The play traffics in existentialism and minimalism. If David Ives had written Waiting for Godot it would have come out a lot like 261.626. Sowalsky’s playfulness is evident most in the ways he toys with words. His twists and turns-of-phrase keep audience members on their toes. The way he flips words on their heads and fiddles with timing and intonation are a joy to listen to. The wordplay (pun intended) and banter provide some of the show’s best moments.Playfulness is also evident in Elizabeth Darby and Hannah Burkhauser’s joyful performances as Loan and Sum respectively. They seem to really enjoy being on stage, working together, and delivering Sowalsky’s lines. Their performances were not always as effortless as I would have liked, and their timing was not always as perfect as it could have been, but their earnestness and chemistry more than made up. And for the majority of the play, when these issues were non-existent, the two women were quite captivating.
I’d summarize the plot if it had one, but then again, that wasn’t the point. The actors explain to the audience that they are alone in a universe all their own, and it seems to me that, as such, they don’t have to worry about silly details like “story” or “meaning.”
I have written before about what I call “Fringyness”, that indescribable quality of certain shows at Fringe. It takes a show that I might otherwise not notice or care about and makes me laud it. In an environment where the weird is celebrated and the silly is praised, a show like 216 does quite well.
Tickets
Josh rates this a 4 out of a possible 5.
Thanks for the high praise, Stephen! Judging from the audience reactions, most people “got it,” but I can understand if it wasn’t everyone’s cup of tea.
To the commenters Alex and Michael H,
You, sirs (or madam and sir), are sorely mistaken in your insistence that 261.626 has no storyline, and relies solely on its difficult language. The storyline may be tricky to follow, but inexplicit does not equal nonexistent, and while the language in the show is certainly one of its pleasures, it is hardly the only thing on offer. With existential and creative questions floating about amidst the conflict of isolated independence with social interdependence, 261.626 is a pleasure, and I tip my hat to Josh for saying so. My compliments also to the writer, the director, and the cast. I might have even leaned more toward 5 than 4.
A 4 out of five is indeed a huge gift. The actors did what they could with the text–which wasn’t easy to perform–but difficult language doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s any good. I also was relieved that the curtain came after 45 minutes, and was tempted to pull out my phone to track the time about ten minutes in.
Really Josh — a 4 out of 5? Please let me know what you were smoking.
While I applaud the actresses for their earnestness and courage in attempting to tackle this endeavor, 261.626 made no sense. No storyline. And it wasn’t fun or interesting enough to be either interesting or fun. Thankfully, the show ended in 45 minutes, less than the length of a root canal.
Many thanks on behalf of myself and the cast for the glowing review. Glad you enjoyed it!