Interregnum 2012-2013 - Blog of the Time Between - But Not For Love

The theater community really stepped up in helping to the defeat the marriage amendment on the Minnesota ballot in the November 2012 election. The Flower Shop Project and Workhouse Theatre joining forces to co-produce my play about gay marriage, "But Not For Love," the month before the election was but a small part, but a contribution to the dialogue around the issue that we were happy and proud to make...

10/17/12 - Minnesota Marriage Amendment: Voting no is the least we can do
Twin Cities Daily Planet version

10/5/12 - Is your theater not gay enough? Theater for a month before Election Day
Twin Cities Daily Planet version

Is Your Theater Not Gay Enough? - Theater For a Month Before Election Day

If you just want to see the list of theater offerings you should consider seeing the rest of this week and in the weeks to come, skip down to the line of asterisks.  If you want to know the reasons behind my suggestions, read on...

It's strange how sanguine I'm feeling about the whole marriage amendment nonsense.  Not confident, not by any means.  Just ready.  There's going to be a vote.  It's coming. What are we doing in the meantime?

Part of the reason, of course, is that gay marriage is already illegal and unrecognized in Minnesota so… it's not like if we manage to vote the amendment down, gay marriage will suddenly become legal, or we'll recognize the gay marriages from other states.  We already have laws on the books.  They won't change.  There will still be 515-plus laws in Minnesota that treat gay and lesbian couples and their families different from other families.  There will still be over 1,100 laws and benefits that married couples have access to from the federal government that will be out of reach of lesbian and gay people in committed relationships. 

If the amendment passes, we get all this ridiculata inscribed in the state constitution, which will of course make it harder to undo, which is the point.  Laws can be overturned by courts or the legislature.  To undo an amendment to the constitution, we'd need to do this whole thing again in the opposite direction.  I need to do more research because some people have even told me there would be a waiting period to hold a vote to remove the amendment, if such a campaign were launched.  Someone also told me the vote to undo would need to clear a higher threshold than 51 percent of the vote.  (Feel free to correct me, I'd love those two data points to be wrong.)  Whatever way you look at it, the whole thing just calcifies if we put it in the state constitution, whether for a little or a long while.

Polls show the whole thing is really close, the people evenly split.  Tensions run high, opposing opinions are bandied about in public with regularity, from letters to the editor to blogs to lawn signs.

Theater probably needs to take the credit (or blame) for me not freaking out more.  Currently I have things I can do.  I scripted a touring production for Project 515 that traveled around the state this spring, trying to put a human face on the issue of those 515 Minnesota laws.  Right now, we're in the home stretch of rehearsals of my play But Not For Love, which The Flower Shop Project and Workhouse Theatre teamed up to co-produce.  There's characters in this play on both sides of the issue and they do battle it out, but at least everyone is talking to one another.  There's a double wedding and the possibility of a third romance blossoming.  Laughter and a happy ending.  My mom's even flying in for the second weekend to see the show.  Director Richard Jackson and our cast are so committed to telling this story, to digging into every little word of the text and mining out new information on the characters and plot that it's breathtaking to watch sometimes.

But there's so much theater going on right now dealing with this subject, I feel incredibly blessed to be in the middle of it all.

Unfortunately I've already missed Freshwater Theater's compendium of short works around the subject, Better (or) Worse, which was on stage last month.

But coming right up there are all kinds of offerings.  Just follow the links...

*************************************************************************

I've missed the opening performance of the latest offering from Thirst Theater, the No Round, but there are two more chances - Monday, October 8 and 15.

Tomorrow, Wednesday, October 3rd, there's the Amend This cabaret coordinated by Box Wine Theatre at the Southern Theater.  There's a little bit of comedy scripted by me that Box Wine co-founder and executive director Adam Sharp is performing alongside Kyler Chase, directed by co-founder and artistic director Bethany Simmons (phew, my little sketch is in very good hands).  In addition there's work on tap from, among others, Bedlam Theatre, Silver Slipper Productions, Table Salt Productions, improv duo Ferrari McSpeedy, comedian Ben San Del and storyteller Phillip Andrew Bennet Low.  Tickets here.

Also tomorrow (10/3), John Munger and Third Rabbit Dance offers another edition of their monthly dance showcase The Rabbit Show at the Bryant Lake Bowl.  This month, women dancing with women, and men dancing with men in "Same Sex Duets."

Also continuing its run tomorrow (10/3) is Theatre Unbound's The Good Fight, a world premiere production of Anne Bertram's latest play, about suffragettes who learn jujitsu in order to defend themselves in the fight for the right to vote.  That plays at the Lowry Lab through October 14th. 

Related on the subject of voting - Appomattox at the Guthrie, spending Act One at the end of the Civil War in 1865, Act Two in the thick of the voting rights fight in 1965.  Harry Groener in particular kicks butt as both Lincoln and LBJ, and Shawn Hamilton is positively spooky as Martin Luther King, Jr.  Considering all the voter ID aka voter suppression aka "voter fraud" nonsense also going on this political season, recommended viewing.

Fringe favorites Shanan Custer and Carolyn Pool of 2 Sugars Room for Cream fame are offering their talents to a fundraiser at the Ritz on Thursday, October 4th - 10 Reasons To Go, 1 Reason To Give.  (And 2 Sugars runs again from October 11 to November 11 in New Century Theater in the Hennepin Theatre District in downtown Minneapolis.)

Next week, October 6 and 7, Bedlam Theatre is offering Making Amends - some theater and some useful information if you want to get out there and do something in the weeks that remain.

The Illusion Theater is offering their own compendium of marriage-related shorts called Love and Marriage, running October 10 to October 27.

Then my own play But Not For Love hits the stage at the Warren, Workhouse Theatre's home base, from October 12 to 28.

BOOM! Theater also weighs in on the subject with Gemma Irish's new play Engaged, at the Cedar Riverside People's Center, October 19 to 27.

And to throw a little more politic theater on the pile, there's also Gadfly Theatre's production of Mitzi's Abortion: A Saint's Guide to Late Term Politics and Medicine in America (following The Good Fight's run) at the Lowry Lab, October 19 to 28.

Is it any wonder I'm not pulling my hair out, fretting as I wait for November 6th to arrive?  There's too much to do.  So much to see.

And each offering is like a steady drum beat saying, "Vote, Vote, Vote, Vote, Vote…"

There's also something else I'm hearing, "You are not alone."

Which is a nice thing to feel in an uncertain time.

See some theater.  Lend what aid you can to a good cause.  Talk to your friends and family.  Get out there and vote.

And thanks, my extended theater family, for being as invested in this issue as you are.

Regardless of the outcome, the support is appreciated.

(Photo by Mark Webb, Workhouse Theatre - left to right, Paul Rutledge, Jen Rand, Erica Fields, Jeremiah Stich, Foster Johns)

Gay Marriage Play Update - Sides for Auditions

In advance of auditions next week, the director has chosen sides from the script as the scenes we will use for the readings.  The theater asked me to post the sides online, and thanks to my hand website as a web repository of bits and pieces of my work, most of them were already live in one form or other.  I've posted two new additions which were selected, so here are some handy links.

The monologues being used can be found here.

A monologue for the Duchess, a minister without a church trying to get in the frame of mind to perform the wedding ceremony

"I don’t blame my congregation. It’s not easy to understand why I did what I did. What I had to do."

A monologue for Duke, a policeman trying to make sense of his assignment today, and life as a widower

"We didn’t use to have to protect churches. Not from the faithful, not from anyone."

A monologue for Jacob, younger brother of gay groom Patrick rallying the protesters outside the church

"The building in front of us is not a church. Not today. God is not dwelling in that building today. God is out here. With us."

The scenes being used can be found here.

A scene for the two couples as they head off to prepare for the wedding

“There’s not an ounce of romance in any one of you, is there?”

A scene for the brother-sister team of Ephram and Eleanor getting all dressed up

“It’s just -- the way things are going, I keep waiting for the midgets or a dancing bear to show up.”

A scene for wedding couple Eleanor and Roland in the aftermath of a church window being smashed with a rock, and Roland learning Eleanor has a non-traditional wedding dress (discussed in the previous scene with brother Ephram)

" -- just you, walking down the center aisle of a church, toward me -- looking like you were getting married, to me. Does that make any sense at all?"

A scene for wedding couple Ephram and Patrick in the aftermath of the rock, charting the course from their first date to a wedding with protesters outside the church

"Something blue."

A scene for Duke gathering evidence, with the couples and the Duchess complicating matters

"You probably have my [finger]prints on file."

A scene for Duke and the Duchess, after he finds out she started her life as a man

"When did the world become so complicated?"

A scene for the couples and Duke to confront Jacob, after he throws another rock that injures Ephram

"Honey, I think I’ve finished clotting, if you’d like a prop."


SYNOPSIS
But Not for Love is a tale of two weddings – the double wedding of a straight couple and a gay couple.  Siblings Ephram and Eleanor are marrying their partners (Patrick and Roland, respectively), in a joint ceremony at the same church the siblings attended since childhood.  But despite the two unions about to take place, the members of the wedding parties are divided over the individual expectations each has for their particular ceremony, and outside the church, animosity and the threat of violence simmer among a crowd of protesters and almost force both marriages to be called off.  Supporting roles include a lovelorn lady minister (the Duchess) with a secret from her past; a conflicted policeman (Duke) charged to keep the peace during the ceremony; and a protesting family member (Jacob) leading the angry mob of religious objectors outside the church.  But Not for Love is an honest, engaging comedy-drama illuminating today’s GLBT issues and the future of human equality.

Cast of Characters

JACOB – male, 20s, college student, Patrick’s younger brother

PATRICK – gay man, 30s, about to be married to Ephram

ELEANOR – female, Ephram’s sister, 30s, about to be married to Roland

EPHRAM – gay man, 30s, about to be married to Patrick

ROLAND – male, 30s, about to be married to Eleanor

DUCHESS – female, late 40s/early 50s, retired minister, formerly a man named Forest

DUKE – male, late 40s/early 50s, a policeman

(photo of Nick Sousa as Jacob in the 2011 Renegade Theater Company production in Los Angeles)

Interregnum 2011-1012 - Blog of the Time Between - But Not for Love

Since the November 2012 election has a proposed amendment on the ballot for the Minnesota state constitution to define marriage as being only between one man and one woman, local theater companies The Flower Shop Project and Workhouse Theatre are co-producing my play about gay marriage, "But Not For Love," this October.  Hopefully it'll help rally the troops and get them out to vote, and give them a few laughs and a much needed happy ending in the home stretch.  With luck, maybe same-sex marriage will only be illegal once, rather than twice over.  Every little victory helps...

5/1/12 - Gay Marriage Play Update - Sides for Next Week's Auditions
Twin Cities Daily Planet version

4/19/12 - Gay Marriage Play Update - Auditions on May 7th and 8th
Twin Cities Daily Planet version

3/3/12 - Anybody Want To Help Put On A Play?
Twin Cities Daily Planet version

Gay Marriage Play Update - Auditions on May 7th and 8th

Since last I posted about this project, things have sped right along.  The Flowershop Project is teaming up with Workhouse Theatre Company to make the first Minneapolis production of my gay marriage comedy, But Not For Love, happen.  Richard Jackson, a director whose work I love, has signed on to direct, which is very exciting.  And now, we're on to auditions!  Here's the information Flowershop gave me to help spread the word around...

Announcing Auditions for But Not for Love, 

a comedy about marriage – both gay and straight

The Flower Shop Project, in collaboration with Workhouse Theatre Company,

will be holding auditions for its Fall 2012 production of

But Not for Love by Matthew Everett

directed by Richard Jackson
(Workhouse's 'night, Mother and Torch Song Trilogy; Starting Gate Productions)

on May 7th and May 8th

6:00pm to 9:00pm

at Epworth Methodist Church (3207 37th Avenue South in Minneapolis).

Performances will be held at The Warren: An Artist Habitat (4400 Osseo Road in northeast Minneapolis) on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays in October.

Rehearsals will begin at the end of August.    



Auditioners will be asked to perform cold readings from the script.

[Blogger note - I'm not sure which sides they're using in auditions yet but to get a look at some sample scenes, you can find links here.  For sample monologues, you can find links here.  It was originally commissioned and produced at Allegheny College in 2006, and just had a production last year out in Los Angeles, but this upcoming production will be the first time it hits a stage here in Minneapolis.]

Please provide a resume and headshot.

All roles are Non-AEA, with a $150 stipend.

To schedule an audition please email Megan Murphy at megan@theflowershopproject.com to reserve your timeslot, including your name, preferred audition time and phone number. You will get an email shortly confirming your audition time.

For more information about the show or The Flower Shop Project, please visit www.theflowershopproject.com.

But Not for Love is a tale of two weddings – the double wedding of a straight couple and a gay couple.  Siblings Ephram and Eleanor are marrying their partners (Patrick and Roland, respectively), in a joint ceremony at the same church the siblings attended since childhood.  But despite the two unions about to take place, the members of the wedding parties are divided over the individual expectations each has for their particular ceremony, and outside the church, animosity and the threat of violence simmer among a crowd of protesters and almost force both marriages to be called off.  Supporting roles include a lovelorn lady minister (the Duchess) with a secret from her past; a conflicted policeman (Duke) charged to keep the peace during the ceremony; and a protesting family member (Jacob) leading the angry mob of religious objectors outside the church.  But Not for Love is an honest, engaging comedy-drama illuminating today’s GLBT issues and the future of human equality.

Cast of Characters

JACOB – male, 20s, college student, Patrick’s younger brother

PATRICK – gay man, 30s, about to be married to Ephram

ELEANOR – female, Ephram’s sister, 30s, about to be married to Roland

EPHRAM – gay man, 30s, about to be married to Patrick

ROLAND – male, 30s, about to be married to Eleanor

DUCHESS – female, late 40s/early 50s, retired minister, formerly a man named Forest

DUKE – male, late 40s/early 50s, a policeman

(photo by James Sumerfield, Allegheny College production, 2006)

Anybody want to help put on a play?

This is a little unusual but it might end up being more efficient.  So since I've got the outlet, I might as well give it a try.

We're looking for collaborative theater partners to help mount of a production of a play about gay marriage this October.  This is being timed to hit the stage just prior to the big election day in November (11/6/2012) where Minnesota decides whether the definition of heterosexual marriage shall be enshrined in our state constitution, doubling down on laws we already have on the books barring gay marriage.

The push behind this project is the thought that, politics being what they are, the conversational atmosphere around this topic is going to be fairly toxic come the final weeks of campaigning.  It seemed like a good idea to put a play out there that could provide entertainment with some laughs, even a happy ending, to boost morale and rally the troops to get out there and vote to defeat this amendment.

The play (yes, one of mine) is called But Not For Love and it was originally commissioned and produced back in 2006 by Allegheny College in Pennsylvania.  Round about this time last year, the Renegade Theater Company in Los Angeles picked it up for production, given their own Prop. 8 woes around the subject.

The play's never been done in Minnesota, and it felt like if any time was right for a play like this, it'd be right now.  (I keep going back and forth personally on whether the fact that it's five and a half years old and still relevant is a good thing or a depressing thing.)  A synopsis is at the end of this post.

The Flowershop Project, with whom I've collaborated on a couple of shows in recent years, is committed to getting this play out in front of the public.  The challenge is that right now they're going through personnel changes and restructuring, so they don't have as many hands to do the work as they normally would.  Hence the call for partners.

Flowershop is already outlining a budget and brainstorming on fundraising.  (In fact, we're meeting tomorrow morning to check in on where we are, and what still needs doing.)  They also have ready access to rehearsal space.  Those are really the only things, as I write this, that are in hand.  We haven't settled on a director, designers, actors, or a venue.  Right now we're casting our net wide and seeing what we catch.  Theater being what it is, if you're diligent enough, the right partners will appear.  This blog post is just another effort at due diligence on my part.

I've already begun speaking to several folks individually, and the search and those talks continue.  What I've found is that even if someone is currently already committed to other projects in that time frame, they're very sympathetic, and have suggestions of still other people with whom I should be talking.  The larger the network we tap into to spread the word and get this thing done, the better.

So it's also a call for suggestions.  If you might be able to help, great.  Let us know.  If you're unable to help personally, but know of someone who would be excited by the project, send their name my way.

My email is mail AT matthewaeverett DOT com, and you can also find me on twitter @MatthewAEverett

Synopsis - But Not For Love

A double wedding. Two couples - one straight, one gay - divided over what their ceremony should mean to themselves or anyone else. A lovelorn lady minister who has a secret of her own. A policeman torn between the picket line outside the church and the ceremony he’s obliged to protect. A protester with ties to the bride and the grooms who’s willing to throw rocks through stained glass windows to keep the vows from taking place.

****************

Eleanor and Ephram, sister and brother, are both getting married on the same day. And they’re each getting married to a man. With protesters, policemen and a TV news crew outside the church, inside the couples are split over what their day and their ceremony should mean, to themselves or anyone else.

Patrick, Ephram’s groom, agrees with Eleanor that they all need to make a statement by getting married. But Roland, Eleanor’s groom, and Ephram both just want a simple ceremony and a quiet day.

Another attraction begins to blossom between the female minister, known as the Duchess, and one of the policemen standing guard over the church, Duke. But a secret from the Duchess’ past may prove more of an obstacle than the two of them can overcome.

Meanwhile, outside among the protesters, Patrick’s younger brother Jacob hurls a rock through the stained glass window in an effort to keep the wedding from taking place. When the rock draws blood, one couple may not end up getting married today, or any other day.

Men have died from time to time,
And worms have eaten them,
But not for love.
- As You Like It, William Shakespeare

(cover art by Drew Bentley)

Interregnum 2010-1011 - Blog of the Time Between - But Not for Love

So my play about gay marriage, "But Not For Love," gets an production out in Los Angeles, and shortly after that, the gay marriage issue blows up back home in Minnesota (sigh)...

5/16/11 Vote No - Where To Get The T-shirt
Twin Cities Daily Planet version

5/12/11 What Do I Tell My Goddaughter?
Twin Cities Daily Planet version

11/1/10 "Miss Me Yet?" (VOTE!)
Twin Cities Daily Planet version

Vote No - Where To Get The T-shirt

I've had some inquiries about the T-shirt associated with my Vote No essay (What Do I Tell My Goddaughter?) so, having just ordered a couple myself, I can walk you all through the process.

First, for those eagle-eyed proofreader friends of mine who noticed the first draft of the shirt misspelled "amendment" as "amendement" - the artist caught that and fixed it for the next test run. All shirts ordered will respect the laws of good spelling.

The shirts are by Fish Design, the brainchild of my friend James Fish, a recent graduate of the Minneapolis College of Art and Design. I own several other T-shirt designs he's created and count them among my favorites. So I can vouch for the guy and his business personally. (He also designed the covers for several of the published versions of my plays.)

The new photo of the T-shirt includes James' contact info (though the contact info doesn't actually appear on the shirt, fear not, just the Vote No art).

Send your order to

JamesWasFish@gmail.com

Indicate

T-shirt size
Cut - Male or Female
Type - Minnesota State version, or plain old Vote No version (I ordered one of each)
Shipping Address
Additional Contact Info like phone, if you want (just in case he needs to get in touch with you about the order - he'll already have your email, of course)

Locally (Twin Cities area) he might be able to arrange an in-person pickup, so inquire if that interests you, see if your schedules align. Me, my schedule's too nutty right now. Mailing is best. It's worth the extra five bucks to me.

T-shirts are $17.50 each for regular sizes (S, M, L, XL), $20.50 for XXL or XXXL

Shipping is $5.00

He'll be processing payments through PayPal, which means you need to factor in an additional 3 percent to zero out their fees.

A single shirt would be

17.50 - shirt
5.00 - shipping

22.50 subtotal, plus another $0.68 to negate the 3 percent PayPal fee

So that grand total would be $23.18

As for payment, you go to Paypal.com

Sign yourself in

Choose the Send Money option

Enter James' business email - JamesWasFish@gmail.com - in the To field

Enter the total cost of your purchase ($23.18 for a single T-shirt) in the Amount field

In the "This is a purchase of:" section, choose Goods

Click Continue

If you don't already have a credit card set up with them, the system will walk you through all that, plus the shipping address for your order, and there'll also be a place to put a message (I copied my order info there, just to be on the safe side. I'm anal that way.)

Then you finalize your order and you're on your way. You get an email confirmation, and James follows up as well.

All relatively painless as internet shopping goes.

James does quality work, and I consider that price a bargain to rally for a good cause, and also support a local artist starting up a business.

I was exchanging messages with James the other day and marveled that he'd designed a shirt in protest within hours of the state senate's vote and had it posted online. He replied...

"Yeah, I noticed the ruling and it just makes me mad because I have known people that are/were planning to get married out of state. You shouldn't have to leave your hometown to do what you want to because of your sexuality.

If there are any other social or political issues you feel NEED to be addressed, or like the idea with these shirts, please feel free to shoot me some input.

I'm not doing this for the money. This is something I truly believe in, and I'm sick of the way things are governed in our country. Mob rule someday? Who knows. But if it's an idea I can back I will use all the equipment and skills I have to help get it out there!"

Go, James! I know tons of great straight people. I don't know why it still (pleasantly) surprises me sometimes when they want to pitch in on behalf of a gay cause. I suppose they'd argue, "it's not a gay thing, it's a human thing." Guess I just figure somehow it's only "my fight." Nice to know so many people think it's their fight, too, regardless of where they fall on the Kinsey scale.

You'll see my proudly wearing my red T-shirts around town soon.

(Wouldn't it be nice if some legislative miracle happened and I didn't need them after all? We'll know soon enough.)

What Do I Tell My Goddaughter?

Because she's going to want an explanation.

What do I tell my goddaughter is the reason that in the state of Minnesota where her godfather lives, they are pushing an amendment to the constitution through the legislature to put it on the ballot for the November 2012 election? A popular vote to decide whether our constitution needs an amendment that would define marriage as being only between one man and one woman, and thus outlawing gay marriage?

Again.

Because we already have a law on the books to this effect, correct? Minnesota already took care of that.

So what do I tell my goddaughter?

Why is it necessary to also add it to the constitution?

Why is it necessary to put the rights of a group of citizens up for a vote?

Because that's what it is.

I heard a politician say that the good people of Minnesota are decent, caring, inclusive folks, and so they should be allowed to decide such a thing and not have the politicians or the courts decide it for them.

But this politician isn't putting this amendment on the ballot because he thinks these good folks will reject anti-gay bigotry. He's expecting them to embrace it, and enshrine the traditional, exclusive definition of marriage into the state constitution.

So what do I tell my goddaughter?

Is there a teeming hoard of gays and lesbians storming churches and the offices of justices of the peace demanding to be married and wreaking all kinds of havoc?

I think someone would have told me.

Does this amendment help solve any of our state's, or our country's, current challenges?

Does it feed one hungry person?

Does it educate one child?

Does it put a roof over the head of someone who is homeless?

Does it help shrink the budget and pay down the deficit?

Does it bring one soldier home from the war?

Does it help business to create jobs for the unemployed?

Does it heal the sick?

No?

OK, then what do I tell my goddaughter?

Because there has to be a good reason for it, right?

Because when I stood up for her parents and spoke at their wedding back in June of 2004, my goddaughter's future mother and father didn't want to have a political debate or make anybody uncomfortable. But when I asked them if there was anything they wanted in this prayer, the bride told me that she had many friends, myself included, who were not allowed to be married. She wanted them to be a part of this day, too, and she wanted people to remember that inequity still exists. We need to recognize it, we need to fight it. We need to not silently accept it as the way things are. We need to fight for the way things should be.

The wedding was in Taos, New Mexico, in the shadow of the Taos Mountain, a sacred Native American territory were non-Native Americans are not allowed to set foot.

So the wedding prayer began...

"God,
as we gather here in the sight
of the great Taos Mountain,
a sacred place we cannot go,
we celebrate the union
of Miriam and Jeremy,
and ask for your blessings
upon them -
that they may continue to find
in one another,
and in support from their
family and friends,
the things they have already been so fortunate to find -
laughter, acceptance,
forgiveness, safety,
patience, gratitude,
love and peace.
Hear us as we pray..."

and the wedding prayer continued, concluding with...

"Spirit,
as Miriam and Jeremy continue
the next chapter in their adventure together,
they are mindful of those who do not share the same rights and freedoms as they do,
including the ceremony we gather for today.
We pray for a world
in which there is no sacred space
where two people in love cannot go
to celebrate their union
with family and friends.
We ask that in this troubled world,
you offer hope for the sick,
the lonely, the outcast,
and comfort for the dying and their families.
We ask for peace in the world,
wisdom for our leaders,
and safety for those at war.
Finally, we ask individually
for the strength, understanding and love
we each will need
in order to leave this world,
and the people in it,
better than we found them.
All this we pray..."

This was the union into which my goddaughter was was born two years ago. These are her parents. These are their friends.

They asked me to be her godfather because they wanted me to be involved in her life, to be an influence in raising her.

So what do I tell my goddaughter about my adopted state? A state I moved to almost 20 years ago now to build a life. A state that has nurtured me and made me feel welcome and made me feel like the world was expanding and all things were possible.

A state that now seems to be telling me the opposite. That I am not welcome. That I am not the same, or as good or deserving, as everyone else who lives here. That the things which I am allowed and not allowed to do can be called up for a vote at any time. That my rights are not inalienable. That some pursuits of happiness are not to be tolerated.

What do I tell her when she asks me, "Why do you still live in Minnesota if they feel this way about you?"

Tell me, please, because right now I don't have an answer for her.

What do I tell my goddaughter?

(I am sending this to every member of the House Rules Committee in the Minnesota Legislature, the only body who can still stop this thing from coming to vote in the House that will most certainly put it on the ballot. I'm not feeling particularly hopeful, but I work with words, and I have to do something.)

Fun With Theater Reviews

Meanwhile, halfway across the country...

My play about gay marriage, "But Not For Love," is currently running out in Los Angeles in a little blackbox space courtesy of Renegade Theatre.

This actually came about because of a random Fringe connection, and facebook.

In going through old Fringe reviews while cleaning up my website for a major reboot, I made note of names that cropped up, and started looking them up and electronically befriending them on facebook. One such electronic pal was Chadbourne Hamblin. He noticed I wrote plays. This new theater group he'd linked up with out in LA was looking to mount more regular productions. He asked for suggestions, I fielded a couple. Because of the whole Proposition 8 battle over gay marriage out in California, the group gravitated to "But Not For Love." And before I knew it, they were moving full-speed ahead on an early 2011 production timetable. They had previews the last week in January, then opened out there a week before "Leave" opened here in Minneapolis. And they'll be running for two weeks after "Leave" closes. So I thought to myself, "I have friends in California, when the heck do I have a better excuse to go out there?" Out comes the credit card, plane ticket is purchased.

In the meantime, I have to content myself with learning about the production long distance. Thankfully, the Renegade troupe is very efficient at self-promotion and got not one, not two, but four reviewers out there to see the thing and post their thoughts. They were not shy about sharing their opinions, which varied wildly.

Here's the basic plot...

Eleanor (in this production, Krystal Kennedy) and Ephram (John Croshaw), sister and brother, are both getting married on the same day. And they’re each getting married to a man. With protesters, policemen and a TV news crew outside the church, inside the couples are split over what their day and their ceremony should mean, to themselves or anyone else.

Patrick (Andrew Loviska), Ephram’s groom, agrees with Eleanor that they all need to make a statement by getting married. But Roland (Chadbourne Hamblin), Eleanor’s groom, and Ephram both just want a simple ceremony and a quiet day.

Another attraction begins to blossom between the female minister, known as the Duchess (Natasha St. Clair-Johnson), and one of the policemen standing guard over the church, Duke (Patrick Tiller). But a secret from the Duchess’ past may prove more of an obstacle than the two of them can overcome.

Meanwhile, outside among the protesters, Patrick’s younger brother Jacob (Nick Sousa) hurls a rock through the stained glass window in an effort to keep the wedding from taking place. When the rock draws blood, one couple may not end up getting married today, or any other day.

"Men have died from time to time,
And worms have eaten them,
But not for love."
- As You Like It, William Shakespeare

The reviews covered the full spectrum. I probably should have known better when I stumbled upon the 5-star review from Ron Irwin in the Burbank Examiner that started...

"Absolutely every element of the current Renegade Theatre production of the play, 'But Not For Love' is pure genius."

...that anything after that review was gonna be slightly less effusive.

The funny thing is that the reviewer for Backstage West, Les Spindle, also reviewed my only previous theater production in LA, 14 years ago, for Frontiers Magazine. Les loved my play "Heaven and Home" so much it ended up on his top ten list for the year, in addition to nabbing three Drama-Logue Awards, and a nomination for a GLAAD Award. As much as Les loved "Heaven and Home," he hated "But Not For Love." For example, in his opening paragraph, we have the following...

"Opponents of the Proposition 8 legislation might have found a new weapon: Courtesy of... the circuitous debates that dominate the script, it seems the controversial proposition could face the prospect of being bludgeoned to death by this series of protracted shouting matches."

Ouch.

But I have to admit, also damn funny.

I now have the image of someone swatting an anti-gay protester with a copy of my script, and it's most amusing.

Not that it probably matters but I also find it amusing that the straight reviewer raved about it and the gay reviewer was repulsed. (This also seems to have a direct correlation to my social life, but we won't belabor that here...)

I admitted to the director Richard Warren Baker via email that I felt a little bad for all of them having to take hits on behalf of my script.

Richard didn't want me to take that on. He was just as willing to take the blame as director. Again, opinions in print logged in at both extremes. Irwin wanted to give Richard a Tony, but Spindle called the direction "generally flaccid."

Double ouch. (and not funny)

As a writer, though, you never want someone to regret doing your script. I don't think Renegade does. I just wanted Richard and company to know that I feel their pain. It's a big leap of faith for a theater to put on a new play. Established titles and authors are always safer. After that, even a local name would be a safer bet. I admire a group that's just trying to make a name for itself grabbing onto a new play to be their vehicle. After all, if no theaters did that, new, living playwrights wouldn't have any outlet for their work.

(Yes, I know there's self-production, yes, I know there's the Fringe, but face it, we all live in the theatrical sweet spot here in Minnesota. There's tons of theater, a big audience to support it, philanthropy out the wazoo, and costs here are a fraction of what they'd be in a place like New York, LA, or even Chicago. Imagine trying to live anywhere else, and trying to do art you love, and how much harder that would be. Not impossible, but harder. I have friends in New York, LA and Chicago, and their tireless pursuit of their art in the face of odds far greater than those I face here really amazes me. I moved here after grad school for a reason. I stayed here for a reason.)

Anyway, to pick a play of mine, go to the trouble of mounting a production of it because it's about an issue you really care about, and you like the script, and then to have your production get dinged in three out of four reviews for things that have to be laid at the feet of the script, not the production, I can understand why that might be frustrating. And why it might make you think twice about doing any new play, not just mine.

I understand Spindle's very different reaction to "But Not For Love." "Heaven and Home" couldn't be more different as a script. It's a full-length, non-linear, character-based piece. "Love" was commissioned to be a one-act, and even at 90 minutes, it's crammed a little too full of plot and characters for its own good. For better or worse (no pun intended), it's linear and full of overlapping two person scenes, with the occasional big ensemble scene where all hell breaks loose. It was also commissioned to be an issue play, and in one-act form, the characters sometimes take a back seat to the issue at hand. Like "Leave" before Urban Samurai got ahold of it, "Love" probably needs more room for the characters to breathe. "Heaven" had AIDS as a backdrop, but the word was never spoken, only inferred. A critic once described it as a "post-AIDS" play, more about the survivors than the dying. I'm looking forward to revisiting "But Not For Love" with the Urban Samurai crew in the near future - opening it up and digging into the characters. Right now, the script is asking the actors to do a lot of the heavy lifting.

And from the sound of things, the actors in LA are doing just that.

Even the reviewers who had the biggest problems with the script, laud the actors, as a group and by name.

Spindle thinks "the young ensemble cast deserves points for their valiant efforts..." and that in particular, "Following their characters' meet-cute encounter, St. Clair-Johnson and Tiller [as the minister called the Duchess, and Duke the cop] share amusing moments. The subtlest approach comes across best, namely Croshaw's smitten young man [Ephram] who wishes his wedding ceremony was more intimate and less like a shrill political grandstanding stunt."

Neal Weaver with LA Weekly thinks "The production, helmed by director Richard Warren Baker, is most successful in its quieter, more human moments than in its strident political declarations, when it topples over into melodrama. The events are not always credible, but there are strong performances from Sousa [anti-gay rally leader Jacob], St. Clair-Johnson [Duchess], and Tiller [Duke]."

And blogger Keisha7 for LA Splash "found the performances of Chadbourne Hamblin [reluctant straight groom Roland] and Nick Sousa [Jacob] to be both truthful and engaging."

Irwin has all sorts of great things to say about the cast...

"The cast was as close to perfect as the human condition allows." He brought his daughter along to the show and "In the words of my teen daughter Kari also an actress of some skill, 'Daddy, those actors were all very good.' You have that right kid – indeed magnificent." He calls Andy Loviska's work as activist gay groom Patrick "compellingly played," and says "Krystal Kennedy is magnificent as [straight ally and activist bride] Eleanor... And last but by no means least there is the amazing Natasha St.Clair-Johnson as the Duchess, a female cleric with a fairly mind blowing little secret."

So, everyone in the cast gets a little love, which makes me happy. A seven week run is a wonderful marathon for any show, and it's nice that the actors are all getting a nod for their efforts.

The director isn't left out of the lovefest. Though Spindle isn't a fan, Irwin is joined in his praise of the director by LA Splash blogger Keisha7,

"I particularly like the direction. Baker uses the limited black box space quite well. His staging makes great use of set design that is more about defining location than it is about utility to the performers. Every actor felt accessible and physically open, despite the places on stage that received no practical use at all.

Near the top of the show, there is a soundbite montage that reminds the audience of the innumerable voices and opinions starting with Sarah Palin, ending with Keith Olbermann. Director Richard Warren Baker touched on a very interesting motif for the piece. It would have been nice to have more of it – invisible voices in the dark, all feeling free to comment on an issue that does not directly affect them."

Ron Irwin in the Examiner goes further...

"Director Richard Warren Baker also deserves mega kudos for the amazing skill with which he assembled and directed this truly beautiful production. One area in which I was amazed is the way in which every resource of this rather intimate venue was masterfully used to give maximum impact. The lighting, placement and set design all gave a sense and feel of a much larger stage. I sadly lack the authority to confer upon you a Tony, so I hereby award you with a 'Ronnie' for best Director 2011."

Let's rip off the band-aid quickly in terms of script feedback, shall we?

Spindle in Backstage West says "But Not For Love" is a "politically correct dramedy [which] comes across as more polemic than play. It's populated by characters who generally seem like mouthpieces of the playwright's views rather than multidimensional humans."

He also calls it a "wannabe crowd pleaser" full of "predictable showdowns," tags Eleanor's groom Roland as "homophobic" and says that Jacob's rallying of the crowd is "a repetitive fire-and-brimstone speech." His compliment for the actor playing Ephram moves into this final assessment of the script, when he notes that Ephram "wishes his wedding ceremony was more intimate and less like a shrill political grandstanding stunt. The same could be said about this admirably intended play."

("I'm just a boy whose intentions are good. Please Lord don't let be misunderstood," just popped into my head)

Ron Irwin in the Examiner apparently couldn't disagree more with Les (sorry, I just couldn't resist that one)...

"The story line is fascinating as it peels back the thoughts and emotions of seven very unique and thoroughly compelling characters. It was brilliantly written by Mathew A. Everett as he addresses the still simmering public debate over gay marriage. It would be easy to passionately present one side of this complex debate, but Matthew Everett gives the audience a far more intriguing and balanced view, leaving little doubt about his position and yet remaining I believe respectful of the broader community.

The story all centers on a double wedding, a double wedding in which one couple is straight and the other is gay. As the two couples prepare for the event tension grows and violence briefly erupts and becomes the catalyst for an out pouring of both passion and thought that takes the entire event to an amazing new level of awareness and understanding and ultimately brings the day to a joyful conclusion.

As you can imagine given the subject matter there is a great deal of passion and more than a little conflict, but it is perfectly balanced with a steady injection of brilliant humor. It is a play that provokes thought and teaches without being in anyway preachy. To make this clear, the character Jacob is indeed preachy in the extreme, but the overall play is not."

He recommends it "without reservation" and clarifies, in case people were wondering, "I am actually a life long and very proud flaming heterosexual. Such a condition does not in any way interfere with my ability to thoroughly enjoy this play."

And while I'm loving the fact that this guy loved it so much, I find that LA Splash blogger Keisha7 gives a really telling critique of the script when she says,

"The premise Matthew A. Everett’s play is great, but it could be stronger. Each person within each couple wants the same thing, just in varying degrees. There is never a real question about if these couples will get married. The questions are how and when. Without a credible threat of someone completely calling the whole thing off, the stakes can only get so high."

It's a very valid point, and one I'll have to look at going forward.

The use of multiple viewpoints doesn't work for her the same way it worked for Irwin...

"Everett seems to be trying to make all the valid arguments - trying to present every pro and con of the situation. However, these arguments just don’t ring true when coming from the characters that ultimately make them."

She also thinks the final scenes contain "two one-eighties... that feel contrived. In reality, change takes time. But Not For Love would better be served ending with the residue of something real."

The bit of extra time a full-length vs. a one-act structure would give the audience to process and the characters to evolve might make some of the shifts seem less abrupt, but I still need to watch how the characters choose to make peace with one another so the story remains tethered to our reality.

Speaking of reality, Irwin also gives me a little peek at the theater space before I get out there to see it myself...

"The physical elements of the theatre are rather amazing. It is truly intimate with seats for no more than 50 people. Yet the place seems larger. You enter off of Gardner Street just off of Sunset Boulevard into a brightly lit and spacious area. The whole feel is comfortable and friendly. When you enter the theatre area the seats are comfortable and positioned such that everyone enjoys a good view. Under the mastery of Founding Director Chick Vennera the Renegade Theatre is rapidly become a place where you can thoroughly enjoy genuinely professional productions that vastly exceed their physical realm."

I know Sunset Boulevard is enormous, and thus all sorts of things could be described as "just off Sunset Boulevard" but it still feels like of cool to be able to say that about a play of mine.

I'll be out there to see the show March 4, 5 and 6, but go the weekends before or after, too, if you can. I'd like anyone I know out that way to help out a new theater company producing a new play. The fact that it's also my new play just makes me root for them all the more. Show info below...

The Renegade Theatre Group’s production of But Not For Love is currently running through March 13, 2011 at:
The Renegade Theatre
1514 North Gardner Street
Los Angeles, CA 90046
Showtimes are Fridays and Saturdays at 8:00 PM and Sundays at 6:00 PM
Tickets are $20.00
May be purchased at the location or in advance at www.plays411.com/forlove
or call for reservations (323) 960-4443
renegade@therenegadetheatregroup.com
www.therenegadetheatregroup.com

Links to the Full Reviews

Ron Irwin - Burbank Examiner

Keisha7 - LA Splash

Les Spindle - Backstage West

Neal Weaver - LA Weekly