We’ve all heard the term “corporate consultants,” but what does that mean? Who are these highly paid, usually well-dressed people, and what, exactly, are they hired to do? Sorry, but you won’t find the answers here; if anything, there are more and more questions as the evening progresses. The topic at hand in Aaron Loeb’s Ideation is Project Senna. The problem is how to find a way to kill and then dispose of a million, maybe more, people who are afflicted with some nebulous virus which could wipe out humanity. The solution must soon be presented to the bigshot, JD, who has hired the participants in the room. The leader is a tightly wound blonde business woman named Hannah. She is dressed impeccably in a blue-green dress with suit jacket, brown pumps, a costly gold chain, and diamond stud earrings. The men in the group wear the predictable suits and ties. They are cocky, cool dudes, out to impress each other at least as much as the Big Boss. They’re being well paid, and intend to hold onto their jobs, despite the fact that the task is basically impossible to resolve. Brock is the self-appointed know-it-all who taunts Scooter, a young intern sent to take notes. His dad is a bigshot on the board; he’s terrible at his job, as evidenced by the fact that he brings in coffee for himself, but not Hannah, his superior. Ted masquerades as a good ol’ boy, but he’s a sharp operator, and keenly aware that his first duty is to his children. Sandeep is the stereotypically smart Indian guy, who — of course — went to Harvard. Not so intelligently, he’s having an affair with the 20-years--married Hannah. They calmly discuss what sounds more and more like a genocidal attempt to be rid of whomever the powers that be want to eliminate. The discussion becomes increasingly uncomfortable, both for the participants and the audience. And the question arises as to what is really going on. Is there an ethical and moral question, or is it only their duty to provide solutions to the people who are paying them? What starts out as sounding mundane quickly degenerates into contemplation of the horrific. The performers in this San Francisco Playhouse production are all excellent, and the direction serves to keep things moving. But the play is too long; running time is listed at 90 minutes, but it actually goes on well beyond that. A trim of 15 minutes of the repetitive, and at times tedious, dialogue would go a long way to keeping the show tight. As the action slackens up and becomes more cartoonish (worst on-stage fight scene in memory, and prolonged kissing that is more athletic than tender), the audience releases what was an attitude of taut suspense. Instead, the response is progressively more laughter and a lot less interest in what may actually be the point of the exercise at hand. Ideation at its best is thought provoking and the gateway to some very interesting discussions. What’s really acceptable to do “for the greater good”? Who decides? What part does an individual play in augmenting a Final Solution? Do we question, or tell ourselves that we’re “Just following orders”? And wouldn’t it be great if these weren’t issues with which we must grapple every time we turn on the news.
