Why is Neil LaBute so shallow?

I went to see Neil LaBute's latest play Reasons to be Pretty at the Lortel last night. As the Times review promised, the acting was great - I particularly enjoyed Allison Pill as a woman who rejects her boyfriend when he makes a comment about her looks. I also have to say that for a Neil LaBute play, it was surprisingly light on the misogyny and the outright cruelty which was a welcome change. The play moved, the scenes were interesting and my friend Zoe was even moved to a tear.

I just can't help but think though that someone should perform a kind of intervention for LaBute and inform him there is more to life and relationships than just looks. I understand that that was the message he was trying to promote in the play but I wasn't convinced that he really understood it. All of the major motivations in his work seem to come down to issues of surface (such as the issue of looks in The Shape of Things) and after awhile that can get tedious. A fellow play-goer with whom I rode the bus after the show announced that he found the whole exercise boring and they should all just get over it. Although I did enjoy the play based on the acting, I am inclined to agree that the subject matter is a bit trite. If LaBute ever decides to write about something that goes further than skin-deep, I'd be interested to see it.