Stage Right

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.

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 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.

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

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
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 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