A Better Man

The New York Times gives a thumbs down to the all-star revival of Gore Vidal's The Best Man (for some reason now called Gore Vidal's The Best Man).  I haven't seen the production, but I'd say Charles Isherwood is a bit rough on the play.

It's a fun piece.  No classic, but decent drama mixed with comedy and satire.  It debuted in 1960, and I think the characters are still relevant.  Of course certain parts of the political landscape are different.  The Best Man is about a deadlocked convention, which doesn't happen any more. (Too bad.  It makes for real drama--more than our endless primary system.) And the specific issues that elections turn on have changed.  But the behind-the-scenes maneuvering, the backstabbing and the scandals are still there.

Isherwood writes that the political protagonist "has a reputation for philandering, a detail that must have seemed daring in 1960 but inspires a yawn in the post-Clinton, post-Edwards era." It wasn't that daring on Broadway in 1960--ruinous affairs had been plot points for a long time (even in the cleaned-up movie world--think of 1941's Citizen Kane). More important, has Isherwood been reading his own paper?  Clinton's bimbo eruptions were a big deal.  I seem to recall one incident led to a chain of events where he ended up impeached.  As for Edwards, he tried to hide his extra-curricular activities with the (correct) understanding they'd knock him out of the race.

Isherwood then notes

[Villain] Cantwell is clearly meant to represent the degenerative tendencies in American politics of Mr. Vidal’s era (which have only metastasized our own), but I have to admit that from a theatrical standpoint the cool savagery embodied by Mr. McCormack’s Cantwell, all camera-ready smiles and animal energy, proves to be far more appealing than the tormented nobility of Mr. Larroquette’s Russell.

So Isherwood assumes he's smarter than the material.  I'd say it's not a failure of the play so much as Vidal writing good lead characters (and perhaps a quirk of the production). Cantwell may be the bad guy, but he's clearly got something going for him. In fact, the plot has the former President planning to support him, partly because he is a vicious bastard, and the old man recognizes that can be useful. (He drops his support when he sees Cantwell isn't smart enough.)

I admit John Larroquette sounds miscast as the idealistic lead. (And James Earl Jones sounds like the wrong guy for the former President.) But so often critics who put down old plays are really complimenting themselves and, to a lesser extent, their readers. Look how we've grown, and how limited playwrights' visions used to be. Look at what used to delight people and how much cooler we are, how much more jaded. Certainly many old hits date, but I'm guessing this review is more an example of Isherwood's myopia.