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 reason a person is a conservative republican is because something is wrong with them. Again, that’s science – that’s neuroscience. You cannot be well adjusted, open-minded, pluralistic, enlightened and be a republican. It’s counter-intuitive. And they revel in their anti-intellectualism. They revel in their cruelty.”

Tolerance.

And then she says this about Sarah Palin: “Of course she’s successful with a segment of the country because she represents that lesser segment of the country.”

Wow.  Those are fighting words, you ugly little soul.  No, that’s mean, and I don’t want to act like you just for the easy laughs.  At least not here, in the ‘24′ blog!   Please feel free to deeply insult many of my friends and family on the way to declaring yourself an arrogant, intolerant nut.

Meanwhile, we’re going to watch ‘24′ in the hopes that you are the mole.  And maybe make fun of you.

See you in the comments!

The exec informed me that religious imagery didn’t sell to American audiences, that it was intolerant and it definitely didn’t export. This was before ‘The Passion of the Christ’ so I can forgive his ignorance of the world’s most popular religion, but it was the word intolerant that struck me. How was the inclusion of religion not tolerant while the removal of it was?

This is my baptism into the myopic view of religion by most of my friends in Hollywood. For being multicultural, the lack of humility regarding a religion they didn’t know or understand is…is…well, these days it’s typical.

Since that time when terms like tolerance or intolerance came up, I got all cringey. They don’t know what these words mean and have a funny way of showing it if they do. Given I’ve had to sit through the standard mandatory Sensitivity Training at every major studio, I’d like to return the favor by offering Tolerance Training. Only my seminar isn’t hosted by a condescending feminist lawyer from the Big Apple, so the threat level in the room has already gone down to yellow, maybe even blue.

Just to mix things up so we can get to know each other, let’s play a drinking game! Drink a slug of Old No. 7 for every Hollywood friend on Facebook who belongs to a “Stop Prop H8te” group. There’s no winner of this game but when half of my friends are this naive I prefer to Facebook under the influence.

It’s not hateful or intolerant to vote that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. Tolerant isn’t a position, it’s how you treat people who hold positions you hate. 

It also isn’t tolerant to believe that all ideas have equal merit. This is an irrational position I’m embarrassed to even bring up. But there are those who have claimed that if I judge a position as bad that I’m being intolerant. Can we agree that eating cute kittens alive for the fun of it doesn’t have as much merit as cuddling them? But to say that all ideas have equal merit is self-refuting because I could propose this idea “all ideas have unequal merit” and you couldn’t judge the statement as false if the first idea were true.

I hope some of you disagree with this post. Because this will be a perfect opportunity to practice true tolerance. The act of treating a political opponent with dignity and value used to be considered a high art form in debate. You can tell a lot about a person who treats someone with dignity and value whom they deeply disagree with.

We can’t practice tolerance with people we agree with so you get no credit exercising your mustard-seed amount of tolerance on your own camp. In fact, the more we disagree with each other the more tolerance must be exercised.

It’s kind of like when Uncle Jerk gets drunk at Thanksgiving and starts telling vagina jokes in front of the kids. We love him, we tolerate him, and we try to trick him into playing XBox upstairs so the rest of us can eat before hearing the punch-line that’s going to keep us from eating cranberry sauce ever again. The more you and I disagree, the more we have to practice robust, artful tolerance. To get really good at it you actually need some people who hold positions you don’t like. Start with a few conservatives, Sarah Palin, the Boy Scouts or Uncle Jerk.

All people are created equal, but all ideas are not. People should be tolerated, but ideas ought to be judged, weighed and accepted or rejected. We treat each other with civility because we are all creatures made in the image of God. But our ideas are not made in the image of God, so there are philosophical grounds to disrespect some ideas. Which is why I can be tolerant and still call your ideas of Global Warming a complete fraud.