Finally we got to
see Gore Vidal's The Best Man at the Playhouse Theatre, in Charing
Cross, a week later than expected after an unfortunate false start which saw us turned away due to an emergency lighting failure in the auditorium. Better late than never we settled down to watch Gore Vidal's engrossing, yet problematic political melodrama.
The Best Man depicts
a semi-fictional political dogfight on the eve of the Democratic National
convention loosely based on the Adlai Stevenson vs JFK primary in 1960. In one corner we have the bookish, intelligent Russell,
played convincingly by Martin Shaw, and in the other we have the bombastic man of the people , Cantwell who will stop
nothing to gain victory. Both men have potentially career ending dirt on the
other, the question is willing to use it?
Vidal wrote The Best
Man apparently in response to the disgust he felt with the underhand tactics
used by the Kennedy campaign against his friend Adlai Stevenson at the 1960 Democratic
Party convention. Whether it quite hits the targets that Vidal intended is
unclear, presumably Russell, as an example of intellectual superiority and liberal values is supposed to be the character you root for and the moral political backbone
of the story. The problem is that as a character Russell is both bland and
unlovable. For all his supposed values and ethics he has an aura of smug
self-satisfaction based on his intellectualism and a depressing relationship
with his wife, who despite their loveless marriage is kept around solely for
appearances. Contrast this to Cantwell,
a charismatic, impulsive leader with a loving wife and who, with his brash everyman persona, is
willing to do whatever it takes to get to the top. It’s a tough call between the two, but
Cantwell despite the extremes of his personality and seeming lack of any ideology other than his own lust for power edges it through charisma alone.
Despite the plays age it
is still possible to find modern parallels for both of these characters.
Cantwell is most obviously identified with Donald Trump with his ruthless
anti-intellectualism, whereas Russell finds a bedfellow in Bill Clinton with
his difficult personal life and narcissism.
For all of Russell's supposed political ethics he ends up in an morality paradox were he has to make the decision as to whether he releases the dirt on Cantwell and cross his own red lines or do nothing and and let the man he despises and believes is unfit to be a leader to become president of the most powerful nation on earth.
His solution to this problem is unsatisfactory to say the least. Russell in his wisdom betrays both himself and Cantwell by dropping out of the race and throwing his support behind a third unknown candidate resulting in neither of them winning. This is not a particularly ethically sound or wise option, how is it more or less ethical to back someone which Russel admits he hardly even knows, that guy could be a total monster and
this decision just makes Russel seem even more spineless and reinforces the impression that he is far to clever for his own good.
The net result is that this a
play where none of the characters are particularly likeable and certainly
neither is at all sympathetic. Which is a shame because as a pure political drama at times The Best Man is riveting yet the lack of sympathy either of the man characters generates leaves you in the end not caring who wins. Perhaps the Best man is a perfect allegory for modern politics after all.
Comments