Since Sutton addressed me directly, I figure now's as good a time as any to respond:
"Why do you think the actor's age will be the same age as the character's? It makes absolutely no sense." You're correct. Or, you would be had I made that assumption. In my own post, I myself mention Denzel has a habit of reading younger than his age, an acknowledgment that would run counter to the idea that I was assuming the characters' age based on the actor playing him.
"And once again, the playwright never specified the ages of the characters."
This has been flatly proven false.
"You're just going off the actors that have played the role before."
This is also flatly false, as I in fact do not mention a single previous performer and state an objection strictly based in the text and the relationships it requires.
Given that you, in later posts, have agreed with my point of view, your post addressed to me is altogether incoherent.
Words don't deserve that kind of malarkey. They're innocent, neutral, precise, standing for this, describing that, meaning the other, so if you look after them you can build bridges across incomprehension and chaos. But when they get their corners knocked off, they're no good anymore…I don't think writers are sacred, but words are. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.