mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/16/85)
[Note: this article has be cross-posted because of its obvious relevance to the three groups. I suggest, however, that if anyone wishes to discuss it we should move to net.theatre so as not to have to wade through the Amazing Stories on the one hand and the Libertarians on the other.] Tonight I had the privelege (through the offices of PBS) of seeing "Master Harold and the Boys". For those of you who have not heard about it, it is a play about the social and personal effects of aparthied. If you haven't seen it, I strongly recommend catching the inevitable rerun (watch for it on _Great Performances_. Even though I missed the first 15 minutes due to a balky TV, I still found it a powerful and illuminating experience. One thing that struck me about the play was that, for a play ostensibly about the effects of a political system, it wasn't especially political. Harold's troubles were as much caused by his own immaturity and hypocrisy, and by the choice they forced upon him, as by the racial tensions. Indeed, without his problems, it seemed to me that the racial problem would not have surfaced at all. As a play about moral development, though, it made a very strong and eloquent case-- not only with respect to race, but with respect to all sorts of self-importance and hypocrisy. From an acting point of view, Matthew Broderick's character (Master Harold) is certainly very difficult. He's very complicated, and he has to be an ass without being despicable. I don't think Broderick embarrassed himself, but playing a heel doesn't quite fit on him. His anger doesn't quite convince me either. But he has clearly picked up a lot of range, and I think he will continue to improve. But *please*, no more casting him with phony British accents, please? Willie is clearly the supporting character in this; he was very well played (unfortunately, I can't remember the name of the guy who played the part). The other fellow (egad this is embarrasing! I can't even remember the name of the PART!) was really impressive. It's a part which requires combining immense dignity and wisdom while avoiding any trace of self-importance or pomposity. It was carried off splendidly. I really wish I had had the opportunity to see this on the stage; visually, it would be good as a movie, but being a one-act play I don't know that it would survive the transition to the screen dramatically. Comments? Discussion? Charley Wingate
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (11/19/85)
I think that it was more effective as a television performance than it would be as a stage play (heresy, I know). I think that you would lose much of the facial expression seeing it as a play. I saw SWEENEY TODD twice on the stage and once on cable. It was best on the cable for the same reason. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
render@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (11/21/85)
Written 9:39 pm Nov 18, 1985 by leeper@mtgzz.UUCP: > I think that it was more effective as a television performance than it > would be as a stage play (heresy, I know). I think that you would lose > much of the facial expression seeing it as a play. I saw SWEENEY TODD > twice on the stage and once on cable. It was best on the cable for > the same reason. Not having seen this particular play, I agree that television does seem to serve as a better medium for portraying certain types of plays than does the stage. While on the subject, did anyone other than me see the televised version of "Death of a Salesman" with Dustin Hoffman? I thought it was incredible, yet no one else even mentioned it to the best of my recollection. I would hold this up as one example of an excellent blending the power of the close-up for isolating and intensifying a scene's emotional impact along with the stage technique of using the limited backgrounds for abstracting the visual quality of a scene. I wonder how much the tone of the play would change, however, given that all the dialogue must be spoken loud enough to reach the back of the theatre? Perhaps someone who has seen the play on stage as well as the televised production could comment. Hal Render, a non-supercomputing Illini University of Illinois (It ain't much to look at, but it sure is flat) {pur-ee, ihnp4} ! uiucdcs ! render render@uiuc.csnet render@uiuc.arpa
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/22/85)
In article <1424@mtgzz.UUCP> leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) writes: [In reference to my expressed desire to see the play in person] >I think that it was more effective as a television performance than it >would be as a stage play (heresy, I know). I think that you would lose >much of the facial expression seeing it as a play. I saw SWEENEY TODD >twice on the stage and once on cable. It was best on the cable for >the same reason. On reflection, Mark has a point. I remember fanatically watching "Nicholas Nickleby" on PBS. I'm fairly certain that I could not have survived the play in person, and I do think a lot of expression (and just being able to see things) came through better on the tube. Anyone think of other examples, or have an opinion on the practice in general? [enter flamethrower from right] I'm rather pleased to see _American Playhouse_ and _Great Performances_ continued survival. If there's one thing that sends me up the wall about PBS, it's the way that so much of it is BBC re-runs-- I except _Great Railway Journeys of the World_, but only because it's about railroading (and did anyone notice how patronizing the show about american railroads was?). I have no problem with such re-runs per se; it's their elevation (in the form of the likes of _Masterpiece Theatre_) that grates on me. Why don't we have the BBC set up a cable channel here instead? Now THAT's something for the Who-ies! [Exit flamethrower through trapdoor] Charley Wingate
jeffj@sfmin.UUCP (J.S.Jonas) (12/03/85)
In article <2301@ucmp-cs.UUCP) Charley Wingate writes: >In article <1424@mtgzz.UUCP> leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) writes: >[In reference to my expressed desire to see the play in person] > >>I think that it was more effective as a television performance than it >>would be as a stage play (heresy, I know). I think that you would lose >>much of the facial expression seeing it as a play. I saw SWEENEY TODD >>twice on the stage and once on cable. It was best on the cable for >>the same reason. > >On reflection, Mark has a point. I remember fanatically watching "Nicholas >Nickleby" on PBS. I'm fairly certain that I could not have survived the >play in person, and I do think a lot of expression (and just being able to >see things) came through better on the tube. Anyone think of other >examples, or have an opinion on the practice in general? Here with an opposing viewpoint is Jeffrey: I saw Sweeney Todd on Broadway and cannot even believe that you are comparing that *EXPERIENCE* with tv. Going to a show with REAL LIVE ACTORS is a human endeavor. It is an interaction of the actors with a live audience which TV cannot capture. I have to keep reminding myself that those are *PEOPLE* on the stage, not puppets or electronic images. They command more respect and give an immense effort. On stage, you cannot stop and re-take. The result may not be as polish as a TV production which can be edited and photographed to focus your attention where the director wants you to look. But in the theater, nobody tells you where to look. You have to decide yourself where the action is (it can be anywhere on the stage, offstage, or even in the audience). That's where the big difference lies. A TV, even a big screen projection TV only fills part of your field of vision. Movies are better, but in a play the ENTIRE ROOM is modified *EXPRESSLY FOR EXPERIENCING THAT PARTICULAR PLAY*. SWEENEY TODD went to extremes by placing a foundry around the curtainless stage. I often examined the pipes looking for images, since it was portraying something to set the mood and create some imagery. And I cannot believe your stereo can do justice to the factory whistle (which was ear-splitting on purpose). You are surrounded by the set and are immersed in the atmosphere. Anyway, going to the theater is supposed to be FUN. Another example: CATS blurs the boundary between stage and audience by having a stage that blends into the audience, and having the cats prowl throughout the audience throughout the play. They enter and exit from all directions, even from the audience. The action is all around you at all times. Barnum had the clowns/jugglers/etc circulating through the audience only before the play. But the point is: even a holographic TV cannot provide that interaction and involvement. It is flat, or barely 3D, and only in front of you. It cannot surround you, but then again, you don't miss anything by going to the bathroom (just use that pause button). 'nuff said Jeff 'god that's good!' Skot {ihnp4 | cbosgd | mcnc ...} attunix ! jeffj
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (12/05/85)
>Here with an opposing viewpoint is Jeff 'god that's good!' >Skot > >I saw Sweeney Todd on Broadway and cannot even believe that >you are comparing that *EXPERIENCE* with tv. Going to a >show with REAL LIVE ACTORS is a human endeavor. Having a bunch of fellow humans go through and mouth the same lines day after day is a human endeavor? I suppose. >It is an interaction of the actors with a live audience which >TV cannot capture. I was way at the back of the auditorium. I unless the actors had telescopic vision they probably couldn't see me, much less interact with me. The only human interaction I was having was the little girl behind me who kept kicking my seat. Now I have had really good seats for some plays, and it does help. But in some of the giant auditoriums on Broadway only a small fraction of the audience is better off than if they had the advantages that the cinematic media provide, like getting a good look at the actor's faces. >I have to keep reminding myself that those >are *PEOPLE* on the stage, not puppets or electronic images. Ah, a people-chauvanist! Maybe if you had to remind yourself they were people, you were in the row behind me. >They command more respect and give an immense effort. Some do, some don't. Some get tired of the roles after playing them over and over. >On >stage, you cannot stop and re-take. The result may not be >as polish as a TV production which can be edited and >photographed to focus your attention where the director >wants you to look. But in the theater, nobody tells you >where to look. You have to decide yourself where the action >is (it can be anywhere on the stage, offstage, or even in >the audience). That is a double-edged sword. I could say I prefer cinema for just the same reason. You are seeing the best that the director could get out of the scene in every scene in cinema. In theater, you could easily miss it. >That's where the big difference lies. A TV, even a big >screen projection TV only fills part of your field of >vision. Movies are better, but in a play the ENTIRE ROOM is >modified *EXPRESSLY FOR EXPERIENCING THAT PARTICULAR PLAY*. You mean that little stage at the far end of the room? You ought to see a doctor about that tunnelvision problem of yours. Or are you saying the little girl kicking the seat is part of the performance? >SWEENEY TODD went to extremes by placing a foundry around >the curtainless stage. I often examined the pipes looking >for images, since it was portraying something to set the >mood and create some imagery. And I cannot believe your >stereo can do justice to the factory whistle (which was >ear-splitting on purpose). You are surrounded by the set >and are immersed in the atmosphere. Anyway, going to the >theater is supposed to be FUN. Yes, that was all very nice. I am not saying it is all one way or the other. I am just saying that there are tradeoffs and I prefer to see the actors' expressions. They are two different experiences. I like both, but most people -- members of my family included -- think that a live play is far superior. I think that much more can be done with a film. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper