In the first place, it must be remembered that our point of view in examining the construction of a play will not always coincide with that which we occupy in thinking of its whole dramatic effect.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
In reading plays, however, it should always be remembered that any play, however great, loses much when not seen in action.
I've seen plays that are, objectively, total messes that move me in ways that their tidier brethren do not. That's the romantic mystery of great theater. Translating this ineffability into printable prose is a challenge that can never be fully met.
Plays are about understanding what happens, what it means. If we just leaned into the story, for lack of a better word, it would still be a powerful story but, like delight, it might disappear an hour after you saw it.
A play, after all, is a mystery. There's no narration. And as soon as there's no narration, it's open to interpretation. It must be interpreted. You don't have a choice... Each play can become many things.
I get the impression sometimes that a play arrives in a sequence of events that I have no control over.
A play should give you something to think about. When I see a play and understand it the first time, then I know it can't be much good.
A good play puts the audience through a certain ordeal.
Above all, in comedy, and again and again since classical times, passages can be found in which the level of representation is interrupted by references to the spectators or to the fictive nature of the play.
You know, essentially when you do a play you're reinterpreting a work of art that already exists. That's not what happens with a movie.
Any play that's making a point is less interesting than something that stays with you and suggests something further.