A View From Stage Right; My Manifesto.
by Larry O'Connor
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
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
114 Comments
StageRight,
Bravo!!! Thank you for saying what I have long observed, even down to the community theater level. In any given season, half of the successful plays on the boards are revivals of 50 and 60-year-old classics, or derivatives from movies of the same vintage, or dramatized Disney cartoons.
Theater in America today is an incestuous swamp of bad ideas bouncing around the same stale circuit like a fart in a spacesuit.
I eagerly await your next installment, where hopefully we'll get some ideas abouthow to start draining the swamp.
I don't have a problem with a play like Callaghan's being made. What I have a problem with is the fact that if a right-leaning play with similar tone/style/content was made…well, it wouldn't be made. But even if it was, it would be bashed again and again for being morally corrupt, terribly made, offensive, etc. The double standard is annoying.
I saw "BUG" when it first came out here in OK. The clever conspiracy theory plot was almost good enough to distract from the underlying political commentary regarding Oklahoma family law. Almost.
The last stage play I saw was when I lived in New York City, circa 1973, it was "Prisoner of 2nd Ave". I forgot who was leading in it, I think it was Peter Falk. I remember I laughed my ah…ass off though.
Since then I have seen the stage productions of my two boys in Elementary school. Very educational.
So, can someone please tell me what I am missing by not sitting though the latest tripe and left wing dogma being sold as “entertainment” over the last 30 years or so.
I’ll just stand over here against the wall out of the way for a while ‘till I get an intelligent answer. Thanks
Not Over.
I've seen pictures of her. I'd do her. Just wouldn't go to any of her plays.
Sorry, in Hollywood/TheaterTown, you have to "Pay to Play" everyone knows that.
Not Over.
So as I see it, Callaghan has decided to emulate Larry Flynt? And here I thought feminists hated porn.
Damn, I can't get out of anything painful.
I think theater has gone the way most modern art has–angry, talentless, and ultimately, dreadful.
Thanks for the informative and insightful piece. Definitely a cut above the usual post here. I've heard similar stories concerning the government/private funding complex for modern "classical" music. It's shocking how much average taxpayers end up paying for "art" which they would find personally offensive and culturally harmful.
[...] Big Hollywood placed an interesting blog post on A View From Stage Right; My Manifesto.Here’s a brief overviewThere 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 e [...]
Stage,
I think the art world has always felt that it needed to challenge convention to be successful. That's part of the idea of coming up with something original. Unfortunately, what that means has changed.
It used to be that challening you meant encouraging you to re-examine views or opinions you would not normally examine on your own. The idea was to make you a better person. Take 12 Angry Men, for example. The merits of the movie aside, this was written with the intent of making the audience challenge their prejudices. The idea was to get the audience to sympathize with the lone hold out, who held a view that was unpopular with the crowd, and to one by one tear down the objections made by the crowd — objections that many in the theater likely had voiced themselves at one time or another. Presumably, the audience would ultimately see the "correctness" of the hero's views and, in the process, reconsider their prejudices.
(cont)
But starting a few years back, the idea of challenging your audience twisted into attacking your audience. Rather than show you why your views might be wrong, they just called you names. Rather than try to make you a "better" person, they chose to accuse you of being a bad person.
This shift was then worsened when the incompetent realized that they could hide behind this definition of art as a way of disguising their own incompetence, e.g. if their work was garbage, they simply claimed that was the point.
Right now, the pendulum seems to be about as far out in that direction as it can get. Not coincidentally, none of these plays are making it into the public consciousness because no one wants to watch them. Whereas Twelve Angry Men came to be known as a great film, Callaghan's work will be forgotten as soon as she leaves the room. Moreover, this keeps "the classics" alive on Broadway because little that is written today is at all commercial. Someday, the pendulum will swing back and then you can expect a revival for theater (and unemployment for people like Callaghan).
By not attending the theater, modern theater, you are missing exactly nothing. The theater, modern theater, is worse, far worse than even your wildest nightmares about Hollywood liberalism and unbridled leftist dogma. Stage Right's insightful article demonstrates this very well.
The best part is, if some folks actually went out and murdered as depicted in the story, even copied it exactly, like those killers did with Stone's Natural Born Killers, the Theater, the writer, director and any liberal who can open his mouth, would scream out that media doesn't influence people, and certainly not to do those things. They'd chortle excuses like, " that's an isolated instance of an unstable person".
Maybe so, but we seem to be having a lot of isolated incidents of unstable persons lately. And besides, if someone on the right side of the aisle, like Rush Limbaugh, says anything critical of someone on the left, forget about talk of murder, simply criticism, he's accused of inciting violence by his words. What logic!
The dystopian worlds of Orwell and Huxley are tame compared to what we are actually experiencing today. It's Kafkaesque.
[...] Big Hollywood placed an observative post today on A View From Stage Right; My Manifesto.Here’s a quick excerptThere 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 e [...]
Thanks for your input. Well thought out, I can use it as an example in the future if the subject comes up in conversation.
Can I sit down now?
Not Over.
[...] Big Hollywood placed an observative post today on A View From Stage Right; My Manifesto.Here’s a quick excerptThere 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 e [...]
[...] Big Hollywood added an interesting post on A View From Stage Right; My Manifesto.Here’s a small excerptThere 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 e [...]
"“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.”"
I've heard almost those precise words out of dozens of contemporary composers as well. It's ridiculous and anti-artistic. Personally, I don't feel the need to transport my listeners to an alternate universe filled with horror. We get enough of that from the movies, and I think getting your jollies by offending people is a symptom of spiritual illness.
Awe does not follow shock, actually, desensitization does. I can awe without shocking just fine, thank you very much, and it's a much more difficult thing to achieve. You might even say it's an art. LOL!
I am not really surprised. You had to be in San Francisco when I was a little girl meeting my brother's friends. This is what people like that do. This is their bliss. Nice huh? Awesome.
To me art is beautiful. It is Michaelangelo's David, the Sistine Chapel or a Monet. It is not ugly. It is not grotesque. Hucbald mentions spiritual illness…Vincent van Gogh was mentally ill correct? Look at the beauty he created. There has to be a difference. The artist the hand of God creating beauty in a Divine way. But others such as Maplethorpe and this playwright mentioned are ugly in the soul and heart and show that to the world.
Reality is teh beauty of Schindler's List, or Saving Private Ryan. Reality is the Phantom's disfigured face in Phantom of the Opera. It is not ugly. Ugly is more profound than that.
Stergeye… thanks for the positive review… stay tuned for humble suggestions.
My mom directs theater in small venues throughout L.A., some equity, but most often for those still struggling to make it. The plays are usually written by narcissistic scribes who bludgeon you with their message without any regard for nuisance or subtlety. She is currently directing and acting in a festival of one-acts where one play was anti-gun, one play was pro-animal rights, and another featured a 62-year-old man weeping to his "mommy" and "daddy." As you so aptly pointed out, the acting was usually good, the directing was good, and the subscribers were loyal despite the writing that probably didn’t resonate with anyone. Like a true artist, my mom (a right-winger) presents the material as best she can without regard for politics, but it is hard to save these pieces when their main purpose is to insult the values so many of us hold dear.
There is no doubt about it, there is something amiss in our small-time theater ventures. You hit this one out of the park, S.R.
BUG… Ugh!
See "Les Miserables".
ToddM… not exactly the point of my piece…
It's also the fault of the loyal subscribers who continue to patronize theatres which behave as though they hold nothing but contempt for their opinions on politics and culture.
It's like a season ticket holder for the Clippers. they continue to see lousy basketball, but they keep renewing their subscriptions because their seats are so good.
Subscribers do. And the plays are generally budgeted to make it based partially on the fixed income from subscribers and from an allocation of grant and sponsorship funding. Any actual single ticket sales generated due to positive notices or word of mouth is often just "gravy"
I think you're right…. look out everybody… a BIG PENDULUM SWING IS COMING!!!!!
I'm not wsurprised. I have heard those words or at least that sentiment from at least three major directors from the non-profit world. It is not a coincidence…. I think this is something they are all trained to believe at University. Make your art, send your message, audience be damned!
Lola… Phantom is a commercially successful show by Andrew Lloyd Webber… it couldn't POSSIBLY be art!
Thanks Alex… "narcissistic scribes" is dead on! (Can I steal it?) That festival of one-acts you describe sounds eerily familiar. In fact, I think I have sat through it every year for the past twenty years!
Your mother is a saint.
It's sad, because it was very well done. The acting and the effects, it was on a center stage and the staging was great. There was a lot to like about it, but that had more to do with the actual production of it than the writing. As I said, it was a center stage, and we were seated right where the guy pulled his tooth out, as though we were the bathroom mirror. Intense.
{shiver}
I sure hope so. I'd love to see new and really good plays.
Nice piece, by the way — always like reading your columns!
An anti-Iraq War play opened up in my hometown. My local paper has done *three* articles about it in one week. And each one mentions the suicide of David Kelly (British WMD guy) as being suspicious, without giving any proof. The writer just assumes that the Evil Neocon Cabal assassinated the guy *after* he said there were no WMDs. If I were evil (if?) I would do it beforehand. Or I'd discredit the guy. Hell, I'd plant fake WMDs to back it up. Just saying.
I wonder how much longer my newspaper will last? A year? Five?
When I was in DC, we used to go to the Kennedy Center for the symphony. That year, they had commissioned these modern pieces that NO ONE wanted to hear. In fact, since they played them first, about half the crowd would wait until the pieces were over to go take their seats — they'd show up late or just hang out in the lobby. The director apparently got upset at this and moved the new pieces into the middle of the symphony we'd come to see!!! We complained, but that didn't change anything.
Thanks for the support AndrewPrice… I think that by creating a critical mass here at Big Hollywood and mobilizing our efforts to support the aspects of the culture that reflects our POV we will be able to really make a difference… Breitbart for Senator!
Yea, DylanG. As you say if a right leaning play about murdering political opponents ever came to be staged, ooh, the wails about the horrific violence etc. would just be deafening.
I gave up on theater as soon as I realized every play is written by a gay playwright about gay playwrights. No wonder they rely so much on revivals of classics and musicals based on something familiar these days.
Hey, I live in CO and the Rocky Mountain News just folded. (Last issue tomorrow.) Chalk another one up for the media victory.
In the past, art was created and offered to the praise and glory of God. Consequently the artistic result was beautiful, uplifting, and intelligible. Today, art is created neither for God, nor an audience. It is a narcissistic fondling of one's self, for one's self. If we were to follow this rationale to its theological conclusion, modern art would be reduced to an expression of evil. If we ignore the theological, path, it is simply an alternative form of self-gratification. Sadly this artistic mastubation appears to be subsidized by unknowing tax payers. So it goes.
I have to admit that I haven't done any play acting since high school. But back then, we only did the classics. Mostly Rogers & Hammerstein. I got to play Uncle Max in The Sound of Music, for instance. Anyway, we never did any of the new "artistic" plays for the simple reason that they were so boring none of us wanted to do them. It wasn't until college I even saw those being produced (and that's part of the reason I quit theater even though I managed to win Thespian of the Year in high school).
Come to think of it, the sole audience that those plays reach are college freshmen who think they're being rebellious or something. Basically, I think they'd appeal to you as "art" if you are the type that think a sit-in at the NYU cafeteria is a "protest."
Still, I think the only conservative response we can make is to make better plays than the left. Yes, it's an uneven playing field. We'll have to be 1,000 times better just to get a chance. But conservatives have gumption. I think we could pull it off.
You're part of the way there… but it's just not enough to write better plays, unfortunately…
stay tuned for my suggestions in Part 2 of this screed!
(From one former High School Thespian of the Year to another!)
I really like your article, SR. I no longer see plays, I was a drama major in college, and it was a passion of mine, that reality killed. See, I grew up, and felt that the plays and the writers, didn't. It was no longer interesting for me. These plays come through my town, I read the reviews, and just shake my head and am sad. Hopefully, there will be a mass exodus, and this will change. Thanks for informing those who have no idea this is going on. Take Care.
Butler… you are not alone… and I am convinced that there is a way to make a stand and bring you and others back. Stay tuned.
I'll definitely stay tuned as your screeds are at least entertaining, as opposed to the screeds I see on the nightly news.
Oh, and since you got the award too, perhaps we'll have to trade our favorite "No, I said *THES*-pian" moment
It was an akward moment at that cocktail party when I had to explain to Rosie and Ellen that what I meant was…….
Can't wait!!
It's important to me that you understand that "ugliness" is an inescapable part of life, and so sometimes art incorporates that as well. Beethoven was an absolute master of the abject – if you really understand what you're listening to, some of his music is very frightening – however he always had this undercurrent of, "and yet, there is hope." When faced with the ridiculousness of our own finitude, it's hard not to get morose from time to time, yet, if we are to be healthy in living, we have to laugh it off. Great comedy does this, and so does great art sometimes.
OK, I thought about deleting that. I'm not that deep. Just ask my mom. LOL!
I had the good fortune to be in LA and saw a play in a theater near sunset strip. It was pretty good. I forget the name of it but it was a study of child actors in the 20's and today. The lead played a character in each time, one similar to Shirley Temple the other similar to Brittany Spears. It explored the irony of the changes in our culture. There was nothing there that was overtly political or offensive to me. 'Course I paid a fair price for the tickets oi I remember correctly. They were not exorbitant but they were not cheap.
Does anyone actually go to see these "other" guvment plays to borrow a term from Neal Bortz. I mean seriously do the actor's play to a theater with 90% empty seats. IF so what do they think of that. I'll admit I am not an expert on the theater but this seems too bizarre.
Why would anyone pay for the above mentioned 'theatrical experience' when they can simply crawl in my toilet bowl in the morning for free?
DylanG: Exactly! I agree… I have no problem with this play being done… it is the constant disregard for the audiences sensibilities and the lack of awareness that other valid points of view are worthy of exploration that has me over the edge.
It's getting to the point where the only playwrights whose plays I'm willing to go to are Shakespeare, Sam Beckett and Agatha Christie.
My problem with the American Theater, it's over-bloated, fat-laden ego believes it can rewrite the crafted master Shakespeare (recall The Public Theater adding a scene which never existed just to score some political points).
This is the provincially myopic black box in which the American theater lives inside; humility is the only thing which can save the American Theater however the egos won't allow that character to thrive.
Since 'The Bard' has been mentioned, I'll just pop in my £0.02. I went to Shakespeare's Globe the other day (I'm living in London, entertaining guests), for their tour. Here's one of the cliff notes to the tour, Theatre in Shakespeare's day was POPULIST entertainment. Add to that the shared light (the actors can see the audience) and the fact that actors and audience interacted (the average theatre-goer went to "hear" a play not "see" a play) and you have something more akin to a Rennaissance Faire rather than theatre. The American theatre could learn a lot from this small slice of history. Get people more involved, rather than just shock or offend them. I'd bet that the first playwright who could come up with something more interactive and less "challenging to the audience's world view" would be heralded as the next Shakespeare (or Lloyd-Webber, etc)
Wow,
So you are telling me that the Murdering Strippers / Soldier Rapist "healed" by the soothing words of .. ahem .. Jane Fonda could have had a full house. My mind hurts to think about it … LOL!
This might be the best blog posted here. Very interesting and thought provoking. I'm looking forward to hearing the next part….
I feel for all of us in "Middle America" who make the trek to NYC and other big cities to take in, among other things, the "Great White Way." It retains its mythical allure despite its politics and the entertainment rarely disappoints. I feel for us because little do we know how much our patronage of the theaters and, as StageRight informs us, the hotels finances the off-Broadway garbage that we don't see or hear about. It's like they take the money from our hands with a smile then immediately use that money to buy a knife to stick in our backs.
Looking forward to the follow-up. I've heard "if you don't like it, don't go" but if not going breaks the financial backbone of Broadway then that's like throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Set 'em straight StageRight!!
I'm kind of curious where our Liberal "the government needs to support the arts" friends are tonight. Stage Right has done an excellent job setting up his case to show that there is complete bias in where the money goes, which kills the argument that the money is needed to forward art (when in fact, it is only being used to fund one side of political/philosophical opinions). It's the reason the government should never be in the business of funding art (other than general art programs for kids). Once people realize where the money is going, they find a way to get in those positions and soak it up for themselves and like-minded partisans.
Sadly, the government will continue to grow, and find ways to divert our tax money to causes like these, hoping none of us ever find out where the money actually goes.
What I think is equally funny, liberals always yell — "what you spent on one bomber could have fed X poor people." But they never seem to say, "what you spent on sponsoring that play could have fed X poor people" (or build X number of bombers).
[...] Stage Right explains, “There is a problem with the American Theatre.” But American street theatre, if judging from the The Taxpayers Clearing House Prize Patrol, offers no similar cause for concern. No budget? No problem. Conscript Senators Chuck Schumer and Olympia Snowe as unwilling players in your drama. Use AIG’s headquarters and the U.S. Capitol as a set. Rain dollar bills upon the Secretary of the Treasury as if he were a stripper. That’s just what a bunch of twentysomething amateur thesbians did in their hilarious guerrilla theater YouTube short, The Taxpayers Clearing House Prize Patrol. [...]
Art is now scam only. A few years ago I had a look at my stepdaughter's boyfriend's art work in Brooklyn. It was pretty good. Yet he continued to be a baker and never got a break from a gallery, although such a break seemed to be always imminent. His problem: his stuff was fun to look at. The last guy who got away with this was Salvador Dali.
You went to "see" a symphony?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
This post is proof positive that the next renaissance in the arts will come from the right. The Arts as they currently exist in America and Western Europe are brain dead. Most of what we see in the cinema, the playhouses and art galleries are the reflexive spasms of Dead Artists Walking.
The creators of dreck such as "Pretty Pretty" no longer even have a clue as to why they were drawn to the arts in the first place. The primary purpose of art is not to "push the envelope"–that is only an occasional by-product of the transition to new modes of expression. The primary purpose of art is to make a connection–to draw the audiences attention to some some facet of our human condition that we've previously overlooked or forgotten.
The work of "artists" such as Callahan only serves to say loudly, "Move on. There's nothing left to see here."
True, but wasn't it also PAID for by God, ie the church? All art doesn't need to be solely for religious uplift. Even Shakespeare had fart and sex jokes liberally sprinkled throughout.
I agree with the contention "the art world has always felt that it needed to challenge convention to be successful." The question is: When performing for an audience who went through public schools, elite Universities, and gets its news from the broadcast networks, CNN, and the NY Times, what in the world is "challenging" about dramatizing tired left wing dogma?
A true "challenge" in the current culture would be to explore classical liberal values and ideas through the theater. I know there are playwrights and screenwriters trying to do this. They just can't get the time of day from the industry powers-that-be who stage right has so cleverly profiled in this manifesto.
"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."
Excellent point! Goes for most art produced by the Left.
No. It's not true that art was always PAID for by God. Much of it was, but much more was paid for by the crown or rich patrons. And even that secular art attempted to uplift man and express the beauty of Creation.
Shakespeare had fart and sex jokes because he was PAID by the masses and the masses wanted fart and sex jokes.
So much "art" now days is subsidized by tax payers without their input that it only meets the standards of those who control the funds.
Nowadays the measure of "good art" is that it is able to elicit an emotional response, any response, even anger or disgust. By that standard, kicking someone in the crotch could be considered art. I wouldn't pay to go to a museum featuring that kind of art, buy my tax dollars might.
just curious – have you seen or read the play?
Sorry…Just one of those days when nothing profound comes to mind.
…. Let's call all of this what it truly is," government art". I can't imagine a more scathing criticism.
LOL, ooops. Would you believe it was done in braille?
These articles about liberalism in the theatre are interesting. It is true that most professional theatre people are liberal, at least socially liberal. It's one of the only professions where being gay could actually be a career move. But the fiction that they only create shows with leftist ideas that are contrary to 50% of the country is just nonsense. "Hairspray" was one of the biggest hits in years, a family show if there ever was one that will be done in high schools for years to come, and it was created entirely by liberal gay people. Ditto just about any other musical of the last 30 years, including "West Side Story," currently in revival. These are not shows with an "agenda," other than to entertain. Perhaps "Hairspray" has an underling message about tolerating fat people, and "West Side Story" is about prejudice. But if the shows weren't entertaining, no message in the world make a difference.
The author reveals his own prejudice in his ham handed description of the Dramaturg. My sister was the Dramaturg of a regional theatre until she had her children. She was as middle of the road as you get. Her main complaint was not the politics of the shows she was reading, but the quality.
Interesting note: "South Pacific" is a smash in NY right now, and a song in it, "Carefully Taught," about how racist attitudes are learned, not inborn, was almost removed from the original because of protests from conservatives. Rodgers and Hammerstein refused, and the musical is still one of the greats.
Certainly, there are plays that upset some people in the audience with a point of view or subject matter they don't like, but a good play is a good play and a bad one is a bad one. If conservative writers would just write decent plays, they would have no trouble getting produced. Horton Foote is one of the most produced playwrights in the world, and all of his work reflects "traditional values." Conservatives should quit complaining about art and create some decent art themselves, but this is difficult since the conservative mind does not seem to be inherently artistic. Not meant as an insult, just an observation.
I think I made it pretty clear that this post is specifically about emerging American playwrights. Not musicals or composers. Also, I make a point to say that I am not critiquing the entertainment value of these plays, so the example of "Hairspray" is a non sequitor. Although, I would quarrel that every musical for the past 30 years was created by liberal gay people. And if the only message you got from "Hairspray" was tolerating fat people, you might want to look again… there was a bit in there about desegregation in the 60s.
Of course you realize my description of a dramaturg was a parody. However, ask your sister about her interns… I bet they weren't too different than my description.
more….
(continued)
I leave you with this quote from a New York Times article about liberal voices in the theatre world: "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.”
But hey, I guess that proves your point that our minds are not inherently artistic. Gee, I wonder if any of the people judging these scripts might possibly share that prejudiced, offensive and ignorant viewpoint?
Thanks for the insight into the underbelly of theater. I can't wait for part two of your manifesto. Bravo.
You're welcome, but really thank you. You guys are doing the heavy lifting and I wish you all the best. I hope this does lead to a much more balanced culture again.
There are some future directors and play writers who are producing stuff that is both good quality and entertaining for all. I point with pride to my own daughter, who has written 7 plays (and is writing 2 more), published 2 books (and there are more in the pipeline) and directed about 25+ plays.
Here is an an example of one of her work "Wallaces Will."
See here > Wallace's Will on stage
and here > Script of Wallace's Will
She wrote and directed it. All the actors are high school freshmen.
So fear not theater lovers. Hope blossoms.
"But hey, I guess that proves your point that our minds are not inherently artistic. Gee, I wonder if any of the people judging these scripts might possibly share that prejudiced, offensive and ignorant viewpoint?"
Sorry if you were offended, but I think I'm right. I just haven't seen any evidence that the conservative mind is all that artistically talented or versatile. Conservative singers create country and Christian music and that's basically it. The last movie I saw written and directed by conservatives, "An American Carol," attempted comedy and failed miserably. A Showtime movie created by conservatives, "The Path To 9/11" was so bad it was embarassing, turning Bush into a caricature of a caricature of a sainted fearless leader.
Throughout history, conservatives have sought to squelch creativity, lest it upset their hold on the status quo. Actors and artists have always been demonized by the Church and still are. Artists who dare question or insult religion are demonized. Conservatives are so protective of their "values" that they do things like cancel high school productions of "Grease" and 'Rent" because they are not wholesome enough.
Prove me wrong. Show me great dramatic literature created by conservatives.
Umm… I'm not sure if you realize what you may have just started….
Great dramatic literature? Well… I'll give you a guy named Tom Wolfe. You may have heard of him…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wolfe#Views
And I'll let others chime in as well. This shoudl be fun.
Seriously, one of the more ignorant things I've read here, but, we here at Big Hollywood are here to enlighten, and educate. And, frankly, I think your myopic view of conservatives is the perfect example of why this web site exists so… Thank you, and enjoy the responses!
"Sorry if you were offended, but I think I'm right. I just haven't seen any evidence that the conservative mind is all that artistically talented or versatile. Conservative singers create country and Christian music and that's basically it."
<sigh> Right. Except for David Mamet. And Clint Eastwood (*there's* Eric Holder's 'conversation on race'). Face it: there aren't many conservatives in art or entertainment because they're hounded out- if not precisely blacklisted then openly insulted and abused. Like you are doing. How many conservatives would put up with more than a semester in the typical college drama department?
And then looking back a bit….lessee: Walt Disney. Louis B. Mayer. Frank Capra. D. W. Griffith (Racist? You bet. But he also invented cinema). John Ford. Cecil B. DeMille. Stanley Kubrick. Howard Hawks. William Faulkner. Buster Keaton. Not a bad showing of people who had to overcome the creativity-stifling 'conservative gene.'
"Path to 9/11" was produced by Disney for ABC. It ran only once, and was heavily edited by the Clintons. When they got through with it, it wasn't anywhere near the same Documentary. It was originally envisioned to be played every anniversary of 9/11, but because the message got skewed, it never aired, again, as I said above.
William F. Buckley-Man and God at Yale. Or any of his other fine novels.
You didn't answer my question. Show me great dramatic literature produced by conservatives. This article is about the theatre, after all.
I don't know about Kubrick, but if he was a conservative, his work was sure trashed by them. They had a fit when Clockwork Orange, The Shining, and Full Metal Jacket came out.
Also, the conservatives of the past, like John Ford or Frank Capra, were liberal compared to today's conservatives, who are not so much conservative as reactionary and redneck.
The beauty of Conservative values is that they are not relative to their times as you suggest… Look at JFK: Strong denense, America as the last best hope for freedom, anti-communist, lower taxes to encourage economic vitality…. that's a conservative I can get behind.
But by asking for literature, I gave you Tom Wolfe. You ask for a theatre example, let's start with Andrew Lloyd Webber.
You don't see anything bigoted about your assertion that the conservative mind is inherently un-artistic?
By the way, you seem to be confusing conservative with religious. Almost everyone of your comments about conservatives continue to fall back on an assault on religious or Christian examples. You really like to put people in a box and label them with stereo-types, don't you? How very inclusive, open-minded and tolerant of you… how very liberal.
Hucbald I look at art to be inspired not revolted. if I wanted to be revolted I'd just look at a photo of Rosie O'Donnell or Matt Damon, or some third world freaky dictator. Art is the mark of the Divine. Apparently you don't get that. I mean if you think you would ever find photos by Maplethorpe or some other mentally unstable nut job in my house sorry. I look at art the way the Greeks and Romans and the Renaissiance people did. I want to be inspired. Beauty is truth and truth beauty. What part of that do you not get? I know tehre are people who like to live in the gutter because they can't escape their own view of themselves but why share the misery with the rest of us. Sure there are ugly things in life. Look at the Holocaust, 9-11 and well any photo of Hugo Chavez or Sean Penn. But do we really gotta celebrate it? No.
Um what you just said is an insult. Firstly using the word "conservative". Actually my friend the people who consider themselves conservative are Classic Liberals. You know the Jeffersonian small gov., champions of freedom and individuality. Unlike well LIBERALS who champion group think, and people, well, lets call em Sheeple, goosestepping in formation towards a common goal regardless of that goal being at the bottom of a cliff. Why am I insulted by the word conservative? Because to me its a leftist construct that people who are not really conservative have bought into. The only thing conservative about me and the rest of my political bretheren is the fact I don't want YOU to go near my wallet, or to spend my childrens future on garbage wellfare and social programs and BS NEA grants. I'd rather see my dollar go to things like road up keep, and new weapons for the military. Artists, find patrons. If Michelangelo, and Rapheal could do it so can you. Just don't ask me to fund the wierd crap anymore.
There are many conservative writers out there who cannot get their stuff made into films even when they are hugely best selling writers. I heard a story told by my favorite fiction writer. He wrote a book about a very realistic what if senario concerning Al Queda, a nuke and Washington DC. THe head of a major studio read it and said he hated it because it was more Bush than Bush. The book is well written, the characterization so well done, the hero larger than life and some jerk studio head had to default to stupid land. The movie would probably be hugely popular because people want to see stuff like this. They are starving for this kind of story where bad guys are clearly defined and the hero is awesome butt kicker. Yet here we are with morons who think they know what art is and will dictate what it is for the rest of us unwashed masses. You know us PLEBES.
I
In the end only an arrogant leftist looking down his or her nose and feeling their own faux intellectualism would make such a statement as Conservatives are not inherently artistic. To me thats an easy way out and makes it easy for a person to not have to deal with an actual debate and if you want to take me up on with that, read any Andrew Klavan novel or watch a John Milius movie. I suggest The Wind and the Lion.
This conversation? again? OK, here goes, off the top of my head and excluding contemporary actors and musicians because they are too numerous to list: TS Eliot, Saul Bellow, Duke Ellington, David Mamet, Tom Wolfe, Alfred Hitchcock, Clint Eastwood, John Ford.
Granted none of these are as important as Sean Penn…
Thats a good way to look at it. I'm not sure if thats what you meant, but you could see the collapse of a newspaper as the equivalent process of the destruction of a ringleader and his group of terrorists. The Marines and the Army went out and group by group destroyed them, and slowly the threat subsided. Likewise with the MSM, they are slowly being destroyed.
Y'know, I've gotten used to dazzled grins, and gleeful energy from the buzz. "Genius" and "Best…in ten years" stick in the mind more for my performance art pieces. I still like it of course, a lot.
But I myself have been dazzled by the skill of others, a musician here even. But you're right, conservatives are naturally inartistic. It probably comes from all the lead and other toxic waste in our souls.
Andrew Lloyd Webber may be a member of the conservative party in the UK, but his work doesn't have any political point of view at all (I dare you to find politics in "Cats.") Many theatre people would argue it isn't even good music, but his box office success begs to differ. He knows what he's doing.
Again – please name any great plays written by a conservative. Mamet only said last year that he was "no longer a liberal." Let's see what he comes up with, should be interesting. But if you look at all the Tony Award nominees for Best Play for the last 30 years, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Award_for_Best_... and you can find a single one written by a conservative, let me know. Your whole manifesto seems to lay the blame at the Artistic Directors and the Dramaturgs, when in reality the product just isn't out there, as the quote by Andre Bishop proves. At any rate, great art transcends politics and is neither conservative nor liberal, except in the case of an overtly political play.
No, I don't see anything bigoted in my assertion that the conservative mind is inherently un-artistic. If I said "conservatives are stupid" that would be bigoted. But to say that they're not very creative? Well, they don't seem to be to me. They know how to make money, but not art. Again, rather than yelling at me, prove me wrong.
Conservatives don't seem to even like art, especially any art that dares go against their precious "values." They want to protect the status quo, not dissect it and see its hypocrisy and create art about it. Most conservatives, due to their extreme hatred of gays (it is extreme and it is hatred and you can't deny it), see artists as less than ideally masculine, or just flat out gay. Any conservative father freaks out when his kid is going into the theatre (and even US military officers, when investigating a possible gay in the military, asked him if he had ever been in community theatre). I grew up in community theatre and then taught high school theatre, and every parent I had trouble with was a conservative who didn't want their kids around "those people." One production we did, "Sweet Charity," a G rated musical from 1966 about a dance hall hostess, resulted in 4 of the "Hey Big Spender" girls being pulled out of the show because their parents didn't want them playing "prostitutes."
Part 2 –
Conservatives who go to theatre even hate the American classics – "Streetcar Named Desire," "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf," "Long Day's Journey Into Night." Why do I say this? Because I was involved with each of them in a regional theatre, and conservatives in the audience complained that they were too depressing, with a negative view of the family, populated by trashy and unlikeable characters, etc. Conservatives like fluffy, non-threatening entertainment, with "nice people" in them, which seldom makes for great drama. One wrote a letter to the editor that said that the theatre should not be doing plays written by homosexuals (Williams and Albee). When faced with idiotic comments like that, what else is one to think?
In the last 25 years, since "Torch Song Trilogy," gay writers have more openly embraced writing about their lives and experiences as human beings, and conservatives hate it because they don't see gays as human beings and don't want to see any positive depictions of gays. Did you even see "Corpus Christi?" It was pretty mild stuff, but had controversial subject matter that was condemned by conservatives who had never seen it and latched onto it as a cause. Conservatives especially hit the ceiling with "Angels In America," especially since it called out Reagan for doing nothing to address the growing AIDS crisis.
I just saw a Christian movie called "Fireproof," about a fireman who turns to Jesus to save his marriage. I wanted to see it because it made a lot of money and I wondered if, not being a Christian, that I could enjoy a Christian movie. It was so ineptly acted and directed that it would turn off anyone but the easily converted, with sappy dialogue and poorly written, cliche characters. I thought – if this unbearable dullness is what being a Christian is, forget it.
As you say in your article, "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." This is very true, but if a great play was written by a conservative that did indeed challenge said beliefs, I bet they would jump at it. Why don't you write it? You're sure spending a lot of time blogging for free. Go forth and write the great conservative play.
Artists, when cornered, create art to protest. Conservatives, when cornered, insult and browbeat ("You really like to put people in a box and label them with stereo-types, don't you? How very inclusive, open-minded and tolerant of you… how very liberal.:) or even resort to violence. If a liberal disagrees with you, he looks down his nose at you and calls you stupid. Conservatives just want to take you out in the parking lot and hurt you. I've seen it a million times. It's happened to me.
Interesting discussion.
The good news here is that you agree with my basic premise: That conservative playwrights and plays that overtly express a point of view politically or culturally that can be embraced by the the 50% of Americans who tend to vote on teh center/right side of the spectrum are vastly under-represented if represented at all in the American theatre. I am happy you agree and thank you for pointing out the proof in your comment.
I guess where we differ is the cause of this under-representation. you seem to believe that conservatives are either un-artistic, un-interested in theatre or discouraged from pursuing theatre in their youth. Interesting. I do not agree, but let's stipulate to you arguments for a moment…
Part 2
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 and gay playwrights. Almost every single college and major non-profit theatre set up specific, targeted programs to nurture these playwrights from these target groups along. In the name of diversity. And let me be clear, it was not ethnic, or gender diversity, they specifically said they wanted these voices to be heard, to tell the stories we were not getting from the perspective that only they could bring.
Would you than support an equally aggressive campaign to seek out and nurture the voices that you concede have not been heard or encouraged in the past 30 years on Broadway? 30 years ago, someone could have easily argued that black kids are either un-artistc, un-interested in theatre or discouraged from pursuing theatre in their youth. Would that person have been a bigot?
Give me a break. You're delusional. Why don't you tell us about the time a group of rednecks travelled all the way from Arkansas just to beat you with Bibles.
You know nothing about conservatives execept what you dream up.
Give me a break. You're delusional. Why don't you tell us about the time a group of rednecks travelled all the way from Arkansas just to beat you with Bibles.
You know nothing about conservatives except what you dream up.
Nice use of logic. (Though I think the whole gene argument he makes is laughable.)
Lola, I just have to let you know that I really enjoy reading you!!
Politics in CATS…. hmmmm…. OK…. the whole premise is conservative: A competition between the cats to see who gets chosen to go and start a new life. Every one competes, and only one gets to win.
If it were a leftist show: There would be no competition, all cats would be treated equally, there would be no Heavy Side Layer because that suggests an afterlife and atithetical to a secular humanist perspective… Also, Rum Tum Tugger (clearly a patriarchal mysoginist) would be neutered and unable to treat the girl cats as terribly as he does… (You know I'm joking, right?)
T.S. Eliot was a conservative and one of his biggest supporters was C.S. Lewis (another talentless conservative, see how religion kept him from being creative?)
LOL. The politics of “Cats.” Very funny. It could then be argued that it’s liberal when they sing about “The Rum Tum Tugger is a curious cat.” A plea for feline diversity?
Reply to Andrewprice: Early artists like Shakespeare, Moliere, Marlowe, etc were the anthesis of conservative in their era. The church condemned a lot of their works. They wrote plays that took direct aim at authority and royalty. Moliere wasn’t allowed to be buried on sacred ground because he was a heathen playwright and actor.
When you said, “Why don’t you tell us about the time a group of rednecks travelled all the way from Arkansas just to beat you with Bibles” – I thought, well, I could tell you about the group of rednecks who beat me so bad after I came out of a gay bar in Lexington, Kentucky I went into a hospital. Liberals simply don’t do that.
I never made any comment about a “conservative gene.” I just said I don’t believe conservatives are by nature all that artistic. But you have brought up some interesting examples. They’re in the minority, obviously. But Clint Eastwood may be a Republican, but his work is certainly not uniformly conservative. Remember the huge stink Million Dollar Baby created, when it ended with Clint euthanizing Hilary Swank? Right wingers had a fit about it. Look it up.
As far as which side of the spectrum gets more offended when their “values” are challenged, I’d say conservatives, because they’re more likely to be religious. But liberals get their knickers in a twist over all kinds of things.
Tennwriter thank you for proving everything I said right. Pat yourself on the back. You did well.
Oh yeah – in answer to your question
"Would you than support an equally aggressive campaign to seek out and nurture the voices that you concede have not been heard or encouraged in the past 30 years on Broadway?"
Yes I would, on one condition: conservatives drop their whole "no government funding for the arts" stuff. If you want to win it, you gotta be in it. Otherwise, be a real conservative and go write your own goddam play.
I elect to do neither. One of the prime benefits of having critical faculties is the ability to smell out stinkers long before you step on them. Before I spend either my money or my time, I seek to establish that the reasonable expectation that the expenditure will not be wasted. It's why I spend time here at BIG HOLLYWOOD rather than HUFP or KOS.
Of course, Stage Right's entire argument is that there isn't anyway for conservatives to go write there own play and be separate from the government funding and not-for-profit organizations. The system is rigged in favor of liberal artists and to the exclusion of conservative voices, if I understand him correctly. So, I'm all for dropping the whole government funding for the arts thing and have everyone compete in the free market. How many tickets can they sell for some of this nonsense? But if we aren't going to do that, then my tax dollars should go to support voices that represent me just as much as they go to represent others.
So basically, if someone mentions a conservative, you will claim they were really a liberal.
Also, using your argument, let's look back at history. Once you get back beyond the early 1900s, no one would have accepted modern liberal thinking. No one was pro-gay, everyone was racist (by modern definitions), almost no one held atheistic views, etc. That means that almost every one of the classics was written by conservatives — using your own test. So maybe you should show us some great liberal dramas?
Thanks Lola. I remember when my wife said "Oh, I finally understand you. You're an artist." This was after we'd been married for several years so evidently she'd suffered some confusion as to what was in my head.
I think the biggest problem conservative artists have is what R. Emmett Tyrell called 'kulturfog'. You have to make up your own stories, your own cliche's, disconnect from the expectations the liberal overculture has programmed in to you, and so on….all that is good because you can be orginal by merely being conservative, but its hard too because we artists get better by example from other artists.
well this is the problem with his whole argument. who says conservatives are shut out and excluded? where is the proof? my point is, there just aren't any conservatives who actually try to get the funding. if there were, with quality product, i bet they would get it. but there just aren't that many conservative playwrights. and anyway, who cares about the politics of the writer really? my favorite TV show is '24' and i heard that one of the exec producers is a big conservative, and i said, who cares? i'm addicted to the show.
Perhaps you ought to read the memoir'Tenured Radicals' about a professor biting a college student in the chest, and then the college faculty slamming the publication the student wrote for.
I think its pretty clear that the violent group in today's politics is the Left. I'm not saying the Right is wholly innocent, but much more so than the Left.
Ah, why am I talking to you anyways? You've got your theory. Right=stupid, inartistic, thuggish. And the Government is here to protect you from all those brownshirts.
Wouldn't it be more interesting to discuss the creation of conservative art by replacing liberal cliche's with conservative truths?
great, thanks. i was just wondered whether or not to take your opinion seriously, and you've given me a definitive "move on. there's no informed opinion here." i appreciate it.
[...] Part 1 of what I half-jokingly called my “Manifesto”. [...]
oh no !! i like chrihanna soo much !!
[...] Stage Right: I am blissfully unaware of the fact that nobody actually reads anything puporting to be a "manifesto". More to come! [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.