On the last day of the June session, the Supreme Court unexpectedly decided to order a rehearing of our case in order to reexamine two cases that are the pillars of some of the more restrictive provisions of campaign finance law, and that, I believe, are unconstitutional infringements on the First Amendment. 

Beginning with its decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce in 1990, the Supreme Court has systematically chipped away at the First Amendment’s protection of political speech, culminating in 2003 with McConnell v. FEC, the decision to uphold the McCain-Feingold Act.  These decisions have so restricted the right to participate in the political process that during the original oral arguments in our case, the government actually took the position that the First Amendment does not prohibit the government from censoring books that contain phrases such as “Vote for Candidate X” and are commercially published soon before an election.  

Think about that for a moment.  We, as a country, have reached a point where our government has asserted that the Constitution permits it to jail the CEO of a company for commercially publishing a book critical of a politician standing for election!  

I understand that many filmmakers in Hollywood are anathema to the films that I produce, and frankly, thinking about some of the people that inhabit that city, I’m comfortable with that sentiment.  What I am not comfortable with, however, is the idea that the government believes that it has the right, the ability, and the power to tell any of us what we can and cannot say in our films. 

Many Hollywood liberals who read about my case simply dismiss it as a film that criticized a member of an exalted Democrat family.  They see it, like the Federal Election Commission does, as a long campaign ad that should be banned from the airwaves.  What they don’t realize, however, is that if they do not stand up for the First Amendment today, it may not be there to protect them when they need it.  Regulating speech, especially political speech, is a very slippery slope fraught with unintended consequences. 

In our case, Citizens United produced Hillary The Movie, a documentary that focused on Hillary Clinton from an unabashedly conservative point of view.  We released our film in January of 2008, but the Federal Election Commission prohibited us from advertising the film on television and radio or showing the film through cable “On Demand” services.  We were allowed to make the film but were prohibited from telling anyone that it existed via broadcast advertising, and even those who would have sought out the film in an “On Demand” format were denied that opportunity to see it.  

While we may be pioneering the legal argument, we are hardly the first filmmakers to be censored by the Federal Election Commission.  Most people are not aware of this as the incident was not well publicized, but in 2004, shortly before banning Citizens United from advertising our first film, Celsius 41.11, Michael Moore was forced to take down his television and radio ads for Fahrenheit 9/11. If Michael Moore, the most commercially successful documentarian of our time can fall victim to government censorship, any filmmaker can. 

Denying me the ability to promote or broadcast my film is functionally the same thing as prohibiting me from making it in the first place.  If a film plays in an empty theatre because I’m not allowed to advertise it, or if viewers are denied the ability to watch on television, isn’t that pretty close to banning it outright?  Whether the documentary is anti-Bush, pro-Obama, or critical of a Clinton should make no difference.  Speech, and political speech above all else, should be protected. 

This issue is non-partisan.  People from across the political spectrum have every right to participate in the political process in whatever peaceful form they choose.  Groups as varied as the California Broadcasters Association, ACLU, the AFL-CIO, the Chamber of Commerce, the NRA, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press have all joined in fighting for the First Amendment rights of every filmmaker and every citizen.  

I am optimistic that the Supreme Court will side with the First Amendment in this case, but if we fall short, people must be aware of the dangers of this law and the extremes to which the government seems to be willing to go.  This is not simply a case about my organization’s right to air a documentary, this is about all of our rights to participate in the political process, and no one should give that up without a fight.  Citizens United Productions will release our 15th feature documentary this fall and we are determined to continue to exercise our right to free speech.

#1: Us Citizens.

#2: You elected officials.

I really prefer writing long pieces on why Ernest Borgnine, Lee Marvin and Johnny Rotten rule. It’s more fun to talk about how everything in popular culture that everyone else likes actually sucks, and I’m even going to provide some inspirational music selections below. But duty calls. Right now, a bunch of people whose salaries you and I pay and who work for us are telling us to shut up and do as we’re told.

That’s just not gonna happen.

Message to our representatives: Hey Bub, I didn’t swear allegiance to the Constitution and deploy twice to defend it to shrug my shoulders and say, “Well, guess that old First Amendment thing doesn’t apply to me” just because you’re tired of hearing about how completely and thoroughly your plan to turn our health care system into another DMV sucks. Here’s how it’s going to be: Like it or not, you’re going to stand there, zip your pie hole for once, and listen to your constituents.

You may not like us mere citizens daring to question you. You may turn to your entourage, gasping in horror because some mere business owner has the nerve to ask you why you think shooting his taxes up over 60% so some deadbeat who doesn’t want to fork over the money to buy his own policy can get covered for free is a good idea. I know it must be a shock to realize that you aren’t some minor potentate, immune to criticism and answering only to yourself. But that’s too damn bad. This is a democracy, and you work for us.

It’s time to remember that the key word in the phrase “public servant” is “servant.” You’re not our “masters,” not our “rulers,” and not even our “new insect overlords.” You’re our servants. So serve. Start off by bringing me a draft Dos Equis lager, with a lime, pronto. Oh, and vote against socialized medicine.

And another thing, Mac. Like the rest of your employers, I don’t dig being called a “Nazi” by one of your little lefty functionaries. First, it’s inaccurate. Maybe your flunkie’s commie professor at Bennington never taught him enough to know that the Nazis were on his side of the poli-sci spectrum and not mine. The word “Nazi” is short for “National Socialist,” not “National Free-Market Supply-Side Libertarian with a Strong Grounding in Traditional Values.” Perhaps I could be called a “Nfmsslwasgitvi,” but I’m sure as hell not a “Nazi.” Second, me and my ancestors have protected this country from Nazis, commies, thugs and other assorted scumbags for generations, and if someone freaking calls me a Nazi to my face someone’s getting knocked on his fifth point of contact.

And stop impugning my motives, Dude. Supposedly all of us who aren’t thrilled about this health care reform abomination are speaking up only because we’re in the pay of the evil Big Insurance and Big Pharmaceuticals. To that, I ask a question – Where’s my check? I don’t want to be saying that this is idiotic for free like a sucker.

Now, if we speak, will they listen? Oh yeah. In 1986, I spent the summer drinking Rolling Rock and chasing girls in Washington, activities I interrupted occasionally to intern on the Hill for Congressman Duncan Hunter (Duncan ruled – he kept a 12 gauge in his office closet and thought we should give the Contras the Bomb). The point is that I remember the intense interest the representatives had in constituent contacts – they counted every letter, categorized them and paid very, very, very close attention to the mood of the voters.

You better believe that every member who doesn’t represent a district to the left of Berkeley is feeling the heat and shuddering in terror at the prospect of having to find a real job in January 2011 if he or she votes wrong on this one. Not everyone gets to run for re-election in a district where 72.5% of the voters agree with the proposition “U.S. out of North America.“ Write, call, fax, email, and best of all, show up at a town hall meeting or at the local office – it matters.

And when you speak out – and you must speak out, even if your name goes into the big database of wrongthinkers at Central Committee headquarters (Note to der Commissar: There are two “H’s” in “Schlichter”) – here are some basic principles that you should demand that any health care reform plan incorporate:

1. Health care is not a right. You are not entitled to someone else handing it to you for free any more than you are entitled to free Special K, a free condo in Maui or a free Nintendo Wii.

2. Everyone is responsible for obtaining and paying for his own and his family’s health care. But isn’t it true that some folks just don’t have the money? Well, here’s a powerful wealth-building strategy that I’ll let the freeloaders out there in on for nothing: Get a job. Then you can buy your own damn health insurance. I work three jobs and I’m getting a masters degree. I’m not loving the idea of paying your freight too, so roll off the couch, do a push-up, and start eyeballing the Craigslist want ads.

3. I actually sort of respect illegal aliens – anyone who will swim a river, cross a desert and dodge cops to work for minimum wage cooking me Big Macs is the kind of guy I want in America. But that doesn’t mean I want to pick up the tab when one gets a rash. Go home, get in line, then welcome back when your turn comes.

4. The government is so wrapped up in health care that right now you effectively have no choices.  I know this because I pay for my employees’ health care and I have a wide variety of one choice at one price among two companies. Thanks for “helping” me choose by eliminating all choice, California.

5. As a lawyer, let me draw the fire of my peers. The malpractice system is nearly as big a scam as global warming – the only difference is a few people actually believe in global warming. Everyone in the legal field knows that the malpractice system is a racket.

6. The government must have nothing to do with providing health care. Nada. Zero. Zip. There’s no need to extend its unbroken track record of failure right into my doctor’s office. Time to get yourself pumped up and ready – and to give me something to talk about that tangentially relates to pop culture.

*****

Here are six great tunes to get you in the frame of mind to do your job as an American citizen – to make yourself heard:

1. Get a Job by The Silhouettes. Obeying this concise directive would go a huge distance in solving the problem of the uninsured.

2. The Ballad of the Green Berets by Staff Sergeant Barry Sadler. This, the most literal song of all time, is a potent reminder that the right to speak out we are exercising didn’t come free and didn’t come cheap. Don’t waste your rights – dissent is almost as patriotic as fighting your country’s enemies or backing up those that do.

3. Fight the Power by Public Enemy. Embrace the chorus and ignore the rest of the lyrics, along with the silly Malcolm X imagery. Catchy, motivating and who can resist old school Flavor Flav!

4. The Theme to the Magnificent Seven by Elmer Bernstein. The ultimate psyche-up music for Americans fighting against all odds. But as the Seven showed, when we’re united we’re invincible – and we’re not about to let ourselves be vinced by a bunch of collectivist doofuses, lefty hacks and their union thugs.

5. God Bless The U.S.A. by Lee Greenwood. The best thing about this song is the way its raw sentimentality and naked patriotism tends to make liberals so uncomfortable. That’s the spirit animating this campaign to preserve our country as we know it, and a little faith in our country’s principles is nothing to be ashamed of. I just wish it had some snarling guitars.

6. I Fought the Law by the Clash. Okay, here’re the snarling guitars. And yeah, I know the Clash thought they were leftists. I don’t care. Anyway, here’s my tortured reasoning as to why this song is relevant here: The law is our Constitution and the First Amendment, the liberals are fighting it, and we’re going to win. Okay, it’s just a really great song that I use to get me amped up for court.

So, ignore the people telling you to sit down and shut up, get pumped, move out and make your voice heard. And I’d sure appreciate it if someone out there could let me know where I can pick up my check from the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

So why are they so grumpy? I suppose it’s because the idea that anyone might stray from the reservation is anathema to them, and this little thing in our Constitution called the First Amendment kind of gets in the way of collective happiness and singing Kumbaya around the campfire.

John “Cougar” Mellencamp is the latest to notice that not everyone is part of the collective, and he’s mighty peeved, making this observation about free speech in general and bloggers in particular:

“I don’t think people fought and gave their lives so that some guy can sit in his bedroom and be mean. I don’t think that’s what freedom of speech is,” he continued. “Freedom of speech is really about assembly — for us to collectively have an idea. We want to get our point of view out so we can assemble and I can appoint you to be the spokesman. That’s freedom of speech — to be able to collectively speak for a sector of people. But somehow it’s turned into ‘I can be an a****** whenever I feel like, say whatever I like, be disrespectful to people and not be courteous.’ It’s not good for our society. Not being courteous is not really freedom of speech. …

Geez, send this guy back to civics class.

The First Amendment pretty much means what it says when it comes to political speech: as long as it’s not libel or slander, you can say whatever you want. If you come across as a mean jerk, others can point it out, thus exercising their free speech rights. It’s not hard to figure out, except for liberal Statists who don’t really believe in the First Amendment.

That said, I agree with Mellencamp – to a point. I believe discourse in this society has sunk to a new low, and honest debate is often replaced by name calling and angry diatribes not meant to enlighten the other side to your point of view, but to shut debate down by shutting the other side up. However, while I don’t think our Founders ever envisioned the Internet with its pluses (i.e. spreading information at lightning speed around the world) and its minuses (i.e. the anonymity factor that emboldens some to say things they wouldn’t say to one’s face), I doubt they would agree with Mellencamp’s assessment of free speech. We “collectively” have an idea and appoint a spokesman? Well what about those of us who aren’t part of the collective, John? If we don’t subscribe to the current fashion of groupthink, do we not have recourse? Are we not allowed to speak out?

For some, blogging is their only way of making their voices heard. Not everyone has million dollar recording contracts that suddenly make their political opinions worth seeking out by reporters bedazzled by someone who plays a guitar and sings.

And who, pray-tell, decides what kind of speech is “nice” speech and what is “hate” speech? Perhaps Obama will appoint a Speech Czar to add to his ever-growing collection of direct reports who get to circumvent Congress, in a power grab noted even by die-hard Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd.

This transformation in thinking on Mellencamp’s part is nothing short of miraculous. He must be regretting this little outburst at a John Kerry fundraiser during the 2004 presidential campaign, right?

Other celebs also competed to bash Bush. Singer John Mellencamp sang a specially written song that called the president “just another cheap thug” and ridiculed him as the “Texas bambino.”

Perhaps that can be attributed to “artistic expression,” an excuse entertainers and artists often use when some find their content objectionable. The unenlightened bottom feeders “just don’t get it.”

Well, we get it, John. We understand that now that your man (well, your second choice) is in the Oval Office, and suddenly it’s unseemly to make fun of him or – even worse – disagree with him. I hear it on talk radio shows all the time: liberals call in and tell the host to stop criticizing Obama, that we must all get behind the president and support him.

Remember Hillary in 2003?

I am sick and tired of people who call you unpatriotic if you debate this administration’s policies. We are Americans and have the right to participate and debate any administration.

Times have changed, people. We must heed the collective. We must appoint a spokesman. I wonder who John has in mind?

But don’t listen to me. John Mellencamp probably thinks I’m an a****** too.

Such is the power of a single word.

That power has not diminished but only increased with an ADD, multi-channel, hyperactive media-centric world. The silver screen has long given us immortal dialogue which now blends so deeply into the culture that people may not know their origin, but we know the meaning.  A wise man I know said, “Image creates perception, perception creates reality.”  It couldn’t be more true in the film business.

–

In a media-centric world, from motion pictures to internet to phones, we are pounded with images, forming our perceptions and then creating our reality. How fast did the Internet meme “Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys” become a daily reference at the coffee klatch, in your email, or on phone calls?  Not long.  We forget how powerful words can be when written in a clever and pithy way.  The masters of dialogue like Charles Brackett, Billy Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond, and the Epstein brothers, knew irreverent and immortal lines.  And as producers, writers or just Americans who appreciate a good, nimble turn of a phrase, we should excel at creating phrases that demonstrate the values we hold dear.  Don’t understand?  “What we have here is a failure to communicate!”

Why bother?  Movies (and other media) create the Culture.  Culture creates America.  America creates the world.  When we talk media and politics, this nimble phrase can radiate far and wide.  Great dialogue resonates in our brains for weeks, months, even years.  Our own snappy comebacks to important values issues can demonstrate a better point of view, an attitude and an insight.  Of course, you could use radical phrases like, “I love America” and “I’m against terrorism,” but write up your own snappy comebacks on issues and policy to share with friends.  As human beings, we remember great Moments.  Movies create moments.  Great dialogue reminds of those moments and their images.  And great lines can change minds.

We cannot forget the line, used by recent Tea Party groups, “I’m as mad as hell, I’m not going to take it anymore.” And in political theater, who uttered the line, “There you go again”?  Ronald Reagan in the debate with Jimmy Carter.  It pounded Carter on national TV.  Reagan was the President who best understood the nexus of the Power of Media and the Power of Strength when confronting enemies like Soviet International Socialism.  Reagan knew from his long career in radio, films, television, and public speaking that people longed for memorable phrases by which to guide their lives.  The simpler, the better – easier to remember, easier to repeat, easier to live by.  Why else are words of wisdom from great books and the Ten Commandments short and to the point?

So what does this have to do with any of us?  The genius of the American people is self-evident.  No society on earth has created such a robust population, teeming with energy and creating a vast marketplace of ideas.  When talking with friends, family or working in the media world, each of us can create dialogue that spreads our values and our message about the troops, our country, and more.  I saw a TV show one day where some actress proclaimed that a man who tried to sexually assault her was either a “pervert or Clarence Thomas.”  A few words and this image becomes a perception that morphs into a reality for millions (or in the case of this show), thousands of viewers about this noble Justice.  When Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano reframes terrorism into “Man Caused Disaster,” she’s putting auto exhaust sparks that accidentally caused a thousand acre fire on the same level as planes slamming into buildings of innocent Americans.  “The greatest trick the devil every played was convincing the world he didn’t exist.”

Words everywhere matter. “You want answers?  I want the truth!  You can’t handle the truth!” Words are weapons.  When you refer to China, use the term, “Socialist Left-wing dictatorship.”  The prisoners in Chinese gulags, persecuted Christians and political dissidents will attest to that.  If somebody mentions “Religious Right,” then counter with “Atheist Left.”  It’s never “Gun Control” but “Second Amendment Civil Rights.” Newspapers are infected with political correctness.  “Islamic rioters in France” are “disaffected youth,” according to some reporters.  Does “cheese eating surrender monkeys” come to mind?

Whenever I’m given an application or form with boxes for “Race,” I  check “Other:________” and write one word.

“Human.”

“Human,” Hollywood…single words can be powerful.  Revolutionary.  Watch the words you use in your everyday life and in your work to reflect the values we hold dear about Freedom and America.  There’s great tradition in snappy comebacks and immortal phrases to change the culture, America, and the world.  Words are our First Freedom, but everyday we have to ask ourselves…

“Is it safe?”

I decided a long time ago that religion would play no part in my life, but I felt no compulsion to convert others.  Oddly enough, I never resented the folks who would ring my doorbell and try to proselytize me.  Although I don’t like dealing with uninvited guests, I always thought it was nice of them to be that concerned about the eternal soul of a perfect stranger. Having said all that, I wish to announce that I despise the ACLU for its relentless attacks on Christianity and Judaism.  It’s bad enough that they will wage battle on behalf of any busybody looking to banish Christmas and Hanukkah symbols from public places, including one’s own front yard.

However, these very same lawyers will eagerly go to the mat to safeguard a Muslim’s right to wear a disguise on her driver’s license, a Navajo’s right to ingest peyote, and a cultist’s right to ritualistically slaughter small animals. 

The ACLU proclaims that they’re merely abiding by the Constitution’s insistence on the separation of church and state.  The only problem with that position is that the Constitution says no such thing.  Although the secular Left has glommed on to that catch phrase like a pitbull gnawing on a shinbone, the First Amendment simply states: “Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” 

That is a far cry from forcing apartment dwellers to remove holiday wreaths from their door, or insisting that communities remove Nativity scenes from parks, or compelling small towns to change “Christmas Holiday” in their high school calendars to “Winter Break.” 

The problem with the ACLU is that it is composed in equal measure of self-righteous fools and fascistic bullies.  Because so many of their members are rich and privileged, they will, on the one hand, blather on about their love of democracy, while, at the same time, assume they alone know what’s best for everyone else. 

Because they are so out of step with the majority, they can rarely have their way via a democratic ballot.  There are, in fact, only two means by which they ever have their way.  The first is by getting liberal judges to set aside election results, as they have done over such issues as capital punishment, illegal immigration, and affirmative action.  The second way is by intimidating those — be they individuals, cities or organizations – that lack the backbone or the financial wherewithal to defend themselves against the ACLU’s mob of shysters. 

If the authors of the Constitution had ever, in their worst nightmares, envisioned a group as vile as the ACLU, I feel certain that they would have rephrased the First Amendment to read: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  Period!  And we’re not kidding, so help us God!” 

BurtPrelutsky@aol.com

In a fiscal conservative’s utopian dreamworld, there would be no federal funding for the arts (or so many other government agencies or programs for that matter).  This has been our position since the inception of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in the early 1970’s.  We’ve been saying that if elected, we would abolish these misguided programs and departments and bring our government back to the bare-bones constitutionally described role that it has and leave everything else to the states.

We’ve held the influential bully pulpit of the presidency for twenty of the past twenty-eight years, and what has happened to the NEA?  It has grown.  While we have stood on principle,  we have also stood on the sidelines.  The founding fathers would be outraged that the federal government is funding art with taxpayer money, but because we are on the sidelines standing on our principles, all of that money is going to the people creating art with messages that undermine our very existence.

But, I will also say that as long as the NEA exists, and as long as art is to receive funding by the government, we conservatives are on the wrong side of the argument.  There is no way to combat the perception that we are “anti-art” or in favor of closing down the local museum by taking away its funding.  I know, there ARE logical arguments to combat that perception, but again I ask:  How have those arguments been working out for us?

The “Fairness Doctrine” for arts funding.

At the risk of enraging my fellow conservatives and all of you libertarians, I propose that we re-think our position on the NEA given the realities of the past 35 years.  The NEA is here and it’s not going anywhere in the near future.  And instead of ceding the cultural ground in our country to the leftist voices and artists who have won the lion’s share of all of that funding over the past three decades, it is time for conservatives to get our asses into the game.  It’s time for a “fairness doctrine” of sorts when it comes to arts funding.

It’s the stated policy of the NEA to not discriminate due to the content of the art, so I say we make them put OUR money where their mouth is: Start doling out grants to playwrights and organizations who speak to so many Americans who are disenfranchised at the theatre.

The ESTABLISHMENT is the vast network of institutional theatres who have been living high on the hog in their publicly owned “Performing Arts Centers” or “Civic Theatre Complex” and managing their multi-million-dollar budgets under the guise of the altruistic and benign mission statement of “Bringing theatre to the community.”  The Lincoln Center Theatre and The Public Theatre and the Center Theatre Group and the Seattle Rep and The Arena Stage and the Goodman theatre… those guys are “The Man” and I’m tired of “The Man” keeping my people down!

A few decades ago, there was a perceived crisis in the American Theatre for the lack of “voices” from black playwrights, Asian playwrights, female playwrights, Latino playwrights and gay playwrights. Almost every single college and major non-profit theatre dutifully set up specific, targeted programs to nurture these playwrights from these target groups, in the name of diversity.

Well my friends… what voices are missing in non-profit, regional theatres today?  OURS!  We need to demand a full-throated, passionate and intelligent depiction of the conservative “experience” in America.  Also, don’t tell me that a revival of “Carousel” counts as a production reflecting “traditional American values.”  The crises the theatre community in America faces today is not that there are not enough revivals.

The Audience is staying home.

Go back and look at the comments from my first post on this subject.  You will hear from many people who say they are no longer going to the theatre.  And, unlike the conventional wisdom we’ve been hearing at non-profit regional theatres for the past thirty years, it is NOT because of a lack of arts education in the schools.  It is NOT because theatre is too inaccessible.  The people are choosing not to go to the theatre because of WHAT is being produced.  Because, believe it or not, my liberal friends, an adult person does not like to spend over $50 to sit in the dark and get yelled at or called names for two hours.

Unlike any other business, the theatre people who inhabit your local non-profit regional theatre do not look at their PRODUCT and wonder why people are not buying it.  They first wonder what is wrong with YOU.  I wonder how many folks in that regional theatre in your downtown actually reflect on the content of the plays they are producing and wonder if perhaps the answer to their “audience development” needs lies in the simple fact that about half of the people who live in their area are not interested in hearing the preaching contained within the stories they are telling, no matter how talented the people are in telling them.

For those of you who still find yourselves patronizing the regional non-profit in the major metropolis near your home, I bet you experience something like this:  You get to your seat and open your program and three or four pieces of paper fly out.  One is an envelope suitable for a donation.  One is a letter from the development department or artistic director decrying the current state of funding for the arts.  Maybe it mentions that audiences are declining because of the lack of arts in the schools.  Another sheet is a survey they want you to fill out (they never give you a pen or pencil).  The survey asks questions about your race and age and income and TV or film habits.  You look around…. all of these pieces of paper are littered about the floor under the seats around you.  Clearly part of the theatre’s green initiative.

Then the house lights dim to half and the excitement builds, it’s curtain time… get ready for the magic of theatre…  I love the excitement of that moment, here comes the…. pre-show curtain speech?  Oh no!  The artistic director or a board member or someone from the theatre staff bounds onto the stage and starts the spiel.  First, they describe all of the items that just dropped out of your program and they beg you to read them, fill them out and stick a check in them.  These days they throw in a line like: “Thankfully, we now have a president dedicated to supporting the arts and theatre, but we still need …. blah blah blah” – It never occurs to these folks that half of the people in the seats didn’t vote for President Obama.  And they often say in their speech some patronizing line like, “We are your theatre, we are a part of this community, we want to hear from you, please give us your feedback, theatre is a living breathing art form and your participation is vital to our growth…”

But, I have a secret to reveal to you:  They don’t really think that.  Oh, they want you to participate, by subscribing and donating, but it ends there.  If you want to meet with someone and express your distaste with the artistic choices, good luck.  If you want to complain that too often they bring left-wing politics onto the stage, you’re given lip service.  Send a letter asking for an uplifting play that reflects the good in America or perhaps the heroic deeds of our military or perhaps a play reflecting on the negative consequences of the misogyny and patriarchy in the hip-hop culture, and the letter will be treated as a joke from a right-wing wacko bigot.  Sometimes the letter is shown around the office and laughed at.  They don’t really want to hear from you unless you are calling to make a donation or to tell them how great they are.

If it ever crosses the minds of the artistic decision makers at the major non-profit regional theatres that there may be something about the content of their plays that is negatively affecting their subscriptions or their single-ticket sales, they never consider that it might have to do with the overall message or themes of their plays.  They think it’s because they are choosing plays that are risky or edgy and the older, conservative folks out there are just not ready or sophisticated enough to appreciate it.  And then they dig in and take an artistic stand.  But the problem with the plays has more to do with the themes and the political message they are trying to communicate, not with the edgy characters or nudity or cursing.

Example:  A theatre produces “Angels in America” and receives complaint letters about the content.  The powers that be at the theatre write it off to homophobia or gay-bashing or just some intolerance from the religious right and they are emboldened with the knowledge that they have made a bold artistic choice and brought this fresh and daring message to their community.  But the objection to “Angels in America” that I have and that I’ve heard from others is not that it is fresh or daring, it’s that it’s the same old “Reagan did nothing about AIDS” and “Ray Cohn was an evil closet-case hypocrite” and “Mormons are repressed homophobes” kind of story that we’ve been hearing for years.

But, what if a theatre commissioned a play about the life of the heroic writer Randy Shilts?  Shilts was an openly gay journalist who wrote “And The Band Played On” which chronicled the early days of the AIDS epidemic in San Francisco.  He rightly campaigned for the closing of gay bath houses as a logical way to help stop the spread of HIV and he was very vocal in his opposition of the trend to “out” prominent but closeted gay and lesbian actors and politicians.  For his efforts he was spat upon on Castro Street.  Bob Ross, editor and publisher of the Bay Area Reporter, described Shilts as a traitor to his own kind.  This would be a play that deals with the same subject matter as “Angels” but it would take a different political perspective.  Most of those conservatives complaining about “Angels” would not complain about this play, I guarantee you that the vast number of complaints would come from the LGBT community and GLAAD and all of those other acronym agencies paid to say the same thing.

Trouble is, this play does not exist.  Nor does a play exist about the fall of the Berlin Wall, the single most significant international event in the past fifty years.  Nor does a play exist about the heroism of our military fighting in Iraq, or about the negative repercussions of abortion in America over the past thirty years.  Nor is there a play written in the past twenty years in America showing a member of the Catholic clergy in an unambiguously positive light (unless a drunk priest is there for comic effect).  These plays don’t exist because the environment in the artistic corridors are not interested in telling these stories.

******

I promised a solution to this problem in my last post, and I have a few humble suggestions.  I’m looking forward to the next round of comments, e-mails, and Facebook messages with your ideas:

A Modest Proposal

I maintain that at the root of this problem is a problem of equal employment.

I remember attending a symposium where a bunch of theatre professionals were getting together to talk about how to get a new audience or keep their existing audience and it was all about educational programs and free tix for children and adding more writing programs for African-American playwrights and I wanted to get up on the stage and say:  “Please stand up if you voted Democrat in the last presidential election”…  I had no doubt most of the room would stand up… Then I would say… “Look around you… the last presidential election (it was Bush/Gore) was almost exactly 50/50.  Now, one of two things is happening here… either your organizations are not ideologically inclusive  and that is reflected in your programming and how you represent yourself to your community of ticket-buyers, or some of you are afraid to sit down right now and reveal yourselves as Republicans… either way, we have a BIG problem!”

How can we truthfully say that we are a part of a community and we reflect the sensibilities and tell stories that emotionally move the members of that community when our organizations are staffed with people whose views only reflect half of the community?  We can’t, and we don’t.  And the results are affecting the bottom line.

Theatres should consider creating a special position, an “ombudsman,” who speaks for that 50% who might have a problem with the message the theatre is putting out.  They can also respectfully and sensitively respond to the complaints that might come in and then actually communicate those complaints effectively to the powers that be at the organization.  They could also set up after-show dialogues with the writers and encourage people to voice their annoyance at the preaching they are receiving from the stage.  I guarantee you that after about a year after the silently suffering patrons are empowered, programming changes will begin to take effect.

Another crucial role for the “ombudsman” would be to solicit plays from a conservative point of view, identify a handful of them that are worthy of development and work with those playwrights to have, at the very least, a main-stage staged reading open to the public so that the artistic decision makers could actually see these plays up on their feet and in front of an audience.  Put them in the position where they must justify why they are not producing these plays so we no longer hear quotes like this:

André Bishop, artistic director of Lincoln Center Theater for 16 years, said he reads about five plays a week, and from thousands over the years he could not think of a single one that would fall on the right end of the spectrum. “I’m trying to think if I ever read a play that I would call conservative,” he said, pausing a few moments. “I don’t think I’ve come across one.”

Mr. Bishop, if you agree that this is a problem, hire someone to actively find and nurture these plays.  If you had gone two decades without ever seeing a gay play or a black play or a Latino play or a feminist play it would not have been acceptable.  So, now what are you going to do about us conservatives?

The Artistic Director and the Board President should introduce this conservative watchdog with their arms around him saying “this is our guy and a valuable member of this team.”  The Jackie Robinson of conservative theatre could emerge hence.

The above concept is modest because it really amounts to token change, but, it’s more than we have now and it’s pretty easy to achieve.  The ideal situation would be to achieve a little more than just an evening of staged readings with the hope of getting a full production.  Ideally, the plays in question would be developed and mounted in full production from the get go.

******

So, beyond my “Modest Proposal” I also have a “Not-So-Modest Proposal” and I have “A Guargantuan Proposal.”  Looks like there’s gonna be a Part 3!

Stage Right is on Facebook.