A Number (review)

Caryl Churchill's A Number was one of the most frequently produced plays in American professional theatres during the 2005–2006 season, with eleven stagings as noted in American Theatre magazine (October 2005). These multiple stagings occurred after two high-profile productions in London at the Royal Court Theatre (2002) and in New York at the New York Theatre Workshop (2004). It is easy to see why American theatres are rushing to produce this drama: the show has minimal technical requirements, a cast of two, and focuses on the important contemporary issue of cloning. Even in an improving post-9/11 economy, a show by a dramatist of Churchill's caliber that creates maximum interest for minimal investment is sure to remain popular on professional American stages, particularly at smaller companies.

Of course, there is more to this play's allure than a single subject and an inexpensive production budget. This review examines some reproductions that have been staged since the English and American premieres of the play. My journey took me to Boston and Indianapolis (I was unable to view a third, well-received production at Evanston's Next Theatre Company, just outside of Chicago). In the two productions that I did see I discovered the kind of subtle permutations of style and approach that are so clearly explored in Churchill's play; the productions are entirely different, even though they arise from the same set of dramatic DNA.

Perhaps any beginning student could make this observation after viewing multiple productions of a single text, but it is particularly relevant to Churchill's A Number. Looking into the vast differences, as well as the basic production similarities, between the two stage versions demonstrates how Churchill's musings about cloning connect to the study of theatre, where both the style and the substance explored in Churchill's play are routinely discovered in the production process. Like the multiple copies of the play's central character, Bernard, these two productions illuminate important truths about the process of creation—both biological and artistic.

Under the skilled direction of Spiro Veloudos, the Lyric Stage Company of Boston exhibited a sharply defined and expertly realized vision of Churchill's fictional world, moving easily between moments of tensely realistic drama and a series of abstract, extended philosophical debates on medical science, fathers and sons, and nature versus nurture. The actors adroitly handled the play's language, particularly Lewis D. Wheeler, who flawlessly created three similar and yet completely unique versions of the son, Bernard. The production elements, including the austere set by Skip Curtiss, simply and appropriately foregrounded the actors. Curtiss's muted and abstract backdrop, when contrasted with the simple and functional stage furniture, placed the atmosphere of the show in the realms of both possibility and fantasy, which eased transitions in the show between these competing styles.

Despite Wheeler's discriminatory skills, the actors could have further developed their physicality. With only two characters on a minimalist set spending the entire evening talking, I expected much more attention to gesture, nonverbal cues, and proximity between the characters. Yet, the actors relied mainly on the words that Churchill had provided to advance the play; the absence of physical nuance detracted from the production's potential impact.

Dale McFadden's production at the Phoenix Theatre in Indianapolis proved rougher around the edges, with a grittier acting style and a greater sense of immediacy throughout the evening. This resulted in a more engaging production, with a tangible connection to the audience. Unfortunately this engagement came at the expense of some of the careful intellectual consideration and practiced rhythms so important to the Boston production. Still, McFadden's directing seemed well suited to the relatively narrow confines of the Frank...