Stage Right

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.

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'..."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.}

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.