What do you think?
Rate this book
McReele - Acting Edition
Journalist Rick Dayne's meeting with death row inmate Darius McReele leads to Darius' exoneration and he becomes a lecturer and a possible political candidate, while Rick watches him walk a fine line, balancing between his past and his future.
- GenresPlays
72 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
About the author
Stephen Belber
31 books2 followersStephen Belber is an American playwright, screenwriter and film director.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 3, 2026
4.5 ⬆️
I am simply astounded that this is not Belber’s best known work.
I am curious by the reviews which are disappointed by the performance’s work as a political satire, because that feels both reductive and somewhat worthless as a comment - I don’t actually really care about how well it did as that, regardless of authorial intent, and at least not exclusively; I believe the start of the play predicates criticism as a political satire because I would not be able to read this only through that lens.
This was extraordinary as a work examining society, reminding us that the act of choosing who to vote for is so deeply social - how people perceive politicians as people is perhaps more important than any actual policies (something that Belber writes about a decade before the most unbelievable example of that in the current American president).
It deals with the ‘Truth’, what that means and what it means to us - how far can we accept people’s wrongdoings, and how much more we accept when they become humanised to us. It explores being black and living with complex experiences, and what that means to other people - in terms of race but mostly person. I actually feel like it’s a great example of where no one in this is reduced to their race - I never see anyone having a reaction because they are white or black but rather because of the kind of person they are, and the life they’ve had, which of course is influenced by race.
The racial element is certainly uncomfortable and for me uncertain at times in this work because Stephen Belber himself is a white man, which affects how he wrote this, as our own heritage changes how we read this. Ultimately, I felt I must read this without prejudgement or expectation even if it is apprehension and I’m still curious about how other people (particularly black people) read or examine this in that context, especially because it underpins American society to such a great extent.
I think also, most notably, it’s everything I want in a play: thought-provoking, humorous, engaging, entertaining and meaningful. A success by my standards anyway.
I am simply astounded that this is not Belber’s best known work.
I am curious by the reviews which are disappointed by the performance’s work as a political satire, because that feels both reductive and somewhat worthless as a comment - I don’t actually really care about how well it did as that, regardless of authorial intent, and at least not exclusively; I believe the start of the play predicates criticism as a political satire because I would not be able to read this only through that lens.
This was extraordinary as a work examining society, reminding us that the act of choosing who to vote for is so deeply social - how people perceive politicians as people is perhaps more important than any actual policies (something that Belber writes about a decade before the most unbelievable example of that in the current American president).
It deals with the ‘Truth’, what that means and what it means to us - how far can we accept people’s wrongdoings, and how much more we accept when they become humanised to us. It explores being black and living with complex experiences, and what that means to other people - in terms of race but mostly person. I actually feel like it’s a great example of where no one in this is reduced to their race - I never see anyone having a reaction because they are white or black but rather because of the kind of person they are, and the life they’ve had, which of course is influenced by race.
The racial element is certainly uncomfortable and for me uncertain at times in this work because Stephen Belber himself is a white man, which affects how he wrote this, as our own heritage changes how we read this. Ultimately, I felt I must read this without prejudgement or expectation even if it is apprehension and I’m still curious about how other people (particularly black people) read or examine this in that context, especially because it underpins American society to such a great extent.
I think also, most notably, it’s everything I want in a play: thought-provoking, humorous, engaging, entertaining and meaningful. A success by my standards anyway.
February 14, 2021
A charismatic former accused murderer who served 16 years in prison before being exonerated was tapped to run for the US Senate. Surrounded by spin doctors, his outlandish election campaign doesn't quite sound as outlandish as it should be. Given the kind of politics satirised on SNL and the sort of conspiratorial rhetoric espoused by elected officials the past few years, what Belber envisioned as satire might have sounded like reality TV except that McReele never quite gets to the promised premise of the story.
"The trouble is, the play consists of too much talk and very little action" says an old review on Broadway.com dating back to 2005 when the play was first put on. It's true and it's because Belber spent so much time in the McReele's backstory that it never quite gets to the satire. 30 minutes into the play, the core premise of McReele running for the Senate had barely been introduced. The play is not short of pace because the characters took turns to "speechify" but not much of the "speechifying" really pushed the story along.
But perhaps it was too hard for us to believe the premise a mere 15 years ago that the play had to ramble on. A sound of the "political" times that we now think this play didn't do its job as a satire.
"The trouble is, the play consists of too much talk and very little action" says an old review on Broadway.com dating back to 2005 when the play was first put on. It's true and it's because Belber spent so much time in the McReele's backstory that it never quite gets to the satire. 30 minutes into the play, the core premise of McReele running for the Senate had barely been introduced. The play is not short of pace because the characters took turns to "speechify" but not much of the "speechifying" really pushed the story along.
But perhaps it was too hard for us to believe the premise a mere 15 years ago that the play had to ramble on. A sound of the "political" times that we now think this play didn't do its job as a satire.
September 30, 2015
Enjoyed the characters and plot.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews