Ricky Falbo and David Rosenthal in Diary of a Wimpy Kid (Photo by Dan Norman)

The day before the new musical Diary of a Wimpy Kid began previews at Children’s Theatre Company in Minneapolis, a headline in the St Paul Pioneer Press asked whether it was “bound for Broadway.” A month before the new musical Anastasia, based on the animated film, begins previews at Hartford Stage, the trade publication Variety (among many publications) has announced that it “aims for Broadway next season”. The list of shows reportedly headed to Broadway goes on.

That’s not to suggest that these shows won’t reach Broadway, especially as they already have commercial producers attached. But at this point in time, every new musical one hears about is headed to Broadway, whether implicitly or explicitly. No one seems to ever announce plans to write or produce a new musical and accompany it with the statement “bound for regional theatre.” That doesn’t have the same marketing zip or overall ambition.

There are nuances to the construction of these declarations. ‘Going to’ has a more definite implication than ‘aims for’. ‘Bound for’ has lots of wiggle room. But the message is clear: that people associated with the show have designs on the commercial realm of New York’s 40 theatres designated as Broadway houses, with all of the media attention and awards potential that entails.

For regional theatres, having a show reach Broadway is a feather in their cap, as is, of course, winning awards in Manhattan. Even shows that don’t run very long or succeed commercially are still touted for years as having made the trip in companies’ marketing materials, as a badge of honour. It’s more concrete than reminding people that they may have loved the show in their hometown, and no one necessarily cares about how much the theatre made (or in certain cases, lost) on the New York venture.

Of course, here in the city, Off-Broadway companies do their best to tamp down even rumours that they might have a show headed to Broadway until it’s a done deal. There’s certainly no stopping fans and journalists from guessing what might happen, but it seems that Off-Broadway companies want to keep the clamour to a minimum for fear that a hit show might not ultimately transfer, since that would be perceived – unfairly – as a failure. In contrast to regional theatre, where no one seems to check the stats, lots of people keep score on such things here in New York, some with regret and some with schadenfreude.

With the 2015/16 Broadway season having come to an official close just last night, thoughts inevitably turn to what will in fact be Broadway’s new productions in the coming year. There are a handful of firmly committed projects, both new and revivals (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Falsettos, Groundhog Day and Les Liaisons Dangereuses among them). The industry newsletter Theatrical Index lists 52 shows under ‘future Broadway plans’, some circling for a theatre, some still nascent, some for even later seasons. In only a few days, the musical Dear Evan Hansen will open at Off-Broadway’s Second Stage and it has had Broadway buzz behind it since it played at Washington DC’s Arena Stage. Once the critics weigh in starting Sunday night, it could shortly appear in ‘now playing Off-Broadway’ lists as well as ‘coming soon on Broadway’ rundowns. The landscape can change that quickly.

The company of Dear Evan Hansen at Second Stage (Photo by Matthew Murphy)

I have to say I lean towards the approach favoured by Off-Broadway theatres, rather than those of regional companies or commercial producers trying to gin up interest: just do the show, just let the play be the thing. Let audiences enjoy on its own merits, rather than have everyone thinking about its future. If it books a Broadway house, if it actually is produced there, that’s great, and be sure to let me know. But in the meantime, for the good of the projects and the artists involved, respect and appreciate shows where they are and for what they are, not solely for what they might be.

Hobbes and Me

Years from now, newer converts to Hamilton fandom will marvel at how Lin-Manuel Miranda and Thomas Kail assembled such a notable cast. It will be viewed like Rent, like American Graffiti, a remarkable gathering of young talent that’s a tribute to those who managed to bring them together, including the casting team at Telsey + Company. It’s not that the Hamilton cast was entirely unknown, to be sure, but the acclaim for the project raised the public’s awareness of each and every one of them, regardless of what they had – or hadn’t – done before.

In the case of Daveed Diggs, who is surely one of the true breakout stars of Hamilton due to his Act 1 performance as Lafayette and Act 2 role of Thomas Jefferson, his primary prior recognition was as a rapper. But that’s not to say that Diggs hadn’t acted before. In one of the wonderful discoveries hiding in plain sight on YouTube, Diggs can be found in the eight-episode video series Hobbes and Me, playing Bill Watterson’s beloved philosophically named tiger from the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes.

The decidedly low-budget series was created by Bay Area actor, rapper, writer and producer Rafael Casal in 2014; Casal also plays Watterson’s Calvin – though that name never appears on the videos. Neither does Diggs’s or, for that matter, Watterson’s. The “scripts” are eight selected original strips; the settings suggest they were filmed at Casal’s home. Diggs’s tiger costume is a tiger-patterned coat and striped pants seemingly out of a 1930s prison film.

Of course, as more people learn of Hobbes and Me, it’s possible that recognition may also prove the undoing of these charming novelties. It’s widely known that Watterson has never permitted any adaptation of his strips, live-action or animated. No doubt Hobbes and Me, which doesn’t even carry credits, is an unauthorized riff that, by both showing Calvin and Hobbes strips and utilizing their dialogue verbatim, is very likely on the wrong side of the copyright line.

But with Diggs’s star on the rapid rise, the eight episodes are a four and a half minute (in total) opportunity to see him before the glossy magazines and TV interviews came calling. Take a look while you can.

Incidentally, Hobbes and Me isn’t the only Casal-Diggs collaboration. There’s also a Star Trek riff called The Away Team, with Diggs playing a key role in Episode 2, “Boletus Frequencia.”

P.S. Casal’s website says he’s developing a musical called The Limp for Diggs. Stay tuned.

This morning, I was both annoyed and bemused to learn that Mark Rylance and Derek Jacobi, two esteemed British actors, had just been given airtime by National Public Radio, to advance the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare’s true identity. This minority opinion about the authorship of the canon of works credited to Shakespeare holds that a commoner like Shakespeare couldn’t have possibly written the plays, and typically credits a British nobleman with having written them secretly. There’s a strong whiff of classism in the position, positing that genius can’t come from humble beginnings. But Rylance and Jacobi’s conspiracy theories on this subject are nothing new, and while I have to wonder at NPR’s decision to advance the theory without presenting any countervailing positions, at least they had the courtesy to wait until this weekend’s Shakespeare 400 anniversary and celebrations had passed.

As it turns out, this morning in England, The Telegraph gave another major British actor the opportunity to hold forth on another subject steeped in history. Simon Callow, who I have interviewed (and chatted with casually once, unexpectedly, on the tube), has announced that he doesn’t see what’s wrong with “blacking up,” an old theatre tradition. You say you don’t know the term? Well in America, it’s called blackface, and is widely held to be offensive, insensitive and wholly out of step with modern practice.

Starting with his opposition to the idea that transgender actors should have precedence in the casting of transgender roles, Callow moves on takes the standard argument against culturally specific casting, pursuing it to ridiculous ends. Quoting him, from The Telegraph:

“This is madness. The whole idea of acting has gone out of the window, if you follow the logic of that,” he says.

“To say it is offensive to transgendered people for non-trans people to play them is nonsense. Because you have to have been a murderer to play Macbeth, you have to be Jewish to play Shylock. It’s nonsense.

“The great point of acting is that it is an act of empathy about someone you don’t know or understand. I continue to defend Laurence Olivier’s performance as Othello.”

Later in the article, the following appears:

I ask if he’d ever consider playing Othello, even though blacking up is widely considered offensive. “Is it so offensive? I don’t know. People say it’s offensive because it reminds you of the Black & White Minstrel show. But, it’s a different thing altogether.”

He adds: “It would depend on the circumstances, absolutely. But, there is actually ban on it in my union. You can not do it. You can not black up,” he says this in a way that suggests he does not wholly approve.

Equity, the actors’ union, in fact has no veto. A spokesman says, “we don’t have the power to ban”, but does make clear that “we are absolutely opposed to blacking up” except in “very exceptional circumstances”.

Callow does contradict himself on the subject:

“I totally accept it was the right thing to do to put a moratorium on white actors playing Othello, to allow black actors to fill those giant boots.” However, he then adds: “I can not say that the principle is a correct one.”

It is impossible to know whether Callow’s opinion lurks in the psyches of other British actors of his generation, or whether he’s an outlier (the author of the article does conclude by slyly cautioning Callow away from playing Othello). His comparison of blackface to Robert de Niro gaining weight for Raging Bull borders on the absurd. But the fact remains that he is respected not only as an actor but as a historian (his multi-volume biography of Orson Welles, with three completed and one to go is an impressive work of scholarship).

Consequently, when Callow speaks, he generates headlines, and his position, while acknowledging the prevailing sentiment, advocates for and gives credence to sustaining a practice that is decried by artists of color and their allies, be it blacking up or being “yellowed-up,” as The Telegraph refers to Jonathan Pryce’s performance in Miss Saigon. That Callow, one of the first British actors to come out as gay, finds prioritizing transgender actors for transgender roles to be so much “nonsense” works against the efforts of the transgender creative community, though surely it offers Eddie Redmayne some comfort.

Is this “an English thing,” a difference between American and British racial, gender and cultural sensibilities? Certainly the outcry over the yellowface The Orphan of Zhao at the Royal Shakespeare Company several years ago would suggest that the two nations are fairly close on their evolution towards cultural sensitivity, with both missteps and voices ready to speak against them. I write that as someone who still sees reports of yellowface and brownface with some regularity in the U.S., as well as redface (looking at you, Wooster Group). How the performing arts welcome transgender actors in transgender roles is still evolving, but rapidly, and in the direction of authenticity in casting.

What I don’t see in the U.S. is a famous actor in a major media outlet yearning for a return to the time when Caucasians played black, Latino, Asian, Native American and other characters of color with impunity; I don’t see actors denying the legitimacy of the positions of their trans* colleagues. The voices supporting such positions in the U.S. tend to turn up in social media feeds and comments sections, often with fictitious names. I trust the UK advocacy organization Act For Change will be responding to Callow very soon.

“Is blacking up offensive survey,” as of April 25, 7 pm

In the meantime, Callow’s statements are a reminder that the idea and ideal of cultural diversity in the arts is still fighting an uphill battle, as evidenced by The Telegraph’s own online survey, embedded in the Callow story, which determined that 77% of their readers do not find blacking up to be offensive. Remarks like these must be challenged by diversity advocates, strongly, wherever they appear. If I happen to run into Callow again, I’ll be tempted to quote myself on this subject, though I need to expand my full statement, which spoke first and foremost to race, to embrace transgender actors as well:

The whole point of diversifying our theatre is not to give white artists yet more opportunities, but to try to address the systemic imbalance, and indeed exclusion, that artists of color, artists with disabilities and even non-male artists have experienced. Of course, when it comes to roles specifically written for POC, those roles should be played by actors of that race or ethnicity – and again, not reducing it to the level of only Italians should play Italians and only Jews should plays Jews, but that no one should be painting their faces to pretend to an ethnicity which is obviously not theirs, while denying that opportunity to people of that race.

In the meantime, perhaps Callow will get off the casting soapbox and throw in his lot with the Oxfordians, if he desires to publicly take on unpopular positions. I’m sure the late 17^th Earl of Oxford will be delighted with the effort.

Howard Sherman is interim director of the Alliance for Inclusion in the Arts.

“We really pride ourselves on putting so much out for actors,” said the artistic director, who founded and has run the small non-Equity theatre company for more than a decade. “I’ve had my own experiences, both good and bad, that informed this company. We put everything out there so the actors can make an informed decision.”

It all sounds very positive, very transparent, however the artistic director was responding to a series of specific questions posed about hiring and employment policies, which were spelled out in detail in their company’s online materials, in a questionnaire provided to actors in advance of auditions, and in a contract offered to an actor. The inquiry was not prompted by any outreach from a past member of the company with an axe to grind.

The company’s practices in some cases are seemingly overcontrolling and unenforceable, in other cases contrary to employment law. Regardless of how open the company is, they’re not fostering a safe and creatively productive environment for everyone involved. First and foremost they are protecting their own interests.

The materials obtained contained so much questionable language, and suggests fear on the part of the company’s leadership, that it does raise the question of how actors may be treated when a collective bargaining agreement is not in place. That’s not to say that all companies should immediately strike up agreements with Actors Equity; non-Equity theatre is an essential part of the theatrical environment where young actors, perhaps actors still in school, can get practical experience on stage and where small communities can benefit from live performance. But they need to be making theatre in an environment that is safe and fulfilling.

*   *   *

The company in question is quite small, claiming roughly a $30,000 annual operating budget. They charge nothing for performances, although they may pass the hat. They perform in a significantly rural part of their state and travel to different towns for their shows. They claim an honor from their state’s governor, and in the brochure used to attract performers, namechecks numerous Shakespeare festivals around the US as having hired their alumni.

While calling themselves professional, half their season is performed by actors who pay a non-refundable $800 (and a $100 security deposit) for the right to perform. The other half of the season, actors are hired for $800 for a total of four weeks. Housing is provided; meals or per diems are not.

Here are some examples of their employment provisions, first from their agreement with the actors paying to participate, with observations notated:

• “Artist understands that they participate in all activities associated with company at their own risk, indemnifying and holding harmless theatre group.” This is not an acceptable practice in any employment situation, or frankly even for volunteers. If the actors are paying to work with the company, or if they’re paid by the company, the company should maintain full liability insurance as well as workers compensation insurance, and should produce proof of such insurance on request.
• The term of the agreement is “Immediately to Final Check Out Day, July 10, 2016.” The term should be from first day of work to last day of work. The company has no jurisdiction over any actor from the moment the contract is signed.
• While housing is provided, there should be “no excess housing electrical/water usage fees ($200+ dollars for the month.” As housing is shared, it is not possible to determine who might be responsible for such overages, especially with some staff living in that housing. No actor should be held liable. This is simply part of housing expense.
• “There are no understudies. If Artist should fail to honor the terms of this agreement, they may be held fiscally liable if, in doing so, additional costs are borne by the organization as a result.” This suggests that if an actor is ill and cannot perform for one or more performances, they bear replacement costs. The same would be true if an actor quit. These costs would be levied on actors who have already paid for the right to be there.
• “Artist gives a release/permission in perpetuity for their likeness and name to be used to promote the Organization, for social media, and agrees to participate in public relations/community outreach events.” The terms for use of likeness and name are unnecessarily broad and vague; it suggests that if an actor becomes well-known, the company can ostentatiously use them in all marketing. Additionally, since there are no stated work hours to begin with, how can actors be compelled to take part in activities beyond their acting work?
• “Artist understands company is a ‘no smoking/no alcohol at any time’ company (even for those over 21).” While an employer can proscribe such behavior during work hours and on company property, they have no right to police people’s personal habits 24/7 for the term of an agreement.
• While there is no reference to workday or workweek in any of the material obtained, the company should make clear that while working with them may be rigorous, and exceed the provisions of most Equity agreements, they should expect a certain amount of guaranteed time for sleep and some partial or full days off in a one-month period.

The company also has a ‘Code of Ethics,’ which is part of their agreement. Among its points, again with annotation:

• “I will: accept the director’s direction in the spirit in which it is given….I will respect that I am part of their vision for the show….I will forego the gratification of ego.” While not illegal, this has nothing to do with ethics. This is actors being told to do exactly what the director tells them without questioning. It seems detrimental to the development of young talent.
• “I will not: Disclose to anyone outside of the Company any Company business including (but not limited to) matters of a fiscal, emotional and/or private nature, as well as what is said or goes on in Company meetings, gatherings and rehearsals.” Questionable in almost any situation, when people are paying a fee to be part of the company, this manner of non-disclosure is inappropriate. What are “matters of an emotional nature” and is the actor supposed to not ever discuss their feelings about their work while working with the company?
• “I will not: Foment an element of ill will by displays of temper, complaining, negativity, foul language, yelling, verbal or physical abuse, gossip or other behavior that may be construed as detrimental to Company morale and to never be anything but positive, polite and friendly to audience members, VIP’s, press, volunteers, and sponsors. I shall inspire the public to respect me and my craft through graciousness in accepting both praise and constructive criticism.” The first portion approaches the controlling nature of social engineering and is probably unenforceable. It raises the question of why the company must proscribe such behaviors as “negativity” and “gossip.” Physical abuse is already illegal.
• “I will not: Publish company business of any kind via electronic or other means, in perpetuity. (i.e: youtube, blogging, social network sites, email, printed materials, etc.).” Again, non-disclosure language that is unnecessarily and unenforceably broad. It’s unlikely an actor would be privy to business information that rises to the level of warranting such confidentiality. This could be construed as an attempt to prohibit all social media activity in connection with an actor’s time with the company.
• “I will not: Discuss or reveal the existence of this agreement with anyone outside the Company.” If you’re afraid people might see your contract terms, then you know there’s something wrong with them. Fix the terms rather than trying to hide your contract from scrutiny.

Finally, from the audition questionnaire:

• “List Daily Medications. Do you have any medical/physical conditions? If yes, describe. Are you currently under psychiatric care/counseling.” Regardless of whether people are paying to participate or being paid, regardless of whether this company is defined as professional or amateur, this kind of question is illegal. Aside from asking for the disclosure of confidential information to which the company has no right, it can be the foundation of discrimination. Only after engaging an actor may the company inquire as to whether an actor has any special requirements of which the company may be called upon to assist, or at least be aware. But disclosure is at the discretion of the actor, except in such cases where a condition would prohibit an actor from fulfilling bona fide occupational requirements, which should be spelled out in advance casting materials.

*   *   *

The company under discussion holds its auditions at the annual Straw Hat Auditions, held in New York in March. Many non-Equity companies use the Straw Hat Auditions as a means of finding actors for their seasons (as well as staff), but the website of the Straw Hats is fairly enigmatic. E-mails were sent to the two addresses provided on the site, as no phone number appeared. The following questions were posed:

1. How many theatres were at this year’s auditions?
2. Presumably the theatres pay a fee to participate in the auditions. is that so? If yes, is the rate they pay something that is publicly published, or would you be willing to share it?
3. Do you have any criteria for the theatres that participate (beyond being Non-Equity companies)?
4. Are the auditions conducted as a commercial or not-for-profit enterprise?

No response was received. There is a clear need for more transparency about who operates the Straw Hat Auditions,  the manner in which they accept participating companies, and whether they undertake to verify the employment practices of the companies they are essentially serving as agents.

*   *   *

It is hard not to be sympathetic to a company that brings theatre to an underserved area, to a theatre that says it ceased charging admission as a tribute to an alumnus of their summer camp who died in service in Afghanistan. It is hard not to appreciate the efforts of any producer scraping by on a shoestring, that says their goal is to do good in their community.

But it’s also hard not to feel concern for young actors, eager for any opportunity to get on stage, who may not have the knowledge or even sense to understand when they’re agreeing to substandard terms and conditions and even putting themselves at risk in order to build a resume. All producers, commercial or not for profit, professional or amateur, should first and foremost treat artists with care and professionalism, and insure that their workplace rules and practices place safety above all else. That holds no matter the size of the budget, or even the lack of one.

So this annotated list is offered not simply to call out the behavior of a single company (indeed it is not even a complete accounting of the issues in the material obtained), but to raise awareness of the kind of language that companies may employ, and which artists and indeed staffs should look out for. Many people in the theatre have funny stories about exhaustive hours and risky practices they experienced early in their careers, but with every generation the field should be trying to do better. Just as the medical field has done away with days upon days of on-call work for young residents, theatre cannot sustain itself, even at its most rudimentary and well-meaning level, by saying that if it was OK then, it’s OK now.

Fixing the contractual language above, and the intent behind it, is not particularly expensive; it can surely be put in place for this coming summer season. The artistic director has already made assurances that the medical questions will be withdrawn. The company in question, and its artistic director have not been named throughout because this is not a hit piece, not a “gotcha” piece, but counsel to a company and to anyone who is going to be acting in non-Equity summer stock in the coming months, or employing people as staff or interns.

So as not to be coy, so as not to be accused of creating a straw man and inventing possible scenarios just to raise issues, the company here is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) as PLAYAH in New Hampshire, and does business as Shakespeare in the Valley. This piece should not be an excuse to declare open season on them online and in social media (as was the case with Words Players Theatre almost a year ago), but only to hold them to reasonable professional and legal standards, and to make other companies with comparable provisions aware that non-Equity and summer stock must never be synonyms for non-professional, unfair, or unsafe.

*   *   *

The Arts Integrity Initiative will monitor this particular situation over the coming 15 months, and invites confidential communications and inquiries from artists, staff and interns not covered by collective bargaining agreements who have concerns about the legality and safety of their employment in the arts.

When we last looked in on Ocala, Florida on March 2, the City Council had declined to take any action on the claim by local businessman Brad Dinkins that upcoming performances in city owned sites violated the terms of the venues’ leases. That came after an hour of presentations at a City Council meeting at which the majority of the speakers defended the bookings in question, while only a few voices were raised against them. As a result, a benefit performance of The Vagina Monologues and a burlesque show went on as planned.

Following the meeting, the Ocala Star-Banner quoted Council Chairman Jim Hilty as saying, “We don’t feel (we want) to ban this. We’re definitely not looking to ban anyone’s free speech. I believe at this point we have to allow the shows to go on.” The paper further noted, “In cases where performances were grossly obscene, Gilligan said the city would likely invoke the part of the contract that limits performances.”

A separate editorial in the Star-Banner, titled “A Lesson in Public Discourse,” praised the previous day’s debate. It began, “It was a good day at Tuesday’s Ocala City Council meeting. Not only was a fundamental American principle discussed and debated passionately for more than an hour and left untrampled, but it was done so in a civil manner that our presidential candidates would do well to emulate.”

Katerina Aella in The Vagina Monologues (Photo by Ralph Demilio)

So while it is not entirely surprising that Brad Dinkins remains unsatisfied by the City Council’s action, or rather lack thereof, since none was deemed necessary, it is surprising to find Dinkins garnering headlines on the same subject yet again. He’s now convinced that by standing for the constitutional rights of individuals using city owned property, things are only going to get more “adult” in Ocala.

Dinkins’ prediction: People inclined to produce adult-oriented theater or films are likely to do it again, given the council’s unwillingness to stop last month’s performances of “The Vagina Monologues” at the Reilly Arts Center and a retro burlesque rendition in the Marion Theater. “The way the trend it going it’s very likely (there will be more adult-oriented performances).” (Star-Banner, April 9)

What is remarkable about the extensive new article is that the first 13 paragraphs concern Dinkins’ position exclusively. While many voices are heard from thereafter, explaining why the City Council’s decision was appropriate and legal, the paper has allowed one single person to set the tone for a review of an issue settled a month earlier, at a point when there isn’t even a particular performance or production to debate.

Mr. Dinkins has every right to express his opinion. But why exactly does the Ocala Star-Banner have to give him a platform every time he complains about his worries and fears regarding live performance? Is Dinkins’ Ocala’s own Donald Trump, whose every utterance is worthy of attention, no matter how ill-considered?

If one reads the entire article, “Brad Dinkins still wants City Council to stand against adult shows,” it’s clear that the City Council’s actions in March were made according to local and Constitutional law. Yet now city officials are starting to parrot some of Dinkins’ concerns, and speak of looking for oversight they previously said they didn’t need.

Hilty said it’s possible future performances of adult-oriented films and plays held on publicly owned property could be coming.

“I think it can happen. They could be a little bit more emboldened now,” Hilty told a Star-Banner reporter a few weeks after the March council meeting. “But I would hope they wouldn’t go to that extreme to push the envelope.”

For now, City Attorney Pat Gilligan is reviewing the leases if they should be changed to give the council a stronger hand.

Gilligan said he wants to “give the City Council as much legal flexibility” as possible if it is to grapple over a performance it thinks isn’t compatible with the community’s values. He said the current lease gives the elected officials plenty of authority over what’s performed on city property.

This new hedging towards worry and control is contrary to the message that came out of the City Council meeting. It suggests that Ocala might be looking for legal grounds to censor creative work on city property in violation of the First Amendment. It sends a not-so-tacit message to the operators of the venues in question that they should be careful about what they present, lest they cross a line that they haven’t even come close to.

Could Brad Dinkins be laying the groundwork for a political campaign based upon his highly subjective stance on public decency? If so, it seems that city officials and the media in Ocala are only too willing to give him a hand in building his base. Admittedly, there can be value in a single voice fighting against a status quo, even when the majority think otherwise. But when that solo voice is given a disproportionate platform in order to try and subvert the Constitutionally-rooted principle of free speech, maybe it’s time for everyone to get a grip and remember: nothing illegal or even subversive has taken place in Ocala, and there’s nothing on the horizon either.

If Mr. Dinkins wants to press his cause, let him do so on a blog, or social media, or by buying ad time or space. Let him call in to talk radio if he wishes and flog his censorious efforts endlessly there. After all, in the words of the Star-Banner editorial:

In the end, the City Council appropriately took no action. And while we are pleased to see another unnecessary civic kerfuffle come to its proper end, we cannot help but be proud of how the community handled this issue — or non-issue, as it turned out.

Recapping: this “unnecessary civic kerfuffle” has come to its “proper end.” It’s a “non-issue.” No censorship. Performances in city venues continue. Move on. No matter what Brad Dinkins thinks.

Cate Blanchett as half of “Simon & Kate”

In what will most assuredly give comfort to aspiring performers everywhere, you’ll be highly amused to know that Cate Blanchett began her career singing silly songs in the Melbourne University Law Revue show in her native Australia. “Weird Love Song” certainly lives up to its name in the “Red Faces” segment of the long-running Australian variety show Hey Hey It’s Saturday (1971-1999). The segment itself seems to owe a great deal to The Gong Show or, for all we know about Australian television here in the United States, it could be the other way around. Here’s the celebrated Ms. Blanchett as part of the duo “Kate and Simon.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHREdO9-l5w

You may not care much for the song (“I wish I was your cigarette, smoked on through your lips/killing you softly with my tar and seeping out your nostrils”), but what’s undeniable is the vocal prowess of Ms. Blanchett. Perhaps when she makes her Broadway debut this fall in The Present, an adaptation of an early Chekhov play by her husband Andrew Upton, she’ll turn up at a few theatre benefits, or maybe at 54 Below, and reconnect with her singing roots. I think the kid has got potential. She could be big.

P.S. Ms. Blanchett’s off beat comic sensibility from her university days has not, apparently, been dulled by fame. Perhaps you missed her cameo in Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg’s Hot Fuzz. There’s a tiny bit more than this clip. But not much.

Bottom line: keep your sense of humor at all times. But don’t listen to me. Take it from two-time Oscar winner and still undiscovered novelty song chanteuse Cate Blanchett.

Online or in print, headlines are meant to be grabbers. Just this week, I was taken aback by, and simply had to read,  The Independent’s “Radioactive wild boars rampaging around Fukushima nuclear site.” Honestly – how could I resist? A great headline need not always have a pun, such as the New York Daily News’s declaration against gun violence, “God Isn’t Fixing This.” Of course the classic of the genre is the New York Post’s “Headless Body in Topless Bar.”

Though I see journalism and criticism discussed and dissected six ways to Sunday in article upon article, blog after blog (and I’m often an avid participant), headlines tend not to be a significant part of the discussion of arts journalism. The “star rating” system gets a lot more attention, as of course do the reviews themselves. But headlines can have an enormous impact on your impression of a review, or a show; like stars, headlines may, for an enormous number of readers, be all they ever learn about a show.

Good headline writing is a talent, a craft, and that holds true in old-line print media or online. The Huffington Post seems to have made its fortune on headlines that promise more than they deliver, harking back to the best of true tabloid journalism, but dammit they make you look. None of us are immune to the lure of shrewd headline.

As someone who surveys the internet daily for news stories of theatrical interest, I marvel at the headlines I see, some clever, some mundane, some inadvertently hilarious. While there are fine editors of all stripes who contribute to headlines (the general public doesn’t realize that in many cases, the writer of the article has no participation in the process), there’s no question that at smaller outlets that still generate a lot of copy, the process of headline writing can become a bit rote. In the most absurd cases, I envision a lone editor, late at night in an empty newsroom, wracking their brain for copy that will fit both the story and the allotted space. I see this editor being responsible for headlines such as “‘Fences’ features all black-cast,” which I saw online two years ago, conveying a bit of information self-evident in 2014 to anyone familiar with August Wilson’s 1987 play.

My imagined editor seems to work on a lot of theatre reviews but apparently doesn’t go to a lot of theatre, and so I muse upon headlines I suspect most of us would not want to see; endless alliteration, bad puns, inadvertently risqué or even offensive juxtapositions pouring from a sleep-deprived mind, one that may have only read the review cursorily. Consequently, here’s a selection of 25 headlines I created for a range of plays and musicals – all to accompany positive reviews, as going negative is too easy – with the hope that it will make its way to arts copy desks across the country as samples of what not to do.  But I can assure you that these are very close to the reality I see daily.

• Where’s the beef? Steer yourself to prime AMERICAN BUFFALO
• Don’t paws, run to (litter) box office: CAT on TIN ROOF will have you feline HOT
• Fine end to CORIOLANUS, but you may be bummed out
• Insane fun to be had at nutty CRAZY FOR YOU
• Miller spins tight-knit yarn about SALESMAN’s DEATH
• Piercing EQUUS quiets the neigh-sayers
• No woe at MOE show, so grab FIVE GUYS and go, shmoe
• Kernel of corporal punishment makes LIEUTENANT OF INISHMORE generally great
• LITTLE WHOREHOUSE turns tricks into trade, hooks audiences to happy ending
• Compelling climax in THE ICEMAN COMETH
• You’ll want to preserve JELLY’S LAST JAM
• No need to hope for charity at LEAP OF FAITH
• NIGHT time is the right time for Sondheim’s MUSIC
• Oh, my: THE LYONS is a tiger, bears seeing
• Missed I and II? You’ll still enjoy MADNESS OF GEORGE III
• MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM is tops
• M. BUTTERFLY emerges in unexpected, satisfying ways
• Start spreading the NEWSIES
• NORMAN’s CONQUESTS make him Attila the Fun
• ONE MAN, TWO GUVS: three cheers four you — five stars
• Norris’ PAIN AND THE ITCH receives critical an-ointment
• Local troupe puts impressive PRIVATES ON PARADE
• Current RAISIN IN THE SUN prunes away time’s overgrown vines
• There’s no need to fear, TOPDOG/UNDERDOG is here
• Yes VIRGINIA, Albee’s foxy WOOLF blows the house in

I will close by quoting a long-remembered headline, 100% accurate, that accompanied a glowing review for a show I worked on once upon a time: “Crawl Over Ground Glass to See This Show.” Enticing, huh? Truth can be stranger than fiction.

This is a slightly revised version of a post originally published in 2012, under the dreadful headline, “Much Read Heads Can Put Chorus In Line Or Punch ‘Em Out.” I have no idea what I was thinking. Needless to say, no one read it.

My memory of the moment is quite vivid, if inevitably inexact. It happened 41 years ago, in the early afternoon, in Mrs. Winkler’s seventh grade science class at Amity Junior High School, as we were doing a “unit” on Ecology. In order to brighten our study of the physical environment, Mrs. Winkler announced one day at the start of class that she wanted to play us a song, and proceeded to put a black vinyl disc on the industrial weight turntable, the cover of which doubled as a speaker. The song she played was a savagely funny cri de coeur about how America’s cities and resources had been ruined by the scourge of pollution, from the perspective of a someone warning a foreign visitor about coming to America.

That was the day I first heard, and heard of, Tom Lehrer.

Not long thereafter, at a garage sale, I would discover a 10 inch, 33 rpm record, “Songs by Tom Lehrer” (on Lehrer Records), which I immediately seized and paid, I imagine, 25 cents to possess. Lehrer joined Allan Sherman and Stan Freberg among the small coterie of singing comedians to whom I became devoted, committing their songs to memory and happily singing them acapella for friends who had no earthly idea where I’d found these strange but funny tunes. After all, Sherman died in 1973, Freberg had shifted from comedy into advertising, and Lehrer’s U.S. fame had peaked on That Was The Week That Was, a short-lived TV precursor to The Daily Show back in 1964 (where he once took on the decimal system on the original British version of the show).

While Lehrer was a genuinely formative influence, who is rarely far from my mind, I think of him specially today because April 9, 2016 marks his 88^th birthday. With Sherman gone for than 40 years and Freberg having passed just last year, Lehrer is the last surviving member of my own sung comedy superteam, and while it’s quite clear that there is nothing Lehrer would like less than to be celebrated for work he largely stopped doing 50 years ago (this BuzzFeed piece from two years ago explains), and even further back, it’s hard to restrain oneself.

This, of course, is the challenge of being a Tom Lehrer fan. While much of the work is evergreen, the majority of it was written in the 1950s and first half of the 60s, and Lehrer largely stopped performing by the time 1970s rolled around. Some have written that Lehrer’s withdrawal from performance was because he is – as a mathematician by training and primary trade – a perfectionist, and that he took no pleasure from concerts because he was determined to reproduce his recordings. Others have suggested that what was daring and ribald in the 50s ran smack against the counterculture of the late 60s, which Lehrer didn’t care for.

In any event, to the dismay of fans of funny, topical songs, Lehrer refocused himself on teaching. The result for comedy geeks was that he became, almost, our J.D. Salinger. Although he hid in plain sight, his students knew better than to discuss his performing fame; though almost no new work appeared, it was clear that he had not shunned his piano and verbal repartee, as the occasional song slipped out, or the odd public appearance. He gave a rare interview to National Public Radio in 1979; he spoke with The New York Times in 2000. Perhaps his last burst of general public fame came when the producer Cameron Mackintosh brought the musical revue Tomfoolery, comprised of Lehrer’s songs, to the stage in London and later New York. But that was in the early 1980s, almost two generations ago now, so Lehrer fans can even be nostalgic for that moment of nostalgia.

Not all of Lehrer’s material still plays today: in this era when space exploration has been minimized, a song about early rocket scientist Werner von Braun is hardly a source of laughter; post-Cold War, a cowboy crooning about the Atomic Energy Commission is perhaps too obscure. But a jazzy pop tune about Oedipus Rex can still crack up the college crowd, and anyone old enough to know of masochism is sure to find humor in a tango celebrating sexual gratification through pain. On the first day of spring each year, the idea of ridding our cities of the overpopulation of pigeons can still resonate. The NRA probably still doesn’t care for a hunting song about an inept marksman. Sexually transmitted diseases, sad to say, are perennial. And while National Brotherhood Week may be gone, a song about that effort to heal cultural rifts still stings.

It may be the very last thing he wants, but today I’ll place a candle in a cupcake and wish for the continued health of Tom Lehrer, hoping, as I do every day, that he might one day be revealed to have been writing songs all this time, and shares them with us, even if not in performance, then at least as sheet music, the better to celebrate him with. Even if he doesn’t want us to do so.

P.S. Did I mention that Lehrer went to summer camp with Stephen Sondheim? Just wanted to toss that in. The verbal dexterity on the swim team that summer must have been quite something.

*   *   *

Whether you’re a Lehrer devotee or newly curious, I recommend watching this mid-60s live show from Copenhagen, in which he performs many of his best known songs for a relatively reserved college crowd.

While the Copenhagen concert has yielded an array of YouTube clips, much lesser seen is a short performance Lehrer gave for one of his teaching colleagues, stocked with an array of unrecorded songs, heavy on mathematics humor.

Strictly for the fans, here’s a decidedly odd industrial clip of Lehrer singing the praises of a new Dodge car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3htMuJhz5Y

If you’d like to introduce younger kids to Lehrer, paving the way for them to discover his more transgressive work when they get older, here’s a bit of educational material from TV’s The Electric Company.

While “cover” versions of Tom Lehrer tunes are rare, here’s the late British comic Marty Feldman having his way with “The Vatican Rag.”

Of course, there’s also Daniel Radcliffe singing “The Element Song.”

I’ll wrap this up with what may be one of Lehrer’s last released songs to date, which is simply the best Hannukah song ever written.

Priscilla Lopez in Pippin (Photo by Joan Marcus)

The recent laws passed by the states of North Carolina and Mississippi, which condone discrimination against LGBTQ citizens under the guise of religious freedom are, so far as I’m concerned, a national shame. That other states have attempted or will soon attempt to pass similar legislation is frightening. I can only hope that these decisions will be swiftly challenged, taken to the supreme court, and repealed as unconstitutional.

Composer and lyricist Stephen Schwartz, known internationally for his work on, to name but three, Godspell, Wicked and Pippin, shares this opinion. He has used his platform as one of musical theatre’s most successful living artists to express his dismay: in the wake of the North Carolina decision, which came first, Schwartz announced that he would not permit the licensing or production of any of his works in that state so long as this law remains in place. Decrying the passage of HB2, as it is known, he compared his action to the boycotts undertaken against South Africa over apartheid.

While I saw numerous artists praising Schwartz online through social media, I also saw the response from theatres in North Carolina, who were concerned that a cultural boycott of their state might have minimal effect on their elected leaders, while denying works to a community that is predisposed to oppose the law. Angie Hays, the head of the North Carolina Theatre Conference, issued a statement in which she said her organisation has been in contact with “artists and producers from across the country who are asking how they can most effectively play a part in lifting up the NC theatre community so that we may continue to produce work that will open hearts and change minds.” In a letter to The Hollywood Reporter, Schwartz, in his second statement, said that his decision wasn’t singular, citing “a collective action by a great many theatre artists.”

As I write, based on news reports and my own conversations with the heads of several theatrical licensing houses, only one author (Tom Frye) beyond Schwartz’s own collaborators has joined him in placing a moratorium on his work in North Carolina. Ralph Sevush, executive director for business affairs at the Dramatists Guild, which represents the majority of playwrights and composers in the US, said in a statement that the guild itself “cannot call for or support boycotts, as a matter of law. However, even though the guild represents writers with divergent views, the guild is unified in supporting Stephen’s right to exercise control over the licensing of his work in whatever manner he deems appropriate.”

There is, I have no doubt, a great deal of conversation about how to respond to these loathsome laws at theatres, at dance companies, at orchestras and so on, and a prevailing unanimity in despising these decisions. But as is so often the case in the early days of a crisis, there is no consensus about how to combat it, either within North Carolina and Mississippi, or nationwide. If more and more works are denied, will theatres in North Carolina, and presumably in Mississippi, reach a point at which their creative decisions are truly constrained? Does stage work in these states rise to a level that will become meaningful to legislators, or will it stand in the shadow of major commercial interests, who have the scale and the economic power to sway policy?

Like Sevush from the Dramatists Guild, I absolutely support Schwartz’s right to make decisions regarding his own works. At the same time, I worry about the health of theatres in these states under these new regulations, at a time when they can be centres of opposition to HB2, by doing what theatre does so well, which is to teach empathy. In addition, even if they won’t be doing so on stages in these battleground states, I like to think that Charlemagne’s son, who renounced war and sin, that the Jesus who once wore Superman’s logo on his chest, and that the misunderstood green girl from Oz are on the ground there nonetheless, fighting the essential fight against bias and hate. Because we need every voice, real and fictional, to speak out and sing out as well.