Haines His Way

TD, nicely put.   I think all good drama, be it slice of life or fantasy, resonates with recognizable human truths and life lessons.  

thanks, mr. pogue!

it's the actor in me - -the Robert Lewis Method: know your goal, know how you're gonna get it. . .then shoot for the moon!

Danise - I may have missed the post about the books.  What did you say or where can I find the post?  Sometimes my eye just misses stuff, and sometimes pressing the "new" button at the wrong time takes me past stuff.

Noel said "I prefer films in which characters I recognize as humans behave in ways that I recognize as human."

How often do couples walk down a street and then break into songs that scan and rhyme perfectly and dance to music that suddenly fills the air?

If you can accept the fantasy conventions...the rules and magic...of a musical, of a 19th century barber singing as he slashes someone's throat, why not a magic ring or an elf?

Jay, I want YOU in MY audience!

Jay, I want YOU in MY audience!

Gladly, Dear Reader Charles Pogue, gladly.

Oh, also, Jed, just so you don't lose any sleep:  Liking musicals won't turn you gay.

Are you saying, Dear Reader Noel, that because I do not a priori understand the "rules" involving angels crashing through a ceiling that Angels in America, be it in its stage or HBO versions, is an unworthwhile piece of art?  

I don't think so.

Maybe I wasn't clear earlier, but what bothers me about sci-fi and fantasy is sitting through the explanation of the "rules."  The scene where Gandalf says to Frodo: "You must take this here ring to Mow-Lawn and chuck it in the garbage disposal, but beware the slithy toves, for they have powers of spoon-bending, and the dust-bunnies, who attack your elbows without warning.  And don't put on the ring, for its power corrupts.  And be careful not to eat Elevensies, because the sage Atkinescope has advised against it.  And black knights can jump over other pieces and you can always pierce H.R.Puffinstuff in his soft underbelly."

My eyes roll over and the above is exactly what it sounds like to me.  Nonsense.

Kushner called his play "A Gay Fantasia on American Themes" and, although angels and ghosts appear, you won't find any "explanation of the rules" in it.  So that didn't bother me.

It's true I find a ride on the subway entertaining.  But a number of films depict human behavior without this supernatural fooferaw, and I was glad I saw Mystic River, A Mighty Wind, Seabiscuit and others this year.

Now, people breaking out in to song never required any explanation.  And, it happens to happen in my life.  When I first fell in love, I sat in a crowded cafeteria with friends and sang Rodgers & Hart's "Wait Til You See Her" for all to hear.

DR Matth, thanks for letting us know about the Ann Miller movies tonight! Just finished watching ON THE TOWN! What fun! I caught part of it the other week, but tonight I was able to sit and enjoy the whole thing..and what beautiful costumes for the women! That is what always caught my eye as a kid when I would watch musicals...the color! As an adult, Gene Kelly catches my eye!  

Next up EASTER PARADE, and later HIT THE DECK!

Noel, I think the only reason to do almost anything, certainly as a choice of vocation, is to please yourself.

Then let's put it this way: pleasing others it what pleases me.

Ultimately, I didn't get much pleasure out of writing the song Watch Your Back because it didn't move an audience in the way I'd hoped.  I think back much more fondly of the opening and closing number of the 2002 revue, A Time For Heroes and Hoagies.  The opening number, Fugue For Cell-Phones, had 9 or 10 counter-melodies consisting of what people say into their phones (mostly giving locations or saying "we're breaking up") and the audience howled with delight.  The closing number surprised everyone in the audience by moving them to tears.  That's what I love doing.

It's a subtle distinction, perhaps, but I don't write for me.  I write to engage my audience.

I feel like I have to chime in with this discussion.  First off, I've seen all of the LOTR movies, and most of the Star Wars movies, and I do not think they're god's gift to cinema.  They're fun, they're entertaining, but not earth shattering.  However, I've been a lover of fantasy stories my entire life.  My childhood was spent making up stories.  Granted they sometimes had nothing to do with fantasy or make believe, but they often did.  I've also been a bookworm all my life, and many of the books I read as a child were things like the Narnia books, classic fantasy.  DR Noel said, and mind you I'm NOT attacking here, just responding, no malice intended at all...anyway, he said that he didn't like story lines with non-human behavior.  The majority of fantasy books or stories that I have read, while the circumstances of the plot might be figments of the author's imagination, contain within them illustrations of the most basic elements of human behavior.  It is the act of putting them in a non-traditional setting that enables the author to cast those human traits in a new light.  Also, I believe that there are few things more human than the desire to imagine things other than what they are.
I'm not bashing people who dislike fantasy here, that is truly not my intent.  But I think fantasy stories have an important place in literature and film.  The "rules" that require the bit of extra thought are the very element that I love so much...it allows me the chance to take a break from the normal human world for a while, something I think everyone needs at times.
Okay, I've spoken my piece, I'm done.      

I'll have to catch up on this fascinating discussion tomorrow. Off early to bed to read and relax. Good-night, all.

What a wonderful discussion today!  So civilized.  So fair.  So respectful.  And, actually, entertaining too!

Now for my couple of cents... in no particular order...

I'm also one of the "few" who have not seen any of the LOTR movies.  I am interested in them, and I'm sure I'll see them some day down the line, but just not now.  As I've mentioned before, the "problem" I have with watching movies is the fact that I spend most of my working hours in a dark theatre already, and the last thing I want to do is to spend another few hours in a dark theatre.  And movie-going for me tends to come in phases, waves.  I'll have a few months where I'll see one or two or even three movies each week... then I won't see anything for another couple of months... or even a year.  I'm just that way.  

Now when it comes to live theatre, opera, ballet, recitals, concerts and cabarets, I try to see as much as I possibly can.  I love seeing live people on stage.  I love being brought into their world for an evening.  I love being challenged.  I love being simply entertained.  And, sometimes, yes, even the "very long evenings in the theatre" can have their worth - or at least provide some good/bad stories for later on.

The big issue I have today with "live theatre" is that sometimes the creative team - writers, directors, designers, and, yes, even the producers - listen too much to the audience.  At least in regards to running times.  I absolutely hate it when the first note at a production meeting is, "We have to trim some stuff out of the first act to get it down to 90 minutes."  When did the formula of a 90 minute (or preferably 80 minute) first act and a 50 minute second act become de riguer?  When did a show have to have a running time of two and a half hours - with the intermission.

Admittedly, sometimes the "trimming" can be taken care of with pacing and some streamlining of scene and costume changes.  Other times, however, and unfortunately, scenes and songs get edited... or scenes and songs get cut out all together.

Yes, an audience can get "restless" sitting in one place for 80 minutes.  But that's what watching your water intake before the show and making sure you use the facilities beforehand are for! ;-)  But, I've been to many an opera performance where the first act is 100 minutes, 120 minutes, and I've never really heard complaints about the show being too long in that regard.

I guess what I'm rambling on about is the trend to trim shows to a "comfortable" length.  And that "comfortable length" seems to get shorter and shorter...  And the ticket prices continue to get higher and higher.

It was very interesting after the first couple of previews of the production of South Pacific that I was in the pit for last season.  For those first couple of public performances, the whole script and score - plus some interpolations - was presented to the audience.  Yes, there were some audience members who thought the show was a little long.  BUT there were also those audience members who loved the fact that they got to see the FULL show.  That they got to hear the WHOLE score.  And, ultimately, they appreciated that they got a lot of "show" for their entertainment dollar.

However, as we went through previews, two whole scenes were eventually cut out, as well as a dance sequence and a bunch of "non-plot-related" lines of dialogue.  We went from a just under three hour show, down to one that ran two hours and 40 minutes.

And, unfortunately, some audience members thought that two hours and 40 minutes was still too long!?!?!?

I'm just afraid we're going to get to the point where a show will consist of two 30 minutes acts.  Each act will only have 24 minutes of material, and there will be convenient breaks between and within each act in order for the audience members to be "comfortable".

Oh, I guess that turned into a rant...  But I think I'm making my point.  And it does relate to the current topics of discussion.

It just seems to me, that "we" are getting to a stage where we have to re-train our audiences in a way.  Ultimately, it is part of the larger picture of the mass-media and sound-bite driven world we live in today, but I just don't want to get to a point and time where the number one consideration for an aspiring playwright, screenwriter, author, composer, director, etc., has to be the projected running time, number of pages or opportunity for "potty breaks".

OK - I'll stop rambling and ranting on this one... NEXT!

BTW (By the way in internet lingo), Jane, nope, no female werewolves.  All gay.  100%  Another myth bites the dust (or would this be a fairy tale?).

Now, TCB, try telling that to June Lockhart!

I haven't been around today because my internet was down, and has just returned. But what wonderful posts to read!

I, too, haven't seen many of the "popular" movies that have become "classics". A small list of films I haven't viewed:

ET
Any Star Wars
Any LOTR
The Wizard of Oz
Casablanca
West Side Story
Any Star Trek

It isn't that I don't WANT to see these, but I just haven't. I'm not really interested in Star Wars, Star Trek, or E.T. to tell you the truth, but I'm not saying they aren't good films. Maybe it's because of my age, but I have a feeling I would be bored within minutes of these.

I never see a lot of the Oscar nomitaed movies because they're R, and I don't feel like sitting through them with my parents (and vice versa), but from what I've heard, a lot of them aren't as good as they're hyped up to be. A film is what you make of it, in my opinion. If you walk into a theater with a pessimistic outlook on the movie you're about to see, then the movie isn't going to be great. If you walk in thinking it's going to be a fabulously acted and well made movie, chances are you'll enjoy it, but be a little dissapointed. The writers have a vision of what they want to make of an idea, and what appeals to one person may not to another. I know that I never pay attention to what the critics say about a film, because I don't want to have an opinion about a movie before I see it.

Aaaaand I'm done. None of that was meant to be offensive, or judgemental, and I'm not saying that I know exactly what I'm talking about. Just my little 16 year old opinion.