NYC News

Review: Job’s Stars Get the Job Done
July 30, 2024, 10:06.24 pm ET

Print


Photo: Emilio Madrid

It’s common parlance these days to tell people they have only one job to do, but that idiom has rarely applied to playwrights, who prefer their work to have a myriad of complexities. That’s undeniably true of Max Wolf Friedlich, who is making his Broadway debut with “Job,” now playing a limited engagement at the Hayes Theatre (after two successful Off-Broadway runs in the past year) under the skillful direction of Michael Herwitz.

I suspect some theatergoers will believe Friedlich has completed all his tasks – kept us on the edge of our seats for 80 minutes, made us think about the different ways the younger and older generation view technology, and then shocked us with a twist almost no one could see coming.

Conversely, some audience members may think Friedlich only has succeeded part-way, especially those who find the play’s initial set up and/or the late-in-the-play revelation believable. To give away either of those “surprises” is unfair, so I won’t. But I will say I’m in the latter camp, especially when it comes to the final plot twist, which is both unnecessary and undercuts much of what has come before.

What I think everyone will agree on is the brilliance of the players in this two-hander. The always reliable Peter Friedman delivers another superb turn as Lloyd, a Bay Area psychotherapist who looks like a member of the Grateful Dead and is still proud of his hippie heritage, while relative newcomer Sydney Lemmon (granddaughter of Jack) is stunningly chilling s his new, much younger patient Jane, almost daring us (and Lloyd) to take our eyes off her for even one second. Their interplay, especially given how articulate Jane can be at times, is consistently compelling and makes the play worth seeing.

As we quickly learn, Jane is not in Lloyd’s Asian-inspired office (nicely designed by Scott Penner) to begin a long course of treatment. In fact, she has only one job she wants Lloyd to do: give her a letter that will allow her to return to the company where she is on a leave of absence after suffering a shattering breakdown in the middle of the workday.

It’s a legitimate question on Lloyd’s part on why she would want to go back to such an environment, even though Jane is rather vague about what she does (she is in “user care”) – until she isn’t -- and we are not told until late in the play what her role is in this mysterious company or even what the company does. How much Lloyd does – and does not know – about Jane’s work is also a little vague, which seems strange given his task.

Jane’s job involves technology – a point driven home by the frequent, sudden appearances (and disappearances) of what seem like video screens on the set’s back well. And ultimately, it’s the pair’s differing views on the importance of technology -- from our reliance on cell phones, the influence of social media, and its uses for both good and evil -- that make up much of the play’s back-and-forth and give it some real meat. (The irony that someone two seats away was texting during these discussions was not lost on me!)

The play also benefits from the faux father-daughter dynamic Friedlich creates between the pair. Nevertheless,while the set-up (sorry again, no spoiler) and Lloyd’s seemingly paternal nature may explain his willingness to disclose some unusual and vital personal information to Jane (which figures into the plot twist), it is decidedly not what most therapists do, especially on a first meeting.

So, did Friedlich not do his job and learn about the basics of psychotherapy? Or as the play arguably posits, do any means justify the end? Perhaps its our job to answer the latter question.

SEE DETAILS/TICKETS



Comments:
^Top