(no subject)

[shadowkat]

1. Watching the Tony's. They just did a performance from Mean Girls -- and I don't know, that's the worst thing I've seen on the Tony's. It was horrible. No interest in seeing that, not that I thought much of the movie. Meanwhile the My Fair Lady number was marvelous..whoever is playing Eliza has some pipes.

I considered getting tickets to "Angel's in America" -- I did see the PBS televised version of the previous presentation, along with the miniseries. But...it's not the price that scared me off. Although it's not cheap. It's the fact that I am six foot and have to sit in a small seat for three hours and thirty minutes for the first night, and four hours and fifteen minutes the next night. I can barely stand sitting in a movie theater for three hours with my lower back issues. And Broadway theaters are not designed for people with long legs. Porgy and Bess which was three hours just about killed me. Sorry, Lee Pace and Nathan Lane aren't worth the excruciating pain.

Getting tickets for a lot of things are close to impossible. Springsteen on Broadway requires a lottery, so does Hamilton, and Harry Potter. The trick? Go to something that isn't popular.

Spongebob Square Pants performance was...just weird. Good. But weird. I was however impressed by the commercial before it -- which was a woman proposing to another woman in Vegas, and that they got married there with their family and friends in attendance. That's the first time I've seen that type of commercial on network television. I mean I remember when it was a big deal that Willow and Tara kissed on Buffy, now a commercial on CBS has two women kissing and getting married.

The only musical nominated for a Tony that I'm tempted to see that I could get tickets for without entering a lottery, is probably Carousel -- which is a controversial musical, but has an interesting cast. Although I'm admittedly curious about "The Band's Visit" which just won best Book of a Musical. (I bet it wins best musical. It's the only one that has any depth and isn't based on a movie.)

In fact, my bets:

"The Band's Visit" best musical [ETA - I think it won.]
"Carousel" - best revival [ETA - Once on This Island]
"Angel's in America" - best revival of a play (ETA -- right]
"Harry Potter and the Cursed Child" best play [ETA -- right]

Will let you know if I'm right.

wow, Mikal Barysivokof looks amazing for his age. Still has a thick Russian accent. And they picked an interesting bit from it -- dancing on a whaling ship.

Oh, and the sequel to Mamma Mia looks like a lot of fun. (Admittedly I liked the first movie and the B-way show, because FUN. And own it on DVD. Again - FUN!)

And the Tony's had a performance by the Parkland Student Drama/Theater Department singing "Seasons of Love" from Rent.

[ETA: Apparently Robert Deniro said Fuck Trump on TV, but they bleeped it out. I don't understand this. If you are willing to show rape, graphic violence, people fucking each other, torture, decapitation, etc and well various racial slurs -- why can't you use the F word? Seriously. It's just a word. I had to check it out on Variety - and read some of the comments, and thought -- I wish I lived in Australia instead. Half are supporters, the other half are going AAAACK! AAAACK! How is it this happening?? ]

2. Finished watching the following television series:

* The Resident -- parts of it are really good. The whole section focusing on the Nigerian Resident and the attending, Dr. August, who thinks he's god's gift, was excellent. Also, the bit where Bell throws Dr. Lane under the bus to save the hospital and himself, only to find himself staring across the table at Conrad's Dad -- was a great pay-off.

I like it and will stick with it -- has some fun characters, also love the lead cast. Emily Van Camp, Matt Czurchy, the actress playing the Nigerian Doctor (who is my favorite character but I can't spell or pronounce her name), Bruce Greenwood, and the guy playing the other Resident. This has potential.

* Little Women - eh, still dislike Amy. Still feel sorry for Laurie. Although totally get why Joe went for the Professor -- I would have too. Laurie would have driven me crazy.

It's closer to the books than the movie versions are in some respects or so I'm told.

I thought it was going to be a four-five part miniseries, and deeply detailed. Eh, no. It was just four hours. With a lot of the back-end rushed, and more focus on the father. Who is played by an actor that I kept trying to place. Actually both the actress playing Meg and the father -- I had troubles placing. I recognized Emily Watson and Angela Langsbury of course.

Comments

[yourlibrarian]

I've never read the books nor seen any other versions of Little Women, so I have nothing to compare this to. So my impressions were that it was very uneven, slow in some parts, rushed in others, and with an ending I suspect cut out a large swath of development as it tidied up story threads. I also expected it to be longer though, at the same time, I'm not sure I'd have stayed with it if it did. And yeah, is Amy an unliked character? I wasn't fond of her.

I saw a trailer for Mamma Mia 2 when I went to see Ocean's 8 and I must admit it did look like fun. That said, when I finally watched the first movie I could see why it was roundly panned. It really wasn't very good, though if one likes musicals and ABBA I could see why it has a fandom. I'll probably see it through Netflix eventually but suspect the trailer just does a good job with it.

I heard a recap of the Tony's this afternoon and "The Band's Visit" was the only one I knew was in the running because NPR had done a feature of it when it opened. I saw an article about Cursed Child that said it was a very different experience seeing it than reading the play. It reminded me of the same feeling I had in reading Whedon's Wonder Woman script. It felt so flat to me. And that made me think of the discussion of how fandom tends to latch onto the visual versions of stories, even when the books (which read SO differently from plays as it is) are very popular. I think the emotional beats are just so different.

I mean I remember when it was a big deal that Willow and Tara kissed on Buffy, now a commercial on CBS has two women kissing and getting married.

Very true, though given the Tony's typical audience it was well placed.

And I agree with you about Broadway theaters. I'm not sure I ever saw a play there as a child, I doubt it. When I went as an adult I was surprised how small they were and yes, the seats and rows are not designed for today's audience. Even in today's comfy movie theater seating 2 days of 3+ hour performances would make one restless.

[shadowkat]

Regarding Little Women -- my mother read the book, so she told me it followed it more closely in some respects than the movies had. I've only seen the movies. There's three of them. One in the 1930s with Katherine Hepburn as Jo, one in the 1950s with June Allyson as Jo, Elizabeth Taylor as Amy, and Magaret O'Brien as Beth, one in the 1990s with Wyonna Ryder as Joe, and Christian Bale as Laurie, and Gabriel Byrn as the Professor. None of the movies focus on the parents much at all. Also in the films, they all end with the Professor bringing Joe a published version of her book "My Beth", which in the films was the first time she got published, because it was true to herself. They also spend more time on Joe and the Professor in the films. I've never read the book. For years I thought it was an autobiography of Louisa May Alcott's life -- it's not. Alcott never married and was most likely a lesbian, who preferred women. She also never taught, was just a tutor. The books were sold in chapter form as a serial to magazines back then, similar to what Dickens did. And there were three sections, one was the childhood (which was loosely based on Alcott's life), second -- the sister's marriages (not really based on her life at all), and third the school Joe sets up with her husband. And there were shippers back then -- who were furious that she put Joe with the professor and not Laurie.

So my impressions were that it was very uneven, slow in some parts, rushed in others, and with an ending I suspect cut out a large swath of development as it tidied up story threads. I also expected it to be longer though, at the same time, I'm not sure I'd have stayed with it if it did. And yeah, is Amy an unliked character? I wasn't fond of her.

I'd have to agree. I found the first section rather slow and struggled to get into it. The second section felt a bit rushed, and I lost some of the characters.
However, if it had been longer -- I don't think I'd have stayed with it. I struggled with it in some of the same ways I struggled with Poldark and Victoria, found them to be slow and uninteresting focusing on things that didn't hold my attention. (I think I want more The Crown and less Downton Abbey?) Been struggling with latest season of Call the Midwife for the same reasons.

Yeah, Amy's universally unliked apparently. I blame how they present her -- we get little. I did like her in one version -- I think Wyonna Ryder one.

I always feel sorry for Laurie in all the versions...although I get why Joe goes for the Professor. If I had to choose between Gabriel Bryn and Christain Bale, I'd pick Gabriel Bryn too.

[shadowkat]

I saw a trailer for Mamma Mia 2 when I went to see Ocean's 8 and I must admit it did look like fun. That said, when I finally watched the first movie I could see why it was roundly panned. It really wasn't very good, though if one likes musicals and ABBA I could see why it has a fandom. I'll probably see it through Netflix eventually but suspect the trailer just does a good job with it.

It's only worth seeing if you:

1) Love musicals and I do mean all musicals, including juke box musicals. (it's a juke box musical)
2) Love ABBA music. (I do, I had them on 8 track tape in the 1970s)
3.) Will watch Colin Firth and Pierce Bronsan do anything
4.) Will watch Christine Baranski, Meryl Streep, Cher, and Julie Harris do anything.

If none of that is your thing, or not even two out of four? Skip. People who don't like ABBA or musicals -- hated it.
You either love Mamma Mia or you hate it. There's really no inbetween, apparently. LOL!

It reminded me of the same feeling I had in reading Whedon's Wonder Woman script. It felt so flat to me. And that made me think of the discussion of how fandom tends to latch onto the visual versions of stories, even when the books (which read SO differently from plays as it is) are very popular.

Plays...really work best if you see them performed. The writer deliberately leaves out visual clues, such as description. There are some best-selling novelists who basically write screen plays -- in which they do the same thing, leave out the description, although for different reasons. Elmore Leonard and James Patterson both do that -- although Leonard did leave more description in than Patterson, and is a defter writer. He did it -- because he hated to read description. Hemingway also wrote that way, as did my father -- I call it minimalism, and it doesn't do a lot for me. It's not how I write or what I like to read.
But a lot of mystery writers and thriller writers do.

For a play though? You really only need stage directions and dialogue or what they call "beats". Screenplays just have "beats" and "dialogue". We have almost no description of the characters, we don't know how they said it, and only what is required to set the scene or show the action is provided. (ie. The characters fought. Harry lost.) Sometimes you'll have a bit more than that...like in Robert Towne's Chinatown script - She slapped her daughter twice across the face. "You're my mother." Slap. "You're my sister." Slap.

And in plays and scripts? The actors will often cross out all the clues (such as he said angrily or he frowned, etc. Particularly if it is for stage.) Directors also scratch out all the direction adding their own.

So what you are reading? Isn't what you will see performed. If you read Shakespeare -- it's dull, until you see it. The writer is deliberately leaving things out for someone else to interpret it. Only putting in what they want to make sure is included. You are more likely to have a play performed, if you include less. Less is more for plays.

It's a hard art form -- because you half to edit out half of what you might ordinarily write.

It's why it feels rather flat, I think. Because all you have are a bunch of stage directions and stripped down dialogue.

[shadowkat]

And I agree with you about Broadway theaters. I'm not sure I ever saw a play there as a child, I doubt it. When I went as an adult I was surprised how small they were and yes, the seats and rows are not designed for today's audience. Even in today's comfy movie theater seating 2 days of 3+ hour performances would make one restless.

Exactly. If you don't have back issues or long legs ...it's okay. But I almost died watching Porgy and Bess. And for American in Paris? I went out of my way to get back row, Orchestra, aisle, with a chair for my Dad to sit in. Even Pippin was painful -- I sat on the aisle towards the back in the Orchestra, so I could stretch at least one leg out.

The dang things are all long. Typical running time for a musical is anywhere from two-three hours. Plays can be shorter 1-2 hours. Once On this Island, may be doable, it's theater in the round at 90 minutes, but it's also pricey, over $100 per ticket. The Band's Visit is more possible -- if you get Mezzaine, which may have more leg room, but less visibility. After seeing Mac the Knife with Alan Cummings from the upper balcony at Studio 54, Wicked from the Mezzaine (balcony) and Cabaret from the upper balcony at Studio 54 -- I decided never again. You can barely see them.
And I lost half the dialogue and lyrics.

So, either fork out the money, or pass and see off-off-off Broadway shows. The Roundabout Theater is one of the few in which every seat is good and they aren't painful.