In anticipation of impending economic and environmental disasters, a government develops a new safety system and launches a questionnaire. One of its questions to parents with more than one child sparks immense controversy: if, due to catastrophic events, you could keep only one child, which one would it be? The play captures the moment at which the parents confess to their eldest son, the family favourite, that they would give him up and keep his younger brother instead – the one who has always been more of a troublemaker.
As the conversation unfolds, Son, Mother, and Father dissect their family, lay bare it history and the truths long left unsaid, and come to the most painful of revelations – that their love for the Son is not unconditional after all. Across ten exchanging scenes, the play examines the very notion of family – a concept that takes on new meanings in times of crisis.
Formally, the play is composed entirely of dialogue. The only stage direction is the title, which serves both purposes. This structural intervention shifts the focus entirely to communication, to the raw dialogue, which at times resembles the transcript of an imagined “family” trial. The dialogue consists of stark, stripped-down, almost factual sentences – accusations, bitter truths, delivered without embellishment. By returning to pure dialogue and by mixing timelines, the play generates an intense dramatic atmosphere of uncertainty and tension, and, above all, raises the fundamental question at the heart of theatre: are we ready to hear the unvarnished truth?
