In another thread, Bill W posted:

This ran in Saturday's NY Times, so for those of you who can't see the play, this for me is its finest moment:


In Richard Greenberg's "Take Me Out," which is currently on Broadway, Denis O'Hare plays Mason Marzac, a hapless, gay money manager who suddenly has as his client the fabulous Darren Lemming, a baseball superstar who has publicly declared his own homosexuality. In this scene, Mason, who has started watching the game for the first time, muses on its meaning.


I have come (with no little excitement) to understand that baseball is a perfect metaphor for hope in a democratic society.

It has to do with the rules of play.

It has to do with the mode of enforcement of these rules.

It has to do with certain nuances and grace notes of the game.

First, it's the remarkable symmetry of everything.

All those threes and multiples of three — calling attention to — virtually making a fetish of the game's noble equality.

Equality, that is, of opportunity.

Everyone is given exactly the same chance.

And the opportunity to exercise that chance at his own pace.

There's none of the scurry, none of that relentlessness that marks other games — basketball, football or hockey. I've never watched basketball, football or hockey, but I'm sure I wouldn't like them. Or maybe I would but it wouldn't be the same.

What I mean is, in baseball there's no clock.

What could be more generous than to give everyone all these opportunities and the time to seize them in, as well? And with each turn at the plate, there's the possibility of turning the situation to your favor. Down to the very last try.

And then, to insure that everything remains fair, justices are ranged around the park to witness and assess the play.

And if the justice errs, an appeal can be made.

It's invariably turned down, but that's part of what makes the metaphor so right.

Because even in the most well-meant systems, error is inevitable. Even within the fairest of paradigms, unfairness will creep in.

And baseball is better than democracy — or at least than 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 — insists upon it!

So that baseball achieves the tragic vision that democracy evades. Evades and embodies. Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature.


The B Man replied:

I really liked this scene, too.

I reviewed the play for Outsports, you know... Would be curious to know what you think Bill W (and others, too!)...

http://www.outsports.com/entertainment/rev...s/takemeout.htm

I haven't seen the play, but I'm curious: what "triggers" Darren's coming out?

He just does it. Sick of the closet, apparently.

My view of TMO (at pre-B'way length) is on p. 1 of this thread... Given the attention given the play for its outing hook, I just am bemused that the most moving scene in the play has nothing to do with gayness! (Though it's a monologue by a gay man.) As a friend said, those words put Ken Burns and George Will in the crapper...

I guess I asked the question in light of the possibility of a real-life baseball player coming out.

What would trigger HIS coming out? Tired of being in the closet? Politcal statement? Outed by the media?

Thanks for posting that soliloquy Bill W -- now I will avoid this play like the plague -- so I don't have to hear that saccharine trash about baseball as American religion -- metaphor for democracy. Talk about trying to ruin a perfectly good SPORT!

Baseball and democracy? I guess that's why those countries where many MLBers come from now are the epitome of democratic society -- Dominican Republic ... Panama ... Cuba ... ???

Let's rewrite the hooey to be about American football.

Football is a perfect metaphor for hope in a democratic society.

It has to do with the rules of play.

It has to do with the mode of enforcement of these rules.

It has to do with certain nuances and grace notes of the game.

First, it's the remarkable symmetry of everything.

All those numbers -- fours and tens and inches — calling attention to — virtually making a fetish of the meaningless of numbers.

It's a game of opportunity.

Everyone is given exactly the same chance.

And the opportunity to exercise that chance through one's own success -- make a first down, and you're given four more.

There's all the scurry that marks our daily human existence.

What I mean is, in football there's a clock. Just like in life. Sometimes the clock runs out.

What could be more generous than to give everyone all these opportunities and the time to seize them in, as well? And with each down there's the possibility of turning the situation to your favor. Down to the very last play.

And then, to insure that everything remains fair, justices are ranged around the field to witness and assess the play.

And if the justice errs, an appeal can be made.

It's invariably turned down, but that's part of what makes the metaphor so right.

Because even in the most well-meant systems, error is inevitable. Even within the fairest of paradigms, unfairness will creep in.

And football is better than democracy — or at least than democracy as it's practiced in this country — because unlike democracy, football rewards team work.

While conservatives tell you, "individuals matter more," and liberals tell you, "society as a whole matters more" football says, "Individuals on a team work together." Not only says it — insists upon it!

So that football achieves the tragic vision that democracy evades. Evades and embodies. Democracy is lovely, but football's more mature.

OK -- back to my day job!

[ April 11, 2003, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

Um, see, with football, it doesn't make any sense.

You can always go for the shower scenes if you have no soul.

Call me soulless (but I did see my reflection in the mirror this morning while dressing! ) -- but sometimes a game is just a game -- and believe me I love this game. But to me his baseball metaphor makes about as little sense as my football one. What irks me most is that it's used to degrade other sports and sports fans -- the idea that baseball is far superior to any other sport. "I've never watched basketball, football or hockey ..."

Take his numerology fetish. Threes, threes and multiples of threes! In biblical proportions! "Wow" -- when one initially thinks about it -- 3 strikes, 3 outs, 9 players, 9 innings [reminds me of the sort of great ideas one comes up with when stoned ...]

But ooops ... what about 4 balls, 4 bases, 8 players with gloves, 1 with a mitt ... ?

As for this democracy thing -- it's Orwellian -- "top of the order" doesn't sound very democratic to me. And pitchers? They only have to work a small portion of the season! Some pigs are more equal than others. This "democracy" is presided over general managers with near dictatorial powers -- and owners with even more.

[ April 11, 2003, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

And yea, verily, the number was seventy times seven ... which means the Beast is in Iran. No wait, Syria. How about Yemen? That even rhymes with seven!

Reminds me of a sound bite from one of the many movies I've never seen:
Actually, the play sounds promising. I just enjoy bursting balloons.

[ April 14, 2003, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: danimal ]

Bucky, my Undead Skeptic:

See how yours blows up? There's no temporal generosity on the gridiron -- the clock ticks on! And we all know that 28-point leads render the last two minutes of blowouts literally meaningless (unlike the rare but possible 10-run comebacks in baseball), and needlessly delay the start of better television offerings (ie, anything but football)...

I also don't think the monologue's perceived swat at other sports is vicious... the character (and playwright) is just an unlikely fan who has stumbled on baseball and is unapologetically in love with it.

[ April 15, 2003, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

Totally, totally agree. I thought TMO was an OK play until this ridiculous soliloquy. Baseball is a game - a wonderful, beautiful game. When people tie themselves in these verbal knots trying to attach all types of social and political significance to it it becomes a joke - you can almost sense everyone in the theater rolling their eyes at the pompous dilogue being uttered. It was precisely at the point of this speech that I wrote off TMO as just being too silly and self-important for my tastes.

I haven't seen the play. I enjoyed one of the playwright's previous plays from several years back. The actor who delivered this monologue, Denis O'Hare, is a terrific actor. But, I grew up playing baseball religiously, going to pro games (okay, so the Cubs didn't always seem pro - ) and had my father as my coach - I think this monologue is complete crap. Maybe the character speaking it is supposed to sound like he doesn't know what he's talking about since he's just started going to games...or maybe the playwright's lack of experience with baseball (he only became knowledgeable about the game while researching the play) is showing.
I think the obsessive focus on finding someone, anyone, in pro sports to come out is what's really going on. Perhaps it's just the "homosexualizing" of baseball, or the "intellectualizing." Who knows? I'd love to see it though. I'm sure a road show will come to SF soon...since all plays with naked men in showers eventually come to SF...

[ April 15, 2003, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Bryan ]

Not *everyone* ... not those of us who were in tears, anyway!

MM, if that was your reaction to the scene fine... but if baseball is "beautiful," what kind of sense does it make to wall it off from poetry or mythic interpretation? If a "silly" game strikes us profoundly, doesn't that mean it MUST have potent symbolic meaning, whether we feel sheepishly grandiose at articulating it or not?

I found most of TMO's hackneyed qualities in the gay stuff.

But see, I don't love baseball because it's a reminder of America's simpler, more earth-bound agrarian past or that it's a representation of democracy or any of that pseudo-intellectual baggae that gets attached to it. I love baseball because seeing a man throw a small object 95 miles an hour to a small area so that a guy standing 60'6" away can try to connect using only a sliver of wood is REALLY f**kING COOL. The problem I have with the people who mythologize baseball is that they can't leave well enough alone. So often, especially with George Will and Bob Costas, they are yearning for that simple time in their Midwest upbringings that baseball symbolizes; they then try to extrapolate that *shudder* nostalgia *shudder* onto to a larger canvas which, in my view, is unable to support their intellectual conceit.

And there's often a desperation to their writing that I find really distatesful. It's palpable that they can't believe that the heathen sport football has totally, completely and utterly eclipsed baseball as the number 1 sport in the American public's eyes (yes, I know, not you; I'm talking big picture here) and that, in fact, basketball is probably #2 now as well.

I'd be squirming in my seat and muttering "Oh for f**k's sake" under my breath during that speech. But then I have very little interest in myth or ritual. I've never seen so much as a minute of Ken Burns' Baseball because I read an interview with him before it came out and he said in so many words "I'm not really interested in it as a sport, more as a part of my trilogy about race in American history". f**k that! If it was a real baseball lover behind it, I'd have watched it. And my reaction to that hideous piece of shite called Ken Burns' Jazz documentary seems to have borne this antipathy this out, as it was said to be the same as Baseball.

And football? Fascism, pure and simple. The faceless (because of their helmets) worker drones, reduced to being a number, mindlessly executing plays devised and called by the omnipotent leader (the coach), who is just the lackey for the billionaire who owns the means of production.

[ April 15, 2003, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

C'est la lut-te fi-na-le! Grou-pons nous et de-main ...
Sorry, I was having an out-of-Vaterland experience. wink

Seriously, thanks for a perfect example of the flipside of these pompous, overblown analogies (which only prove what windbags the Wills and Costases of the world are in general).

It's a game, guys! Let's just enjoy it as such!

I took the monologue as the words of someone discovering a new passion. People tend to exaggerate and hyperbolize a bit when speaking of new found passions. Granted its not the way most people on the street would talk, but then what play is? As Jim Allen referenced, George Will and Bob Costas are much more likely to make me want to wretch.

I had much bigger issues with the plot contrivances and conveniences, as well as the too-close-to-John-Rocker stereotype. Also didn't care for the set, though the showers were fun.

Dennis O'Hare was indeed terrific, downright Tony worthy.

Not *consciously* you don't, Jim!

I am in agreement on Will and Burns, btw, but that's because they employ mostly sentimental boilerplate. (Well, the Burns film was fairly stirring on the Jim Crow stuff, as any competently assembled production would be. As for Costas, liked him as a regular baseball broadcaster, ain't read him.) The Greenberg monologue strikes me as less pretentious and more personal and passionate.

Sorry kids, anything that gives pleasure in the culture can be studied and dissected, as I'm sure you opera and showtune queens would admit... Now you don't want me to define the competing Freudian and American immigrant theories on Jerry Lewis's manchild screen persona now, do ya?

Tears, BW? My goodness, who would've thought it? You're just an old softie......

I think my problem with "mythic" interpretation is that it's just that - mythic. For me, baseball is a personal memory, not a universal one of farreaching sociopolitical impact. It's my first one-on-one outing with my dad, it's nights curled up on the couch with my partner cheering our team on during a late-inning rally on the West Coast, it's the joy of watching a pitcher like Maddux just set a hitter up like he's illustrating a "how-to manual." It's definitely not the all-encompassing baseball as a metaphor for all that is Americana. But it's probably those completely different perspectives that make it such a great game.

I saw the play, I thought that monologue was purplish at best--too overwritten, too overblown. The theme and scenarios, however, as well as O'Hare's, Sunjata's and others' acting (and nudity), were worth the price of the ticket.

Baseball is HARDLY democratic and has never been. It does contain historically many moments of social and political struggle, and could be viewed from a labor-political perspective, or the racial perspective, but these are only ASPECTS of, and not the total sum, of baseball.

Most people STILL don't realize that although there are quite a few Dominicans playing today, there were NO dark-skinned or black Latinos--not just Black Americans--until Robinson broke the color line. He made it possible for the Alous, Marichal, Clemente, Cepeda, all of them, as well as other non-whites, like Agbayani, the Japanese players, etc. Yet this basic fact was skipped over more than once during the 1997 commemorations of Robinson. In Jane Leavey's book on Sandy Koufax (yes, her!), she discusses the anti-Semitism in baseball, a topic that is even more rarely broached.

The battles for better pay by numerous players (not just in 1994, but in 1934, or 1954, or 1974, etc.) also are numerous and legendary. Curt Flood's push for free agency destroyed him as a player but has profoundly helped to enrich thousands of players since. And we've seen even in the last few years how ownership--particularly the cabal that controls baseball--will go to every length to retain control, power and money, from forcing idiotic strikes to canning umpires seeking better wages to pushing for contraction of popular teams, buttressing it all with elaborate lies.

Perhaps a more realistic and non-mythomanic assessment of baseball's past and history would not please people seeking warm and fuzzy tales and bromides, but then again, Will in particular is interested in bracketing off anything that might point to the true struggles players and fans have had to endure throughout baseball's history. I watch baseball primarily because it engages me AS A SPORT; the fact that some players can throw dazzling curves, or hit 500 ft. home runs, or steal bases at will, or turn double plays, is what I like to see. I also like to look at the men. I also am interested in the history of the game. It's that third part that's often mythologized, when a clearer view would probably be in order.

Well, Greenberg/Mason is NOT talking about baseball being "democratic" geopolitically, but purely as played on the field. (As we know, the AL has been less democratic since the DH was introduced.)

The core of the monologue (to me) is

Neatly turned.... when you consider that the game's most-written about fans are the Bosox' and Cubs', and among the most evocative names are Merkle, Mickey Owen, Buckner, Throneberry...


[ April 16, 2003, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

[To Psycho theme:] eek! eek! eek! eek! ...

Hey, don't ask me about opera ... the only opera CD I own is Quadrophenia!

What a great album that is. Not really an opera, more a song cycle, but still.

I'm a total opera queen, so I'm familiar with pretentious, overblown twaddle being written about a subject. I read a 6 page article today that claims people love Wagner's operas because they are replacements for religious experiences which are now frowned upon in our increasingly secular society etc. and while there was some merit to it, the writer just went on and on and on (much like Die Meistersingers!) to the point that I didn't believe a word he wrote by the end. Uh, no, I love The Ring, Parsifal and above all Tristan because they contain large swathes of some of the greatest music ever written.

I loathe the German musicologist/polemicist Theodore Adorno and a large part of that is his insistence on applying a Marxist gloss on, say, a discussion of the late Beethoven string quartets. It's an absurd way of writing about music but he's still hugely influential. Philip Brett, on the hand, wrote a groundbreaking study of the part Benjamin Britten's gayness and 39-year marriage to Peter Pears played in the composition of Britten's astounding operas; that was germaine to the subject. But when I see stuff like

"If we recontexualize the essentialist paradigm of The Brady Bunch's critigue of bourgeois American suburban life, we can........"

I just want to hit things.

I'll definitely go see Take Me Out when it makes it out here.

I saw 'TMO' this past week. I found it great and as some have said, a real tribute to baseball. I was a bit suprised to see the whole 'gay thing' sortof disappear in the 2d act.

"Take Me Out" has received 4 Tony Award nominations: Best Play, Best Director, and Best Featured Actor (Daniel Sunjata and Denis O'Hare).

Interesting that Sunjata would be nominated as FEATURED actor. He was a lead if ever a lead there was. I wonder if this is the casts' attempt to be perceived as an ensemble?

He could split some of the vote that would have gone to O'Hare.

The Tonys have a strange rule that says: if your name is listed above the title of the play, you're a leading actor; if below, you're a featured actor. That's why both are in the featured category. IIRC, this rule is pretty much set in stone.

The rule is routinely circumvented by the producers simply submitting a request that someone listed below the title be considered as lead, or vice versa. It was not done in this case because Sunjata is not yet a "name" that can compete against the heavyweights in the lead category. In any case, O'Hare was seen as a shoo-in in this category until last week, when "Long Days Journey Into Night" opened; Philip Seymour Hoffman probably has as good if not a better chance for his performance.

Just recently saw the play - so I am probably the last gay male in America to make some comment -

I thought it was a pretty decent play.
I thought the pacing was ok, and was not in need of any more cutting - if you like the pace of a good baseball game on a sunny summer afternoon - you will enjoy this...

I did not think the nudity was overdone - a lot of the play took place in a locker room - what do you expect??? I played sports in HS and College and was completely comfortable with the premise and the execution...

Maybe I am too lenient - but I thought the play was very timely, topical, and well done - BRAVO!!!

Boy you guys are a tough bunch to please - I enjoyede both of burns series - baseball and jazz - but then I enjoy both topics immensly

just saw it last night. it was good. but nothing to redefine drama as we know it.

couple of things,

the shower scenes were necessary as is the nudity because most of the action takes place in the lockerroom and most of the stated source of tension (according to MLB players) is the shower.

The guy who played the lead seemed too gay to me. (in his speaking)

The guy who plays Mason seems to have studied Kevin McDonald of "The Kids in the Hall". His mannerisms, his way of speaking, his facial expressions (I was seated 5th row center) everything was a dead on copy of McDonald's gay characters from Kids in The Hall.

It's obvious the team wearing pinstripes is the yankees and the star player who is half white and half black is Derek Jeter. Could he (Jeter) legitimately complain?

The pitcher fron the south who makes racist and homophobic comments is modeled after John Rocker. The play insinuates Rocker/Mingus is really gay. If I were Rocker, I wold have problems with that overly simplistic explanation for why people hate.

While trying to dispell stereotypes about gays in this play, it also indulges in too many of them. mainly, all the characters from the south (Tennessee and Arkansas in this case) are shown as being dumb as a rock and from trailer parks. But I suppose the gay audiences of NYC don't mind that.

Overall an interesting and sometimes funny play. But it also tends to not see baseball from a sportsman's point of view. Rather, presents it like George Will writing his in his book the "intellectualization" of baseball. Meaning, people who don't play the game trying to make it solely be the engine of socio-political dynamics.
Another way of saying that..... Geeks who don't know shit about the game making shit up.

I was never covinced that these really were pro-players talking/behaving like this. Prhaps it cold happen in a gay baseball league. But not MLB

Earlier in this thread people were writing about over analyzing baseball... Why do I like going to see MLB games?? I don't analyze it, really. Its just interesting & fun. I never think of it too deeply ...Why do I like ice cream? :confused: ...what the hell,I just do. Don't have to overanalyze baseball OR ice cream.

[ May 19, 2003, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: copman ]

TMO won the "Best Play" in the Drama Desk Awards last night. Not sure what they are though.
Trevor

Copman, that's fine... but the layers are there if individuals want to go deeper. (And there are no statistics in ice cream. Well, not very intriguing ones.)

Geez Ung, are you saying that an ex-MLB player is the only one qualified to write a play about the game? Most of them aren't even good broadcasters.

To say that a sport that has captured the national imagination for this long has *no* societal role/influence is patently ridiculous...

Bill.... I think you're right on some things. But just as someone who has never met a gay person would not be qualified to discuss issues dealing with being gay.... unless you know the game as more than just an intellectual pursuit, you can't discuss it in a believable manner.

Obviously this play is not about baseball. It's about the coming out process and what one playwright imagined would be the consequences of coming out. But for whatever reason (most likely because the topic of gay players in MLB has been so discussed recently) he chose baseball.

That's fine. he could have chosen football, a public school teachers lounge, a college hangout cafe.. whatever. But he chose baseball as the setting for this discussion about the dynamics of coming out.

so what happens? The most interesting, genuine and "real" character of the whole play is an effeminate, queeny, non-sports playing, gay accountant who happens to love show tunes. Stereotyped? yeah. But at least that character was believable. because the writer knew what was involved in the life of such a character.

The players and the lockerroom dynamics? Not to mention the actual games... it was obvious he had only a preconceived notion of what being an athlete is like. so... the characters seem more one dimensional rather than being real people. and THAT makes the characters and the play suffer.

what's presented is not baseball and pro players in the lockerroom and how they deal with the gay issue. what's presented is what a gay new yorker non-athlete IMAGINES would be the lockerroom of MLB and how they would react (and talk) to a gay athlete.

Having not seen it yet, from what I've read this character seems to be a stand-in for the writer himself, who apparently just discovered baseball in recent years and fell in love with the sport.

I actually have nothing against analyzing baseball but sometimes people get SO heavy into saying "baseball is a metaphor for life" that it becomes boring & ponderous. ...Unlike Ice cream which NEVER is boring or ponderous. (is that even a word>>??) :confused:

Now, Now, Gentlemen... Shall we assume our lotus position...
wink

Close your eyes... and go to your Happy Place

Now , enter baseball and Javy's glutes, Thomey's package, Ausmus' smile, Kent's stache, Rolen's chest, Gabe's well, all of Gabe... Tino,

yes, yes... go to your Happy Place...

wink

Now, after me "Ah Hummmmmmmmm"

Baseball...so true to life...so true to life...



Baseball ... Good ole fashion American fun.

I disagree. It's about both, and maybe moreso the intersection of passion and truth.

Ung, I'm curious as to how *specifically* you think the locker room dialogue/ambiance falls short? Isn't it more 'convincing' than that of "Damn Yankees" or "Major League"? And why would utterly naturalistic dialogue play be the priority? There are other artistic choices possible.

Also, Denis O'Hare won his category at the Drama Desks, so if some of the reviews are correct about Philip S. Hoffman's perf in "Long Day's Journey" -- that it's shaky and he was nominated because he's a movie star -- O'Hare might win the Tony after all.

I saw this in today's Los Angeles Times: Please note that South Coast Rep is in conservative Orange County, that's why there's the jitters about the play's nudity if it's presented there. So, it looks like Los Angeles will get a bus-and-truck version of the play sometime in what, 2006? I'm planning to go up to San Francisco next summer for the only two interesting opera's in the current SFO season, so hopefully it'll be playing at the same time.

[ June 15, 2003, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

It's important to remember that the majority of the gay male theater-going audience fits the above description all-too-perfectly. A lot of Gay Theater and Queer Cinema panders to that perception of its target audence -- "Queens know nothing about sports so let's give 'em a character they can relate to." Mind you, these aren't straight people making these assumptions, these are your fellow homos.

In Montana I find that most of the gay guys who go to the theater are all attending with their wives. wink

I'm a little bit confused by the column on Outsports by Jason Page. He starts with "the words I am about to write could very well be considered blasphemous," yet I am hard-pressed to find the blasphemy.

The majority of the piece is about his own personal experience which, presumably, is factual and irrefutable. And not having seen the play myself, I don't really know what he means by "the incoherent “village idiots” that Greenberg shows us in his fictional play just don’t exist in great numbers." Examples, please? Is the play peopled with 'idiots?'

Does anyone who's seen the play agree with Page's assessment? Is it a big letdown? I will actually be in NYC next month, doubt I will get to see the play... still most on the board seem to have given it a favorable review and I'm wondering if any share Page's "(disappointment) with the (playwright Richard Greenberg's) limited insight to the pro baseball player."

I think when he means blasphemy, he means two things, one, the bizarre idea that you don't criticize gay things, because if you do, then somehow you're against them. Kinda like Will and Grace. We put up with it because its better than being invisible. Second, I think he means that because it's a Tony winner, it must be beyond reproach. Again, not true, since I think this was a week year for plays, and because I think it won to be hip and trendy, not because it was the highest quality play.

Anyway, I'm glad someone is speaking up about it.

I saw the play a few months ago (you can see my comments in the previous posts)

I was disappointed. It certainly was not worth the $81 per seat. If you wanna see naked guys, there's plenty of bars in Chelsea for far less money.

In any case, I think it depends on how you approach and what your expectations are.

If you want 1)a play about BASEBALL that deals with gay issues, it'll disappoint.

If you want 2)a GAY PLAY that deals with baseball as the background, you may like it.

Follow me?

[ June 24, 2003, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: ung ]

Is this play going to make its way around the country? I would definitely like to see it here in St. Louis!!

Mr. Page's issue with the play seems to be that the cast of characters doesn't accurately mirror the demographics of real baseball in terms of the relative numbers of nice guys/bad guys, intelligent guys/stupid guys, tolerant guys/homophobes, English speakers/non-English speakers. He's met many swell, tolerant, well spoken guys during his career in professional baseball. He freely admits that he's no theater critic and I think we should take him at his word.

There were only eight or nine players depicted in the whole cast. The star, who is gay and comes out of the closet to kick-off the whole tale. Then there's a couple of hispanic players who, as best I recall, don't say much in English. There's a Japanese guy who has one monologue each in English and Japanese. There's one racist homophobe, one slow-witted country boy, one intelligent quick-wit, and a couple of black guys, one of whom I took to be born again. It would have been difficult to be truly representative with such a small cast and in fairness to the author, that really wasn't the point. This story was about homophobia in baseball, professional sports generally and allegorically in Amaerica as well. It wasn't intended to be about what wonderful people are involved in baseball in spite of the few crackpots who keep getting the limelight which is the point made by Mr. Page and well taken too. Theater, films, television are often, as in this case, about telling a story not relating events factually. The "Damn Yankees" aren't really in league with the devil and professional baseball is not exclusively populated with racist hatemongers and homophobes.

Jason Page says in his article, "It’s important to me that people know and understand that the John Rockers and Todd Jones of the world are scarce."

If this is true, then why is there NOT ONE SINGLE GAY PLAYER who is willing to come out to the public at large WHILE STILL AN ACTIVE PLAYER?

Why are people like Billy Bean and Esera Tuaolo so terrified of their secret being found out during their playing days? If the locker rooms are such accepting places, full of intelligent, non-judgmental people, why hasn't ONE player--just ONE--been strong or brave enough to come out to the world? Surely he'd have enough support from his team, even if it wasn't unanimous, to withstand any public pressure.

As for the play, I'm toying with the idea of going to NYC for a couple of days during the week after July 4th, since I don't have work and need something to do. wink So perhaps I'll try and see it. I don't expect that it'll be a realistic portrayal of a major league team, but nor will I think it to be entirely unrealistic.

[ June 24, 2003, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

Saw it on Tuesday. Excellent show. And the flowery speech about how "baseball is better than democracy" and so on didn't bother me all that much. What interested me is that the gay player, Darren Lemming, was really quite arrogant. To some extent he was quite unlikeable. And if they ever need an actor for "The Bryant Gumbel Story" they need look no further than Daniel Sunjata--I swear, his voice sounds exactly like that of Bryant Gumbel!

Jim Allen--you may not want to wait until the show reaches the West Coast. One of the ballplayers is being played by David Eigenberg. Yes, fully nude! wink

I too found the Jason Page column puzzling. The ballplayer characters covered the full spectrum, not just "idiots" (though they seem to populate a solid 40% of any profession), and I don't care how many players seemed "accepting" of Jason in his job, it wouldn't universally be so, especially if it was a fellow out PLAYER they had to deal with.

And let's not forget, it's strongly implied in one line spoken (at least in the longer version I saw last fall) by the bigoted Mungit that Lemming is NOT the only gay player on the Empires.

Saw Take Me Out this past weekend and have to say that I was disappointed.

Although there were a few flashes of fun and drama, I thought that as a piece of theatre it was lacking. I didn't see there as being much in the way of story, I didn't see the characters changing, or learning, or even any "message" to the show.

The main character Darren Lemming was arrogant and seemingly ignorant to how his actions would affect others. Too unlikeable as a protagonist to make you feel for him or care what his outcome is. There was also virtually nothing gay about him.

The antagonist, for want of a better word, the hick Shane Mungit was also ineffective dramatically. By making him ignorant, I think that makes his racism somewhat forgiveable or understandable. The play does attempt to make the intelligent narrator/friend character Kip defend the racist (thus causing conflict between Darren & Kip), but the revealing of this information in a climactic scene was ineffective. I kept asking myself "what letter?" (if you've seen the play you know what I mean).

I found the comedy seemed to pander to the middle aged, middle class, white, heterosexual Broadway audience too much. When it was more over the top and more gay--such as the scene at the end between Darren and "Mars"--it was very enjoyable to me and to the audience. I think the show underestimates the intelligence of the audience with many of its dull jokes, which were far tamer than anything you'd see even on Will & Grace.

I don't think the nudity was essential. It was certainly pleasing to the eye, and did effectively cause a reaction with the audience, but I don't think it was handled as effectively as it could have been.

And did any one else think that a romance was being set-up between Darren and Mars? Their growing friendship and bonding (late night phone calls), Mars's newfound interest in baseball coinciding with his becoming less uptight and more accepting of his homosexuality, and the climactic scene where Darren gives Mars a ring. I mean, come on! A man gives another man a ring and there's no romance there? Had there been a romance in this play (there's not even a single friendly gay kiss) I would have liked it so much more.

And, does anyone know if anyone's ever been killed by a pitched baseball?

It was referred to early on in the second act, after it was revealed that Mungit had been suspended indefinitely. There was a letter which had him sort of apologizing.

Blasphemy. All nudity is essential.

I think a romance between them could easily develop over time, but it would've seemed wrong to have it played out at that point. I would've liked a scene with them kissing, but only if it were in front of Mars's gay neighbors. wink