How to Get Your Play Produced on Broadway
by Stage RightPlaybill announced that the very successful Off-Broadway play “Next Fall” will be transferring from its home at the non-profit theatre “Naked Angels” to the Helen Hayes theatre in the Spring of 2010. In many circles this is seen as a New York success story. A small, non-profit produces a new American play, it sells well after a glowing NY Times review and backers finance a move to the big time. So, let’s take this play as a “teachable moment,” if you will, and let’s discover what kind of plays get transferred to Broadway. This way, many of my readers who happen to be playwrights can also figure out a way to get their plays produced.
I always find it instructive to examine the press agent’s description of the play because the language is always carefully thought out. The thought process is always “don’t give away too much about the play so that we reveal key plot points, and also, make sure we don’t make the theme come across as too controversial so as not to alienate potential ticket buyers.”
According to the press release, the play “takes a witty and provocative look at faith, commitment and unconditional love. While the play’s central story focuses on the five-year relationship between Adam and Luke, Next Fall goes beyond a typical love story. This timely and compelling new American play forces us all to examine what it means to ‘believe’ and what it might cost us not to.” You see? It’s not about two gay guys in a relationship… it’s about ALL of us… especially you middle-aged, heterosexual married people (because you are the people who overwhelmingly buy all of the tickets on Broadway.)
So, let’s explore the actual content of “Next Fall” as described to me by one of my New York sources who has a sympathetic ear whenever they call me. (This person is “one of us” wink-wink):
It’s about… well… Let’s start from the beginning. Two gay guys, one Christian, one atheist. Meet, fall in love, move in, etc., etc. The Christian spends all of his time trying to convert the other one, but never succeeds because the atheist is just too smart. He always meets the Christian’s attempts with “logic” and rapier-sharp rejoinders that leave the Christian unable to say anything except “Well, I believe it” or “It WILL happen, it’s written in the Bible.”
The Christian comes from a religious family, with a mother, father, and brother who aren’t exactly very understanding. The father, in particular, is basically a fundamentalist (though that word is never used), who has a habit of saying things like–when talking to his son about a Huckleberry Finn play he was in–”Was that nigger a fag?” And when the atheist meets the father, and talks about wiping himself with the Bible, the father basically responds, “Well, uh, maybe if you read it, you wouldn’t feel that way,” and so on. Oh, and did I mention that the entire family is from the South, and speaks their braindead lines with heavy accents? (”I left my maid with my dog chewing on the bull penis. No, not the maid, my dog!” – not the EXACT line, but pretty close to it… I WISH I could make this up!)
The company is rounded out by a self-described “fag hag” (her term, not mine), who of course is the prettiest and wittiest person on stage short of the atheist (who is presented as the height of poise and confidence, even when battling all these bigoted rednecks), and another highly religious friend of the Christian, who’s also gay but decided to break off contact with him when he fell in love with the atheist. (Which of course gives the atheist the choice line: “So, you don’t mind having sex with men, but you draw the line at love?”) Oh, and the kicker: The Christian is pro-abortion and pro-”stem cell research” (the word “embryonic” was conveniently left out). This, naturally, sets the stage for the father to accept the atheist and for the atheist to sort of respect the Christian’s beliefs in the last 30 seconds of the play, just in time for him to deal with the bigoted brother who’s been offstage the entire night.
So there you have it. ”Next Fall” seems to have everything a savvy producer (not to mention a leftist theatre critic) is looking for in an evening at the theatre.
My biggest problem with this, and most plays like it, is that it gives the appearance of being thoughtful and deferential to both sides, yet ultimately the conclusion always seems to be that we all just need to put our differences aside and accept each other… a fine and worthy theme, don’t get me wrong. But, on the journey to that conclusion, my side of the argument continues to be portrayed as hateful, bigoted, and only worthy of pity and condescending hugs at the end of the evening.
It appears that this play was developed in a vacuum. “Naked Angels” has a great reputation, but those behind it do not hide their perspective. Their plays are meant to provoke, and they provoke from the same perspective every time. My question is (as it always seems to be): At any time did someone in the development process stand up and say, “Hey, you know there are a lot of intelligent and sincere people out there who will have a real problem with being portrayed this way?”
Why do our non-profit theatres, the development labs for new plays and new playwrights, not have at least one token conservative on staff to at the very least provide the perspective of HALF of the ticket buying public who feel offended when they see themselves portrayed in this way?
I hate wishing shows ill, but this one deserves to fail. It’s seems hateful but cloaked in the appearance of acceptance, which I think makes it all the worse.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
85 Comments
We investigated the American Police Force, they are a scam
Read more here: http://mywhitehouse.org/2009/10/04/american-polic...
Also please leave a comment thanking Parabear for his investigative work.
Homosexuality is a condition caused by a weak father, overbearing mother.
"Why do our non-profit theatres, the development labs for new plays and new playwrights, not have at least one token conservative on staff to at the very least provide the perspective of HALF of the ticket buying public who feel offended when they see themselves portrayed in this way?"
Perhaps it is better stated half the potential ticket buying public. I am sure that the people putting on this play "understand" that no one who is southern, christian, republican, etc. would go see this play. They just don't care. Grants from the NEA might dry up if they started showing John Q Public in a good light.
Looks creepy and boring.
You are hitting the big nail squarely on the head, Stage Right. Brietbart recognizes the hegemony the left imposes over the oligopy that is the News/Entertainment industry. Also firmly in the clutches of the left is the ARTS / EDUCTATION monopoly. Does the non-profit theatre that incubated this leftist pablum receive NEA funding?
The decentralizing of the funding for Education/Arts by removing it from Federal control and returning it State control is the first step in breaking up this hegemony. Right wing Film & Book festivals are a step in the right direction also. Perhaps parallel conservative cultural institutuions across the board are the only answer. The Free Market would correct this problem.
"Why do our non-profit theatres, the development labs for new plays and new playwrights, not have at least one token conservative on staff to at the very least provide the perspective…."
I cannot imagine the verbal abuse that would come with such a position. At the first disagreement you'd be labeled a backwards, bigoted, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, homophobic Neanderthal and promptly shipped off to re-educat… er, sensitivity training.
Hey, I would love to see this play. Sounds quite intelligent and insightful.
Right.
Do you think you could please stick these comments in the open threads, and leave the rest on topic, please?
The formula seems to be to cram in as many gratuitous Leftwing tropes as possible while degrading and insulting as many right-wing seeming things as you can.
Of course this means the ultimate Broadway play would be a light hearted farce where a gay guy, a black guy, a paraplegic, a muslim woman, and a transgendered eskimo invite evil republicans to dinner, kill them, chop them into pieces and use their body parts as fertilizer for their organic vegan collective worker's farm. And of course there would be a timer and every ten minutes or so a buzzer would go off, everyone on stage would freeze in place, then go and grab some red paint, a big banner of Bush or Cheney or Palin would drop down, and they'd all hurl the red paint at the picture while screaming, "MURDERER!!!!!!!" and then they'd go back to whatever place and position they were in the play like nothing had happened. And I'd call the play, "Better Dead than Red."
Honestly it might be a bit of subversive fun to try to make the most absurdly over the top version of this play, as a right winger in this environment. At what point would even the crazy lefties pause and say, 'wait really? Murder all Republicans? Um… is that a good idea?"
Propaganda has many faces. The gay community seems to want the very ugliest one they can conger up to slap us with. Call me a bigot or call me a racist or call me a backwards Conservative, but I always consider the source for all those lies. And I vote with my money. I've never seen a play and haven't watched a movie since 1971. WHO pays these people??
Honestly, I think they have no idea of the values of the "half" of the ticket buying public. Quotes are there because I believe if is more than half. This culture exists in its own little cocoon, nurtured by those who agree, oblivious to the existence of any thoughtful disagreement. Yes, the acknowledge disagreement, but in their mind it can divided into two camps. First there is the "beyond hope" lunatic fringe. They can be ignored, even exploited, because after all, those types are not even human. Second there are those who can be reasoned with. In the Left mind, if you think, you will ultimately be won over by them. This group simply needs to have the error in its thinking revealed to it. Thus the caricature characters, and of course the ultimate transformation. The message to the "thoughtful" opposition: "You too can be redeemed from your hateful opinions if you just become more accepting."
And immunity from market forces certainly does help this distortion. They are not required to produce anything which might actually be hit with mainstream audiences. It becomes a self-perpetuating, self-fulfilling cycle.
Why on earth would you stay in a relationship for five years with somebody who belittles your beliefs at every turn? If you can't respect your partner, and they certainly don't respect you, why stay? Just because you love somebody doesn't mean you're meant to be together.
For the record, if somebody told me they used the scriptures to wipe themselves, they would no longer be welcome in my home. A statement like that is disrespectful at best and serves no purpose whatsoever beyond attacking the heartfelt beliefs of the person you're saying it to. I wouldn't want to associate with anybody that hateful.
Based on the write-up, I would classify this play as "anti-art", that is, a piece of alleged art which actually undermines the true liberal-artist ideal of examining the human condition, in favor of reinforcing, with artful flourishes only, an ideological or political rubric which the "artist" insists remains unexamined.
I'm seeing a lot of this sort of thing these days.
Indeed, can there be love, if there is ridicule of the person's core beliefs? I'm not saying there must be agreement, but what one believes in is ultimately what makes the person. And if there can't be respect for those core values, how can there be respect, or love for the person?
Sarah,
Sorry about that, but I know there are many people here that still have concerns about the American Police Force. Unfortunately Big Hollywood nor Big Government has touched on this story.
Once again, I do apologize for the inconvenience
This comment is on topic!
What has America become? We went from allowing homosexuality, to encouraging it? Is this a form of population control since homosexuals can't have children? Maybe that is what is wrong with our economy, we stopped producing new people, therefore there is no one to keep buy homes.
*buying
[...] the original post here: How to Get Your Play Produced on Broadway This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
The 19th century called. They are missing you.
This is why I got out of story development. Unless you control the pursestrings you're just a rubber stamper of the ideology.
They called back, they aren't really "missing" him, just wondering where he went.
Who let Freud in?
How could having a weak father make me want to …. er…um….. do the things that homosexuals do…?
Also, what about those of us who had a weak father in the home, or no father in the home… but we really really really really REALLY enjoy doing wonderfully fun things with women? (And I really really really do)
It sounds horrendously dull and very 1995. It will be outgrossed by the "Bye Bye Birdie" revival. And isn't Mamet's "Race" debuting around the same time? It all evens itself out.
Perhaps heterosexuals buy the most tickets, but they're also probably liberals who buy the tickets. So it is just peaching to the choir.
By the way, not all atheists are liberals, just like not everyone in Hollywood is liberal.
Sorry I was being snippy, Jason. =)
I just discovered a production called "Life In a Jar" About a woman named Irena Sendler. (Go ahead and Google her.) I wonder how that would be received if someone sought to put it in New York. Broadway, Off-Broadway, even, Off-Off-Broadway.
Why is every recent play by a gay playwright and it's about a bunch of gay men? Let me guess, there's full frontal male nudity in it too, right?
From the write-up about this play, it appears that those that now traffic in stereotypes were the same ones raging about them not long ago. The only difference is that they were the targets of the stereotypes then.
It is odd how often this type of behavior is exhibited once the old shoe is on the other foot.
LOVE IT!!! Although you forgot the obligatory Obamessiah worship. Also, I don't buy the idea that the crazy lefties would question killing all Republicans. They'd love it. And they'd throw awards at this thing.
I think that's his mommy calling him up from the basement.
Especially if it had something about assassinating Bush in the title.
In the lefty view of things, "love" just happens, and you can't help yourself.
Can you say "abusive relationship"?
Maybe that is what is wrong with our economy, we stopped producing new people
Sounds more like Japan. And even they don't have a "gay problem" so much as a "NEET problem", i.e. twentysomethings who are Not in Employment, Education or Training — and like it that way.
Somebody should start a propaganda list. List plays that are propaganda and not really plays. This would be an informal ranking just meant to raise awareness to tourists etc. If there was a right wing play that was propaganda that would be listed as such too…but we know that would never happen.
That would be the funny point I guess… how absurdly crazily scarily lefty could you get one of these plays? They wouldn't see it as a farce or a sarcastic thing because they actually believe this stuff… and the actors would probably be sitting up there doing their thing wondering, 'why is the audience laughing? This isn't a comedy!'
IN THE IMMORTAL WORDS OF THE FRESH PRINCE OF BEL-AIR: WORD!!!!!
You forgot that Reagan created AIDS, so they can't pay their Rent.
I saw give this a full go ahead. At least someone in the audience might see themselves as ridiculous.
The photo alone is enough to give it a pass. One barefoot guy in a T-shirt and jeans is curled up on the couch looking too scared to move, ever. The other schlub in tennis shoes is slouching back like he never cared about anything in his life. Can you picture Cary Grant and Randolph Scott sitting on that couch, looking like that? Show some life, like it mattered!
I actually had no concern whatsoever about the "American Police Force". I thought it was part of the original "G.I. Joe" comics.
I always thought that homosexuality was primarily caused by an insatiable urge to have mind-blowing an@l sex with other men.
Well, color me inspired. I'm going to author a play about a two gay men that fall in love, and the one that shares my ideology will always be right and the other one will consistently be wrong about everything, and he'll probably have bad parents. It'll be a lot like Next Fall, except even more courageous, because it's going to be even MORE one-sided, and the dad is going to be even MORE bigoted. I'm thinking about calling it, "Goofus and Gallant."
"…if somebody told me they used the scriptures to wipe themselves…", besides the disrespect, that's printed on very non-porous paper. Without going too deeply into the logistical problems…ewwww.
Now, the New York Times editorial pages, on the other hand…
Well, how about Randolph Scott and Montgomery Clift?
And it will take place in a dentist's waiting room, right?
Hilarious and sooooo on target. I would love to go to a play or show when I go to NYC but when I read the descriptions they are almost always the same: Gay, Atheist, Minority, Muslim-ish Democrats are always the super smart accepting people and the white, straight, religious, people are mean bigots and stupid.
HOW CAN LIBERALS STAND TO GO TO THESE PLAYS? They are all the same. As much as I hate liberals and Obama I wouldn't pay money to go sit and hear how right I am for three hours…. Isn't there a cultural difference here? Conservative don't need to keep preaching and that's all liberals do in the arts.
what's the plot?
I am intrigued by this insight. Thanks for sharing it.
When it comes to having common sense about human nature the twenty first century has been the disappointment.
Homosexuals have weak fathers, overbearing mothers but not all weak fathers or overbearing mothers have homosexual children. The temperment of the child plays a factor.
ROFL!!
Be sure to include a children's version of the play. Highlights Magazine for children is awaiting your reply.
That play almost sounds worth seeing – so I could have the satisfaction of walking out (as I did at the Off-Bway production of The Laramie Project way back when).
Has anyone commenting here seen this play? I would love to know what arguments for Christianity the writers place in the mouth of the Christian gay character. I'd also like to hear the smart atheist rejoinders that leave the Christian speechless.
I am an author who has published a few pieces in this area and I would like to know the level of disconnect between the actual dialogue and the Broadway perception of it.
You can't do it. You can't parody the Left. I don't mean they're not worthy of parody, it's just that no matter what wild, hyperbolic, over-the-top gonzo parody you come up with, the very next day some liberal will say something far crazier in all seriousness.
Data point: "it wasn't rape-rape."
Did you use the word "an@lysis"? The site admins hate that one. I'm not sure why. The filter is entirely objective, and very poorly written code. Don't take it personally, as it has nothing whatever to do with content.
Tom, that made me laugh right out loud, thanks!
With this topic, the site admins are busy today. Or maybe it's just me….my post that is being filtered compared the phenomenon of the "magic negro" with the "enlightened homosexual", foisted upon us in this play, and seemingly throughout all entertainment channels. Both methods are artifacts and facades that promote an agenda, and have nothing to do with reality.
So you essentially have to sell your soul if you want any success as a Playwright. How depressing. If only there was a group of normal people willing to support plays/playhouses featuring non hateful plays. Surely there is a market.
Actually, the weak father is such a stereotype. It is more likely that the young boy was not able to identify with his father -to get stereotyped again, arty type not bonding and identying as a man with jock dad. doesn't mean there wasn't love. just ask my former gay, now happily married to a woman, friend.
The folk who pay for tickets for these essentially Soviet propaganda plays are often the sort of people who use their self-identification as 'progressives' as merit badges to display their innate goodness as a person and their faithful adherence to the dialectic of proper thought.
They patronize these Potemkin kabuki shows as another religious man might attend church to celebrate his community of faith and study the precepts of his religion, only the faith of the progressive lies not in the invisible hand of some higher power who judges us by what we choose to do with our free will, but from within the collective as embodied in the State. The postmodern man's god is in the collective them, and morality springs forth from their consensus…Which is to say; their power to transmute Hope into Change.
Consequently, their earth-godhead – comprised as it is of the best theoreticians, preachers, and prophets amongst them – would hold the power to correct all [earthly] wrongs to elevate and perfect mankind, creating a heaven on earth (in their image of course) if only the evil destroyers could be banished from the garden of Gaea forever; or just disappeared from the face of their earth altogether.
Since the progressive's faith, and thus the enemies of their faith, live and breathe on the earthly plane which defines the boundaries of their faith, the maintenance of their worldview must necessitate a divorce from the consequences and failures of their tenants in the real world. A real world which can and must be spun or forged into conformity…Even if it breaks a few tens of millions of eggs.
So far the American salients of the transnational religion's Jihad/Kampf has largely been waged peacefully, albeit nastily, on the political and cultural grounds of their choosing, but the danger remains that whence they begin to perceive their fight to have become existential, they will expand their righteous war to encompass all fields of battle. There are troubling signs that they've traveled well along the path of openly demonizing those who threaten the sanctity of their governing worldview.
Many of the instruments of power are in their hands and they are vocally, if tentatively, mobilizing their vanguards even as the "swastika-carrying" "potential man-caused-disaster-doing" "Teabagging" "flyover" "constitutionalist" "redneck" "consumerist" "trailer park dwelling" "too well dressed" "mob" of "capitalist" "fat" "christianist" "X-tian" "earth destroying" "profiteering" "warmongering" "neocon" "racist" 'Rethuglican" "gun-nut" "Tenther" "deniers" coalesces around them.
Much to their consternation, we who quietly surround their bubbles will not just shut the hell up and conform to their rape-rape of the principles for which this nation was founded…Not anymore.
Conservatives, Christians and other such refuters and deniers of the god-State's liturgical 'consensus' have become a pantheon of demons followed by the "stupid" and "ignorant" demon-possessed to many within the progressive faith. We literally walk amongst them and it's not difficult to prognosticate the potential depth of reaction to failure that may emanate from a union of humans who believe themselves to be above human nature.
Stereotypes are rooted in truth but not etched in stone. I'm also an ex homosexual now happily married to a woman. I spent many years in that life and there is always an issue with the father.
Amen brother
Thanks for the tip, nice to know the filter is so an@l. I didn't use the word you reference; I believe it was the word "n3gro3". After three attempts at posting, this is the only one to have passed (it was also delayed for review). The other two attempts must have been discarded.
Just another example of how predictably mainstream and boring the gay movement has become. As repulsively heavy handed as this play's premise is, the mind-numbed public at large just shrugs and thinks "we'll Gays are the new Blacks, right? I mean…after centuries of brutal repression they suppose they've earned the right to say anything, eh?" And so they do–and monolithically line up to bash and flail manipulatively at their so-called "oppressors"..those EVIL, NAZI RIGHT_WING CHRISTIANS. Never mind the fact that their treatment at the hands of Islamist Muslims is well, a "wee" bit more harsh? Not to mention what the real Nazi's did to them.
Anyway my point is Gays used to be interesting when they were actually struggling in our society. They had valid, real things to say, and their culture had a real edge to it that went beyond just political motive. No longer. Now all they need is their "Al Sharpton" to complete their transformation into just another faction of the clueless, whiney, oh-woe-is-me-now-give-me-power-and-listen-to-my political-views group of losers.
Have you seen "The Last Supper"? It's got a similar premise. A group of elitist liberals become serial killers, inviting conservatives (all of whom are either bigots or hypocrites, of course) to dinner, poisoning them and burying them in the back yard.
Ron Perlman plays a Rush Limbaugh figure presented as a cynic and an unprincipled phony who doesn't believe anything he says on the radio. The conservative characters are nothing but caricatures of everything liberals need to believe rightwingers really are.
When did all of the pro-gay people on this site start sounding like perez hilton or janeane garofalo. I bet yall even beleive in tolerance and acceptance of diverse opinion….even if yall dont practice it.
Don't know about that Tom. The New York Times editorial pages have already been used for that purpose.
Google it.
After reading this insightful article about this abomination of a play, I couldn't help but think of this "Extras" episode with Ricky Gervais.
This episode actual tackles, sterotypes, homophobia etc.. all the while by laughing at itself.
"Ian Mckellan's Gay Play "
Watch the full clip but try and track down the full episode it's worth it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noX__ChA-Fs&fe...
What should we do? Easy. Return theatre to what it once was. A vocation. Get rid of BFA/MFA programs and the influence that universities have over non-profts and regionals. Make it easier for working class people to become actors and artists. If you do this you will get more diversity in terms of viewpoints and aesthetics. Injecting more right-wing thinking artists into the current system will not fix things. The system itself needs to change.
Really? Really Really?
I thought your comment WAS funny… really!
(No, I';m not a chick, but that WOULD be hot!)
It doesn't surprise me in the least. Back when I was in directing class in college, I had to produce a one-act play. Five books of contemporary one-acts didn't reveal a single one that was remotely interesting. I eventually settled for the first act of a short play that worked out halfway decent if you cut the entire second act (which also reversed the entire perspective of the play). Everything else was worthless garbage.
At least when Shaw and Brecht were writing propaganda, it had a chance to be entertaining.
Are you a chick? 'Cause that would be hot…
(edit)
Hey…who keeps stealth "thumbs downing" me? I just thought the above comment was kind of funny because all the "really really really" stuff came across as a little fruity.
It already got made into a TV movie… I saw it a year or more ago.
I wonder if the writers of such plays think they are well-intended? After all, everyone that wants to see the play must think like them anyway, right? (Typical thought process I've run across with liberals – "if someone is my age and (a, b, or c – insert demographic here -), they must believe the same things, so I can say whatever I like and they will like it").
And even if the audience doesn't agree, the play is there to teach them something and make them better (ie: more like the writers). Because the writers know best, yes?
So, it's a win-win situation as far as the writers are concerned. Their audience will either already agree with them or somehow be enlightened by the end. If the audience "doesn't get it," then they're just ignorant fools.
Whatever happened to just telling a story without ham-handed politics shoved down the audience's throats?
It's not even intelligent anymore. (Don't get me started on people my age, whom I believe are the products of these writers and the educational systems in place today. It's all related. That's the sad part.)
What else would anyone use the NYT for?
If I wrote something this long, it would have to be broken into eight different posts. I would like to know how you got away with this?
Maybe if we wait long enough Obama will fix it. After he's fixed and fuzzed up everything else.
All they need is a lefty-turned-righty Jewish lawyer and an angel with over-the-top wings to raise above the stage…
The formula for theatre can be boiled down to:
1. Pick a contentious subject.
2. Simplify it.
3. Show all the characters with the correct opinion as sympathetic, compassionate and intelligent.
4. Show all the characters with the wrong opinion as ignorant, bigoted and wicked.
Increasingly, the demonisation of the wrong characters takes the form of racism, as in this play apparently. I've seen plays in which a character comes on stage and literally the first thing they say is racist. No other character signifier is necessary: one racist comment and we know this is the villain. This is the modern equivalent of the old moustache twirling black hat. So much for the subtlety of theatre.
These plays are successful, because the mostly liberal audience members (and all of the critics) are in-crowd-wannbe followers, not thinkers.
1. I do not have a BFA nor an MFA, nor even a BA.
2. I am a product of, and still continue to be, working class.
3. I work, and have worked, in theatre that is both non-profit and for profit on a regional level.
4. Having said all that, let me ask this: Since when has theatre either been easy to get into or stay in? No one has ever made it easy for me, yet I continue to prosper. A combination of talent, hard work, dedication, persistence, patience, enthusiasm, a positive attitude and a high tolerance for rejection seem to be the common attributes that one needs to have any hope of achieving even a modest degree of success.
5. The "system" is what it is. Even if it does change, there is no guarantee that it will make anything any easier for anyone who chooses to pursue this as a career. No matter what, actors will still have to show up for auditions, rehearsals and performances. The will still have to be prompt and know their lines. They will still have to be professional. Even the most lefty-liberal propagandist will still want the best talent available to tell their story.
Your description of the Southern Christian family reminded me of a recent episode of the CBS TV series "The Big Bang Theory." We like the show despite some of the cringe worthy comments and blatant sexual themes being played out lately. However, when they had the character, Sheldon Cooper (played by Jim Parsons and nominated for an Emmy this year), return home to Texas to a Christian family and he rather quickly realized fleeing them was preferable to any humiliation he might encounter in California, it was deeply offputting. It didn't matter his family cared about him only that he couldn't tolerate them. Sad.
You have to admit, though– gay guys do know how to pick out a tasteful beige couch.
oh come on… this is one play out of a hundred being produced in new york at any one time. anyone buying tickets to see it know what to expect. 'message' plays, like political websites, preach to their choirs. this is some kind of shocking news to somebody ? seems like this article is just an opportunity to whine about gay people being 'overly' represented in the arts… and by the evidence of some of the comments here 'explaining' why people are gay or making absurd claims to being formerly gay, the choir to which the author was preaching has responded with a hearty "amen !" <yawn>
Who are you to say anybody's claim is absurd? Anal sex is absurd.
You must be logged in to post a comment.