| re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films | |
| Posted by: | TheOtherOne 12:24 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films - lordofspeech 10:45 am EDT 08/14/14 |
|
| |
| Press for this film leaves the impression that it has had a very confused production. Changes to the story, deletions from the score, additions to the score that were then deleted... It seems odd that such a successful stage show should need quite this much tinkering with in its transition to the screen. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 07:35 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films - TheOtherOne 12:24 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
|
| |
| "Press for this film leaves the impression that it has had a very confused production." There's a reason for that. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films | |
| Posted by: | JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 02:05 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films - TheOtherOne 12:24 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
|
| |
| Also, consider that ITW has never played an engagement in New York or London without significant textual changes. It never played with the same text twice. Major changes were made for the first London production, the first New York revival, the Regents Park production, and the Central Park production. This show in particular seems to be continually evolving and I don't see why that wouldn't continue with a film. That said, to my mind, none of the textual changes since the original Broadway production have either been necessary or been improvements. The one that causes the least issue is the addition of "Our Little World" to the first act. It's unneccessary and makes an already top heavy first act even more so, but it doesn't really do any harm to the piece to include it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| we have different definitions of "significant" | |
| Posted by: | Chazwaza 06:37 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films - JereNYC 02:05 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
|
| |
| The Broadway revival was almost entirely the same. The changes made to some lyrics, a few lines, and the minor tinkering with some song sections or the useless addition of some fairytales characters did not change anything significantly (though almost, or perhaps all of them detracted from the show). And as far as I'm aware London was almost the exact same but was drastically different in the design and direction. Far as I can see, the show has remained largely the same show that opened on Broadway originally. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films | |
| Posted by: | lowwriter 12:28 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films - TheOtherOne 12:24 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
|
| |
| I don't think it's odd at all. Unless you're filming a live stage show, a lot of adjustments have to be made to accommodate the transition to the screen. And because this musical involves a magical atmosphere, I'm sure special effects played a part in bringing the musical to the screen. Woods has been successful but the second act still remains problematic and I'm sure that had to be addressed in the movie version. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films | |
| Posted by: | Chazwaza 06:40 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films - lowwriter 12:28 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
|
| |
| Well, it's not a fact that the second act "remains problematic"... I think the 2nd act is better than the first, and I think it works beautifully as it was written, and perfectly compliments/affects/works with the first act. Just because you have found it to be problematic doesn't mean it is. And I'm not saying it wasn't for you, but it wasn't for me... not when I first saw the DVD, not when I've seen amateur productions or professional regional or broadway revivals, not when i've listened to it or re-watched it, not when I acted in it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films | |
| Posted by: | MikeR 01:19 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films - lowwriter 12:28 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
|
| |
| ITW (a show I love) is in particular need of adaptation for film, at least in part. A significant portion of the action takes place offstage and is then narrated in song ("I Know Things Now," "On the Steps of the Palace," "Giants in the Sky" among others). I think this works fine onstage, at least in part because we are familiar with these stories and can imagine what's happening (and because two of them--Jack's especially--would require significant investment in effects). But I think film audiences are different, and would expect to see this action unfold rather than be told about it after the fact. The script draft that leaked earlier this year changed "On the Steps of the Palace" so that all the verbs were present tense. Presumably the intent was to film it so that Cinderella was singing while the events were happening. Obviously, we don't know if it stayed that way, but I'd be surprised if that changed. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films | |
| Posted by: | LegitOnce 12:39 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films - lowwriter 12:28 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
|
| |
| This ia a particularly acute issue when, as in the case for Into the Woods, there is a very fine document of the stage show readily available. I would say that "faithful" adaptations of musicals (or of plays in general) are more the exception than the rule. Rodgers and Hammerstein had the clout to insist on keeping the films of their shows very close to the originals back in the 1950s, and the result is a series of rather stagy, stiff films. The Sound of Music movie is a somewhat freer adaptation of the source material and that's why it's probably the best of the R&H films. (Obviously, The King and I is a lovely movie, but it's very stagy. On the other hand, it's based on a much superior show to SOM, so the scales balance out somewhat.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films | |
| Posted by: | lowwriter 01:05 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films - LegitOnce 12:39 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
|
| |
| The King and I film is rather stage bound but it's so well done and not glacial like the My Fair Lady film. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 01:04 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films - LegitOnce 12:39 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
|
| |
| I agree with your general point, but I would never use the words stagey or stiff to describe the film of THE KING AND I -- nor the film of OKLAHOMA!, except for the dream ballet, which is phenomenal for what it is but doesn't really work cinematically, in my opinion. The film of CAROUSEL is very stiff, but I think that problem lies primarily in the direction rather than the adaptation. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films | |
| Posted by: | TheOtherOne 01:12 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films - Michael_Portantiere 01:04 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
|
| |
| It's also fair to note that the film versions of "A Little Night Music" (which I do not like) and "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum" (which I do) do not necessarily work better than the films of "West Side Story" and "Gypsy", which are filmed along far more traditional Broadway adaptation lines. ("Gypsy" is on the stiff side, but it holds up well in spite of that.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films | |
| Posted by: | LegitOnce 01:11 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films - Michael_Portantiere 01:04 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
|
| |
| Maybe "stiff" is not quite the right word. "Uncinematic" is maybe what I'm looking for; that is, there is no sense that the material is reimagined for the very different medium of film. The film of The King and I looks like an extremely elaborate stage production -- even the blocking of the first act finale is done exactly as it would be done on stage, playing out as if the film frame were a theater proscenium. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 01:47 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films - LegitOnce 01:11 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
|
| |
| I don't disagree about the approach to filming THE KING AND I, but I don't have a problem with it. I'm aware that others find the adaptation stage-bound or "not cinematic," but I really disagree. The Act I finale is a perfect example. We see the scene from two different angles -- first a long shot, then a much tighter shot focusing in on Anna and the King. The two different angles make the scene as cinematic as it needs to be, in my opinion. What would you have done to make it more cinematic? Cut back and forth to individual close-ups of Anna and the King during the scene? Cuts to shots of both of them as seen from a different angle, rather than head on? I don't think either of those choices would have improved the scene, and probably would have made it less effective. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films | |
| Posted by: | LegitOnce 08:30 pm EDT 08/15/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films - Michael_Portantiere 01:47 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
|
| |
| The way the scene is done in the stage musical is a very clever theatrical presentation of a process that in reality would take place over a matter of several months, i.e., Anna's gradual assertion of herself to the King as an equal in human terms. It is, however, a theatrical solution and not a cinematic solution. Cinema has the tools of editing, camera angles and montage that are not available (or at least not as idiomatic) in a theatrical solution. So, the scene could have cut quickly back and forth between the two principals (editing), used POV shots of, for example, Anna "towering" over the King and then readjusting herself so she is on a level with his POV, followed by a reverse shot (from Anna's POV) of the King's change in posture. Or the scene could have been done with montage, a series of quick scenes over time beginning with the King in a clearly dominant role and gradually evolving so he and Anna were visually presented as equals. The scene as filmed for the picture is essentially a theatrical solution, recorded. It is effective because the material is very fine. But if you compare it to Robert Wise's treatment of another "process" sequence (i.e., "Do Re Mi" from The Sound of Music you see that the King and I scene is something less than imaginative. (Think how the later film would be diminished if "Do Re Mi" were staged with the children just marching about the entrance hall, with the camera cutting from long to medium shots.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| The whole "uncinematic" thing | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 05:21 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films - Michael_Portantiere 01:47 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
|
| |
| In the Plays in Performance series of books, the Long Day's Journey Into Night book has a very interesting discussion of Sidney Lumet's approach to making the film version, how he used what could be done not just with angles but with different-sized lenses. The section on the film goes on to quote Lumet on the reactions to it by critics like Stanley Kauffmann ("It is not a film. It is a play photographed") and Arthur Knight (who wrote that Lumet's approach "pointedly ignores the potentialities of the film medium"). Lumet: "You wanted to kill because you knew any critic who would say that had no eye, did not belong in movies, should not be criticizing movies. He can't see what a lens does, he can't see what light is doing — sheer technical ignorance." I'm not altogether in agreement with the author's opinions on some of the productions she covers, but the book is worth having for several sections, including the one on Lumet's approach to the film and his response to the critics. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: The whole "uncinematic" thing | |
| Posted by: | LegitOnce 08:47 pm EDT 08/15/14 |
| In reply to: | The whole "uncinematic" thing - AlanScott 05:21 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
|
| |
| I would argue that Long Day's Journey Into Night is a bit of a special case because the play (as Lumet clearly realizes) is in large part about a sense of entrapment, of, metaphorically speaking, the inability to escape from the family home. The "action" of the play is immobility: no one even has enough energy to turn off the lights and go to bed. So a film that is true to these qualities is by its nature not going to be "cinematic" is the more superficial sense of the term, "opened up," as this sort of play would traditionally have been done on film. (Compare, for example, William Wyler's adaptation of The Little Foxes that introduces new characters and new situations moving the action far outside the Giddens drawing room.) The one major misstep I think Mike Nichols takes in his beautiful film of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is the roadhouse sequence: once everybody gets out of the house the tension dissipates somewhat. It's handled brilliantly in a technical sense but it's still a mistake thematically. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: The whole "uncinematic" thing | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 12:36 am EDT 08/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: The whole "uncinematic" thing - LegitOnce 08:47 pm EDT 08/15/14 |
|
| |
| The roadhouse sequence seems be one of the few very things they keep from Lehman's script. I think it's possible that they might even have been better not going outside for the George-Nick scene. Here are a other film versions of plays that work as movies (whatever that means) while hardly moving out of a single room or apartment or house: The Homecoming Dial 'M' for Murder The Caretaker The Boys in the Band Personally, I don't really know what the word cinematic means. Some plays take easily to being opened up. Others resist it, yet can still be made very effectively into movies, without even needing fancy camera work or lots of cutting. Personally, I think lots of cutting is often more damaging than helpful. I think it arguably requires more imagination to successfully film a play without opening it than to try to make a play into something that seems more like a conventional movie. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: The whole "uncinematic" thing | |
| Posted by: | WaymanWong 08:24 am EDT 08/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: The whole "uncinematic" thing - AlanScott 12:36 am EDT 08/16/14 |
|
| |
| Albee says Ernest Lehman, who was the screenwriter and producer of ''Virginia Woolf,'' wrote two lines: ''Let's go to the roadhouse'' and ''Let's come back from the roadhouse.'' In Mel Gussow's bio of the playwright, he adds, except for the roadhouse scene and the scene under the tree outside George & Martha's house, ''It's my play f*cking word for word.'' | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: The whole "uncinematic" thing | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 03:52 pm EDT 08/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: The whole "uncinematic" thing - WaymanWong 08:24 am EDT 08/16/14 |
|
| |
| According to Mike Nichols, in the recent talk with Jack O'Brien, Lehman wrote a screenplay with many changes from the play. The Lehman screenplay was essentially thrown out and the dialogue from the play restored. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: The whole "uncinematic" thing | |
| Posted by: | Chazwaza 04:35 pm EDT 08/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: The whole "uncinematic" thing - AlanScott 03:52 pm EDT 08/16/14 |
|
| |
| And yet how was Lehman allowed to retain full sole credit for the screenplay? He was even nominated for an Oscar for it... just him, not Albee. An uncredited intern could probably have done as much work "adapting" the play's dialogue into screenplay format for what was actually in the movie... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: The whole "uncinematic" thing | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 05:20 pm EDT 08/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: The whole "uncinematic" thing - Chazwaza 04:35 pm EDT 08/16/14 |
|
| |
| Contracts. He was an Oscar-winning screenwriter. It was probably in his contract that he would have sole credit. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: The whole "uncinematic" thing | |
| Posted by: | Chazwaza 06:02 pm EDT 08/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: The whole "uncinematic" thing - AlanScott 05:20 pm EDT 08/16/14 |
|
| |
| I just don't understand why Albee's contract would allow that... not to mention that that isn't really how the WGA does things, though perhaps it was back then. These days if you've written 30% of the original, i think, or 50% of the re-write, you get co-writer credit. Whatever it is, it would easily have allowed Albee to have at least co-writer credit on the screenplay. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: The whole "uncinematic" thing | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 06:50 pm EDT 08/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: The whole "uncinematic" thing - Chazwaza 06:02 pm EDT 08/16/14 |
|
| |
| It's a good question that I can't answer. Albee was certainly annoyed about it (and who can blame him?). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: The whole "uncinematic" thing | |
| Posted by: | Chazwaza 06:56 am EDT 08/17/14 |
| In reply to: | re: The whole "uncinematic" thing - AlanScott 06:50 pm EDT 08/16/14 |
|
| |
| And rightly so, yes. And it's not just this movie... this happens with plays being turned into movies quite often, and did more when more were adapted. A screenwriter who mostly just takes the majority of the play's dialogue and the plot, characters and how they are illustrated, etc, and puts them in screenplay format and sometimes "opens" the play up gets credit as the sole script writer, and nominated for "best adapted screenplay" as if they took a novel and created, out of 400 pages of descriptive prose, a 120 page screenplay fit to be shot.... the idea that re-imagining and already written script for the cinema is on par, to the Academy's eyes, with creating a new script out of a book, is beyond my understanding and would INCENSE me if I were a screenwriter adapting a book or a playwright whose play was adapted by someone else. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| "cinematic" is a word few people who use it seem to understand | |
| Posted by: | Chazwaza 10:16 pm EDT 08/15/14 |
| In reply to: | re: The whole "uncinematic" thing - LegitOnce 08:47 pm EDT 08/15/14 |
|
| |
| And "opening up" a play for a movie is not the same thing nor is it the only way to make it cinematic. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| O'Neill's ''Journey'' to greatness | |
| Posted by: | WaymanWong 01:36 pm EDT 08/15/14 |
| In reply to: | The whole "uncinematic" thing - AlanScott 05:21 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
|
| |
| Thanks, Alan, for the head's-up on this book. I love Sidney Lumet's film of ''Long Day's Journey'' and the cinematography of Boris Kaufman (who won an Oscar for ''On the Waterfront''). This is not a story that needs to be ''opened up''; what I love is the claustrobia, a family trapped and forced to deal with each other. Plus, there is that fog that envelopes them. But it's time for a new color film version. A shame they didn't make one of the 2003 Tony-winning revival with Brian Dennehy, Vanessa Redgrave, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Robert Sean Leonard. A new generation needs to rediscover it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: O'Neill's ''Journey'' to greatness | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 04:14 pm EDT 08/16/14 |
| In reply to: | O'Neill's ''Journey'' to greatness - WaymanWong 01:36 pm EDT 08/15/14 |
|
| |
| Yes, I was very sorry that they didn't preserve the 2003 production in some way (apart from a TOFT video). I didn't see it, I heard somewhat mixed things about it, but I'm sure it was well worth seeing. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Sorry they cut "Ever After" | |
| Posted by: | Indavidzopinion 04:40 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "Rainbows" dropped from WOODS films - Michael_Portantiere 01:47 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
|
| |
| "Ever After" is such a cleverly written song (lyrics). Was just listening to it today on my iPod. They should do what I witnessed recently in Italy: have an intermission in the middle of the film as it is screened in the theatre. That way, it would make sense to put "Ever After" back into film. (Forget about the fact that filming has been over for months now.) There is a great video available on "Youtube" of a student group (San Francisco) rehearsing "Ever After" with their teacher/ director playing the piano. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
All That Chat is intended for the discussion of
theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)
Please direct technical questions/comments to webmaster@talkinbroadway.com and policy questions to TBAdmin@talkinbroadway.com.
[ Home | On the Rialto | The Siegel Column | Cabaret | Tony Awards | Book Reviews | Great White Wayback Machine ]
[ Broadway Reviews | Barbara and Scott: The Two of Clubs | Sound Advice | Restaurant Revue | Off Broadway | Funding Talkin' Broadway ]
[ Broadway 101 | Spotlight On | Talkin' Broadway | On the Boards | Regional | Talk to Us! | Search Talkin' Broadway ]
Terms of Service
[ © 1997 - 2014 www.TalkinBroadway.com, Inc. ]
Time to render: 0.359079 seconds.