World Premiere at Plan-B Theatre Company
February 22, 2014
Perhaps the worst time to watch a play that consists of two
economists arguing about the larger economic picture is when you are about to
make a major, life-changing decision in your own personal economics. That’s what I did, though, because when I bought
the tickets I had no idea that’s what last Saturday would be for me. I wasn’t about to give up my chance to see an
Eric Samuelsen world premiere, though, so I told the respective parties that
they would have to give me a couple more hours to let the idea percolate and
headed off to the theatre to let two famous economists sit on either shoulder
and give me the pros and cons of making what Keynes referred to as the “inspired
madness” of personal investment.
I should let you all know that I’m not the sort of person
who seeks out these sorts of discussions in my own life. I get overwhelmed by the political back and forth. I feel ignorant. I rely on emotional arguments that are easily
refuted. I feel like people are talking
circles around me. I am, essentially,
the modern equivalent of the Everyman figure in the show, Mr. Bowles (Kirt Bateman). I do feel a nagging obligation to be less
ignorant, though, which is why I like listening to other people discuss stuff
like this, as long as I’m not required to defend my thoughts/opinions and as
long as they don’t talk over my head. I
like to think I’m not alone in that, which is why I feel comfortable admitting
to it. This is also why the structure of
the show worked so well for me. The two
economists spent their time trying to win the heart and mind of the Everyman
and, hey, that’s me.
The first thing that I started tracking in the show was the
visual element. I immediately saw the
downward trend of a graph in the line of the roof (well done, set
designer Randy Rasmussen!). I also loved the contrast
between the two men (Keynes, played by Mark Fossen, and Hayek, played by Jay Perry).
Hayek was short; Keynes was tall.
Hayek wore a black suit and black shoes; Keynes wore a navy blue suit and
brown shoes. Hayek had a white collar;
Keynes had a striped collar. Hayek’s suit
felt more formal with a more formal style vest; Keynes had the comfortable suit
of a rumpled professor and a less formal style vest (yes, I'm also a fan of costume designer Phillip R. Lowe's work). The men were also contrasted in their
temperament and approach to the stressful situation they were in. Hayek was frightened; Keynes was laid back. Both were startled at some points but Hayek
reacted physically while Keynes showed his fear more in his face. Also, Hayek was writing a book whereas Keynes
had written a book. Hayek was married;
Keynes was single. Every element in the
play set these two at odds, which made it both startling and delightful
whenever they weren’t at odds.
The personal relationship between the two men was as
interesting to track as their ongoing battle to sway the Everyman (ok, more so
because I’m far more interested in personal relationships). That journey, as well as the immediacy of the
dangerous situation they were in, made sure this play never became a Talking
Heads play. I can’t decide if the play
was attempting to be even handed with an ambiguous ending, though, or if the
way that it favored Keynes was intentional.
After all, Hayek was operating from a position of fear. He hyperventilated every time a siren
sounded. Keynes came off as a much
stronger character. Mr. Bowles most
often sided with Keynes as well and had many more harsh words for Hayek. When Keynes asks at the end of the play who
won the argument, Mr. Bowles does not reply but it is clear that Keynes won more
of his heart that Hayek did (his resolve to vote Labor from here on out
notwithstanding). I did like the final
image, though, of all three men being required for the task at hand: spread out
on the rooftop, separate but necessary in their own way. All hands on deck required to clear the bombs
of our society, the passionate arguments just an idle thing to be dropped when
life suddenly gets very real.
Of course, maybe I saw it as a win for Keynes because the man
directly in front of me was very vocal in his support of Keynes throughout (very
loud “mmmHMM”s and “yes!”es) and started his “Bravo”s before the lights went
down on the stage. And maybe I saw it
that way because I ended up taking a Keynesian leap of faith in my own economic
sphere. Or maybe it’s because I hope
that if I fall on my face after that leap that I’ll have Keynes’ compassionate approach
to pick me up (since I find Hayek’s self-correction less than pleasant to live
through). I liked this play. It made me think, even if I was thinking all
the time through the lens of my own personal dilemma. Don’t we all look at the national economy
through our own checkbook, though? And
don’t we all see the virtues of both sides of the argument and then ditch them
both in favor of action? Or is that just
us ignorant Everyman figures?
