It's called *historical." We watch a piece like this not because it is up to date, but precisely because it ISN'T, so that we can learn about those bygone times -- and thus about our own and those to come. This near-masterpiece's only deficiency lies within its otherwise stellar script: a reference to Ronald Reagan's serious limitations and deficiencies would have yielded a more accurate and thus a more complete vision of the big picture in/with which these diplomats were struggling.
5 Reviews
Impressive but outdated.
F Gwynplaine MacIntyre6 May 2006
Lee Blessing's two-hander 'A Walk in the Woods' is fiction, but based on a true incident from the last years of the Cold War. During the 1982 Geneva peace negotiations, American delegate Paul Nitze would occasionally stroll through the nearby forest between negotiation sessions. During one of these walks, he encountered Yuli Kvitsinsky, a member of the Soviet delegation. (I'm slightly surprised that these men were able to meet surreptitiously, without security agents from both sides tailing them.) In an informal setting away from bureaucratic protocol, these two men of good will were able to discuss nuclear brinkmanship (and possible solutions) far more honestly than they were able to do at the negotiating table.
Before viewing this television production, I first saw 'A Walk in the Woods' onstage at the Booth Theatre in New York City. The theatre was filled with rich American liberals who were clearly hostile to their own nation's government, and receptive to the Soviet viewpoint. (So why don't they move there, then?) Nearly every line spoken by Botvinnik (the fictional Russian character) received laughter or applause, while Honeyman (the American character) clearly had an uphill battle to engage the audience's sympathies. Why does this foolish American insist on protecting his nation's interests? Doesn't he realise that, in order to attain international peace, America must drop its defences and trust the Soviets? On the other hand, the wise old Soviet delegate is absolutely right to keep his guard up and protect his own nation's interests: that's his job, after all. I seethed in rage as the above double standard unfolded on the stage in front of me, to the smug approval of the audience all round me.
My memories of the stage play were so painful that I almost didn't watch this television version. In the event, I'm glad that I did. Here is the same Broadway cast (Prosky and Waterston, both excellent), but with a different director ... and the television format enables me to watch the drama in solitude, without wallowing in the limousine-liberal pieties of a Broadway audience. It was almost an entirely new show! As performed here, the two roles are more evenly balanced than in the stage version, with Sam Waterston's protagonist sharing our sympathy. The fictional John Honeyman, to his credit, is obsessed with obtaining international peace. His Soviet counterpart is more interested in details of American culture (such as Willie Nelson) and eyedrops for his own medical condition. Andrey Botvinnik isn't worried: he realises that his job as a Soviet bureaucrat is a lifetime sinecure, whereas Honeyman is in danger of losing his job with the next U.S. election.
After comparing the stage and tele-productions, I now wonder if perhaps Lee Blessing did intentionally skew our sympathies towards the Russian character. In the real-life situation which inspired this play, Paul Nitze was significantly older than Yuli Kvitsinsky: wiser, more experienced in diplomacy. Blessing has intentionally reversed the characters' ages, making the Russian the calmer and cooler diplomat, and the American impetuous and excitable.
In real life, I'm pleased that the United States won the Cold War. 'A Walk in the Woods' is enjoyable and well-staged, but it can only be regarded as a period piece. Events have overtaken this play: now, we have less cause to worry about the Soviet bloc, and far more cause to worry about Jihadists who lurk in the dark. May America prevail against that madness. I'll rate 'A Walk in the Woods' 7 out of 10.
Before viewing this television production, I first saw 'A Walk in the Woods' onstage at the Booth Theatre in New York City. The theatre was filled with rich American liberals who were clearly hostile to their own nation's government, and receptive to the Soviet viewpoint. (So why don't they move there, then?) Nearly every line spoken by Botvinnik (the fictional Russian character) received laughter or applause, while Honeyman (the American character) clearly had an uphill battle to engage the audience's sympathies. Why does this foolish American insist on protecting his nation's interests? Doesn't he realise that, in order to attain international peace, America must drop its defences and trust the Soviets? On the other hand, the wise old Soviet delegate is absolutely right to keep his guard up and protect his own nation's interests: that's his job, after all. I seethed in rage as the above double standard unfolded on the stage in front of me, to the smug approval of the audience all round me.
My memories of the stage play were so painful that I almost didn't watch this television version. In the event, I'm glad that I did. Here is the same Broadway cast (Prosky and Waterston, both excellent), but with a different director ... and the television format enables me to watch the drama in solitude, without wallowing in the limousine-liberal pieties of a Broadway audience. It was almost an entirely new show! As performed here, the two roles are more evenly balanced than in the stage version, with Sam Waterston's protagonist sharing our sympathy. The fictional John Honeyman, to his credit, is obsessed with obtaining international peace. His Soviet counterpart is more interested in details of American culture (such as Willie Nelson) and eyedrops for his own medical condition. Andrey Botvinnik isn't worried: he realises that his job as a Soviet bureaucrat is a lifetime sinecure, whereas Honeyman is in danger of losing his job with the next U.S. election.
After comparing the stage and tele-productions, I now wonder if perhaps Lee Blessing did intentionally skew our sympathies towards the Russian character. In the real-life situation which inspired this play, Paul Nitze was significantly older than Yuli Kvitsinsky: wiser, more experienced in diplomacy. Blessing has intentionally reversed the characters' ages, making the Russian the calmer and cooler diplomat, and the American impetuous and excitable.
In real life, I'm pleased that the United States won the Cold War. 'A Walk in the Woods' is enjoyable and well-staged, but it can only be regarded as a period piece. Events have overtaken this play: now, we have less cause to worry about the Soviet bloc, and far more cause to worry about Jihadists who lurk in the dark. May America prevail against that madness. I'll rate 'A Walk in the Woods' 7 out of 10.
This movie explains why Columbus Day should be left alone.
mcd202015 October 2019
Amazing conversation between two diplomats, one young (American), and serious the other (Russian),old and worn out. Between sessions of peace meetings in Geneva they sit in park to relax. Exceptvfhe American wants to talk serious but his Russian counterpart wants to be frivolous. They strike a bargain, you tell me about cowboys and Indians and I will talk serious. During the Russians serious talk he explains what would have happened if Russia would have discovered AMERICA instead of Columbus. His explanation is worth the watch to me. Great performances by Waterson and Prosky (Hill Street Blues).
Enjoy.
The human side of high diplomacy
abacero21 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
"A Walk in the Woods" is a play settled in the Cold War, when the superpowers were ready to use their nuclear weapons to protect whatever was valuable to them. However, in the middle of the push and pull of the talks in Geneva, two top negotiators find themselves walking in the woods near the site of the talks, sharing a bench and their views of life, peace and human conflict, in a very human point of view: an young and anxious American diplomat and a mature Soviet officer, more concerned of the sunshine than the deployment of nuclear missiles, but fully an expert in his job. This play goes beyond the fight between the United States and the Soviet Union, is about the eager youth, worried about the balance of power and to make a job well done; and experience of age and knowledge of the job, which knows that patience worth more than anxiety. This is the story of two persons, who met in a specific scenario but sharing their feelings, their worries and their views of their job, their duty and life itself. It worth to see it on stage (or the TV version) and read the original play. Is absolutely enjoyable, and gives a glimpse of the times of the Cold War in the political sense and the way the wold was seen by the people of the time, but easily can be "transalted" to the actual times and political environment. It is about people, more than politics. For some people, could be important to be aware of the times when it happens, but for others could be more important the dialog between the old Russian and the young American. It is up to the viewer.
Playing Botvinnik
rhenz3 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I played Botvinnik in the Madison Repertory Theatre's production of this wonderful play a few years ago. We had an excellent director in C. Michael Wright, and John Mossman was perfect as Honeyman. I would recommend reading or seeing this play to anyone who is interested in interpersonal (as well as inter-political) relations. I am sorry some have seen this as some sort of litmus test of ideologies or of capitalism vs. communism. Approaching Lee Blessing's story from that point of view would surely blind the observer to its fine interplay and the growth of the characters as they meet four times: in summer, fall, winter, and finally spring. Both learn something about themselves and about each other. And just as with the Cold War, there is no "winner" nor "loser." Both sides have lost lives, money, and dignity--as with any war, cold or hot.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
