Charlie Rose

REMant  01/01/2012 02:47 PM Report

I gather this is a play that wouldn't have been attempted except by someone too young to really understand what was going on. It seems the cast is also less than ideal, both of them too old for their parts, and it really is a very old idea, which the NYT reviewer probably pegged correctly as too cute. Ben Brantley asked why we couldn't instead have an examination of King's struggle with sin, which made me wonder whether the author is really attempting to deny his divinity or actually substantiate the case. While it is true that Jesus' transgressions seem to have been simply removed from the canon - Thomas, for instance, says he was nasty to his mother - the NT message is nevertheless intended precisely to capitalize on identification with a figure we can turn into an intercessor with God, and if she doesn't identify with her waitress and expect other young ppl of her generation to, I'd be surprised. Since we are considering Shakespeare also at the moment I'd proffer that suggesting moral interpretation is always the motive for such historical dramas. BTW, if she really wants to promote small theaters, she can simply avoid selling the rights to Hollywood.