Such a thoughtful post, Alan.
What set me off is the bifurcated aspect of Green's review, two almost contradictory responses. To all of your points, Green unavoidably re-reviews the source material in lavish detail, again finding it wanting, and then takes Lloyd to task for his deconstruction. If in Green's view the show is a seriously flawed translation of the film (Green goes so far as to reductively call it "silly,") why not meet halfway a staging that jettisons the reality-based verisimilitude? In the end - and it's an especially long review - Green can only prescriptively tell a director that his talents would be better applied on a better show. It's such a rarefied close, indifferent to the audience, more concerned with communicating with the artist than the Times readers. To me, it makes the entire purpose of the pan elitist and suspect. |
