As I often prefer, I didn’t know what to expect with “Red.” Until a few days before, my calendar listed my Sunday evening plans as “a play.” So to say the play exceeded my expectations wouldn’t be saying much. Instead, I’ll say it was great.

“Red” is a play about the artist Mark Rothko and, without reading the program, I couldn’t tell you how much of what transpires in the play is true. But I can tell you that it feels true. Alfred Molina was amazing — you never for a nanosecond even questioned if he was Rothko. He was Rothko. Jonathan Groff didn’t have me from the start, but then again, his character didn’t have Rothko from the start. In the beginning, his character, Ken, was acting the part of what he thought Rothko’s assistant – an artist’s assistant – should be. And in the audience, you felt that acting. But it was in character. And Groff as Ken grew into his role as the apprentice came to challenge his master. It’s true that some of the speeches he gives in the latter part of the play are remarkably well written — perhaps too much so to be improvised by his character on the spot.  But if you can’t use well written speeches in the theatre, when can you use them?  The better argument for allowing them is that they’re educational.  I find it rare enough to see a straight play that’s good, but one that’s also educational?  It was a treat to walk out feeling entertained, and also smarter, with a better knowledge of Art History.

In terms of structure, I found the play eye-opening.  With only two characters, they each manage to have a journey and a purpose all their own.  (Not that this is necessarily rare, but that the journey’s were both apparent and, yet, surprising to discover after having seen a “simple, straightforward” play).  As I took it, Rothko’s goal was to create art that mattered and, in the end, he achieved that goal in an unlikely fashion thanks to his protegee.  And Ken’s goal was to save Rothko (yes, he wanted to be an artist, but that was not what he was working toward in every scene of this play).  And in the end, he did manage to save Rothko and, in doing so, earned Rothko’s respect and release and thereby became an artist in his own right.

That leaves only one more thing to mention in “Red”: the red.  The staging and lighting was amazing.  You can hear about how a painting moves and throbs and comes to life for hours on end, but it doesn’t mean anything if you don’t experience that.  The folks behind this show managed to allow the audience to experience just that — to feel the passion in the paintings in just the way that the artists are describing it.  They were able to achieve in the theater what museums can only hope to emulate.  Oh, and the painting scene… It’s entertaining, energetic and real.  It’d be worth seeing the whole play just for that one scene.  But you won’t have to, because, as you’ll learn, there’s much more to “red” than you think.