Save this article to read it later.
Find this story in your accountsSaved for Latersection.
By that I dont mean simply narrative, butnarration, the choice to tell rather than show.
But for the brains in the seats, thereissomething that links the experiences.
The narrating solo performers presence establishes a question in the watching mind Is what she is saying true?
and then works productively with that question.
or documentary (anything by Anna Deavere Smith).
Our critical function operates differently with the storyteller than with scene-player, because we immediately wonder about truthfulness.
Of these three efforts,The Conversationalistsat the Bushwick Starr is by far the most interesting.
(I get into the blandness thatsLucy Bartonelsewhere.)
But what were watching is still essentially bardic.
This is a movie that doesnt exist, he says.
Eventually were told by a projected credits sequence that we the audience are credited with imaginary art direction.
We start in near-darkness, looking at a screen right in front of the audience.
Slowly, the characters identities become clear; gradually, were allowed to see the people behind the screen.
The simple set beyond it, by Diggle, is an empty reflection of our own full seating risers.
The carpet that runs down our aisle runs through the screen and up theirs.
The story, which starts superbly, is the victim of its own unwillingness to end.
Theres a hint of theArabian Nightshere a story that, almost anxiously, seems unwilling to end.
Things get a bit soap operatic.
But the plots only half the story.
Ellis isnt underscoring: Instead, the music and the words are the titular conversation.
Which is why its so startling when the rules change.
Ellis breaks the frame by stepping over the edge of the movie screen frame to talk frankly with us.
Ellis, though, has a stutter.
He starts a sentence, and then stops for long seconds, suspended in the middle of a phrase.
An hour of rapid superfluidity is turned suddenly electric by Elliss slowness.
Then, strangely, James & Jerome then let the piece continue on its previous path.
What a lot of fun all that symphonic storytelling was!
But it was the slow movement that really taught us how to listen.
For his returning show, it appeared as though there might be a newfound simplicity.
Like Spalding Gray, you know?
The copy is close enough to be mimicry.
Where Fox is un-Daisey-ish, though, is in his text.
For two hours, scarcely taking a breath, he constantly gets in the way of his own analysis.
Despite a constant attitude of explanation, he never clarifies anything.
Did shadowy forces commanded by Steve Bannon actually pursue him afterGasland, or was it all paranoia?
Does he understand how Google works?
Is there ever a good reason to say, Then I realized I was Antigone?
Grandiosity isnt in itself a dig against a theater piece.
But his limitations as a storyteller unlike the truth havent changed.
(Odysseus shows up for a second, giving Antigone a run for her money.)
Fox has been right in the middle of serious environmental fights.
Were eager to hear from the battlefront.
But hes miscast himselfhe sees himself as Odysseus, as Antigone.
What his tale needs, though, is a messenger.
Fox is also willing to bend reality to his narrative.
A show that were told will run 90 minutes is actually an unbroken two hours plus an unannounced talkback.
He then asked us all to stand, to raise a fist for freedom and resistance.
Then he took a picture.
