NEA Announces Guidelines for $50 Million in Recovery Grants

"Angels in America" - the NEA prepares to help the arts
Yesterday, the National Endowment for the Arts announced the availability of grant guidelines for The Arts and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.. This opportunity was created in response to passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which includes $50 million to assist the nonprofit arts sector through funding to the National Endowment for the Arts. The new program will fund projects that focus on the preservation of jobs in the arts.

"Amidst these dire economic circumstances, the NEA and its partner organizations have been called to marshal our extensive grantmaking expertise to direct federal funds to organizations across the country to preserve jobs. We embrace this responsibility and this unprecedented opportunity. We look forward to working with our partners and our many constituents to reinvigorate the arts in our great nation."
- NEA Acting Chairman Patrice Walker Powell

The NEA will offer two categories of one-time support based on its existing distribution mechanism of 40 percent to the designated 56 state and jurisdictional arts agencies and their six authorized regional arts organizations, and 60 percent awarded through competitive direct grants. These direct grants will be available to nonprofit arts organizations including local arts agencies, statewide assemblies of local arts agencies, arts service organizations, and other arts organizations.
NEA Guidelines
Applicants must have received NEA funding in the last four years to be eligible to apply. In addition, applicants can receive these funds through only one source – from the Arts Endowment directly, or from a state arts agency, a regional arts organization, or a local arts agency eligible to regrant.
The new NEA granting program embodies the goals of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to be transparent, targeted, timely, and temporary.

Funded projects must address two areas, salary support and contractual fees. Projects may support full or partial salaries for one or more positions that are critical to an organization’s artistic mission and that are in jeopardy or have been eliminated as a result of the current economic climate. Projects also may support fees for previously engaged artists and/or contractual personnel to maintain or expand the period during which such persons would be engaged.

Grants will be implemented on an expedited timeline to help get funds to communities quickly so that jobs in the arts are preserved.
NEA Deadlines
For state arts agencies and regional arts organizations:

Applications due: March 13, 2009

Awards announced: April 2009

Project start date: on or after April 1, 2009.

For nonprofit arts organizations:
Applications due: April 2, 2009

Awards announced: July 2009

Project start date: on or after July 1, 2009.

To read the guidelines for these grants, use this link to the Recovery section of the NEA Web site for more information.

Learn more about the workers and organizations that make up the arts sector of the economy.

"Bad Dates" Travels to Merrimack Repertory Theatre for a Month

Elizabeth Aspenlieder in the original production at Shakespeare & Company. Kevin Sprague photos, courtesy Shakespeare & Company.

Watch out Lowell - the play may revolve around all her bad dates, but this delightful show is an evening out that will make the boys laugh as much as the girls. They may even catch a few clues! Elizabeth Aspenlieder is about to move in on the Merrimack scene, and she is telling all. Her one woman show, Bad Dates has warmed up the Berkshire's normally frigid winter theatre scene with sell out performances for two months. At yesterday's press conference announcing the 2009-10 season for Shakespeare & Company everyone was delighted to learn that her triumphant one-woman show was getting a run of its own within driving distance of Boston. Now you can see what all the excitement has been about.

The hilariious Theresa Reebock play has its final Lenox performance on March 8, and then Aspenlieder moves to the Merrimack Repertory Theatre from March 19 to April 12 to recreate the role. You can also read a review in Berkshire Fine Arts.

Merrimack Rep's blurb describes it this way:

A hilarious and touching comedy. A single mother with a teenage daughter, a screamingly stressful job, and a collection of 600 pairs of shoes, Haley Walker tries to find love in the big city. Relive her rotten romances as Tibetan Buddhists and even the Romanian mob get in the way of her finding “Mr. Right.” Her story is a love and fashion odyssey that has had audiences across the country rolling in the aisles!

"Do you think this pair matches?"

For the actress the only question remaining is which shoes to take.

Key Info: Merrimack Repertory Theatre has online ticket ordering and is centrally located at the convergence of Routes 3, 93 and 495 in the heart of historic downtown Lowell. If you live in the Boston area, you are probably less than 30 minutes away from what people say is “the best kept secret of the Merrimack Valley.” Merrimack Rep is professional theatre at affordable prices and without the hassle of traffic and parking. For more information you can call them at 978-654-4678.

A Questionable Defense Cut by President Obama

Currently, conservatives in the United States express critical concerns with President Obama’s economic bailout. While expanding governmental expenditure, the Obama administration is cutting defense budget. As United States and its free allies face upheavals of challenges, Robert Kagan, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, warns that defense cut proposed by the President will undermine vital national interests of the United States (“No Time to Cut Defense”; Washington Post; February 3, 2009). In addition, quoting an article by Professor Martin Feldstein of Harvard University, Kagan criticizes that currently proposed defense spending cut is contradictory to Keynesian economic philosophy of the stimulus package. We have to question what President Obama thinks of the imperial role of the United States in global security. Defense budget is not the only problem. Despite a warning by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates as I mentioned in a previous post, President Obama is not willing to renew America’s old stockpile of nuclear warheads. Let me review some articles to explore problematical points on this issue.

Robert Kagan warns that defense cut will unnerve American allies and undermine efforts to gain security cooperation. As I quoted a comment by Lieutenant General David Barno in the previous post, America should say “don’t worry, we are staying” instead of “don’t worry, we are leaving”. In addition, an adversary like Iran interprets that defense cut implies America has lost the supremacy. As Retired Captain Pete Hegseth, an Iraq veteran of the US Army, comments, “America’s enemy will see Obama as weak.”

Quite interestingly, some Republicans argue foreign aid and development spending must be cut further than defense, because they think unnecessary expenditure will simply increase budget deficit. This is another challenge for the President to persuade his defense spending cut plan.

As to Obama’s defense cut to save the economy, Martin Feldstein points out logical fraud as the following.

If rapid spending on things that need to be done is a criterion of choice, the plan should include higher defense outlays …. The military can increase its level of procurement very rapidly…. Infrastructure spending on domestic military bases can also proceed more rapidly than infrastructure spending in the civilian economy. And military procurement overwhelmingly involves American-made products…. In addition, a temporary increase in military recruiting and training would reduce unemployment directly, create a more skilled civilian workforce and expand the military reserves. (“An $800 Billion Mistake”; Washington Post; January 29, 2009)

I wonder whether President Obama is strengthening or weakening America.

Spending cut is not the only issue to be questioned in Obama’s defense policy. Obama proposes a rapid mutual cut of nuclear arsenals to Russia. On the other hand, Secretary Gates stresses that the United States build the Reliable Replacement Warheads in order to maintain current level of deterrence. Also, Gates expresses concerns with Obama’s push for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (“Nuclear agenda draws scrutiny: Obama to seek large cuts in US, Russian warheads”; Boston Globe; February 22, 2009).

Secretary Gates says "Currently, the United States is the only declared nuclear power that is neither modernizing its nuclear arsenal nor has the capability to produce a new nuclear warhead," and "To be blunt, there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without either resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program."

President Obama did not talk much about his defense plan at the joint congressional session on February 24. The President said “And with our friends and allies, we will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat al-Qaida and combat extremism. Because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens half a world away.” This is right, but he has not told how America can stop terrorists’ plot with shrunk defense spending. More importantly, Obama did not mention growing threats of Iran and North Korea, and dangerous challenges by Russia and China (“Obama's Address to Congress”; NPR; February 24, 2009).

It seems to me that President Obama is not interested in the special role of the United States, that is, the provider of global public goods to maintain world security and the leader of the League of Democracies. It is quite odd that President Obama does not respect opinions by an eminent expert like Secretary Gates whom he cordially invited to join his administration. Also, the President does not care logical inconsistency pointed out by Professor Feldstein who assumes the President Emeritus of the National Economic Research Council.

Whether right or wrong, President Barack Obama tries to do his best in the economy. I have no doubt about it. However, his dedication to national and global security is extremely questionable. Robert Kagan is right to express a critical concern.

Ionesco's "Exit the King" to Broadway with Geoffrey Rush, Susan Sarandon

"Exit the King" with Geoffrey Rush and Susan Sarandon starts previews March 7 and opens March 26

Coinciding with the 100th anniversary of Eugène Ionesco's birth his absurdist comedy, Exit the King will arrive on Broadway for a four month run starting next Saturday and play through mid June. And this is not just any production, but the most celebrated staging in memory, from Australia of all places.

The play was originally written by Eugène Ionesco in 1962, and this noteworthy edition is the result of a successful collaboration between two Oz theatre companies. Freshly translated by Geoffrey Rush and director Neil Armfield and premiered at Melbourne's Malthouse Theatre in 2007 it was immediately followed with a Sydney run with Company B. These engagements were critical successes, audience pleasers and sell outs, the trifecta of theatre.

The always charming Rush, who will be making his Broadway debut, gushed: "Taking this theatrical work to the thrilling world of commercial Broadway is an exciting and thrilling treat." He will be reprising his role as the absurd King Berenger. Rush will be joined by fellow Oscar winner Susan Sarandon, as the strong and spiteful Queen Marguerite.

The play's plot line is simple. King Berenger is getting old – 400 years old, to be exact – and his health is failing. His country is failing (his empire is down to six people). His marriage is failing (his first marriage already failed). But his pride has most definitely not failed, and despite being told his time is up, the ancient ruler refuses to get off the stage without a fight.

Photo from the original Australian production.

Having surrendered to the whacked out mind of Ionesco decades ago, this is a play that could easily cause fans like me to open their wallet in order to secure the absolutely best seats possible. However, some research uncovered a wonderful discount offer, and it will save us about 40%.

The performances will take place at the Barrymore Theatre, 243 West 47th Street and discounts between now and April 26 (except 3/26) are as low as $45 (regularly 66.50) for rear mezzanine, rows F-G, $55 rows A-E (81.50) and $59.50 for the $111.50 seats at the Wednesday matinee.

Tuesday to Friday Evenings and Saturday and Sunday Matinees the $111.50 seats are discounted to $66.50. The Saturday Evening $116.50 tickets are $69.50.

You can order these tickets through BroadwayOffers.com or by phone to 212-947-8844. The code to use is EKTW225. Previews begin March 7 and opening night is March 26.

Exit the King is a distinctive and exciting piece of theatre, and could well start a trend of importing Australian theatre to Broadway in addition to the frequent arrivals from London's West End.

Token $10M increase in NEA, NEH budgets likely

While the stimulus bill that passed February 13 included $50 million in additional funding for the NEA, the amount of federal support for the arts remains dismal. Last year it was $124.4 million, this year it was upped to $144.7 million.

In the Omnibus Bill introduced by the Appropriations Committee of the House, it is slated to increase this coming year by $10 million bringing the NEA and NEH to a whoppng $155 million each, still far less than a dollar a person for the arts. We still spend more on military bands.

Of course, the arts remain one of the favorite whipping boys of the conservative, Republican and Blue Dog Democrats who find much political mileage in singling out controversial art for criticism and censure. While Congressional politician after politician seems to form a never ending lineup of lying, stealing and sexual miscreants, the arts are expected to remain lily white and pure.

Never mind the fact that the arts simply reflect society, and is both beautiful and bad. It's going to be a tough year.

History of NEA appropriations:

2007 $ 124,406,355
2006 $ 124,406,355
2005 $ 121,263,614
2004 $ 120,970,000
2003 $ 115,731,000
2002 $ 115,234,000
2001 $ 104,769,000
2000 $ 97,627,600
1999 $ 97,966,000
1998 $ 98,000,000
1997 $ 99,494,000
1996 $ 99,470,000
1995 $ 162,311,000
1994 $ 170,228,000
1993 $ 174,459,382
1992 $ 175,954,680
1991 $ 174,080,737
1990 $ 171,255,000
1989 $ 169,090,000
1988 $ 167,731,000
1987 $ 165,281,000
1986 $ 158,822,040
1985 $ 163,660,000
1984 $ 162,223,000
1983 $ 143,875,000

New Strategies in Afghanistan and America’s Relation with Its Allies

In view of growing influence of insurgents in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama announced to send more troops there. New troops will be deployed in southern and eastern area to bounce back Taliban attack in the warmer season. Also, they will provide trainings for the Afghan army, and security for national elections in August. Obama will request NATO allies to follow his approach (“More Troops Headed to Afghanistan: Obama Boosting U.S. Force by Nearly 50% to Address 'Deteriorating Situation'”; Washington Post; February 18, 2009). Also, some allies such as Japan will be asked contributions to the US-NATO mission in Afghanistan. This is not so surprising. Obama insisted that the United States focus on Afghanistan and withdraw troops from Iraq, in the War on Terror.

Prior to the announcement by President Obama, new Afghan strategy was discussed at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. As new policy brief, “Focus and Exit: An Alternative Strategy for the Afghan War” was released this January, the Carnegie Endowment held an event on February 3 (See the video here). Gilles Dorronsoro, the author and a Visiting Scholar at Carnegie, recommends substantial renewal of counterterrorist strategies in Afghanistan. Currently, Doronsoro is an associate member of the French Institute of Anatolian Studies.

In the policy brief, Dorronsoro insists that a mere surge will not improve things in Afghanistan, and the focus of Western strategy be defined clearly. The West should not expand operations to marginal issues like counternarcotics, he says. The main objective, he argues, is to make the Afghan government self-sustainable after a US and NATO withdrawal. In addition, Dorronsoro argues that the Western pressure on Pakistan is inefficient. He also recommends talking with Afghan neighbors, including India, Iran, and Russia. Dorrnsoro insists on Afghanization of this war eventually.

Meanwhile, Ashley Tellis, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment, and David Barno, Retired Lieutenant General of the US army and Director of the Near East South Asia Strategic Studies at the National Defense University, raise some concerns to Dorronsoro’s Afghanization strategy. Let me review the event.

First, Gilles Dorronsoro expressed his viewpoints. He argued that the West should focus on security around the Kabul area, instead of expanding the war into traditional Taliban home ground of southern and eastern area, or even in the Tribal Area of Pakistan. Dorronsoro says that it is too late for the West to pursue the victory, because neither the United States nor NATO allies have sufficient resources to defeat insurgents completely. Therefore, he insists that the Western coalition give priority in empowering the Afghan government to build a real nation state, before the withdrawal.

On the other hand, Ashley Tellis insists that this is a war, which the United States must win. If allies cannot afford to make further contributions to surge, the United States must act by itself to defeat terrorists in Afghanistan, he says. Tellis argues that the United States misuses its resources for the war in Afghanistan.

It is noteworthy that Tellis categorized the Taliban into three groups, and insisted on applying different strategies to each of them. The first category is hardcore foot soldiers. The second is tribal and village chiefs who support the Taliban within their territories. The third one is cheap day-to-day mercenaries, and he calls them Rent-a-Taliban.

Tellis says that the United States must never allow terrorists use Afghanistan to attack the homeland. Quite importantly, he points out that terrorists were invigorated in 2005 to hear that the United States would transfer responsibility for the war to the coalition and Pakistan. According to Tellis, insurgents understood that the United States was quitting the war. I find some overlaps between his argument and the Iraq debate. Prior to the surge, liberals insisted on something similar to this on Iraq, which turned out to be wrong later.

Lieutenant General David Barno agrees with Ashley Tellis mostly. As a former commander in Afghanistan, he points out that the Taliban is increasingly invigorated because Afghanistan is poorly governed, not because they have grown in response to foreign forces. Regarding the resource, the budget for operations in Afghanistan is in competition with Iraq and economic bailout. Lieutenant General Barno emphasizes the vital strategic interest of the war in Afghanistan, and insists that the United States must defeat Islamic radicals there.

Most importantly, David Barno said the following.

Sending a message that our ultimate goal is leaving simply empowers the enemy to wait us out. Several months back, I was at a dinner with a group of international officers who had served in Iraq, and one of them was an American brigade commander who had served out in Anbar province. And he said the situation in Anbar with regard to working with the tribes didn’t change and we didn’t have any leverage at all in trying to approach the tribes until we, the Americans, changed our narrative from, don’t worry, we’re leaving to a narrative that said, don’t worry, we’re staying. And when we changed that narrative, all different manner of tribal entities were willing to partner with us to move in some new directions to have confidence in what we were saying with them.”

Barno concludes that the United States can win this war through effective and properly organized strategy.

Three panelists presented vital points, but it seems to me that they are preoccupied with military strategy. This is a kind of Cold War approach, focusing on defeating communists. In the War on Terror, empowerment is a critical issue, because failed governance provokes terrorist activities.

Satifar Harshimi, a staff of Voice of America in Afghanistan, asked a question about civil development. Dorronsoro replied that Western aid should go through the Afghan government as the coalition lost the war. Barno argued against it, and said that the Western forces could win.

The difference of viewpoints among the panelists results from assessment of cause and effect. I think Lieutenant General Barno’s comment the most persuasive, as the surge and the strategy renewal have made success in Iraq. Also, when 9-11 terrorist attack happened, there were not any foreign forces in Afghanistan.

The problem is, NATO allies are reluctant to expand their commitments. At the NATO Defense Ministers Meeting in Krakow, Poland, from February 18 to 20, British Defence Secretary John Hutton endorsed US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that European allies send more troops to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda (“Afghanistan, Georgia, Ukraine Top Agenda For NATO Defense Ministers”: Radio Free Europe, 19 February 2009). The rift between American (and British) sheriff and European bar master over Iraq has not resolved. The Afghan War reveals the gap again.

Chad Allen's "On the Other Hand, Death" a breakthrough film

The Chad Allen Interview

Actor Chad Allen's career has been on the ascent recently, and we intruded into some of his rare time off to catch up with his activities. Having just arrived home in California after months away, he was in great spirits, playing with his dog and finally getting to enjoy his new house.

"It is so wonderful to be home again, I can't tell you how much I missed my partner and being able to just fix a snack." Chad, who is openly gay, is in the fourth year of a very happy relationship, and excused himself for a moment to see if his mate (who had received a notice earlier) would actually have to serve on a jury. "Sorry but I was worried. I have a lot of catching up to do. Now that I'm back I don't want to have to share him with twelve strangers," he joked.

Chad Allen hanging out at home.

Chad and his partner, also an actor, live basic, uncomplicated lives, and for all the attention he gets, he far prefers his bicycle and open air to a limousine and the red carpet. Their idea of fun is a hike in the Santa Monica Mountains. "There are some amazing trails up there, and my dog - partly Korean Jindo and partly Akita - just loves it. We both get to release a huge amount of pent up energy."

Of course it is amazing that he has any energy left. Chad is a triple threat actor - meaning he does acting in all its forms - stage, film and tv. On the Other Hand Death, the latest in his series of Donald Strachey Mystery films is due out on DVD February 24. It is the third in a six-part series he is committed to. Allen plays a gay private investigator and the movie co-stars screen legend Margot Kidder (Superman). Directed by Emmy® award nominated Ron Oliver (“Degrassi: The Next Generation,” “Queer as Folk”) On the Other Hand, Death delves into gay hate crimes and the difficulties faced by the LGBT community. So far, four episodes have been filmed in Vancouver, with two more still due. The fourth installment in the franchise is titled Ice Blues is scheduled for release in the fall and co-stars Sherry Miller who was also in Queer as Folk.

Chad Allen stars as detective Donald Stachey in "On the Other Hand Death"

Asked to give a plot synopsis, he said: "It begins with Dorothy (Kidder) and Edith (Gabrielle Rose) sleeping in each other’s arms on the second floor of their long-time farmhouse. Downstairs, a shadowy figure breaks through the glass door. When Edith goes to investigate the noise, she discovers graffiti sprawled across the walls. The hateful message reads “DYKES GO HOME.”

As with all the Strachey films, On the Other Hand, Death premiered on gay cable network here! TV July 25, 2008.

I mentioned that the first two Strachey films seemed more made for tv than his latest, that his character of Donald seems to have evolved and deepened. "When we first started the series, we had a limited amount of time to shoot, and not a lot of time for development. So I am glad you think that my character is becoming more complex." I noted that he has an on-screen lover, too. "I love the relationship between the character Tim played by Sebastian Spence and myself in the series. That too has deepened as the series has matured." The film also has a film noir style, with some shaken, not stirred, James Bond references. It is fun to see the mini-tributes to adventure films scattered throughout the story.

Dorothy (Margot Kidder) and Edith (Gabrielle Rose) are victims of hate crimes in "On the Other Hand Death"

One of the delightful pairings in the film is Strachey's sidekick, Kenny Kwon - played hilariously by Nelson Wong - who finally gets a chance to do some real detective footwork. "You know, that's funny, because his part was deliberately added in to the third film since his role worked so well the last time." Will we see more of him in the future?" I wondered. "Well, episodes five and six have not yet been written, so who knows. I'd love to see him as a recurring character." Me too. The two played off each other very nicely.

Det. Donald Strachey (Chad Allen) gets rough with Larry (Shawn Roberts) in "A Shock to the System"

We talked about the setting for the film, Albany, New York, and whether there had been any discussion about shooting the series there rather than simply using some static "establishing shots" as fill-in. "I would love to see it filmed on location," he enthused, "and we came close once, when the Canadian-US dollar ratio was more favorable." I suggested that with the Berkshires so close, he would be within striking distance of some great hiking and scenery, plus four resident professional theatre companies.

Chad Allen seen with Jeremy Jordan (r) in The Little Dog Laughed at TheatreWorks in Hartford, CT. Photo by Lanny Nagler Photography

"The closest I have ever gotten is TheatreWorks in Hartford where I was performing The Little Dog Laughed early last year. But to tell the truth, I love going to Vancouver, too."

Chad Allen's current project is the stage play about Tallulah Bankhead, "Looped" which stars Valerie Harper.

The conversation turned to his current stage work in the play Looped in which he co-stars with Valerie Harper as the legendary Tallulah Bankhead. It kept him in Palm Beach during early 2009, and will continue in Washington, DC at Arena Stage in May and June. Arena Stage currently has two of its productions going to Broadway (Next to Normal and 33 variations) , and there is talk of Looped heading to Broadway as well. Chad and I hope to talk about that in a few months when we meet up in DC.

Berkshire note: Looped is directed by Rob Ruggiero (Make Me a Song: The Music of William Finn and The Dog Who Talked at TheatreWorks).  Rob is well known here in the Berkshires having worked frequently with Julie Boyd's Barrington Stage Company. Chad clued me in: "I just love working with Rob, he is just a fantastic director. More than that, he's a wonderful person, one who I have come to appreciate as an artist and a friend." Ruggiero often directs at TheatreWorks in Hartford, and we are thinking of adding that innovative company to our regular beat for Berkshire Fine Arts. Ruggiero also has a revival of the musical Camelot in the works, slated for late summer at The Goodspeed Opera House in East Haddam, Connecticut.

Chad Allen is a triple threat performer.

Chad Allen has had several careers already, and seems about to make yet another breakthrough. His earliest work on television was when he was 11 on Webster, Our House, My Two Dads and St. Elsewhere. (1985-1990) He stopped acting and went to a real high school, facing plenty of slings and arrows along the way, and surviving. It was perhaps because of this break that he never became consigned to that dreaded lot in life of being a teen idol. His Tiger Beat exposure was all when he was a pre-pubescent star.

Returning to tv, he became well known on Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman, which kept him busy for six seasons from 1993-97.

In 2001 he appeared in Corpus Christi, Terrence McCNally's story of a gay Texas boy considered by many critics to be a stand-in for Jesus. Chad produced and starred in the Los Angeles premiere of this controversial show.

And so, in the October 9, 2001 issue of The Advocate, Chad came out as a gay man. He also acknowledged past problems with drugs and alcohol.  One of the most impressive things about him is that he has dealt with each issue simply and honestly. This quality also comes through in his acting, there is a Nicholson quality to it. His acting is so honest that his role of Donald Strachey does not come through as an actor's creation, but simply as another extension of an already diverse and interesting career. Chad is Donald and Donald is Chad. The role and the actor have melded into one organic whole. Only the best actors can do that.

Chad Allen in Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman

Since that announcement,  his personal development has accelerated,  his acting career blossomed, and his home life greatly enriched with a loving relationship. He is not only known for being out and gay, but also for being Christian and gay. Indeed, he has taken principled stands as part of Soulforce, taking part in a demonstration outside the Focus on the Family headquarters in Colorado Springs. One of his most deeply held hopes is a reconciliation between Christians and gays, that the two are not mutually exclusive. To this end, he produced and starred in another film, Save Me, about the ex-gay movement which I wrote about last month. It is a tough film for the two polarized sides of the God-Gay continuum to see, but it attempts to build a bridge of understanding between the two camps. As such, it is a breakthrough film.

Clearly, Chad Allen is no simple actor, but a complicated guy just trying to find and keep his voice, Hollywood machinery be damned. Early in his career some well meaning studio types tried to remake him: "There was a time when it was actually said to me, “You know, we can get you a girlfriend. We can make that happen.” But that's not in me. I can't live a lie."

I commented that he seemed to have survived the transition from the closet to a fully out actor. "It's no big deal," he said, "you just keep doing the same things you always did, only they pay you less for it."