Is madness inherited? Is genius inherited? Are the two connected? These are some of the questions posed in Proof, David Auburn's Pulitzer Prize and Tony winning play in 2001.

When an aging parent needs help, often one child in the family assumes the mantle of care. In Auburn's drama, younger daughter Catherine (Ayo Edebiri) drops out of college to tend to her brilliant, ailing father Robert (Don Cheadle.) A genius mathematician, Robert is losing his mind. At times, his decline seems slow and for some months he seems to be himself again, only to relapse entirely. At that point, Catherine returns home for good. She buys him several notebooks in which he scrawls for hours, but the books upon examination contain nothing but gibberish.

In the opening scene outside their home (scenic design by Teresa L. Williams) Catherine is talking with her father. Quickly, the audience realizes that her father has already died. She is waiting for her older sister Claire (Kara Young) to arrive so they can move forward with a funeral and burial.

Catherine knows Robert is dead and wonders if her talking to him is a sign that she has inherited his mental illness. Claire wants to sell the house and have Catherine move to NY with her where she can get her help. Claire is concerned that her sister has inherited their father’s mental issues. Meanwhile, math professor Hal (Jin Ha) is upstairs in the house, having come to examine his mentor’s old notebooks. Hal is hoping to find something important in the scribbles Robert left.

Catherine and Hal are attracted to one another and after they ‘connect,’ Catherine shares a notebook locked away in Robert’s desk drawer. Hal is astounded when he finds a brilliant mathematical proof and is sure that Robert figured it out. When Catherine announces that she was the one who worked out the proof, neither Hal nor Claire believe her. Do we? The play suggests that, despite not having finished college, Catherine is intelligent, but has she inherited her father’s brilliance?

It’s a pleasure watching Cheadle on stage as the failing mathematician. He’s natural, smooth and comfortable. Generally, he is an affable character and very believable as a concerned father. Yet that is part of the problem. We don’t see him having outbursts or evince frustration at losing his mind. We need to see the brilliance and then the contrast.

Edebiri seems stiff and tight. Sullen and noncommunicative, she shows some resentment towards Claire but little joy in her character, even when she’s hooked up with Hal. She gives a mechanical portrayal. Despite her award-winning role of sous-chef Sydney in FX’ s “The Bear,” she appears to be uncomfortable in front of a live audience or maybe it’s in contrast to Cheadle.

Director Thomas Kail needs to demand more contrast from his actors. The audience should become upset for the characters and care about them. Otherwise, the play feels too perfunctory.
As Claire, Young, winner of several theater awards, is good as usual but the role doesn’t demand much from her. She feels guilt and now shows concern and tries to exert control.
Despite the intensity of the subject, the play lightens up a little with Hal and his jokes about mathematicians and their band. He also provides a love interest, but then, too, are his intentions pure or just a way to gain trust and access to the notebooks?

The show is interesting yet unremarkable, except for many who wished to see a favorite “The Bear” actor live on stage. This version hardly seems Pulitzer or Tony worthy. The direction and acting are competent and adequate but not gripping and exciting. Catherine claims to have discovered the proof but the show needs to do more to prove it to us.