GOP WHIP ERIC CANTOR, ISRAELI AMBASSADOR MICHAEL OREN AND OTHER DISTINGUISHED SPEAKERS OPEN 2009 GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Nov. 8, 2009

More than 3,000 participants attended the opening of the 2009 UJC General Assembly in Washington, D.C. today, which began with a plenary featuring Republican Whip Eric Cantor, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren and a host of other distinguished speakers.

“Now more than ever, your leadership enriches our country’s moral fabric by adding the deep-rooted Jewish traditions of community, tzedakah, tikkun olam and helping those who are in need,” Rep. Cantor said.

He urged delegates to take a stand against growing anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in the world. “Federation has always been in the forefront of our struggle – and you must continue the fight. I and millions like us – of many faiths, cultures, and political persuasions – await your leadership before it is too late.”

Ambassador Oren also called upon participants to join together in the struggle against those who seek to destroy Israel. “Israel depends on the strength and support of the Jewish people,” he said. “Our ability to withstand the weapon of delegitimazation depends on our being united. Whenever Jews remained united, we overcame unspeakable challenges and flourished.”

The opening plenary focused on the theme, “Remember when you thought anything was possible? It still is.”

* * *

Alas, for all our involvement in Monday night’s program, The GA fails to list the Washington DCJCC or Theater J as a destination or attraction or as a highlighted place to visit on the special page of recommended sites from 2009 GA Co-Chair and Jewish Federation of Greater Washington officer, Dede Feinberg called “Dede’s D.C. Page.” She does list The National Zoological Park, the Jewish Historical Society of Greater Washington and Sixth and I Historic Synagogue. But no Washington DCJCC, nor Theater J’s Lost in Yonkers. Call me slighted, but I think we gotta get Dede to the theater, don’t you?

Lost, and found, in Yonkers

By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT
Nov 8, 2009 5:00

WASHINGTON – Following the controversy last year over a staged reading of the play Seven Jewish Children‚ Theater J artistic director Ari Roth thought the community needed a play that would allow for some healing.

To that end, he broke with the Theater J tradition of performing “a good depressing autumnal play,” and chose to put on Neil Simon’s prize-winning Lost in Yonkers for an extended run.

Not that the production is pure comedy , in fact, many of the laughs it provides are intensified by serving to break up moments of deep tension , but it does represent a lighter inflection of the crushing family drama genre. And perhaps most importantly, it offers a plotline that’s ultimately redemptive.

“I felt this was what we needed as a community, as Jews… with us always at each other’s throats,” explained Roth, whose Theater J is located in the Jewish Community Center in downtown Washington.

He added that the greater societal context was also significant in his choice, with the current economic crisis and what he called a “rift” in the Jewish community following the elections of US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu positioning his theater “on the seam” of those various forces.

It was our job in this slot to bring us together,” he said. “We needed a family play with hardened characters, hardened hearts, [from which] we needed to create some reconciliation.”

to continue reading, click here

(and it’s not a bad piece, and I’m more or less quoted accurately; it’s just a bit bald… but that’s okay. I’m glad this piece was written.)

So it’s been a blur of business as the blog-o-sphere puts the BROADWAY (mori)BOUND/BRIGHTON BEACH production to bed while we hunker down in DC to the Next Big Thing(s), keeping up with the rock’em sock’em box office that is LOST IN YONKERS. I check out our ticket sales on line about six times a day. That borders on obsessive, I think (but is better than six times an hour, which is how often I’m inclined to). But it’s been good news every click, and how often can you say that about an internet update? Yes, it’s a great gift to get a hit in this business and YONKERS is our biggest ever. So hallalujah and let the Hosannas cascade from our website — we’ve had TONS of compliments about this show, but haven’t really kept up with posting ‘em. We will. It’s so important to take in the good will and moving reactions that have come from audiences young and old on this show.

Putting the Simon Fortunes of NYC and DC in context, I refer us to my Facebook wall, where the comments tumbled forth thusly:

Status Update:  “Ari Roth is pleased, grateful and feeling fortunate that LOST IN YONKERS shattered all previous post-Post review opening weekend box office records, while during the same weekend The Simon Plays abruptly, prematurely closed on Broadway.”

And then, in response to my posting: Neil Simon’s ‘Brighton Beach Memoirs’ Closes in a Week — “What Went Wrong?” – by Patrick Healy – NYTimes, I ask:

The lessons to be gleaned from this fiasco are…?

1) Broadway isn’t regional theater…

2) The play WAS and still is ubiquitous (so is Shakespeare, but then…)

3) A great and legendary producer did not price this play right; did not build the audience right; did not display the right patience right…

Arthur Hessel says…
4) Glitzy budgets (and big theaters) are for glitzy plays – Neil Simon in 2009 needs a more affordable and cozier venue. (If he succeeds, with reviews and audiences, in that type of venue, step up might be possible.

Laurence Maslon says…
5) But let’s be clear here: it ain’t AWAKE AND SING! (let alone LONG DAY’S JOURNEY); it was a (bad) feature film; and it simply may not speak to today’s audience. Why is everyone so shocked? He hasn’t really written a new play that’s connected with an audience for DECADES. Why is Neil Simon entitled to be a success?

Mark Gmazel says…
6) plus, you need a young Matthew Broderick…they don’t came along every day…

Richard Stein says…
7) There have always been hits & flops on Broadway–even from legendary talents. And no amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking can ever reveal the strange alchemy of the Great White Way.

So there you have it. The last of our post-mortems on the Broadway fiasco. And yet it also raised an interesting OPPORTUNITY for us in the future: What if we, Theater J, did what Broadway didn’t? That is, what if we did the diptych? Or better, the Brighton Beach Trilogy? Shirley maintains “that’s like having 4 scoops of ice cream!” I tell her, “No, it’s like have 3 scoops of ice cream!” (Trilogies generally coming in threes…) Well, we’re mulling and contemplating. For a theater regime that had never done a Neil Simon before, to contemplate turning over the rest of our repertoire to the man’s body of work, well, let’s just say I’ve had a profound transformation (only sorta joking here, folks).

And speaking of total transformations and shifting the ground and the terms of the debate in our community, here’s a follow up from our good friends at J Street, thanking us for our participation in the conference.

Dear Ari,

On behalf of myself and the entire J Street family, I want to express my appreciation for your multi-faceted involvement in the culture track of the J Street Conference last week.

The session on Selections from Theater J’s Voices from a Changing Middle East Festival added richness and depth to the conversations about Israel and the Middle East. I could tell that participants were moved and challenged by the excerpts, and it was a service to the community to bring these voices and resources forward. Please pass along our thanks to David Brian Jackson, Michael Tolaydo, Eliza Bell, and Delia Taylor for coming to perform on such short notice. And thank you for also putting together this session so quickly and responsively.

Thanks also for introducing Noa Baum’s storytelling session, and for being a steadfast partner through thick and thin.

We were overwhelmed by the positive response to the conference, so thank you for your part in making this a watershed moment for the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement. It will take all of us to continue this momentum and bring about change!

(Take a look at conference videos as we continue to post more footage, and feel free to share this link with others)

Looking forward to being in touch.

All the best,
Sarah Beller
Director of Programming and Education
J Street Education Fund

* * *

to which we respond…

Dear Sarah and Rachel,

Thank you for this warm note. We’re very proud of our involvement in the recent J Street Conference and look forward to continued partnership on cultural matters with your organization in the future. We’re thankful as well to the Theater J artists who participated in our presentation and we’ll be looking to make similar presentations at other important conferences to be held in our city where there’s an interest in Jewish culture and the ways in which a theater like ours reflects on the on-going dramas inside and around Israel.

The J Street conference marks something of a turning point for the American Jewish community in its dialogue about Israel, and it’s very much in keeping with the robust, candid, mature, and supportive dialogue that Theater J and so many of the other public affairs and arts programs at the Washington DCJCC have been having on the subject. That the candor of the arts is now finding its way into public discussions within our community–and as our community speaks to our political leaders–is a very important step and underscores the role of culture in reflecting and enriching public discourse.

We’ll be at the November 9th United Jewish Federations of North America General Assembly next, working with DC actors like Laura Giannarelli, David Harscheid, Norman Aronovic, Kate Wolf, and Rosemary Knower as we bring figures from modern Israeli history to life during their opening night reception.

Thanks again.

And so you can see, we’re moving on to our November 9th gig. I spent a good part of the last week and a half working on monologues for good actors that probably won’t get fully heard over the din of 3,000 reception goers at the Omni-Shoreham. These are decidedly pitched to the center, so to speak. Wanna read one, as a kind of sample? Here goes.

Material for Avital Sharansky

played by Laura Giannarelli

I want to tell you a story about a marriage. It’s a Love Story. And a Protest Story. A Political Story. And in the end, a Very Jewish Story. It’s about the people who helped me to achieve my freedom, and eventually, that of my husband’s. The two of us became strong in our separation. But our wills were fused in faith from the start.

My name is Avital Sharansky. I married Natan on the 4th of July, 1974. We lived in a 6th floor apartment in Moscow on Gorky Street. Natan was under surveillance by the KGB at the time. He had been the press spokesman for Andrei Sakharov, the physicist who helped invent the Soviet H-Bomb. Sakharov had renounced the bomb and had become a peace activist and a champion of civil rights in the Soviet Union. Natan stayed loyal to Andrei. And that loyalty put Natan at the heart of controversy in our very repressive Soviet state.

We wanted to leave Russia. To emigrate to Israel. And live freely as Jews as we could not in Moscow. But we were not given permission. Like millions of others, we were refused. “Refuseniks,” we were called.

For our wedding day, the Soviets gave us a present; a visa to Israel, but for only one of us, and only if we exercised it in 24 hours. We were faced with a terrible, impossible choice. Natan urged me to go. I told him I could not leave him behind. But he said I could do more for the other Jews of Russia from outside the Soviet Union than from within. And so, with a heavy heart, I went, committed to the struggle of winning our people’s freedom from repression.

On the two year anniversary of our wedding, July 4, 1976, America’s 200th birthday, Israel gave us a present of its own. It rescued hostages from a hijacked Air France jetliner in Entebbe, Uganda. The liberation of the hostages was a very good omen for Natan. IF the hostages could be free to come to Israel, why wouldn’t Natan soon be free as well?

But Natan’s persecution persisted, under arrest for three agonizing years and not given a trial until 1977, when he was finally and formally charged and then convicted of being a spy. For the CIA. The insanity!

I became more determined than ever in my fight to make a Jewish home in Israel with my husband. That was my simple goal for the length of our ordeal… To build our Jewish Home.

Two years later, on another 4th of July, I met George and Barbara Bush in Jerusalem. We talked and I told them what I was living for; the release of my husband. But here I was saying this to a Vice Presidential Candidate in the King David Hotel while Natan was still in Vladimir Prison doing hard labor in the Gulag.

Mr. and Mrs. Bush had tears in their eyes.

It was two years after that, through the help of friends in America continuing to press for our case in Congress and in the White House, that we were able to make our case before the President himself, the honorable Ronald Wilson Reagan and once again, Vice President Bush.

This is exactly what I told the President on that day in May, 1981:

Natan and I met outside of a synagogue. We were in a class learning Hebrew together. Here, you would call it a JCC, Mr. President. My brother Misha had just been arrested. He was part of a demonstration of Soviet Jews wanting to emigrate. Natan was one of the “regulars” rounded up by the KGB. I thought Natan could give me and our family helpful advice on what to expect. As soon as I began to hear him speak, I fell in love… And he, apparently, with me. Right there on the spot, you might say.

We decided to get married. I was just a 23 year old student. We ran around Moscow buying wedding bands as fast as we could. We knew Natan was about to be arrested himself.

On the day we were married, I got the visa to go to Israel. It was issued in my name only. It said I had to leave the next day or the visa would be invalid. It was awful. But we decided that I should leave. It’s seven years later now, Mr. President, and I still haven’t spent more than one night with my husband!

Of course I miss him. But more than that, I worry about his health. He has been in Siberian work camps for 4 years. Punishment cell. Solitary confinement. To stay sane, he reads The Book of Psalms that I gave him the day we married, or he plays chess games in his head. He’s quite brilliant. His mother and brother can visit him once a year. If either mentions my name, the guard forces them to change the subject. Natan gets no care from a doctor. He has angina. The pain doesn’t stop. I am so afraid he will die. He has rubbed a hole through his shirt at the spot where he tries to massage his heart. Mr. President: I want my husband back.”

The President seemed to change. When the meeting began, he seemed tired. This was the 4 month anniversary of his taking the oath of office. He was still recuperating from the assassination attempt on his life. But I was told that what I shared with him was “his kind of story. A Human Story.” I could see… He had tears in his eyes.

“Avital,” he told me, grasping my hand, “I promise you that no meeting will take place between the Soviet Union and the United States on any topic, any place in the world in which the subject of the plight of Soviet Jewry in general, and the specific issue of your husband’s release will not be on the agenda. I will not rest until your husband is free.”

In an instant, Natan had become a national priority for US diplomacy. His statement stunned and excited me; as much as it probably shocked most of the others in the Oval Office.

Ronald Reagan kept his promise. Like reciting the blessing before every meal, Soviet Jewry and Natan Sharansky became ritual invocations. No matter if the session was about SALT talks, grain sales, or Soviet submarines lost in the Baltic, my husband came first.

In July 1981, we went to visit Ambassador Max Kampelman. He was close to negotiating the release of my Natan, but there was one small catch; the Soviet’s required Natan to write a letter of confession; or at least acceptance of the jail sentence that had been issued.

“Natan will never sign this” I said. “The letter implies his guilt. He will never admit this. They’re keeping him in prison illegally. He cannot say “I request early commutation of my sentence.” He must say. “I demand immediate release because I am ill. I am very, very ill!”

But Natan refused to sign any letter.

Years went by. Then came the Reagan/Gorbachev Summit in Geneva in 1985. November. I was planning to go and demonstrate in front of the chateau where the summit was to take place. I received a call from the US Department of State. They said:

“We have reason to believe that your husband is going to be released soon. The summit is important for both the Americans and the Soviets. We are concerned that the consequences of your demonstrating in Geneva will be counterproductive. It will embarrass Gorbachev and could sour negotiations. The Soviets may change their mind about Natan’s release. We advise you not to go to Geneva.”

To protest or not to protest? I had never NOT protested before!

I called my friend in Columbus, Ohio, Gordon Zacks. “Avital,” he told me, “the only reason Natan has a chance of getting out is because of all the noise you’ve made. Go to Geneva and make MORE NOISE and KEEP MAKING NOISE until he’s out. Don’t let your leverage disappear!”

And so I went to Geneva. I made noise. I waved signs. Reagan and Gorbachev met. The president gave his counterpart his message:

“You can say again and again that Sharanksy’s a spy. But the world believes this lady, and you won’t be able to change your image until you let him go. You can say anything you want, but until you release all the Jews who want to emigrate, and all your political prisoners, you won’t be able to change your image in the West.”

And it worked. Natan was released on February 11, 1986. We were reunited. We quickly had two daughters. We made the Jewish home we so fervently dreamed of. And I returned to being a private person. I didn’t need NIGHTLINE or THE TODAY SHOW anymore. My message had always been a simple one: I WANT MY HUSBAND BACK.

Let him be the political one. Let him be the leader. Let him be the one walking around this wonderful conference this week. I helped him to get here. And that was activism enough for a lifetime!

(with acknowledgments to “Defining Moments: Stories of Character, Courage and Leadership” by Gordon Zacks)

Another terrific review came out yesterday that we missed–it was Jayne Blanchard’s review in The Washington Times–and it helped Theater J achieve its best day (and night) of box office ever. Though there are still Halloween night tickets left on sale for tonight, the rest of the weekend’s supply got gobbled up in a hurry and it’s fun to know we have extra performances of this wonderful show throughout November.

But my God, consider the whiplash for the cast and producers of The Simon Plays on Broadway, where a closing notice was just posted with a final performance of BRIGHTON BEACH MEMOIRS this Sunday. Poor Noah Robbins (our DC/GDS high school alum) who took off first year (or just semester?) of college expecting a decent run on Broadway. And all those other stellar actors (Laurie Metcalf, Dennis Boutsikaris, Jessica Hecht… all my faves)…

Breaking News Update: The “closing notice” is “only provisional” — courtesy of playbill.com

* * *

And a day later, this nail in the coffin meditation on the failure of The Simon Plays to find an audience; from Howard Kissel in The New York Daily News. It concludes:

“I’m afraid these plays could now only have been mounted in repertory in a not-for-profit theater, which is where you can still find remnants — somewhat aged — of The Broadway Audience. There may come a time when Neil Simon experiences a major revival. I hope I’m around, and I hope the revivals meet the level Cromer did with this one.”

Time may be a coming…

A round up of wonderful words on LOST IN YONKERS.

Peter Marks’ review finally runs on the front page of today’s–Friday’s–Post. It’s terrific.  And there’s more riches from Tom Avila in Metro Weekly. (How nice for Neil Simon to be able to read “Masterpiece” as the headline in our city’s proud gay weekly.)  And DC Theatre Scene comes through with a wonderfully cheeky piece.

And then there are more so-so ruminations in The Washington City Paper and Washington Jewish Week.  To which we say… very little.

Shirley here, with some reflections on the past week.

As you’ve been reading in Ari’s entries—we spent Monday and Tuesday of this week downtown at the Grand Hyatt, attending the first J Street Conference. And by “we” I mean—Ari, me, several of our Theater J Council members, handfuls of other Theater J friends and subscribers, and about 1,450 other folks who fit somewhere along the “Pro-Peace, Pro-Israel” spectrum. How was it? Exciting. Enlightening. Exhausting.

There was a shortage of chairs. They expected 1,000 people to attend, but something along the lines of 1,500 showed up. So no matter where you went, or what session you were attending, there were usually too few chairs. So people hunkered down on knees, sat cross-legged in corners, and leaned against walls. The most important thing, it seemed, was to BE THERE, to LISTEN.

When you work at a theater and something like this comes up, a conference or an event out of town, something that takes you away from your DESK, from your WORK, there is always a voice in the back of your mind wondering “Should I be here? Am I falling behind in all of the IMPORTANT STUFF I have to do at my desk? Was this WORTH IT?” my feeling after two days at the conference and now one day back at the office is that, it would have been negligent NOT to have been there. With the amount of programming we do around Israel and the middle east it seems absolutely necessary that we check in and put our collective Theater J finger on the pulse of that world. What are people thinking about? What are they advocating for? What bothers them? What excites them?

The panels I was able to see (and I am trying to catch up on the many I missed on the internet—check out Ari’s posts for links to much of the great coverage) did not follow a single party line. On a hot button issue like the Goldstone Report you could walk into a room and hear one view of the controversial document, then enter the room next door and hear the exact opposite. Same with defining a term like “Pro-Israel”—there were usually as many different definitions as there were panelists. Divergent opinions like that are hard to place neatly in a box, and I think it’s a human instinct to want to know exactly who can be put in the same box together. It’s confusing when not everyone fits. I applaud Jeremy Ben-Ami for being willing to provide an environment where each of these voices can be heard (and sometimes applauded, and sometimes booed, yes) but everyone stayed in the room. Do I sound like I drank the kool aid? No worries, I actually don’t like kool aid.

On a Theater J note, I daresay we were a hit. If I had a nickel for every time someone stopped at our table, raved about our season, gushed over David Polonsky’s art in the program, and said “Wow! I wish I lived in Washington! This is reason enough to come down here more often” well, I’d probably be able to buy myself a diet coke. And for the new friends we met who live in DC—welcome! Visit us, soon and often.

Now we’re back in the office gearing up for a Friday Tea @ Two where we’ll hear THE WHIPPING MAN by Matthew Lopez. It’s a fantastic play by an exciting young writer, and the cast is divine: David Emerson Toney, Alexander Strain and James Johnson, and will be directed by Mark Ramont of Ford’s Theater.

Finally, we had our first panel discussion for YONKERS last Sunday. Because we were a Pre-Conference event for J Street, the subject: Arts and Activism in Troubled Times: Can Culture Effect Change?
may not be what you’d initially pin as a YONKERS discussion. Though it’s worth remembering, YONKERS is set during the height of the Second World War and came out while we were engaged in the first Gulf War. So the “troubled times” part certainly fits.

We played host to a range of artists and activists and some artist/activists: Gidon Bromberg, Patrick Bussink, Noa Baum, Patrick Crowley, and Jeremy Skidmore. Unfortunately we ran short on time, but during the time we had many interesting thoughts were voiced. I was fascinated to hear Gidon (the Israeli Director of EcoPeace / Friends of the Earth Middle East) make parallels between Grandma Kurnitz and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, “Grandma is both an Israeli and a Palestinian…made bitter by the conflict…how (do we) overcome that bitterness?”. When speaking about the work she does as a storyteller and artist, Noa Baum spoke of the importance of developing “an ability to listen…to acknowledge that there is another narrative that is as valid as your own”. Patrick Bussink was also able to frame YONKERS as a story about oppression and how that oppression gets passed on in a family. It’s an interesting parallel we hadn’t done much talking about—how is this story a metaphor for an even much bigger story perhaps? Jeremy Skidmore, fresh off the very political ANGELS IN AMERICA up at forum theater spoke about the effectiveness of a play that focuses on the relationships and the story and then allows the “political to swirl around them”, rather than focusing solely on the political to engage audiences (because really, without story-telling, what are we left with?). Finally Patrick Crowley spoke of the transformative power that comes when people are given the opportunity not only to experience, but to MAKE art. “It’s powerful to realize that you are not alone”.

Powerful indeed.

It’s become much easier to recommend articles via Facebook than this blog where we’ve generally been Theater J/self-referential when citing articles. But The Forward and the relatively still brand new Tablet have been all over so many issues that dovetail so neatly with our concerns and mission that I really do need to be making a habit of reading and reciting from them more regularly (or religiously — or both). Given the confluence of Israel angst, J Street, Neil Simon and Uncle Philip Roth, there’s no end to the vibrant dialogue, good reporting, and important opinions coming out of these two publications. So let me quickly point to the chain of articles that have come out via The Forward and its Polymath Opinion columnist Jay Michaelson who originally wrote “How I’m Losing My Love For Israel” which prompted a firestorm and a flood at the same time and then this week’s follow up of many new articles in The Forward, leading with this round-up:

In the September 25 issue of the Forward, we published an essay from columnist Jay Michaelson titled, “How I’m Losing My Love for Israel.” In it, he wrote that defending Israel’s actions in his liberal social circles had grown “exhausting.” Michaelson explained that he has begun to “second-guess” his love for Israel, a love that has made him feel “implicated” in Israel’s actions. All the while, he lamented, the liberal Israel he loves “is increasingly disappearing.”

“I still support the State of Israel, its right to exist and the rest. Most important, it is still, in part, my home,” he wrote. But, he added, “while my love endures, my unease grows, and with it, the gnawing sense that this relationship is in trouble.”

Michaelson’s article sparked a firestorm of debate and discussion, online and elsewhere. In addition to an outpouring of letters and comments — some angry, others appreciative — there were in-depth responses from some prominent thinkers.

The follow ups are here, with many links to others articles, including Michealson’s own important follow up, touching on a new “American Jewish McCarthyism” which we know of well. His essay begins…

Since the publication of “How I’m Losing My Love for Israel,” a personal essay describing my fatigue as a liberal Zionist, the most disturbing responses have not been the vitriolic e-mails or online comments, nor the thoughtful and well-reasoned replies from the likes of Daniel Gordis and Jonathan Sarna. Rather, I have been most troubled by the statements of many Jewish professionals — rabbis, federation leaders, nonprofit directors — who have told me, “Thank you for saying what I cannot.”

Why is it that they cannot say what I said? Because they fear for their jobs, or fear their organizations would be harmed if they expressed their opinion? And what opinion is that, which they and I share? Is it hatred of Israel? Support for the terrorists of Hamas? No. It is *ambivalence.

Remarkably, and disturbingly, this American Jewish McCarthyism has reached such a paranoid pitch that my colleagues in the Jewish world fear even to express ambivalence, uncertainty or reservation regarding the State of Israel. We fear that we might endanger relationships with members, donors, supporters and friends for expressing uncertainty. This is outrageous, and it has shocked me in the weeks since the column was published.

Read the rest here…

“Tablet” is also terrific on culture and Theater J’s good ole friend and past box office wizard Hadara Graubart is now a major editor there and writing constantly for them on their “scroll” or blog. Anyway, Jewish cultural press has gotten a whole lot more exciting and up to the minute since the advent of daily coverage–not just weekly–as a result of journalistic blogging on a daily, sometimes hourly basis. It’s exhausting to write at this clip and exhaustingly enriching to keep up with the reading as well. But it’s the new wave. It’s vital. It’s current.

And guess what else? It’s so frickin’ New York Centric when it comes to culture that it’s positively provincial! Note to Culture Editors: Get on the Boltbus a bit and see the Eastern Seaboard. There’s a ton of activity–much of it brand new and exciting–that you’re missing because you’re behind your computers, cranking out interesting copy. But guess what? Boltbus has wireless. You can travel to other cultural generators and still be cranking it out.

It is the morning after our participation in the J Street Conference (well, actually, it’s afternoon and the matinee performance of LOST IN YONKERS is soon to let out; or now actually it’s close to evening as the day gets away from the sometime blogger/AD). Our participation was important and responsible and good marketing and good programming interweaving the arts into the broader discussion of the Israel-US relationship. And yet it was also provocative because–who knew?–J Street was to be targeted as a “dangerous” and “destructive” organization “endangering Israel” by its very existence and the subject of a vigorous campaign to discredit it from a variety of avenues. The negativity emanating from our own community reflected something very threatened and defensive within ourselves and it’s been sad to keep abreast of the deluge of discreditation (to coin a term). Contrast that to the the J Street site, which is a must-view for seeing and feeling the energy of the event itself; for putting a face to the passionate attendees; it will give you a sense of the breadth of the programming–the schedule alone was inspiring for its range and diversity–and the inclusion of a culture track helped to humanize the discourse and make personal and palpable the impact of the issues under discussion.

This morning it became about moving onto to the next conference. The event planners for the upcoming General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities were in as we discussed my contributions to creating the spoken word biographies for the 6 historical figures who’ll be mingling with conference goers at the Monday Night Live reception, getting up on platforms, and intoning, interacting, pontificating, and generally holding court like the living wax museum figures they’re billed as. It’s a decidedly different kind of involvement we’ll be having at the G.A.–a gathering comprised of 3,000 representatives from Jewish Federations across North America. Will it be as inspiring a gathering as J Street? It’s outreach, baby. It’s a room full of Jews to play for and to make them aware that great theater’s happening but a few blocks down the road.

And we’ll be pitching our wares to other upcoming conferences. And gathering more potential audiences. Will controversy continue to follow? Will we be invited to create programming at AIPAC? (We’re hoping to). There are ever so many options. And we are put a small company. But oh so many seats to fill. So we will stay active in reaching out. And staying true to our vision.

Stay tuned.

The links tell the story. It’s the fall of Simon on Broadway, and the New York-centric press explores the Simon legacy unaware that we’re looking at Simon’s finest, most democratic play of all. Here, in Samuel G Friedman’s fine appreciation for Tablet, the Brighton Beach Trilogy gets due consideration and the article caps it off with a fitting salute to YONKERS.

And here’s The NY Times Magazine’s Simon feature. Not to mention all the raves from NYC and DC press too for BRIGHTON BEACH. And then there’s the upcoming revival of PROMISES, PROMISES on B’way.

Tis the season for Simon!

…We do so, as we take part in any conference or gathering, not to endorse a particular lobbying effort, political platform or religious orientation, but to promote and present culture that reflects the times we live in now and historically. The Washington DCJCC and Theater J do not support or oppose candidates for elected public office. Opinions expressed in the plays we present and in the discussions we convene belong solely to the artists and panelists expressing them. We partner with many organizations and groups to present programs, but we do not endorse political views or policy positions – we present art and opinions about art that comment on the reality surrounding us. The Washington DCJCC and Theater J are committed to presenting a wide selection of programs that offer multiple viewpoints and encourage critical inquiry. A quick visit to our washington dcjcc calendar or a run-down of our plays in production give a true sense of the range of reflections being presented on our stage, and beyond the stage as well.

And now to share my response to the Booted Poets controversy — from our 9 AM conference presentation, October 26, (part one):

As late as a week ago, I was slated to introduce and then moderate a Spoken Word Performance panel during this slot, involving three young voices; Tracey Soren, Joshua Healy and Kevin Koval; in the latter two cases, young published poets with track records on the hip-hop spoken word scene, sharing rhythm and rhyme about Jewish identity and the challenge of being down with the left and still thinking warm but complicated thoughts about Eretz Yisroel and Palestine. These were the youngest of the artists on the J Street culture track (co-presented by Theater J, but selected exclusively by J Street staff ); poets telling like it was in clubs and on university campuses, playing Hillels and coffee houses and sometimes getting being bounced out of synagogues by rabbis in mid-performance or a week before a given conference. Though I did not know their poetry, I thought moderating a discussion about utterly candid ruminations about being Jewish and engaged with Israel—struggling and wrestling with it in rhythm and rhyme—might be interesting indeed; why were rabbis inviting in and then canceling performances mid-stanza? But then wider word got out –a small contagious virus was injected into the blogosphere alerting a network that Holocaust imagery was being bandied about recklessly, and, over a tumultuous weekend for J Street, trying very much to redirect the media story—J Street cancelled the poetry corner. In its place, we at Theater J were asked to present—and indeed we happily volunteered—to create this Drama Hour (hour and a half, actually; on no, more like 20 minutes) and we intend to make good on this opportunity to share significant moments from the body of work we’ve amassed producing our annual, “Voices From a Changing Middle East” Festival.

But first a bit more on our cancelled session. I am pleased to report back from a reading held at Busboys and Poets yesterday at 4 pm where I heard Josh Healy and Kevin Koval hold forth, presenting the program they’d been enlisted to present at J Street. Josh opened the program and read from the three poems he was to have read here: “Family Settlement” – a poem about his dear Israeli relatives and the conversations that take place between cousins, uncles, aunts – “This is where the hardest conversations take place; among family. He read from “Where I Stay,” a meditation on the Deeper Meanings of East and West, Coast and Bank. And then the offending poem, “Queer Intifada.”

Kevin read from “Why I Stopped Going to Shul” and he named names; he named the rabbi who wishes for all his congregants to practice yoga (while supporting Operation Cast Lead), he named the shul itself (the richest in the city), and he named the make of luxury automobiles pulling out of the parking lot. He spoke of “the performance of violence; not its practice.” And he read from “Burning Books,” about the IDF’s shutting down of the Palestinian National Book Fair. I was reminded that art has many purposes and modes of delivering its portraits; and in this case, Kevin was making the case for the artists as alarmist; clanging the bell; loudly, clearly, angrily.

I’m supportive of the conscientious poet who unpacks complicated issues of identity and alliance and gives them voice and rhyme. Is everything that comes out of his, or indeed our mouths golden? No. Not always. So, although, it’s understandable that an artist may announce, in a spill of self-dramatization during the heat of an election when a Jewish democratic former vice presidential candidate has abandoned ship to support the Republican nominee and the poet exclaims he’d like to punch said former vice presidential candidate in the face; we understand that he’s not articulating a plan of action; he’s performing an emotion; he’s intentionally OVERSTATING his case for dramatic effect expressing heightened outrage, and we allow for that in performance, or from the poet on the interview couch, recognizing that it may not be his finest hour in rational discourse. But one doesn’t look for rational discourse from poets at the podium or on the interviewer’s couch. Or at a gathering of political conference-goers. One looks to the poet to share language that surprises, arrests, and reveals emotion. And we make of it what we will.

Or when a compassionate poet-performer goes to a rally in DC and witnesses competing claims of oppression, suffering, and victimization overlapping each other in front of the White House, and then comments on the cacophony of multiple rights communities stepping on each others messages, as Josh Healy does in his hip-hop anthem “Queer Intifada” and then backs away, digesting the madness, including his own confusion and quest for emotional clarity, and winds up intoning in a kind of neo-Ginsburgian homily, “Matthew Shepherd is Anne Frank, Guantanamo is Auschwitz”, we (or at least some of us) again understand, in the context of a much more persuasive 4 minute poem, that the poet is not to be taken literally; he is presenting the self as a vessel for distilling and synthesizing disparate slogans and icons; he himself becomes a metaphor for empathy in the wake of exhaustion; the affinity between unlike occurrences (Auschwitz/ Guantanamo) and victims (Shepherd/Frank) is not so impossible to fathom when one is moved and disoriented and propelled to a perch where universalizing takes place–where humanistic connection embraces all; even as the intellect parses and knows that there are distinctions to be made between the Holocaust and a political prisoners camp in Cuba, the poet/vessel of empathy moved to his epiphany has the right to co-join symbols; and yet, despite this right, the poet – yanked from the perch, the stage or the page and pressed into political purpose holds himself up to be thumped by parsing detractors. And that’s exactly what happened in this controversy involving J Street and the Weekly Standard. The poets got thumped. But shorn of their J Street Street cloak and chain, back on stage at Busboys and Poets and 100+ party people who came to hear call and response passion, the poets got their props.

As artists, we have a right to our metaphors. Do our metaphors exaggerate? Yes. Can that be acceptable in poetry, theater, painting, etc? I’d say, absolutely. Is a wonky convention like J Street’s comfortable with metaphor? Evidently not. Are we boycotting the J Street conference because of their decision to cancel poetry? No, we’re not boycotting. But in true J Street fashion, we’re articulating this dialectic: We’re Pro-Conference, and Pro-Art, and by that we mean, We Have A Right To Be Critical Of Our Hosts, Whom We Love, As We State What J Street Has Already Acknowledged; That They Acted Prudently But Morally Incorrectly.