John Lithgow in GIANT as Raold Dahl Who Won't Back Down From Antisemitic Rhetoric

The Broadway play GIANT stands a lofty head above the typical feel good fare on the Great White Way.   Railed Dahl's unabashed antisemitism, and unapologetic, hateful sentiments are given fair play in this cerebral drama that makes one mull over matters long past the curtain calls.  For example, when is it acceptable to maintain your discordant opinions? Where do you draw the line at hateful speech? Can and should we separate the artist from the art?  These pertinent and pressing questions are meaningful concerns for debate. The material cleverly delivered in undisguised dialogues that lingered in one's conscious long after having this engrossing production ends.  The play treads into unsavory views held by the Railed Dahl, that beloved children's author. Dahl freely made public and adamantly refused to mitigate his forthright antisemitic sentiments despite pressure from his American Publisher and coaxing from his betrothed, actress Patricia O'Neal. Dahl's short stories and many of his children stories are notoriously dark yet compelling for their imaginative storytelling.  Reading some of Dahl's memorable stories to children doesn't necessitate consideration of his philosophies or bigotries.  But once acknowledged, does or should this render the stories any less poignant or possessing of merit to its audience? As much as I found Dahl's didactic attack aimed at the American publisher who wagered a verbal battle with Dahl to remit an apology for his distasteful comments, I couldn't help but admire his fortitude for maintaining his opinions.  This one act, one set production is within the chaotic folds of interior renovations in Dahl's estate. The hanging tarps and saw-horse tables sustained an edgy and unkempt sensibility. Dahl's longtime friend and British editor happened to be Jewish. His editor was dismissive if not somewhat tolerant of his lucrative author.  Or so it seemed until push came to shove and certain things said couldn't be unsaid.  Asking what circumstances call for drawing a line in the sand?  What is permissible and what is repugnant behavior; not to be tolerated. The garrulous play is energetic and engaging within its sparse framework echoed within the confines of its raw set design. As the discussion becomes more heated, Dahl digs his heels in deeper raising more quandaries. Does vehemence and anger serve to convince someone of their misguided convictions or does this only serve to build more roadblocks for acquiescence?  Again, the biggest enigma to take away from this intelligent and thought provoking play is which parties were out of bounds?  Those who maintained their unpopular and distasteful views or the those whose tolerance for opinions outside one's own are more subject to disdain for being intolerant?  There's no question that the writing, acting and animated debates made for a drama that is not to be missed with its abundant fodder for future discourse.