A play should have barely been rescued from the mess it might just as easily have been.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I'm not suggesting that the play is without fault; all of my plays are imperfect, I'm rather happy to say-it leaves me something to do.
It's a mistake to try to use play to deliberately foster developmental progress.
I always felt the play came first. If it didn't touch me, I'd say forget the part.
A good play puts the audience through a certain ordeal.
The idea of a rupture between acts occurs in a number of my plays.
I didn't like the play, but then I saw it under adverse conditions - the curtain was up.
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.
When we watch a play under the standard circumstances, we've lost volition and time is passing. A still play feels like an existential threat.
He was the only person caught in the collapse, and afterward, most of his work was recovered too, and it is still spoken of, when it is noted, with high regard, though seldom played.
Playing Fagin in the play and film was a small miracle.
No opposing quotes found.