Backstage @ New Rep

In New Rep’s production of David Gow’s “Cherry Docs,” two men are placed together in a small, confined room. One is Danny (Benjamin Evett), a Jewish, middle-aged lawyer, who begins the play with an explanation of his religious background and a humorous description of the ethnically diverse neighborhood he has chosen to settle in. The other is Mike (Tim Eliot), a young skinhead, whose first monologue compares the white male to the foot - an essential but oft stepped on part of society.

Danny has been assigned to defend Mike, who has been accused of (and has admitted to committing) a violent hate crime. This situation is undeniably ripe for exploration of issues deeply important to human co-existence. Unfortunately, in “Cherry Docs,” the handing of this important conflict lacks the nuance necessary to have real impact. The play consists of talking; circling the small cell, repeating and repeating. There is also a great deal of kicking and yelling in “Cherry Docs;” in almost every meeting the lawyer has with his young convict, one or the other of them throws a chair or violently bangs the table. Harsh words are hurled around. The problem is that all of their words are too obvious - the path of the plot is clear from the moment the two characters meet. I never doubted that Danny really liked Mike, despite his disdain for skinheads, because I never believed that Mike really felt anything negative towards Danny, despite his proclaimed hatred for Jews. Similarly, I never wondered if Mike would eventually come around and see the error of his racist ways; it was clear, from the start, that he would.

The major turning point in the script comes from Danny’s decision to force Mike to come up with his own defense: to think long and hard about what he’s done, and come up with a way to speak about it. This is much of what I found lacking in the script itself; these characters are never given a chance to organically come to a conclusion. They are on an obvious path, and the resolution arrives too easily. Danny and Mike go through the necessary motions – initial dislike, gradual friendship, ultimate lesson learned – but nothing about it feels genuine.

I know that my opinion of this play puts me in the minority, and I don’t mean to undermine anything powerful that other audience members experienced. For me, “Cherry Docs” brought to mind the Oscar-winning film “Crash;” clearly, many found it to be an important movie about race in our society today. Personally, I found it to be preachy and obvious. Simply choosing an important and difficult subject does not guarantee that a piece of theater will achieve depth and power.

Technically, the show works quite well. Jenna McFarland Lord’s small set is strangely beautiful, and Karen Perlow’s subtly powerful lighting is the most communicative part of the production.

“Cherry Docs” ends with an epilogue, in which the playwright explains that he has chosen the names “Daniel” and “Mike” as an allusion to the Bible – Daniel entered the lion’s den, and was unharmed; Michael, God’s Archangel, fell to the depths and then ascended. That the playwright felt it necessary to explain this allegory to the audience is in keeping with the rest of his script; again and again, Cherry Docs chooses not to allow the message to seep through the material, but to deliver it with a heavy hand.

Jana Pollack