What do you think?
Rate this book
The Best Man
The Best Man.
88 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1960
249 people want to read
About the author
Gore Vidal
422 books1,866 followersWorks of American writer Eugene Luther Gore Vidal, noted for his cynical humor and his numerous accounts of society in decline, include the play
The Best Man
(1960) and the novel
Myra Breckinridge
(1968) .
People know his essays, screenplays, and Broadway.
They also knew his patrician manner, transatlantic accent, and witty aphorisms. Vidal came from a distinguished political lineage; his grandfather was the senator Thomas Gore, and he later became a relation (through marriage) to Jacqueline Kennedy.
Vidal, a longtime political critic, ran twice for political office. He was a lifelong isolationist Democrat. The Nation, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, The New York Review of Books, and Esquire published his essays.
Essays and media appearances long criticized foreign policy. In addition, he from the 1980s onwards characterized the United States as a decaying empire. Additionally, he was known for his well publicized spats with such figures as Norman Mailer, William F. Buckley, Jr., and Truman Capote.
They fell into distinct social and historical camps. Alongside his social, his best known historical include Julian, Burr, and Lincoln. His third novel, The City and the Pillar (1948), outraged conservative critics as the first major feature of unambiguous homosexuality.
At the time of his death he was the last of a generation of American writers who had served during World War II, including J.D. Salinger, Kurt Vonnegut, Norman Mailer and Joseph Heller. Perhaps best remembered for his caustic wit, he referred to himself as a "gentleman bitch" and has been described as the 20th century's answer to Oscar Wilde
Also used the pseudonym Edgar Box.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Gore Vidal é um dos nomes centrais na história da literatura americana pós-Segunda Guerra Mundial.
Nascido em 1925, em Nova Iorque, estudou na Academia de Phillips Exeter (Estado de New Hampshire). O seu primeiro romance, Williwaw (1946), era uma história da guerra claramente influenciada pelo estilo de Hemingway. Embora grande parte da sua obra tenha a ver com o século XX americano, Vidal debruçou-se várias vezes sobre épocas recuadas, como, por exemplo, em A Search for the King (1950), Juliano (1964) e Creation (1981).
Entre os seus temas de eleição está o mundo do cinema e, mais concretamente, os bastidores de Hollywood, que ele desmonta de forma satírica e implacável em títulos como Myra Breckinridge (1968), Myron (1975) e Duluth (1983).
Senhor de um estilo exuberante, multifacetado e sempre surpreendente, publicou, em 1995, a autobiografia Palimpsest: A Memoir. As obras 'O Instituto Smithsonian' e 'A Idade do Ouro' encontram-se traduzidas em português.
Neto do senador Thomas Gore, enteado do padrasto de Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, primo distante de Al Gore, Gore Vidal sempre se revelou um espelho crítico das grandezas e misérias dos EUA.
Faleceu a 31 de julho de 2012, aos 86 anos, na sua casa em Hollywood, vítima de pneumonia.
People know his essays, screenplays, and Broadway.
They also knew his patrician manner, transatlantic accent, and witty aphorisms. Vidal came from a distinguished political lineage; his grandfather was the senator Thomas Gore, and he later became a relation (through marriage) to Jacqueline Kennedy.
Vidal, a longtime political critic, ran twice for political office. He was a lifelong isolationist Democrat. The Nation, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, The New York Review of Books, and Esquire published his essays.
Essays and media appearances long criticized foreign policy. In addition, he from the 1980s onwards characterized the United States as a decaying empire. Additionally, he was known for his well publicized spats with such figures as Norman Mailer, William F. Buckley, Jr., and Truman Capote.
They fell into distinct social and historical camps. Alongside his social, his best known historical include Julian, Burr, and Lincoln. His third novel, The City and the Pillar (1948), outraged conservative critics as the first major feature of unambiguous homosexuality.
At the time of his death he was the last of a generation of American writers who had served during World War II, including J.D. Salinger, Kurt Vonnegut, Norman Mailer and Joseph Heller. Perhaps best remembered for his caustic wit, he referred to himself as a "gentleman bitch" and has been described as the 20th century's answer to Oscar Wilde
Also used the pseudonym Edgar Box.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Gore Vidal é um dos nomes centrais na história da literatura americana pós-Segunda Guerra Mundial.
Nascido em 1925, em Nova Iorque, estudou na Academia de Phillips Exeter (Estado de New Hampshire). O seu primeiro romance, Williwaw (1946), era uma história da guerra claramente influenciada pelo estilo de Hemingway. Embora grande parte da sua obra tenha a ver com o século XX americano, Vidal debruçou-se várias vezes sobre épocas recuadas, como, por exemplo, em A Search for the King (1950), Juliano (1964) e Creation (1981).
Entre os seus temas de eleição está o mundo do cinema e, mais concretamente, os bastidores de Hollywood, que ele desmonta de forma satírica e implacável em títulos como Myra Breckinridge (1968), Myron (1975) e Duluth (1983).
Senhor de um estilo exuberante, multifacetado e sempre surpreendente, publicou, em 1995, a autobiografia Palimpsest: A Memoir. As obras 'O Instituto Smithsonian' e 'A Idade do Ouro' encontram-se traduzidas em português.
Neto do senador Thomas Gore, enteado do padrasto de Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, primo distante de Al Gore, Gore Vidal sempre se revelou um espelho crítico das grandezas e misérias dos EUA.
Faleceu a 31 de julho de 2012, aos 86 anos, na sua casa em Hollywood, vítima de pneumonia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
June 25, 2024
Gore Vidal was well positioned to write a realistic political play. He was born into an intensely political family, the grandson of Senator Thomas Gore. He had his own political ambitions as well. While this play was first running on Broadway in 1960, Vidal was running for Congress as a Democrat in a heavily Republican district in New York. He knew the political players, he understood the back room maneuvering, in short, he knew how the sausage was made.
The Best Man, a play about two rival candidates vying for the presidential nomination at their party’s convention, was obviously based on real personalities, people who Vidal knew. His portrayal of them here clearly showed his strong opinions about them. Secretary William Russell, intellectual and principled, was modeled after Adlai Stephenson. Senator Joseph Cantwell, nakedly ambitious and ruthless, was an avatar for John Kennedy. Cantankerous Ex-President Art Hockstader, the man whose endorsement both candidates coveted, was transparently based on Harry Truman.
While this play was written for a contemporary political moment, anyone with an interest in politics will enjoy it, particularly if they are familiar with political history. And of course, it is full of Vidal’s brilliantly arch wit. Crusty old warrior, President Hockstader, gets the best lines:
”It’s not that I mind you being a bastard, don’t get me wrong there. It’s you being such a stupid bastard I object to.”
”In those days you had to pour God over everything like ketchup.”
But Secretary Russell, the play’s clear hero, isn’t far behind:
”I like the way you always manage to state the obvious with a sense of real discovery.”
”Is there anything more indecent than the human face when it smiles? All these predatory teeth reminding us of our animal descent.”
Senator Cantwell, the clear villain of the play, doesn’t get any witty banter because Vidal hated Kennedy, whom the character was based on.
LA Theater Works made an excellent audio production of The Best Man, which I feel is the best way to experience it short of seeing the play produced live.
The Best Man, a play about two rival candidates vying for the presidential nomination at their party’s convention, was obviously based on real personalities, people who Vidal knew. His portrayal of them here clearly showed his strong opinions about them. Secretary William Russell, intellectual and principled, was modeled after Adlai Stephenson. Senator Joseph Cantwell, nakedly ambitious and ruthless, was an avatar for John Kennedy. Cantankerous Ex-President Art Hockstader, the man whose endorsement both candidates coveted, was transparently based on Harry Truman.
While this play was written for a contemporary political moment, anyone with an interest in politics will enjoy it, particularly if they are familiar with political history. And of course, it is full of Vidal’s brilliantly arch wit. Crusty old warrior, President Hockstader, gets the best lines:
”It’s not that I mind you being a bastard, don’t get me wrong there. It’s you being such a stupid bastard I object to.”
”In those days you had to pour God over everything like ketchup.”
But Secretary Russell, the play’s clear hero, isn’t far behind:
”I like the way you always manage to state the obvious with a sense of real discovery.”
”Is there anything more indecent than the human face when it smiles? All these predatory teeth reminding us of our animal descent.”
Senator Cantwell, the clear villain of the play, doesn’t get any witty banter because Vidal hated Kennedy, whom the character was based on.
LA Theater Works made an excellent audio production of The Best Man, which I feel is the best way to experience it short of seeing the play produced live.
October 3, 2019
3.5⭐️
July 24, 2018
Read for an audition next week. Really quite good. I'm not crazy that the good guy is the misogynist, but found the moral discussion about what should be use-able in a political campaign to be interesting. Too bad real politicians are not as upstanding as Vidal's characters. I think my favorite line was: "you have no sense of responsibility toward anybody or anything and that is a tragedy in a man and it is a disaster in a President! You said you were religious. Well I'm not. But I believe profoundly in this life and what we do to one another and how this monstrous 'I', the self, must become 'we' and draw the line at murder in the games we play with one another, and try to be good even when there is no one to force us to be good."
June 15, 2012
It's sad that absolutely nothing in politics has changed since Mr. Vidal wrote this piece in 1960! This is an insightful look at power and what it means to want it and/or wield it. I wish I had been able to see James Earl Jones, as the President, in the most recent revival of this piece-that would have been a performance to treasure.
November 3, 2023
The Best Man (1960) is Gore Vidal’s best play, a timeless classic on the machinations of electoral politics. During a party’s national convention, two men are the frontrunners to be their party’s nominee for president of the United States: William Russell, the cerebral, principled former secretary of state and Joseph Cantwell, a ruthless, unprincipled member of the U.S. Senate. Russell is politically virtuous but personally vice-ridden (he has a penchant for relations with women outside of his marriage), while Cantwell is abhorrent politically (in the McCarthy/Nixon vein) but personally virtuous. Vidal liked this balance of traits and used it to pitch-perfect precision in this play. Both men are vying for the endorsement of former President Art Hockstader, whose influence would sway the convention towards a candidate. When Hockstader decides not to endorse anyone, Cantwell threatens to make Russell’s infidelity public and Russell threatens Cantwell with disclosing an alleged homosexual relationship he had while in the Army. In the end, the rumors against Cantwell are unfounded, leaving Russell with no choice but to drop out. When Russell does, he shatters Cantwell’s chances by endorsing another man, John Merwin, ensuring him the nomination for the presidency.
I loved every second I spent reading this play. As a political junkie for most of my life, I adored the historical and political parallels Vidal wove throughout. The moral ambiguities explored in this play are also more relevant than ever, in an age where so many politicians are corrupted both personally and politically. Revivals of this play happen regularly, and except for some minor details, its events could have taken place today. The Best Man is an essential work from the canon of Gore Vidal, highlighting his strengths as a writer, dramatist, and political thinker.
The play was adapted for the screen in 1964, with Henry Fonda and Cliff Robertson as Russell and Cantwell, respectively. It is an excellent film, probably the best adaptation of a Gore Vidal work.
I loved every second I spent reading this play. As a political junkie for most of my life, I adored the historical and political parallels Vidal wove throughout. The moral ambiguities explored in this play are also more relevant than ever, in an age where so many politicians are corrupted both personally and politically. Revivals of this play happen regularly, and except for some minor details, its events could have taken place today. The Best Man is an essential work from the canon of Gore Vidal, highlighting his strengths as a writer, dramatist, and political thinker.
The play was adapted for the screen in 1964, with Henry Fonda and Cliff Robertson as Russell and Cantwell, respectively. It is an excellent film, probably the best adaptation of a Gore Vidal work.
July 25, 2016
This brilliant political satire beautifully performed by the LA Theatre is set at the 1960 Democratic convention. With great humor and sharp wit Gore Vidal tackles the very serious themes of power and what people are willing to do to get it. Vidal presents us with a morally imperfect protagonist as well as a villain who is not perfectly evil. We are led into the jungle of right and wrong and back out again with a wonderful surprise ending. This was a great listen; I would highly recommend it.
April 5, 2019
Having seen the movie version, it was a pleasure to finally read Vidal's play. For all his cynicism and misanthropy, Vidal displays a genuine interest in the qualities of a successful leader in this tale of a political convention-turned-food fight. Art Hockstader, the former president enjoying his last hurrah, shows William Russell (and the reader) how a good leader must act. While Russell's ultimate decision might not have been the one Hockstader would have chosen, he does his best. Like him, those of us who are conscientious voters hope the best man won.
November 30, 2012
I decided to read this play over the summer and it wasn’t until I finished the play that I realized there were two versions (1960 and 1976), and I had read the 1976 edition. I decided I wanted to read the 1960 edition to compare (since it seems like most of the revivals use the 1960 edition), and it took me several weeks to procure a copy of the 1960 play. After reading both, I decided to keep my first review (of the 1976 edition) and then add some additional thoughts after reading the 1960 edition.
My review after reading the 1976 version: It took me a while to warm up to this story of two candidates vying for their party’s presidential nomination. The opening scenes didn’t grab me or stand out in a meaningful way – I was surprised this was the same play that was generating such fawning reviews regarding its 2012 revival. I was ready to write it off as was one of those plays that benefits from a central subject (presidential elections) that repeats itself every few years, much as Christmas movies (sometimes regardless of quality) enjoy an annual revival. But I am thrilled to admit I judged too soon. The play picks up speed, the meaning of the title becomes clear, and the purpose of all of that earlier set up makes sense, and wow. It’s a damning, brilliant commentary on politicians and the price of power. I finished with a much better appreciation for what America lost with Mr. Vidal’s passing earlier this year. Recommended.
Review after reading the 1960 edition: I don’t know if it’s because I had already read the play in its entirety and enjoyed it, but I think I prefer the 1960 edition. The beginning didn’t seem as slow, and a lot of the interactions and comments worked better in the original version. I honestly can’t say if it is the best one (pun intended), or if I simply enjoyed the story more the second time through, but what I can say is rereading the play only made me appreciate it more. The story itself is unchanged between the two editions – the latter edition was simply updated to reference events that would make the play modern to audiences in 1976. Regardless of edition, The Best Man is a great play that, even fifty years after its original premiere, resonates with its biting and astute commentary on American politics.
A considerable downside is that The Best Man gave me a reason to look forward to 2016 and a potential revival, and I don’t like that 2016 now has something I want, because I am so very sick of American elections and would, frankly, like a decade-long moratorium on them (ignoring the practical problems with such a wish). But I do think that’s the highest praise I could give a political work of fiction: it makes me, in a tiny way, look forward to another presidential election year. Highly recommended.
My review after reading the 1976 version: It took me a while to warm up to this story of two candidates vying for their party’s presidential nomination. The opening scenes didn’t grab me or stand out in a meaningful way – I was surprised this was the same play that was generating such fawning reviews regarding its 2012 revival. I was ready to write it off as was one of those plays that benefits from a central subject (presidential elections) that repeats itself every few years, much as Christmas movies (sometimes regardless of quality) enjoy an annual revival. But I am thrilled to admit I judged too soon. The play picks up speed, the meaning of the title becomes clear, and the purpose of all of that earlier set up makes sense, and wow. It’s a damning, brilliant commentary on politicians and the price of power. I finished with a much better appreciation for what America lost with Mr. Vidal’s passing earlier this year. Recommended.
Review after reading the 1960 edition: I don’t know if it’s because I had already read the play in its entirety and enjoyed it, but I think I prefer the 1960 edition. The beginning didn’t seem as slow, and a lot of the interactions and comments worked better in the original version. I honestly can’t say if it is the best one (pun intended), or if I simply enjoyed the story more the second time through, but what I can say is rereading the play only made me appreciate it more. The story itself is unchanged between the two editions – the latter edition was simply updated to reference events that would make the play modern to audiences in 1976. Regardless of edition, The Best Man is a great play that, even fifty years after its original premiere, resonates with its biting and astute commentary on American politics.
A considerable downside is that The Best Man gave me a reason to look forward to 2016 and a potential revival, and I don’t like that 2016 now has something I want, because I am so very sick of American elections and would, frankly, like a decade-long moratorium on them (ignoring the practical problems with such a wish). But I do think that’s the highest praise I could give a political work of fiction: it makes me, in a tiny way, look forward to another presidential election year. Highly recommended.
June 21, 2020
My take on this very overlooked film made from Vidal's script based on his highly regarded Broadway play: https://www.the-american-interest.com...
October 12, 2016
I enjoy revisited this play every election cycle because it reminds me of a tired cliché that is certainly appropriate for our current political moment: as much as things change, they inevitably stay the same. The Best Man, however, feels like a wish-fulfillment fantasy as the play's beacon of moral authority, former Secretary of State William Russell, sacrifices himself for the health and wellness of his country. Yet, the sacrifice in question feels hollow. The loss of one's political career, while meaningful to some, seems laughably insignificant to many of use. Vidal challenges the overinflated sense of self-worth the political class ascribes to itself by beautifully satirizing the sacrifice at the play's conclusion.
With that said, there is also a way of reading Russell's sacrifice as genuine and aspirational. Read without sarcasm and skepticism, Russell's sacrifice embodies the best of the American spirit (yet another tired cliché). It is also fair to imagine that Russell is Vidal's philosopher king, and that is perhaps the tragedy of the play: our system can no longer accommodate someone like Russell, and that's assuming it ever did.
With that said, there is also a way of reading Russell's sacrifice as genuine and aspirational. Read without sarcasm and skepticism, Russell's sacrifice embodies the best of the American spirit (yet another tired cliché). It is also fair to imagine that Russell is Vidal's philosopher king, and that is perhaps the tragedy of the play: our system can no longer accommodate someone like Russell, and that's assuming it ever did.
September 18, 2019
Pretty damn topical right here, about grasping ambition and the will to do whatever it takes, the ends justify the means, and all that political stuff, but done pretty well here by Vidal. The only flaw is giving Fred Thompson, a real piece of shit in politics but a decent actor, the role of playing a noble self-sacrificing type. Like Republicans of that kind exist. Fuck me, no.
August 11, 2017
Quick and entertaining, if a bit superficial. It would benefit from focusing more on the wife characters, that's the play I'd love to read, as their one scene together is biting and delicious. Some good arguing, but not as masterful as other political dramas.
October 25, 2024
From the history plays of William Shakespeare to the works of David Hare, political drama has long had its hold upon playwrights and audiences. Gore Vidal, one of the masters of writing about 20th century American politics, was no exception to that. His 1960 play The Best Man proved a success on Broadway and found its way to the big screen, numerous revivals, and even an audio drama adaptation via the LA Theatre Works. Reading the play, it’s not difficult to understand why that might be the case.
Set around a fictional convention in 1960, The Best Man is about the ultimate contest in American political life: the race to the White House. As candidates, party officials and hacks, not to mention the press descend on a Philadelphia hotel, the race for the party’s nomination is down to two men. One is the former Secretary of State William Russell, a principled intellectual with health issues and a wandering eye. The other is a young, self-made populist Senator Joseph Cantwell, out to win by hook or by crook. In the middle is a former president secretly in ill-health, his endorsement holding the potential of swaying the party in either man’s direction. It’s a struggle of the highest order and one that threatens to reveal secrets, destroy careers, and determine the fate of the country for years to come.
Surprisingly for something written over sixty years, it’s retained something of a timeless quality. True some of the issues of the time still surface and some of the social attitudes expressed are very much of their time. Move beyond that and The Best Man presents a compelling tale. One that explores the questions of public versus private life, of a candidate’s mental health, sexuality, and how each impacts upon them to the very questions of who should be pursuing power and why. Is there a “best man” in this scenario, let alone one who can win? That is the question that dominates the play.
It also helps that Vidal wrote some sparkling dialogue. His trademark wit and cynicism are on display throughout, the latter (or perhaps merely a sense of realpolitik) shines in the form of former President Art Hockstader and his encounters with his potential successors. Yet Vidal, perhaps having not fallen into the cynicism that marked his later writing, doesn’t let that dominate the play. Clearly the sympathy is with the moral but deeply flawed Russell rather than the mix of Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon that is Cantwell, but Vidal draws a wonderful contrast between them. Both ambitious, both determined to win, but only one willing to acknowledge his flaws so readily with the verbal sparring a highlight. Add on memorable supporting characters such as the head of women volunteers Mrs. Sue-Ellen Gamadge, it’s a well-realized piece.
Is it no wonder then that, even with the period trappings of when it was written, Vidal’s script feels ever timely with votes already being cast for the 2024 election? The issues might have changed, but they’re not what’s prominent here. The question of character remains and we could do worse as voters than look to a play written more than sixty years ago.
Set around a fictional convention in 1960, The Best Man is about the ultimate contest in American political life: the race to the White House. As candidates, party officials and hacks, not to mention the press descend on a Philadelphia hotel, the race for the party’s nomination is down to two men. One is the former Secretary of State William Russell, a principled intellectual with health issues and a wandering eye. The other is a young, self-made populist Senator Joseph Cantwell, out to win by hook or by crook. In the middle is a former president secretly in ill-health, his endorsement holding the potential of swaying the party in either man’s direction. It’s a struggle of the highest order and one that threatens to reveal secrets, destroy careers, and determine the fate of the country for years to come.
Surprisingly for something written over sixty years, it’s retained something of a timeless quality. True some of the issues of the time still surface and some of the social attitudes expressed are very much of their time. Move beyond that and The Best Man presents a compelling tale. One that explores the questions of public versus private life, of a candidate’s mental health, sexuality, and how each impacts upon them to the very questions of who should be pursuing power and why. Is there a “best man” in this scenario, let alone one who can win? That is the question that dominates the play.
It also helps that Vidal wrote some sparkling dialogue. His trademark wit and cynicism are on display throughout, the latter (or perhaps merely a sense of realpolitik) shines in the form of former President Art Hockstader and his encounters with his potential successors. Yet Vidal, perhaps having not fallen into the cynicism that marked his later writing, doesn’t let that dominate the play. Clearly the sympathy is with the moral but deeply flawed Russell rather than the mix of Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon that is Cantwell, but Vidal draws a wonderful contrast between them. Both ambitious, both determined to win, but only one willing to acknowledge his flaws so readily with the verbal sparring a highlight. Add on memorable supporting characters such as the head of women volunteers Mrs. Sue-Ellen Gamadge, it’s a well-realized piece.
Is it no wonder then that, even with the period trappings of when it was written, Vidal’s script feels ever timely with votes already being cast for the 2024 election? The issues might have changed, but they’re not what’s prominent here. The question of character remains and we could do worse as voters than look to a play written more than sixty years ago.
July 28, 2022
After watching Ethan Hawke's documentary on Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward, I thought I'd refresh my knowledge of the work of Gore Vidal (a close family friend of Woodward and Newman). The Best Man is really more of play than a book and is about two candidates competing for the democratic presidential nomination in 1960. The similarities as to what goes on in campaigns today was striking, right down to the one candidate insisting that the other candidate wasn't "of the people" because he was too smart and educated. That particular candidate also had no problems digging up dirt on his rival, dirt that really shouldn't have been a big deal. Nonetheless, the candidate operated at such a level at pomposity that he insisted that he "had always wanted to be president and would be president" no matter what. He didn't much care about anything related to integrity, but had a surprise at the end in a rather unexpected way.
What I found most fascinating was the discussion that occurred related to religion. The former president asked one of the candidates whether he believed in God. The candidate responded that he didn't really, although he didn't broadcast that. The former president said that he didn't believe in God at all but, of course, said otherwise in front of the American public. He then commented about how the times were changing and it was getting to the point where candidates didn't have to "pour God all over everything" as the candidates had needed to do previously. I'm curious whether Vidal really believed that was happening in politics, or was inevitable. He was only partially right about that. Voters only selectively care about God, especially on the conservative end of things. These days, some of the most religious seem to have exalted someone with no "Christian" qualities whatsoever while condemning a happily married moral guy who has a sincere belief in a deity and attended church. Go figure.
It was also interesting to hear about some of the major issues at the time that one thought had gone away -- like losing votes if a candidate supported a woman's right to use birth control! Some things really haven't changed all that much since 1960. Vidal, being bisexual, had his own issues with hypocrisy and persecution, thus having a lot of things to write about.
What I found most fascinating was the discussion that occurred related to religion. The former president asked one of the candidates whether he believed in God. The candidate responded that he didn't really, although he didn't broadcast that. The former president said that he didn't believe in God at all but, of course, said otherwise in front of the American public. He then commented about how the times were changing and it was getting to the point where candidates didn't have to "pour God all over everything" as the candidates had needed to do previously. I'm curious whether Vidal really believed that was happening in politics, or was inevitable. He was only partially right about that. Voters only selectively care about God, especially on the conservative end of things. These days, some of the most religious seem to have exalted someone with no "Christian" qualities whatsoever while condemning a happily married moral guy who has a sincere belief in a deity and attended church. Go figure.
It was also interesting to hear about some of the major issues at the time that one thought had gone away -- like losing votes if a candidate supported a woman's right to use birth control! Some things really haven't changed all that much since 1960. Vidal, being bisexual, had his own issues with hypocrisy and persecution, thus having a lot of things to write about.
November 19, 2023
This play is about the backroom dealings surrounding a Philadelphia convention to pick a party’s candidate in an upcoming presidential election. The two leading candidates are William Russell, the former Secretary of State and a proud man of principles with a past of mental health issues, and Senator Joe Cantwell, an unscrupulous self-promoter who excels at television performances but who also has his own skeletons in the closet - sexual secrets dating back to his WWII service in the navy. The play consists entirely of the back room dealings with a few snippets of press interactions. Russell and Cantwell discuss their campaigns with their advisors and wives, and ultimately have a dramatic face to face confrontation where their true characters come through. An ex-President, Art Hockstader, mingling amongst the two candidates and promising an upcoming endorsement of one of them helps Vidal to include some folksy American political satire (“I've often pretended I thought there was a God, for political purposes.”).
While Vidal doesn’t shine quite as brightly in the theater format as he does in the essay genre, this is still a fantastically cutting satire of the American political process and the archetypes of Washington D.C. The quips and maneuverings among the political candidates are entertaining and believable, and while this was originally produced for the stage in 1960, over a half century ago, it still feels timely and relevant. The dramatic elements - mental problems and homosexual pasts - and the political maneuverings, even the role of China in foreign relations, it’s all still a part of modern American political life. This is a devastating critique of both the process of a party picking a candidate, and the candidates themselves, which is why it’s called, ironically, “The Best Man.”
While Vidal doesn’t shine quite as brightly in the theater format as he does in the essay genre, this is still a fantastically cutting satire of the American political process and the archetypes of Washington D.C. The quips and maneuverings among the political candidates are entertaining and believable, and while this was originally produced for the stage in 1960, over a half century ago, it still feels timely and relevant. The dramatic elements - mental problems and homosexual pasts - and the political maneuverings, even the role of China in foreign relations, it’s all still a part of modern American political life. This is a devastating critique of both the process of a party picking a candidate, and the candidates themselves, which is why it’s called, ironically, “The Best Man.”
January 15, 2020
Surprisingly sweet-natured considering who wrote the thing. That might sound a bit strange since this play would probably be billed as a scathing look at the dark doings of American politics in the 20th Century, but it's no accident that Henry Fonda played the lead character in the film version. Vidal, at least the version of the man who wrote this play, is an idealist underneath all the patrician wit and bitchy attitude. He loves the American experiment and he wants it to go on but he's a realist, too. "Power is not a toy that we give to good children." Indeed, sir.
June 6, 2020
This gripping political drama feels almost quaint compared to today’s political climate where backstabbing and deceit is all out in the open.
Vidal’s dialogue crackles as even the wives are richly drawn.
Vidal’s dialogue crackles as even the wives are richly drawn.
August 26, 2022
[L.A. Theater Works Full Cast Production] Vidal’s signature irony and political pessimism, wrapped up in a compact two-hour package. Not quite as funny as his novels, but the fast pace and charismatic performances make up for it. [LIBRARY AUDIOBOOK]
ヴィダル作者の特別な皮肉的書く方。速いと面白いとパフォーマンスがいい
ヴィダル作者の特別な皮肉的書く方。速いと面白いとパフォーマンスがいい
October 15, 2018
Holds up pretty well after almost 60 years, for a political play. Of course, mental illness doesn't stop anybody from becoming President, these days...
April 8, 2019
Dang. I wish this was fiction.
November 29, 2019
3.5 A nice production. It still holds up after all these years.
May 26, 2020
Product of its times and reflective of ours.
May 10, 2021
Beautifully written play with strong characters and witty dialogue. Vidal expertly captures the essence of the American spirit through fire and mud of political campaign. Thoroughly engaging.
November 28, 2023
I really just dont like the play format.
June 17, 2019
Much The Best theatrical play about politics written by this Man,—Eugene Luther Gore Vidal!
Read
May 1, 2023This is a play that Gore Vidal wrote in the middle fifties which was also filmed starring Henry Fonda and Cliff Robertson in 1964. The play takes place on the eve for the nominating convention for what really feels like the Democrats, but this is neither entirely clear or important as the criticisms and ideas here are more about modern campaigning than a particular ideology. The two leading candidate comprise a young Senator with a cute family, vague platitudes about the future, and solid military career, and the currently Secretary of State who was also a popular governor from Tennessee. Also on the scene is a retired elder statesman, the former president who can possibly play kingmaker with his endorsement. The play splits its time initially between the meetings of the former president and each of the two leading candidates. May the best man win, so goes the idea. We find out that the secretary is known for having affairs, but he and his wife seemed to have reached some kind of détente about the state of their marriage, and former president tells the secretary that while he respects him, he’s worried he doesn’t have the fortitude to be president. He’s got the ideas, but not the spirit. When he leaves the scene, the secretary correctly interprets that he won’t be getting the nomination.
In the second meeting, the young hothead senator is defensive with the former president and before he’s even able to say he will support him, the senator is telling him he doesn’t need him and that he has primo dirt on the secretary, who apparently had a nervous breakdown replete with suicidal ideation. Now that this is on the table, the endorsement is off, and when it gets back to the secretary, it’s revealed by one of his senior staff, that they’ve been vetting a story from the military career of the senator, that he was named as a possible homosexual in a court-martial case during the war. This presents a moral challenge to the secretary who doesn’t want to use or even threaten to use this info, but also doesn’t want his own dirt to come out, not that he’s defensive or even ashamed, but that it is painful and not relevant. So the play explores the choices between the two men as the clock on the convention moves forward.
This play is basically a very cynical Mr. Smith, but with some post-cynical sentimentality to it as well.
In the second meeting, the young hothead senator is defensive with the former president and before he’s even able to say he will support him, the senator is telling him he doesn’t need him and that he has primo dirt on the secretary, who apparently had a nervous breakdown replete with suicidal ideation. Now that this is on the table, the endorsement is off, and when it gets back to the secretary, it’s revealed by one of his senior staff, that they’ve been vetting a story from the military career of the senator, that he was named as a possible homosexual in a court-martial case during the war. This presents a moral challenge to the secretary who doesn’t want to use or even threaten to use this info, but also doesn’t want his own dirt to come out, not that he’s defensive or even ashamed, but that it is painful and not relevant. So the play explores the choices between the two men as the clock on the convention moves forward.
This play is basically a very cynical Mr. Smith, but with some post-cynical sentimentality to it as well.
August 19, 2013
This received a starry Broadway revival last season,and I can see why--this is a sharp, well-made play. If it feels dated, it is only because it is no longer shocking that the personal lives of Presidential candidates would be used against them--and it is that very quaintness that throws our era into such sharp relief and thus makes the play so instructive. In addition, many of the hot-button issues being debated in the play remain up for grabs today. Ultimately, Vidal is asking an important question that never goes out of style--is it possible for a good man to also be a good politician(paging Machiavelli!!).
January 25, 2016
Attention high school drama teachers: this would be a good pick to produce if it's available, especially in an election year, to clue kids in on how dirty politics can be. This 1960 political satire demonstrates that things in the political arena haven't changed much in 56 years. I had fun identifying the characters: "There's Trump! There's Cruz! There's Clinton--Bill, actually, even Bob Dole." I do quibble with the unrealistic, pat ending. "The Best Man" doesn't win, unfortunately, as illustrated by Trump's rise in the polls.
March 27, 2011
This being a (screen-) play, I listened to this particular performance of it. It's dated (1964) as Vidal himself is dated, the convention represented being of a kind which has likely not occurred since Kennedy received the nomination. Other than being a representation of character, it is about ethics, and the lack of it, in American electoral politics.
June 18, 2012
Was impressed with the star power of the actors when I saw a clip of the revival version on the Tony's, so decided to read the play. Vidal's 1960 play about a Presidential race, mudslinging, & questionable ethics rings true to today. Google the Broadway cast because it is like none other!!!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews