This review of Ray Allen Durand's Let The Little Boy Dance at The Duplex Cabaret Theatre was written by Dr. Thomas Robert Stevens and published in Volume X, Issue 4 (2014) of the online edition of Applause! Applause!
"Let The Little Boy Dance" - Ray Allen Durand
The Duplex Cabaret Theatre
61 Christopher Street
New York, New York 10014
Reviewed 9/21/14 at 4:30 p.m.
Ray Allen Durand stars in this autobiographical one-man show entitled Let The Little Boy Dance: From 'Bayou Baby' To 'Broadway Baby' - An Odyssey Told In Song, Dance & Drama, which traces his life from his birth in Hammond, Louisiana on March 6, 1943 to his current status as a retired High School Drama Teacher. Mr. Durand presents the key incidents of his life in chronological order as part of a fictitious speech he is giving at the 50th Annual Reunion of Hammond High School's Class of 1961, said event that was being held at the Columbia Theatre, a significant cultural venue in Hammond's Historic District. Ray Allen holds nothing back and is as honest about his family as he is about himself. If you know and love Ray Allen Durand from the UFT Players or as a former teacher at Clara Barton High School in Brooklyn, this show will be a revelation for you.
Mr. Durand starts his story at the beginning - his birth, when anticipating his future career in show business, was silently saying, "Push mama! It's time for me to make my entrance!". While his alcoholic father, who just came back from the war, was not at all pleased with his son's delight in dancing and singing, his mom took comfort in the fact that their parish priest called him "his little ray of sunshine" for reasons not fully disclosed. However, he did admit that when he was twelve years old, his uncle "seduced him" and that he "liked being wanted". In retrospect, he didn't like the fact he didn't have much say in the matter. Ray Allen took on a paper route that delivered to homes in a black neighborhood where he sometimes hung out. The other boys in town called him "Nigger Lover", "Mama's Boy", "Sissy", "Homo", "Faggot" and "Queen". Despite all the obstacles, Ray Allen Durand continued performing being named Bayou Baby Of The Year and winning a Jitterbug Contest. He eventually attended Southeastern Louisiana University and spent a good deal of his time in New Orleans where he was introduced to "Gay Life in the Quarter". One of the bars he frequented was Dixie's Bar on Bourbon Street, where Miss Dixie (Yvonne Fasnacht) had him perform as a stripper in drag telling him to "be yourself" and to "take these feathers and fly!". In New Orleans, he met an older gay man named Bob who invited him up to New York City after he graduated from college in the summer of 1966. Ray Allen accepted the ticket to paradise and stayed with Bob for two years while modeling, acting and taking dance lessons. He performed in a naked male revue, which his parents came to New York to see. His father, who by this time had accepted the obvious, told him after the show, "you gotta do what you gotta do".
Once in New York City, the little Southern Boy from rural Louisiana went hog wild, flittering from bar to bar and from man to man. One night, a handsome man named Dale asked Ray Allen what song he would like played on the jukebox. He responded Respect by Aretha Franklin, which Dale played before offering to buy the young man a drink. After four or five drinks, Ray Allen went home with Dale but it turned out they had a long and lasting connection with one another. Ray Allen moved out of Bob's home and spent the next 45 years with Dale, formalizing their marriage as soon as it became possible under New York State law. By 1976, acting and modeling work had dried up so he accepted a position with United Cerebral Palsy entertaining adults and kids for 10 years. He was then hired as the Drama Teacher at Clara Barton High School in Brooklyn. At the time, he was described as being "very theatrical". He rapped an introduction to his mostly minority students and told them to call him Mr. D. He said if they didn't like Mr. D, they could call him a "Southern Redneck Son-Of-A-Bitch". From then on, he got along well with his students. They eventually referred to him as "Mr. Johnson", which he later came to understand was the highest possible compliment they could pay to him since it meant they thought he was "a black man in a white man's body".
Eventually, Ray Allen Durand realized he ended up exactly where he wanted to be and that it was the total fulfillment of all his dreams. He finally understood that he was able to keep sharing with the students what he had been learning over the years. Some of that advice included: "No matter what environment you come from, you can rise above it." "There is no right or wrong with an artistic project. And there are no unwanted people here." "Keep your dreams alive. There is gold at the end of the rainbow." Pick yourself up, Dust yourself off, and Start all over again." "Keep it simple. One day at a time." Ray Allen Durand then finished with the observation that: "It took a while, but it dawned on me. I was finally in the long running hit that had always eluded me, with a large and generous supporting cast. In the best part of my career - a teacher!"
Ray Allen Durand's Let The Little Boy Dance was directed by David Brunetti with Bob Goldstone at the piano. Mr. Durand lays his life out for you on stage in just short of an hour. The show is an inspiration for all who seek to overcome adversity and make their mark in the world. The story he told reminded me of the message portrayed in the movie Mr. Holland's Opus with the exception that Mr. Durand's one-man show is brutally honest and tells you exactly what he had to go through to get to this point in his life. With respect to that life, all I can say is "Well Done!"
Monday, September 22, 2014
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Applause! Applause! Review of Thomas Adair Rossman's The Synthesis Revolution: New Thinking For A New Era Of Prosperity by Andrew P. Clunn
This review of Thomas Adair Rossman's book The Synthesis Revolution: New Thinking For A New Era Of Prosperity was written by Andrew P. Clunn and published in Volume X, Issue 4 (2014) of the online edition of Applause! Applause!
The Synthesis Revolution: New Thinking For A New Era Of Prosperity
Author: Thomas Adair Rossman
Publisher: Eudaimonia Publishing, LLC
ISBN-13: 978-0985659608
Reviewed 9/2/14
The Synthesis Revolution: New Thinking For A New Era Of Prosperity by Thomas Adair Rossman falls firmly into the genre of political manifestos. At just over fifty pages it's a quick enough read, which is perhaps its greatest weakness. It reads as a text that would have been profoundly insightful during the early Renaissance, but seems an introduction more than a real road map for revolutionary thinking. Where detailed explanation was called for, only summary was found. The greatest weakness of this book is not what the manifesto says, but rather what it does not.
The text is broken up into four parts. The first seeks to make clear that ideas have a profound impact on societies and nations, and that some ideas lead to better outcomes and greater economic prosperity for citizens of those nations when compared to others. A fairly non-controversial point to be sure, though the text does strongly imply that the purpose of political philosophy is to maximize prosperity among citizens (a point that certain pro-undocumented immigrant activists, animal rights advocates, and others may disagree with). Leaving that aside, many political manifestos make this assumed assertion about this goal, so simply put The Synthesis Revolution in with all other collective nationalistic political philosophies.
The book then attempts to show why a reform is needed (specifically in the United States, as this is a very American-centric text). It outlines various failures of modern political action, and claims that America has faltered from the original values instilled in it by its founding fathers (so make that collective nationalistic originalism). It points to tribalism and uncritical dogmatic thinking as the main sources of our failure as individuals, and corruption and special interest influences as the main detractors at an institutional level. As it outlines these weaknesses in human thought and our current political system, the text proclaims that, "...the Synthesis Revolution is the engine for propelling this fundamental change." A bold claim, but half way through the text I still had no clue what the Synthesis Revolution is supposed to be. The book consistently says that it's "reasonable" and "objective," but these words mean nothing without examples or details.
It is in the third section that Rossman begins to delve into contemporary policy, beginning with a brief summary of his views on the divide between the left and right in modern American political thought. He describes the left as being "top-down" and the right "bottom-up", with President Reagan serving as the great example of a uniting force between the two. He points to statistics concerning regional landslide political victories as evidence of how much more polarized America now is. He also points to the 2008 financial collapse, which he claims was caused by deregulation of the banking industry, as an example of ideology effectively undermining a lesson that was learned back during the Great Depression.
And so finally we are given a glimpse of what the Synthesis Revolution is supposed to be, though not directly, but rather only through inference by assuming his positions serve as an example thereof. Landslide elections at local levels have more to do with gerrymandering than political division among the people, as evidenced by the much greater number of registered independents. People can have their opinions about the legacy and presidency of Reagan, but to say he united people across the aisles requires an ignorance of history. Also, his analysis of the financial collapse is so sparse and summarized, that were it submitted for a high school report, the teacher would likely mark, "Give more details," on the side. Apparently the Synthesis Revolution is a view that accepts the single axis approach to classifying political thoughts, views history through rose colored glasses, and over simplifies issues. While claiming to rise above political rhetoric, it fully embraces political narratives repeated by party establishment figures and media talking heads. I can only assume this is done uncritically because no in depth analysis of any issue is actually done in this book.
The last section attempts (and I stress the word attempts) to answer the question of how to implement this Synthesis Revolution. Within three paragraphs, Rossman glosses over the difficulty of controlling for variables in the social sciences by stating that we need to break down our observations of society and political policy to their most basic core. Oh if only it were that simple. The Synthesis Revolution continually calls for "reasonable" and "common sense" policy making, as though critical thinkers are unaware that those are just buzz words used to emotionally manipulate people who can't be bothered with asking for specifics. When the entire point of your political philosophy is supposed to be that we need to rise above ideology and think critically and objectively about issues, then the details are non-optional.
The Synthesis Revolution: New Thinking For A New Era Of Prosperity
Author: Thomas Adair Rossman
Publisher: Eudaimonia Publishing, LLC
ISBN-13: 978-0985659608
Reviewed 9/2/14
The Synthesis Revolution: New Thinking For A New Era Of Prosperity by Thomas Adair Rossman falls firmly into the genre of political manifestos. At just over fifty pages it's a quick enough read, which is perhaps its greatest weakness. It reads as a text that would have been profoundly insightful during the early Renaissance, but seems an introduction more than a real road map for revolutionary thinking. Where detailed explanation was called for, only summary was found. The greatest weakness of this book is not what the manifesto says, but rather what it does not.
The text is broken up into four parts. The first seeks to make clear that ideas have a profound impact on societies and nations, and that some ideas lead to better outcomes and greater economic prosperity for citizens of those nations when compared to others. A fairly non-controversial point to be sure, though the text does strongly imply that the purpose of political philosophy is to maximize prosperity among citizens (a point that certain pro-undocumented immigrant activists, animal rights advocates, and others may disagree with). Leaving that aside, many political manifestos make this assumed assertion about this goal, so simply put The Synthesis Revolution in with all other collective nationalistic political philosophies.
The book then attempts to show why a reform is needed (specifically in the United States, as this is a very American-centric text). It outlines various failures of modern political action, and claims that America has faltered from the original values instilled in it by its founding fathers (so make that collective nationalistic originalism). It points to tribalism and uncritical dogmatic thinking as the main sources of our failure as individuals, and corruption and special interest influences as the main detractors at an institutional level. As it outlines these weaknesses in human thought and our current political system, the text proclaims that, "...the Synthesis Revolution is the engine for propelling this fundamental change." A bold claim, but half way through the text I still had no clue what the Synthesis Revolution is supposed to be. The book consistently says that it's "reasonable" and "objective," but these words mean nothing without examples or details.
It is in the third section that Rossman begins to delve into contemporary policy, beginning with a brief summary of his views on the divide between the left and right in modern American political thought. He describes the left as being "top-down" and the right "bottom-up", with President Reagan serving as the great example of a uniting force between the two. He points to statistics concerning regional landslide political victories as evidence of how much more polarized America now is. He also points to the 2008 financial collapse, which he claims was caused by deregulation of the banking industry, as an example of ideology effectively undermining a lesson that was learned back during the Great Depression.
And so finally we are given a glimpse of what the Synthesis Revolution is supposed to be, though not directly, but rather only through inference by assuming his positions serve as an example thereof. Landslide elections at local levels have more to do with gerrymandering than political division among the people, as evidenced by the much greater number of registered independents. People can have their opinions about the legacy and presidency of Reagan, but to say he united people across the aisles requires an ignorance of history. Also, his analysis of the financial collapse is so sparse and summarized, that were it submitted for a high school report, the teacher would likely mark, "Give more details," on the side. Apparently the Synthesis Revolution is a view that accepts the single axis approach to classifying political thoughts, views history through rose colored glasses, and over simplifies issues. While claiming to rise above political rhetoric, it fully embraces political narratives repeated by party establishment figures and media talking heads. I can only assume this is done uncritically because no in depth analysis of any issue is actually done in this book.
The last section attempts (and I stress the word attempts) to answer the question of how to implement this Synthesis Revolution. Within three paragraphs, Rossman glosses over the difficulty of controlling for variables in the social sciences by stating that we need to break down our observations of society and political policy to their most basic core. Oh if only it were that simple. The Synthesis Revolution continually calls for "reasonable" and "common sense" policy making, as though critical thinkers are unaware that those are just buzz words used to emotionally manipulate people who can't be bothered with asking for specifics. When the entire point of your political philosophy is supposed to be that we need to rise above ideology and think critically and objectively about issues, then the details are non-optional.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)