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.

To start with, Brad Pitt said that he was thinking of running for mayor of New Orleans, on an “Anti-religion, pro-legalization of marijuana and pro-gay marriage” platform. I know, I know… What a risky position to take in Tinseltown, right?

After Brads continued “anti-religion” commentary, Bill Maher decided to step up the game with his uniquely hateful brand of bigotry that’s made him oh so popular with 13-year-old atheists everywhere. In a display of “compassion,” Pitt went on to say, “Well I don’t think any Christians watch this show anyway.”

See what happened there…?  Without even realizing it, Brad Pitt’s showed us that his use of the word “religion” is really inter-changeable with “Christianity,” as is the case with most of Hollywood. The entertainment industry is never anti-Religion; it’s simply anti-Christian. This goes both hand-in-hand with Hollywood’s obsession with immorality, as well as their compulsion to take shots at society’s whipping boy while praising themselves for their “risky performances.”

Brad then went on to say, “I never wanted to step on anyone’s religion” (don’t worry, that doesn’t stop him from doing so immediately afterward), “Until I started to see it define policy.”

Ooooh okay Brad, I get it. You don’t mind people having a strong worldview… Until it begins to manifest itself through their actions… Unless of course their world-view is “pro-marijuana” such as your own as displayed by your subsequent trip down memory lane where you fondly recalled your joint-rolling escapades.

Hollywood Bottom-line: If someone’s “religion” is nothing more than moral relativism, it should absolutely determine policy. If it actually adheres to an established code of conduct/ethics, you better keep it to yourself you, jerk!

*Note*: Keep in mind that none of this applies to Islam. You see, in Hollywood, the most anti-gay, anti-women, anti-peace religion gets a free pass in the name of political correctness. Just keep this in mind if you’re trying to make sense of everything.

“I was raised in a religious household… It just didn’t work for me in the long run,” Brad went on to say. Heck, I guess it wouldn’t work for me either if I wanted to live a life of hedonistic bliss similar to our Hollywood counterparts. If I were living a life of booze, sex and cocaine-off-of-the-ladies-hipbones, the last thing I’d want is to have held myself accountable to a power greater than myself.

Hollywood, we get it. The Christian faith just doesn’t work for you “in the long run.” However, for a large percentage of this country (the same country that makes your movies millions of dollars), it does. So please, for all of our sakes, keep your “beliefs to yourself” and just “stop the hate.”

Can I get an “Amen”?

Not to mention they’re all a bunch of minority-bashing fear mongers. Why does anyone continue to allow this hateful, extremist group to exist? Am I the only one who feels that they could stand to learn a lot from the peaceful, Muslim folk?

If I hadn’t been raised in such a logical household, the entertainment industry would have elicited only one reaction from me in regards to “Christians”; “Good God, these people are crazy.”

It all started with the flick “Carrie.” Who can forget Sissy Spacek’s loopy, evangelical mom citing Bible verses amidst insane spiritual tirades until she was finally skewered with every kitchen utensil in the cabinet…all to a disturbing orgasmic moaning session. The scene was used to drive the point home: Christians are dangerous and nuts, but they’re great to make fun of.

Even though ripping on those of the Christian cloth is nothing new, edgy, or thought provoking, Hollywood feels the need to do it with each of their religiously overtoned talkies. It’s gotten to the point where even the completely irreverent Matt Stone of “South Park” has expressed sentiments of pulling his punches on “society’s whipping boy.”  I hope you’re listening Seth McFatlane (the name is childish I’ll admit, but I accept it). The fact is, it’s been done to death.

But why is that? We’ve never seen Hollywood go after Buddhism, Hinduism, or even Islam. I’d be inclined to believe that it’s due to the first two revolving around more subjective moralities (which is cool with the 310) and the latter… well, they blow crap up. Sure Muslims are the cause of virtually all terrorism in the world today, yet the good old folks of Tinseltown go out of their way to portray them as “good people, given a bad name by extremists” (see “Babel,” “Kingdom of Heaven”). On the other hand, we’ve got Conservative Christians who are statistically far and away the most generous people on the planet (whether you’re judging by missionary work or basic tax returns) consistently being portrayed as hateful villains often using scripture to justify horrifying acts (see nearly every spiritual horror/psycho thriller movie made in the last three decades). Disregard the fact that people like my middle-class father annually give more to charity than President Obama and Joe Biden combined, because folks like Sean Penn have already boxed him in as a greedy, judgmental jackass. If people in the Sean Penn clan feel that way, then it’s got to be true!

So I ask all Christians, Agnostics, and Atheists alike: when is enough, enough? Hasn’t this beating of the dead horse (*insert John Kerry joke here*) grown tiresome? Isn’t it time to move on?

I think the time for an “anti-establishment uprising” has come… And by that, I mean it’s time for Hollywood to take a serious risk in their portrayal of modern-day Christians.

Here’s a premise for you: They’re well-meaning people with a heart for helping others. Run with it.