MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Theater… I Hardly Knew Her – Pt 1

An excellent day of theater in NY yesterday.
First, David Mamet’s farce, November, about a president facing a losing second-term election and the infusion of last minute hope for… something. The show is a little deceptive for an audience that is all to eager to read Nathan Lane’s desperate buffoon/survivor as George W Bush. But Mamet is after more than that here. November is a show that speaks more to the natural hypocrisy of the people who choose the life of high office, rather than any one buffoon.
With just a few minor edits, Lane could be playing the gay, eloquent, manipulative speech writer with Laurie Melttcalf as The President… especially with Hilary Clinton threatening to push her way into office, changing the rules as she tries to snatch victory from someone who has – for all intents and purposes – already won the primary election. And really, Dylan Baker could leap into either role effectively with either of his co-stars playing the dry, caustic, relentless Chief of Staff. They would all be quite different in each role, but the show would hold up. Really, no one is “doing” Bush here… except for being a screw up and being in Iraq. But this is not, say, Thomas Hayden Church or Kevin Costner as The President, bringing the good ol’ boy to the party. (Actually, Lane is in a presidential election seeking last-man-voting Costner’s vote in Swing Vote this summer.)
November is not going to win the big awards. It can’t beat the size and scope of August: Osage County, the weight of Rock-n-Roll. Lane will get smushed by a Seafarer or someone we haven’t seen yet. Metcalf will lose to an Osager. But, November is a show that audiences should eat up. It’s broad, but it is whippet smart. And while August makes you laugh, but sends you out reeling, November is loaded with “did he really say that”s, but sends you out of the theater laughing about how slippery it all is.

Be Sociable, Share!

One Response to “Theater… I Hardly Knew Her – Pt 1”

  1. Martin S says:

    That’s a good summary and quite fair. To me, it felt very throwback for Mamet, but I think that’s because I equate all his work in succession.
    And even if it was the best show, he doesn’t have a prayer.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon