GIANT Previews — Page 2

For those who saw it during the latter half of the week, have the sound issues been addressed?

Owen22 said: "I saw this originally at the Royal Court and it really pissed me off! The theme of the play is that well worn Zionist rhetoric that believes those of us who are pro Palestine, anti-Israeli government, are secretly REALLY anti-semites. And it's not even a really good play! Lithgow is phenomenal though."

I’m curious about your reaction. Are you saying the play doesn’t differentiate between being anti Israeli government and anti Israel and lumps them together as all being anti-Semitic? That would be disappointing and reductive and makes me want to sell my tickets for next month.

I’ve not yet seen the play but Dahl did explicitly say he was anti-Israel because of its violent actions in Lebanon in 1982. And he said it repeatedly. And he did use it as a starting off point for further genuinely anti-Semitic comments. Multiple things can be true here at once.

PipingHotPiccolo said: "havent seen the play, but its a hoot that a play about how pro palestinian activism can flirt with, or be coopted by, antisemitism would ruffle the feathers of the very people its clearly commenting on.... if this concept makes you wanna sell your tickets, perhaps youre the perfect audience for the show?"

Is that what the play is about? I didn’t think so.

I saw the play Monday. The sound was fine, and I was sixth row mezzanine. While I was sitting dead center, that’s not really necessary for this show, although there is one pivotal scene towards the end that is at the far left side of the stage (right side for the audience).

John Lithgow is marvelous in this production - he commands the stage, challenging and testing his business associates and fiancée who, for various reasons, are trying to get him to back away from and apologize for a book review about Israel’s 1982 military assault into Lebanon. The fact that this play feels like it was written today, with anti-Israel broadsides that, out of Roald Dahl’s mouth, frequently crosses over into antisemitism gives the play its uncomfortable tension.

Updated On: 3/17/26 at 01:35 AM

I liked the play very much, particularly the writing by Mark Rosenblatt and the exquisite performance by John Lithgow. I would highly recommend it.

I reviewed the play in detail in my substack but below are my reservations about the politics of the play itself, which I see as linked but also separate from its excellence as a play and a production:

"The plea that Jews as a diasporic community should be seen as separate from criminals like Netanyahu is an important one as synagogues are targeted in the US and Europe because of Israel and the US’s military actions. It is a plea that I share myself. But what the play elides or is perhaps complicit with in its elision is that the UK and other European governments have attempted to shut down political criticism of Israel by criminalizing it as antisemitism. And in the US, antisemitism has been criminalized as a tool by an authoritarian government to consolidate power. And beyond that, antisemitism is a visceral reaction, based on ancient hatreds and largely unsusceptible to a debate within the safe confines of the theater.

"So after the audience rose to give Lithgow and the ensemble a deserved standing ovation and as soon as the actors had left the stage, I felt the applause switched off almost immediately like a light switch. Broadway, unlike the West End, is situated in a country where the debate over Israel is forcibly shut down long before it gets to the level where Rosenblatt is letting it play out. Only today, Laquaa Kordia, a student at Columbia University was finally released after a year in an ICE prison simply for exercising her first amendment rights by voicing her horror at the genocide in Gaza."

singleticket's substack - review of GIANT

Updated On: 3/17/26 at 12:45 PM

One of the reasons I admired the play is that it did what the best ‘political’ theater does - the audience was a participant. That was never more apparent than at the end of Act One - when Aya Cash’s Jessie Stone, a Jewish American who has been brought in to explain to John Lithgow’s Roald Dahl how damaging his book review (of a book of photographs of the 1982 Israel-Lebanon war) would be for sales of his upcoming children’s book.

I won’t spoil much here, both what leads up to the clash and the argument itself, but the audience was very much on Stone’s side and the act ends with a bang. While Cash and Lithgow are terrific in the scene, the audience reaction went beyond any debate over the 1982 war or Dahl's personal antisemitism. It was about the present day.

No one has to agree with all of Stone’s arguments, or Dahl’s needling rejoinders, to find all of this thrilling. This is theater as blood sport. It’s going to piss some people off - as has been demonstrated in some comments. And it’s going to make others feel uncomfortable, as I felt more than a few times.

Good! I have seen a few plays that left me uncomfortable, that had a point of view that was deliberately antagonistic toward some members of the audience - to shake them up a little, to get them to think.

Dahl, in some respects, makes for an easy target. But the play features a subplot in which someone has threatened Dahl with physical harm over his review. It was hard not to watch those scenes play out and not think of the armed guards at synagogues and Jewish events today. It’s also quite fair to note the rampant anti-Muslim bigotry that exists in this country as well.

I strongly recommend the play because it is marvelously acted, and Lithgow’s portrayal of Dahl is fascinating in its many shades. One can admire the production without liking everything about it. I’m not sure I agree with the conclusion of sinister teashop’s thoughtful review of Giant - that applause for the excellent performances stopped like a light switch as the audience moved back into the real world. Speaking only for myself, the play has stuck with me. The theater felt alive and very relevant in a way that I found thoroughly refreshing.

ScottK said: "To Mr Sinister Teashop...perhaps your review is biased (unintentionally or not) when referring to the "genocide" in Palestine. Since you didnt attribute the use of that language to Ms. Kordia."

It’s his substack to share his personal opinions, not journalism.

Updated On: 3/18/26 at 09:20 AM

ScottK said: "so that makes it ok?!"

Are you arguing it is not ever okay for somebody to refer to genocide in Palestine?

Updated On: 3/18/26 at 09:48 AM

CORRECT--NOT EVER--it is calamitous, horrible, catastrophic etc--but it is NOT genocide

ScottK said: "CORRECT--NOT EVER--it is calamitous, horrible, catastrophic etc--but it is NOT genocide"

Why not?

ScottK said: "Simply google the definition of "genocide"--the actions are not genocidal--it is a HORRBLE situation but there is NO intent to eliminate Palestinians FROMEXISTING, nor FOR existing--"

I would argue that there's a shocking amount of evidence that Israel has genocidal intent, but I guess if it doesn't come from the Genocide Region then it's just sparkling annihilation.