Quote:
|
I don't consider that at all logical. To the contrary, it's ridiculous, but I think you know that.
|
I know nothing of the kind.
What you said in your post was this
"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with plays is the gritty little details are often not true, which leads the play goers to think they know the true story, when in fact they don't."
If gritty little details are a problem because they lead the audience to believe they know the story when they dont, what would you suggest as a solution? Fewer gritty details? Or a change of subject matter to be quite sure they dont get the wrong impression? Maybe a disclaimer at the start of the play? I was pointing out a stylistic feature of the play and the playwrite, you suggested that it may be problematic. Personally I disagree with you. I dont think that is a common problem with theatre production. More of a problem with the Hollywood productions of historically inaccurate and underesearched films I'd have thought.
Besides, since this play was primarily about one of the survivors and her story as told by her ....I think it can be taken as having some accuracy. It wont tell you the whole story of My Lai, but it will tell one of the stories of My Lai fairly well.
I am not even remotely surprised at your disdain for Michael Moore fans ( of which I am one) I'll take that idiot label and wear it with pride ;P ....and when all the smoke clears and the House of Bush and all it's acolytes are shown for the scoundrels they are and Moore's work is vindicated I'll polish my label up nice and shiny and make sure I wear it every place I go