Back, Back, Back

As with every show this season except Ros & Guild Are Dead, I knew little to nothing about Seattle Public Theater's production of Back, Back, Back. From the posters and the scoreboard hung against the back wall I quickly deduced it was about baseball, but thankfully I overheard two audience members talking who managed to sum it up perfectly.

1: "So what's the play about?"
2: "Baseball."
1: "Right. And?"
2: "Steroids."
1: "Baseball and steroids."
2: "Yep."

Essentially the play follows three baseball players from the 1980s to 2005. Raul (Ray Gonzales) is a pro player with a big ego and a bad attitude that sees no problem with using steroids. Kent (Patrick Allcorn) is another big name player who uses steroids but is ethically torn about it. Adam/The Rookie/Rook (Trick Danneker) is a big up-and-comer who doesn't use, and really tries to stay away from the whole issue since he respects Kent so much. They all start on the same team, but eventually life gets in the way and they go their separate ways. Raul keeps getting injured or shooting his mouth off, Kent becomes a heavy user as does the rest of his team, while Adam stays on the periphery never quite achieving the greatness expected of him. All of this is told in 9 scenes/vignettes, reflected rather ingeniously as innings on the scoreboard on the back wall.

Unfortunately, that was about the only ingenious thing about this production. I do first have to say that the direction, staging, technical aspects, and 2/3 of the acting were great. My problem comes down to the simple fact that the script was just plain boring. The dialogue was stilted, several of the vignettes were seemingly stuck in there for no purpose whatsoever (I'm looking at you filler press conferences), the characters were entirely too one-dimensional, and worst of all to me, there was no message. There was no story to this play. There was no overarching point that made me want to keep watching. When I walked out of the theater I tried asking myself what I had learned from this play, what this play was really about, and all that came back to me was that simple audience exchange: "Baseball and steroids."

The best way I can describe it is that it was like I was watching a boring documentary with some bits that had been chopped for TV. There was no taking one side or another, no artistic vision, just an impassive observer relating events. And any scenes that might have had emotional impact, such as actual dialogue or fights between these men and their wives instead of hearsay or phone conversations, were gone. There were no stakes. There was no action. And I would be totally fine with that if they had treated this as some kind of 3 way philosophical discussion on steroids or cheating in sports or anything, but the play never takes a strong enough stand on any side or makes any real arguments for any side. It tries in some measure to be clever at points, which is worse because you can really tell it was trying. For instance, the word "steroids" is never said in the play, it's just obliquely referred to. I could at least understand if you're just building up to using it in the final act as a big statement, but no, there seems to be no real reason. Then there was a moment in the final scene where Raul and Kent are talking to each other about meeting Bush and Clinton and they're standing next to each other saying how they're just two douchebags and it's just so obvious the text is screaming "GET IT, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PRESIDENTS BUT REALLY THESE TWO ARE JUST DOUCHEBAGS TOO. I'M SO CLEVER LOLOLOLOL" Okay, maybe not that extreme but it stood out.

I suppose I should back up for a second to that whole "2/3 of the acting was great" thing. Ray Gonzales as Raul was perfect. He was brash, unapologetic, and unwavering in his convictions. As for Trick Danneker, the more shows I see him in the more impressed I am. Adam was by far the most interesting character to me (which is why it was so disheartening that he was on the sidelines most of the play), due in no small part to Trick's very honest portrayal. Which leaves Patrick Allcorn as Kent. I don't know if it was just because it was a Sunday matinee or what, but Allcorn's acting left much to be desired to say the least. He came across as fake and often awkward, which to his credit his character often is, but it was never "the character is awkward". It was "he is awkward" or "he is playing awkward". It was like he didn't truly get in touch with who the hell this character was. He didn't make any bold or interesting choices with it, and the script simply wasn't strong enough to support that kind of performance.

It's hard for me to say if, even if he had been perfect, I would have actually enjoyed the play. After all, Kent is probably the most major character of the 3 in this play, so it certainly didn't help that his performance was weak. However, I really must harp on the fact that to me the downfall of this show was simply that it's not an interesting script. Of the 9 scenes, only 4 stood out to me as having any impact on the story or the characters themselves, and even most of those ending up feeling irrelevant as the characters' lives simply continued without much consequence until we catch up with them again a couple years after.

Part of the reason I am so adamant in spelling out why I didn't like this play is because I am so very confused as to why at the end of the show they got a standing ovation. I simply cannot fathom it. I'm just going to tell myself it was for how well the actors and the director Kelly Kitchens dealt with such an uninspiring work.

Back, Back, Back gets a 5/10.