GIANT Previews- Page 2

[theatergoer3]

Posted: 3/13/26 at 8:34am

It’s definitely less than Salesman for a recent example.

Caught this last night as well. Hard to see Lithgow not winning as much I as liked Lane and Strong earlier this season.

If Levy misses a nom (I’d probably even give him the win as of right now), that’d be a massive miss by the committee. I think his monologue in Act 2 could be enough of a moment to get him in. 

I could see Cash getting in but 

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

I think they need to slightly rework her big act 1 ending moment. It feels a tad overwritten; saying it once and then the lights going down would be more forceful or impactful. But it got applause so maybe I’m in the minority. 

Could see Stirling getting in as well.

Play is good with some great sparring scenes. I think the middle of act 2 stumbles a bit but it recovers nicely. 

[bear882]

Posted: 3/14/26 at 9:56pm

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

[binau]

Posted: 3/15/26 at 3:22am

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 was wondering if this play would trigger this. I accept that you should be able to be Pro Palestine and critical of the government of Israel without being accused of being an anti-semite, but at the same time how many more jews have to die in terrorist attacks in Australia, the UK and US before you can see that there is certainly an uncomfortable line that many are crossing when it comes to these issues? Never in my life did I believe I would see the amount of anti-semitism I see on a daily basis across the west now, including flyers in my OWN STREET suggesting that October the 7th was a completely justified event. What country am I living in? 

If you're not an anti-semite that's fine I don't think you need to be triggered, but let's not pretend it isn't happening right now and the play does have something important to say about it in my opinion in a tasteful way without being TOO preachy. 

Updated On: 3/15/26 at 03:22 AM

[Dreamboy3]

Posted: 3/15/26 at 8:56am

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. 

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 3/15/26 at 9:03am

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? 

[Kad]

Posted: 3/15/26 at 9:04am

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. 

[quizking101]

Posted: 3/15/26 at 9:12am

Dreamboy3 said: “I’m curious about your reaction. Are you saying the play doesn’t differentiatebetween 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."

When I saw it twice earlier this week, a larger chunk of Act II seems to grapple with this exact question with some additional nuance about Dahl himself as a person (within the context of the play). It’s certainly not a reductive approach by my assessment.

[sinister teashop]

Posted: 3/15/26 at 9:19am

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.

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 3/15/26 at 11:43am

Kad said: "I’ve not yet seen the play but Dahl didexplicitly 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."

i have not seen the show but i know plenty about Dahl. Someone who mingled his antiSemitism with his pro Palestinian beliefs. That overlap is very common today and is surely what the play explores. If the play suggests that anyone who is pro Palestinian hates Jews, its silly trash, as it would be if it suggested that anyone who is anti Semitic is a champion for Palestinian autonomy.

i cant believe this team, or Lithgow, would participate in something so ignorant, so I am guessing it explores the gray area overlap between the two- and how dahl conflated the two, and what not.

the people who refuse to see it from either side of the political question are precisely the people who should see it.

[bear882]

Posted: 3/17/26 at 1:35am

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

[Dreamboy3]

Posted: 3/17/26 at 9:03am

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?"

If you were responding to my comment then:  (a) given that you haven’t seen the play then I’m not sure why you bothered to respond and (b) you completely missed my point.

Thanks to those who have seen the play and offered thoughtful responses - I am eager to see plays that illuminate nuances on this topic. 

[sinister teashop]

Posted: 3/17/26 at 12:45pm

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

[SteveSanders]

Posted: 3/17/26 at 7:09pm

Jesse Green NYT profile of Lithgow.

"The Man Who Would Go Anywhere

Is there anyone John Lithgow can’t — or won’t — play?"

[bear882]

Posted: 3/18/26 at 2:34am

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]

Posted: 3/18/26 at 9:12am

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.

[Kad]

Posted: 3/18/26 at 9:20am

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]

Posted: 3/18/26 at 9:29am

so that makes it ok?!

[Kad]

Posted: 3/18/26 at 9:48am

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

[nycward]

Posted: 3/18/26 at 9:59am

Saw this last night and liked the play which made me feel uncomfortable quite often. Yes, that was the point indeed. Can someone help me understand the choice for this ugly ass set that doesn't do anything to support the actors or the play? I've tried to rationalize it but I keep coming up empty.

[ScottK]

Posted: 3/18/26 at 10:10am

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

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 3/18/26 at 11:06am

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

And you have now made your bias absolutely clear. So you're even. 

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 3/18/26 at 11:09am

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

Why not?

[ScottK]

Posted: 3/18/26 at 11:38am

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

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 3/18/26 at 1:14pm

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.

[gibsons2]

Posted: 3/18/26 at 4:05pm

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."

Why is genocide in quotation marks?