Ahem. I’m calm now. I’ve also come across people who didn’t like the play because they identified with the “resident tourists” and the colonizers, and they felt as though Danny were making fun of them and attacking them. (I think he’d be okay with that reaction.)

I think the fact that the play doesn’t offer pat answers is one of the things I really like about it. Almost all of the characters, Danny included, display at least some degree of ambivalence about the situation and their own reactions to it. (I understand the anger you talk about, but I appreciate his showing that anger isn’t the whole story.) I was particularly struck by this ambivalence in Marion’s piece. She’s a nice, friendly lady who’s been minding her own business, working hard to live a productive, comfortable life, and seems rather bemused at the changes in the neighborhood. When she ventures into the café, covets the almond croissants, and finds herself invisible, I think she’s kind of horrified at herself when she walks out with the baked goods. Horrified, and thrilled, and giddy at getting away with it, and maybe feeling just a little bit like it was maybe a little bit okay that she was stealing.

I agree somewhat with your audience members (and the various writers) who haven’t completely embraced the end of the play. Robert’s second appearance seems to drag on a bit too long (although of course he is drunk, which makes some people chatty…!), and some of what he’s saying seems to be shoehorned in, specifically the reference to watching the attack on the World Trade Center. I understand the impact of that event on New Yorkers, but that particular story seems to be from a different play. (Sorry, Danny.)

What do I think touched me the most about Taking Over? Hmm. Let’s see. Besides the beautifully complex writing and the considerable acting skill? Well, I live in eastern Pennsylvania, about 80 miles west of New York City on I-78. This area has, in the last decade or so, seen enormous growth, largely due to an influx of people from the New York metropolitan area. Some of them are working-class people who’ve been priced out of their neighborhoods (sound familiar?). Some of them are wealthier people who have come out here and built ridiculous McMansions on former farmland, and apparently created a demand for the faux-downtown “lifestyle centers” and “upscale metropolitan lounges” (restaurants, apparently) that are springing up. The region is changing, and many people, including me, have mixed feelings about the changes.

While I’ve lived here for two decades, I grew up in West Virginia and still consider myself “from” there. My home state has been, and is, undergoing many of the same “colonization” process that Danny describes in his Williamsburg. People are moving there (from cities, in large part) not to find work and contribute to the community, but to enjoy and appropriate its “rustic charm.” Tourism and luxury getaways are the growth industries (and prisons, but that’s a different Danny subject), wind farms are being built on the mountain ridges, and folks don’t know what to think. Though rural Appalachia could hardly be less like urban Brooklyn, I was taken with the parallels I found.

The concept of “home” is something I think about often, as Danny obviously does as well (again, refer to his own monologue: “Don’t you want to be home?” “If this isn’t home, what are you doing here?”), another reason the show resonated for me. I like eastern Pennsylvania well enough, but I’m not sure I “belong” here, whatever that means. I joke that I’m moving back to West Virginia as soon as I win the Powerball, but I’m really not sure I’d be content there either.

More than you wanted to know? ☺

I’m a little puzzled by Danny’s contention (or suspicion) that he can’t perform his “New York stories” in New York, that he has to take his show on the road where New Yorkers are “exotic.” He says that Taking Over won’t be well received because it will insult the very people who have moved in and now make up theaters’ patron base. I understand that, but I know that there are plenty of people there who agree with his point of view, and as he says, New Yorkers like to argue; this would certainly give them something to talk about. Plus, he’s…Danny Hoch. He’s kind of a big deal. I can’t imagine that performances wouldn’t sell well, y’know?

Yes, I did in fact drive to Washington (three hours one way) to see the production again. I’d been thinking about it a lot (duh), and a girl’s gotta take a road trip now and then. I’ve told my friends, though, that if I start talking about going to Berkeley, they should confiscate all of my credit cards! An overnighter to D.C. is one thing, but I don’t think I can justify a transcontinental flight (still waiting for that Powerball). So I really do hope Danny’s able to re-stage the show back in his own time zone.

This is lots of fun, Jolene, but I’ve gotta log off and get on home now! Have a good weekend.

Interesting, I know of at least some people who thought this about the entire show! I think it stems from the point that there seems to be no “answer” to gentrification in the show, and so what’s the point of Danny Hoch putting on this play? Was the point to vent and for self-therapy? He’s been open about the fact that his shows often come from a place of anger, which definitely includes this one.

Sorry, but I think he changed your favorite line! I think he took out the last word. He didn’t say in the Q&A that it’s a work in progress, but he said that he forgot a lot of lines in the show that specific night I saw it (especially Marion, the older black lady who likes almond croissants), and I have a feeling if I see it again in two weeks, it’ll be a different show. He’s also still playing with the idea of using the music stand when he’s playing himself (he had the script up there with him), and a lot of people questioned the ending, and it sort of looked like things weren’t set in stone and he may change it. People even asked him if he would change things when he went to NY, and his answer wasn’t so definitive even though he did say that he would like to keep things the same and NY-centric. I’m sure things changed during previews, and I happened to see it the second night after opening.

“so he was well into that monologue before I realized that he was telling his own story. ”

I totally felt the same way! I didn’t realize he was himself until he referred to himself by using his name.

Just curious, did you travel to Washington to see him perform? I’m so fascinated that you remember so much about it. What do you think touched you the most about it?

The Pennsylvania performance I saw had no costuming at all (Danny wore track pants and a grey t-shirt), rudimentary lighting and sound cues, and rehearsal props–a black table and a chair, plus the two microphones. The play ran two full hours with an intermission, Danny carried loose-leaf script pages throughout, and it was still jaw-dropping. Astonishing material, captivating performance.

I saw the next workshop production three weeks later in Washington, after Tony had come out to start working with Danny, and just before the intermission was cut. Basic costume pieces had been added, and the play ran a good 20 minutes shorter. I remember a line or two that was cut, but in general it all just seemed tighter and more concise. There were further workshop performances in early December in Minneapolis.

The production always had the same eight characters, but Danny had written nine or ten more that didn’t make the cut; he’s hinted that the leftovers may turn up in Part Two!

I hope I’ll have the opportunity to see the fully-evolved production sometime. Besides the added production values, I’d love to hear how the script has changed. Two months ago, Francque never spoke French, and El Dispacher didn’t have kids. Actually, the characters’ names weren’t given, although I know they had names by then.

One topic I’ve found interesting in articles and reviews of subsequent performances is the piece that Danny performs as himself. Remember, when I first saw the show, he had no costuming and was carrying a script (and we didn’t know the characters’ names), so he was well into that monologue before I realized that he was telling his own story. I was startled and felt like I’d been eavesdropping.

While I found that section of the show very affecting (and it contains one of the best lines–”This [artichoke] is why I don’t have a girlfriend, motherf*cker” distills everything so beautifully!), some reviewers and bloggers have thought it to be whiny, self-indulgent, and nowhere near as effective as the rest of the play. Huh. Well, it certainly caught the attention of at least one cougar-lady, eh?

Did he and Tony say at the Q&A that it’s still a work-in-progress? I’ve wondered about that; when is a work “done”? Well, it’s been extended through February 24, so they’ve got two more weeks, and you have two more weeks to tell your friends to get tickets!

Danny responded by laughing sheepishly and joking that he’ll collect her number later.

Thanks for commenting, Allison!

I saw Taking Over in a (very) raw workshop form a couple of months ago, liked it very much, and have been reading on-line articles and reviews to get an idea of its evolution. I enjoyed your thoughtful comments; thanks for posting them!