‘Love! Valour!’ Deserves Compassion

Having recently seen Terrence McNally’s “Love! Valour! Compassion!” at the Geffen Playhouse, I was dumbfounded and frustrated by Laurie Winer’s review (“ ‘Love! Valour! Compassion!’ Wears Heart on Its Sleeve,” Calendar, Dec. 13). Winer had two main complaints about McNally’s play--that it was overwritten and self-indulgent--and she filtered the play through these objections. By doing so, she missed the play’s strengths.

Winer states that the characters “each know precisely what they’re feeling and why they’re feeling it, always,” implying that real people wouldn’t be this open with one another. On the contrary, I found this aspect very true to life.

I have noticed that many gay men, since the onset of the AIDS epidemic, have become acutely self-analytic and tuned in to one another. This comes, I believe, in part from our sharing profound grief, as well as a sense of fear and self-preservation, as we watch friends around us dying.

Winer refers to the play as “literally without subtext.” I disagree. I believe what McNally has done is to employ an effective theatrical device, with actors turning to the audience to say why they behaved the way they behaved. It strikes me as unjust to take issue with McNally’s way of communicating his underlying ideas in this play.

Another reference describes the characters as “privileged but beleaguered.” Leaving aside the issue of whether the privileged have a right to feel beleaguered, let’s look at the people of the play: an out-of-work costumer with AIDS, an aging choreographer and his blind boyfriend, an accompanist for a dance troupe, etc.--i.e. hardly what I would call “privileged.”

*

Winer goes on to call the play “melodramatic” (in the soap opera vein) and “beefcakey,” implying its nudity may not have been a theatrical necessity. I did not find “Love! Valour!” overly melodramatic, considering the seriousness of the issues being examined.

As for the nudity, which she acknowledges McNally handles well, it seemed to me to be a realistic portrayal of the carefree abandon that was part of the gay life in the late ‘70s, a life that is missed by many since AIDS.

McNally takes somber themes, preserves their integrity and importance and delivers them with not only pathos but also hilarious dialogue--no small feat. However, Winer diminishes this accomplishment by asserting that this is no big deal because it is the kind of wit we should expect from the playwright.

Winer contends that McNally “insists” that the audience understand and love his characters. This is a failing? I think not, especially considering that McNally gets his wish, at least with me.

She also focuses on “a dreadful scene” in which an actor, playing his own twin, delivers a hurtful, revealing monologue to his sibling. I saw this as one of the show’s shining moments because, at this point, McNally completes his theme of facing mortality through friendship that has run throughout the evening.

The play deals with such universal issues as preparing for death, dealing with aging and how to commit to another person in a relationship--in other words, with life. If these aren’t worthwhile themes, what are?

As a fellow theater critic, I realize that her review is one person’s opinion. But when that opinion is that of Los Angeles’ primary daily, it can have serious ramifications. I would hate to see some people who might otherwise see “Love! Valour!” not see it because of Winer’s review. There is much in this play to love and admire.