‘Proof’ Proves Math Is Moving

The world of the Harvard Radcliffe Dramatic Club’s production of the award-winning Broadway play “Proof”—which ran in the Loeb Experimental Theatre this weekend—is “horrible yet wonderful. Ugly yet beautiful. Dysfunctional yet functional. Warm yet cold. Put simply, real,” according to director Kriti Lodha ’12, who is also a Crimson magazine editor. “Proof” tells the story of Catherine (Caroline R. Giuliani ’11), the daughter of Robert (Robert Rogers, an HRDC alumnus who currently works in the Harvard Math department), a renowned mathematician, who struggles with caring for her genius but mentally ailing father while trying to take care of herself as well. With standout performances by Xanthia A. Tucker ’13, (as Catherine’s sister Claire) and Jesse T. Nee-Vogelman ’13 (as Robert’s former student Harold “Hal” Dobbs), “Proof” was an incredibly moving production.

Claire represents the stereotypical obnoxious sister. As the older sibling, she moves away to New York City, away from the chaos of her father’s illness. Yet when she returns after his death to take care of her sister, she attempts to take over the situation, of which she knows nothing about.

Tucker played this part stunningly; clad in smart business attire, she portrayed Claire as a well-meaning but ignorant sister. Her dialogue with Giuliani was always quick and snappy, both actresses demonstrating their skill with lines delivered clearly and with spunk. Specifically, in their first scene together, the sisters shared a particularly awkward hug that sums up their relationship for the audience and helps set the tone for the upcoming scenes.

Nee-Vogelman played the socially awkward 28-year-old Hal, a former student of Robert who is clearly in love with Catherine. Nee-Vogelman did a great job of playing both the math-geek trying to impress the daughter of his hero and the intellectual who, during the second half of the play, works tirelessly to validate a proof to save Catherine’s sanity.

During the last scene, Nee-Vogelman delivered a moving speech to Giuliani as she worried about becoming like her father. “Maybe you will be like your father,” he said, “or maybe you’ll be better.” For much of the play, Nee-Vogelman and Giuliani worked extremely closely with each other, and the sexual tension is palpable. However, when they finally did act upon their desire, it seemed that the previous awkwardness dissipated a little too soon, making the scene less meaningful than it could have been.

The most well represented relationship in this production was that between Catherine and Robert, which culminated in a flashback scene in the second half depicting Robert’s regression. Rogers’ exemplary depiction of his character’s degeneration into madness was particularly impressive since the scene took place outside in December, and Rogers shivered throughout the entire episode.

Guiliani was also noteworthy, as she movingly alternated from excitement about a possible mathematical breakthrough for her father at the beginning of the scene to the realization that this breakthrough was in fact only his mentally unstable ramblings. Giuliani’s performance of the caring and devoted daughter, especially during this scene, truly thrust the importance of a father-daughter relationship in this play to center stage. At the heart of “Proof “ is a story of love.

Being an extremely personal play, it seems fitting that Proof was held in the Loeb Ex, an extremely intimate venue; in particular, the use of the stairs in the midst of the audience, successfully drew viewers into the scene.

The setting was simple, consisting of an outdoor porch with two circular banisters on each side of the stage. However, these banisters seemed to hinder the performance more than they helped. Often times during a dialogue, one of the characters would lean on a banister and look at the audience as they spoke instead of at the character with whom they were talking. Often this device was distracting, and it seemed like the banister acted as a crutch for the actors to not have to look at each other at meaningful points in the dialogue, taking away from what could have been very emotionally charged moments.

Despite the confusion inherent in such topics as love, insanity, and math, “Proof” clearly demonstrates the ability to endure regardless.

—Staff writer Marissa A. Glynias can be reached at mglynias@fas.harvard.edu.