I attended this performance on July 26, 2008.
This workshop for a stage adaptation of The Basketball Diaries is very promising, but not ready for prime time. Overall, I did not like this performance, but there are a lot of things about it that are very exciting. Following are some notes on my initial impressions. These are just notes, so they may not be clear to someone unfamiliar with the book . . . or to someone who didn’t attend the workshop.
Context
The theater is very intimate, set “in the round” with two rows of chairs around a rectangular stage, with the floor of the central stage painted as a basketball court. I attended with Dennis Driscoll, and we sat in the front row along the “goal” end of the court opposite the theater’s control booth.
As the audience enters the theater, two actors – a male wearing basketball shorts and a t-shirt and a female wearing sweatpants (rolled down, with big red tags sticking out of the back of her underwear – boy did that bug me) and a large set of feathery white wings — are standing frozen at the center of the court, while the rest of the actors are arranged around the perimeter of the court, on their knees in something like “duck and cover” position. An audio recording of Jim Carroll reading from The Basketball Diaries is playing. An usher goes around giving instructions to each group of seats about exit procedures and turning off cell phones. Once the theater doors are closed, the lights go out and the beginning of “City Drops (Into the Night)” plays, leading into a series of historical audio clips dealing with the cold war.
Stage action begins with the crouched actors each reciting lines from the final entry of The Basketball Diaries mashed up with references to earlier entries located at Headquarters. The actors around the perimeter then freeze and the male actor in the center introduces himself as Jim Carroll. This setup introduces the key structures of the performance.
Discussion
All of the actors on the stage are “Jim Carroll,” and individual actors play multiple roles, though one actor “is” “Jim Carroll.” All of the actors are reflections of Jim Carroll, and Jim Carroll is orchestrating all. The characters basically fall into “types” that are somewhat interchangeable. It was not a big surprise that the actor who played Coach Lefty also played the queer basketball scout Benny Greenbaum and the queer brother at the Catholic school and the teacher at the private school. This is not so different from the film’s treatment of secondary characters. But it was very surprising (in a good way) to see Jim Carroll’s voice represented by the entire cast. THAT is brilliant.
The entire play takes place “on the basketball court,” with actions orchestrated throughout like the plays in a basketball game. “Real” basketball games are interspersed throughout the first half or three quarters of the performance. At the beginning of the performance, a basketball is rolled from the corner of the set toward the center, towards “Jim Carroll”; this is the only prop (other than a whistle and the wings on one of the female actors), and it appears only once. When the “real” basketball games are played, the basketball is not physically present.
I really like the basketball court set. In my master’s thesis I emphasized the importance of basketball as a metaphor and guiding theme in the book. Basketball has rules, and Jim Carroll (in the book) lives by certain rules. Unfortunately, the performance doesn’t give any insight into the rules Jim lives by. According to the performance, everything just seems to come at Jim, and he responds to it. That’s not what the book tells us. That said, the basketball game motif in the performance highlights something I hadn’t thought about so much in my MA thesis: Jim Carroll’s orchestration of the story, his storytelling. The entire story is a series of plays, of games, of orchestrated action.
Storytelling in this performance is conveyed through “freeze frame.” This technique is for the most part overdone. What is interesting about the use of “freeze frame” is that it keeps all or most of the cast onstage all of the time, and while I think this is important, I’m not sure it’s coming through in the right way. Keeping all of the actors on the stage at all times keeps “Jim Carroll” in a context. But the context is often blurry – partially due to the disjointed narrative.
I absolutely LOVE that the performance does not stick to the chronological order of the book. When I first read The Basketball Diaries, I read it “in order” but in little chunks, over several weeks. Every time I have re-read it since then, I’ve picked it up and read random pieces, making it a different story every time. I have never experienced this book as a “unified whole,” and I’m not sure I ever will. I’ve got favorites I read again and again and can recite from memory. When I first heard about a film adaptation back in 1987, I worried about how the book’s disjointed narrative would be translated to film. The 1995 film met my worst expectations. I like this stage adaptation’s approach a lot.
I also love that the performance tries to emphasize cold war themes, but these themes are not coming through as they could. It’s hard to do, today, when the audience either never experienced an air raid drill or can barely remember. Watching other people ducking and covering under a disembodied recording of an air raid siren doesn’t convey anything. People need to feel it.
The performance’s admirable but failed attempt to express cold war terror extends across all of the broader contextual themes. The performance totally fails to depict the class issues Carroll describes, and it fails to contextualize verbatim dialog from the book expressing the racism and homophobia of the time. This dialog, from what I saw, looking at the audience, just comes off as offensive. I taught this book for ten years in college classes and I know you can’t just let ‘er rip without context.
This stage adaptation must also address a major challenge. Erasure of “the author” is a serious problem in dramatic representation, and this performance’s “freeze frame” technique does not overcome this peril. The writing of The Basketball Diaries, the development of a writer, and the importance of writing are absolutely crucial themes of The Basketball Diaries. Most of the time, the theme of writing is totally lost in this performance. Although it comes through very clearly at the end, in a very nice mashup of a couple of entries from the book, it is just too late. The WRITING is not visible until then, whereas it is visible (and primary) from page one of the book.
Let me just emphasize that, as I have explained above, I see a great deal of potential in what was shown in this workshop. But there are some things I absolutely HATE about this performance that caused me to walk away with an overall negative feeling about it. Getting down to the nitty gritty, the acting and overall direction were very hammy, the choice of material overemphasized the pornographic, things were added that shouldn’t have been there, and I really, really, really hate the angel metaphor. Most importantly, it ain’t funny.
I’ll start with the angel. The angel is at center stage, with the Jim Carroll character, from the start of the performance, and she almost never leaves. She is the actress with the white-feathered wings on her back and the red tags sticking out of the back of her underwear. I am assuming that the playwright spent a lot of time listening to Catholic Boy and decided for himself that “the angel” = heroin. Or something. I think the angel is also standing in for the vision of comfort Jim has while in Rikers, in the book. I’m sorry, but this whole idea is just awful. It worked for me only one time. When the Jim character got out of Rikers and turned down drugs, I was rolling my eyes, annoyed, just waiting to be told that prison had cured Jim of his addiction (as in the film). When the angel appeared, and Jim succumbed to heroin once again, THAT was the only time the angel worked for me. But the rest of the time I absolutely hated it. The angel is there constantly, throughout the performance, always saying, “Everything is going to be all right, Jim.” If there is one reason I want Jim to see this performance it’s because I want his opinion on “the angel.” After all, he liked the big bawling scene with Leo in the movie, which I hated, so I’d like to know what Jim thinks of this.
The performance also overemphasizes the pornographic pieces in the book. It’s one thing to see Leonardo Dicaprio from the waist up jerking off on a rooftop. It is quite another to see a live actor standing six feet from you with his hand in his pants making whacking off motions. It’s one thing to read about Winkie and Blinkie, another to see it six feet in front of your face. (I want to note that, even though I objected to the scene, I thought it was really cool that the woman playing Blinkie was narrating the words.) The rooftop scene is important to the book. Winkie and Blinkie, I’m not so sure. I am ambivalent about the 14th Street hustling scene (p.187-189), because I think it’s really important to the book, but I’m not sure how to do it in a way that is not pornographic. In the performance, this scene was actually set up well, and it could have worked very well if the context had been defined more clearly. But it was overdone – big time – and it was just … wrong. I said it was set up well. Remember this is theater in the round. The entire cast lined up facing the audience on one side of the “court.” This was really good, I though. But they fucked it up. The characters were lined up at urinals (facing the audience), doing the “peek on the sneak.” But . . . um . . . they were peeking at each others’ asses. In other words, while supposedly peeing into urinals, the actors were looking backwards, over each others’ shoulders, when they should have been peeking forwards. Anyway, the deal takes place center stage and everyone at the urinals crowds around. This is where it goes really wrong. All of the actors form a circle, at center court, around the “Jim Carroll” character and his client, and it becomes a big, noisy, circle-jerk that goes on too long. This was totally, totally over-doing it. Now, I’m looking at the text. It says, “Anyway, a few more giggles with the wrist and my man is on his knees as everyone scrambles in from the lounge outside and circles around ringside while he begins humming a familiar tune down below.” What I saw onstage is a literal interpretation of these words. Again, Jim? I want Jim to see this. I think it’s too much, but …
Staging the Winkie and Blinkie entry or the 14th Street entry would not be so bad if they weren’t so overdone. Everything is overdone. All the way through I thought of William Shatner and other Shakespearean actors who made the leap from stage to TV and became known for hamming it up big time.
There was zero subtlety in anything in this performance. I got the feeling that the performance was planned for a much bigger theater, and yet much of the detail of the performance depended upon a small “in the round” theater. The LSD scene with actors portraying trees and making faces would be totally lost in a big theater, for example. No, the hamminess was just hamminess. The thing is, the content of The Basketball Diaries is shocking enough to stand on its own. It does not require emoting to get the shockingness across. Tone it down, tone it down. Geezuz, tone it down!
Lastly, some things were added that shouldn’t have been there. I mean, one of the major scenes in the performance centered on Jim and a bunch of guys getting shit-faced drunk. I noted this one in particular because, apparently, all of the imaginary booze was stored at my feet and the actors rounded the court to get the booze from the invisible container in front of me. I gathered this to be the “spiller” entry (pp. 18-22). The enactment of this entry totally missed the point, and besides, Jim makes a point throughout the book of saying his not a drinker (he says he’s “tipsy” in this entry). The whole treatment of this entry is fiction. Why? Why include it if you’re going to write a different story? What bothered me most was the extraneous dialog sprinkled throughout the performance that made me cringe. Listening to it, all I could think was, Jim Carroll would never write that. The book has all the dialog the performance needs. It’s okay with me if there are some variations on the dialog, but everything that was added that did not come from the book was awkward.
Everything I have focused on so far is very serious. What, to me, is potentially the most important thing is that The Basketball Diaries is a very funny book, and this performance has pretty much failed to show me the funny. I don’t know if it can be done. I believe much of what makes The Basketball Diaries art is its funniness. This performance was as dark, likely darker, than the film version. I saw people laughing at various times, but I couldn’t tell what they were laughing about. When I read the book, I laughed all the way through. This is a funny, funny book. It’s not light, hah-hah, mindless funny. It’s dark, darker, darkest hah-hah funny. The film missed that entirely, focusing only on the dark. I saw a lot of potential for funny not taken in this workshop.
In summary . . .
I have no problem with the playwright reconfiguring characters or messing with the timeline (though I don’t like invented new characters). My advice, my plea, to the playwright is to please honor the words, if nothing else. To the director, I say, the words in the book are shocking enough. Let them speak for themselves and don’t overdo it. The overall concept of the play is terrific. The multiple-actor POV, the basketball court, and the attempt to focus on the cold war are very powerful. Stick with them and build upon them. Deal with the contexts of class, race, and gender. And embrace the funny! This is a very dark book, but humor lurks in every nook and cranny. It is not the story that makes The Basketball Diaries a Great Book. What makes it a Great Book are the language and the humor. Dramatic treatment does not have to erase these things.