Anthony Giardana’s The
City of Conversation is a fairly effective comedy-drama about
Washington politics and the effect of ideological polarization upon a family,
over the course of three decades (one act for each, although the second and
implied third are performed contiguously after intermission). It starts in
1979, during the Carter Presidency, when a prominent and sharp liberal activist
Hester Ferris (Jan Maxwell), a widow, has a visit from her
college age son Colin (Michael Simpson). He doesn’t have his
mother’s sharp articulacy or appreciation of nuance and this would seem to be
reflected in his choice of fiancé—who comes along for the visit. She’s
Anna Fitzgrald (Kristen Bush) and she does seem to
have an innate appreciation for nuance and how to work it to her favor. Hester
instinctively senses danger; a feeling confirmed later that evening after
dinner, when Anna charms the two visiting senators with her point of view,
which leans toward the right. And Colin is revealed to be leaning with her.
With
Act Two set during the Reagan Presidency and Act Three on the eve of the Obama
Inauguration, The City of Conversation lives up to its title in
being highly articulate about politics and passions. And under the direction of
Doug Hughes, the cast delivers the conversation compellingly, its
rapid fire and meaty text never seeming too dense. This is no easy feat to pull
off.
If
there’s any letdown to the proceedings, it is perhaps endemic to the debate
within. Even when presenting highly articulate characters and—I honestly
believe—trying to be even-handed (even if the story is not equally
sympathetic), he has the devil’s own time trying to make the conservative
perspective credible…though he takes it right to the tipping point and never,
as author, seems to be editorializing or condescending in scripting their
arguments. On the other hand, what
he does convey from that side of the aisle is the fervent belief of people not
merely unwilling but unable to separate hyperbole from substance; unable to
distinguish between an agenda and the practical mechanics of its realization;
unable to differentiate between rationale and rationalization; who have no
trouble seeing the contrasting components as all one. Where the play transcends
the academic is in bringing this clash of ideologies into a family dynamic that
plays out the consequences.
Nice
to see—and hear—a talking heads play that revels in the joys and
sorrows of intricate language. We haven’t had one of those in a long time.
Go to David Spencer's Profile
Return to Home Page