Kyoto at Lincoln Center is a production of the play by Joe Murphy and Joe Robertson at the Mitzi Newhouse Theatre. It has taken me three days to unravel my thoughts and to collect and arrange them so I can make sense and offer you a clear picture of my reaction to this very long play with the very short title. Kyoto is merely the name of the city in which the play’s story culminates over the course of the next three long hours.
The Cast
With the advent of concern over global warming, the UN arranges meetings in various cities around the world to discuss and propose actions amenable to all. The play action begins with an American attorney enlisted to enter the fray to fight for a coalition unified in their desire to limit damage to the economy by countries’ reactions to climate change which could affect financial freedom of choice. Protocols are presented in microscopic detail as the performances of all the principals who figure in the discussions vocally explode by shouting, waving fists, banging gavels, and generally exhibiting rage; it is impossible to listen with integrity.
The externals of the production are all there — Costume and Lighting Designs and Original Music with startling Sound jarring us further, all contribute to our ultimate surrender. But it was not the play that moved me. The moving arguments were not clearly worded, and in live theatre, without eloquence all I was given was a loud lecture.
The Mitzi Newhouse Theatre is a gem of a small playhouse with rows of seats in each of several sections, all with clear vision of the small circular stage. With clear and varied lighting, and excellent assist from sound, I was able to take the cast of 20 experienced actors who had worked in regional theater, I was able to turn them into street people or elegant aristocrats, or even royalty, by the quick flip of a hair piece or a small swab of makeup. The actors enjoyed the many roles and the involvement they felt in the entire project. I think the co-direction of Stephen Daldry and Justin Martin favored massive movement and abusive sound over nuance and emotional truth when dealing with the variety of characterization this material deserved. I was more distanced than included by their approach. The large audience was responsive, I was not.