"Conversations in Tesculem" at the Public Theater on Feb. 24th. NY, NY.

I don’t know how many plays about George Bush I’ve seen but I’m tired of them. Of course, the only one I can think of ever having seen, Theater Oobleck’s “The Strangerer,” I loved. Maybe what I’m tired of are the same old complaints about America under Bush. I pretty much agree with all the criticism but it’s all so obvious that I want to cover my ears when someone starts.

Enter the world premier of Richard Nelson's “Conversation in Tusculum,” set in the countryside outside of Rome at the height of Juluis Caesar’s reign. Against the advice of the smartest men in Rome, some of them who had been very close to him, Caesar continuously takes the country to war with little provocation. He believes in preemptive strikes. Being at war constantly, Caesar is able to manipulate the Romans to relinquish their civil freedoms and the country no longer operates as a republic. This stifling atmosphere is loathed by enough citizens and embraced by enough that the country is bitterly divided. Surrounded by a small group of advisors, no one can get to Caesar to give him what they think of as sane advice. These men and women who have been living in the countryside get drunk and recount their betrayal by Caesar and wax philosophical about the country going to hell. They worry that the nature of the republic has changed so much that it may be beyond the point of repair. Yet, they want to see the humanity restored to their great nation.

This is the kind of play that is very short on plot. Rather, its concern is to analyze the condition of America and it does so through allegory. I found it fascinating and spot on. In a way, as a bit of analysis, it doesn’t say that much that we don’t already know. But because it is an allegory, it is more interesting because it reflects who we are rathen than being didactic. Plus, it focuses not on Bush, but on the thoughts and feelings of those of us who have tried to oppose him. At one point, Brutus goes to Rome to meet Caesar, hoping that Caesar is tired from all the wars and lonely as the result of his isolation. Brutus believes that Caesar might once again consider him a friend and that he will then have power as an insider and can help save the republic. It becomes clear, though, that Caesar won’t allow that to happen and he tells Brutus that while he and others are having conversations in Tusculum, Caesar is at least being decisive. He may be wrong, he tells Brutus, but at least he’s acting. Sound familiar? Horribly defeated, Brutus goes back to the countryside and writes a short play. He asks an actor to put on the play, explaining that through theater we can safely say things that we cannot say directly. The actor, speaking Brutus’ words, recounts Caesar’s horrible deeds and announces that for those reasons, he will assassinate Caesar. This ending is fascinating, partly because it serves as a kind of wish fulfillment for many Americans (and perhaps as catharsis of a kind) and because it’s a moment when the play, which has been serving as a metaphor, becomes history again.

The cast features some of our finest American theater actors, including Brian Denehy and Adrian Quinn. The set is sparse, without being minimalist. Everything in this production drives forward the ideas in the play rather than being elaborate.