happened to have been born in
Connecticut and then went to Yale University…” - Michael Kuchwara,
AP
“Chronicle of a political career carved out of nepotism, cynicism,
chutzpah and careful management, and marked by a series of colossal blunders and
false achievements.” - David Rooney, Variety
“…the prospect of spending an
evening in the company of George W. Bush hardly sounds appealing…” - Frank
Scheck, NY Post
“…right on time for both silly fun and smart summing-up of an
epoch the country just voted overwhelmingly to change.” - Linda Winer, NY
Newsday
“…reflects all of Dubya’s key traits—it’s tacky, cocky, defensive, a
little half-assed here and there, utterly full of itself … ” - Scott Brown, New
York Magazine

It makes you wonder if the anticipated critical reception is one of the reasons more conservative plays aren’t produced on Broadway.

Stage Right is on Facebook.

Charles Krauthammer - The Fierce Urgency of Pork

2009-02-06T15:44:00.000-08:00

AMEN, Brother Krauthammer!

Charles Krauthammer - The Fierce Urgency of Pork: "'A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe.'
-- President Obama, Feb. 4.
Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared 'we have chosen hope over fear.' Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill."

Trickle Down Economics on Broadway by Stage Right

2009-02-06T15:12:00.000-08:00

Trickle Down Economics on Broadwayby Stage Right

It’s no secret that Broadway theatre owners are generally members of the Democratic Party. The late Gerald Schoenfeld, long-time Chairman of the Shubert Organization had the honor of certifying the ballot for then-Gov. Clinton at the 1992 DNC in New York. Rocco Ladesman of the Jujamcyn Theatre chain is a big contributor to Democratic nominees as is James Nederlander (although he has spread a little bit out to some GOP causes).

So, given their party affiliation, it was surprising to see them make a pilgrimage to Albany to protest a proposed tax on theatre tickets on Broadway.

“The theatre leaders, according to the Times, argued that the taxes would
not only hurt ticket sales but could set off a chain reaction that would affect
other tourist-related businesses, including restaurants and hotels, as well as
such theatre-dependent businesses as carpentry shops, costume makers and even
dry cleaners, who handle theatre costumes.

Landesman, testifying before the Assembly and Senate leaders, said, ‘With
the ongoing demise of the financial sector, policy makers must fight to nurture
and protect industries, such as Broadway, that have been proven to generate
tourist dollars . . . . I ask you to also recognize the dire consequences this
tax proposal may have on the hard-working men and women employed by Broadway, as
well as the thousands of other businesses that rely on Broadway
spending.’”

Is it me, or does this sound like a better argument for supply-side economics then Jack Kemp could make? I thought “trickle-down” concepts like giving tax relief to a strong, big, corporate business like Broadway Theatre owners would in turn benefit the middle class economy by helping the “hard-working men and women employed by Broadway, as well as the thousands of other businesses that rely on Broadway spending” was an old, tired idea from the past.

Why would Rocco Landesman not embrace a tax on large corporations to help fund … no, wait … to INVEST in important programs that the Democrat controlled government will impose on the willing and grateful citizens of the Empire State?

I’m looking forward to next season’s new hit: “NIMBY, The Musical!”

Stage Right is on Facebook.

Teachers' Union, Members At Odds On Prop. 8? : NPR

2009-02-06T12:01:00.000-08:00

NPR has a great article showing that actual TEACHERS spent more money to support Prop. 8 then the Teachers' Union spent in opposing it... When will union members stop allowing their leadership to continue funding issues that they are against?

Teachers' Union, Members At Odds On Prop. 8? : NPR: "California's legal and cultural conflict over same-sex marriage played out this fall, the state's teachers union put up $1.25 million to advocate against the gay marriage ban.
But at the same time, individual public school teachers in the state were giving more money to enact the ban than to defeat it, according to an NPR analysis of Proposition 8 contribution data recently released by the California secretary of state.
Teachers, aides and counselors in California public school systems gave about $2 to support the marriage ban for every $1 they gave to oppose it. The educators gave some $450,000 in individual contributions to advocates supporting the ban and about $210,000 to those opposing it, according to the NPR analysis.
Proposition 8 passed on Nov. 4, overturning a California Supreme Court decision that allowed same-sex marriages in the nation's most populous state. Gay-rights supporters quickly challenged the measure's constitutionality. The state's highest court will begin hearing arguments in the case next month.
Disclosure Comes Against A Bitter Backdrop
During and after a campaign that cost tens of millions of dollars and featured incendiary rhetoric on both sides, arguments over financial support for and against the ballot initiative have been intense.
Supporters of Proposition 8 sought to keep secret the names of those who gave less than $1,000, but were rebuffed by a federal judge. The ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8 committee argued that previous disclosures had exposed donors to harassment, intimidation and death threats.
And responding to reports about an investigation of its expenditures, the Mormon church said this week its support consisted of in-kind donations of about $190,000.
On the other side of the debate, th"

Val Kilmer contemplates run for governor of New Mexico in 2010

2009-02-06T11:10:00.000-08:00

Oh Please... PLEEEEEEAAAAAASE. Do it, Val. We're waiting for you..... I have about ten posts ready to go exposing you for who you are.....

PLEEEEEEAAAAASE run for Governor, I DARE YOU.

Val Kilmer contemplates run for governor of New Mexico in 2010: "Fresh from the inauguration, actor Val Kilmer is pondering running for governor in 2010, when Democrat Bill Richardson's second term ends.
'I'm just looking for ways to be contributive,' Kilmer told The Associated Press on Thursday. 'And if that ends up being where I can make a substantial contribution, then I'll run.'"

Frank Rich Is a Big Fat Liar

2009-02-05T15:09:00.000-08:00

Frank Rich Is a Big Fat Liar by Stage Right

Before Frank Rich used his arrogance to tell us who we should vote for, he used it to tell us what plays we should see. Rich was, arguably, the last uber-powerful NY Times Theatre Critic. Unless a show had a huge advance and a great resume of talent behind it (”Cats,” “Phantom”) a pan from him would severely threaten a show’s future. Meanwhile, if he and he alone liked a show, he had the power to keep it afloat much longer than natural market forces would have allowed (”Sunday in the Park”).

Now theatre-boy Frank is an op-ed columnist and is known for erudite and vicious slams at all things Republican. This week, in trying to support President Obama’s disastrous spending bill, he not only assails the House Republicans, but takes frequent shots at the former President.

As classless and cheap as it is to continue to beat President Bush up, I am especially nauseated by this passage:

No one should expect the Republicans to give the new president carte blanche,
fall blindly into lock step or be “post-partisan.” (Though that’s exactly what
the G.O.P. demanded of Democrats with Bush: You were either with him or with the
terrorists.)

President Bush NEVER, and I mean NEVER said or even implied that if the Democrats were not with him they were with the terrorists… NEVER!

There is only one time where President Bush came CLOSE to uttering a phrase like this. Here is the context and the passage of President Bush’s speech from September 21, 2001:

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes.
Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other
we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert
operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn
them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no
refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to
terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you
are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward,
any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the
United States as a hostile regime.

It is clear who President Bush is talking about, and what he means by “With us.” And, by the way, this is still our policy, and it SHOULD be. If we find that a country is wilfully harboring Bin Laden, they are our enemy.

By the way, I hope you click on the link I provided for the full text of this speech…. it’s from the New York Times. Theatre-boy Frank’s very own web-site has the actual information that exposes him for what he is: A Big Fat Liar.

Stage Right is on Facebook.

Jane Fonda: New Play, New Blog, Same Attitude Towards The Troops

2009-02-04T15:06:00.000-08:00

Jane Fonda: New Play, New Blog, Same Attitude Towards The Troopsby Stage Right

Just when I thought I might run out of ideas for blog posts, I get a gift from God… Jane Fonda has started a blog in conjunction with her return to Broadway in “33 Variations!” The play, by Moisés Kaufman, sounds absolutely fascinating and when I first heard about Fonda’s casting I didn’t think I’d have much to write about since on the face of it the play doesn’t seem political. But now that her friends and fans seem to have talked Hanoi Jane into sharing her personal thoughts in a blog every day… Well, this is going to be a target rich environment!

Jane says that she was in part inspired by none other than Rosie O’Donnell to do the blog and if her musings are anything like Rosie’s, let’s just say I owe that dame a big thank you hug for influencing Henry’s daughter (I don’t usually use the word ‘dame’, but I’m hoping it annoys Rosie if she ever reads this).

A quick overview of the blog gives us an eclectic view of Jane’s days as she prepares for the previews to begin at the beautiful Eugene O’Neill Theatre. The posts range from sweet, nostalgic personal thoughts…

Today, during lunch break, I took my dog, Tulea, for a walk and it really hit me
how much I miss my dad. When he returned from his stint in the Navy after WWII
he went straight to Broadway to star in “Mr. Roberts.” He played that role every
day for four years, never missing a performance! It was not customary in those
days—the 40s and 50s—for movie stars to go back and forth from Hollywood to
Broadway. But theatre was Dad’s great love. My brother and I grew up knowing and
respecting this about him. He loved the immediacy of playing before a live
audience. The instant feedback. He was meticulous, always doing exactly the same
things, the same moves, the same inflections, every night. I have heard this
from so many of his fellow actors.

…to downright strange revelations about dreaming of Robert (Bob, don’t ya know) Redford…

Couldn’t sleep. When I finally did I dreamed of my pal, Bob Redford. He showed
up just when I needed him: I was supposed to catch a plane but discovered I’d
forgotten the bag I have to carry Tulea in. I knew I wouldn’t be able to get her
on without it. Bob devised a way to sneak her on and then snuck himself on as
well. I remarked to myself how playful and happy he seemed and that made me
happy.

…to creepy, Shirley MacLaine style, new age clap trap…

Eve also brought me a gift—it is a rock from the Moroccan desert that has been
split open and when you look inside the two halves, you see a glistening,
shimmering miracle of crystal and mica. “This is how we are when we are broken
open,” she said. ‘We’ means we women, artists, warriors. It the perfect Eve
gift—I will keep it on my dressing table. A constant reminder to allow myself to
be broken open.

…to her embracing her inner “Hanoi Jane” by blogging about the current anti-Iraq war movement:

Joining us was Marlisa
Grogan, Captain in the US Marine Corp (29 UES). I had never met her before
and was very impressed. She has such a deep understanding of why it is important
for us to support active duty members of the military who are anti war or, at
least, anti a war they feel is wrong and ill-conceived. She herself has been
involved in an anti war show that has performed for active duty personnel. She
said that it is the soldiers who have seen active duty who tend to be anti war
more than the ones who have stayed stateside. “They just don’t know,” she
said. She talked about the similarities that exist between today’s
military and those of the Vietnam era but also pointed out the profound
differences, citing in particular, the fact that so many recruits are confronted
with the choice between jail or military. For many it’s a much needed job.

Read that second sentence again. She almost tricked you, didn’t she? “It is important for us to support active duty members of the military…… WHO ARE ANTI WAR” I thought the lefties supported ALL the troops… but, according to Blogarella, it’s only the anti-war types that require our support! And, as usual, the anti-war crowd reveals their condescending attitude toward the military with statements like: “So many recruits are confronted with the choice between jail or military. For many it’s a much needed job.”

She also, unintentionally, reveals the results of her fine education at the Greenwich Academy:

Then we had another session with the music director before staging the scene
where we all sing the Kyrie Eleison from Beethoven’s Mass in
C….. ….I never realized that “Kyrie Eleison” is a plea to God
to grant mercy.

Oh boy, this is going to be fun! And the show is only in tech rehearsals… Just wait until she gets closer to opening!

Fair warning to all you other Big Hollywood bloggers: Theatre is MY beat… back-off… she’s MINE.

Stage Right is on Facebook.

Trickle Down Economics on Broadway

2009-02-04T14:40:00.000-08:00

It's no secret that Broadway theatre owners are generally members of the Democratic Party. The late Gerald Schoenfeld, long-time Chairman of the Shubert Organization had the honor of certifying the ballot for then-Gov. Clinton at the 1992 DNC in New York. Rocco Ladesman of the Jujamcyn Theatre chain is a big contributor to Democratic nominees as is James Nederlander (although he has spread a little bit out to some GOP causes).

So, given their party affiliation, it was surprising to see them make a pilgrimage to Albany to protest a proposed tax on theatre tickets on Broadway.

"The theatre leaders, according to the Times, argued that the taxes would not
only hurt ticket sales but could set off a chain reaction that would affect
other tourist-related businesses, including restaurants and hotels, as well as
such theatre-dependent businesses as carpentry shops, costume makers and even
dry cleaners, who handle theatre costumes.

Landesman, testifying before the Assembly and Senate leaders, said, 'With the ongoing demise of the financial sector, policy makers must fight to nurture and protect industries, such as Broadway, that have been proven to generate tourist dollars . . . . I ask you to also recognize the dire consequences this tax proposal may have on the hard-working men and women employed by Broadway, as well as the thousands of other businesses that rely on Broadway spending.'"

Is it me, or does this sound like a better argument for supply-side economics then Jack Kemp could give? I thought "trickle-down" concepts like giving tax relief to a strong, big, corporate business like Broadway Theatre owners would in turn benefit the middle class economy by helping the "hard-working men and women employed by Broadway, as well as the thousands of other businesses that rely on Broadway spending" was an old, tired idea from the past.

Why would Rocco Landesman not embrace a tax on large corporations to help fund.. no, wait... to INVEST in important programs that the Democrat controlled government will impose on the willing and grateful citizens of the Empire State?

I'm looking forward to next season's new hit: "NIMBY, the musical!"

Frank Rich is a liar

2009-02-04T13:24:00.000-08:00

I am just so sick of this. it is one of those lies that the Bush administration never confronted or rebutted and it is nauseating.

This week, Frank Rich in the NY Times repeats the slanderous and easily verified mis-quote:

Op-Ed Columnist - Herbert Hoover Lives - NYTimes.com: "(Though that’s exactly what the G.O.P. demanded of Democrats with Bush: You were either with him or with the terrorists.)"

President Bush NEVER, and I mean NEVER said or even implied that if the Democrats were not with him they were with the terrorists... NEVER!

There is only one time where President Bush came CLOSE to uttering a phrase like this. Here is the context and the passage of President Bush's speech from September 21, 2001:

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

It is clear who President Bush is talking about, and what he means by "With us". And, by the way, this is still our policy, and it SHOULD be. If we find that a country is wilfully harboring Bin Laden, they are our enemy.

By the way, I hope you click on the link I provided for the full text of this speech.... it's from the Iranian Press Service. That's right, the Iranian Press Service does a better job of properly quoting President Bush then theatre-boy Frank Rich.

President Obama's FEMA Ignores a Tragedy

2009-02-04T10:17:00.000-08:00

A natural disaster.

People dying.

No end in sight.

FEMA a "No Show".

The President reads a book to school children.

Where is the outrage?

The Associated Press: Life after ice storm dire, getting worse in spots: "At least 42 people have died, including 11 in Kentucky, and conditions are worsening in many places days after an ice storm knocked out power to 1.3 million customers from the Plains to the East Coast. About a million people were still without electric Friday, and with no hope that the lights will come back on soon, small communities are frantically struggling to help their residents.

One county put it bluntly: It can't.

'We're asking people to pack a suitcase and head south and find a motel if they have the means, because we can't service everybody in our shelter,' said Crittenden County Judge-Executive Fred Brown, who oversees about 9,000 people, many of whom are sleeping in the town's elementary school.

Local officials were growing angry with what they said was a lack of help from the state and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In Grayson County, about 80 miles southwest of Louisville, Emergency Management Director Randell Smith said the 25 National Guardsmen who have responded have no chain saws to clear fallen trees.
'We've got people out in some areas we haven't even visited yet,' Smith said. 'We don't even know that they're alive.'

Smith said FEMA has been a no-show so far."

Broadway Business

2009-02-04T10:09:00.000-08:00

Hate to say "I told you so", but as I suggested in my post "Chicken Little Comes to Broadway", If business is so bad on Broadway, why is a popular revival of The Cripple of Inishmaan not able to move up to a larger house because all of the theatres are booked?

"Inishmaan"; extends run - Entertainment News, Legit News, Media - Variety: "Insiders say theater availability is the main uncertainty delaying transfer plans, with a dense schedule of openings through March and April keeping most of the Rialto real estate occupied."

I thought this was the worst things have been in New York... Why are we stuck in thei self-perpetuating cycle of doom with no one in the theatre industry explaining that even though some shows closed, there are plenty of new shows coming up and by May 1st all of the Broadway houses will be booked? What could possibly be the incentive for producers to talk down their own industry?

Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » NEA Grantees Should “Spread the Wealth”

2009-02-04T10:05:00.001-08:00

Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » NEA Grantees Should “Spread the Wealth”
Although Broadway - and by extension National Tours of Broadway shows - tend to be the showcase for the American theatre industry, the vast majority of the works that end up in that showcase are born and nurtured in the vast network of non-profit theatres stretched across the country.

New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco as well as smaller cities like Minneapolis, Houston San Diego and beautiful Costa Mesa (!) have major producing organizations that act as feeders for Broadway and the road. New playwright programs designed to nurture writers and their works are a staple of most non-profit and institutional theatres. And these theatres are funded, in part, by federal grants from the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA).

Rather than waste time (and Mr. Breitbart’s precious bandwidth) arguing the legitimacy of the federal government’s role in using taxpayer dollars to fund the arts (let’s face it, Republicans didn’t even TRY to get rid of the NEA when they controlled congress, it’s here to stay, let’s be realistic), I would instead like to propose a more fiscally conservative set of ground rules for recipients of NEA grants. In short: If the NEA funds a play or musical that becomes a huge hit, we, the taxpayers should get our cut!

It always astounded me that “A Chorus Line” ran for over 6,000 performances, was the longest running show of its time, remains the longest running show originally written and produced in America, made fistfuls of money, and yet the producer - the non-profit Public Theatre - continued to be funded by tax dollars, and continued to beg for money from its patrons. Consider that “A Chorus Line” had a 19 person cast - none demanding star salaries, a basic unit set, and each character had one costume change. What I’m saying is “A Chorus Line” was a cash cow! And since “A Chorus Line” was developed with some tax payer funds through city, state and federal grants, we, the tax payers were investors. Where is our cut?

If you think we got our money back via corporate income taxes from the profits of the show, think again. Non-profit theatre means these companies are 501(c)3 organizations… meaning: THEY DON’T PAY TAXES! Joe Papp, the Artistic Director of the Public Theatre had a nice, tidy 6-figure income thanks mostly to the huge success of “A Chorus Line,” but we got nothing back for our investment, except an annual request for more money. This just doesn’t seem right.

Sometimes a non-profit theatre will mount a world premiere of a new play and it gets enough recognition that commercial producers mount a Broadway production of it. In these cases, the non-profit is not the producer of the show, so they are not in line for any additional revenue from the commercial success, right? Wrong! To ensure that they continue receiving royalties on future productions of a play they premiere, the non-profit theatres often contractually obligate the playwright to give up part of their royalties of future productions in exchange for the non-profit mounting the play in the first place. So, the non-profits make sure they get THEIR cut, but again, the taxpayers who actually funded the play via government grants get nothing.

What also irks me about the whole set up is that the larger non-profits these days are using their funding to produce plays that don’t require the non-profit protection. For example, the latest revival of “South Pacific” at Lincoln Center theatre has been a bonafide hit. And, again, all of those profits are coming in tax free to LCT. But come on, are we supposed to believe that the NEA needs to fund a theatre and the government needs to grant tax-exempt status to a producing entity so they can mount a production of “South Pacific” as though otherwise this great important work would not have been done? How many revivals of “South Pacific” have there been over the years? Why do we need to subsidize another one?

Here is my proposal: If a play or musical is developed at a non-profit institution which receives NEA grants, then a percentage of that institution’s revenue from any commercial production of that play should be paid back to the taxpayers as a return on their investment. And, while we’re at it, why is it that I’ve never seen a cut of any of the merchandise sales from the Muppets? Didn’t the taxpayer funded Public Broadcasting System pay to develop and promote those characters which in turn got turned into every toy, article of clothing and trinket imaginable? Shouldn’t we get a cut of those sales as well? I want my cut of the Tickle-me-Elmo and I want it NOW!

In the commercial theatre there is a word for a person who puts money into a show for the sheer joy and satisfaction they feel and never expects any return on their investment even if the show is a success: Sucker.

Stage Right is on Facebook.

Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Richard Dreyfuss Can’t Remember His Anti-American Dialogue

2009-02-04T10:05:00.000-08:00

Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Richard Dreyfuss Can’t Remember His Anti-American Dialogue

Richard Dreyfuss and Elizabeth McGovern have travelled across the pond to star in a play about America’s torture of terrorist suspects. That’s right, not “alleged” torture. It’s a fact as far as this play is concerned. And, the funny thing about the Variety review is that the fact that the whole world knows that America is guilty of torture undermines the effect of the play:

The terrible timing is not Kevin Spacey’s fault: He couldn’t have known “Complicit” — U.S. dramatist Joe Sutton’s fictional indictment of his country’s possible condoning of torture and rendition — would premiere after President Obama had taken steps to dismantle that practice.

Clips of a TV interview with real-life BBC senior political commentator Andrew Marr provide details of Ben’s inflammatory publication, none of which can be news to British audiences with even a cursory knowledge of Guantanamo and other widely exposed scandals.

The idea of starring in a play directed by Kevin Spacey at The Old Vic along with the opportunity to slander and indict his country on foreign soil must have been too great a temptation for Dreyfuss to pass up. But, according to Bloomberg, he should have taken a little extra time in trying to learn his lines before taking to the boards:

The U.S. actor has often spoken of his poor memory. In “Complicit,” the director Kevin Spacey takes the unusual step of allowing Dreyfuss to wear an earpiece for word prompts. In Spacey’s minimalist in-the-round production at the Old Vic, the device is fully visible.

Although this was probably a more elegant solution for Dreyfuss’ problem than Val Kilmer’s infamous use of teleprompters in Ten Commandments, The Musical, it’s still pretty embarrassing to stride the same boards as Edmund Kean, John Gielgud and Alec Guiness with a production assistant whispering lines in your ear… Weak call, Mr. Holland.

But a minor detail like learning ones lines for a play shouldn’t stop an actor from seizing the moment and trashing your country with lies and innuendo. I love how the “US tortures prisoners at Gitmo” is just accepted as common knowledge in some circles. I can’t stand up at a cocktail party and gently question the accuracy of such a statement without being inundated with a barrage of ad hominem attacks on my intelligence. If you don’t agree with the premise, you’re just an idiot!

I may be an idiot, but for the chance to play the Old Vic, I could learn my lines in a week… and I’m not even an actor!

Stage Right is on Facebook.

Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » The Musical: You Feeling Lucky, Punk?

2009-02-04T10:04:00.001-08:00

Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » The Musical: You Feeling Lucky, Punk?
The recent trend of converting hit movies into Broadway musicals (”Shrek,” “Billy Elliott,” etc.) may have reached the point of ridiculous with today’s news that a stage musical of the Clint Eastwood film “Magnum Force” is in the works:

Magnum Force, the 1973 sequel to the Clint Eastwood thriller Dirty Harry, is getting a musical makeover and may even be Broadway bound, according to The Guardian. English singer-songwriter Robyn Hitchcock, an admitted Magnum Force obsessive, will compose the score and intends to produce the show with MTV executive Bill Flanagan.

Hitchcock emerged in the late 1970s with the band the Soft Boys before earning cult status as a solo artist in the 1980s with college-radio staples such as “The Man with the Light Bulb Head,” “Balloon Man” and “Madonna of the Wasps.” In 1998, he made the concert movie Storefront Hitchcock with Academy Award-winning director Jonathan Demme and has since made cameo appearances in two other Demme films, The Manchurian Candidate and Rachel Getting Married.

Hmmm… a British punk rocker with heavy Jonathan Demme influences making a Dirty Harry musical…..? Please, PLEASE don’t end up making this turn into an anti-gun story! KEEP ROSIE O’DONNELL OUT OF THE WORKSHOP!

Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Chicken Little Comes to Broadway

2009-02-04T10:04:00.000-08:00

Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Chicken Little Comes to Broadway
Contrary to popular belief the sky is NOT falling on Broadway. Yes, about a dozen shows closed after the holidays, but up until about 15 years ago, that was the norm. There have traditionally been three “seasons” for shows to close on Broadway:

Right after New Years because shows cashed in on all of the tourism in New York, but then can’t survive January and February, the worst times of the year for ticket sales.
The first week of May because that’s when the Tony nominations come out and many shows hang on to see if they get nominated, and if they don’t they’re done.
The second week of June because that’s right after the Tony Awards, and the shows that don’t win are barely scraping by and will not sustain large enough grosses to stay in their house through the Summer.
So, the fact that many shows just closed is not historically rare. The real indicator as to the health of the industry is how many shows are scheduled to open between now and that magic first day of May (the Tony nomination cut-off). A quick look at the schedule over at Playbill.com shows us that no fewer than 21 shows are already scheduled, if not already on sale. When I look at the current shows running and the schedule for new shows, it appears that by the time we hit May 1st almost every Broadway house will have had a tenant this Spring … even the Belasco… even the Brooks Atkinson!

But all you hear from the panty-waist industry folk is that the “sky is falling” and “this is the worst it has ever been,” and “the industry might not recover.” Come on! The fact is that over the past 15 years there has been an unprecedented shortage of Broadway houses. I know theatre operators with long running hits who resorted to putting musicals into houses that traditionally housed straight plays just because they had no room. This anomaly has caused a complacency within the industry and any deviation from this recent trend is seen as a catastrophe.

Much of the reason for this reaction is that they are liberals. In my opinion, liberals tend to focus on the negative and the reasons why things are bad, while conservatives tend to look for the possibility in a situation and focus on what works. Unfortunately, when this mindset is transferred to people who are spokesmen for an industry, it becomes quite self-defeating. You hear producers quoted all over the place bemoaning how bad it is in New York and how Broadway is dying… How in the hell is this good for the industry? Theatre producers are supposed to be promoters of their product, and their product is not just the show they happen to be doing right now, it is the IDEA of going to a play at all.

We are expecting people to shell out over $100 a ticket to be a part of an industry that is dying? ”Hey, Broadway is dying, we’re in terrible shape, our shows are all closing… come and buy a ticket!!!” What is WRONG with these people? The top-brass in the theatre industry have been notoriously bitchy, self-loathing, back-biting doomsayers who only muster a sunny face for the 2 hours the Tonys are on every year… if then. How the industry continued to grow is a mystery, but one thing that is instructive is you don’t hear the brass from Disney theatricals bemoaning the industry, even though their shows are grossing well below their potential. Why? Because they do not come from the self-defeatist culture that inhabits West 41st through West 51st, in New York. They understand how to sell their product.

A little perspective will show that Broadway has enjoyed an amazing string of success and these recent closings are part of a natural economic cycle. (By the way, the liberals in Washington might want to take a look at that last sentence before they start making any stupid decisions that we’ll be paying for over the next 50 years.) We all need to start worrying when there are no new shows waiting to fill the empty houses. Until then, let’s get back to work.

Way back in 1938 George S. Kaufman coined the phrase “The Fabulous Invalid.” Many think this was in reference to the theatre in general, but he was only talking about one particular theatre, The New Amsterdam. But it says something about the mentality of theatre folk that they love to wear this label for their industry like a badge of honor. I, for one, hate having my industry compared to a sickly, dying patient. What are industry needs is a leader with the conservative penchant to talk up the positives and sell our product to the public.

If they can’t do that, then I wish the liberal whiners in positions of power would just shut up.

Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Springtime For Terrorists, In Washington…

2009-02-04T10:03:00.000-08:00

Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Springtime For Terrorists, In Washington…

Playbill is announcing a revival of the musical “Ragtime” this Spring at the Kennedy Center. I love “Ragtime.” It’s a great piece of theatre. And it’s a completely, totally and entirely a left-wing wacko propaganda piece.

Brian Stokes Mitchell and the original cast of "Ragtime"

“Ragtime” is based on E. L. Doctorow’s 1975 novel of the same name which examines the cultural shifts in America at the turn of the last century. It cleverly uses real-life historical figures and intertwines their stories with a fictional family in New Rochelle, NY. The tensions between the influx of Jewish immigrants and the growing black population with the conservative white upper-class frame the plot and serve as representative of the integration of the culture in the 20th century. If you’d like a taste of Doctorow’s opinion of America circa 1907, you should read this speech he gave reflecting on America of 2007. It will be enlightening, if you can get through it.

But the central story line is that of Ragtime piano player Coalhouse Walker Jr., brilliantly played by Brian Stokes Mitchell in the original Broadway production. Coalhouse spends the first part of the show trying to win back the love of a young girl with whom he has had a baby out of wedlock. They eventually reunite and just as they are ready to start their life together some Irish, racist firemen harass him and vandalize his brand new Model T. After a tragedy leaves his new wife dead, Coalhouse has an epiphany and seeks deadly revenge on the firemen. He recruits a band of young, black followers and goes on a rampage killing firemen, burning down firehouses and, eventually taking hostages and threatening to blow-up a major New York landmark.

Basically, he’s a terrorist. And, of course, he’s the hero of the piece.

His final song, an anthem for civil rights struggles yet-to-come rationalizes and justifies his actions better than any Al Qaeda YouTube video could:

GO OUT AND TELL THE STORY.
LET IT ECHO FAR AND WIDE.
MAKE THEM HEAR YOU.

HOW THAT JUSTICE WAS OUR BATTLE AND HOW JUSTICE WAS DENIED.
MAKE THEM HEAR YOU.

AND SAY TO THOSE WHO BLAME US
FOR THE WAY WE CHOSE TO FIGHT
THAT SOMETIMES THERE ARE BATTLES
WHICH ARE MORE THAN BLACK OR WHITE.

AND I COULD NOT PUT DOWN MY SWORD
WHEN JUSTICE WAS MY RIGHT.
MAKE THEM HEAR YOU.

The next verse actually suggests that only God can judge whether his actions are right or wrong, but thankfully, there is no mention of 72 virgins.

So the question is: In this post-racial, Obama-happy, post-9/11 world, are we really ready for a musical that glorifies a terrorist who kills first responders and plans to blow up a major building in New York? And, is Obama’s Washington DC really the best place to premiere this revival?

Stage Right is on Facebook.

Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » “Prop 8: The Musical” on the Great White Way

2009-02-04T10:02:00.000-08:00

Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » “Prop 8: The Musical” on the Great White Way

Variety is reporting that as part of a fundraiser for multiple same-sex marriage organizations, “Hairspray” composer Marc Shaiman’s satirical “Prop 8: The Musical” will be staged live. The event called “Defying Inequality” will be performed on a dark night on the set of “Wicked” at the Gershwin. The star-studded Internet video was released in response to the Scott Eckern episode in which Marc Shaiman was a central figure.

I’m sorry, but this is just bad writing. I think I’ve been pretty fair on these pages about giving liberal writers their due when they are talented and create great work. I’m glad Mr. Shaiman had years and years of royalties from the Broadway run of “Hairspray” (not to mention the modestly successful movie version) because I really think he’s jumping the old hammerhead with this thing. At this point, Mr. Shaiman seems to be wrapping himself in a rainbow flag and beating the Prop 8 drum like Pete Best on a bad night at the Cavern Club.

Since it’s a dark night, the audience at the Gershwin will be made up mostly of members of the industry (who know how many will be compelled), so they’ll scream with delight, but honestly, it’s a bad sketch that is full of lies… please, someone find me the verse in the bible that calls a homosexual an abomination. It doesn’t exist. The act is described that way, but not the person, a very important distinction. Not to mention, the idea that nefarious religious figures snuck Prop 8 onto the ballot when people weren’t looking? Does anyone really believe that? Even all the tattoos on Margaret Cho can’t cover up the fact that these guys are grasping at straws and resorting to lies and distortions.

Broadway will embrace this mess because they’ve never met a gay cause they didn’t embrace. But they better hope that Bob and Sue from Minneapolis don’t wander into the Gershwin thinking they got tickets to that “Wizard of Oz” show because what happens up on that stage will not be the best advertisement for the finest that Broadway has to offer.

Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » A Few Good (Liberal) Men

2009-01-26T23:04:00.000-08:00

My latest post on Aaron Sorkin at Big Hollywood.

A Few Good (Liberal) Menby Stage Right

Aaron Sorkin really pisses me off.

And not for the reasons you might think.

Yes, he’s a liberal’s liberal. And he epitomizes all that Big Hollywood rails against. He infuses his politics into everything he writes. He purposefully paints most conservative characters with broad, stereotype strokes which leave them characterized as either stupid or evil. He makes liberal characters out to be earnest, hard-working idealists with hearts of gold. They are all intelligent and sympathetic and their only fault seems to be that they just care too much. Even when he’s writing about sportscasters or a sketch comedy show, liberal political positions come out of most of his character’s mouths as if they are given facts, gospel truths. When he does offer up a sympathetic character with conservative views (Ainsley Hayes or Harriet Hayes) they are “lone voices” that always seem to be outnumbered, shouted down or merely there as a foil for the lead character (heroic liberal) to intellectually vivisect for the happy ending.

But, no, that’s not why he pisses me off. He pisses me off because he’s SO DAMN GOOD!

Sitting in the Music Box theatre for the first public performance of A Few Good Men was one of the most electric theatrical experiences of my life. The energy from that cast as they worked the not-yet-legendary “Sorkinese” was something to behold. If you get a kick out of following the characters on “Sports Night” or “West Wing” as they meander the hallways of their workplace trading rapid-fire verbal barbs that make the Algonquin look like an I-Hop, then you really need to experience Sorkin’s work live in the theatre. There’s nothing like being in the same room with the actors and being part of the pace and build and crescendo of his scenes.

And although Sorkin has devoted most of the past fifteen years to television drama, I would contend that each episode of “Sports Night” or “West Wing” or the under-appreciated “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” were mini-plays. They were structured like plays and mostly worked within the confines of two or three sets that could have been constructed on a proscenium stage. Sorkin is a man of the theatre and that’s one of the reasons he is so good at character, plot and dialogue (you know, the three things writing used to be about).

Now, of course, the fact that he is so good is not what really pisses me off… but it’s part of it. You see, because he’s so good, I know that he could write a play with a conservative protagonist. I know he could make that conservative person intelligent, and heroic and I know he could get the whole audience rooting for him. I can prove it. Pretend you don’t know the end of “A Few Good Men.” Pretend you haven’t already spent 90 minutes rooting for Tom Cruise and Demi Moore (Demi in a Navy uniform no less!). Pretend you don’t already know that the Col. Jessup character is sinister in some way… now read this:

Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men
with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater
responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the
Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know:
that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence,
while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the
truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties you want me on
that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We
use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a
punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a
man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and
then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said
“thank you,” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a
weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are
entitled to.

Sorkin’s words are powerful, patriotic and true. But, they are used in a context that paint the Col. Jessup character into an evil, twisted and angry man. Couldn’t this dialogue been used for a protagonist instead of a villain? Sorkin could do it…. he could. He doesn’t want to. I don’t believe that because he is a liberal he is incapable of writing a sympathetic conservative character. There is too much in the script of “A Few Good Men” that betrays his respect, understanding and admiration of the military.

Dawson: We joined the Marines because we wanted to live our lives by a
certain code, and we found it in the Corps. Now you’re asking us to sign a piece
of paper that says we have no honor. You’re asking us to say we’re not Marines.
If a court decides that what we did was wrong, then I’ll accept whatever
punishment they give. But I believe I was right sir, I believe I did my job, and
I will not dishonor myself, my unit, or the Corps so I can go home in six
months… Sir.
-----------------------------------------------------
Kaffee: A crime? What crime did he commit? Lieutenant Kendrick? Dawson
brought a hungry guy some food… what crime did he commit?

Lt. Kendrick: He disobeyed an order!

Kaffee: And because he did. Because he exercised his own set of values.
Because he made a decision about the welfare of another Marine which was in
conflict with an order of yours he was punished. Isn’t that right.

Lt. Kendrick: Lance Corporal Dawson disobeyed an order!

Kaffee: Yeah, but it wasn’t a real order, was it? I mean it’s peace time.
He wasn’t being asked to secure a hill or advance on a beach head. Surely a
Marine of Dawson’s intelligence can be trusted to determine, on his own, which
are the really important orders and which orders might, say, be morally
questionable? Lieutenant Kendrick? Can he? Can Dawson determine on his own which
orders he’s going to follow?

Lt. Kendrick: No, he
cannot.
--------------------------------------------------
Lt. Weinberg: Why do you like them so much?

Galloway: Because they stand upon a wall and say, “Nothing’s going to hurt
you tonight, not on my watch.”

He can do it. I think any good writer can do it. God knows there are many conservative writers in Hollywood forced to work on product that goes against their ideals, but they do it because they are talented writers and that is their job. Sorkin is so damn good.

He could do it to. But he chooses not to.

And that pisses me off.

Stage Right is on Facebook.

Post Racial President?

2009-01-20T10:54:00.000-08:00

Benediction at Obama 's inauguration, Rev. Joseph Lowery: :

"'Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. Say Amen'..."

Big Hollywood - In Defense of Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber

2009-01-20T10:52:00.000-08:00

My post on Big Hollywood In Defense of Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber - Originally titled: "Music of the Knight"

In Defense of Sir Andrew Lloyd Webberby Stage Right

While we’re in the business of revealing secrets from the entertainment industry, let me add a whopper for you all to chew on: Most people who work on Broadway hate Andrew Lloyd Webber.

That’s right. Despite creating more employment and wealth than any single person over the past three decades, the genius behind Jesus Christ Superstar, Evita, Cats, Starlight Express and Phantom of the Opera is secretly (and sometimes not so secretly) reviled.

When I first experienced the anti-ALW bias, it was all about his music. Just like being a PC person or a Mac person, or a Beatles person or a Stones person, you were either an Andrew Lloyd Webber person or a Sondheim person. Within the snobby theatre parties his shows were labeled as too commercial or his songs too repetitive. While ALW wrote a show about Jesus and Joseph and an adaptation of T.S. Eliot poems, Sondheim wrote about Georges Seraut, Sweeney Todd and presidential assassins.

ALW was too simple and accessible, Sondheim was challenging and esoteric. While ALW was temperamental and demanding, Sondheim was friendly and engaging. And, not coincidentally, while ALW’s shows ran for years and years and made fortunes and sold-out, Sondheim’s shows rarely recouped investment.

It was the age-old commercial theatre debate: Selling tickets vs. ART (please pronounce that with a faux British accent).

This was how I viewed the debate from the outside looking in. Then, I had the opportunity to fulfill a childhood dream and actually got to work on an ALW project. Then I saw a different side of the anti-ALW bias. Most of the people who worked for this man, who gladly took his paycheck and lived off the fat of his successes, also reviled him… and it was clear one of the reasons why:

He’s a conservative.

I’m not outing anyone here. He came out as a conservative during the Thatcher era. He allowed his songs to be used in Tory Party campaign advertisements. He’s been quite out-spoken against the confiscatory tax policies of the Labour Party. His most honored guest at the American Premier of Sunset Blvd. in Los Angeles was not Billy Wilder, it was former-president Ronald Reagan.

He’d pop into a meeting and lend his advice about how best to maximize the front-of-house merchandise sales or give an idea for marketing to specific tour groups and when he left his employees would roll their eyes and say things like, “What, like he doesn’t have enough money yet?” or, “Sometimes I feel like I work for the devil when I think about what he does with his money.” (Meaning, his political donations).

The ingratitude always struck me as incredibly classless and despicable.

Is ALW difficult to work with? Yes. He knows what he wants and he expects the people he employs to step up and produce. Is he temperamental? Well, if raising your voice at people when they don’t meet your expectations is temperamental, then yes, he is. But look at the man’s track record. What more does he have to do to inspire people to put their best efforts into his projects? But you will still hear the constant criticisms of the man’s shows, his temperament, his success, and his politics. It always seems to creep its way into the dialogue.

Now, don’t get me wrong… I am a HUGE fan of Sondheim’s work. But let’s be honest: He is far from a commercial success. And on Broadway, I think it’s instructive to look at a person’s contribution not only in artistic achievement, but also in some pretty important aspects like: Number of tickets sold, number of actors and crew employed, number of children exposed to live theatre for the first time… You know, the tangible, objective criteria we in the business of SELLING theatre as a product look to. By those measures, ALW is the greatest success our business has ever seen.

But Mr. Sondheim travels in the right artistic and political circles. He famously turned down the 1992 National Medal of Arts from the NEA, saying the agency, “is being rapidly transformed into a conduit and a symbol of censorship and repression.” Sondheim also enjoyed a string of positive reviews from the New York Times that often left theatre insiders scratching their heads. His string of love letters from the Times was penned by none other than Frank Rich.

Meanwhile, Rich saved most of his vitriol and venom for Sir Andrew. He famously slammed Cats, Starlight Express and Phantom in succession, and then slammed them all over again when reviewing Aspects of Love, along with a jab at ALW’s politics:

Andrew Lloyd Webber, the composer who is second to none when writing
musicals about cats, roller-skating trains and falling chandeliers, has made an
earnest but bizarre career decision in “Aspects of Love”….He has written a
musical about people.

Whether “Aspects of Love” is a musical for people is another matter. Mr.
Lloyd Webber continues to compose in the official style that has made him an
international favorite, sacrificing any personality of his own to the
merchandisable common denominator of easy-listening pop music. [The
musical]…generates about as much heated passion as a visit to the bank. Even
when women strip to lacy undergarments, the lingerie doesn’t suggest the erotic
fantasies of Frederick’s of Hollywood so much as the no-nonsense austerity of
Margaret Thatcher’s Britain.

No need to read between the lines here…

Yet he continues to write and produce and employ and yes, spread the wealth! Because when a show is a hit in New York, the money {gasp} trickles down! Ask the restaurant employees and hotel employees and cabbies and bartenders all around the theatre district. They will give you a perfect lesson in market economics that can be boiled down to one statement: Andrew Lloyd Webber keeps them humming and that keeps me working!

So, from THIS musical theatre fan, and a man who has been lucky enough to live off the success of your efforts, I’d like to say “Thank You, Sir Andrew. Broadway wouldn’t be the same without you.”

Stage Right is on Facebook.

Big Hollywood - Memo To ‘Rent’ Characters: Get a Job

2009-01-20T10:51:00.000-08:00

My post at Big Hollywood about Rent the musical, and Giuliani.

Memo To ‘Rent’ Characters: Get a Jobby Stage Right

The lights came up at the Nederlander Theatre at intermission. My girlfriend, at the time, turns to me and says, “Well, what do you think?”. We had just seen the first half of RENT, the groundbreaking, 1996 grunge-rock musical based on Pucini’s La Boheme. For a synopsis, read this. I gave her my usual response which she had learned to tolerate by now… “Well, I think it’s brilliant. I mean, there’s barely a set so the crew must be really small. It’s a seven piece band. The cast is about the same size as A Chorus Line so the payroll is nice and tight. Those costumes look like they are dragged in the alley before the show so the wardrobe crew must be only three or four people. Other than the drag queen, there aren’t any wigs to maintain. And this thing they’re doing with same-day, $10 tickets is creating such an amazing “Event” atmosphere at the theatre… it’s a marketing dream! The Nederlanders gave them this theatre for free, since it hasn’t been booked since Lena Horne in 1982… They can run this thing for a decade and they’ll recoup in about three months. I love it!”.

It’s true, I can’t see a show anymore without trying to figure out the capitalization and weekly running costs by mid-way through the 1st act… it’s a gift, and a curse.

So, she rolls her eyes and says, ”I mean, what do you think of the story, the music, the characters…. Are you enjoying the show?”.

And then, I made the same mistake I made with most of the actresses I was foolish enough to date. I made a seemingly innocuous remark which unveiled me as insensitive, mean, unfeeling and…. a conservative!. I said: “Why are these punks spending all their time playing with their camera and guitar. They should get a job and pay the poor guy who owns the building. They owe him rent for the past year for God’s sake!”

Silence.

She stared at me in stunned disbelief. I realized that I was staring back at yet another Broadway Chorus Dancer who I would have to refer to as my “Former girlfriend”. Ah well… it was fun while it lasted.

RENT was also meant as an allegory to the Giuliani era in Times Square. For those old enough to remember, Times Square used to be a pretty awful place. Prostitutes, drug dealers, homeless, aggressive street “performers”, three-card monty, fake watches, the smell of urine…. (It’s so surprising I wasn’t hired for that New York tourism campaign I interviewed for back in 1987) Rudolph Giuliani campaigned on a platform of law and order and economic revival with commerce and development starting in Times Square and spreading out in all directions. “It’s the street tax paid to drunk and drug-ridden panhandlers. It’s the squeegee men shaking down the motorist waiting at a light. It’s the trash storms, the swirling mass of garbage left by peddlers and panhandlers, and open-air drug bazaars on unclean streets.” That was actually controversial in 1993 New York.

After getting elected he did what Republicans often do: He followed through.

Although the New York Times assured us that by stopping the squeegee men from pounding on car windows at stop lights we’d be ushering in a new fascist order, somehow, Giuliani was able to enforce the quality of life agenda. The crime dripped away from America’s #1 urban tourist spot and suddenly, the investments started coming in. Disney came to 42nd St. Nasdaq was on Times Square. New hotels, new restaurants, new night life. No peddlers, no scary guys whispering “crack, smack” to you when you pass them on the street. All of this was BAD to the New York left!

And this was the climate in which RENT was presented. And the character of Benny trying to revitalize a downtown tenement building populated by drug addicts and homeless was the perfect example of “Giulianism” run amok. Benny is stifling the artists who live in the neighborhood by bringing in condos. He’s giving the homeless no place to live by having the police enforce the laws and get them off the sidewalk. He’s embarrassed by the drag queens and the gay men and women publicly displaying their affection for each other when he brings his financiers to the neighborhood restaurant. Benny is evil!

Problem is: Benny is right. Giuliani was right. New York is a better place because of the changes he brought. It’s safer, there are more jobs, it’s cleaner, it’s not as offensive to a family to walk down the street with children and worry about the peep-show houses right next to the theatre where a Broadway show is playing. If this is fascism, count me in! (Of course, the real irony is that Giuliani’s successor, Mayor Bloomberg has instituted some truly fascistic laws regarding smoking and nutritional requirements for restaurants, but since these policies are based on leftist ideas, you don’t see Bloomberg with a Hitler moustache around town.)

So we sat through act two in a deep chill. And I kept trying to figure out what the weekly break-even was. And my girlfriend was probably trying to figure out how to get a note back to Adam Pascal since she was going to be single VERY soon.

Stage Right is on Facebook.

Bush Mocked As He Arrives on Inauguration Dais

2009-01-20T10:48:00.000-08:00

The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room - Bush Mocked As He Arrives on Inauguration Dais:

Classy right up to the end:

"The crowd packed on the west side of the Capitol grounds serenaded President Bush in mocking fashion when he took to the inaugural stage alongside Vice President Dick Cheney.

'Nah nah nah nah, hey hey, good-bye,' a section of the crowd chanted.

The crowd packed immediately below the podium received Bush in stony silence when he took his seat on the stage surrounding the podium where Barack Obama was scheduled to take the oath office to become the 44th president of the United States.

The jeers are among the final public feedback Bush will receive as president."

I can't wait for the day when President Bush is honored for the great job he has done with such dignity and graciousness. Show some class people.

Actors Equity Association: Hostile Work Environment

2009-01-14T12:46:00.000-08:00

My latest post at Big Hollywood about my experience at the Equity offices in LA.

Actors Equity Association: Hostile Work Environmentby Stage Right
You hear the stories about the DMV worker asked to remove an American Flag from their cubicle, and the secretary forced to not have a bible on her desk, or the fireman who can’t have a Hooters calendar up at the firehouse. They all make the headlines and they contribute to the somewhat sanitized work environments now pretty standard in corporate America due to H.R. weenies scared of the ever-annoying “Hostile Work Environment” law suit.
It brings to mind the day I had to meet at the LA Actors Equity Association (AEA) offices to negotiate some special provisions for a show I was hired to manage. AEA is the union for stage actors and for all you Hollywood types who just deal with SAG, consider yourself lucky that at least you deal with a PROFESSIONAL operation.
To get to the conference room at the AEA office, I walked down the length of their front offices with a pool of desks on the left and a wall full of office doors down the right side of the corridor. The offices were for various representatives hired to enforce different contracts based on size of theatre and geographic location this side of the Mississippi.
As I walked, I noticed that on practically every other office on the right was a scotch-taped political cartoon. And this wasn’t your benign leftist “Doonesbury” or Jules Pfeiffer scribble. No, these were raw, in your face; George Bush is an evil, stupid chimp kind of cartoons. The standard, “Bush lied, people died”, kind of stuff and Dick Cheney is Darth Vader/United States of Haliburton kind of stuff.
What does it say about a workplace where the people in middle management feels completely comfortable posting these things for all the other employees, not to mention guests such as myself, to see?
So, I finish my meeting and I win a few items on my wish list and my friend and adversary on the other side of the table leans in and says “You know, there’s going to be a job opening here soon, and we’d really like to bring in some people from the producer’s side to help us in some organizing efforts and to help re-fashion some of the contracts. We think it would do us some good to have someone from the producers’ perspective on our team.”
I actually commended him on the idea and agreed that it would do them a lot of good to add that perspective, but I didn’t think this was the job for me.
If the entertainment industry leans left, then the theatre world is left of left. And if theatre is left of left, then the theatre actor’s UNION is so far left they consider Dennis Kucinich the reasonable alternative to Ralph Nader.
As I was walking back out to the front door, I stopped in to schmooze with the Western Region Director, and I casually asked “Does anyone ever complain about the cartoons on the doors down the corridor here?” “No, why?” he asked. Why, indeed.
I wonder if I should have taken the job just so I could have handed them a law suit six months later.

Stage Right is on Facebook.

Is There Such A Thing As Conservative Theatre?

2009-01-13T10:27:00.000-08:00

I just found this very fine post on the LA Stage Alliance Blog "LA Stage Blog" concerning "Conservative Theatre" It's pulls some of the same quotes as I did earlier this week on the Nichola Hytner quote. The blogger, Colin Mitchell, shared this experience as a playwright:

"Had a writing professor at Loyola Marymount tell me that unless I was an African-American female Lesbian my chances of getting a production in regional theatre were nil to zero - funny how the tables have turned and being an Anglo White Male doesn’t carry as much influence as it used to - at least not in theatre. Hell, I even had the AD of an Off-Broadway house - a man who was my teacher and absolutely LOVED my work - tell me, “We’re just doing ethnic one-person shows right now. It’s the only thing you can get funding for anymore.” I kid you not."

{Sigh.}

The Broadway Season I’d Like To See

2009-01-13T10:16:00.000-08:00

My latest post at Big Hollywood on The Broadway Season I’d Like To See.

The Broadway Season I’d Like To Seeby Stage Right

The horrifying news that Susan Sarandon will make her Broadway debut this Spring (because Broadway isn’t left ENOUGH?) has gotten me to thinking… Instead of Ms. Sarandon, and Rosie O’Donnell and Alec Baldwin & Jessica Lange (in the SAME play, no less) why can’t a Broadway season contain actors who are not so excruciatingly annoying? I’m not even saying actors who are center/right in their politics — but how about actors who just focus on acting and, when off-camera, acting with class?
Here’s my wish-list for that season, in a perfect world…
Tom Selleck in The Man Who Came to Dinner - He has an easy dignity, wit and poise perfect for the character of Sheridan Whiteside.
Kelsey Grammer in A Man For All Seasons - That voice, saying those lines…. wow!
Patricia Heaton in Gypsy - Few actress are able to capture Mama Rose’s relentlessness and sarcastic wit and still make her likable. Heaton has the magic to do it.
Gary Sinise in Mister Roberts - He’s already done a Henry Fonda role on Broadway, and the publicity still of him in uniform would sell-out the entire run.
Bruce Willis in On The Water Front - He has the raw intensity of Brando and he’s such a big personality the audience will watch his every twitch.
Robert Duvall in King Lear - ’nuff said.
And one more… I don’t think this guy’s center/right and I don’t know whether he’s ever voted for a Republican, but, Tom Hanks is our generation’s finest actor and the fact that he is so inoffensive about whatever his politics might be makes him a stand-out even if he is on the left side of the scale. Also, I have always dreamed of him playing THIS part:
Tom Hanks in Harvey (Hanks is OUR Jimmy Stewart and he needs to be on stage like RIGHT NOW!)
If you think of some more, or some better roles for the actors and actress I listed, please put them in the comments….

Stage Right is on Facebook.

Beyond the Stage

2009-01-12T14:06:00.000-08:00

I've begun blogging at Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood as "Stage Right". Being in the professional theatre business, I've had to adopt a "Nome de Plume" for privacy purposes. not only is it to protect my own professional interests, but more importantly, to maintain the friendships my wife and I have within the theatre industry.

Of course, she and I are well aware of our friends' political leanings, and we can still see their decency and worth as human beings and our friends, but the track record of many on the left is to not extend that courtesy to those who civilly maintain positions from the right side of the spectrum.

And so, until things start to cool down a bit in the theatre industry (ha ha) I will continue to blog as "Stage Right"

Big Hollywood's "raison d'etre" is to address the left's domination of film, television, music, mass media and theatre. I have been invited to contribute there and to stick to the "Theatre Beat". But, I'm full of thoughts that stretch... "Beyond the Stage" so that's why I've started this new blog.

Please comment and share your thoughts as well.

Will Farrell as George W. Bush on Broadway

2009-01-12T13:48:00.000-08:00

My latest Big Hollywood post on Will Farrell as George W. Bush on Broadway

Bashing Bush = Boffo Broadway Business!by Stage Right
I know that as the guy on the “Broadway Beat” I should have a take on the Will Ferrell one-man show due to start previews at the Cort on Inauguration Day, “You’re Welcome America, A Final Night with George Bush”, but, so far, I’m just bored with the idea.

Sure, it’s going to be a 90-minute SNL sketch, but instead of the opening sketch that always grabs you and pulls you in to watch through “Update”, I expect it’ll be like one of those sketches thrown in after the second song from the musical guest. And it will feel like they never quite figured out how to end it… you know, those excruciating sketches which force you to say “Why am I still up watching this?”

I like Will Ferrell… he almost always makes me laugh. But, there is something about his Bush impression that has gotten pretty mean. He always played W in that stereotype kind of dim, frat-boy kind of way. But when he looked into the camera and said “Strategery” during the mock debates against Darrell Hammond’s awesome Al Gore, he had an earnestness that made the caricature endearing. Now, his Bush has lost the charm and it’s just not as fun to watch.

Here’s a promotional video, see if you agree:

So he’ll run for his limited engagement. And the show will cost about a nickel because there’s no cast, and the crew will be minimal. The Cort is probably going for about $1.25 per week these days because there are so many new vacancies on Broadway and the Shuberts are probably just happy to have a booking in one of their lesser booked houses. So, I’m sure money will be made by all involved. In fact, HBO is going to broadcast one performance live so the fees for that probably cover expenses going in.

But, the whole thing is a bit pathetic. I’d hoped Will Ferrell would have gracefully left this behind, but he seems determined to milk the last drop from this impersonation. It feels a little like Tim Conway’s 17th “Dorf” video, I think it was “Dorf on Luge” or “Dorf on Curling” or something like that. It’s a far cry from the very classy Dana Carvey and his respectful admiration for Pres. George H. W. Bush.

His press office is sending out signals that there will be “surprises” in the show. If he is smart and if he wants to appeal to the other half of our country, he will re-inject some heart into the character he has created. Something is different when you see an actor live in the same room as you rather than on the screen in your living room. A mean joke at the President’s expense might be funny with a studio audience, but in a Broadway house, there is an intimacy that demands a modicum of pathos from an actor, especially when basically a one-joke bit is stretched to 90 minutes. I hope Mr. Ferrell rises to the challenge.

Stage Right is on Facebook.

Conservative Playwrights

2009-01-11T14:09:00.000-08:00

My post at Big Hollywood about non-profit theatres looking for conservative plays.

Calling All Center-Right Playwrights: Put Up, Or Shut Up.by Stage Right
Although Big Hollywood is still in its infancy, a recurring theme seems to be running through the posts and the comments: (paraphrasing)

“Stop bitching about the left in show business, go out and make a new reality
with your own creativity and get those butts in the seats. That’s the only
way to change things!”

And as a conservative, it’s hard to argue with that kind of “pull yourself up by the boot straps” kind of thinking.

Now, I recognize that it’s difficult to just write a screen play and make a movie. But, the fact of the matter is, theatre is much different. It actually IS pretty easy to get something up on the boards and seen in an obscure venue. Writers in LA have always known that the small, “99-seat” or “Equity Waiver” houses are a perfect venue for getting their ideas on their feet. But, it’s also a labor of love and rarely ends up producing real, tangible dividends.

But, now, thanks to a little investigative work by yours truly, I’ve discovered the perfect opportunity to all of you right-wing whacko writers out there just itching for fame, money and glory.

According to this very fair and balanced and enlightening article from the NY Times (hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day), New York and London’s most prominent Artistic Directors are looking for plays with a conservative point of view!

André Bishop, artistic director of Lincoln Center Theater for 16 years, said he reads about five plays a week, and from thousands over the years he could not think of a single one that would fall on the right end of the spectrum. “I’m trying to think if I ever read a play that I would call conservative,” he said, pausing a few moments. “I don’t think I’ve come across one.”
And… from across the pond….
A similar conversation about the limited range of viewpoints has been going on in Britain since Nicholas Hytner, artistic director of the National Theater, said he would like to stage a “good, mischievous, right-wing play,” but was having trouble finding
one.

“I would love to deliver a play that ended up in a position that, for
instance, was highly skeptical about abortion rights,” he said. “I would like to
see a play about the white working-class communities that were completely
displaced by waves of immigration. These are the offensive plays we’re not
doing.”

There you have it my friends… what do you need, and engraved invitation? Get those cover letters going!

Meanwhile, if you don’t get anything accepted, I’ll be happy to stage a reading for you up stairs at Sardi’s or in LA at the Coronet… for a small fee of course, I’m not a leftist!

Stage Right is on Facebook.

Scott Eckern

2009-01-10T14:06:00.000-08:00

My post at Big Hollywood about the Scott Eckern incident at California Music Theatre in Sacramento.

Prop 8: I’m Spartacus! No, I’m Scott Eckern!by Stage Right
That’s what I felt like yelling during last November’s horrifying public shaming of a theatre executive in California. Scott Eckern, the Artistic Director of Sacramento Music Theatre, was forced to resign after the public revelation that he donated $1,000 to the Prop. 8 campaign. I felt like calling all of my friends in the theatre industry and saying “I’M SCOTT ECKERN!” I felt like responding to all of the e-mails I received from my colleagues urging me to join the drive to remove him from his post by saying: “I’M SCOTT ECKERN!” “If you take him, you should take me! ” Like all those slaves standing in solidarity with Spartacus. I was also an executive in the industry with similar views. There but for the grace of God….
But I didn’t stand up and shout. I didn’t because I am a coward. I didn’t because I have children and a mortgage and I might need the next job that comes along so I keep my mouth shut.

But make no mistake, there are many of us working in the theatre industry and the spectacle that was Scott Eckern’s ouster was terrifying and enraging to us. Many readers of Big Hollywood suggest that as long as we are effective in our jobs and we “put butts in seats” then we should have the courage to speak out and fight for our beliefs even if we are a minority in a hostile environment…. I hope this morality tale speaks to you…
I was fortunate enough to witness this witch-hunt from inside the Facebook bubble that helped create it. You see, one of my friends, actress Susan Egan, circulated an open letter to all of her friends. And then her friends circulated it to their friends and well, by now you know what happened. Her letter has been reported many times and she seems proud of her involvement in this episode. She actually wrote her initial letter and then, within 24 hours wrote a follow-up. The full text of Susan Egan’s original letter can be found here. Her follow-up letter is harder to come by, but it contains much more revealing information. In the spirit of “full context” I include the entire second letter here: (my comments follow below)
Dear Friends –
Just wanted to follow up. It’s less than 24 hours since the email/postI sent, and I am overwhelmed by the number of responses, which arestill pouring in. Thank you! I was very nervous about sending myletter out there, signing my name and holding my breath to see what(if anything) would happen. I expect backlash, but I am heartened toknow that my own initial response to the information about ScottEckern is echoed throughout our theatrical community. We have alwaysbeen a close-knit group, capable of so much, and standing insolidarity for the civil rights of all our members is a worthy cause.I am proud to be a part of such a group.
Many messages back to me had questions, and I’d like to address themhere, as I have a nearly-two-year-old (now napping) who limits myon-line time. It’s long … you guys wrote a lot of messages … getready ….
Is it a fact that Scott Eckern donated $1000 to Yes on 8?Yes, in the state of California, donations of this sort are publicrecord. You may find the record of his donation at:
www.sfgate.com
Many of you have asked for permission to forward my letter on tofriends, colleagues, press and so on. I’m fine with this. It’s already“out there” … so you have my blessing. That said, if you feelcompelled to add your name to the letter, please do. Building groupsupport for civil rights was my impetus for the post.
Many have written demanding Scott’s resignation and have hopes ofbuilding a large enough group of supporters to achieve this. And hereis where I would like to expand both my thinking and what I’ve learnedin the past 18 hours … from many of you:
I understand your position and passion, but I am not ready to sign apetition asking for his resignation – please read why ….
My philosophy: I have made so many mistakes in my life, done things Iregret and in so doing I’d like to allow for Scott to amend hisactions. I personally do not wish for him to resign, but rather towrite a public apology for offending so many in this theatre world weall share. I’d also love to see him donate another $1000 towards anorganization of his choosing that would attest to his commitment tothe gay and lesbian communities, which have contributed so much overthe years to CMT and SMC, and to him personally. To me – this is whatwe should be asking for first.
A few of you smarties felt like we should take this to the SacramentoBee. I’m all for it. Perhaps they are already on it; other newsorganizations are. But I’d like the message from us to be one from allof us. Perhaps a statement, with all our names. As to what thatstatement should be. I’d like to be on the side of compassion, nothate. Vilifying any individual makes us one of them. And the idea of aBlacklist is a scary one, to me, as it has ensnared innocent people inthe past. I simply choose to spend my money and pursue my career andlive my life in support of those who I feel are fair.Sam Harris wrote such a thoughtful response and I feel, as he does,that we should take the high road. He sited an article called FourLessons Gay Marriage Actvists Must Learn From Obama. Read the article,but in a nutshell they are: Anger Loses, Get Organized, OutreachWorks, and Pick Your Battles. These won Obama the presidency. Heck,these are life lessons.
Read for yourselfA very wise responder to my post asked if perhaps Scott had beencoerced by his church (Latter Day Saints) to make the donation? And ifso, is he really at fault? We know the Mormon Church has been a majorsupporter of Yes on 8, and it has “urged” its members to givefinancial support. My feelings are: if true, what does it say about achurch that would make such “demands” on its parishioners? But moreimportant, as a leader in the theatre community I would hope thatScott would also lead his church to better understand the Gay andLesbian community and the need for equal civil rights … somethingearly Mormons sought as they escaped persecution in the East andtraveled West. LDS has made great movement in its acceptance ofinterracial couples and in expunging bigamy from its ranks. Equalityin marriage for all seems a logical next step. In the words ofHammerstein, “You have to be taught to love and hate … you have to becarefully taught.” So be a teacher, Scott.
However, I realize it can be hard to be a lone voice – stand up andmake such points, and I do not personally hold it against Scott thathe did not make this courageous choice. I do not agree with his Yes on8 vote, but his vote is his constitutional right, and I do not evenask for him to change his mind about that. Rather, it’s the fact thathis income, the direct result of so many brilliant gay and lesbiantalents, was used to support the elimination of their given civilright. This is a conflict of interest at the very least … and betrayalat the worst. Prudence in refusing to donate towards the cause andremaining quiet in his personal beliefs would have served him greatly.
I feel for the position Scott is in now. Do not get me wrong … HE puthimself there and so all is fair. But my question to him is this: whatdoes your church think about the shows you produce? CABARET, A CHORUSLINE, BEST LITTLE WHOREHOUSE IN TEXAS, RENT, to name a few. AVENUE Qis heading to Sacramento – presented by CMT – does it hold the valuesof LDS? Perhaps not. So how do you resolve that conflict? Does yourdonation in support of Prop 8 (those 30 pieces of silver you gave) …does it absolve you of your “sinful associations” and livelihood? Hereis where I cannot wrap my mind around the situation. And so it is.
Bottom line. I felt the information was important to disseminate. Iwas shocked and betrayed by Scott’s actions. I stand by my letter andgive my blessing if you feel you’d like to pass it along. I preservethe possibility for a happy ending (the best piece of direction I haveever been given as an actress) – that Scott will embrace histheatrical friends, realize the hurt he has caused, and genuinely makeamends. Anything less and I personally do not consider him a member ofthis cherished theatrical community. That other composers have writtenme in the last 18 hours to say they join Marc Shaiman in his boycottof granting rights to CMT until the matter is resolved is encouraging!
I wish no one harm, Scott included. My intention is not to cause anygrief to him or his family, just as I’m truly certain (I have knownhim for more than a decade) he meant no personal harm to his fellowartists. But actions and words have consequences, and I’m afraid theyare personal.
But have hope. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been persuaded, so willothers. In news just 15 hours old, and I quote:
“[Schwarzenegger] urged backers of gay marriage to follow the lessonhe learned as a bodybuilder trying to lift weights that were too heavyfor him at first. ‘I learned that you should never ever give up. . . .They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until theyget it done.’”
Just holding the space; join in!
Susan Egan
I read this letter and I got ONE message: Believe what you want, but if you work here, you better keep your mouth shut and you better not be politically active or be ready for the consequences.
Susan is best known for originating the role of Belle in Disney’s Beauty and the Beast on Broadway and Los Angeles. That is when I met her and knew her best. As is the case with most people one meets in the theatre world, you know them intimately during the run of the current show, and once the show closes, despite promises to be BFF, things happen. New shows are mounted, new BFFs are made. But we all stay good friends. Even if you only see each other every year or two in New York or LA at an opening or just passing each other in Shubert Alley. I consider Susan a friend, and that is why her letter and the language she used in it bothered me so much.
How can the open-minded, free-thinking members of the theatre community not see the insidious nature of this situation?
Mr. Eckern was forced to resign his job and livelihood because, out of his religious convictions, he took a political position. And, in Susan’s words: “I preserve the possibility for a happy ending… that Scott will embrace his theatrical friends, realize the hurt he has caused, and genuinely make amends. Anything less and I personally do not consider him a member of this cherished theatrical community. “ And, how does she suggest “amends” can be made? “to write a public apology for offending so many in this theatre world we all share. I’d also love to see him donate another $1000 towards an organization of his choosing that would attest to his commitment to the gay and lesbian communities…” I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to suggest that this is a tiny step toward Mao’s tactics in the cultural revolution. This person must be publicly shamed and humiliated and we will extract a fine for his transgressions.
Also, what about this: “Prudence in refusing to donate towards the cause and remaining quiet in his personal beliefs would have served him greatly.” Translation: If he were smart, he would have just shut his mouth.
And did you catch this line? “Anything less and I personally do not consider him a member ofthis cherished theatrical community” . Get it? If you don’t agree with our point of view, you don’t belong in this business. Go work somewhere else with people who think like you.
This issue revolves around Prop 8, and I will purposely not reveal how I voted on this issue, because my reaction to this particular situation is not related at all to my position on Prop. 8…. my greater concern has to do with the propensity of those in the theatre industry to so easily adopt intolerant and totalitarian positions towards those who may genuinely hold differing viewpoints.
I consider myself a center/right leaning person, and I know, FOR A FACT, that there are many in the theatre industry who hold similar views as I. Do you hear much from them? Honestly, we don’t say much in public, because we are genuinely scared to. And this episode is exactly why.
One other disturbing part of Susan’s posting on Facebook. It received close to 100 comments from her friends lauding her “courage” for speaking out. Courage! Please… In this industry, what Susan did was the opposite of courage… does ANYONE doubt that she would have been applauded for her actions? Please! The self-delusion here is almost funny. Susan herself suggests that Mr. Eckern would have shown courage by standing up and being a lone voice in dissent of his church’s position on same-sex marriage, yet she can only find contempt for his standing up and being a lone voice in the theatre world in support of traditional marriage.
In fact, far from Susan showing courage, a cynic might think that since she was quickly aligning herself with a recent Tony Award winning composer, Marc Shaiman, she might have known that this public stance would put her in very good stead with the powers-that-be in our industry. It’s not a secret that a huge number of writers, directors and producers (you know, the men doing the hiring) are gay men. Yes, in theatre, gay men!
After Mr. Eckern resigned, Susan posted on more letter. Again, for full context, I re-print it here:
Scott Eckern Resigns
While I never wished for Scott’s demise, nor unemployment on anyone in this economy, I understand that his resignation may be the best outcome for all involved and watching.
I don’t want the arts community to be one that cannot accept the diversity of all — including those who may have unpopular political opinions among artists. My beef with Scott was his use of money made from the blood, sweat and tears of the gay community towards the prohibition of the civil rights of that same group.
CMT was in a difficult position. Had they fired Scott, they risked looking intolerant themselves. Had they kept him, they risk financial backlash from artists. Scott’s resignation is the best solution, and offered him an opportunity to something selfless. Let’s give him that.
His statement is fascinating, but I am ill-qualified to analyze it. I do wonder what his lesbian sister thinks of Prop 8. He seems to live in two worlds and that must be exhausting. BUT … changing Scott’s mind about the proposition was never my goal. Informing the theatre community of how he uses his earned income was my goal.
I am overwhelmed still by the tremendous storm of these last three days. I suppose we have all had a button pushed, and now … isn’t it amazing (!) … how lots of individual people … frustrated, angry, disillusioned … are now a unified group … organizing, sharing, loving each other and the message we wish to deliver.
I am so moved by the messages I’ve received from you guys — thank you. The backlash is nothing compared to the new friends I have made. I’m honored to be in line, on the line, picketing the line with all of you.
I also know that some are still angry — even with Scott’s resignation. Perhaps his words frustrated you. I understand your passion, but urge all of us to take the win and move on to the next battle. In no way should CMT be hurt further. This is a great, inclusive arts organization …. beloved by so many of us and the community it serves. Celebrate it. We lose so many theatres across our nation … let’s support this one which has given so much. Scott’s resignation may, in fact, cause backlash from Yes on 8 supporters — so now we MUST stand behind CMT with every fiber of our beautifully diverse selves.
I want to stand strong, make our message clear …. and err on the side of compassion. I know we are right, and with that on our side, we can afford to make considered steps that when scrutinized by reasonable people will be seen as fair, intelligent, and clear. Let’s be bigger than our opponents. Only then can we gain the support of those who are open to hearing — a growing group! So much mis-information was put out in CA and across our nation; we need to re-educate and people will hear. But the moment we sensationalize anything, we lose all integrity, and supporters.
I have learned so much from you in the last few days — thank you. Let me know how I may be of service.
Holding a growing space,Susan Egan
Let’s take a look at how Susan summed up her biggest objection to Mr. Eckern exercising his rights of free speech and association: “My beef with Scott was his use of money made from the blood, sweat and tears of the gay community towards the prohibition of the civil rights of that same group.”The Orwellian use of “civil rights” in the context of a man forced to resign for making a private, political contribution is too easy of a target (isn’t free association and the expression of political ideas the very first of our civil rights?), so I’ll focus on the first part…
I wonder if Ms. Egan (or, the actors, writers and directors applauding this episode) would be pleased with a group of families forcing Disney to no longer hire her because their ticket money is being used to support ideas which, they believe, undermines the basic structure of our society? Of course, it would never happen… but right-wingers are the intolerant and ignorant ones, remember?
And by the way. Let’s help shed some light on the economic realities of the theatre business for the self-aggrandizing artists involved in a show: The MONEY was not made by the “blood, sweat and tears of the gay community…” (blood?). No, the art, or the product may have been made by their efforts, but the MONEY was made by the sale of tickets to the general public (the majority of whom agree with Mr. Eckern’s position), and by the careful and prudent management of the business… the business MANAGED BY MR. ECKERN!!!!
You see, this is the world I work in. The “Theatrical Community” as it is so often referred to. A community where a respected executive with decades of exemplary service to his city and to his industry donates money to a proposition that merely maintains the legal definition of marriage as one man and one woman, and he must step down in shame. Mr. Eckern was great at his job. He got “butts in the seats”. He is now unemployed.
If only we had our own Arthur Miller to write a new version of The Crucible.

Stage Right is on Facebook.

David Mamet

2009-01-09T14:17:00.000-08:00

My Big Hollywood post on David Mamet proclaiming he is no longer a "Brain-Dead Liberal".

The American Theatre world was rocked last year by playwright David Mamet’s confession in the “Village Voice” headlined: “Why I am no longer a ‘brain-dead liberal”.

Some of us saw it coming.

You need only recall Mamet’s 1992 masterpiece “Oleanna” to see that he was already feeling deeply affected by the left’s intolerant and stifling political correctness and the witch-hunt mentality of sexual harassment manifested by the insidious “hostile environment” charge. You remember 1992… the “Year of the Woman”? The fall-out of the Clarence Thomas hearings? At the time, NY Times critic Frank Rich (yes, before he was telling us how to run our country, he was merely telling us what plays to see) said at the time:

Oleanna … is an impassioned response to the Thomas hearings. As if ripped right from the typewriter, it could not be more direct in its technique or more incendiary in its ambitions. In Act I, Mr. Mamet locks one man and one woman in an office where, depending on one’s point of view, an act of sexual harassment does or does not occur. In Act II, the antagonists, a middle-aged university professor and an undergraduate student, return to the scene of the alleged crime to try to settle their case without benefit of counsel, surrogates or, at times, common sense.

The result? During the pause for breath that separates the two scenes of Mr. Mamet’s no-holds-barred second act, the audience seemed to be squirming and hyperventilating en masse, so nervous was the laughter and the low rumble of chatter that wafted through the house. The ensuing denouement, which raised the drama’s stakes still higher, does nothing to alter the impression that “Oleanna” is likely to provoke more arguments than any play this year.

Remember that this is Frank Rich describing the reaction of a liberal, New York audience. In the same way that main-stream conservative voices are described in the media as “controversial”, Mr. Rich takes the opportunity to assure the reader that Oleanna would “provoke more arguments than any play this year” as a way of communicating that this play does not take the standard, liberal POV on this issue. If it did, than where is the argument? Conventional wisdom at the time suggested that Oleanna was written in a deliberately even-handed way so as to elicit reactions from the audience member that reflected the original perspective they brought into the theatre that night. In so doing, Mamet was revealing the essence of the sexual harassment debate at that time: You can never understand what it’s like to be in the other gender’s place in these situations, therefore, it’s best to just play it straight at work and avoid any potential problems.

Of course, the “hidden” theme the playwright conveys is as obvious as the title. What is “Oleanna” anyway? It refers to a Norwegian folk song mocking the idea of a Utopian America. Who, in our society, invokes the desire for a Utopian world where any sexual tension between men and women is removed from the workplace lest it create a “hostile work environment”? Why liberals, of course… with Frank Rich leading the charge! In the play’s title, Mamet is ridiculing the desire for a sexual-free work zone and projects the results of the sexual harassment witch-hunt mentality of 1992 in his masterpiece of social commentary.

For me, I started to sense Mr. Mamet had at least sympathy for a more traditional world view when I saw his much-unappreciated 1989 film, “We’re No Angels”. The story about two escaped convicts (Robert De Niro and Sean Penn) posing as priests in a Canadian-border church and their ongoing attempts to cross the border into freedom showed a sympathy and reverence for traditional religious and, yes even FAMILY values that one did not expect from the hard-edged Chicago playwright.

But, when Mr. Mamet’s now infamous op-ed was published in The Voice this past March, the band-width on many mid-town Manhattan offices were taxed with all of the forwarded and linked e-mails tagged with the standard “Traitor”, “Idiot”, “Facist” and “Neo-Con” epithets. At the time of his “coming out” two grand revivals of Mamet’s most celebrated plays were already cast, financed and preparing for their Broadway runs: The already shuttered “American Buffalo” and the as-of-now still running “Speed-the-Plow”. Both plays had already been heralded as landmark literary works and both had already received star-studded revivals in the past, so it would have been shocking for either to receive less than enthusiastic reviews, at least for Mamet’s contributions. And although “Buffalo” did get killed by the critics over the casting choices and the slow-paced direction, Mamet was left unscathed.

So, does this mean the elite of the theatre critic fraternity have turned a blind eye to Mamet’s apostasy? Not likely.

The real test will be when Mamet offers a new work for public consumption.

Will it be viewed through a new spectrum? Will critics recognize Mamet’s un-deniable brilliance? Or, will a hidden meaning be searched for in every scene and in every rapid-fire dialogue sequence?

I have an even more relevant question: Will the leftist producers and financiers of Broadway plays even option or attempt to raise money for Mamet’s plays now that he has famously referred to these same producers and money-men as “brain-dead”? Understand this: Investing in and producing a straight play on Broadway is the same as donating money to a charity. You don’t plan on seeing the money again and you get a nice tax write-off while you get to feel good about yourself and brag to your friends about how you spent your money. The odds are so great that you will never see your “investment” again, that the State of New York REQUIRES investors to sign a legal document certifying that they understand they will probably never see their money again. It’s more paperwork than buying a time-share in Orlando… and it’s not as good a deal.

It will be interesting to see. At least I know this for sure: If Mamet’s future plays are not met with backing or received well critically and he perceives that the reason is his article in The Voice, his public response to that situation will be the most entertaining action on Broadway in a long, long time. I only hope he doesn’t censor himself and he uses all seven of George Carlin’s forbidden words. (There’s a reason why theatre folk refer to Mamet’s most famous play as “GlenF’INGgarry, Glen F’ING Ross”)

Stage Right is on Facebook.

Stage Right

2009-01-08T14:19:00.000-08:00

This is my introductory post at Big Hollywood.

It was a cold November evening in 1994 when I shut off my television and went to a board meeting of a Los Angeles service organization for theatre owners and producers. I had just heard the news that for the first time in almost 50 years, both houses of congress would be under the leadership of the Republican party, MY party. I remember vividly feeling the hope and optimism that for the first time in my life, the Speaker of the House would have the same party affiliation as I had, and my father had.

There was a spring in my step walking to the board room. In the back of my mind I wondered to myself if I should violate my vow of silence about politics in front of colleagues whom I did not have full faith and trust in. Surely this sweeping victory signified that it was “ok” to vote Republican. Surely now I could admit that I had some sympathy for a more center-right perspective on politics. Yes, I’ll mention it during the wine and cheese portion of the meeting…

I opened the door and realized that I was not at a board meeting, I was at a funeral. Everything but black armbands. It was silent. People speaking in hushed tones. Grim faces. Not the usual revelry. And trust me, on any other normal occasion, if you get a bunch of theatre people in one room and open a bottle of wine, a party starts. Not tonight. The meeting was quietly called to order and before the president of the board could announce the agenda, a marketing executive from a prominent non-profit theatre in Los Angeles proclaimed: “Well, I don’t know why we’re even bothering having this meeting since our whole country is going to Hell as of tonight!”. It was at this moment I realized that I had absolutely nothing in common with ANY of my colleagues.

I’ve spent the interim time in the shadows trying to ascertain if I had any allies. I laid out a few rules for myself… only reveal my politics under certain conditions:

1. I had to know the person very well.

2. I had to know a secret about THEM. (I know that seems mercenary, but I actually had to employ the tactic once to stay in the closet)

3. Only reveal it in my home or in my office, never in a public location or at a colleague’s office. (this just seemed courteous and also defensive, who would quarrel with me talking my politics in the privacy of my own home)

So here I sit. After over twenty years of work on Broadway and Los Angeles, and I can’t talk politics with most of my colleagues. And, of course the irony is that my colleagues never blush for an instant to throw their politics around as readily as comp tickets to their latest showcase production at a dirty, hole-in-the-wall 40-seat “theatre” in Hollywood. I can’t tell you how many of my Facebook friends had their own lovely image replaced by that of Barack Obama or just the Big Guy’s “O” logo. And those who could not bear to replace their well-preserved image on Facebook with the Obama’s instead merely adopted his middle name as their own: My friend John Doe was John HUSSEIN Doe for three months and counting. Why do they do this? Because it is just ASSUMED that any friend of theirs MUST be as left as they are. I remember one of my friends status updates: “Peter is thinking that anyone who votes Republican must be either an imbecile or rich….” (I resisted the temptation to comment: Damn, I hope I’m both).

And so it goes, until this week, when Andrew Breitbart launches Big Hollywood, a place where we center-right denizens of the entertainment world can slowly inch our way out of the proverbial closet… Just a little. The term Hollywood has gone from a name of a geographic location, to a word describing the commercial entertainment product and industry in America, and certainly our live theatre industry can be a part of the Big Hollywood brand. I hope readers will stop here now and then as I try to keep tabs on what can arguably be described as America’s most radical venue for the performing arts. My posts won’t always be quite so biographical in style and I plan to tap into my sources inside the industry who are, like me, secretly holding our beliefs close to the vest so as not to be ostracized by our colleagues, or worse, our bosses.

Until the next post, Break a leg!

Stage Right is on Facebook.