It it simply too much to type. W1 take massive umbrage with Simone Weil as a worthy subject in the first place …
W2: I don’t think it’s fair – you all presented all kinds of things –
W4: I wonder about the politics of this piece – that you started with her story – Brecht wouldn’t have staged it this way
W3: We also didn’t get so much about her thought – we got anecdotes, but not her books. The play is speaking in some way for her, but I would love to know more about her philosophy.
W1: At intermission, someone asked, at what point does your sympathy for a bad text – despite the desire to please the director, etc. – over-ride your taste.
DL: the reason Gideon’s presentation about SW’s work is short, is because I asked him to make it short, because we have to enforce theatrical values. Just like the Iraqis are coming to the New Museum because the New Museum is the only place that’s going to pay them.
DL: One of the good things about dabbling with participation at a theatre is that theatre is already fake – so there’s a natural suspicion – which seems very different and healthy with respect to the art world …
And with this, Colleen Werthmann – brave, bold, and put-upon – once more channels the oft-cited frenchwoman …
“If our thoughts have any meaning at all, these questions demand answers as a hungry mouth demands food …”
And she is ferocious!