Expectations are important, especially in relationships. When a couple embark on a romance, it is usually predicated on the idea that things will progress according to the lines drawn up by the people, personalities and decisions made.
In the case of Ariana vs Chomsky, this is the inherent problem confronting Mark and Chloe, a London couple who have moved northwards for work and find themselves torn apart politically after the Manchester Arena Bombing and the subsequent charity concert put on by Ariana Grande.
The play tells the story of their relationship in fragmented forms over the course of several years, at first warm, energetic and close, only to gradually become colder, as they drift apart more and more. This is offset with a series of moments of political theorist Noam Chomsky being forcefully interviewed and arguing back in his signature witty style.
As much as the relationship begins to fall apart, so does the play to an extent as the Chomsky asides never quite seem to fit the piece in a narrative sense, other than to provide political tub-thumping. Meanwhile, Mark and Chloe don’t come across like a couple who would ever have worked as long as they have. The dynamic is too thinly sketched, and the personalities don’t quite work. Mark is the better drawn character, but his drift into regional footballish laddism feels rather flat and ridiculous, particularly considering the narrative guesswork the play requires the audience to make about the couple.
The entire play’s focus also hinges on Chloe having a drastic and immovable swing towards a radically activistic interpretation of the world, partly influenced by the works of Chomsky. The trouble is, she’s so thinly sketched up until that point that it just comes from nowhere and sends the piece into argumentative bouts which grow somewhat tedious, but don’t really go anywhere.
On a technical side, it's also very minimalist in execution, and, considering the frequent scene changes and the character swaps from the couple to the interview, it's surprising there isn't even a lighting change or an audio cue. Instead, the actors simply step forward on the stage and stand rigidly, then step back as the alternate character, which just feels a little clumsy.
It's not badly acted, and some of the exchanges are interesting, but the whole never coalesces into anything of substance. Whatever was supposed to be inferred from all this doesn't make it across the fourth wall, and by the end of the piece, you’re left wondering what it was all about in the first place, and whether you’d just be better off dusting off that old Chomsky book you bought years ago instead.