Interesting that we seem to be saying that, if the play is bad, it's the author's fault... even though, by its very nature, theatre is a collaborative venture. Yes, someone wrote it, but a whole bunch of other people are now responsible for bringing it to life. The best play in the world can be a terrifyingly bad experience if it has a director with no concept and a cast with no clue -- and when you're dealing with something as difficult as OUR TOWN, there are so many pot holes in that road that it takes someone with vision to pull it off well.
But see, we have this idea that because something is a classic, people *should* appreciate it for its just being a classic -- and as such, most productions cut corners. I can think of only a few Shakespeare where I left the theatre as enthralled as I could be. As much as I love reading Marlowe, I've *never* seen a production that rises to what I think the material gives one to play with. And dont get me started on how the Hellenic Greek works have been treated over the centuries -- if theres any area of theatre where we have absolutely no idea how to approach something, it's Aeschylus and Sophocles.
Now, at the same time, we also bandy the word "classic" around a litle too easily these days. Such and such is a "classic for the ages", so and so is an "actress destined for immortality". If everything we *call* a classic actually becomes one, God help theatre students of the future...
http://docandraider.com