what was detracting about it that makes it less than a 10. and if you think i'm an easy marker, you don't(emphasis on the 'don't' ;-) know me... like i said last week, in my review of part 1...i don't like spoilers. reading or writing, of course... and i feel the other person who wrote a review did a very good job in providing an outline to give people wondering about this work an excellent idea of what to expect...i do feel he left out a few of the women actresses that did stunning work...but that's just it...everyone involved with this performance did it as if they're life, if not their livelihoods depended on it...and, of course, then there's the comparisons...was it as good as 'this production' or 'that production'. i've been to professional(and some damn good amateur) plays around the world. many in ny, including part 1 of this play. i say this production is as good as any other i've seen and i was privileged to witness it...it IS dark in places. very dark, in fact. but it's those places that need exploring if we're ever going to experience resolution...progress. if you have trouble with the material, it might be a good time to give that a look and try and understand why...in any case, if there were flaws, i didn't notice them. this is one of the few works i know i can EASily say deserves all points...writing/acting/staging/'choreography'/lighting/even the sets, as simple as they were were VERY effective as settings for that part of the story...and some of it was ingenious in its practicality AND...not being at all distracting from the story, itself... if anything that's been said sounds interesting, try and catch SOME form of this work...there are few that have been or will ever be as well done and powerfully moving...
