I work as an analyst for an investment bank that happens to be located in between the Walter Kerr theatre (where Proof is currently playing) and the TKTS stand. After being positively blown away by Coppenhagen last fall, passing the TKTS sign and the Proof marquis daily finally made watching it irresistible. Tuesday, I relented. I am so glad that I did. Here is why:

Plot

The plot is better explicated elsewhere, so I will be brief. An eminent mathematician, Robert (Larry Bryggman) dies after a brilliant career followed by years of dementia. His youthful and brilliant daughter, Catherine (Mary Louise Parker), has sacrificed her education to care for him in his last years of life. After his death, Catherine is forced to confront a budding relationship with one of her father's proteges, Hal Dobbs (Ben Shenkman), an overbearing sister Claire (Johanna Day), and a conundrum concerning a mathematical proof.

Characters

There are only four characters. They are each a bit prototypical, but are fleshed out well enough to be interesting.

Catherine is the most interesting of the bunch, and Parker plays her to perfection. The first thing you notice is her voice, pitched high and monotonic, to resemble either a high-strung hyperactive little girl or someone with a slight but perceptible neurosis. Both interpretations are appropriate to this 25 year old who never properly grew up, with the slight madness endemic of the genius she inherited. Her youthful mad genius as she bounds across the stage is enrapturing to watch.

Hal is the audience's entry point into the play. Though he is a mathematician, he humanizes mathematicians, showing they are not all "nerds" or "geeks" but people. His normalness is designed so that the audience can identify with him. It is this normalness that perhaps condemns Hal to mediocrity in his profession. Despite being constrained by this normalness, Shenkman is good at making him believable and likeable.

Robert is the father figure, and math genius. His character was notable again for his humanity despite being a math virtuoso, but otherwise, neither the character nor the performance were particularly memorable.

Claire is the overbearing sister, who happens also to be like myself, a wall street analyst. The part was written well, I saw my life in hers, her long hours, her attempt to find normalcy, and also, admittedly, in her prime weakness: Her most distinguishing characteristic is she talks only in platitudes. It is quite impressive how every word that comes out of her mouth is an insipid cliche. She prides herself in her normalcy. This speech pattern is clearly intentional, as Catherine, eventually sick of them, starts mocking them by throwing them right back. However, it is also a bit irritating, and Day has a hard time keeping Claire likeable. At least Claire eventually redeems herself.

Set

I must put in a brief word on the set. As opposed to Copenhagen which depended on stark modernist minimalism, Proof went the direct opposite route. It did not have a set, but a perfect recreation of the back of a family home on U of Chicago's campus, complete to every last detail, including the wind blown fall leaves. You were not looking at a stage, but instead you were sitting in Catherine and Robert's backyard, a silent voyeur into the events that transpired on their back porch. Simply spectacularly done.

Themes

Despite what you may have heard, Proof is not really about math. (If you want to see the math, see the footnote at the end). It is instead a story about family, about filial duty, and most importantly about trust, because for some things there can be no proof only trust. And it tells this story admirably. With sharp witty dialogue, and brilliant acting, I was constantly enthralled. However, the issues of math are pretty much left to play second fiddle. What it does do for math is it humanizes it. Mathematicians are portrayed as real people. And creating mathematics is equated with the creation of beauty. It is sure to make people look at math in a new light.

But this casual use is why the comparisons with Copenhagen are not fully justified. Copenhagen takes physics and makes it its central to the construction of the plot. Proof could have been written about a family of physicists or playwrights and have no serious change to the plot. Further, Copenhagen leaves you with broader issues to walk away with, ponderous issues of the nature of morality and reality. Proof is more intimate. You learn about the bonds that tie people together.

Finally, I am also not fully satisfied with the tone of the ending. It falls a bit flat. Whereas the first act began and ended with emotional power and vim, the second act seems to kind of just wind down to an end. Perhaps I was spoiled by the first act, or perhaps I am used to the big boom powerful Hollywood endings. The end was appropriate; I guess I was just waiting for more. Perhaps that was the point, the story carries on although the actors may have left the stage.

These are trifles, however, when considering this Pulitzer Prize winning play. The two hours I was there were two of the most enjoyable two hours I have spent in the audience of a theatre. And now, days later, Proof has made at least one lasting impact. As I return to graduate school in the fall, I am heartened in my choice to pursue the theoretical abstrucia that this play celebrates. The play may not delve deep into math, but it goes far in humanizing it.

Footnote 1: the central conflict of the play revolves loosely around the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. To see the real life story of this feat, and learn a bit more of the mathematical background, the philosophical importance, and the larger than life characters, try to see the Nova special Nova: The Proof on Andrew Wiles discovery. My review can be found at:
http://www.epinions.com/content_22415707780

Footnote 2: For a completely different theatre experience, one that is not so easy to follow, but gives you lots and lots and lots to think about and ponder, try Tom Stoppard's The Invention of Love:
http://www.epinions.com/content_26976292484

Recommended: Yes