EvanstonDad said: "That one quote pulled out of context sounds snarky, but the article in full seems very complimentary to the actress."
Yes, you're right. (sort of...)
IMO, it's Russell who saves herself from the reporter's stinted/biased commentary with their comments like, "watching this play is what I imagine it would be like to experience the onset of dementia", "Most of the people I spoke to afterwards told me that they enjoyed the play. Two of them even claimed to have understood it. I was not one of them, which colours my ability to appraise Russell’s performance" , and in the same paragraph, "At the same time, Russell has a magnetic, irrepressible stage presence, impossible to look away from as she barrels through the material. I found her fascinating".
FWIW, I have a hard time reconciling the reporter's conflicting duality with their (in)credibility as a writer. I can applaud Russell for how she's handled this interview, with this particular writer. I'm open to the possibility that she's a better actress than the writer is willing to give her credit for.
I have to admit that the article/reporter hasn't really offered any solid perspective on either the play, or the actress so... What's the point?
