What do you think?
Rate this book
Straight Line Crazy
For forty uninterrupted years, Robert Moses was the most powerful man in New York. Though never elected to office, he manipulated those who were through a mix of guile, charm and intimidation.
Motivated at first by a determination to improve the lives of New York City's workers, he created parks, bridges and 627 miles of expressway to connect the people to the great outdoors. But in the 1950s, groups of citizens began to organize against his schemes and against the motor car, campaigning for a very different idea of what a city should be.
David Hare's blazing account of a man - played by Ralph Fiennes - whose iron will exposed the weakness of democracy in the face of charismatic conviction, premieres at the Bridge Theatre, London, in March 2022.
Motivated at first by a determination to improve the lives of New York City's workers, he created parks, bridges and 627 miles of expressway to connect the people to the great outdoors. But in the 1950s, groups of citizens began to organize against his schemes and against the motor car, campaigning for a very different idea of what a city should be.
David Hare's blazing account of a man - played by Ralph Fiennes - whose iron will exposed the weakness of democracy in the face of charismatic conviction, premieres at the Bridge Theatre, London, in March 2022.
144 pages, Paperback
Published September 20, 2022
12 people are currently reading
96 people want to read
About the author
David Hare
116 books85 followersSir David Hare (born 5 June 1947) is an English playwright, screenwriter and theatre and film director. Most notable for his stage work, Hare has also enjoyed great success with films, receiving two Academy Award nominations for Best Adapted Screenplay for writing The Hours in 2002, based on the novel written by Michael Cunningham, and The Reader in 2008, based on the novel of the same name written by Bernhard Schlink.
On West End, he had his greatest success with the plays Plenty, which he adapted into a film starring Meryl Streep in 1985, Racing Demon (1990), Skylight (1997), and Amy's View (1998). The four plays ran on Broadway in 1982–83, 1996, 1998 and 1999 respectively, earning Hare three Tony Award nominations for Best Play for the first three and two Laurence Olivier Award for Best New Play. Other notable projects on stage include A Map of the World, Pravda, Murmuring Judges, The Absence of War and The Vertical Hour. He wrote screenplays for the film Wetherby and the BBC drama Page Eight (2011).
As of 2013, Hare has received two Academy Award nominations, three Golden Globe Award nominations, three Tony Award nominations and has won a BAFTA Award, a Writers Guild of America Award for Best Adapted Screenplay and two Laurence Olivier Awards. He has also been awarded several critics' awards such as the New York Drama Critics Circle Award, and received the Golden Bear in 1985. He was knighted in 1998.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ha...
On West End, he had his greatest success with the plays Plenty, which he adapted into a film starring Meryl Streep in 1985, Racing Demon (1990), Skylight (1997), and Amy's View (1998). The four plays ran on Broadway in 1982–83, 1996, 1998 and 1999 respectively, earning Hare three Tony Award nominations for Best Play for the first three and two Laurence Olivier Award for Best New Play. Other notable projects on stage include A Map of the World, Pravda, Murmuring Judges, The Absence of War and The Vertical Hour. He wrote screenplays for the film Wetherby and the BBC drama Page Eight (2011).
As of 2013, Hare has received two Academy Award nominations, three Golden Globe Award nominations, three Tony Award nominations and has won a BAFTA Award, a Writers Guild of America Award for Best Adapted Screenplay and two Laurence Olivier Awards. He has also been awarded several critics' awards such as the New York Drama Critics Circle Award, and received the Golden Bear in 1985. He was knighted in 1998.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ha...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
October 15, 2023
4.5, rounded down.
I honestly didn't know who Robert Moses was before reading this, but he's a titanic character, and from the clips (below) Fiennes gave a galvanic performance as NYC's first real urban planner. The play itself has a few issues, but it's one I wish I had seen when it was first produced a year ago. Reviews ran the gamut from a 5-star rave in The Guardian to a 2-star pan in The Independent. I believe the National Theatre filmed it for their LIVE series, so hopefully I can catch it there sometime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4-Hq...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRoMi...
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/202...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/26/th...
https://www.timeout.com/london/theatr...
I honestly didn't know who Robert Moses was before reading this, but he's a titanic character, and from the clips (below) Fiennes gave a galvanic performance as NYC's first real urban planner. The play itself has a few issues, but it's one I wish I had seen when it was first produced a year ago. Reviews ran the gamut from a 5-star rave in The Guardian to a 2-star pan in The Independent. I believe the National Theatre filmed it for their LIVE series, so hopefully I can catch it there sometime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4-Hq...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRoMi...
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/202...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/26/th...
https://www.timeout.com/london/theatr...
December 9, 2023
I worked for a producer in the nineties who had a copy of Robert Caro's THE POWER BROKER (1974) on his shelf, the epic biography of NYC's tyrant city planner Robert Moses, and we talked a bit about how it might be adapted for the big or small screen. It seemed fairly insurmountable: five long-ago decades' worth of massive construction projects, a myriad tangle of politics, and how do you cast the leading role and convincingly age the actor? Which all probably explains why it's yet to be done.
Until then, David Hare's play is probably the best Moses we can get. Wisely centering each act on a specific moment in history, it brings to vivid life one of history's greatest visionary monsters, a role entirely worthy of the great Ralph Fiennes.
The drawback, of course, is that it's just a lot of talking. People talking about massive construction projects, road pavers taming Long Island, wrecking balls and steam shovels ripping up the five boroughs, and driving out the great unwashed before them. Spielberg gave us a taste with his apocalyptic ruins in WEST SIDE STORY, but part of me still dreams of all the wildly cinematic chaos Moses' dreams unleashed. C'mon, Ridley Scott, this is totally for you!
Until then, David Hare's play is probably the best Moses we can get. Wisely centering each act on a specific moment in history, it brings to vivid life one of history's greatest visionary monsters, a role entirely worthy of the great Ralph Fiennes.
The drawback, of course, is that it's just a lot of talking. People talking about massive construction projects, road pavers taming Long Island, wrecking balls and steam shovels ripping up the five boroughs, and driving out the great unwashed before them. Spielberg gave us a taste with his apocalyptic ruins in WEST SIDE STORY, but part of me still dreams of all the wildly cinematic chaos Moses' dreams unleashed. C'mon, Ridley Scott, this is totally for you!
July 13, 2024
Hare uses a character study to discuss planning. (Today, planners favor transit while NIMBYs cling to their cars.)
October 30, 2022
Solid but superficial. Historical plays are difficult and I think Hare does a skillful job of condensing a tremendous amount of history to provide a character study of the Man himself, Robert Moses. The dialogue is engaging and keeps the whole thing moving at a good and enjoyable pace. Those are the nice things I have to say, everything else, not so much.
In short what the show lacks is stakes. It feels to me like a pet project, like an experienced playwriting chasing an intellectual curiosity without doing much more than adapting the story of someone's life. There's no tough questions to be answered here. It doesn't even really answer the question of "Why this show now?". That answer could even be something like "I think there is a particular unique kind of person from a bygone era who is interesting to examine and this show is about that kind of person" but I didn't really get that from the show.
The show is centered on Moses but doesn't provide too much of a character study, or at least, not one that's particularly interesting or nuanced. He has a few monologues but something about them felt too simple to me, I felt like I wasn't really every granted access to his interiority, he never broke or opened up and at the end of the day, that's sort of what pulls me into the show is hoping to see that. I haven't read Caro's tome but I assume there's plenty to mine there that gives a little more substance, a little more of a surprise than the sort of Dickensian (I think I'm using that right) factory owner trope Moses is molded into.
I also felt like the rest of the characters were underdeveloped, secondary, and more pieces to move the plot forward than dynamic fleshed out characters. They didn't make impacts, didn't really offer genuine antithesis only critique, and were mostly a tool to set Moses up to talk more. That might be ok for story with a really interesting, complex plot, but for this sitting around the office talking show, not so much. The water scenes were nice window dressing, but failed to serve as more than bookends (rather than being worked into the show). Altogether, on a dramatic level, it just felt underdeveloped.
Politically, I think the show is quite vapid. While it does offer "both sides" it really gives Jacobs such a minimal amount of time it mine as well not include her.(^1) I also think there isn't really a strong voice to counteract Moses general misanthropy. Honestly, watching it I felt a much more interesting play could have been written on Jacobs or maybe even split between the two. What felt most obviously missing to me was the connection to the freeway dominated world of today. The show is appealing because the subject is still so relevant yet, this show has this weird habit of looking like it's trying to make some big political point but then when there comes a requirement for more coherence it shrinks back into a simple story of one man's life.
Not everything has to be explicitly political. What is frustrating about this show is it doesn't seem to know what it is. It doesn't feel fully committed to diving into the life of Robert Moses, but it also isn't a story that takes on, critically, his legacy as an early adopter of the freeway system. I'm frustrated, not because it is a bad play, but because it had the chance to be so much more.
Retroactively downrated from 3 stars to 2 after I saw Zoot Suit and realized other people have used theater to tell much more interesting and much richer stories about influential individuals in political contexts.
--
1: There's one portion during a panel where she's given a huge softball about basically being a NIMBY that is super underdeveloped as a central conflict but also it feels like she never gets to give a response to what is basically a trick question.
In short what the show lacks is stakes. It feels to me like a pet project, like an experienced playwriting chasing an intellectual curiosity without doing much more than adapting the story of someone's life. There's no tough questions to be answered here. It doesn't even really answer the question of "Why this show now?". That answer could even be something like "I think there is a particular unique kind of person from a bygone era who is interesting to examine and this show is about that kind of person" but I didn't really get that from the show.
The show is centered on Moses but doesn't provide too much of a character study, or at least, not one that's particularly interesting or nuanced. He has a few monologues but something about them felt too simple to me, I felt like I wasn't really every granted access to his interiority, he never broke or opened up and at the end of the day, that's sort of what pulls me into the show is hoping to see that. I haven't read Caro's tome but I assume there's plenty to mine there that gives a little more substance, a little more of a surprise than the sort of Dickensian (I think I'm using that right) factory owner trope Moses is molded into.
I also felt like the rest of the characters were underdeveloped, secondary, and more pieces to move the plot forward than dynamic fleshed out characters. They didn't make impacts, didn't really offer genuine antithesis only critique, and were mostly a tool to set Moses up to talk more. That might be ok for story with a really interesting, complex plot, but for this sitting around the office talking show, not so much. The water scenes were nice window dressing, but failed to serve as more than bookends (rather than being worked into the show). Altogether, on a dramatic level, it just felt underdeveloped.
Politically, I think the show is quite vapid. While it does offer "both sides" it really gives Jacobs such a minimal amount of time it mine as well not include her.(^1) I also think there isn't really a strong voice to counteract Moses general misanthropy. Honestly, watching it I felt a much more interesting play could have been written on Jacobs or maybe even split between the two. What felt most obviously missing to me was the connection to the freeway dominated world of today. The show is appealing because the subject is still so relevant yet, this show has this weird habit of looking like it's trying to make some big political point but then when there comes a requirement for more coherence it shrinks back into a simple story of one man's life.
Not everything has to be explicitly political. What is frustrating about this show is it doesn't seem to know what it is. It doesn't feel fully committed to diving into the life of Robert Moses, but it also isn't a story that takes on, critically, his legacy as an early adopter of the freeway system. I'm frustrated, not because it is a bad play, but because it had the chance to be so much more.
Retroactively downrated from 3 stars to 2 after I saw Zoot Suit and realized other people have used theater to tell much more interesting and much richer stories about influential individuals in political contexts.
--
1: There's one portion during a panel where she's given a huge softball about basically being a NIMBY that is super underdeveloped as a central conflict but also it feels like she never gets to give a response to what is basically a trick question.
May 27, 2022
NB- this is more a review of the play in its acted format.
I watched the UK live screen last night from The Bridge Theatre in London. For a wordy play it acts very well indeed. The characters are incredibly well drawn and of course with the cast ( Ralph Fiennes in the lead) it’s sparks with life.
I watched the UK live screen last night from The Bridge Theatre in London. For a wordy play it acts very well indeed. The characters are incredibly well drawn and of course with the cast ( Ralph Fiennes in the lead) it’s sparks with life.
November 17, 2022
I don't often read drama, but I went to see this play when it debuted in London this year, and was so captivated by it that I bought a copy of the text during the interval. Part of the draw certainly is the way in which this play centres on issues of city planning, a topic that I've cultivated a deep interest in after taking a job in local government. Another key attraction is Ralph Fiennes' commanding, multi-faceted interpretation of the the protagonist, Robert Moses.
Nonetheless, reading the text has also reaffirmed for me the quality of Hare's writing. His characterisation of Moses is rich, sympathetic, and somehow, simultaneously subtle and brazen. Likewise, the governor, Al Smith, has a small but effervescent role, exploding off the page as a sharply-detailed and entirely believable caricature.
The play is, by turns, funny, whip-smart, and painfully moving. Nonetheless, it's the final lines (spoken by Moses) that continue to linger in my imagination; in a sense, they capture perfectly both the man himself and the primary preoccupations of "Straight Line Crazy": "I walk the strand. I love it. I take off my clothes and I swim. I swim as far out as I dare. And then when I begin to get frightened, I swim out further."
Nonetheless, reading the text has also reaffirmed for me the quality of Hare's writing. His characterisation of Moses is rich, sympathetic, and somehow, simultaneously subtle and brazen. Likewise, the governor, Al Smith, has a small but effervescent role, exploding off the page as a sharply-detailed and entirely believable caricature.
The play is, by turns, funny, whip-smart, and painfully moving. Nonetheless, it's the final lines (spoken by Moses) that continue to linger in my imagination; in a sense, they capture perfectly both the man himself and the primary preoccupations of "Straight Line Crazy": "I walk the strand. I love it. I take off my clothes and I swim. I swim as far out as I dare. And then when I begin to get frightened, I swim out further."
April 22, 2022
An understated take on the story. As a Long Islander, most of the beats of it were already deeply familiar to me, so I was hoping for something more. I think the most interesting thing about it is the workplace dynamic between Finnuala, Ariel, and Moses; lord knows Jane Jacobs doesn’t get much stage time.
January 2, 2026
(2 1/2 stars out of 5)
First play of the new year! Been meaning to read this for a while because I’m perpetually reading the Power Broker and very interested in Moses being dramatized, but this didn’t do it for me. So many characters just describing the qualities of RM, with little to no immediate drama. It fell into the trap of info dumping to make the audience care, and I say that as someone who finds RMs career endlessly fascinating. Maybe just not the right form?
First play of the new year! Been meaning to read this for a while because I’m perpetually reading the Power Broker and very interested in Moses being dramatized, but this didn’t do it for me. So many characters just describing the qualities of RM, with little to no immediate drama. It fell into the trap of info dumping to make the audience care, and I say that as someone who finds RMs career endlessly fascinating. Maybe just not the right form?
October 27, 2022
I wanted to see the play, but ticket prices being what they are, I read it instead. Now I just want to see it more.
Witty dialogue and brisk pacing. Couldn’t put it down. About one of the most important figures in New York City’s history, though few have even heard of him.
Witty dialogue and brisk pacing. Couldn’t put it down. About one of the most important figures in New York City’s history, though few have even heard of him.
December 31, 2024
contains some interesting discussions about race, class & aesthetics and always a fan of hare’s writing, but admittedly also found it hard to fully commit to this whole ass political drama about building motorways
October 1, 2022
As great to read, as it was to watch.
January 15, 2024
Unreal play from Mr Hare x
October 28, 2024
i HATE robert moses.
December 10, 2024
3.5 round down
June 30, 2024
This is a play I still think about over a year later, I feel like it made me question and learn so much that I want to revisit it again soon. We look into the life and legacy of Robert Moses, one of the most influential urban planners in New York City’s history. The play examines the complexities of power, ambition, and the impact of visionary yet controversial leadership on urban development and society.
Set across two pivotal periods in Moses’s career- 1926 and 1955- the play presents a nuanced portrayal of a man whose grand plans reshaped the landscape of New York City but also sparked significant controversy and criticism. Hare’s depiction of Moses captures the duality of his legacy: a master builder whose projects brought both progress and displacement.
The play explores how Moses’s unparalleled influence allowed him to execute ambitious infrastructure projects, such as highways, parks, and bridges, fundamentally altering the city’s landscape. However, this power also led to contentious decisions that often prioritized efficiency and modernisation over community needs and social equity.
It’s a play that hit close to home, as someone who lives in a town that used to be incredibly wealthy, but is now incredibly impoverished and one of the poorest in the country (thanks Thatcher). Every urban development plan is either used to bypass the town, or to gentrify it, or to decentralise it, which negatively affects the local businesses which primarily exist in the very centre. This isn’t uncommon for British towns these days, as people are moving in increasing numbers to the cities, and the ideas and (perceived importance of) need of community is shrinking.
The play’s exploration of urban planning decisions and their impact on communities is particularly pertinent in today’s context of gentrification, housing crises, and debates over sustainable development, and I’m incredibly interested in it. It is something I definitely want to explore in my future and maybe even a field I want to work in. I also almost applied to study Urban Planning as a degree in Cardiff University (but was put off by the maths needed).
Moses’s story raises questions about the concentration of power and the importance of accountability in leadership. These themes are still relevant in current discussions about political authority, corporate influence, and governance, and we are no closer to “knowing” what to do about urban planning and how to structure cities in a way that makes everyone satisfied.
Moses is portrayed as a complex character- visionary yet autocratic. His determination and drive are evident, but so are his stubbornness and disregard for the voices of those affected by his plans. The play invites audiences to grapple with the ethical implications of his actions and the broader impact of unchecked power.
One of the most interesting moments in the play is Moses’s defense of his vision against growing public opposition. His undying belief in the necessity of his projects, despite the displacement and disruption they cause, highlights the tension between progress and preservation. This conflict is further illustrated in his interactions with his team and the public, showcasing his relentless pursuit of his goals.
Another significant element is the depiction of the transformation in public sentiment towards Moses. Initially hailed as a forward-thinking leader, his later years are marked by increasing resistance and criticism. This shift reflects the changing attitudes towards urban development and the growing awareness of its social and environmental costs.
David Hare, a renowned British playwright known for his incisive political and social commentary, draws on the rich history of New York City’s urban development to craft Straight Line Crazy. The play is inspired by Robert Caro’s seminal biography, The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York, which meticulously chronicles Moses’s rise to power and the complexities of his legacy. I may check out this book soon. I just added it to my wish list. Hare’s interest in exploring the intersections of power, politics, and public welfare is evident in his portrayal of Moses. Through detailed character development and historical context, Hare provides a balanced view of a figure who remains both celebrated and vilified.
Set across two pivotal periods in Moses’s career- 1926 and 1955- the play presents a nuanced portrayal of a man whose grand plans reshaped the landscape of New York City but also sparked significant controversy and criticism. Hare’s depiction of Moses captures the duality of his legacy: a master builder whose projects brought both progress and displacement.
The play explores how Moses’s unparalleled influence allowed him to execute ambitious infrastructure projects, such as highways, parks, and bridges, fundamentally altering the city’s landscape. However, this power also led to contentious decisions that often prioritized efficiency and modernisation over community needs and social equity.
It’s a play that hit close to home, as someone who lives in a town that used to be incredibly wealthy, but is now incredibly impoverished and one of the poorest in the country (thanks Thatcher). Every urban development plan is either used to bypass the town, or to gentrify it, or to decentralise it, which negatively affects the local businesses which primarily exist in the very centre. This isn’t uncommon for British towns these days, as people are moving in increasing numbers to the cities, and the ideas and (perceived importance of) need of community is shrinking.
The play’s exploration of urban planning decisions and their impact on communities is particularly pertinent in today’s context of gentrification, housing crises, and debates over sustainable development, and I’m incredibly interested in it. It is something I definitely want to explore in my future and maybe even a field I want to work in. I also almost applied to study Urban Planning as a degree in Cardiff University (but was put off by the maths needed).
Moses’s story raises questions about the concentration of power and the importance of accountability in leadership. These themes are still relevant in current discussions about political authority, corporate influence, and governance, and we are no closer to “knowing” what to do about urban planning and how to structure cities in a way that makes everyone satisfied.
Moses is portrayed as a complex character- visionary yet autocratic. His determination and drive are evident, but so are his stubbornness and disregard for the voices of those affected by his plans. The play invites audiences to grapple with the ethical implications of his actions and the broader impact of unchecked power.
One of the most interesting moments in the play is Moses’s defense of his vision against growing public opposition. His undying belief in the necessity of his projects, despite the displacement and disruption they cause, highlights the tension between progress and preservation. This conflict is further illustrated in his interactions with his team and the public, showcasing his relentless pursuit of his goals.
Another significant element is the depiction of the transformation in public sentiment towards Moses. Initially hailed as a forward-thinking leader, his later years are marked by increasing resistance and criticism. This shift reflects the changing attitudes towards urban development and the growing awareness of its social and environmental costs.
David Hare, a renowned British playwright known for his incisive political and social commentary, draws on the rich history of New York City’s urban development to craft Straight Line Crazy. The play is inspired by Robert Caro’s seminal biography, The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York, which meticulously chronicles Moses’s rise to power and the complexities of his legacy. I may check out this book soon. I just added it to my wish list. Hare’s interest in exploring the intersections of power, politics, and public welfare is evident in his portrayal of Moses. Through detailed character development and historical context, Hare provides a balanced view of a figure who remains both celebrated and vilified.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews