When it comes to what choice Mick had other than to succumb to violence in the beginning, it seems clear to me that his other choice would have been to not be violent and to allow the (putting it mildly) caustic and verbally abusive situation to continue to happen to his sister. As an audience member I found I could empathize with Mick’s decision (not condone it maybe, but definitely empathize) and this choice sets up the rest of the story to see the mushroom cloud that comes from that one split-second decision, and it’s a cloud that lingers for years and hangs over every single character in the play.

I also loved the language. There are many references to volcanoes in the play, which (to me) served as apt metaphors for many of the characters- these are people who are under difficult circumstances and a lot of pressure, and it seems to be only a matter of time before there’s some sort of eruption coming from the group (and indeed that eruption does come at the climax of the play). I didn’t see this language as being overly poetic or irrelevant at all, I thought it gave each character a unique voice that in turn helped to articulate their internal struggles and ultimately tell their story better.

I highly recommend this play to anyone who is considering going to see it. The two actors do give a tour-de-force performance while telling a very interesting story about the choices made by a family (and specifically one man’s choice that sets off the chain reaction- actually now that I think about it, the metaphor of an atom bomb is very apt for this play, since we see that explosive chain reaction rip a nuclear family apart- a nuclear explosion if you will pardon me) who find themselves in an extremely difficult and prolonged situation. It all adds up to a very satisfying evening of theater.

Apologies to great teachers.

All directors are knocked around between this pillar: Gotta make it entertaining … box office gross is GOD; and this post: Provide a moral … the liberal mindset of many, maybe most, viewers of cinema likes to feel good so that those w/that faux social conscience can sit back and … do nothing.

Seeing movies ought to be, in an impossibly perfect world, motivation-stimulus, not motivation-anesthetic.

“Django” was the 1st movie I’d seen since “The Hobbit” which was the 1st I’d seen in at least a year. My younger son took me to see the latter because the Trilogy was our last joint cinematic experience before he was old enough to drive himself and dispense w/dad. It was motivation-stim for him to renew the closer relationship, though, technically, the particular movie didn’t provide the stim, but the pleasant memories associated with Tolkien/Jackson.

My older son, on the occasion of another and recent important renewal, played the “Django” DVD for all of us gathered together. Tarantino films, that son’s fave, had never been attractive personally; all at the pillar, no post. Sitting down to watch “Django” w/the verylow expectation of being un-treated to “The Wild Bunch” redux, there was, un-expectedly motivation stim.

There being no Tarantino comment (as far as I know) on the script itself, but, also, understanding that, when the messages start to pile very high, the stim is intended, not some accident of fortuitous writing.

The foremost moral (for me): Envision all those slaves as modern white Americans, especially Samuel L., and get the awful condition of our society rammed down your consciousness w/manymany bullets. DiCaprio renders, for me, an excellent send-up performance of the King of Pimps, David Rockefeller. And, Christof Waltz, as appropriately, a non-American character, underscores the enormous gulf between the obscenely bigoted culture in white-male-dominated, Red-State Murrica and most other national cultures embarrassingly more enlightened that ours.

The foregoing moralizing is thick and going downhill fast as it gains fat, so full stop.

Except … for an increased desire to make a difference in our selfish-centric country.