*

Playwright Jonathan Reynolds knows how to get attention, whether it's with his satiric assault on Political Correctness, Stonewall Jackson's House, or his latest, Girls in Trouble, which gives full, fiery voice to the Pro-Life side of the abortion argument.

It took Reynolds 12 years to get a production of Stonewall on. When he finally did, however, it was a critical and popular hit, and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. That achievement, though, didn't cut any ice with artistic directors when he began shopping around his latest hot-topic play, which once had the subtitle (Formerly Three Abortions). Reynolds has gone public with his contentions that the overwhelmingly liberal theatre community was either afraid or unwilling to give his play's conservative viewpoints a dramatic airing. He eventually found a patron in Jim Simpson, the artistic director of downtown Manhattan's Flea Theatre. Simpson also directs the piece, which is divided into three sections — one set in the 1960s, one in the early '80s and one today. Reynolds talked to Playbill.com about the national subject that nobody likes to talk about.

Playbill.com: What motivated you to write this play?
Jonathan Reynolds: Oh, gosh. A fascination with the subject and the characters in it. Part of it is slightly personal autobiography, not that it happened to me exactly as it does in the play.

Playbill.com: What part of the first section was autobiographical?
JR: I and another woman did get an abortion when I was in college. The surroundings of it and what happens in the play — that's not what happened. But it was a journey [to the abortionist], and it seemed to me there was a heartlessness about it. It probably is somewhat the same today, but not in the same way, because it was illegal then and it was actually dangerous to get it. It was fraught with a lot more than an intellectual or moral position. You could go to jail for it and the girl could get really damaged or die. It was in inner-city Cleveland. It was a scary place for a college kid to go to.

Playbill.com: This play actually began as a commission from Long Wharf, right?
JR: Yes it was. Gordon Edelstein and I had lunch and I told him I had this idea about writing a play about abortion. He said, "This sounds great." When I turned it in to him, he said "You know, I've been worried about this ever since I agreed to commission it." He read it and said he liked it a lot. Then we had some production agreements on how to change it, and we agree to part ways.

Playbill.com: You've spoken in the press about your difficulty in getting anyone to produce the play. Could you talk more about that?
JR: I'd be glad to. Everyone just said no. A couple of them said, "Our audience won't stand for this. This goes so against the grain of our philosophy." ...That was, whether spoken or unspoken, what happened at several theatres in town. It happened at Lincoln Center, Playwrights Horizons, The Public. I think the Public preaches to the choir all the time, and they think it's really in-your-face, but it's not very risky. I think that, in particular, is a theatre that should really being doing things that provoke an audience. Although, I didn't write this to provoke. I wrote this because I was fascinated with the pro-lifers' arguments. I thought they really are well thought out, and they're kind of better thought out that the current Left thinking. I talked to lots of people involved with Planned Parenthood and other organizations and they really didn't have much to counter the scientific proof that there's something that's actually formed and is alive in there. I don't want to give anything away from what the pro-lifer in the play says, but it's in the play what I really think about this.

Playbill.com: I was going to ask you to what extent does the play express your stand on the abortion issue, because you express a lot of different opinions in the play.
JR: Well, good, I'm glad you think so. Most people who go into the theatre with a definite stand on abortion — and because it's a theatre crowd, they're mostly in favor of choice — come away thinking it's some kind of right-wing play that's somehow against abortion. I keep saying, "You should listen to the play, because that's not what it says." But there's a woman in the play who has an articulate point of view on that [pro-life] side of the issue, and they're not used to seeing that on stage. Continued...