THEATRE REVIEW:
KPBS
AIRDATE: January 17, 2003
"Good Will Hunting" meets "A Beautiful Mind" in
"Arcadia." Despite the fact that David Auburn's Broadway debut drama,
"Proof," won the 2001 Pulitzer Prize and Tony Award for Best Play, it
feels strikingly familiar. It concerns an unschooled math prodigy who happens
to be a brilliant young woman, and a mathematical genius destroyed by mental
illness, with an awe-struck mediocre math-man and a jealous sister thrown in.
It touches on many significant themes -- from the dominance of mathematics by
young men, to the link between brilliance and madness, to the bottom-line
notion of how crucial truth and proof are in science and how little they
pertain or apply in real life.
This sounds like pretty heady stuff… and you're probably worried
about all the math. But besides some mention of prime numbers, there isn't much
you have to calculate. "Proof" is a bit of a mystery wrapped in a
relationship play. First and foremost is a father-daughter interaction --
Robert changed the course of his profession by the time he was 22, and went
steadily downhill toward insanity. Catherine, now 25, who dropped out of school
to care for him, wonders if she's inherited her father's madness as well as his
mathematical prowess. Claire, a vapid yuppie, is envious of her sister's brains
and her parental bond. Then there's the geeky math-drone Hal, who idolizes
Robert and is attracted to Catherine. The surprise comes in the unearthing the
solution to a previously insoluble problem, and the suspense revolves around
exactly who wrote the proof. After a slow build, that enigma ends the first
act. The second act flashes back and forth in time, but doesn't shed much light
on the characters or their situation.
At the beautifully remodeled South Coast Repertory Theatre, the
production is pleasantly designed and directed, and the performances are
credible, but not stellar. Catherine is a star-turn, a role that's been tackled
by the likes of Gwyneth Paltrow and Anne Heche. Emily Bergl, who was a
heart-breaking Juliet at the Globe a few years back, plays down the part,
repeatedly striking one depressed, hunch-backed note and minimizing the
character's complexity. She may well plumb Catherine's depths during the course
of the run. Christina Haag has less to work with in Claire, and there's little
nuance in her brittle sister act. Richard Doyle is likable, and best in the
father's descent-into-madness scene. The adorable James Waterston, also seen
recently at the Globe, is better looking than most math nerds, but natural and
thoroughly believable otherwise. Overall, although there is a pinch of dramatic
tension and a dollop of humor, as well as a few fascinating theses posed, there
isn't much depth or complexity to the piece. In the end, the play lacks the
subtle intricacy of the proof it's all about.
©2003
Patté Productions Inc.