double-skinned crabs double-skinned crabs double-skinned crabs double-skinned crabs double-skinned crabs double-skinned crabs double-skinned crabs double-skinned crabs double-skinned crabs double-skinned crabs double-skinned crabs double-skinned crabs vietnamese seafood double-skinned crabs mud crab exporter double-skinned crabs double-skinned crabs crabs crab exporter soft shell crab crab meat crab roe mud crab sea crab vietnamese crabs seafood food vietnamese sea food double-skinned crab double-skinned crab soft-shell crabs meat crabs roe crabs
Elisabeth Vincentelli

Elisabeth Vincentelli

Theater

Gender-twist adds welcome edge to revival of ‘A Walk in the Woods’

In hindsight, America had it easy in the 1980s. None of that hydra-headed terrorist nonsense: The enemy was the good ol’ USSR, and we could engage in civilized negotiations over a decent meal.

The revival of Lee Blessing’s 1988 “A Walk in the Woods” brings us back to that simpler time via a series of conversations between two arms negotiators.

Representing the Soviets and the Americans, respectively, are Irina Botvinnick (Kathleen Chalfant) and John Honeyman (Paul Niebanck). Stationed in Geneva, they’re supposed to hash things out on behalf of their countries. Except the play doesn’t take place around a large table but on the outskirts of town, where the two meet for informal conversations — a more accurate title would be “A Series of Chats in a Suburban Forest.”

Paul Niebanck and Kathleen Chalfant in “A Walk in the Woods.”Carol Rosegg

Director Jonathan Silverstein’s boldest move was to cast a woman as the Russian, originally written as a man named Andrey. This isn’t groundbreaking — a recent London production cast a woman as the American — but it adds a welcome edge to a talky, fairly flat play.

Even better is getting to see the excellent Chalfant (“Wit”) — one of the few performers who always seems to know more than what her text actually says. This works especially well here since Irina is the more experienced of the two characters. She runs rings around her American counterpart, just as Chalfant overshadows the bland Niebanck.

Indeed, Blessing stacked the deck against John. He’s a humorless, idealist prig while Irina is charming, playful and practical. But it’s hard to get an idea of the stakes because the play traffics in generalities. Irina and John’s discussion could have been seasoned with a few references to ballistic missiles.

Luckily Chalfant makes every line resonate, and you find yourself constantly rooting for Irina.