Broadway Rejects Conservative Plays

The New York Post ran a story this weekend with a very encouraging headline: RIGHT TURN ON B’WAY? Michael Riedel’s article revolves around two new plays that are being shopped around for a home. One is a one-man play about Ronald Reagan.

“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.