Mark Leib's review of Hat Trick Theatre's The Underpants — an adaptation by Steve Martin (yes, that Steve Martin) of a 1910 play by Carl Sternheim — drew a thoughtful response from someone close to the production: the director, C. David Frankel. Brian Ries' review of Michael Pollan's new book, In Defense of Food, prompted a letter in defense of corn syrup. And Wayne Garcia got multiple conversations going with his critique of the Rays' stadium plans and his "Big Story" blog posts on big insurance, Tampa Bay's crappy jobs market and Linda Saul-Sena's much-debated letter to Ikea. Read excerpts from some of the blog comments below; find the complete back-and-forth at thepoliticalwhore.com.
Re "Thrown out at first: 12 reasons the Rays' new ballpark is a bad idea," by Wayne Garcia (Jan. 16): "12 reasons …"? I'll give you 12,000 reasons why this scam should be trashed immediately. The 12,000 reasons? They are the 12,000 fans that have not materialized (to support the average of 4-5,000 regular attendees) or shown up to see the games. Why haven't they shown up? Because the Wall Street Whiz Kids have done nothing, as in NOT ANYTHING, to field a competitive team. Instead what we have is a new coat of paint and a lot of shucking and jiving bullshit from another ownership group with zip, zero, nada experience in running a baseball [team]. For example, Joe Maddon. I rest my case. Can you spell carpetbaggers?
Dan Calabria, via e-mail
Re "Underneath it all," by Mark E. Leib (Jan. 16): Mark Leib's review of my production of The Underpants reveals little about the play and production he saw but a great deal about him as a critic. He seems to have arrived at the theater ready to review the translation of Sternheim's play he had read. … and, therefore, he neglected to pay attention to the adaptation of the play that Steve Martin made. In doing so, he overlooks the difference between translation and adaptation. It is as if he had criticized Charlie Parker for not playing the notes of "Summertime" the way Gershwin wrote them. The Underpants, as adapted by Steve Martin, may not be a great play (I do believe it's a good one), but it's not the play that Leib brought with him to the theater.
Although Leib correctly identifies Sternheim as "a fierce critic of the middle class," he may not know that Martin was less interested in that aspect of the play than in others. As Martin says in the "Notes on the Text" in the published version of the play, "in a sociological play like Sternheim's … meanings change through time. What was relevant then is historical now. And what was tangential then can become central. I chose not to present the play as historical artifact. … In doing so, I have had to subordinate some themes in the original and emphasize others that … lurked beneath the surface." Since Leib states that "as adapted by Steve Martin … the play has little to offer besides crude characterizations, shallow, too-obvious humor and a plot so thin that it evaporates right in front of us," he either missed or dismissed the themes that the play does deal with: gender relations, sexual awakening, the unending American occupation with celebrity and fame (even today, wardrobe malfunctions occur and seize the attention — of the media, at least) and the intrusion of the inexplicable into "normal" life, among others.
For example, Leib cites a speech from the translation and compares it to Martin's adaptation, saying Sternheim's entire "harangue is cut down." What he fails to notice is that while Martin has condensed part of this speech, he has also rephrased and repositioned (and repurposed, one might say) aspects of it throughout the play. So Theo's dismay that (in the Martin adaptation) "here at home, how can the floor be so dirty, how can the clock not be wound. … how can the dishes be so piled up, and how, I ask you how, can your panties, in broad daylight, just fall down?" becomes a repeated refrain, one that changes significance with each iteration — especially in the context of the production. For in the text, Martin indicates that during this first reference to the household, there are "very few dishes in the sink, and the apartment is quite clean." Louise even has a line not in the original: "Oh, phooey. I keep the place nice." This exchange returns toward the end of the play when, thinking that everything is back to normal, Theo says, "The dishes need washing. The clock needs winding. The floor needs cleaning," only now, as the production makes clear, the counter holds the accumulated dishes from the weekend timespan the play covers — which highlights, in a theatrical way, some of the changes that have followed from Louise's wardrobe malfunction.
It is not for me to comment about the quality of the production, although I disagree with Leib about the set (I don't think it's "dowdy;" rather, it's quite inventive in its combination of two- and three-dimensional components — such as an oven, painted on the wall but with a functioning door) and with his evaluation of some of the performances. I hope audiences will come and make up their own minds. I do, however, want to state emphatically that I was not "handed so irrelevant a project" (although I do, of course, appreciate being called "skillful"). Rather, I brought the script to Hat Trick Theatre Productions — because I thought, and think, that it is relevant, it is funny (apparently, the opening-night audience agreed), and it would fit nicely into the Silver Meteor Gallery.
Mark E. Leib and I clearly have different views about Steve Martin's adaptation of The Underpants. I believe he had made a fundamental mistake in looking at this adaptation, and the production, as if they attempted to put on Sternheim's play as faithfully as possible. Luckily, that play still exists and still has value (and, someday, I'd like to direct it), but this is a different play, with different aims and ends, and should be judged by what it intends to do.
C. David Frankel, director, The Underpants, via e-mail
Re "Chew on this," by Brian Ries (Jan. 16): This article may mislead consumers about high fructose corn syrup. New research continues to confirm that high fructose corn syrup is safe and no different from other common sweeteners like sugar and honey. High fructose corn syrup is a natural sweetener and has the same number of calories as sugar. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted high fructose corn syrup "Generally Recognized as Safe" status for use in food and reaffirmed that ruling in 1996 after thorough review.
High fructose corn syrup offers numerous benefits, too. It keeps foods fresh. It enhances fruit and spice flavors. It retains moisture in bran cereals and helps keep breakfast bars moist.
Consumers can see the latest research and learn more at www.HFCSfacts.com.
Audrae Erickson, president, Corn Refiners Association, Washington, D.C.
Re "Pissing Off Ikea" (thepoliticalwhore.com): Oh for God's sake!!! "You do what I say, or I'm gonna post a video on YouTube!" ROFLMAO! What an idiot! Why don't you just hold your breath until they do what you want, Saul-Sena! Is she a councilwoman or sixth-grader? I'm not sure!
Jim Pease
Cities higher on the livability index than Tampa would have DEMANDED that IKEA create a new and better store model that is more urban, pulled up to the street, with parking behind, and fits in with the historic context of Ybor. Tampa simply doesn't know any better.
Bill Peak
Re "Finally Standing Up to Big Insurance" (thepoliticalwhore.com): Wayne, I feel your pain. Just last week Nationwide informed me that they were not on my side and "non-renewed" me. I feel much better that I was not just canceled; that would just be too harsh.
Chan
Re "Crappy jobs in Tampa Bay" (thepoliticalwhore.com): The worst part is that the clowns in Tallahassee hawking this Amendment 1 will make this problem abundantly worse for Florida. … Governor Crist claims he is making economic development a huge priority in this year's budget — but … how will the counties be able to attract better jobs here if the state cuts off the nose to spite the face?
Geoff
This article appears in Jan 23-29, 2008.