data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f5d1e/f5d1e80290ffab95afe0d90bc666c2d2d3aa2474" alt=""
On the night I attended (October 6), lawyer and consultant Judith Kaye moderated. The panelists were Wayne Outten, an expert in employment law, and Susan Sangillo Bellifemine, who works in mediation and arbitration. First, the moderator posed questions to the panel, but then the audience was given the chance to weigh in. It became a passionate discussion, with opinions running the spectrum. More people seemed to come out in favor of John, though few thought he was blameless. There were the two older women near me who staunchly defended John as a nice man only trying to help Carol. There was a teenage girl explaining why Carol could be viewed as a sympathetic character. Some interesting theories came out of the discussion, including the fact that the "group" Carol constantly refers to might be in her head, which I had never even considered. Sadly, the conversation was restricted to 20 minutes, but I'm sure it could have gone on for another couple of hours as people were still anxiously waving their hands at the end. I'm probably one of the few people who love the play itself, and it is because of the ambiguity that allows for such different interpretations. This is what theater should do--spark discussion.
For discount tickets to the show through November 15, visit BroadwayOffers.com and enter code OLMKT93.
If you see the show, be sure to watch other reactions online after or weigh in on Twitter, though I hardly think that 140 characters is sufficient room.
2 comments:
I'm in complete agreement with you on all counts, including how polarizing the show has been. Case in point: I can't believe I've seen the same show reading through some of the reviews, but yours is on the money.
Thanks Steve!
Post a Comment