Rating: 
Summary: Deservedly won the Pulitzer and Tony
Review: I have read David Auburn's play, and saw it on Broadway with Jennifer Jason Leigh in the lead. Even though the performance I saw was less than stellar, the brilliance of the script shone through. Auburn has written four compelling characters, each of which is haunted in some way, most obviously the title character, haunted both by the ghost of her father and the inheritance of both his brilliance and possible madness.This is a tightly written, emotionally driven four-character drama, full of insight, humor, intelligence, and romance. A must-read for actors, dramaturgs, and lovers of good theatre.
Rating:
Summary: Deservedly won the Pulitzer and Tony
Review: I have read David Auburn's play, and saw it on Broadway with Jennifer Jason Leigh in the lead. Even though the performance I saw was less than stellar, the brilliance of the script shone through. Auburn has written four compelling characters, each of which is haunted in some way, most obviously the title character, haunted both by the ghost of her father and the inheritance of both his brilliance and possible madness. This is a tightly written, emotionally driven four-character drama, full of insight, humor, intelligence, and romance. A must-read for actors, dramaturgs, and lovers of good theatre.
Rating:
Summary: "faith and fear"
Review: I recently saw the Manhatten Theater Club's production of Proof on Broadway, and I expect to find even more delightful surprises in my first reading of the script. David Auburn's examination of love, trust, and betrayal is subtle and moving. With a keen eye for true human nature, he pits the logic of mathmatics against our emotonal subjectivity and solves the conflict with simplicity and eloquence. His humor and clarity make this script a must-read for all who love intellectual/emotional power struggles. As a theater student, I read any play that falls into my hands, but rarely do I find one with such multi-layered characters matched by such an eloquently truthful plot. You won't be disappointed.
Rating: 
Summary: Sanity in a crazy world
Review: I saw Proof performed a couple years ago on Broadway, and have read the script twice since. Any performance of Proof hinges on the casting of Robert (an aging mathemetician) and Catherine (his daughter). The performance I saw had two magnificent actors in these roles, which smoothed away some of the rough edges of the script itself. Don't get me wrong; this is an amazing piece of playwriting, better than 99% of everything else out there. But the setting of the play is so very static, and its language so toned down, that it takes a very talented and entertaining group of actors to pull it off. The writing of Proof is very much like Chekov -- brilliant, but somewhat unapproachable. (Drama teachers take note: this is a great play for students to improve their acting skills, but a terrible play for students to actually perform.) The plot, if not the style, of this play can be compared to the style of the recent big-budget film (based on a novel) Big Fish. But in that comparison Proof comes off looking brilliant, and Big Fish comes off looking overwrought. If this play is done right, there is a moment toward the end that can compete -- in terms of sheer pathos and emotionality -- with anything Sophocles ever wrote. Watch for the stage direction: "After a long moment Catherine closes the notebook." It brought tears to my eyes.
Rating:
Summary: Sanity in a crazy world
Review: I saw Proof performed a couple years ago on Broadway, and have read the script twice since. Any performance of Proof hinges on the casting of Robert (an aging mathemetician) and Catherine (his daughter). The performance I saw had two magnificent actors in these roles, which smoothed away some of the rough edges of the script itself. Don't get me wrong; this is an amazing piece of playwriting, better than 99% of everything else out there. But the setting of the play is so very static, and its language so toned down, that it takes a very talented and entertaining group of actors to pull it off. The writing of Proof is very much like Chekov -- brilliant, but somewhat unapproachable. (Drama teachers take note: this is a great play for students to improve their acting skills, but a terrible play for students to actually perform.) The plot, if not the style, of this play can be compared to the style of the recent big-budget film (based on a novel) Big Fish. But in that comparison Proof comes off looking brilliant, and Big Fish comes off looking overwrought. If this play is done right, there is a moment toward the end that can compete -- in terms of sheer pathos and emotionality -- with anything Sophocles ever wrote. Watch for the stage direction: "After a long moment Catherine closes the notebook." It brought tears to my eyes.
Rating:
Summary: An intellectual inspiration
Review: I'm glad I saw this one on a stage. This play is an emotional experience that jumps back and forth over five years in the lives of four people. Mathematics is the field within which individual creative activity is sought, but the interesting question about thought at such a high level is how anyone could establish authorship of anything that is authentically new if the circumstances allow some ambiguity. The big joke in the play is about a young mathematician who is drummer in a rock band that performs an imaginary number. It helps if the viewer is familiar with the movie "A Beautiful Mind," as the young mathematician-rock-drummer would be an ideal imaginary character if this play was about John Nash, as seeing people in that movie was not always proof that they existed. The real question that hangs over the future in this play is how crazy anyone is likely to be in the short run and the long run, or if they can muddle through the emotional times without too much of some of the worst alcoholic beverages ever to be mentioned on a stage anywhere.
Rating:
Summary: An intellectual inspiration
Review: I'm glad I saw this one on a stage. This play is an emotional experience that jumps back and forth over five years in the lives of four people. Mathematics is the field within which individual creative activity is sought, but the interesting question about thought at such a high level is how anyone could establish authorship of anything that is authentically new if the circumstances allow some ambiguity. The big joke in the play is about a young mathematician who is drummer in a rock band that performs an imaginary number. It helps if the viewer is familiar with the movie "A Beautiful Mind," as the young mathematician-rock-drummer would be an ideal imaginary character if this play was about John Nash, as seeing people in that movie was not always proof that they existed. The real question that hangs over the future in this play is how crazy anyone is likely to be in the short run and the long run, or if they can muddle through the emotional times without too much of some of the worst alcoholic beverages ever to be mentioned on a stage anywhere.
Rating:
Summary: You do the math
Review: IF you are into sarcastic humor and enjoy some dry wit this is a book for you. Short w/ the sweet and sour sauce it will fit your taste buds to a T. Awesome read
Rating:
Summary: Proof for Pleasure
Review: IF you are into sarcastic humor and enjoy some dry wit this is a book for you. Short w/ the sweet and sour sauce it will fit your taste buds to a T. Awesome read
Rating:
Summary: Auburn Proves Himself
Review: In Proof, Auburn has written a wonderful play, taking on some very key characteristics of humanity. Especially wonderful is the father-daughter relationship between Robert and Catherine. However, just as intriguing are the relationships between sisters Catherine and Claire, and between Hal and Catherine.
Auburn hits strong notes on most issues, including trust, duty, love, and sanity. After reading the play, it should be quite clear why it won the Pulitzer. This is a first-rate drama, and I would dare to list in up with plays by Ibsen and Chekov. The only reason I omitted the fifth star is purely subjective, in that I did not feel Claire's character was fully developed.
| 
