Good review of the play about a gay baseball player's exodus in today's NYTimes. It opens in NYC this Thursday.
Link to NYT article
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[Topic moved, continue posting to \"Take Me Out\" - The Play in the Entertainment forum - Outsports moderator]
[ July 04, 2005, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: m1 ]
Full Version: "Take Me Out" - The Play
Two things that stike me about the article:
1 - The mention of Glenn Burke, someone we don't remember enough and
2 - the mention of Alfonso Soriano, one of the main reasons I can enjoy a Yankees game without caring whether they win or lose.
I like the discussion about players being uncomfortable knowing that a fellow player in the locker room is gay.
When I was reading the article in the NYT magazine today about Barry Bond's arm-length relationship with the press, it made me think that baseball would need a gay player with the attitude of a Bonds, rather than the stern gentlemanlyness of a Jackie Robinson to weather the storm of being the first major player to come out.
It would take more than just being a star player. He'd have to be a major in-your-face, independent, rebel on the order of Ian Roberts who felt he had to fight possessive gay activists, who demanded he do what they felt was the politically correct thing, as well as homophobic gay-bashers to come out and also preserve his self-respect.
[ June 15, 2003, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
1 - The mention of Glenn Burke, someone we don't remember enough and
2 - the mention of Alfonso Soriano, one of the main reasons I can enjoy a Yankees game without caring whether they win or lose.
I like the discussion about players being uncomfortable knowing that a fellow player in the locker room is gay.
When I was reading the article in the NYT magazine today about Barry Bond's arm-length relationship with the press, it made me think that baseball would need a gay player with the attitude of a Bonds, rather than the stern gentlemanlyness of a Jackie Robinson to weather the storm of being the first major player to come out.
It would take more than just being a star player. He'd have to be a major in-your-face, independent, rebel on the order of Ian Roberts who felt he had to fight possessive gay activists, who demanded he do what they felt was the politically correct thing, as well as homophobic gay-bashers to come out and also preserve his self-respect.
[ June 15, 2003, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
I'm seeing "Take Me Out" on September 18th. I'll give a full report afterwards. The night I'm going there will also be a post-play panel discussion. I wonder who will be on the panel?
The Public Theatre website indicates special discussion panels after performances on Aug. 29, Sept. 8, 18, and 23rd (this one featuring Brendan Lemon, editor of OUT and...well, you all know his story). I hope the run of the show is extended or it is transferred to another theater (it's scheduled to run until Sept. 29), as I would like to see it.
Saw it Saturday night. I ended up liking it, but it needs editing in some places. As advertised there is plenty of nudity. I tried not to be embarassed when some of the elder members of our tribe expelled audible gasps and chops licking during the several shower sequences.
[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: jaydeenyc ]
[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: jaydeenyc ]
SEVERAL shower scenes?? Oh boy! I promise to contain myself during said scenes.
I, too, saw it Sat. nite (for a different,earlier post about it,seeAnother New York Thread ). I ended up liking it as well. I was less bothered by it's need for editing, which is real, than I was by some of the ways in which characters were drawn (or not) -- e.g. the "superstar" was just too damned thin (character-wise, not body -- there quite the contrary). And it seems important to me to be able to buy that character. I thought the red- neck pitcher was enacted quite well, as well as were the catcher, the "best friend (opposing team)," and the accountant. I found the extensive nudity a bit much. Maybe making a point, but if that was the idea, the point was never thoughtfully addressed. Defintely worth seeing. But also not fully worked out, imho.
A whole new block of tickets, through October 27, has gone on sale. With a price bump of $10. The play is getting a bit of coverage on local sports cable shows in New York.
I saw this yesterday, and thought it was generally OK, but certainly not a Pulitzer winner. As a baseball fan I have no patience with the hackneyed tactic of taking the beautiful simplicity of baseball and trying to turn it into a metaphor for all that is good in our society. And the recitation of statistics and random numerical factoids leaves me cold as well; to me, it's a sure sign of someone who misses the point of baseball - that it's a universal experience, but that any symbolism is personal. The storyline was pretty transparent, with the upcoming "moments" telegraphed waaaay in advance. Thumbs up to the full frontal male nudity, though.
[quote]As a baseball fan I have no patience with the hackneyed tactic of taking the beautiful simplicity of baseball and trying to turn it into a metaphor for all that is good in our society
EXACTLY. That's why, after seeing a short trailer for it, I avoided Ken Burn's Baseball like the West Nile virus. I hated his subsequent Jazz series and people told me they were the same, so I think I made the right choice.
I love baseball to bits and think it is the perfect sport--no, the NFL doesn't even rank--but I have no patience for the soft glow nostalgia that the game (and its more pretentious writers) surrounds itself with.
I used to review plays for GLAAD for the homosexual content. One year I went to about 100 plays and most of them had gratuitous nudity. The best was this one play where the lights went up on a naked guy in the shower. Well, didn't waste out time with that, did they? Oddly, my favorite was seeing Christian Campbell (the songwriter from Trick) in a tight, sheer body stocking in the wonderful Reefer Madness. He was sexy as all get out. Of course, Naked Boys Singing proved that after about 2 minutes, the nudity factor wears thin and that there'd better be a real play there (for the record NBS was a nice bit of fluff and had some wonderful singing in it).
Er, um, did anyone here see Jason Biggs in The Graduate? [Homer voice] Mmmmmmm....Jason Biggs.........
Sorry if this is all OT.
[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
EXACTLY. That's why, after seeing a short trailer for it, I avoided Ken Burn's Baseball like the West Nile virus. I hated his subsequent Jazz series and people told me they were the same, so I think I made the right choice.
I love baseball to bits and think it is the perfect sport--no, the NFL doesn't even rank--but I have no patience for the soft glow nostalgia that the game (and its more pretentious writers) surrounds itself with.
I used to review plays for GLAAD for the homosexual content. One year I went to about 100 plays and most of them had gratuitous nudity. The best was this one play where the lights went up on a naked guy in the shower. Well, didn't waste out time with that, did they? Oddly, my favorite was seeing Christian Campbell (the songwriter from Trick) in a tight, sheer body stocking in the wonderful Reefer Madness. He was sexy as all get out. Of course, Naked Boys Singing proved that after about 2 minutes, the nudity factor wears thin and that there'd better be a real play there (for the record NBS was a nice bit of fluff and had some wonderful singing in it).
Er, um, did anyone here see Jason Biggs in The Graduate? [Homer voice] Mmmmmmm....Jason Biggs.........
Sorry if this is all OT.
[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
a friend who reviewed the London production for the Village Voice has also reviewed The NY production of \"Take Me Out\" for Theatermania.com. He has a substantially more positive take on it than I do.....
This may be old news to some of you, but last week the NYTimes reported that the producer who holds the option of taking it to Broadway is very interested in doing so. Once it closes Oct. 27, the playwright is going to re-write it; those of you who saw it, like me, know that it needs to be cut down (it's nearly 3 hours with 2 intermissions). If all goes well, it will probably move to the Brooks Atkinson theater in March 2003.
In the meantime, just let me say that I loved it, faults and all. It's one of those rare works that suffers from too many good ideas (that's why it needs cutting). It's not just about a gay baseball player; it's about celebrity; the role of sports in the U.S.; and the public vs. private self. And more. Plus, there are so many lines that work on about 3 or 4 levels, and scenes that play on about 3 or 4 different levels.
I realize that Mason, in his big baseball-vs-
democracy monologue, is not saying anything particularly new, but it's in character for a new fan to the game. He's discovering as an adult what a lot of fans absorb as kids or adolescents; it almost makes him feel as if he invented the game.
I was really impressed by the whole conception of Darren Lemming, a Derek Jeter on the outside and a Barry Bonds on the inside. Arrogant, unapologetic, and with no life, it seems, away from the game. Billy Bean would NOT, to put it mildly, approve of Darren.
I would urge anyone who can to see it.
In the meantime, just let me say that I loved it, faults and all. It's one of those rare works that suffers from too many good ideas (that's why it needs cutting). It's not just about a gay baseball player; it's about celebrity; the role of sports in the U.S.; and the public vs. private self. And more. Plus, there are so many lines that work on about 3 or 4 levels, and scenes that play on about 3 or 4 different levels.
I realize that Mason, in his big baseball-vs-
democracy monologue, is not saying anything particularly new, but it's in character for a new fan to the game. He's discovering as an adult what a lot of fans absorb as kids or adolescents; it almost makes him feel as if he invented the game.
I was really impressed by the whole conception of Darren Lemming, a Derek Jeter on the outside and a Barry Bonds on the inside. Arrogant, unapologetic, and with no life, it seems, away from the game. Billy Bean would NOT, to put it mildly, approve of Darren.
I would urge anyone who can to see it.
The Out magazine issue with the story from the "ballplayer boyfriend" has an excerpt from the play--a conversation between the gay player and his friend and teammate. The problem was, it didn't remotely sound like a normal conversation. It seemed more like a bunch of cleverly written sentences about a few different things that, even put together, I had some trouble figuring out the point of the scene. People don't talk the way the segment was written. If the entire play was like that, I don't know that I'd enjoy it much. Other than all the nudity, that is.
Went to see Take Me Out on Sept. 28th. I had read somewhere that the show had a run time of 3H 20M. The matinee started at 2PM and I was back on the sidewalk by 5PM. It's possible they've already made some cuts. I'd put the run time at 2H 45M.
I enjoyed the show. The author has created a plot that draws on many issues that have been surfacing in baseball lately. Aside from the player coming out and homophobia, there's racism, the alienation that some players feel playing in a foreign country (in this case expressed by the Japanese character), arrogance of some professional athletes, and the physical danger to players (one character gets hit with a ball to the head and dies). It's a bit of a challenge trying to weave this all into one play. Overall I thought they did pretty well tying it all together. Of course, no one has died on the field since the '20's, so I thought that was a bit of a reach, but beaning is a more and more frequent occurance.
The cast is quite attractive.
For those interested, I'd recommend seeing this sooner rather than later as I suspect it will get shorter as it gets closer to Broadway.
I enjoyed the show. The author has created a plot that draws on many issues that have been surfacing in baseball lately. Aside from the player coming out and homophobia, there's racism, the alienation that some players feel playing in a foreign country (in this case expressed by the Japanese character), arrogance of some professional athletes, and the physical danger to players (one character gets hit with a ball to the head and dies). It's a bit of a challenge trying to weave this all into one play. Overall I thought they did pretty well tying it all together. Of course, no one has died on the field since the '20's, so I thought that was a bit of a reach, but beaning is a more and more frequent occurance.
The cast is quite attractive.
For those interested, I'd recommend seeing this sooner rather than later as I suspect it will get shorter as it gets closer to Broadway.
[quote]It seemed more like a bunch of cleverly written sentences about a few different things that, even put together, I had some trouble figuring out the point of the scene. People don't talk the way the segment was written.
Wait-did Aaron Sorkin (West Wing, Sports Night) write the play?
Wait-did Aaron Sorkin (West Wing, Sports Night) write the play?
[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:
The Out magazine issue with the story from the "ballplayer boyfriend" has an excerpt from the play--a conversation between the gay player and his friend and teammate. The problem was, it didn't remotely sound like a normal conversation. It seemed more like a bunch of cleverly written sentences about a few different things that, even put together, I had some trouble figuring out the point of the scene. People don't talk the way the segment was written. If the entire play was like that, I don't know that I'd enjoy it much. Other than all the nudity, that is.
I agree. I wasn't overly impressed with the excerpt in OUT, but I'll take the word of Outsporters who've seen the play and said it's good. Hopefully, it'll get picked up for a Broadway run as I won't be able to see it in its current incarnation.
The Out magazine issue with the story from the "ballplayer boyfriend" has an excerpt from the play--a conversation between the gay player and his friend and teammate. The problem was, it didn't remotely sound like a normal conversation. It seemed more like a bunch of cleverly written sentences about a few different things that, even put together, I had some trouble figuring out the point of the scene. People don't talk the way the segment was written. If the entire play was like that, I don't know that I'd enjoy it much. Other than all the nudity, that is.
I agree. I wasn't overly impressed with the excerpt in OUT, but I'll take the word of Outsporters who've seen the play and said it's good. Hopefully, it'll get picked up for a Broadway run as I won't be able to see it in its current incarnation.
Greetings,Torgauer. Could you do a favor? Could you edit your post and add a "spoilers" warning for those who have not seen the play? You give away one of the major plot points; those who are looking forward to seeing the play may be let down after they read your posting. Thanking you in advance....
Even though I haven't seen it yet, I like your comments on the play Jerzoid.
I've been debating whether to take out time and money to see it while my sports-phobic boyfriend is away during this month.
Though the only nudity-filled play I've ever seen was a total waste of time, I think this play may have something more to say, and the justification for the nudity, that it is what concerns Straight guys the most, is for me entirely credible.
Oh, and Torgauer's comments wouldn't spoil it for me any more than knowing the plot would spoil seeing a good opera. If the play is worthwhile it shouldn't matter.
[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
I've been debating whether to take out time and money to see it while my sports-phobic boyfriend is away during this month.
Though the only nudity-filled play I've ever seen was a total waste of time, I think this play may have something more to say, and the justification for the nudity, that it is what concerns Straight guys the most, is for me entirely credible.
Oh, and Torgauer's comments wouldn't spoil it for me any more than knowing the plot would spoil seeing a good opera. If the play is worthwhile it shouldn't matter.
[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
I read that the play WILL go to Broadway at the Walter Kerr theatre after "Proof" ends its run...not exactly sure what the dates are but "Take Me Out" is Broadway bound.
I saw "Take Me Out" at Saturday's matinee as a warmup for the World Series; it's a good play, and quite well-acted. I find myself in general agreement with
Michael Feingold's review in the Village Voice... the homophobic best-friend plot didn't really convince, and the climactic event in Act 2 (of 3) sort of cast things into a whole other, overly melodramatic realm. Among other things, it's about male friendship, with sexual orientation as a related (but not defining) issue.
As for the business manager's "baseball is an improved version of democracy" monologue -- it was the most moving scene in the play... And the only time I was near tears! So there, you "it's just a game" hussies!
The shower scenes were nice to look at, but they were dramatically effective, NOT prurient. As for Neal Huff as the other narrator, the David Cone-like shortstop (I'm speaking of intellect here) ... well, I'd marry a guy like that, maybe.
Another thing about the weakness of Act 3: gay playwrights REALLY need to stop making homo male characters into tart-tongued "joke machines" to cue the laughter of Chelsea guys in the audience. The biz manager's final scenes weren't as egregious as the queer roomie's stream of gag lines in "Burn This," but they helped derail the seriousness of the anti-climax...
[quote]Originally posted by Jerzoid:
I was really impressed by the whole conception of Darren Lemming, a Derek Jeter on the outside and a Barry Bonds on the inside. Arrogant, unapologetic, and with no life... away from the game.
But nevertheless sympathetic. But as someone who prefers Bonds' prickly "public personality" to Jeter's bland (vacant?), inoffensive one, perhaps that's just a question of taste. Arrogance is useful, and even moral, in some contexts.
[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Bill W ]
Michael Feingold's review in the Village Voice... the homophobic best-friend plot didn't really convince, and the climactic event in Act 2 (of 3) sort of cast things into a whole other, overly melodramatic realm. Among other things, it's about male friendship, with sexual orientation as a related (but not defining) issue.
As for the business manager's "baseball is an improved version of democracy" monologue -- it was the most moving scene in the play... And the only time I was near tears! So there, you "it's just a game" hussies!
The shower scenes were nice to look at, but they were dramatically effective, NOT prurient. As for Neal Huff as the other narrator, the David Cone-like shortstop (I'm speaking of intellect here) ... well, I'd marry a guy like that, maybe.
Another thing about the weakness of Act 3: gay playwrights REALLY need to stop making homo male characters into tart-tongued "joke machines" to cue the laughter of Chelsea guys in the audience. The biz manager's final scenes weren't as egregious as the queer roomie's stream of gag lines in "Burn This," but they helped derail the seriousness of the anti-climax...
[quote]Originally posted by Jerzoid:
I was really impressed by the whole conception of Darren Lemming, a Derek Jeter on the outside and a Barry Bonds on the inside. Arrogant, unapologetic, and with no life... away from the game.
But nevertheless sympathetic. But as someone who prefers Bonds' prickly "public personality" to Jeter's bland (vacant?), inoffensive one, perhaps that's just a question of taste. Arrogance is useful, and even moral, in some contexts.
[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Bill W ]
[quote]As for the business manager's "baseball is an improved version of democracy" monologue -- it was the most moving scene in the play... And the only time I was near tears! So there, you "it's just a game" hussies!
Hussy? Well, I never!
Since you said you'd reply in this thread to something I had written in the WS thread, I guess you're saying I'm part of the "it's just a game" crowd. And......you're right, pretty much.
Although I find statements like "The NFL is inherently fascist because the helmets render the players faceless automatons, subsuming their will to the All Powerful Leader, i.e. the coach" kind of interesting, it's ultimately just that for me...kind of interesting. Baseball hasn't reflected the idealized America that its Warm n' Fuzzy contigent want it to since at least the 80's, probably the 1972 strike or Curt Flood taking out the reserve clause a few years earlier. And I would argue that soccer is far more egalitarian and democratic than baseball. But then I'd be getting sucked in to the pseuedo-intellectual vortex that I deride so much. I ultimately think that sports cannot handle very much intellectual weight being applied to them. We may pour our hopes and fears and anxieties on to them, but that's more sociology than anything the games themselves were designed to accomodate.
I think baseball has the same problem that the other love of my life (classical/operatic music) has: it's not really relevant to how a majority of people live any more, it's a museum. And they both suffer from a deep nostalgia for an imagined past that I just cannot abide.
Bill W (or the others that have seen the play) what is the general idea behind the "baseball is an improved version of democracy" speech?
[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
Hussy? Well, I never!
Since you said you'd reply in this thread to something I had written in the WS thread, I guess you're saying I'm part of the "it's just a game" crowd. And......you're right, pretty much.
Although I find statements like "The NFL is inherently fascist because the helmets render the players faceless automatons, subsuming their will to the All Powerful Leader, i.e. the coach" kind of interesting, it's ultimately just that for me...kind of interesting. Baseball hasn't reflected the idealized America that its Warm n' Fuzzy contigent want it to since at least the 80's, probably the 1972 strike or Curt Flood taking out the reserve clause a few years earlier. And I would argue that soccer is far more egalitarian and democratic than baseball. But then I'd be getting sucked in to the pseuedo-intellectual vortex that I deride so much. I ultimately think that sports cannot handle very much intellectual weight being applied to them. We may pour our hopes and fears and anxieties on to them, but that's more sociology than anything the games themselves were designed to accomodate.
I think baseball has the same problem that the other love of my life (classical/operatic music) has: it's not really relevant to how a majority of people live any more, it's a museum. And they both suffer from a deep nostalgia for an imagined past that I just cannot abide.
Bill W (or the others that have seen the play) what is the general idea behind the "baseball is an improved version of democracy" speech?
[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
what is the general idea behind the "baseball is an improved version of democracy" speech?
Haven't seen it, but I found this outtake in a review of the London production. Presumably this is just a short segment of a much longer monologue.
"Baseball is better than democracy -- or at least democracy as it's practiced in this country -- because unlike democracy, baseball acknowledges loss. While conservatives tell you, leave things alone and no one will lose, and liberals tell you, interfere a lot and no one will lose, baseball says: Someone will lose. Not only says it -- but insists upon it! So baseball achieves the tragic vision that democracy evades... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature."
what is the general idea behind the "baseball is an improved version of democracy" speech?
Haven't seen it, but I found this outtake in a review of the London production. Presumably this is just a short segment of a much longer monologue.
"Baseball is better than democracy -- or at least democracy as it's practiced in this country -- because unlike democracy, baseball acknowledges loss. While conservatives tell you, leave things alone and no one will lose, and liberals tell you, interfere a lot and no one will lose, baseball says: Someone will lose. Not only says it -- but insists upon it! So baseball achieves the tragic vision that democracy evades... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature."
Thanks for saving me the indignity of having to misquote that from memory! That's the core of the monologue's p.o.v.
Take note, Jim A -- we're not talking about "warm 'n fuzzy" Reaganesque nostalgia... we're talking about the acknowledgement of (and "insistence" on) a LOSER. (And trying to win again tomorrow or next season of course... unless you're the Royals or Devil Rays).
Take note, Jim A -- we're not talking about "warm 'n fuzzy" Reaganesque nostalgia... we're talking about the acknowledgement of (and "insistence" on) a LOSER. (And trying to win again tomorrow or next season of course... unless you're the Royals or Devil Rays).
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the business manager's "baseball is an improved version of democracy" monologue -- it was the most moving scene in the play... And the only time I was near tears! So there, you "it's just a game" hussies!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting take. Perhaps you're going soft on us, Bill W; I had you pegged as an unadulterated cynic. For me, that was the point in the play where I started to tap my foot while continuing to check my watch every few minutes. As a dramatic device it simply did not work. The playwright was attempting to bridge the chasm that exists for audience members who are not enthralled with the game. Instead, he widened it with a soliloquy that was, at best, meandering, and, at worst, self-indulgent. I guess it comes down to whether you buy the position that baseball reflects every American societal, cutural and political condition. I would opine that it actually is but a shared experience that then has significance that will be very different and very personal for everyone, and the play did not make a compelling argument otherwise for me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the business manager's "baseball is an improved version of democracy" monologue -- it was the most moving scene in the play... And the only time I was near tears! So there, you "it's just a game" hussies!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting take. Perhaps you're going soft on us, Bill W; I had you pegged as an unadulterated cynic. For me, that was the point in the play where I started to tap my foot while continuing to check my watch every few minutes. As a dramatic device it simply did not work. The playwright was attempting to bridge the chasm that exists for audience members who are not enthralled with the game. Instead, he widened it with a soliloquy that was, at best, meandering, and, at worst, self-indulgent. I guess it comes down to whether you buy the position that baseball reflects every American societal, cutural and political condition. I would opine that it actually is but a shared experience that then has significance that will be very different and very personal for everyone, and the play did not make a compelling argument otherwise for me.
[quote]We're talking about the acknowledgement of (and "insistence" on) a LOSER
Um, and this is supposed to be a profound insight? That's just the sort of pretentious twaddle that surrounds sports that makes me roll my eyes until they almost pop out of my head and roll down the hallway.
I'm sorry if that sounds flippant but I detest being preached at by characters in plays or movies. The excerpt above or any show by Aaron Sorkin are prime examples. It seems like it's only in a America that we need to be reminded that, contrary to our national fiction called The American Dream, life doesn't work out for everyone, that there are winners and losers in life; I think most other places on this planet have a firm grasp on the concept. You could say that a rock band like U2 is a better demonstration of democracy than any sport because while Bono is the nominal leader, the others participate in the creative process and they all share in the wealth equally (unlike sports where the owners of the means of production are in far better financial shape) but that would be--you guessed it--pretentious. [quote]I would opine that it actually is but a shared experience that then has significance that will be very different and very personal for everyone, and the play did not make a compelling argument otherwise for me
Exactly. Sports functions as a secular substitute for a state-sponsored religion in this country and increasingly, baseball is a smaller and smaller portion of that. And considering that professional baseball as we know it has always been played in cities, with the original ballparks right in the urban core, I think the whole "baseball is a reminder of America's agrarian past" kind of stuff is, well, frankly, a lie, a lie promoted by it's backers to give it more weight and depth than it deserves. Baseball doesn't NEED that kind of apologia; it's a bloody great sport, IMHO the greatest, and that's enough.
[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
Um, and this is supposed to be a profound insight? That's just the sort of pretentious twaddle that surrounds sports that makes me roll my eyes until they almost pop out of my head and roll down the hallway.
I'm sorry if that sounds flippant but I detest being preached at by characters in plays or movies. The excerpt above or any show by Aaron Sorkin are prime examples. It seems like it's only in a America that we need to be reminded that, contrary to our national fiction called The American Dream, life doesn't work out for everyone, that there are winners and losers in life; I think most other places on this planet have a firm grasp on the concept. You could say that a rock band like U2 is a better demonstration of democracy than any sport because while Bono is the nominal leader, the others participate in the creative process and they all share in the wealth equally (unlike sports where the owners of the means of production are in far better financial shape) but that would be--you guessed it--pretentious. [quote]I would opine that it actually is but a shared experience that then has significance that will be very different and very personal for everyone, and the play did not make a compelling argument otherwise for me
Exactly. Sports functions as a secular substitute for a state-sponsored religion in this country and increasingly, baseball is a smaller and smaller portion of that. And considering that professional baseball as we know it has always been played in cities, with the original ballparks right in the urban core, I think the whole "baseball is a reminder of America's agrarian past" kind of stuff is, well, frankly, a lie, a lie promoted by it's backers to give it more weight and depth than it deserves. Baseball doesn't NEED that kind of apologia; it's a bloody great sport, IMHO the greatest, and that's enough.
[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
I think being preached to (as opposed to "at" -- I'd draw a distinction) via art is fine when the preaching is GOOD. (Tony Kushner at his best? Woody Guthrie?)
Jim A, I think you *might* change your mind about the "pretentious twaddle" if you could see and hear how well the actor Denis O'Hare performs it. Dramatic speeches aren't primarily designed to be read, after all.
And if baseball is a "bloody great" sport ... there's just got to be something to it, under the surface, that can be theorized and postulated about. (Don't get me started on the cinema as a collective dream, or rock as religion...)
Jim A, I think you *might* change your mind about the "pretentious twaddle" if you could see and hear how well the actor Denis O'Hare performs it. Dramatic speeches aren't primarily designed to be read, after all.
And if baseball is a "bloody great" sport ... there's just got to be something to it, under the surface, that can be theorized and postulated about. (Don't get me started on the cinema as a collective dream, or rock as religion...)
[quote]Tony Kushner at his best?
IS there a best with that wildly overrated polemecist. I hated with all the fire of all the suns in all the universes Angels in America, especially the 2nd part, and you couldn't have paid me enough money--OK, that's a lie, a million bucks tax free would have done it--to go see his latest political diatribe masquerading as theatre, er, "Kabul" something or other. That whole scene with the "Last Living Bolshevik" at the start of part two of Awfulness in America was the most excrutiating thing I've ever sat through in any art form; I would have fled right then and there but my partner at the time was having a religious experience so I stayed in deference to him. Oh the fight we had afterwards when I unloaded on the hours of my life that were stolen from me and that I was never going to get back.........What? Me bitter? Nah......
Well, fine, Blue Oyster Cult's whole early career (i.e. pre-(Don't Fear) The Reaper) was about the Fascist/Nurenburg rally implications of rock concerts, but my point is that that kind of stuff is peripheral; if the songs suck or the game is dull as week old dishwater (see: Cardinals v. Cowboys on Sunday), then all that is just mental wanking. I mean, there's college credit courses about Barbie for f**k's sake, so obviously anything can be ground in to the pulp of academic jargon if someone wants to do it badly enough.
What makes me wary with all this "Let's find subtext" thing is that to me, it often comes across as special pleading, a way of going "Sure, baseball is no longer the most popular sport, it's not even #2 or #3 anymore, but because of XXXXXX it's got more depth than those interlopers that have usurped its primacy as The National Pastime". Mileage varies widely, obviously.
[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
IS there a best with that wildly overrated polemecist. I hated with all the fire of all the suns in all the universes Angels in America, especially the 2nd part, and you couldn't have paid me enough money--OK, that's a lie, a million bucks tax free would have done it--to go see his latest political diatribe masquerading as theatre, er, "Kabul" something or other. That whole scene with the "Last Living Bolshevik" at the start of part two of Awfulness in America was the most excrutiating thing I've ever sat through in any art form; I would have fled right then and there but my partner at the time was having a religious experience so I stayed in deference to him. Oh the fight we had afterwards when I unloaded on the hours of my life that were stolen from me and that I was never going to get back.........What? Me bitter? Nah......
Well, fine, Blue Oyster Cult's whole early career (i.e. pre-(Don't Fear) The Reaper) was about the Fascist/Nurenburg rally implications of rock concerts, but my point is that that kind of stuff is peripheral; if the songs suck or the game is dull as week old dishwater (see: Cardinals v. Cowboys on Sunday), then all that is just mental wanking. I mean, there's college credit courses about Barbie for f**k's sake, so obviously anything can be ground in to the pulp of academic jargon if someone wants to do it badly enough.
What makes me wary with all this "Let's find subtext" thing is that to me, it often comes across as special pleading, a way of going "Sure, baseball is no longer the most popular sport, it's not even #2 or #3 anymore, but because of XXXXXX it's got more depth than those interlopers that have usurped its primacy as The National Pastime". Mileage varies widely, obviously.
[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
I guess with baseball (or film or rock) it's not SUBtext to me, but self-evident.
I figured I'd get the sandbag on Kushner from somebody, Jim -- how convenient it was you. You'll be happy to know that Mike Nichols is currently shooting the film version of \"Angels in America\" for HBO, with Meryl Streep, Emma Thompson, Jeffrey Wright, and Al Pacino as Roy Cohn. Consider yourself warned...
I figured I'd get the sandbag on Kushner from somebody, Jim -- how convenient it was you. You'll be happy to know that Mike Nichols is currently shooting the film version of \"Angels in America\" for HBO, with Meryl Streep, Emma Thompson, Jeffrey Wright, and Al Pacino as Roy Cohn. Consider yourself warned...
What a tragic waste of talent and time that'll be. I'll make sure my sock drawer needs rearranging the night its on.
And what's with the rolling eyes icon? Perhaps "subtext" was a not-precise choice of words. Those things you mention are obvious to me as well, and as such, I find them kind of dull and lacking depth as ideas. It's like the friend of mine who went off recently on this rant about how sports is a metaphor/substitute for war and since I love sports I tacitly support war. Wow! What an original thesis there! Not.
[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
And what's with the rolling eyes icon? Perhaps "subtext" was a not-precise choice of words. Those things you mention are obvious to me as well, and as such, I find them kind of dull and lacking depth as ideas. It's like the friend of mine who went off recently on this rant about how sports is a metaphor/substitute for war and since I love sports I tacitly support war. Wow! What an original thesis there! Not.
[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
I prefer the "sports fandom is a safer sublimation of the same tendency that produces mindless nationalism" tack...
Jim, will you at least concede that some of the jokes in "Angels in America" were funny? As are many in "Take Me Out" ... In one scene, the gay ballplayer says to his metaphor-loving biz manager "You're not going to start interpreting again, are you?" So it's perhaps not quite as pedantic and solipsistic a rhapsody as it might seem from the reviews or audience summaries.
[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
And what's with the rolling eyes icon?
I'm sorry -- I don't like using 'em, so sometimes I make bad choices.
Jim, will you at least concede that some of the jokes in "Angels in America" were funny? As are many in "Take Me Out" ... In one scene, the gay ballplayer says to his metaphor-loving biz manager "You're not going to start interpreting again, are you?" So it's perhaps not quite as pedantic and solipsistic a rhapsody as it might seem from the reviews or audience summaries.
[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
And what's with the rolling eyes icon?
I'm sorry -- I don't like using 'em, so sometimes I make bad choices.
[quote]I prefer the "sports fandom is a safer sublimation of the same tendency that produces mindless nationalism" tack...
Hahahaha! Yes, exactly.
My friend is quite tedious on the subject of his anti-sports hatred. I got so sick of his constantly taking pot-shots at me that I said "You just don't get it. You're not part of the tribe and so you're totally clueless about the attraction of it. You'll never get it. So, I'd appreciate it if you'd shut the f**k up about it or I'll start dogging you about liking poorly dubbed Italian gladiator movies and use it as a referendum on your movie opinions". Or something like that--haven't heard a peep out of him since.
What's odd is that since BillW and I have started going back and forth about this, I've also been reading some stuff that puts this debate in context. I love the soccer writer Phil Ball. He's an Englishman based in Spain who covers the Spanish La Liga for the Guardian and Soccernet.com. He always peppers his columns with little history lessons about how Real Madrid were General Franco's favorite team, how the Catalans hate the Castillians etc. In this column he talks about 2 teams from the volatile Basque region. While I think the whole "Baseball is a metaphor for America" thing is pretentious twaddle, this article points out some historic factors which are constantly at play with the two teams mentioned. Now THAT I find interesting.
[quote]Jim, will you at least concede that some of the jokes in "Angels in America" were funny?
[JA on the rack, as in a bad movie about the Dark Ages]No! Never! You'll never get it out of me! NEEEVVVEEERRRRR!!
OK, yeah there were some good bits, but IMHO they were crushed under the jackboot of the Not Good Bits. I was only kidding about not watching the HBO; there's just too much talent there not to be compelled to do so and I'll be very curious to see how they compressed it. [quote]So it's perhaps not quite as pedantic and solipsistic a rhapsody as it might seem from the reviews or audience summaries
Oh, it'll make it to Los Angeles eventually and I'll definitely go to see it. I suspect we'll get a trimmed version; all the reviews and some of the comments here mention that it needs to have the scissors taken to the script.
Hahahaha! Yes, exactly.
My friend is quite tedious on the subject of his anti-sports hatred. I got so sick of his constantly taking pot-shots at me that I said "You just don't get it. You're not part of the tribe and so you're totally clueless about the attraction of it. You'll never get it. So, I'd appreciate it if you'd shut the f**k up about it or I'll start dogging you about liking poorly dubbed Italian gladiator movies and use it as a referendum on your movie opinions". Or something like that--haven't heard a peep out of him since.
What's odd is that since BillW and I have started going back and forth about this, I've also been reading some stuff that puts this debate in context. I love the soccer writer Phil Ball. He's an Englishman based in Spain who covers the Spanish La Liga for the Guardian and Soccernet.com. He always peppers his columns with little history lessons about how Real Madrid were General Franco's favorite team, how the Catalans hate the Castillians etc. In this column he talks about 2 teams from the volatile Basque region. While I think the whole "Baseball is a metaphor for America" thing is pretentious twaddle, this article points out some historic factors which are constantly at play with the two teams mentioned. Now THAT I find interesting.
[quote]Jim, will you at least concede that some of the jokes in "Angels in America" were funny?
[JA on the rack, as in a bad movie about the Dark Ages]No! Never! You'll never get it out of me! NEEEVVVEEERRRRR!!
OK, yeah there were some good bits, but IMHO they were crushed under the jackboot of the Not Good Bits. I was only kidding about not watching the HBO; there's just too much talent there not to be compelled to do so and I'll be very curious to see how they compressed it. [quote]So it's perhaps not quite as pedantic and solipsistic a rhapsody as it might seem from the reviews or audience summaries
Oh, it'll make it to Los Angeles eventually and I'll definitely go to see it. I suspect we'll get a trimmed version; all the reviews and some of the comments here mention that it needs to have the scissors taken to the script.
The guy who gives the big democracy speech, Denis O'Hare, is a fantastic actor and has made quite a name for himself in the theater world. Recently, he was also in "The Anniversary Party," a film that has recently been showing on HBO. He plays the grouchy neighbor.
[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: bryan d. ]
[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: bryan d. ]
[quote]Originally posted by bryan d.:
Denis O'Hare, is a fantastic actor and has made quite a name for himself in the theater world
This Wash Post review states that O'Hare's performance is the major reason to see that play: "Take Me Out" has gotten a lot of attention, and not just because of its lyrical prose. Large stretches of the play are set in a major league ball club's locker room, where the actors strut in the altogether. Yet the most striking feature of the production, directed by Joe Mantello, is O'Hare and the captivating account he gives of a Chelsea wallflower whose late-blooming love for the game (and, yes, the player he has been assigned) fills the void in his life -- and inspires the kind of elegiac ruminations that elevate him to the role of latter-day Cyrano."
Denis O'Hare, is a fantastic actor and has made quite a name for himself in the theater world
This Wash Post review states that O'Hare's performance is the major reason to see that play: "Take Me Out" has gotten a lot of attention, and not just because of its lyrical prose. Large stretches of the play are set in a major league ball club's locker room, where the actors strut in the altogether. Yet the most striking feature of the production, directed by Joe Mantello, is O'Hare and the captivating account he gives of a Chelsea wallflower whose late-blooming love for the game (and, yes, the player he has been assigned) fills the void in his life -- and inspires the kind of elegiac ruminations that elevate him to the role of latter-day Cyrano."
A column on "Take Me Out" appeared in today's Phila. Daily News.
Warning: this article gives away a number of plot points--read at your own risk!
It should also be noted that the columnist, Stan Hochman, a longtime fixture on the local sports scene, has an openly gay daughter.
Warning: this article gives away a number of plot points--read at your own risk!
It should also be noted that the columnist, Stan Hochman, a longtime fixture on the local sports scene, has an openly gay daughter.
I know this is off topic... but did anyone see the play Burning Blue? One review I read compared it to Take Me Out, in that both are about a gay person outed in a (supposedly) unlikely occupation (baseball player, Navy jet pilot) and the reaction of friends and coworkers. Like Take Me Out, Burning Blue was first produced in England. It featured Chad Lowe (brother of Rob Lowe and husband of Hillary Swank)... I was hoping to see it when I go to NYC next month but it looks like it may have closed already.
[Edited by Tarkus to correct small formatting error]
[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: Tarkus ]
[Edited by Tarkus to correct small formatting error]
[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: Tarkus ]
Some friends and I are seeing "Take Me Out" this weekend as a sort of birthday celebration for two of us (both November).
Now it looks like I'll have to find some other reason to get back up to New York to see "Burning Blue" as well.
The length and wide distribution of the runs looks impressive.
Is Chad Lowe's character gay? If so is this his first gay role?
[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
Now it looks like I'll have to find some other reason to get back up to New York to see "Burning Blue" as well.
The length and wide distribution of the runs looks impressive.
Is Chad Lowe's character gay? If so is this his first gay role?
[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
Erm, it's Chad Lowe. Much better looking than his brother.
Burning Blue is the play that is closing soon, reportedly after much backstage drama, including the director accusing one actor of fluffing himself before stepping on stage.
Reportedly, according to a NYC daily, the actor was so amply endowed that there were audible gasps in the theatre every night.
Also, the director reportedly made the actor feel very self-conscious about having such a large penis...
Reportedly, according to a NYC daily, the actor was so amply endowed that there were audible gasps in the theatre every night.
Also, the director reportedly made the actor feel very self-conscious about having such a large penis...
[quote]Originally posted by CatcherInNY:
Burning Blue is the play that is closing soon, reportedly after much backstage drama, including the director accusing one actor of fluffing himself before stepping on stage.
What is "fluffing" yourself?
Burning Blue is the play that is closing soon, reportedly after much backstage drama, including the director accusing one actor of fluffing himself before stepping on stage.
What is "fluffing" yourself?
[quote]Originally posted by bluebird48234:
What is "fluffing" yourself?
I found this quote in an article on the movie The Fluffer: "On porn movie sets, the "fluffer" is the crew person who... helps the male star "stay in character." Still don't know what I mean? The fluffer helps him "stay in the mood." Don't quite get my drift? The fluffer "puts air in his tires." Get it? Get it? Nudge nudge... "
What I'm wondering is, if one of the stars is "so amply endowed that there were audible gasps in the theatre every night" why is the play closing so soon?v
You'd think there'd be line-ups.
What is "fluffing" yourself?
I found this quote in an article on the movie The Fluffer: "On porn movie sets, the "fluffer" is the crew person who... helps the male star "stay in character." Still don't know what I mean? The fluffer helps him "stay in the mood." Don't quite get my drift? The fluffer "puts air in his tires." Get it? Get it? Nudge nudge... "
What I'm wondering is, if one of the stars is "so amply endowed that there were audible gasps in the theatre every night" why is the play closing so soon?v
You'd think there'd be line-ups.
[quote]Originally posted by sportinlife:
Is Rob Lowe's character gay? If so is this his first gay role?
That's CHAD Lowe - not Rob.
Is Rob Lowe's character gay? If so is this his first gay role?
That's CHAD Lowe - not Rob.
[quote]Originally posted by copman:
That's CHAD Lowe - not Rob.
The play's website doesn't say much about Chad Lowe's character, but he played a gay swimmer in conflict with his homophobic coach/father in "Floating" (an indie flick not widely on video, so I won't reveal the ending).
His best known role, on "Life Goes On," was an HIV+ str8 teenager (which I suspect was either "it can happen to anyone" PC-ness to combat popular stigmas/stereotypes or a concession to what prime-time network viewers weren't, and might still not be, ready for in a continuing series). Actually, the character was a much-needed wakeup call for "it can't happen here" viewers, but regardless, he played the role with a fair amount of depth.
That's CHAD Lowe - not Rob.
The play's website doesn't say much about Chad Lowe's character, but he played a gay swimmer in conflict with his homophobic coach/father in "Floating" (an indie flick not widely on video, so I won't reveal the ending).
His best known role, on "Life Goes On," was an HIV+ str8 teenager (which I suspect was either "it can happen to anyone" PC-ness to combat popular stigmas/stereotypes or a concession to what prime-time network viewers weren't, and might still not be, ready for in a continuing series). Actually, the character was a much-needed wakeup call for "it can't happen here" viewers, but regardless, he played the role with a fair amount of depth.
[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
Erm, it's Chad Lowe. Much better looking than his brother.
Yet another brainfart. My bad. Thanks Jim.
Erm, it's Chad Lowe. Much better looking than his brother.
Yet another brainfart. My bad. Thanks Jim.
I just saw the play at yesterday's matinee. I enjoyed it a lot. Mostly because, like a lot of gay guys interested in sports, I'm sort of desperate to see anything that addresses the subject.
The lead who played Lemming was not a strong enough actor IMO to carry the part. His friend who narated was good if a little smug. The financial advisor, who I think is based loosely on the writer, was very funny.
They've obviously been doing this play together a while because I thought the lines were rushed at times.
I've seen enough naked men in my time that the nudity was not the least distracting from the plot. Still I felt there were some non sequiturs - some things in the plot just didn't seem to have much to do with the story.
I'd like to see something - play or movie - that took the issue a little more seriously and didn't try so hard to be humorous; allow the humor to happen situationally.
The lead who played Lemming was not a strong enough actor IMO to carry the part. His friend who narated was good if a little smug. The financial advisor, who I think is based loosely on the writer, was very funny.
They've obviously been doing this play together a while because I thought the lines were rushed at times.
I've seen enough naked men in my time that the nudity was not the least distracting from the plot. Still I felt there were some non sequiturs - some things in the plot just didn't seem to have much to do with the story.
I'd like to see something - play or movie - that took the issue a little more seriously and didn't try so hard to be humorous; allow the humor to happen situationally.
Looks like Take Me Out will move to Broadway. It's scheduled to open February 4th at the Walter Kerr Theatre. Tickets $20-80(!)
[quote]Originally posted by canmark:
Looks like Take Me Out will move to Broadway. It's scheduled to open February 4th at the Walter Kerr Theatre. Tickets $20-80(!)
$20!!! Boy did I get screwed! ALL tics were ~$55 when I went.
Actually my friends paid for me and we bought them dinner - but I still spent more than $20!
Guess a lot of folks will pay big bucks for a closer view of a few dangling cocks.
Looks like Take Me Out will move to Broadway. It's scheduled to open February 4th at the Walter Kerr Theatre. Tickets $20-80(!)
$20!!! Boy did I get screwed! ALL tics were ~$55 when I went.
Actually my friends paid for me and we bought them dinner - but I still spent more than $20!
Guess a lot of folks will pay big bucks for a closer view of a few dangling cocks.
Thought I'd dig up this old chestnut to post a link about an article in the Los Angeles Times.
I liked this quote from actor Denis O'Hare, who plays the accountant:
I hope Take Me Out makes it to Los Angeles soon. I'd like to see it.
[ February 25, 2003, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
I liked this quote from actor Denis O'Hare, who plays the accountant:
QUOTE
\"But I don't like any sports for the very simple reason that I can't take the tension. It makes me sick to my stomach,\" O'Hare said. \"I always pick the wrong person, the wrong team. As soon as I started watching the Yankees, they fell apart. So I'd rather not watch at all.\"
His game of choice is bridge.
Haha! I love sports for the reason he doesn't: the drama. I love the English football team Everton--they're my favorite sports team--and I'd seen them on TV 4 times this season and they were 0-4. I watched them yesterday and I thought they were going to lose 1-0. But they scored twice in the last 8 minutes to beat a good Southampton team 2-1. The last goal was with about 30 seconds to go and it felt orgasmic when it went in. Great stuff.His game of choice is bridge.
I hope Take Me Out makes it to Los Angeles soon. I'd like to see it.
[ February 25, 2003, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
Just checked Playbill.com and the official Broadway opening is February 27th. Tickets are $65-80! ($25 balcony seats avail. at box office only)
Excellent review of the Broadway re-opening in today's NY TIMES. Sounds like it's been streamlined extensively (2 acts instead of 3 now)& I remember that was a complaint some of you guys had. Also sounds like a role (Dennis O'Hare's) that I could tear the ass off of whenever they release the rights.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.