Mark Rosenblatt’s play Giant isn't just another theatrical biopic. It’s a claustrophobic, uncomfortable look at a literary icon caught in a self-inflicted storm. If you grew up on Matilda or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the reality of Roald Dahl’s personal views might feel like a gut punch. But the play doesn't look away. It focuses on a specific, ugly moment in 1983 when Dahl’s public outbursts forced his publishers and friends to confront a side of him that many had tried to ignore for years.
The 1983 Review That Changed Everything
Most people think Dahl’s reputation took a hit recently because of modern "cancel culture." That’s wrong. The backlash started decades ago, specifically in the summer of 1983. Dahl wrote a review of God Cried, a book about the Lebanon War, for the Literary Review. Instead of sticking to the book, he launched into a tirade against Israel and Jewish people. He didn't use coded language. He was blunt. He claimed that "even a stinker like Hitler" didn't pick on Jewish people for no reason.
This wasn't a slip of the tongue. It was a published, deliberate statement. Giant centers on the fallout of this specific review. It captures the tension at Gipsy House, Dahl’s home, as his American publisher Tom Maschler and Jewish marketing director Hallie Rubenhold arrive to do damage control. They weren't just worried about his image. They were worried about the books. They were worried about the legacy of a man who could write with such whimsy for children while harboring such vitriol for a specific group of people.
Why Dahl Refused to Apologize
Dahl was notoriously stubborn. In his mind, he was a truth-teller. He often conflated his anger toward Israeli government policy with an entire global population. This is a distinction he rarely bothered to make. When confronted, he doubled down. In an interview with the New Statesman shortly after the review, he said there was a "trait in the Jewish character" that "does provoke animosity."
It’s hard to reconcile that man with the one who wrote about the BFG. Giant works because it highlights this friction. John Lithgow, playing Dahl, portrays him as a man of massive contradictions. He’s charming, then cruel. He’s brilliant, then incredibly ignorant. The play suggests that Dahl’s cruelty wasn't a bug; it was a feature of his personality. The same dark edge that makes his children's books so captivating—the way he punishes the "bad" characters—was present in his real-world prejudices.
The Complicated Role of the Roald Dahl Story Company
For years, the estate stayed relatively quiet about this. That changed in 2020. The Roald Dahl Story Company issued a discreet apology on their website. They admitted that Dahl’s antisemitic comments were "incomprehensible" and "stand in marked contrast to the man we knew."
Why then? Why wait nearly thirty years after his death?
The timing coincided with massive deals, including the Netflix acquisition of his catalog. From a business perspective, the "Dahl brand" needed to be scrubbed. You can’t build a multi-billion dollar "Dahl-verse" if the creator is widely viewed as a bigot. But an apology on a website doesn't change the history. It doesn't change the fact that Dahl’s views were well-known during his lifetime. People just chose to look the other way because the books were so profitable and beloved.
Dealing with the Dark Side of Childhood Classics
So, what do we do with the books? This is the question every parent and reader faces. Some argue for separating the art from the artist. They say the stories belong to the readers now, not the man who wrote them. Others find the books tainted.
If you look closely at his work, you can sometimes see the shadows of his prejudices. The original Oompa-Loompas were African pygmies brought over in crates. After heavy criticism, Dahl eventually rewrote them as the orange-faced creatures we know today. This shows he was capable of change when pressured, but his fundamental worldview remained largely fixed.
What Giant Gets Right About Literary Legacies
The play doesn't offer an easy way out. It doesn't end with a heartwarming realization or a sincere apology. Instead, it leaves the audience with the messiness of human nature. Dahl was a war hero, a grieving father, a genius storyteller, and a man who held deeply hateful views. All those things were true at the same time.
Giant forces us to look at the people around Dahl too. The enablers. The publishers who knew what he was but needed his next bestseller. It’s a reminder that fame often grants people a pass for behavior that wouldn't be tolerated in anyone else. The play makes it clear that the "giant" in the title isn't just Dahl—it’s the massive, looming problem of his character that everyone tried to hide.
How to Approach Dahl Today
If you're a fan, you don't have to burn your books. But you shouldn't ignore the history either. Understanding the man behind the stories gives you a more complete picture of the literature. It allows for a more critical way of reading.
- Read the biographies. Jeremy Treglown’s biography is a good start if you want an unvarnished look at his life.
- Talk to your kids. If they’re old enough for The Witches, they’re old enough to know that even talented people can have wrong ideas.
- Support the theater. Plays like Giant are vital because they challenge us to think rather than just consume.
The legacy of Roald Dahl is a permanent part of the literary world. We can't erase him, and we probably shouldn't. But we can stop putting him on a pedestal. We can acknowledge the brilliance of the stories while remaining clear-eyed about the flaws of the storyteller. The conversation sparked by Giant isn't about erasing the past—it’s about finally telling the whole story.
Check your local theater listings for Giant or look for the published script. Seeing these conversations played out on stage is far more impactful than reading a sanitized biography. It’s time to stop ignoring the uncomfortable parts of our favorite stories and start dealing with them head-on.
.png?width=1200&auto=webp&trim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0)
