| re: I know it's a 100+ year old play, and more spoiler talk |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:08 pm EST 02/21/19 |
| In reply to: re: I know it's a 100+ year old play, and more spoiler talk - Ann 10:42 am EST 02/21/19 |
|
"I know we shouldn't always just be presented with things we agree with, but destructive and restrictive is right. Different from the Mint's usual fare, in which we are shown the relevance of older plays (even if aspects can be recognized as dated - just not usually the denouement)."
I'm not going to comment on criticisms of my review that have been posted here, but I have to say, I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. Are you saying you feel this play should not have been revived because the main character's actions are destructive and restrictive? Is it your impression that the playwright supports that decision? (If so, I completely disagree.) And how is showing someone in power making destructive and restrictive decisions NOT "relevant" to what's happening in the world (and this country) today?
On that same note, as for NewtokUK's comment "I have no idea why the Mint, which I love, would revive a play that in its time 'honored' a man of conviction, no matter how wrong or destructive that conviction is" -- all I can say is, I don't think it's at all clear that the playwright intended to "honor" that character, and I'm very surprised that anyone would be so sure this was her intention. |
|
reply
|
|
| Previous: |
re: I know it's a 100+ year old play, and more spoiler talk - Ann 10:42 am EST 02/21/19 |
| Next: |
re: I know it's a 100+ year old play, and more spoiler talk - Ann 02:50 pm EST 02/21/19 |
| Thread: |
|
