knutsonk@stolaf.UUCP (Kari E. Knutson) (03/01/86)
> I can guess why Ken Keasey refuses to watch the movie. Compared to the > play the movie stinks. I saw a professional production of the play > about a year before the movie came out. The play was fantastic. In > ... > the movie was almost nill. I realize that it usually is better to see > a live production rather than a filmed one, but the extreme here was too > much. I kind of disagree with this particular comparison between live and filmed productions. A case in point, at least for me, is the film of "Jesus Christ Superstar." I saw a stage production in Liverpool about a year ago, and was sadly disappointed by it. Perhaps this is because I saw a less than premium staged version, or because I saw the film first. I am sure I would have enjoyed the stage production more in its own right had I seen the original, but I was < 10 years old in the mid-seventies... "Jesus Christ Superstar" seems very constrained when seen on the stage, because of the "openness" of the setting in the film; the tremendous visual impact depends to a certain extent on the starkness of the general setting (and the humour, so to speak, in the sets they created). Some stage shows I am looking forward to seeing in film form: Cats Chess (So I like Time Rice and Andrew LLoyd Webber...:-) The only other show I have seen in both film and stage form is "Godspell." In this case, though, I think the film has not changed my perceptions of the stage shows I saw. (I saw it on stage first) I was tired and a little bored, though... -- Kari Knutson ...ihnp4!stolaf!knutsonk When St. Olaf wants my opinion, they'll give it to me.
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (03/05/86)
> > Just saw Cuckoos Nest again on WGN... > > Anyway, I have heard that Ken Kesey refuses to watch the > movie (maybe I got this from a trivial pursuit question??) > Does anybody know the specifics of why he feels that way? > Is it because the Chief isn't narrating the story, as > he did in the book? > > rob graber I was quite disappointed with the movie. I can understand why Kesey refuses to watch it. The movie has none of the book's imagery, and the basic point of the story is weakened by the shallowness of the movie version of McMurphy. The movie never convinced me that society is a "combine". It seemed more like the story about a particular punk in an insane asylum who, after much provocation from a nasty nurse, loses his temper and gets a lobotomy in return. Some specific disappointments were: Not seeing *any* of Big Chief Broom's hallucinations. The way Chief Bromden's ability to hear and speak was revealed in the movie; he simply said "Thanks" when McMurphy gave him a piece of gum. That's it. In the book, this led to a long conversation. The lack of any hint in the movie that McMurphy's continued defiance of the Big Nurse was actually a self-sacrifice, and not simply stubborn self-interest. The way the World Series incident was wrapped up. I thought this was much better in the book. Not only did McMurphy handle himself with more dignity, but the other patients actually went along with him. I know a lot of people think the movie is very good. My guess is that most of these people saw the movie before they read the book (if they read the book at all). I guess the movie version is a good enough story on its own, but it's disappointing if one expects the same feeling that the book creates. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (03/07/86)
In article <5128@stolaf.UUCP> knutsonk@stolaf.UUCP (Kari E. Knutson) writes: >Some stage shows I am looking forward to seeing in film form: > Cats > Chess >(So I like Time Rice and Andrew LLoyd Webber...:-) I personally believe "Cats" to be unfilmable. What are you going to do with it? Dress people up in cat suits, like on stage? On film, that would almost certainly look ridiculous. Use puppets or animation? Probably it would work out better, but it would cut the audience's link to the characters, which the show builds up by its knowledge that the audience realizes that these are people in cat costumes. Add in the fact that, for practical purposes, "Cats" has no plot. It is really just a sequence of numbers, and relies upon spectacle and dance to make it go. In film nowadays, spectacle is a lot harder to do, since the audience has such high expectations, and filming dance effectively is a lot harder than you would think. I think "Cats" is one of those shows which simply won't work on screen, because the theatricality of it is crucial to its success. I haven't seen "Chess", but, from what I know of it, it sounds like a much better prospect. -- Peter Reiher reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher