Back in February, my Big Hollywood colleague and super-funny-dude Tim Slagle wrote a series of posts on the Broadway musical “Avenue Q”.  The show was going through a mini-crisis/publicity stunt because one of the big punch lines to the song “For Now” was no longer valid:

A song called “For Now” has the puppets reassure each other that most things in life are temporary, like hair and sex. Until recently, one of those temporary things was “George Bush.” Knowing that Obama was to be shortly inaugurated, the producers and writers were perplexed for a replacement. I know it should be obvious to everyone else, but Broadway producers don’t think like you and I. So they threw a contest to decide a better verse.

Two weeks later, Slagle followed up with the big announcement of the new lyric:

So what did they decide to use? The winning lyric is: ”George Bush WAS only for now.”  Brilliant. I guess like “South Pacific” and “Bye-Bye Birdie,” some vintage musical theater is better when presented in the time frame that it was originally written. “Avenue Q” will now be forever remembered as a Bush-era production, although the impact has noticeably waned. ”We now know that although George Bush’s presidency was only for now,” show creator, Robert Lopez noted, ”the comic potential of ‘George Bush’ seems like it may last forever.”

Not so fast. This week, “Avenue Q” did something that Broadway shows rarely do.  They closed their production and re-located to an Off-Broadway house.  During the process of re-opening the show in a smaller venue, the writers took the time to really give some thought to the “George Bush WAS for now” lyric and they have finally found their perfect replacement.

It seems that the real purpose of this line is not to get a huge laugh.  No, it seems that the real purpose is to find the worst possible, evil, racist, homo-phobic, war-mongering, lying, right-wing boogie man and insert their name into the lyric to ridicule and diminish them.  Circa 2004 that person was President Bush. Today, the only person that fits that description is, well, not really a person at all.  You see, the writers of “Avenue Q” have apparently been paying very close attention to the White House’s latest full-court press against… the press!  The new lyric is:

“Fox News is only for now.”

I’m waiting for you to stop the hysterical laughter and applause at this brilliant, Sondheim-like lyric.

Fox News, the highest rated news outlet for over a decade.  Fox News, the network whose 3 AM show out-ranks CNN’s prime time fare.   Fox News is only “for now.” But “Avenue Q” is forever.  Uh, huh.  I expect that Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly will be reporting on the tenth anniversary of “Avenue Q”’s closing.

Let’s face it folks, after having to close its Tony Award-winning production on Broadway, revamping the financial structure of the show, begging the actors’ union to allow them to reduce the performers’ salaries (which the spineless union allowed) and moving to a theatre half the size of the tiny little Golden which housed the show for the last five years, I think it is clear that “Avenue Q” is only for now…. BARELY!

The play received quite positive reviews.  Here are some interesting things I read in the reviews…

In Elysa Gardner’s positive review in USA Today, she refers to the contrasting times in which the play is now produced versus the original production:

When David Mamet’s Oleanna premiered in 1992, it was widely perceived as a response to the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in which Thomas was accused of sexual harassment by former assistant Anita Hill.  It has been 18 years since that real-life drama played out. But as the very different controversy now surrounding David Letterman reminds us, the debate over what constitutes an abuse of power between a male authority figure and a female subordinate isn’t going away.

I find it interesting that the Hill/Thomas debate is compared to the Letterman story.  Was Clarence Thomas ever accused by Anita Hill of anything even remotely close to what Letterman has ADMITTED to?  I don’t think there is a debate about “what constitutes an abuse of power between a male authority figure and a female subordinate” with regard to Letterman, do you?  Does Letterman?  Does anyone?

Later, Gardner properly hits the nail on the head:

Mamet, after all, seems less interested in condemning women or men than exploring the complicated dynamics between them, made no simpler by such modern inventions as academic equality and political correctness.

Brava, Elysa.

Meanwhile, unlike Gardner, the NY Post’s Elisabeth Vincentelli doesn’t see ANY topical issues reflected in “Oleanna” and she uses the occasion of this play’s opening to put Mr. Mamet on the couch a la Sigmund Freud:

But watching the play 17 years later is like watching something made during the Red Scare of the ’50s. “Oleanna” speaks volumes not only about an era dominated by the shared paranoia of conservatives and lefty activists, but also about its creator’s id. And what surged from Mamet’s brain is the closest Broadway now has to a slasher movie.

In Ben Brantley’s all-powerful NY Times review, further mind reading of Mr. Mamet occurs: [emphasis added]

What’s so infernally ingenious about “Oleanna” is that as its characters vivisect what we have just witnessed, we become less and less sure of what we saw. Anyway, that’s what occurs in performance — or should.  Think about it afterward, or read the script, and you’ll realize that the sympathies of Mr. Mamet, a man’s man among playwrights, are definitely with John, however flawed he may be. It also becomes clear that Carol, as a character, is full of holes, most conspicuously in the way she uses words.

John Simon wisely avoids any direct criticism of Mr. Mamet (Mamet effectively castrated Simon in print last year thus rendering the critic incapable of objectively musing on the playwright’s talent), and he also differs with Ben Brantley’s suggestion that the play is skewered in the man’s direction:

The entire play is a clever enough piece of equivocation, allowing viewers to approve or reprehend either character according to their notions of feminism and sexism. The writing clearly and deliberately aims at provocation, at which it succeeds rather better than at credibility.

David Sheward in Backstage takes a different approach.  In honoring this production, he decides to slam the original, Mamet-directed version:

Under Mamet’s direction, Rebecca Pidgeon (the playwright’s wife) played the co-ed as a vacuous fool obviously manipulated by an offstage group of evil feminists into ruining the life of the nice-guy prof played by sweet, teddy-bearish W.H. Macy. Many saw the powerful one-act as a backlash against the excesses of political correctness and the women’s movement. In Doug Hughes’ reconsidered staging (now on Broadway after a run in Los Angeles), with a pair of powerhouse performances by Julia Stiles and Bill Pullman, the terms of combat are more equal and the outcome more ambiguous.

And over at Talkin’ Broadway, Matthew Murray is not a fan of this production at all, but unlike his counter-parts, he does not take this as an opportunity to personally slam, label or psycho-analyze the playwright.  On the contrary, he actually compliments him and the play:

The beautiful thing about Mamet’s incomparably incendiary play, however, is that it inspires fervent disagreement about which character represents what – stories of post-performance shouting matches and even fistfights have dogged the show for years.

But the prize for assault by play review has to go to David Rooney in Variety.  Here are a few choice quotes:

…Mamet stacks the deck too heavily in favor of the former to make the drama a fair contest — or to escape the charges of misogyny that have long dogged this play.

…Carol is possibly the most complex female role created by Mamet, a writer whose women are more often ciphers than believably fleshed-out characters.

…Hughes’ sleek production is psychologically needling and uncomfortable to watch in a way that surely honors Mamet’s intentions

…Designer Neil Patel amplifies the abrasive nature of the material

…But while Pullman makes John’s undoing a harrowing spectacle, the sheer acrimony of Mamet’s stance against Carol blunts the confrontation.

In case you’re having trouble reading the hidden message in Rooney’s review, let me help you out:  Mamet hates women. (He is a conservative, after all.)

More reviews are sure to trickle in as the week goes on, and If I find anything particularly obnoxious, I’ll bring them to your attention.  In the meantime, as the show is a limited engagement, do yourself a favor and see it if you are in New York.

“I took the liberal view for many decades, but I believe I have changed my mind.” – David Mamet

As I discussed in my very first post here at Big Hollywood, many in the theatre world were surprised to read David Mamet’s amazing article, “Why I am No Longer A Brain-Dead Liberal” in the Village Voice.  In my post, I used the play “Oleanna” as an example of a conservative lean that I recognized in Mamet’s work when it premiered off-Broadway in 1992.  I concluded with a couple of questions:

The real test will be when Mamet offers a new work for public consumption.  Will it be viewed through a new spectrum?  Will critics recognize Mamet’s un-deniable brilliance?  Or, will a hidden meaning be searched for in every scene and in every rapid-fire dialogue sequence?

It turns out we won’t have to wait long for an answer.  Our current Broadway season will feature two major productions from Mr. Mamet, and both deal with the most controversial political issues of our time:  Race and Gender.

This week, the Mark Taper Forum’s revival of the aforementioned “Oleanna” will open on Broadway.  ”Oleanna” was universally hailed when presented in the wake of the Clarence Thomas hearings.  Many of the critics praised Mamet for being so even-handed in its presentation that it was hard for people to really know if the accused man was truly guilty of sexual harassment.  Now that Mamet has “outed” himself, will they still see “Oleanna” and Mamet as “even-handed?”

Later this winter will see the opening of the brilliantly and economically titled:  ”Race” directed by Mamet, himself.  Precious few details have been leaked about the plot other than a quick description in Mr. Mamet’s recent, must-read NY Times op-ed:

In my play a firm made up of three lawyers, two black and one white, is offered the chance to defend a white man charged with a crime against a black young woman. It is a play about lies.

How will “Race” be received in the Era of Obama with the knowledge that Mamet is no longer a “brain-dead liberal”?

I plan to use my space here at Big Hollywood to let you know.  I will be providing a run-down of the critics’ reactions to these plays and any direct, personal attacks on Mr. Mamet and/or his politics.

In the true tradition of Broadway, I can provide you a “preview.” The Atlantic Theatre Company just opened two Mamet one-acts under the single title:  “Two Unrelated Plays” by David Mamet.   There is a very useful website called “Critic-O-Meter” which compiles all of the reviews for plays that open in New York.  I use the site often as a resource.  The proprietors of the site provide a quick synopsis of the reviews before linking to each, individual one.  In its synopsis of the Mamet one-acts, the site provided this helpful information:

Despite writing some bona-fide classics, David Mamet hasn’t written a good play since The Cryptogram, devoting most of his time to creating a third-rate 24, excoriating Jews who aren’t into ethnic cleansing as self-hating and– in his essays in the Times and the Voice– doing his borscht-belt imitation of Ann Coulter’s schtick. Ah well, he has a banner season ahead of him anyway, including a revival of Oleanna (the first step in his artistic downfall) and a new play called Race, both of which open on Broadway this season.

Mr. Mamet:  Welcome to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

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.

The latest NEA controversy broken here at Big Hollywood by Patrick Courrielche has become a fascinating Rorschach test within the theatre community.  The response has been disappointing yet predictable from the left-leaning proponents of the NEA and this administration.

Robert Mapplethorpe

To fully expose the inconsistencies and intellectually dishonest positions they have taken in their knee-jerk defense of everything Obama, we first need a little background for the Big Hollywood readers who might not remember all of the details in the recent history of controversies with regard to NEA funding in the theatre community.

NEA Primer: Now I don’t pretend to suggest that the following breakdown of the NEA struggles dating back to 1990 is a definitive or even thorough explanation of the recent history of left vs. right combat over the NEA.  I encourage all of my readers to research and read about this issue.  And, I especially want them to read the perspective of liberals/progressives/leftists who were in the middle of the struggle on the other side.  It is informative and enlightening to read how they really feel about the subject.

That being said, the following synopsis of the NEA fights from twenty years ago is meant to be a short-hand account of the debate from the perspective of the right… from “Stage Right,” if you will:

The NEA was created in 1965 as an independent agency of the Federal Government  for the purpose of funding  artistic endeavors to enrich the cultural fabric of our society.

Not coincidentally, many of the most influential non-profit theatres in America date their creation back to years between 1966 and 1979.  The new influx of federal grants as well as many state and local granting agencies that followed the Fed’s lead helped in the creation of these new theatre groups

In the early 1990’s, after 25 years of relatively unfettered growth and autonomous operation it was discovered that recent grants were given to individual artists whose artistic output included projects that are objectively seen as offensive, if not profane.  These projects include the infamous “Piss Christ” by Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe’s photographic self-portrait showing a bullwhip shoved in his anus.  The famous “NEA Four,” a group of performance artists including Karen Finley, were denied an NEA grant despite the fact that they had been approved by a peer panel.   Finley’s performance art involved her smearing feces-symbolic chocolate on her nude body while singing.

Conservatives (not just Republicans) led by Senator Jesse Helms objected to a government agency funding artists who were creating these objectionable pieces of art and they attempted to call into question the NEA’s granting criteria.  Liberals cried foul and suggested that any governmental interference or oversight with regard to the content of the art created by NEA grantees is tantamount to an infringement on the first amendment.

Most conservatives heard this argument and wholeheartedly agreed.  Their solution:  Get the government out of the business of financing artistic endeavors all together.  The rationale was that if the government can’t have any input into the art that they are financing then they should not be financing it.  Otherwise, the American taxpayer can’t be guaranteed that they are actual getting what they pay for.  You see, if an agency is created to fund an artist to create work that will enrich the cultural fabric of our nation, and then the actual art does not enrich but actually degrades the fabric of our culture and offends a vast majority of our citizens, then the money is not being used in the way it was intended.  When congress dispenses federal funds, it is their responsibility to ensure that the funds are used for the purposes they were intended.  Otherwise, if the congress can’t question the proper use of the funds, then we have created an agency that is immune from any kind of governmental oversight and therefore should not continue to exist.

That reasonable and logical argument was met with howls from the left screaming about the right wanting to cut off funding to all of those theatres… those employers of writers, actors, directors and techies all living off of their non-profit theatre jobs.  It was at this point that a huge shift occurred in the theatre community, painting very stark lines between conservatives and liberals.  Up to this point, as a conservative, I was tolerated and sometimes even engaged in friendly debate at my workplace or at cocktail parties.  Not anymore.  Conservatives became the enemy.  They wanted to take food off of the table of my co-workers by cutting off funding for the arts.  And if I argued on their behalf, I was the enemy too.

Eventually, a compromise was reached.  The NEA would no longer fund individual artists but would continue funding institutions.  The institutions, in turn, would use the grants for administrative purposes, so they were not necessarily tied to a specific product that could be seen as objectionable.  Even after the GOP had control of both houses of Congress and the presidency, no realistic attempt was made to shut down the NEA.  (In 1996, with President Clinton in the White House and a GOP congress, the NEA budget was slashed to just under $100 million from its high of $160 million.  It grew back to $140 million under President George W. Bush (that Nazi) and it is now up to $155 million for FY 2009).

But, the lines had been drawn by the left as a result of this episode.  If you were a conservative you had to fall into one of two camps:

1. You were a censor infringing on the rights of artists and trying to control their speech.  You were worse than the Popes who dared to dictate what Michelangelo could paint at the Vatican with church funds.  The Hubris!  You freaking fascist!
2. You were a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who saw no use for the arts in our society.  Only wanted the Federal government to fund bombs and the military industrial complex but only wanted art to exist in the context of a free market and therefore you were actively trying to shut down all of the non-profit theatres that were only surviving due to the NEA grants they were receiving.

(OK, I might be exaggerating, but the caricatures are not far from the truth.)

This day makes me pissed off.

And I’m not just pissed at the terrorists.  I’m pissed at the panty-waist theatre community I am a member of.

Case in point:  ”One of the first plays about Muslim life in the United States debuts in a time and place fraught with symbolism: Sept. 11th, in New York City.”

The two-act play which the playwright likens to a Muslim-American “Death of a Salesman” opens tonight at the Nuyorkian Poets Cafe, about 2 miles from ground zero.

I have a thought:  Could we maybe have one or two plays written about our heroic soldiers or the brave first-responders, or a human drama about the devestation the families of victims of 9/11 have had to endure BEFORE we have a play about the struggles of Muslim life in the United States?

The play is called “The Domestic Crusaders” and its web page describes the play in this way:

With a background of 9-11 and the scapegoating of Muslim Americans, the tensions and sparks fly among the three generations, culminating in an intense family battle as each “crusader” struggles to assert and impose their respective voices and opinions, while still attempting to maintain and understand that unifying thread that makes them part of the same family.

According to the MSNBC article, playwright Wajahat Ali was heavily influenced by the 9/11 attacks:

When the World Trade Center towers fell, Ali was the head of the Muslim Student Association at the University of California, Berkeley. As the son of a Pakistani immigrant family who “never hid my Muslim identity,” Ali says the tragedy came to define his college years.

He devoted 70-80 percent of his time to activism — organizing Jumaa prayers outdoors on campus, distributing flyers, inviting students to discussion panels — in a relentless effort to fight what he considered misinformation about Islam.

Apparently, Ali has had trouble getting his play produced.  The reason?

“I think it was because the hysteria, the fear, that kind of represented the voice of the Bush administration were still lingering,” Ali says. “Even Dixie Chicks, the whitest women in America, who loved Jesus and the Apocalypse, were branded as traitors…. here I am, with a multi-syllabic Arabic name. I am sure people freaked out.”

But now Ali’s play will premiere tonight, on 9/11, in New York City.  Ali says: “Right now, it’s 2009. It’s kind of a different atmosphere.”

Yeah, it sure is.  And that’s another reason why I’m pissed off.

I bet that headline got your attention!  But, as you’ll see a little later in this post, the scene in question is not really a “rape” at all.  But that didn’t keep the NY Daily News from running this headline yesterday:

‘Bye Bye Birdie’ revival on Broadway drops scene for ‘gang rape’ concern

“Just a copy editor trying to get attention by over-exaggerating a story,” you think?  That’s what I thought, too.  But here is the story with Gina Gershon’s quote:

According to Gina Gershon, who stars as Rose in the upcoming revival, the production has said bye bye to a frisky dance sequence that has been in the show since its debut in 1960.  In the scene, Rose, originated on stage by Chita Rivera and on film by Janet Leigh, crashes a Shriners banquet, flirts and cavorts on, around and underneath a table with the fez-heads.  As written, it’s a funny dance showcase. So why is it too hot to handle in 2009? Gershon told The News’ theater critic Joe Dziemianowicz, “It seemed a little too gang rape-y.”

The Daily News takes the words right out of my mouth when it says:

That should come as interesting news to countless high schools, parochial academies and theater camps where this number has been performed for nearly 50 years.

Before I give you my guess as to what is really going on here, I will let you judge for yourself.  Here is Chita Rivera performing Gower Champion’s original Broadway choreography:

It’s not my favorite scene from a 60’s musical, but I don’t think it could be objectively described as a “Gang Rape”… unless you mean that the character of Rose is raping the gang of Shriners!!!

So, what is this REALLY all about?  Here is my hunch:

Whenever a Hollywood star is cast to do a Broadway musical, the first question everyone asks is:  ”Can he/she sing?”  In the cases of Glenn Close and Hugh Jackman, the answer was “YES!”  In the case of Faye Dunaway, the answer was “Oh God, NO!”

But, in the case of Rose in “Bye, Bye Birdie,” the relevant question is not whether Gershon can sing, because Rose’s songs are not very challenging… no, what defines the role of Rose is following in the footsteps of Chita Rivera and living up to the distant memory of her dancing.  Rivera is a Broadway legend who enjoys a reputation of holding an audience captivated with her body and how she moved it.  So, the big question in relation to Gershon being announced as Rose in this revival was not “Can she sing?”; it was “Can she dance?”

Now, I try my best not to be too snarky or catty in my posts.  And I’ve already noted this revival as something I am personally looking forward to…  but, based on this little kerfuffle over cutting this dance sequence and the really lame excuse (”gang rape-y”?  come on!), I think it is fair to say that the answer is, “No, she can’t dance.. at least not well enough to hold the stage for a dance sequence like this.”

As we’ve all seen on “Dancing With the Stars,” if you are paired with a great dancer, you can learn enough and practice enough to be a good enough partner to look like you can dance.  But when you are alone on stage dancing without a partner as Rose is in this number… well, that is something you can’t fake.  And to me, this sounds like a good director and a good choreographer protecting their star and coming up with a press agent’s excuse for cutting a number.

Further evidence of this?  The show is set to begin previews on September 15.  This means the show has been in rehearsal for a couple of weeks.  If the producers and director of this show wanted to cut this number for the reason they are stating now, the decision would have been made a while ago.  You have to believe that they tried it out, and it wasn’t working.  (Unless you believe that they only now have realized that the scene is “Gang Rape-y” after spending the time creating the scene, rehearsing the scene, costuming the scene… etc…)

By the way, revivals have recently been subject to political correct revisions.  The most common is the song “I’m an Indian Too” being excised from Irving Berlin’s “Annie Get Your Gun.”  The Native American community (how PC am I???) have found these lyrics from the 1946 play offensive:

Like the Chippewa,
Iroquois,
Omaha…
Like those Indians
I’m an Indian too
A Sioux
A Sioux

Just like Rising Moon
Falling Pants
Running Nose
Like those Indians
I’m an Indian too
A Sioux
A Sioux

Some Indian drummers they’re without a care
I may run away
With Big Chief Sun-of-A-Bear

And I’ll have totem poles
Tomahawk
Small papoose
Which will go to prove
I’m an Indian too
A sioux
A sioux
A sioux
Oh, I’m an indian
I’m an Indian
I’m an honest Injun Indian

I’m an Indian, too.

What has always bugged me about this song being removed is the CONTEXT of the song in the show (context still means SOMETHING, doesn’t it?).  Annie sings it right after Chief Sitting Bull adopts her into the Sioux tribe.  She is honored, proud and happy to be adopted.

Here is rare footage of Mary Martin in the original 1946 production:

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Now, obviously this scene is not meant as a historically accurate depiction of a traditional Sioux ceremony, but is it mean-spirited, insulting, derisive?  Not in my politically incorrect opinion.

So, I guess I’m saying…  Gina, if you can dance it, BRING ON THE GANG RAPE SCENE!

Stage Right is on Facebook.

Just as last season brought a record number of plays as well as stellar gross sales (despite doom-sayers in the industry) this season already looks locked and loaded with a huge number of shows scheduled to open between October 1st and the first week of May (the traditional Tony nomination cut-off).  So to help the readers of Big Hollywood plan their trip to the Great White Way (we can still say that, can’t we?), I submit the top 10 things to look for from the center/right perspective:

10.  ”Superior Donuts” – A transfer from Chicago’s Steppenwolf Theatre (one of my personal favorite regional houses in America), the play stars “Spinal Tap”’s Michael McKean as an aging hippie who owns a donut shop in a largely black neighborhood and Jon Michael Hill (do all young Broadway actors HAVE to go by three names now?) as a 21-year-old from the neighborhood who talks his way into a job at the shop.  From the New York Times review:  ”In one of the play’s most amusing exchanges Franco challenges Arthur to name 10 black poets. Arthur names a few, then stands dumb, a look of deep concentration on his face. “It’s like watching George Bush on ‘Jeopardy!’ ” Franco cracks.”

9.  ”Hamlet” – Uber-UN activist Jude Law stars as the Danish prince in a Broadway transfer from London’s famed Donmar Warehouse theatre company.  His performance was almost universally praised by Fleet Street’s snarky critics.  This production has Hamlet delivering his “To be, or not to be” soliloquy in an on-stage snowfall.

8.  ”Bye, Bye, Birdie” – One of the first musicals to embrace pop music with a back-beat, “Bye, Bye, Birdie” will receive a revival at New York’s Roundabout Theatre Company.  It will star Gina Gershon, Dee Hoty, Bill Irwin and (wait for it….) John Stamos.  All I can say is this production has the potential to be fantastic, or to be a complete disaster… don’t expect anything in between.

7.  ”The Neil Simon Plays:  Brighton Beach Memoirs & Broadway Bound” – Revivals of two of the three plays which made up the Neil Simon “BB” trilogy will play in repertory this Fall (I’m guessing the middle play, “Biloxi Blues,” is omitted because Brighton Beach and Broadway Bound share the exact same set which is the Brighton Beach home of Simon’s alter-ego, Eugene, so it is much easier to play them in Rep.  Biloxi takes place in an Army barracks as it follow Eugene through basic training).  The revivals will star Laurie Metcalf.

6.  ”In the Next Room (or the Vibrator Play)” – After having its world premiere at Berkley Rep., this play is transferring to Broadway via Lincoln Center Theatre.  The New York Times describes the play as:  “A fanciful but compassionate consideration of the treatment, and the mistreatment, of women in the late 19th century” and the show’s website calls it “a comedy about marriage, intimacy and electricity.” Hmmm…  In the words of Forrest Gump:  ”And that’s all I have to say about that.”

5.  ”Race” – World Premiere of David Mamet’s newest play starring James Spader, Kerry Washington and Richard Thomas.  When asked about details of the plot, producer Jefferey Richards said:  ”The title speaks for itself.”  Mamet, Spader and a play called “Race.”  Seriously, ENOUGH SAID!

4.  ”A Steady Rain” – Starring Daniel Craig and Hugh Jackman, this play is one of the most anticipated of the Fall.  A press report describes the Chicago premiere as: “A Steady Rain chronicles love and rage on the streets of Chicago as a domestic disturbance call sends two Chicago cops, friends since childhood, on a harrowing journey that will test their loyalties and change their lives forever.” But, as the NY Post succinctly said: “Daniel Craig and Hugh Jackman in police uniforms? All the boys will be there!”

3.  ”The Addams Family” – A musical adaptation of the famous, macabre characters starring Nathan Lane and Bebe Neuwerth.  I am both embarrassed and proud that I am SO looking forward to this show!

2.  ”The Royal Family“  – George S. Kaufman and Edna Ferber’s famous parody of the Barrymore family, this revival will star Rosemary Harris, Stephen Collins, John Glover, Tony Roberts, Jan Maxwell, Ana Gasteyer and Reg Rogers.  Its view of celebrity and privilege in the tunnel-vision perspective of an actor’s life resonates just as perfectly today as it did in 1927.  Really looking forward to see this cast play those characters (especially since I went to school with one of them!).

1.  ”Oleanna” – The Broadway premiere of Mamet’s 1992 Pulitzer-Prize winning play (it appeared off-Broadway at that time making this production it’s Broadway premiere).  When originally produced, this play was a compelling, challenging and electrifying reflection of the ground-breaking Clarence Thomas hearing that had split the nation the year before.  The 1992 production starring William H. Macy and Rebecca Pidgeon was universally praised for its thought-provoking approach to the issue of sexual harassment and the use of rhetoric as a weapon in politically correct America.  None other than Frank Rich gave it one of his strongest endorsements as theatre critic of the New York Times.  But, a funny thing happened between 1992 and today, David Mamet famously proclaimed himself “No longer a brain-dead liberal.”  Will this breach of liberal dogma and orthodoxy in any way affect the theatre community’s once universal praise of “Oleanna”?  I know I will be looking very closely at how it is received by the critics as well as industry insiders.  This new revival premiered in Los Angeles at the Mark Taper Forum starring Bill Pullman and Julia Stiles.

Stage Right is on Facebook.

“Reagan” is a one-man play that doesn’t portray the 40th president as a fascist. It’s by Lionel Chetwynd, whose scripts for television and film include “The Hanoi Hilton,” “Color of Justice,” “Kissinger and Nixon” and “DC 9/11: Time of Crisis.” ….  Chetwynd declined to comment on “Reagan,” except to say with a laugh, “It will change lives and the course of history.” A copy of an early script portrays Reagan as thoughtful, determined, sly (when necessary) and winning. Talking to the audience from the main room of his California ranch, Reagan explains his journey from FDR Democrat to conservative Republican. Along the way, he offers a spirited defense of conservative principles. At least three top directors have passed on the play because, says a source, “They can’t stand Ronald Reagan.”

The other play cited is “Girls in Trouble (Formerly Three Abortions)” by Jonathan Reynolds.

In “Girls in Trouble,” Reynolds presents a balanced view of pro-lifers while taking some swipes at the NPR crowd. The play ends with a harrowing confrontation between two women — one pro-life, the other pro-choice — that’s not for the squeamish. “Thus far, its claim to fame is that it’s been turned down by all the theaters in New York,” Reynolds says of his play. “It was commissioned by the Long Wharf, but they wouldn’t put it on. There was a theater in the suburbs of Washington, DC, that said they wanted to present the ‘other side’ of the abortion debate. But when they read it, they said it would “infuriate our audience.” Oskar Eustis, the head of the Public Theater, told Reynolds that his staff “didn’t go for it,” but that he would take a look at it himself.

Forgive me for not jumping up and doing a victory dance quite yet… It has always seemed a no-brainer to me that a positive telling of the Ronald Reagan story would be a hugely popular hit.  Not only is his story compelling, inspiring and quintessentially American, but he was and continues to be incredibly popular.  The drama contained within the pages of Peggy Noonan’s “When Character Was King” screams for a stage adaptation.  I hope Chetwynd’s work does Duke justice… the fact that many directors have turned down the piece is a sign that it does.

But, to me the real story in this article is less about the plays that are being shopped as it is a story about the doors that are shut to plays that have this kind of content.  My favorite passage is Oskar Eustis at the fledgling Public Theater.  The staff of the Public “didn’t go for it.”  Hm.  The staff of the Public has succeeded in running the once thriving non-profit to the brink of bankruptcy in recent years.  Maybe we, the theatre-going public don’t go for your staff, Mr. Eustis.  And what a weak-kneed response, too.  Can anyone imagine the original founder of The Public Theater… that titan of New York non-profit theatre Joe Papp, saying that his organization would not produce a play because “his staff didn’t go for it”?  No, Papp would be a man and take the responsibility himself.

I think it would be instructive to take a look at what Eustis’ staff DID “go for” in the 2008 and 2009 seasons.  Perusing their website you will see that these seasons’ plays are chuck full of diversity.  You can’t GET any more diverse than the Public Theater right now.  Black, White, Native American, straight, gay, male, female, Latino, Asian… diversity, thy name is Eustis.  So, what is missing?  How about diversity of THOUGHT AND OPINION?

The diversity that is being celebrated at the Public Theater is the laziest kind of diversity.  Diversity of appearance.  Big deal.  It’s like Eustis is at a dinner party and he makes himself feel good by saying “Some of my best plays are black.”  I thought the over-educated, uber-intellectual, non-profit theatre staffs were a little more interested in being challenged with new ideas.  I thought they are in favor of “speaking truth to power.”  I thought maybe the staffs at non-profit theatres, fresh from Yale Drama School and NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts, were originally drawn to the non-profit theatre world so through their art they could give voice to the voiceless and speak for those who do not have an outlet to speak for themselves.  Instead, Mr. Eustis’ staff give us “Why Torture is Wrong, and the People Who Love Them” and “The Good Negro.”  Yes staff, those plays will truly be intellectually challenging to your well-educated, upper-class, liberal, New York audience.  Truth to power, my brothers and sisters!  Pat yourselves on the backs; you should be so proud.

Is it cool that there are a couple of playwrights getting attention for shopping conservative-themed plays in New York?  Yes.  Is it really cool that the New York Post wrote an article which pretty much ridicules the New York intelligencia for not having enough room in their club for even one play every few years that doesn’t preach to the secular choir?  Yes.  Is it enough that these plays have been written and are talked about even if they never get produced?  Hell no.  Let’s not let this story end here.  Apply the pressure to Mr. Eustis and his staff now.  If there is room in the budget for “Tales of an Urban Indian” then there should be room for a positive play about Reagan or a play which dares to suggest that maybe abortion is wrong.

Somewhere, out in the wilderness, on the pages of Big Hollywood, there was a lone voice of reason.  A pragmatic and practical man laying out the facts for you, the ever-interested and conservative reader.  That man, one Stage Right, was shrewd enough to label the producers as “panty-waste industry folk” and explained that their propensity to panic and pull the emergency brake is partly attributed to their liberal tendencies.

Your average liberal hears a statistic like “46 million without health insurance” and they pull the panic cord.  The next logical step, rather than looking at WHY those people don’t have insurance, is to force a mediocre, government planned health care bureaucracy down everyone’s throat (even the 260 million of us who DO have insurance) because it is a CRISIS!

In my post in January, I calmly showed the schedule of future bookings planned in the run up to the Tony Awards and I pointed out that nearly every house would be occupied by the end of the season.  Furthermore, I pointed out that you don’t judge the health of the theatre industry based on the shows that are closing, you judge it based on the planned shows in the future.  And based on that criteria, the 2008-2009 season was looking to be one of the best.

Now, Variety has come around to vindicate your favorite commercial theatre blogger:

During the 2008-09 season, productions logged a cumulative sales tally of $943.3 million, breaking the record held by the 2006-07 season — and managing to do so during the most unsettling fiscal downturn in decades.  Restaurants may be closing, European vacations are being cancelled, alimony payments may be late, and prestigious private schools are losing students. But for various reasons, folks are still turning out for theater.  After a turbulent fall and a particularly worrying winter that saw the shuttering of more than a dozen shows, the season snowballed to 43 new productions, the highest count for a single season since 50 shows launched in 1982-83. (Thirty-six shows opened during the 2007-08 season.)

As I pointed out, Broadway is populated by a bunch of victim-mentality whiners who love to see themselves as the ugly step-cousin of the beautiful and rich Hollywood Industry.  Many of the folks who tend to find themselves working in theatre as a career are often the types who wallow in self-pity and who don’t see the glass as half-full… they see the glass as being way too big in the first place!

I have longed for a time when our industry stopped seeing itself as something that required subsidies and our art as something that is entertaining and wonderful rather than some sort of medicine that your are SUPPOSED to like.  Theatre remains mysterious and inaccessible because many of the folks who run the show like it that way… it makes them feel intelligent, different and special.

Luckily, there are still some grown-ups in the room.  The Variety article ends with a quote from Philip Smith, Chairman of the Shubert Organization.  Smith is a pro’s pro who has literally seen it all.  The coda from Mr. Smith:

“Things look no different than they have in the past,” says Philip J. Smith, co-topper of Broadway landlord the Shubert Org. “Of course, when winter sets in, it may dry up, but right now I don’t see how it could happen.”

Than you, Mr. Smith.  It’s true everyone, the sky is NOT falling.  Come to Broadway and see a show!

Stage Right is on Facebook.