State lawmaker opposes staging of 'The Most Fabulous Story Ever Told'

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**d-usa**

Just because this comes from my wonderful home state...

Source: (warning, includes annoying auto-play video)

A state representative from Yukon says a play being staged in Oklahoma City that satirizes biblical stories — employing homosexual relationships and a fair share of nudity in the telling — is a “direct frontal attack” on Christians.

Rep. Dan Fisher, a Republican who is senior pastor of Yukon's Trinity Baptist Church, said Friday that a group of pastors and legislators will pressure city leaders to block it.

The Oklahoma City Theatre Company's Christmas-season production “The Most Fabulous Story Ever Told” opens Dec. 5 in CitySpace, a small theater in the basement of the Civic Center Music Hall. It runs through Dec. 22.

“There's a difference between satire and pornography,” Fisher said. “This is pornography.”

The New York Times reviewed “Most Fabulous Story” when it opened off-Broadway in 1998, describing Paul Rudnick's play as a comedic retelling of the Bible “from a flamboyantly gay perspective,” with full-frontal nudity.

In the play, Adam and Steve meet in the Garden of Eden. The couple leave the Garden only to encounter lesbians Jane and Mabel, who insist they were Earth's original inhabitants.

Act 2 is set in contemporary New York City at Christmastime.

Oklahoma City touts itself as a big-league city with a vibrant urban culture, said Scott Hamilton, executive director of the Cimarron Alliance.

As such, it cannot afford to be in the business of banning literary works, said Hamilton, whose alliance advocates on behalf of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered Oklahomans.

“Most Fabulous Story” is a funny play, Hamilton said. “It certainly has a place on the stage, in New York and here in Oklahoma City.”

Theater has deep roots

Oklahoma City Theatre Company is a community theater founded in 1999 by University of Oklahoma graduate Richard Nelson, who was its first artistic director.

The company stages most of its productions in Civic Center Music Hall's versatile CitySpace, a black-box theater that seats fewer than 100 patrons.

Its larger productions, such as next spring's “Jesus Christ Superstar,” are presented in the 286-seat Freede Little Theatre, a proscenium-style venue.

Artistic Director Rachel Irick said homosexual themes and nudity are nothing new to OKCTC.

Past productions have included “Bug,” by “August: Osage County” playwright Tracy Letts — nudity — and “Hedwig and the Angry Inch,” the story of a transgendered rock star staged as a cabaret performance.

In the case of “Fabulous,” Irick said: “We don't have any plans to use total nudity.”

Of the portrayal of the two homosexual couples at the center of Rudnick's play, she said, “Thankfully that's becoming less and less controversial.”

The play's biblical satire is, like satire in any setting, “a what-if kind of a spin” on the underlying story, Irick said.
Rudnick's works include “Jeffrey,” a 1993 play about living in the shadow of AIDS. Frank Rich wrote that year in the Times that the playwright was “a born showbiz wit with perfect pitch for priceless one-liners.”

OKCTC is a resident company at the taxpayer-funded Civic Center. Its sponsors include the Kirkpatrick Foundation and the Oklahoma Arts Council.

Executive Director Amber Sharples said the Arts Council reviewed the script for “Most Fabulous Story” and decided not to support it because of its content.

State law forbids the Arts Council from supporting productions that include simulated sex acts, she said, and the script for “Most Fabulous Story” includes such scenes.

Oklahoma City Theatre Company asked the Arts Council for $70,775 to support the six productions in its 2013-14 season.

Funding request reduced

The Arts Council granted OKCTC $18,000 to support the five productions besides “Most Fabulous Story.” They include “In the Heat of the Night” and an annual Native American New Play Festival.

Jim Couch, Oklahoma City's city manager, said Friday the city cannot pick and choose among groups that contract to use city facilities, such as the Civic Center theaters, based on the content of their productions, as long as it is legal.

Some 300,000 patrons attend events each year at the Civic Center, from Broadway shows like the current musical “Godspell” to ballet and weddings, said Jennifer Lindsey-McClintock, a spokeswoman for the city's Parks Department.

Oklahoma City-area playgoers have seen Rudnick's comedies in the past, including “I Hate Hamlet” at Jewel Box Theatre in 2010 and “Jeffrey” at OU in 1997.

Oklahoma City University's OCUedge staged a dramatic reading, rather than a full production, of “Most Fabulous Story” in 2011, said D. Lance Marsh, associate professor in the Theatre School.

Standards

Fisher said community standards should govern whether city officials allow OKCTC to produce the play. Oklahoma City is primarily a Christian community and residents live by Christian moral values, the Yukon pastor said.

“For some reason it's OK to demean and besmirch the name of Christ and the faith of Christians,” Fisher said.

Irick, the OKCTC artistic director, said she was “grateful that we live in a free country where our freedom of expression is protected under the law.”

“Everyone in our community regardless of lifestyle or religious belief should have an opportunity to be represented,” she said.

**Seaward**

So taxpayer cash? No.

**d-usa**

Taxpayer cash "for the arts" has always been a thing.

I got $2300 of that sweet sweet taxpayer money over the last few years

**Seaward**

d-usa wrote:
Taxpayer cash "for the arts" has always been a thing.

True, sadly.

On the other hand, if you want to suck in government money, you can't bitch about getting government oversight along with it.

**d-usa**

I can if it results in me getting less money!

**Seaward**

Then it's time to channel your inner 16th century Italian and find yourself a patron to support your art.

**Kilkrazy**

"The Arts Council granted OKCTC $18,000 to support the five productions besides “Most Fabulous Story.” They include “In the Heat of the Night” and an annual Native American New Play Festival. "

Does this mean they received $18,000 to do six plays, or to do five plays? The phrase "besides" is ambiguous and could mean one or the other.

Is the Civic Center allowed to ban a play on the grounds of religion?

**Relapse**

Seaward wrote:
Then it's time to channel your inner 16th century Italian and find yourself a patron to support your art.

**Kilkrazy**

It was the Italian city rules who patronised the renaissance artists.

**Yodhrin**

Seaward wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Taxpayer cash "for the arts" has always been a thing.

True, sadly.

On the other hand, if you want to suck in government money, you can't bitch about getting government oversight along with it.

Out of interest, what part of "whiny pastor who happens to hold public office groundlessly attacks a play because it has gay people poking fun at his faith in it" says "government oversight" to you?

**Fafnir**

Seaward wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Taxpayer cash "for the arts" has always been a thing.

True, sadly.

On the other hand, if you want to suck in government money, you can't bitch about getting government oversight along with it.

There already is government oversight. You have to get approval before you get funding.

**Seaward**

Fafnir wrote:
There already is government oversight. You have to get approval before you get funding.

You know a lot about this little theater group.

So you mean they have to get approval for every play they stage? Who approves it?

**d-usa**

Seaward wrote:
Fafnir wrote:
There already is government oversight. You have to get approval before you get funding.

You know a lot about this little theater group.

Or maybe he read the article?

Seaward wrote:
So you mean they have to get approval for every play they stage?

From the article:

the actual article wrote:Oklahoma City Theatre Company asked the Arts Council for $70,775 to support the six productions in its 2013-14 season.

So it would seem that they provided information about every play that they planned on staging.
This is further supported by the fact that they asked for six plays and the article states:

Executive Director Amber Sharples said the Arts Council reviewed the script for “Most Fabulous Story” and decided not to support it because of its content.
...
The Arts Council granted OKCTC $18,000 to support the five productions besides “Most Fabulous Story.”

Seaward wrote:
Who approves it?

Executive Director Amber Sharple from the Arts Council approves it.
Jim Couch, Oklahoma City's city manager approves that it is held at the Civic Center because they cannot discriminate based on content of the play and because the company is one of the resident companies at the Civic Center.
Private funding also comes from the Kirkpatrick Foundation.

So this particular company, receiving government funding from the State of Oklahoma through grants administered by the Arts Council, applied for grants covering each individual play. Executive Director Amber Sharples of the Arts Council practiced Government Oversight by reviewing the scripts for each individual play. Through that Government Oversight she determined that this one particular play does not meet the legal requirements for taxpayer funding and declined to fund it, indicating that the system worked. Five separate plays were authorized for funding after they were reviewed by the official appointed by the State of Oklahoma to practice Government Oversight over the money she then subsequently awarded after making sure that all legal regulations were satisfied and that the purpose of the grant complied with the mission of the Arts Council as dictated by state law.

I didn't even have to Google any of this, since it is all written out in the first post. None of it is stuff I know because I have dealt with the Arts Council, or because I frequent the Civic Center, or because I am a member of the arts community (who has personally received federal funding). Nope, it's because I read the article that answered every single one of your questions before you even asked them.

Now there is one State legislator, who is complaining about something that is happening outside of the district over which he should be worried about stuff to complain about, because homosexuals and that dreaded "attack on Christianity".

**Ahtman**

As I understand it, most art grants don't go directly to artists, but to organizations that then oversee the distribution of the funds. Most of the funds are state funds as well, with federal programs like the NEA making up a small portion (about 12-15%) of each states culture and arts funding. If I can find the information later I will link to it.

Art is sometimes troubling and confrontational, but rarely do we want the legislators deciding what is and isn't. History tends to do a good enough job as it is, with the good stuff staying and the bad stuff fading away. Aurthur Miller and Orson Welles both worked under art programs such as these.

**Seaward**

d-usa wrote:
Or maybe he read the article?

I read the article, too, which is why the questions were asked. It appeared Forar had not.

I'm sure he appreciates you stepping in, though.

**d-usa**

Seaward wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Or maybe he read the article?

I read the article, too, which is why the questions were asked. It appeared Forar had not.

I'm sure he appreciates you stepping in, though.

No problem at all.

Sometimes I just have a little difficulty recognizing the difference between your rhetorical questions and you not knowing what you are talking about

**Fafnir**

Seaward wrote:
Fafnir wrote:
There already is government oversight. You have to get approval before you get funding.

You know a lot about this little theater group.

Why do I need to know a lot about a specific group just to understand that they can get funding? Government art grants aren't just given out without any judgement.

So you mean they have to get approval for every play they stage? Who approves it?

Typically, the creative/artistic director for the theater (or whatever arts-based company, really) will end up deciding on what plays they'll be running for the upcoming season (how they end up picking will vary between organization), and will then secure funds and set a budget for each play. When applying for a grant, you have to give the committee you're applying to the grant for information concerning what the works you're developing are, as well as how you'll actually develop them. For the most part, you have to prove that you'll be able to have something presentable even without the grant money, and how the grant money will be used to improve it. The idea is generally that while arts grants are used to help fund projects, it should not be the only source of funds.

**Seaward**

I think you're missing the point a little bit.

**Fafnir**

What's the point?

**Seaward**

Fafnir wrote:
What's the point?

That government oversight already said, "No." So when I said, "You can't bitch about government oversight if you take government money," and you said, "There already was government oversight!" we were agreeing, in a way, though I'm not sure you were aware of it.

**sebster**

Seaward wrote:
On the other hand, if you want to suck in government money, you can't bitch about getting government oversight along with it.

Not really. It all gets back to the difference between 'could' and 'should'.

Of course government 'can' withhold any funding because they don't like the play, or what it says about their religion, but doing so is probably a really bad idea.

If a group of artists are producing good work, and adding to the culture of a local area and drawing people in, to the extent that they justify public funding, then reward that. And back them to make decent art that serves that community, without needing your own oversight.

I mean, government can, if it wants, say that they will support local art as long as that art is all nice stories with no contraversy but, well, that's a bit pointless, basically.

**Some_Call_Me_Tim?**

sebster wrote:
Seaward wrote:
On the other hand, if you want to suck in government money, you can't bitch about getting government oversight along with it.

Not really. It all gets back to the difference between 'could' and 'should'.

Of course government 'can' withhold any funding because they don't like the play, or what it says about their religion, but doing so is probably a really bad idea.

If a group of artists are producing good work, and adding to the culture of a local area and drawing people in, to the extent that they justify public funding, then reward that. And back them to make decent art that serves that community, without needing your own oversight.

I mean, government can, if it wants, say that they will support local art as long as that art is all nice stories with no contraversy but, well, that's a bit pointless, basically.

To the bolded bit: I agree with this 100%. If government grants only went to non-controversial art, then we'd be swimming in a sea of nice landscapes, Norman Rockwell wannabes, and Thomas Kinkade level insipidity. The entire purpose of art is to provoke the public into considering issues from angles they may not have considered before, to shine a light on harmful social norms, and in general to break down barriers and make people think. Of course, that means you'll also get a lotta artists creating controversy for its own sake, or creating nonsensical Concept art by arranging meats in a tool case (yes, that actually happened), but you have to take the good with the bad. It's that or let government decide what qualifies as art, which is a horrifying prospect.

~Tim?

**Seaward**

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
It's that or let government decide what qualifies as art, which is a horrifying prospect.

~Tim?

No. Those are not the only two options.

**Some_Call_Me_Tim?**

Seaward wrote:
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
It's that or let government decide what qualifies as art, which is a horrifying prospect.

~Tim?

No. Those are not the only two options.

Ah yes, the short and blunt but completely unhelpful reply. Try to expand on your thought, and maybe this conversation will go somewhere...

~Tim?

**Seaward**

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
Ah yes, the short and blunt but completely unhelpful reply. Try to expand on your thought, and maybe this conversation will go somewhere...

~Tim?

Sorry. I didn't think anyone really couldn't imagine art existing without the government being involved.

As requested: one of many, many other options is that the government doesn't fund art to begin with.

**Ahtman**

Seaward wrote:
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
Ah yes, the short and blunt but completely unhelpful reply. Try to expand on your thought, and maybe this conversation will go somewhere...

~Tim?

Sorry. I didn't think anyone really couldn't imagine art existing without the government being involved.

As requested: one of many, many other options is that the government doesn't fund art to begin with.

Except the entire conversation is about government funded culture and art programs. No one has made an argument that there is no art without the government either. Try to keep up, you're falling behind it seems.

**Seaward**

Ahtman wrote:
Except the entire conversation is about government funded culture and art programs. No one has made an argument that there is no art without the government either. Try to keep up, you're falling behind it seems.

And you're taking it as a given that the government should be in that game. It shouldn't, of course.

**xole**

Only rich people should get to decide what is pretty. The Gov't needs to stay out of it.

**sebster**

Seaward wrote:
And you're taking it as a given that the government should be in that game. It shouldn't, of course.

It is, and pretty much always has been, so your 'should' is basically just rewriting reality to make it more convenient for your politics.

That said, I'm not entirely opposed to the view, just to the extreme to which you take it. Government funding in art distorts is a fairly hit and miss thing, and there's certainly plenty of places where art can stand on its own through patronage and ticket sales, but government distorts the market.

But there's also plenty of places where art doesn't survive without government support, and while I know you're certain to answer 'if people aren't going to buy enough tickets for it to survive let it die then'... externalities matter. Art can bring neighbourhoods to life, bringing value and business to nearby businesses. And the culture and commentary art can deliver has a far greater benefit to the community than just the entertainment of the guy who bought the ticket.

**Kilkrazy**

Seaward wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Except the entire conversation is about government funded culture and art programs. No one has made an argument that there is no art without the government either. Try to keep up, you're falling behind it seems.

And you're taking it as a given that the government should be in that game. It shouldn't, of course.

"And you're taking it as a given that the government shouldn't be in that game. It should, of course."

I think arguments could be made in both directions.