It’s a great concept – twelve playwrights collaborate to tell the story of a country. Each story, each play, if you will, highlights an aspect of the story, or one perspective. Taken together, the disparate pieces create an image, a vague understanding, like an Impressionist painting that you examine up close, then further away, then from a different angle.
But does it work? Yes … maybe.
After part 1 of The Great Game: Afghanistan at the Harman Center, I’m even more intrigued. It’s disjointed, but I want more. I’m not sure what happens after each play or vignette, but I want to know more. What happens to the British garrison – do the Afghans succeed? Do the king and queen fleeing the country ever come back or do they live happily after ever in the south of France?
The play doesn’t answer these questions, but it gets you to ask the question, and maybe even try to find the answer. Isn’t that the point?