It’s all in the interpretation.
Similar to“Arsenic and Old Lace,” question of intent versus result are very strong here. Because the playwright intended a drama, but landed with a comedy, does that make the message less meaningful? Or, for that matter, does it comment more on the reader, who’s comedic reading of a serious play might just reveal too much about themselves?
A well paced two hander that reinforces PMW as a master of subtle and nuanced dialogue. Well done!

As a playwright, are producers truly supposed to understand where the story is coming from and its intentions? Well for Claude, his intentions are final and will do nothing to stop getting his play produced the way he wants it done; the right way. WILLIAMS’ play “Stop Laughing With Me” is a look at just that. What does it truly mean to have your play produced the way the playwright intended. I want to see this produced. Lovely. Masterful. Well done!

Do we achieve our intentions when writing a play? Does the reader get what we expected, or do they respond more truly than we realize to what we actually wrote? Maybe Claude Balz's (Balls?) play is funnier than he thinks he is, or maybe producer Sid just doesn't get the intended serious meaning. Who knows. Either way, Philip's delightful short reminds me of Oscar Wilde's classic line about Dickens's "Old Curiosity Shop": “One must have a heart of stone to read the death of little Nell without laughing.”