“If the clan in this play had been Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, or Buddhist, no theater would have touched it” [Tent Meeting review by Mary Shen Barnidge, Section 2, May 11]. How could the play have been about Jews, Catholics, Muslims, or Buddhists, considering it’s set in postwar Arkansas, and it centers around a family’s journey to hold a Baptist tent meeting? Why even make such a nonsensical comment at the top of the review? And not just because it smacks of the sort of politically correct quasi-liberal writing that some believe passes for “intelligent discourse,” but because it simply makes no sense in the context of this show. The writer seems to imply that a theater would not do a show about Jews, Catholics, Muslims, or Buddhists, but does not say why. Could it be because evangelical Christians being the dominant religion in the United States (and the proclaimed religion of our current “emperor in chief”), that it wouldn’t be as funny to have such a story (again, out of context) about Jews, Catholics, Muslims, or Buddhists? Does the reviewer miss the obvious fact that it’s simply funnier to make fun of those at the top? Surely she isn’t that dense.
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
Chicago
