Mix a worried magazine editor, a writer who thinks he can tell a story any way he pleases, and an eager-beaver fact-checker fresh out of college, and what do you have?
A duel fought with words instead of pistols and verbal fireworks instead of bullets.
Hang on to your theater seat. The battle is just beginning in “The Lifespan of a Fact,” one of the most unusual and thought–provoking plays presented this year by the Stockton Civic Theatre.
When noted writer John D’Agata (played by Martin Lehman) submits his latest essay for publication, magazine editor Emily Penrose (Melissa Esau) summons ambitious young Jim Fingal (Jon-Michael-Porter) to catch any errors in the text. Fact-worshiping Fingal catches 130 errors thanks to D’Agata’s habit of writing by his own rules and bending the facts to present a colorful story rather than a strictly factual report. All, as he claims, in pursuit of a truth larger than a pedestrian devotion to details.
The clash between artistic license and journalistic integrity centers on the story of a teen suicide off a Las Vegas resort tower. D’Agata uses the incident to bring the sins of Sin City into focus. But what will the conscientious Emily do now that she’s made aware of the liberties taken by the writer? Who will win the battle of words? And what meaning will the outcome have for all parties concerned?
Presented in the intimate Pam Kitto Black Box Theatre, the play wastes no time drawing its audience into a controversy that makes choosing one side or the other far less simple than you might at first imagine. The three-member cast bring their characters to life in a way that makes you an interactive witness to the crisis and makes you wonder how the three can resolve their differences.
The play is unusual not only in plot, but in origin. The writer and checker were in fact real people, and their struggle was subsequently depicted in a jointly-authored book that became the blueprint of a 2018 play written by Jeremy Kareken, David Murrell and Gordon Farrell.
The play begins with editor Emily at her desk, concerned to go to press as soon as possible and wanting to expedite a check of facts with utmost speed. A highly accomplished veteran of Stockton Civic Theatre, Esau makes Emily a dominant figure in what will soon become a no-holds-barred clash of viewpoints. It is only later that we learn Emily’s problems are not confined to meeting a deadline.
Comedy has a role in the play, given Porter’s amusing portrayal of Fingal as the nervous newcomer who tries his over-eager best to obey Emily’s orders and manage the growing difficulties of his assignment. Those difficulties accelerate in a face-to-face meeting at the writer’s home, where Fingal is confronted by D’Agata, a bearded bear of a man who has neither tolerance for the checker nor respect for his assignment. The headstrong and imperious writer reacts to his visitor without courtesy or hospitality. What D’Agata wants from writing has nothing to do with a fact check by what he regards as a nitpicking intruder.
Once the arrogant writer and intimidated fact-checker meet face to face, their debate gets cooking with a bluntness that earns the play a “mature” rating. But the outcome of the play is anybody’s guess, especially after Emily feels compelled to leave her desk and enter the fray. She, after all, is the ultimate judge. The question for her (and for us) is: how do you judge an issue that becomes more complex the more we learn about it? Is honesty the only issue here? Is the writer’s literary storytelling completely wrong? Is the fact-checker’s obsession absolutely right?
In the end, with the three exhausted contestants sitting silently together on a couch as the joyous music of Beethoven resounds with its ironic tones of joyful exaltation, one wonders if the play will call upon you and I to make that judgment.
Brandon Roth, a Los Altos reporter visiting Stockton, found himself thinking about the issues raised by “The Lifespan of a Fact” as he sat watching the play unfold. He decided that D’agata’s creative approach to writing was no excuse for avoiding the responsibility of a writer to provide accurate information to his readers.
“It is important to think about your audience when writing a story,” Roth said. “While watching the play, I learned that truth is hard to handle for some and not always the type of information one wants to hear. If a story seems off, it is wise to double check the facts, ask questions, and uphold ethical standards.”
Exiting the theater, another playgoer asked his companion, “I know politicians do it all the time, but do writers get away with making up their version of the truth?”
Whether you side with D’Amata’s insistence on writing as he pleases or Jim Fingal’s assertion that fact is the only reliable measure of truth, this is a play well worth seeing.
And that, my friend, is a fact.
A retired reporter and editor, Stockton resident Howard Lachtman has written Delta-centered detective stories, Stockton Civic Theatre reviews and a variety of baseball tales for Soundings. In 2006. he was honored by the Stockton Arts Commission for “24 years of superior review and commentary on the performing and literary arts in Stockton.” He was recently surprised to learn that San Francisco’s Lowell High School has ranked him among its notable twentieth century alumni for his achievements as an American literary critic. Howard’s reaction to the news: “Now maybe I can get a date to the prom.”
Leave a Reply