Topic: EEK (Read 17517 times)

Noel · « **Reply #30 on:** October 18, 2004, 10:05:39 AM »

I've spoken of my problems with sci-fi and fantasy before. Some works in these genres are, of course, worse than others, but...

"The Rules" - all sci-fi and fantasy involve some element that is different from real life. This element is a creation of the author, who may be impressively imaginative, and my reaction is to say "Wow, that's an impressive imagination this author has" RATHER than being interested and involved with the characters he's created.

There comes a time (and I call it the Mr. Lundie sequence - a Brigadoon reference), when these rules need to be explained to the audience. For example: "If you put this ring on your finger you will become invisible and quickly move to some place else. So, if someone's swinging a sword at you, that would be a good time to put it on. But do not keep it on for too long, because then you'll become evil and seek power."

While these rules are being explained, my eyes glaze over. I find rule-explanation very boring. Now, a good novelist often explains other things, the background of Jacobean society, for example, but these things, being facts, ARE interesting to me. A set of rules I'll never have to remember again once I put down the book - yawn.

Remarkably frequently, the author is inconsistant in the use of rules, or, late in the action, introduces a new rule that changes our feelings about what's gone before. For instance, our favorite old guru loses a battle and gets dropped into a fiery chasm. At that point, the hero sheds a tear, and we're all supposed to feel sad because the guru's dead. But wait, two hundred pages later, it turns out he's not dead. Or he still exists as a spririt, or a hologram, or some such thing. This is good news, I guess, but boy do I feel cheated for shedding those tears 200 pages ago.

It's said that if you're totally involved (as a reader or audience), you never feel "the hand of the author" but, instead, react to all the characters and their drama as if it is real. Sci-fi and fantasy are genres in which I have a hard time doing that, and am inevitably aware of the hand of the author, the person who made all these silly rules up in the first place.

bk · « **Reply #31 on:** October 18, 2004, 10:15:14 AM »

Another fantasy-esque book I'm quite fond of is Jack Finney's Time and Again, but then I'm a sucker for most any time-travel story that involves going BACK in time.

Dan (the Man) · « **Reply #32 on:** October 18, 2004, 10:16:09 AM »

Apropos of nothing, I just heard a funny joke:

Q: What do you get when you play New Age music backwards?

A: New Age music.

Jennifer · « **Reply #33 on:** October 18, 2004, 10:22:21 AM »

Last week's LOST was very good.

Re: the stage version of Man of La Mancha. Was it just me or do others also find the story sort of stupid. I really didn't like that it was all make-believe. But I wonder if other productions tackle that aspect in a more enjoyable way.

bk · « **Reply #34 on:** October 18, 2004, 10:28:17 AM »

It all depends on the production. In the original production the device was theatrical magic.

Charles Pogue · « **Reply #35 on:** October 18, 2004, 11:10:28 AM »

I have to agree with BK, Jennifer, the first time I saw MAN OF LA MANCHA, it was exquisite. The reason the film never worked for me was because the piece is so richly dependent on its pure theatricality (ROYAL HUNT OF THE SUN is another such inherently theatrical piece that flattens out on film). Dramatically, the device works and is sound, I could see where bad productions can diminish it.

To answer the other half of BK's question, I don't know if I've ever seen a film that was as good as the book it was based on. THE PRINCESS BRIDE...one of my favourite books of all time... has a wonderful film adaptation by Goldman, but even so his book is so much richer, denser, and more fun. But then most books are. Tarzan has never been adequately adapted to film, despite how much fun the Weissmuller films can be. My favourite SHE has never had a good adaptation (except my own screen adaptation...which may someday see the light of day). But generally, the book is always better than the movie.

Dan the Man, I also have hoarded a nice stash of several thousand comics away.

Elmore, THIEF OF BAGHDAD (the Korda version) is one of my all-time favourite films. Also like you, I've never read the LORD OF THE RINGS series, though I've owned them for years. I managed to get through THE HOBBIT, which I could've taken or left...and never pursued the others.

Another great fantasy book I enjoyed was

Noel · « **Reply #36 on:** October 18, 2004, 11:10:41 AM »

I agree that a well-done Man of La Mancha is theatrical magic. You've a sympathetic creative type, Cervantes, thrown in a dungeon by a tyrannical regime. Before his trial by The Inquisition, he must face a mock-trial by his fellow inmates, and so, using improvisatory wits, he involves them all in presenting the story of his book, Don Quixote. DQ, of course, is a send-up of a picaresque adventure, and modern audiences don't easily relate to its self-deluded dreamer. But, as Dale Wasserman's book has that constant parallel, that fear that Cervantes' work will be burned and he'll be hurt if he fails to impress the prison's mock court, everything in it becomes vital, high-stakes material.

I like the score, but I'd say this is one of very few musicals whose book outshines its score. (That can happen when a book is truly marvelous, as in 1776, or when a score fails to achieve a high enough level of creativity, as with Wicked.) Man of La Mancha is, in most accounts, one of the best two dozen musicals ever written.

And oh, that ending! You've got the great catharsis of the result of the jail trial, and everybody's singing The Impossible Dream as Cervantes walks up the plank to his Inquisition Trial, where we know he won't fare so well. It's simultaneously stirring and sobering; no mean feat.

Jennifer · « **Reply #37 on:** October 18, 2004, 11:15:07 AM »

Quote from: bk on October 18, 2004, 10:28:17 AM

It all depends on the production. In the original production the device was theatrical magic.

Can anyone explain how they did it so it was so magical.

The production I saw last night was really good. But I just couldn't help thinking that the story itself was really lacking.

Jennifer · « **Reply #38 on:** October 18, 2004, 11:19:10 AM »

Quote from: Noel on October 18, 2004, 11:10:41 AM

And oh, that ending! You've got the great catharsis of the result of the jail trial, and everybody's singing The Impossible Dream as Cervantes walks up the plank to his Inquisition Trial, where we know he won't fare so well. It's simultaneously stirring and sobering; no mean feat.

Yes the ending was great. Loved, loved it.

I don't know, your description makes it sound riveting. So maybe it was just the production that was not good. But as it's the only time I've seen the show I have nothing to compare it to. I thought the cast was very good. And to me it felt like it was the story that was the problem.

I'm just not sure how they could make it so that I could care about them acting out Don Quixote.

bk · « **Reply #39 on:** October 18, 2004, 11:25:22 AM »

Pogue, don't leave us hanging in suspense. "Another fantasy book I enjoyed was"...

William F. Orr · « **Reply #40 on:** October 18, 2004, 11:37:54 AM »

From Sandra, a few days ago--yes, I'm still backed up in reading the posts:

Quote

In one of my classes today, the teacher was talking about What's-his-name Swinburne while all these pictures of Swinburne were being projected on a screen behind him. Swinburne looked just like Carrot Top.

Well, my dear Sandra, since one seldom hears Swinburne mentioned--and taught in a college class yet!--I must needs quote you my Swinburne parody. Now I ask you, how many people do you know, or will you ever know who have written a Swinburne parody?

It is in the Sapphic form, an ancient verse form due to Sappho, of course, and all the rage among the later Romans.

See the white, implacable Aphrodite
In her see-through, washable, nylon nightie.
If she beats the boar, and she gets Adonis,
Give her a bonus.

Oh yes, it has been expanded to a cycle of several stanzas, treating all of the ancient goddesses and entitled "Feminine Sapphics".

Now aren't you glad you know that?

Charles Pogue · « **Reply #41 on:** October 18, 2004, 11:40:48 AM »

Dsylexia strikes again! I went back to do some proofreading and just left the sentence hanging...Another great fantasy novel was THE GORMENGHAST TRILOGY, by Mervyn Peake, especially the first two books.

Richard Dreyfuss has been forced to withdraw from the London production of THE PRODUCERS because of injuries. Nathan Lane will be filling in.

bk · « **Reply #42 on:** October 18, 2004, 11:49:37 AM »

And Brooke Shields has gotten raves for Wonderful Town.

Dan (the Man) · « **Reply #43 on:** October 18, 2004, 11:56:13 AM »

Quote from: Charles Pogue on October 18, 2004, 11:40:48 AM

Dsylexia strikes again! I went back to do some proofreading and just left the sentence hanging...Another great fantasy novel was THE GORMENGHAST TRILOGY, by Mervyn Peake, especially the first two books.

DR CP, I've been meaning to pick up these books ever since I saw the miniseries on PBS last winter. If you saw the miniseries, how does it compare to the books?

Ron Pulliam · « **Reply #44 on:** October 18, 2004, 12:05:35 PM »

BK's landlord:

Matt H. · « **Reply #45 on:** October 18, 2004, 12:06:02 PM »

Yes, but Raquel Welch got raves for WOMAN OF THE YEAR, and she was not rave-worthy. Often, critics love to see someone try something different and temper their poison pens with sugar.

Dan (the Man) · « **Reply #46 on:** October 18, 2004, 12:07:01 PM »

I am listening to George Winston's new CD, Montana--A Love Story. It leaves me feeling appropriately calm, centered, serene and new agey. I now long to live in Montana (though if this CD had been named Idaho--A Love Story, I might be longing to live there as well.)

elmore3003 · « **Reply #47 on:** October 18, 2004, 12:08:15 PM »

Quote from: Jennifer on October 18, 2004, 11:15:07 AM

Can anyone explain how they did it so it was so magical.

The production I saw last night was really good. But I just couldn't help thinking that the story itself was really lacking.

DRJennifer, I was lucky enough to see the original production in Washington Square Park at the site of the NYU Library. The theatre, as I recall, was sort of a tinsheet shack, very mid-1960s construction site, and the auditorium was much like Lincoln Center, an open pit surrounded on 3 sides by seats. It may be my imagination but Howard Bay's prison set looked like the flat roof of a tower emerging from a cellar, unconnected to the auditorium and separated by a trench. The only way to leave the set was a huge staircase that came cranking down from the flies or to use the trapdoors on the floor of the stage. Part of the excitement of the staging, and I never thought it worked well when adapted to a proscenium stage, was that when people got near the edge of the set, you never knew how far they were going to fall.

The orchestra was in two boxes to the left and the right of the set, behind it, and my memory is that after the Overture, the band was hidden by sliding panels. The show, as I remember, was in one act, and quite intense, gritty, violent, and there were magical moments: the windmills were a whirling light projection accompanied by whirling music in the band; the first appearance of the horses brought delighted gasps and cheers from the audience: we knew from that moment on it was going to be constantly imaginative mentally and physically. On top of that, there was this amazing cast: Richard Kiley, Joan Diener, Irving Jacobson, Jon Cypher, Robert Roundsville (the original Candide!) and Ray Middleton, the original Frank Butler to Merman's Annie. You don't get an allstar production like that today for this show.

elmore3003 · « **Reply #48 on:** October 18, 2004, 12:11:06 PM »

Quote from: Matt H. on October 18, 2004, 12:06:02 PM

Yes, but Raquel Welch got raves for WOMAN OF THE YEAR, and she was not rave-worthy. Often, critics love to see someone try something different and temper their poison pens with sugar.

I saw Bacall, who won a Tony Award for sleepwalking through a performance, which is doubly shameful because Lansbury won it the year before for working her ass off and being brilliant in SWEENEY TODD! I thought Raquel was better.

Charles Pogue · « **Reply #49 on:** October 18, 2004, 12:18:34 PM »

Dan-the-Man, I think the mini-series was farily faithful to the books, but it's been over thirty years since I read them. It seems the books had a great deal more detail in them...as all books do, of course.

bk · « **Reply #50 on:** October 18, 2004, 12:25:33 PM »

Must run out and do an errand now and then, like General MacArthur, I shall return.

Jane · « **Reply #51 on:** October 18, 2004, 12:40:11 PM »

Ben, I miss having a Burlington Coat Factory to shop at.

Noel I have absolutely no problem getting lost in the story and characters of a good science fiction story.

Years ago we saw MAN OF LA MANCHA with Jose Ferrer. I don’t recall impressive sets. We enjoyed the music and the story, but sadly were very disappointed with Jose Ferrer.

Jane · « **Reply #52 on:** October 18, 2004, 12:43:08 PM »

I don’t believe I have read a science fiction book in a long while. A shame really.

My favorite adaptation from book to movie was FARENHEIGHT 451. JRand I haven’t read DANDELION WINE.

I found Asminov’s FOUNDATION brilliant.

The first DUNE was great, the movie okay.

I’m not sure I read THE TIME MACHINE but have enjoyed the various movie versions.

I love watching science fiction, favorites being STAR TREK, VOYAGER, FARSCAPE, and STARGATE.

I love STAR WARS which should be a lead in into fantasy now but I must go.

Panni · « **Reply #53 on:** October 18, 2004, 12:47:27 PM »

***DR Elmore - May it all go well, fast and painlessly! Quick healing vibes your way!***

Jane · « **Reply #54 on:** October 18, 2004, 12:48:02 PM »

I have to vote today if I want to mail my ballet. Before I vote I must read the voters pamphlet and all of our Oregon measures. As MBarnum will tell you Oregon always has an incredible number of measures on to vote on. If you recall it was the reason Oregon was so long in tally up it’s votes in the last election.

I must double check my measure numbers. For example, I thought 35 was my easy NO vote, but it is number 36.

MBarnum, aside from 36, do you have inside information which effects your voting on these measures?

Panni · « **Reply #55 on:** October 18, 2004, 12:51:57 PM »

I used to like Jules Verne when I was a kid. And I like Bradbury's short stories. But I've never been much of a science fiction fan.
Fantasy is another matter. Loved THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE... and ALL the Chronicles of Narnia. The WIZARD OF OZ... Really anything well-written that would take me into another magical world.

Panni · « **Reply #56 on:** October 18, 2004, 12:53:56 PM »

Quote from: Jane on October 18, 2004, 12:48:02 PM

I have to vote today if I want to mail my ballet.

Winner of the most evocative typo of the day. A lovely image.

Jane · « **Reply #57 on:** October 18, 2004, 12:56:02 PM »

RLP, nice photo of the landlord.

Panni, glad you had such a fun evening.

And oops, of course, GOOD SURGERY HEALING VIBES TO ELMORE!

Ron Pulliam · « **Reply #58 on:** October 18, 2004, 12:57:18 PM »

I thought "Shoeless Joe" made a fantastic film: "Field of Dreams".

It's sheer magic to me.

Apropos of some things: It's a shame when the coffee goes unsmelled.

Jane · « **Reply #59 on:** October 18, 2004, 12:58:27 PM »

Quote from: Panni on October 18, 2004, 12:53:56 PM

Winner of the most evocative typo of the day. A lovely image.

LOL-so funny I won't modify my, as you so kindly said, typo.

News:

Author Topic: EEK (Read 17517 times)