Fires in the Mirror

While I understand the confusion of the beginning parts of Anna Deavere Smith's play Fires in the Mirror, that it is such a long part of the play before the actual topic of the play is performed and it does not appear that there is a credible reason why to perform those parts of the play. But I assure you, those parts are just as important to this play as the last half and should not be removed, nor should the order of the play be changed at all. The first, and quite obvious reason that I will not dwell on it long, is that that was the playwright's choice. I am a firm believer of trying to keep words of the play to the exact way the playwright first presented it. But that is my own personal opinion and should not be the sole basis in which you form your judgment.
But another reason that you should keep the beginning is because while it may not appear on the surface, or at least the first time you read it, that it plays any significance to the later part of the play, but it does. Every story needs some background, novels do it, and we do it in theatre all the time. It is called the exposition, Gustav Freytag uses it in his graph to help introduce important information to the audience. And while stories of how Al Sharpton got his hair style or why the orthodox Jew couldn't turn off a radio might not appear important in the grand schemes of things, for this play it is important for people to understand the two cultures that are at play here. It is essential to the plot of the story that a clear background is given as to understand the different versions of the start of the riots. Otherwise, it would just be a story of "he said, she said," and no one would understand why the events happened like they did. They would get the story, but only part of it. so by Smith giving the background information about these two very distinct groups of people, it allows the true story of what went on that August than by just layout out the supposed facts of the case.