It is such a pleasure to watch anything at the Arthur Miller Theatre as I feel that the stage there is very thoughtfully constructed. You can get a great view and it doesn’t feel cramped and the high ceiling there somehow makes the place look even more spacious than it is. And to top it all, you feel like you are at a private performance. I love that stage! And watching “Pentecost” there was very enjoyable indeed!

The play is about the status of politics and art in a fictitious post-Cold war European country.  It is a very cleverly written play.

For a summary, here goes: it all starts in an abandoned church. A museum curator brings in an English professor of art (who is a staunch proponent of restoration of art) to show him her discovery- a religious fresco that could very well change the history of  her country and thus help in proving that her country wasn’t alwasys this bad. And when news of this fresco spreads, the Catholic church, the Russian  Orthodox Church, another art professor- a  conservationist this time- and of course, the government all get involved.  To whom does the fresco belong? Should it stay in the church or be “restored”? Well, as this debate continues, a group of refugees storm into the church and hold the curator and the professors hostage. What happens to the fresco, the refugees and it all is what the play is about.

What I found most interesting was the clever way in which the large issues in politics and art came to the fore.  The characters seemed pretty isolated from one another  as if each was just alone and there wasn’t much depth to the characters. There wasn’t much of a human element in the crisis of the refugees and the theme was largely concentrated on the politics- of art, of religion and of course of politicans. But in the end,  instead of resigned depression, there is hope (with irony of course).

As for the use of the various languages, I was left with the impression that the playwright brought it in because it could be done. If the refugees had spoken in English, would it have made less of an impact to the theme? No- as the emotional  condition of the refugees by itself and hence their espression of it in whatsoever language  had very less to do in the play. Actually in the end, as the refugees are negotiating, the three protagonists figure out how the fresco might have come to be and so it appeared as if the point of the refugees was to just help illustrate a point.  So I felt that the introduction of these varied languages was more of a novelty and “it-would-be-cool-and-clever” rather than a “need-it” thing. And  how did anyone from Eastern Europe understand Sinhalese enough to interpret it? That was kind of weird.

As for this particular production by director Malcolm Tulip, it was a great performance by the actors.  The costume design was good and well-suited for the play. The set design was exceptional!  I loved the way they showed the details of discovering the fresco, the restoration and other such tiny details.  The lighting effects were great. And the actors had done a great job learning all those languages.

Overall, the play was worth it.