Critic went to ‘Dinner’ but missed the main course

David C. NICHOLS’ recommendation of my play “Dinner With Ribbentrop” to “backstage buffs, Anglophiles and ACLU members” is shrewd and welcome (“ ‘Ribbentrop’ Unmasks Actor,” May 7). Surprisingly for such an alert play analyst, however, Nichols seems to have missed its key point, which, if grasped, may have moderated his ultimate negative summation.

It is this:

The play is not about anti-Semitism. In a brief speech just before the play ends, the dresser Tommy points out what it is about: two typically intensely focused men of the theater, solely concerned with achieving their narrow objectives. The producer wants the charismatic actor to work for him; the actor wants the role in question and the crowning prestige of working for the stylish producer. Anti-Semitism stands between them and must be got out of the way politically, as far as possible, before they can come to terms professionally.

There is a precedent for this, in a superbly funny Noel Langley novel, also, incidentally, based, as is my play, on the postwar English star Eric Portman. The book, “There’s a Porpoise Close Behind Us,” has a gorgeously meaningful little scene where the actor has to meet, for the first time, the actress with whom he is going to work. The minute he enters her hotel suite, he says, courteously, “Ready when you are,” and flings her on the bed.

They have to work together, yes, but sex may well, in Noel Coward’s phrase, “head its ugly rear,” and distractingly absorb too much of their time and energy. Best deal with it immediately, with minimum fuss, and then they can concentrate on their actual mutual and far more important preoccupation: their performances in the play in question.

The parallel, I hope, is obvious -- though what has to be taken care of in my show, anti-Semitism, is perhaps a mite more potentially intrusive on a professional collaboration than a therapeutic roll in the hay.

That Nichols didn’t hear Tommy’s terse, vital speech, putting the whole play in perspective, is perfectly possible: Audiences cough, sometimes in prolonged paroxysms. That’s OK, if unfortunate. If he heard it and didn’t agree with it -- also OK, but I would have liked to hear why. That he heard it and didn’t find it of any import is, I must say again, surprising.

Nichols’ praise -- that, as a writer, I understand structural motivation and character -- is, naturally, greatly appreciated. In response, I find him to be an extremely thoughtful and concise critic. I do hope that next time he will not be prevented from taking in a crucial motivating speech. This time, if Tommy’s had been heard and absorbed with Nichols’ usual close attention, it might have made “Dinner With Ribbentrop,” for him, less of a “murky stew” and more of a digestible and healthy repast.

Norman Hudis of Woodland Hills has lived and worked in L.A. as a screenwriter for nearly 40 years, since the success of his British film comedy “Carry On Nurse.” He also has been a reporter and studio publicist.