Playwright: Caryl Churchill
At: Next Theatre Company
Phone: ( 847 ) 475-1875; $20-$35
Runs through: Feb. 26
I've seen two stagings of A Number, and rarely have I seen two interpretations so radically different. After seeing the New York production, I concluded the piece was a fraud; not a play at all but an essay in dialogue form. It was intellectually interesting but not theatrically interesting: no story, no characters, no arc of action; a reductio ad absurdum by British author Caryl Churchill, a highly theatrical dramatist ( Cloud 9, Top Girls ) who more recently has embraced theatrical minimalism. A Number certainly is minimal: two actors, 55 minutes; it's hardly worth a full-price ticket.
I still can't regard A Number as a complete work, but the current Next Theatre production convinces me that it's theatrically viable, thanks to director BJ Jones and a pungent performance by John Judd. Their interpretation also enlarges the already-considerable intellectual stakes of the piece, and I thank them for that.
You may hear that A Number is about human cloning, but it's not. The story—such as it is—is set in some vague near-future when human cloning has been perfected. A widower has put his nasty four year old son up for adoption in order to raise a kindlier clone replacement. Unbeknownst to Dad ( he claims ) , scientists cloned 19 more. Now in their late thirties, the clones come home to roost. We meet Good Clone One, Bad Real Son and Happy Other Clone ( all played by Jay Whittaker ) , but Dad ( Judd ) is the focus as A Number explores the obligations of parenthood, the nature of family and the essence of goodness. In brief: is it ever legitimate for parents to replace a child ( if they could ) ? And what might the ramifications be? The premise could be explored via identical twins or artificial intelligence ( re: the Spielberg film ) as well as clones.
In A Number, it's disastrous when clone meets real son. At least we're told it is, for Churchill introduces—and dismisses—story details through the most casual exposition. She leaves both storyline and characters unfinished, which is why A Number isn't a complete play for me. Whittaker, whose stage presence always is intense, has only one beat to play for each of the three sons, while Judd repeatedly makes emotional turns-on-a-dime only minimally supported by dialogue or action. He relies on personality and the force of internal logic to make them work, flashing from tenderness to anguish to anger. Churchill could care less; it's all about ideas for her. Too bad; for if she completed the story she's laid out, she'd have a helluva play instead of merely the play of ideas. It's risky business to assume each production will supply the missing values. To its credit this production does, but I still want more.
