Building the Wall: The Play and Commentary

by Robert Schenkkan, Douglas S. Massey (Afterword), Julian E. Zelizer (Afterword)

America, 2019. A President impeached. In a world of ‘fake news’, can anyone admit the truth?

2019, America. Rick is incarcerated awaiting sentencing for the crime of the century. He grants just one interview – to Gloria, an African American historian. In a world of ‘fake news’ surrounding one of the world’s most powerful and controversial political figures, Gloria is Rick’s only chance to tell his version of the truth.

Building The Wall examines what happens when an ordinary person becomes a cog in a regime and how the inconceivable becomes the inevitable.

The UK premiere of this cutting and timely new drama is as hot as the US political debate that fills our news feeds. Don’t miss this gripping political thriller from Robert Schenkkan, a Pulitzer Prize and Tony Award-winning playwright and Academy Award nominee (Hacksaw Ridge).

Genres: Plays, Politics, Drama, Theatre

128 pages, Hardcover

First published April 4, 2017

Reviews

[Steven Felicelli · Rating 1 out of 5]

trajectory of Trumpism - not a very good play to be honest, not even a play really, more a think piece - and I think most of us already know how bad this could get (has gotten)

[Yourfiendmrjones · Rating 5 out of 5]

The most brutal, uncompromising one-act I've read this year.

[Lisa · Rating 3 out of 5]

I saw Robert Shenkkan's Tony Award-winning play "All the Way" about Lyndon Johnson and his Civil Rights legislation when it premiered at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland, and found the production absolutely riveting. I was therefore eager to see this fledgling work when I happened to be in the L.A. area. "Building the Wall" is a cautionary tale, a worst-case scenario envisioning how a demagogue (in this case, Donald Trump) who exploits fear and scapegoats minority groups can whip up nationalist fervor, and inspire people even indirectly to behave inhumanely in an authoritarian setting. The atrocities of Nazi Germany weren't born fully developed at Hitler's initial rise to power, but rather "devolved" over time with creeping rationales.

This is a script that has "bypassed the usual path to play development," and it shows, unfortunately. While Shenkkan's sense of urgency is completely understandable, I hope the script will be workshopped and tightened up. The construct of this one-act play sets up two characters: a black college professor/historian, who conducts a jailhouse interview of a white man convicted of crimes against humanity, in an effort to understand what happened to the illegal immigrant detainees on his watch overseeing a detention facility (he did not testify at his trial). This construct could have worked, except there are many times where the dialogue has the professor reacting to and arguing with the prisoner that is not entirely credible for a professional researcher required to remain neutral and objective. (I am a former federal investigator who interviewed people about less-than-honorable behavior, and the idea that I would have injected personal opinion into any aspect of an interview would have been a non-starter.) This is an example of how sometimes credibility was sacrificed in service of advancing the story, or perhaps trying to establish rapport/relationship between the characters that may not really be that necessary. There is also an exchange about Trump's "tiny hands" that seems more gratuitous and self-indulgent, a cheap laugh at the expense of character consistency and credibility.

What does succeed, on many levels, is a compelling, dramatic, emotionally rich story that illustrates how authoritarianism and demagoguery can take hold, even in a society that considers itself beyond the reaches of fascism. The development of the lead character also allows the reader some empathy and insight into his personal story and motivations. He is, like most humans, complex - not just a study of one-dimensional evil.

I hope the playwright will continue to refine the script, so it rises to the level of his previous work.

[Doug · Rating 4 out of 5]

A chilling, all too real, scenario of what could happen with the fascistic turn the USA has taken under 45. The play is skillfully put together. with just a bit too many expository passages which don't feel like naturalistic dialogue - hence the deduction of one star.

[Brooke Noelle · Rating 1 out of 5]

Quite literally the worst play I’ve ever read - unmotivated character choices, horrific world building, and tired metaphors. If I could give this play 0 stars I would

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

There is a popular theory that all of human history is cyclical; we are destined to repeat the same cycles over and over again. This idea is explored, somewhat, in Pulitzer Prize and Tony Award-winning playwright Robert Schenkkan's new play Building the Wall. Part post-apocalyptic warning and part prison conversation, Building the Wall tells the story of one potential future of America based on the rhetoric of President Trump and the successful implementation of his anti-immigration policies. Following a devastating terror attack in Times Square, martial law is enacted, giving Trump essentially unlimited power to round up and detain immigrants as he sees fit. One man, Rick, works at one of these detention facilities and his actions echo the actions of Nazi Germany, leading to the eventual impeachment of the president and arrest of Rick. The play tells Rick's story through a conversation between Rick and historian Gloria. Note: this review is based solely on the script. I have not actually seen the play, and who knows if I ever will. 

This play is a bit of a challenge to review. If you take it as a piece of speculative fiction, it's pretty good. Nothing groundbreaking or anything, but enjoyable. It has echoes of 1984 and other dystopian/authoritarian futures, but it's also focused heavily on the life and actions of one man, Rick. The problem is that the play is so intricately tied with what might happen in the next two years or so in the Donald Trump presidency that it's hard to separate reality from the play. Which is part of the point, I agree. But, the likelihood of the events in this play unfolding don't seem all that likely (hopefully; I really hope it's unlikely), so once the next two years have come and passed, the play will seem irrelevant.

That's the problem with writing a speculative fiction story about contemporaneous real people. When you make up characters (and only sort of loosely base them on real people, instead of having them actually be real people) for speculative fiction, you're able to keep the story somewhat timeless. It's not specifically tied to the actions of one government official. This story, if removed from the context of Donald Trump, would work a lot better. You can have a fictional president with the same rhetoric as the rhetoric Trump has been spouting, and the story will work every bit as well, and also won't be liable to expire in two years' time. But, obviously, the story is explicitly about the actions of a Donald Trump presidency, and there's something about that that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I am very much not a Donald Trump fan; I'm not gonna get into my politics here, but needless to say, I am a hardcore liberal, so there's no love lost between me and Trump. But something about having the awful actions that happen prior to the beginning of this play be set in a very real potential future just feels... wrong.

It's hard to put into words why I feel so uncomfortable with the fact that this revolves around the potential future of a real, current president. Maybe because parts of this really are plausible, but also maybe because the fact that it's now permanently linked to Trump lessens the impact of the story. The people who really need to see/read this play are the ones who are diehard supporters of Trump, and they will immediately write this off as more bashing from the "Hollywood elite" (ignoring that theatre and Hollywood are extremely different). I mean, you'd still run the risk of doing that even if this was a fictional president, but it'd be just a little bit harder for that to happen. And they'd likely be a bit more receptive to the message were it about a fictional president, as is often the case with speculative fiction.

It also feels somewhat exploitative. Or potentially so. Maybe it's because I'm reading the play four days after the Manchester bombing, but I just don't like that the story hinges so much on a terrorist attack in Times Square under the very real President Trump. It's like that degree of separation you usually experience with speculative fiction has been removed and we're just left with this odd prediction of the future. And it's bleak. There's no real hope present in the play. I mean, Trump has been impeached and the Nazi-style killing of immigrants (more on that in a sec) have stopped, but the ending is just kind of dark. And I get that it's sort of a call to arms, like "we can prevent this future from happening" kind of things, but still.

That's not to say that I didn't like this play. On the contrary, I liked it quite a bit. A big central idea is that history repeats itself with normal people failing to take a stand. Hitler and the Nazi leadership were terrible, disgusting people, but their plans wouldn't have worked without Germans who were willing to go along with it, or who didn't realize the impact of what their actions did. Normal people were taken in by Hitler's rhetoric and went along with what he said and ordered, which led to the death of 6+ million Jews and other Europeans. The same happens in Building the Wall. Rich isn't a terribly good guy, but he's not a monster either. He's prejudiced, but not murderous. But, in the heat of things, confronted with impossible choices and pressure from the powers-that-be, he elects to mass murder immigrants so as to free up prison space to imprison more immigrants. He's given opportunity after opportunity to speak up, but he doesn't, and he becomes not only complicit in what happens but a driving force.

And that's really what the play is trying to get across: these things don't happen without the aid of citizens who don't do anything to prevent them. If we don't learn from the past, and actively resist corrupt and evil politicians, we are destined to repeat our mistakes. We cannot just blindly follow orders and expect to not be held accountable for our actions, which is what Rick does. He offers excuse after excuse as to why what he did isn't as terrible as people make it out to be, but you can't rationalize it. You can't rationalize Trump and the GOP's hateful rhetoric. If you rationalize it, you run the risk of normalizing it, and when it inevitably results in the deaths of people (in this case, immigrants), those who led to its normalization are every bit as complicit in those murders as those who actually committed them.

This idea is presented through a conversation between Gloria, a historian interviewing Rick for his side of the story, and Rick, a former prison official who began the practice of murdering untold numbers of "illegal immigrants" in order to ease the overpopulation in prisons after Trump and Congress passed various laws that led to the mass incarceration and deportation of illegal immigrants. Through their conversation, we see how Rick arrived at the decisions he made, and we see Gloria force him to contextualize what he'd done and reflect on it all. In the end, it doesn't seem like Rich has learned all that much, but there's been an impact. The bigger impact, of course, is on the audience. The point of the story is not for Rich to learn from his mistakes, it's for us to learn from his mistakes. We're supposed to see how his attitude of compliance of ambivalence toward the suffering of others directly led to his actions that led to the murdering of people. We're supposed to see how he mirrors regular German citizens from World War II, how he mirrors their actions of inaction and normalization of the reprehensible. The play is a call to action for us to not fall into the trap of complacency; for us to take a stand in defense of those who need defending.

The play mostly succeeds in delivering that idea. Like I said earlier, it would be more successful if it hadn't tied itself so directly to the Trump presidency. The way it's written, it comes across as a paranoid fever dream of what could happen, but it's a long shot. Had Schenkken gone with a purely fictional president - one merely based on Trump's ideas and actions -, he'd have avoided this problem of comparing the reality of the Trump administration with that of this highly fictionalized speculation of it.

Had Schenkken spent more time developing his characters and less time trying so hard to tie this with Trump, the characters would have felt more dynamic. Instead, we're left with the stereotypical characters you get in this kind of story: the criminal defending his actions and the somewhat condescending reporter claiming to offer the criminal the chance to tell his side, but shaming him every step of the way. I'm not saying Gloria's actions in the play are wrong or uncalled for, I'm just saying that they fit the trope. There's nothing all that original about the play. It's a pretty standard idea, just with the added sensationalism of being about the Trump presidency and its potential future.

On its own merits, removing the influence of anti-Trump media from the play, Building the Wall is fine. It's not revolutionary, but it's not bad, either. It's a serviceable play about a potential future with a compelling narrative and decently written characters. The pacing is well done and the narrative itself builds to a nice, dramatic, earned conclusion. But there's nothing really special about it, aside from the Trump connection. The play only gets attention because it's about the Trump presidency, but the play also suffers for being about it. It should have gone the route of creating its own president for this story, and only basing his actions on Trump rather than making him Trump. Schenkken should have spent more time developing and fleshing out his characters, making them more than just the archetypal characters in plays like this. The play had a lot of potential, but it failed to deliver much of it.

I give Building the Wall three out of five stars. Like I said, it's not bad, but it's not all that good, either. Presuming the actions of the play don't come to pass, it will largely be forgettable due to its insistence of rooting itself in a very specific time period to very specific people. If those people don't do the things the play suggests they'll do, the play becomes irrelevant. And, as nobody wants the actions of the play to actually come true, that's likely going to happen. Perhaps the play will succeed in encouraging people to stand up against the current rhetoric. But aside from the activism aspect of the play, as a play itself, it's not gonna make a big impact and will largely be forgotten.

[Kristina V · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thank you goodreads for the giveaway and Arcade publishing for sending me the book so fast. I was very intrigued and read the book soon after receiving it. It's very short, but I can honestly say I enjoyed it (even though I wish it would've been a little longer). I never read anything politics related, but I thought this book was great. Interesting plot.
Spoiler: the only thing I would've changed would be to go a little more into detail about who was detained. A couple more stories, like the kid whose parents were killed...

[Mitchell Clifford · Rating 3 out of 5]

Schenkkan does an excellent job in showcasing how Trump has been able to build a wall to push immigrants out and those that are considered others without physically building a wall. A short, but brilliant read.

Finished for the second time and most of the above reigns true. However, confused on the format of this as a play when it’s mostly just Rick talking and Gloria’s character has potential, but falls very flat.

[Cori · Rating 2 out of 5]

Meh.

He handed me a lot of things. He handed me all the things.

(Play discussion group script #2)

[Elliott · Rating 1 out of 5]

A long time ago I liked the idea of an aether that sent down ideas to sages and scribes. An aether that could be appeased with offerings or merely simple supplication to Its power of creativity. If you prayed just right or in some kind of Calvinist predestination scenario you were “chosen” to deliver a particular message your fiction would prefigure reality.
That’s how you get fiction that actually happens later on. The problem with that idea is that the people who write those sorts of novels or books usually aren’t the “right” authors (if I may be so snobbish). The Titanic was eerily imagined with a melodramatic proto-thriller called The Wreck of the Titan that’s remained occasionally in print through its coincidental relationship to the actual disaster. I recall a far-right sort who published techno thriller in the late ‘80s detailing the use of commercial airliners as crude guided missiles against New York City...

======Spoilers======

The plot of Building the Wall takes place in what was then only two years into the future: 2019. Donald Trump’s wall has been built after a terrorist attack in Time’s Square. Camps have thus been established for “repatriating” immigrants to their countries of origin which of course actually means deporting Muslims and Latinex people.
It’s plot is simple: a dialogue between Rick, who was a warden for one of the private contractors who run the repatriation centers and Gloria, his African-American lawyer. The charges against Rick are not immediately spoken- although it’s serious enough that both expect the death penalty.
As the play goes forward we find out, predictably, that the company Rick worked for kept the camps understaffed, and undersupplied. Cholera and dysentery sweep through the people being held there and in Rick’s attempt at disposing the bodies he’s visited by the head of the company. Since the government contract pays out for numbers processed, Rick is told, and not actually for the repatriation part the company calculates that it’s far more economical to kill the detainees than to send them back. Eventually, images make their way out which is enough to close the camp and have Rick arrested.
The play is clearly indebted to Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem and accordingly despite Rick’s monstrous actions he is not particularly a monster, very interesting, or very intelligent at all- in essence he’s that “banality of evil” that Arendt used describe Eichmann.
But Hannah Arendt has her limitations which are the limitations of the liberal response that Schennkan upholds here: namely that a blind judicial system will intervene; cooler heads will prevail, outrage will force action and that Justice (with a capital ‘J’) will transcend its enforcers to right the ship.
In other words: ‘the key to defeating fascism is simply waiting for the right moment to call the police.’
In this, the real 2019, we’ve seen everything in the play including deaths, visual evidence of the treatment of people, ICE raids, and, yes, the establishment of concentration camps on the southern border. As of yet we do not have extermination camps but we have also not had a terrorist attack which is the motivation in the play for setting it all up anyway. There is outrage- certainly- but there is also acceptance, indifference, and in fact outright approval from conservative outlets who argue that the people who have died more or less deserved to die for coming here “illegally.” No one has gone to trial, and indeed no one has been charged. There is no reason to expect anyone ever to be charged. In addition should this escalate further to the ends illustrated in the play I don’t expect anyone to face justice at least not here in the United States and certainly not under our courts.
Schennkan has remarkable foresight in accurately forecasting the future as he did- but as with the novels I mentioned earlier- his was the wrong voice to deliver that message. If there is any hope to undo what is currently happening it will be not with the liberal imagination- but with a solidarity based radical reappraisal.

[James Crabtree · Rating 1 out of 5]

Well, let's start with the errors in fact and then work our way to the conclusions.

First of all, it is clear that no research was done regarding certain facts. Yes, yes, I know it's a PLAY, but even plays must answer to facts. Besides, there's more than enough fantasy behind the author's conclusions without pretending that the author has even known anyone in the military.

For instance: on page 21 the author implies that Rick (one of only two characters in the play, thank God) was made a Military Policeman after he joined up "because he had experience in security." In fact, a quick call to the local Army recruiter would have provided the fact that the Army signs a contract with the recruit before they ever raise their hand to take the oath and the recruit will be shown a large number of possible options, from Air Defender to X-Ray Technician. The Army doesn't pick the MOS, the recruit does.

Second, Rick says he was stationed in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. After 9/11.

Well... no.

You see, the KSA had mostly Patriot units stationed on its soil in the 1990s and was never really that comfortable doing that. Following the start of operations in Iraq our presence in Saudi Arabia dropped to almost nothing except the occasional exercise involving aircraft. So Rick would never had been sent to Saudi Arabia in an MP company.

On Page 63 we have a discussion about how President Trump doesn't like to shake hands. Obviously the author has never been to a MAGA event, but that would kind of go without saying.

Finally, we get to the fantasy part: by building a wall to protect our borders and enforing our exisiting immigration laws we will wind up building death camps to kill illegals. Rick is put in charge of one of these camps because he must have been a sergeant or a specialist or something and naturally multibillion dollar corporations are looking for savvy NCOs to run their multimillion dollar facility.

The conclusion is breathtaking. I only marvel that it takes some 108 pages to get there. You see, this is a liberal fantasy in which instead of just CALLING people who support President Trump we have created a whole series of "future events" which actually results in them BEING Nazis! Oh, and the author gets to denigrate all those things he dislikes: privatized prisons, police (who are all racist), George W. Bush, people who claimed that undocumented immigrants were bringing back eradicated diseases to California (they were), Republicans, the Wall and, of course, Trump. In this fantasy America Trump has been impeached (and no doubt via some means not outlined in the Constitution Hillary is now president) and countries like Mexico are refusing to take their citizens back.

Hm. Could they watch Fox news and realize that some of these people committed heinous crimes after being deported from the U.S. several times.

Really, I can't imagine sitting in a theater and listening to two characters go back and forth, with one mouthing DNC talking points and the other a victim of circumstance but still contemptable because he supported president Trump. Oh, and thank God for the "commentaries," which give us goodthink. Why, if not for this book I might not have been aware that "illegal immigration ended nine years ago."


This book was provided in a Goodreads Giveaway.

[Steve Martinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This little book is a cautionary tale, a "what if?" story. What is going to happen in America because of Pres. Trump's hatred of illegal immigration? How far will the government actually go to "protect" US citizens? A scary premise, mainly because I believe that it could possibly go this far. This play is short, but the tension builds and builds, while you try to guess at what "Rick" actually did. A very provocative book. You'll be thinking about this one for a while. I won this in a Goodreads Giveaway.

[Paul LaFontaine · Rating 4 out of 5]

A professor enters a prison to interview the condemned and what emerges is a picture of the banality of evil. The convicted tells the story of his slow slide from a guy just following the rules in a tough situation to a person capable of the most horrible crimes.

I loved this play, though the use of language was fairly pedestrian and not very interesting. The characters served the story, but did not really enrich it. The idea is amazing, and the ending pretty sinister and blood-curdling.

Recommend.

[Joseph Dubey · Rating 1 out of 5]

Well,like they say,art is used to invoke a reaction from the audience,whether it is good or bad. Frankly, whether this book was about Trump, Obama, Clinton,or others,If ind it disturbing.Maybe the author should not have "sat down and,in a white-hot fury" wrote this play. Frankly I find it discusting that he incorporates the gas showers of Hitlers, and the aftermath of the hurricane in Louisiana with all those poor people trapped in a stadium. What people tend to conveniently forget is that legal immigrants are welcome and that illegal is illegal.Thus my rating for this play.

[Kathy Duffy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow, I would really like to see this staged..... so believable, so horrifying, and so possible...it takes your breath away.

Am going to lend this to our community theater director and see if they are up to the challenge..... I have had the feeling lately that we need to see re-staging of Enemy of the People and Miller's The Crucible but this play is soooo very today, I hope it gets produced throughout the country.

[Nadine · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thirty minute read, this play is an interesting two character conversation which shows how one is drawn in and does the unthinkable. It's a speculative drama and one you hope never becomes true. Commentaries at the end are to be read too for factual information. Having this read in a history, ethics, politics or contemporary events course in high school or college would open up interesting and revealing discussion. I received a copy through Goodreads for review.

[Hyacinth · Rating 5 out of 5]

This play was easy to follow. I would hope and pray that this would not happen in the 21st century. The fact that the thought is planted is bad enough. The things I've experienced as a result of this presidency is something I've only imagined reading about in past history. We shall see about this wall of division. I thought it interesting that an African American woman was doing the interview. I won this book in a goodreads giveaway.

[Robin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A political play that gets at the heart of people's fears, and why it is important to address the actions and ideas of the current American administration. The tropes of this play may be familiar, but the piece remains an engaging conversation-starter and call to action.

[Francis · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book reminded me of reading The Fat Years. Books criticizing the current administration would never be tolerated in China. I’m glad we are free to enjoy such literatures in the US. They serve as warning bells that force us to recognize where things will go if left uninterrupted.

[Sandra Crane · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book-play. It is excellent writing by a Pulitzer Prize and Tony winning playwright. It is a powerful play that is politically charged, set in Trump's America. Read the book and if you can- see the play! Thank you Goodreads Giveaway for a powerful read.

[Brooke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Defiantly a page turner. The book is a really fast read.

[Christine Jagger · Rating 5 out of 5]

Be sure to read the author's note and afterwards, too.

[Raegan · Rating 3 out of 5]

-Disclaimer: I won this book for free through Goodreads giveaways in exchange for an honest review.-

This is a book that you want to fact-check. If you kept up with the news while Trump was running for presidency then some events can be compared to things that occurred in real life. But numbers, events, and people are twisted in the book. This is a play and it works well as a play. However, the play should not be taken as 100% true. There were many inconsistencies and it was written as though this is what is happening right now.

I did not care for how the author made it seem like Republicans are the enemy. The book clearly leans democratic. It does have some moments where the main character expresses some Republican views. The book just makes it seem like the whole reason the world had been destroyed is due to Nazi Republicans Trump's America. The book is what would happen if the holocaust happened in America.

On another note, I don't think the afterwords in the back of the book were needed. It would have been much better and ended stronger without them. Page 43 is rather childish. It discusses the size of Trump's hands. Throughout the book, Trump is talked down upon. I disagreed with a lot of the viewpoints but at least Rick gets to say his piece on some topics to level out the political spectrum.

All-in-all, I thought most of the book was really funny. I enjoyed how Rick discussed his viewpoints with humor and a dash of truth. I was glad that FEMA camps were mentioned. That is a topic all American's need to be aware of. Due to lack of sources, bashing Trump, and inconsistencies it lost 2 stars. To sum it up, I think it is worth a read if you have the time to fact-check the author.

[Nate · Rating 4 out of 5]

A piece of literature hasn't had such an effect on me in quite a while. While this a brief read, I had to stop to take a breath several times. Very disturbing, and also very plausible.

I honestly believe - and fear - that Donald Trump's presidency is a genocide waiting to happen. This play, while a work of fiction, manifests some of my nightmares.

I am fortunate to be able to interact with a lot of immigrants in my everyday activities, including people of Latinx and Islamic backgrounds. Some of them have become close friends, and I have heard them worry that events like those described in this play may come to pass.

I pray to God that they don't ...

[Roger Briggs · Rating 5 out of 5]

Present calling on the past

Shocking but entirely believable! Afterall we have a recent history to remind us of the ease with which we slip into roles of inhumanity in order to survive, to save our jobs and livelihood. Suddenly we become the perpetrators of crimes against humanity. Echoes of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust are clear here and fair warning of America's future if choses its current course.

[Dave · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mind changing read!

I read this book because it was recommended by an old friend whom I rediscovered on Facebook
Have always been rather left leaning but this was a real eye opener
Commentaries are very informative and with the subject of the story can very well change opinions!

[Rachelle Urist · Rating 4 out of 5]

I loved it. It's a two-harder without much movement, but it kept me in its thrall throughout. The author wrote it in a white heat (in 5 days) following the last presidential election. The play looks ahead to a time when America is "great" again. We're in a fascistic society following the impeachment of Drumpf. A black history professor interviews a former DT henchman, now in solitary confinement awaiting execution for running what sounds like a concentration camp. He oversaw the abuse and murder of thousands of immigrant residents. The country has hardly recovered from the reign of terror that brought about this display of strength and nationalism. Yet here we are. The scandals - and horrors - continue. The convict, "Rick," is an ordinary man. He got caught up in extraordinary times.

[Katy]

I received my copy free through Goodreads Firstreads