Text author: Mircea Morariu
Taken from Adevarul.ro

On his first collaboration with the "Regina Maria" Theater in Oradea, the well-known actor, director and dramatic writer Radu Iacoban proposes a debate-type show entitled "Christians".

He does this by staging the relatively recent play of the same name (the premiere took place in 2015), by a young American playwright, probably named Lucas Hnath. Apparently, it is very popular in theaters across the ocean and beyond.

Christians is what I would call a smart piece of writing. In which Lucas Hnath has assimilated and incorporated an entire previous experience brought with him by this type of writing that turns a certain issue upside down, with arguments for and against. If in 12 Angry Men, for example, a play from 1957, Reginald Rose debated the theme of guilt, in 2014-2015 Lucas Hnath puts into debate, using the arguments and counter-arguments of five characters, a whole complex of themes and subthemes. All subsumed under that truth that each of us can extract from the great texts of Christianity. The Bible and the Gospels. I will list just a few of them. Have these texts been rigorously translated? Does the Bible speak of Hell or of Gehenna? Are these two words synonymous? Only those who have embraced the Christian religion are reserved the right to reach Heaven, those of other religions being denied only because of their different option? Is Christianity a dogma or something always subject to rediscovery, reinterpretation, creative meditation, determined by new social and human realities? When and how do we have the right to make our questions, doubts public? Are others prepared to listen to us, to understand us, to admit that things could be different than we all believed up to a certain moment? How real and stable are majorities? But what about loyalties? What exactly are they based on? Are we allowed to judge others? Under what conditions? Is marriage the guarantee of definitive, unlimited communion of thought? Of real closeness? What do we do when, unexpectedly, a crack appears that gnaws, spoils, demolishes an entire construction? What seemed unbreakable until then. Etc.

The show directed by Radu Iacoban begins and ends with the same Gospel song. At the beginning, we hear it sung live by four of the five protagonists – pastor Paul, his wife Elizabeth, pastor Joshua, church counselor Jay. At the end, it is played on tape, with pastor Paul left alone. Just him and the cross. The four come to the sermon animated by the joy due to the fact that the new Church created some time ago by pastor Paul has passed the test of time, is free of debt, has parishioners, their number is growing. Things seem perfect. However, pastor Paul commits, deliberately or not, something that, one by one, ends up being charged by all the others as a mistake. If not much more. A provocation? A blasphemy? The pastor exposes his questions, doubts about faith, Christianity, and mistake in a sermon that is perhaps too sincere, perhaps with a much too personal tone. About Heaven, Hell, sin, sinners, Hitler. Hence the doubts about an old rivalry of the assistant pastor Joshua, hence the vote of the parishioners in favor or against one of the two, hence Jay's questions about what tolerance means and where the schism begins, hence the unexpected intervention of a simple woman named Jenny, hence the rift between Paul and his wife, Elizabeth.

The show takes place inside the Neological Synagogue in Oradea. The set designer Tudor Prodan adds a number of additional elements to the intrinsic decor offered by it - a few chairs, a tribune, video projections based on the rapid transition from Angel to Demon, from God to Devil. The sound design created by Aida Šošić, the light design conceived by Lucian Moga have significant roles in creating an authentic tension. Born from the dialogues, from the intelligence with which the playwright masters argumentative rhetorical strategies, from the good relationship between the characters, from the very game of relationship on which Radu Iacoban builds the entire show. On the contributions of the five actors. I note first of all Richard Balint who makes a tour de force in the role of pastor Paul, surprising not only the theatrical notes of his speech, but also the confusion, humanity, defeat, the need to accept loneliness. Adela Lazar, at a good moment in her career, wisely cast in the role of Elizabeth, relies heavily and usefully on naturalness, on simplicity, on the sincerity of the game. Răzvan Vicoveanu plays the young pastor filled with doubt, first a loser, then a victor, a winner in the end, obviously satisfied with this, but faithful to the principle of loyalty. Petre Ghimbăşan is, broadly speaking, what is needed in the role of counselor Jay. Anda Tămăşanu (Jenny) has the least score. Is she also unimportant? No way. Jenny's unexpected, untimely intervention, at first shy, unsure, then increasingly charged with vehemence, contains the accusations that will be capitalized against pastor Paul. I find out that the captions that the playwright strictly adheres to (What to do with it, these are the servitudes brought with it by copyright law), require that Jenny's intervention be read from one end to the other. Probably as a sign of the character's shyness. Only? Did Lucas Hnath want to suggest that the moment when she starts raining accusatory questions was imposed by others? I don't know. My opinion is that the character would have gained in terms of pretension and impact if, from a certain point on, Jenny had dispensed with the paper, taking care to avoid falling into pathos and tearfulness.

The specifics and servitudes of the playing space require the constant use of microphones. I have the impression that the use of two types of such “tools” was required. Portable microphones, in scenes containing speeches, sermons, arguments explicitly intended for an audience, and lavaliers in scenes of authentic confrontation, unmarked by theatricality. I think it would also be useful to abandon the double ending, as it appeared on the evening of the first premiere performance.