re: INK ~ thoughts
Posted by: aleck 09:43 am EDT 06/16/19
In reply to: re: INK ~ thoughts - gothamplaygoer 07:21 pm EDT 06/15/19

First, I felt like the script was structured more like a movie script than a theatrical presentation and that the pyrotechnics of the production was compensating for not being a movie. Did the script actually start as a movie script?

Second, I assume that the characters were based on actual people -- besides the obvious Murdock persona that we are familiar with -- and that as Americans we missed out on the fun unlike a knowing British audience would have brought into the theatre with them. For example, the photographer character, which seemed to be so specific, seemed odd to me unless it was a characterized recreation of someone known -- in the UK . Is that accurate? Even our lead editor was so specific that it must have been drawn on a person known. If all that is true, I think we, as an American audience, weren't with it. As a film, I think it could have been another Social Network, but even that movie depended to some degree on preconceived ideas of living people who we as an audience had already formed some opinions. (I did like the sequence when they put together the newspaper -- molten lead and all -- but that too was movie inspired.) But I didn't fall asleep, which is high praise in my book.

Previous: re: INK ~ thoughts - Ann 10:34 am EDT 06/16/19
Next: All of the named characters in INK are real people. (NM) - Seth Christenfeld 11:24 pm EDT 06/17/19

Privacy Policy

Time to render: 0.016124 seconds.