Review

Email this article

What if you knew your unborn son would be gay (or a marginal actor)? 

By Walter G. Meyer

March 20, 2006

San Diego--What would you do if you knew your child was going to be born gay?

“Twilight of the Golds,” now playing at the Diversionary Theater, asks that question, and by extension the larger question about “playing God.” With almost every major medical advance, humankind has been accused of playing God. However, now with genetic testing of the unborn, it becomes a more pressing issue.

The play is filled with complex ethical issues, and be prepared to discuss them afterwards. For example: deciding whether or not to keep a child if you knew it would be born carrying a terrible disease. (In the play, they use Huntington’s.) However, where do you draw the line? What if the child would be a stutterer? What if you wanted the child to have blue eyes or blond hair? The family in this story is Jewish, so there is the ever-present specter of Nazi eugenics.

The play was first done in 1993 (and in 1997 turned into a Showtime television movie starring Brendan Fraser, Faye Dunaway, Garry Marshall, Jennifer Beals and Rosie O’Donnell), but the premise is even more realistic today than it was 13 years ago. Back then, mapping the human genome was very new. Now, with advances being made every day in genetic testing and the recent 60 Minutes story about the inherited nature of gayness, the possibility of determining a fetus’ orientation (and what you would do about it if you could) raises intriguing and frightening questions.

In a little more than a decade, much has changed in terms of acceptance for gay people, but in 1993, in many people’s minds, including most of the characters in the play, homosexuality equals AIDS, and AIDS equals death. Being gay wasn’t just an inconvenience: It was a death sentence.

At times, the play seems dated with its WKRP in Cincinnati and Ivan Boesky jokes, but the basic truths—or untruths—remain about the unconditional love within families and how unconditional it really is.

At one point, the main character, David, says, “Art is its most outrageous when it most closely resembles life.” This could also be said of the play. Some of the most over-the-top moments are the ones that hit closest to home.

Each actor gets at least one soliloquy to explain his or her point of view to the audience and clearly we are to side with David, who sees his family’s decision about his sister’s child as a referendum on his own life. His father tells him, “We still think [homosexuality] is a disease and if we could cure it, we would.” This is perhaps true of a lot of parents and the way they regard their children’s gayness (or any other trait of which they disapprove). When one looks at all of the great gay artists—would Michelangelo or Walt Whitman have been the same person if that major aspect of their personalities was removed or altered? Would they have existed at all if their parents could have prevented giving birth to a gay child?

Matthew Weeden as David doesn’t quite get the range of emotion necessary for the role. Some in the audience were crying during his emotional scenes, but he never did. If he never believes what he is saying enough to draw tears, how can he expect the audience to be as moved as they should be? He tells us how moved he is by the music of Richard Wagner, but he never looks that moved. It also struck me as odd that he didn’t shave. As the play stretches over months it seems strange that he’d have a few days’ growth of beard in every scene. Weeden does have a fine singing voice and the few lines of Roberta Flack he performs have the audience wanting more.

The two women in the cast (Glynn Bedington as the mother and Amanda Sitton as Suzanne) were trying to do New York Jewish accents—and with no success—so each time they spoke it distracted from what they were saying. In the second act, Suzanne completely gave up any attempt and her acting improved considerably. Her scenes as the broken woman on the couch ring much truer when her voice isn’t hidden behind the accent. That is her best work in the play and it is very good.

Joshua Harrell does an adequate job as Suzanne’s conflicted husband, Rob, but the finest performance is that of Fred Moramarco, who plays Walter, the crusty but loving father. As Walter, he wants to do right by his kids, but at times isn’t sure what right is. He never hits a bad note.

The interesting set design invokes shades of Wagner apropos to David’s passion. There are many ironic twists to the play, David’s obsession with the anti-Semitic Wagner among them.

The play does have some great laughs, especially for anyone clued-in to the theater scene. Although some of the performances could be better, the play still manages to pack a punch and will have you talking and thinking about it long after you’ve left the theater.

Diversionary Theater

4545 Park Blvd.

San Diego, CA

619.220.0097

www.diversionary.org

--------------------

Walter G. Meyer is a freelancer in San Diego. He writes about anything, on just about any topic, from local baseball to endangered sea turtles. His work can be seen at waltergmeyer.com