This is sort of an answer, and sort of pondering on what I perceive as some of the short-fallings of the Pitt play--
My father was reminiscing yesterday about going to movies when he was a child in the late 1930's/early 1940's. He and his siblings would spend the entire afternoon seeing movies and newsreels and cartoons, for the vast sum of ten cents. They wouldn’t pay attention to what time a particular movie started, the way we do now. They’d just go when they’d finished their chores, and if they didn’t see the beginning of a movie, it was no big deal.
I’ve read that Hitchcock’s Psycho was a novelty when it came out because the ads said that no one would be seated after the film started. Until that time, this article claimed, people would wander into a movie whenever they wanted, and if they didn’t understand the end, they’d stay and watch the beginning of the next showing.
I don’t know enough about theater history to know if that was how melodramas worked, but I wouldn’t be surprised. Continuity may not have been a big deal. (It isn’t to my DH. His channel surfing amazes me.
If you were watching the Pitt play without Kaye’s edits, and weren’t really concerned about continuity, it might not bother you that the characters were simplistic, their motivations unclear, and that the dead came back to life. Give ‘em a bit of gore, a villain to boo, a hero and heroine to cheer for, and they’re happy. More like a haunted house tour than a story.