Random Thoughts — Page 112

Warbler said:

well, that is fine and understandable.   But I can't help wondering how Shakespeare would react if he were to come back to life and see some of these reimaginings

That's a good question.  He might be disgusted or he may be thrilled his works were still around.  

Or he may want to see that Inception movie that everyone has been talking about.

Are YOU Shakespeare, then?  Bkev isn't a very good sock for the famous bard.

Fair (fære?) enough.

bkev said:

Or he could actually exist now, because he didn't exist then. Just sayin'.

huh?

Warbler said:

no offense intended, but I am not exactly crazy about the reinventing of old plays.   I believe plays should be performed exactly as originally intended.    This also goes for the all the Broadway revivals that change the original script and/or other things.   For instance:  I was horrified to find out that they redid the script for Guys and Dolls and got rid of the all the Runyon style dialogue.  It just isn't the say without the Runyonese.    Do it the way it was originally done.   Let modern audience see the plays/musicals  the way the original audience did.   Hamlet was just fine the way Shakespeare wrote it, why change?   Again, no offense to bkev is intended.    

 I gotta disagree. Unlike films, plays are living things. You can never recreate exactly a previous play. Different cast, different stage, different directors. .

I can't speak to "Guys and Dolls" but do you really want to see Hamlet the way Shakespeare intended, 4+ hours long? Or Julius Caesar in Elizabethean costume, which is how Shakespeare did it?

TheBoost said:

Warbler said:

no offense intended, but I am not exactly crazy about the reinventing of old plays.   I believe plays should be performed exactly as originally intended.    This also goes for the all the Broadway revivals that change the original script and/or other things.   For instance:  I was horrified to find out that they redid the script for Guys and Dolls and got rid of the all the Runyon style dialogue.  It just isn't the say without the Runyonese.    Do it the way it was originally done.   Let modern audience see the plays/musicals  the way the original audience did.   Hamlet was just fine the way Shakespeare wrote it, why change?   Again, no offense to bkev is intended.    

 I gotta disagree. Unlike films, plays are living things. You can never recreate exactly a previous play. Different cast, different stage, different directors.

you are correct the actors and directors won't be the same.   But they can still use the same script.  They can still have the play/musical take place in the time period and use the same style of dress.   The music and songs can still be the same.   Though the sets won't look exactly the same, they can still represent the same stuff the originals sets were intended to represent.

TheBoost said:

I can't speak to "Guys and Dolls" but do you really want to see Hamlet the way Shakespeare intended, 4+ hours long? Or Julius Caesar in Elizabethean costume, which is how Shakespeare did it?

if that is how Shakespeare did it, that is how it should be done.  Who am I to correct the immortal Bard?   I guess you can argue that Julius Caesar should be done in costumes of the Roman Empire period,  but it certainly shouldn't wearing modern costumes like jeans and such.   

I can speak to "Guys and Dolls"  Runyon had certain dialogue style in his stories.  You can see it if you watch the Movie(although the movie itself is an abomination for other reasons).  

For example, normal dialogue might go like this:

"Yesterday, I went the store and I saw Sam,  I had talk with him"

translated to Runyonese:

"Yesterday, I go to the store and I see Sam,  I talk with him"

The Runyonese was totally taken out of the revival.  I am willing to bet I never able to see Guys and Doll with the Runyonese live on stage, ever again.

Warbler said:

 

if that is how Shakespeare did it, that is how it should be done.  Who am I to correct the immortal Bard?    

 Shakespeare also didn't have sets, and dudes played chick roles.

I didn't think about those things.  Maybe I am incorrect, I don't know. 

It seems to me that one of the things about theater is that every show is different, and when a show is over, it's done forever, vanished like tears in rain. You can never see that same show again.

I saw the first national tour of the musical "Jekyll and Hyde" and years later saw the second national tour. Both excellent shows, but not the same. Different talents make a different experience.

Olivier's Hamlet, Gibson's Hamlet, and Branaugh's Hamlet are each unique peieces of art, not just covers of the same song. Even if you wanted to, the most blatant of imitation couldn't ever really be the same experience.

Warbler said:

I didn't think about those things.  Maybe I am incorrect, I don't know. 

 Who knows, but to be fair, the difference between two versions of "Guys and Dolls" and the difference between modern Shakespeare and 400 year old theatrical traditions might be apples and oranges.

TheBoost said:

I saw the first national tour of the musical "Jekyll and Hyde" and years later saw the second national tour. Both excellent shows, but not the same. Different talents make a different experience.

was the script changed?  were the songs?  But I will agree different talents make for a different experience. 

TheBoost said:

 Even if you wanted to, the most blatant of imitation couldn't ever really be the same experience.

I am forced to agree, just take a look at the two Psycho movies.   

Warbler said:

TheBoost said:

I saw the first national tour of the musical "Jekyll and Hyde" and years later saw the second national tour. Both excellent shows, but not the same. Different talents make a different experience.

was the script changed?  were the songs?  But I will agree different talents make for a different experience. 

IIRC one (maybe more) song was different (same coposer) and there were changes to the script. There was at least one totally new song. Notably the entire staging was different, the second tour had a red floor and a big boxy set.

Warbler said:

 

I am forced to agree, just take a look at the two Psycho movies.   

 Please dont' make me.

ok, but at least watch the original.  Its very good.

TheBoost said: the second tour had a red floor and a big boxy set.

and the first tour?

Warbler said:

ok, but at least watch the original.  Its very good.

TheBoost said: the second tour had a red floor and a big boxy set.

and the first tour?

I've seen Psycho. But the Vince Vaughn Psycho made me want to drink bleach. Why remake something if you have nothing new to say with the material?

As for "Jekyll," the first tour had a more normal kind of set/stage. After the first tour the show opened on Broadway, and the second tour was maybe 4 years later, so certain changes and developments were I suppose to be expected.

I thought the Gus Van Sant version was one of the smartest moves in remake history.

The only way a Psycho film could be interesting, beyond the first sequel (which is surprisingly good) would be if the source novel was translated as written but the first re-use of the title was bound to be a remake of the original film so by being so extreme a recreation it's made another remake almost impossible.

I'm tempted to think the Gus did it on purpose (he got paid and saved the original film from being associated with a shoddy remake).

TheBoost said:

Warbler said:

ok, but at least watch the original.  Its very good.

TheBoost said: the second tour had a red floor and a big boxy set.

and the first tour?

I've seen Psycho. But the Vince Vaughn Psycho made me want to drink bleach.

I agree that movie should never have been made. 

TheBoost said:

Why remake something if you have nothing new to say with the material?

I agree when you are talking about films.   I can always go watch the original film.   I don't need that redone.   But when you are talking about a live performance of a play/musical, that is another story.   I can't go back to the 50's to see a live performance of the original Guys and Dolls.   The best that can be done is to see live performance done by a modern cast and crew that tries to come as close to the original as humanly possible.

Ripplin said:

This now feels like the Specific Thoughts thread. ;)

Yeah, I don't like when this thread turns to subjects I either can't or won't follow.

So...

Spaghetti!

*sigh*  just when we having a serious conversation.  oh well.  : (

Spaghetti derailment for the win.

*little Frink dance*

Hey Warb, why not make a thread about whatever it was you guys were talking about when I tuned you out (Bill Shakespeare or something?).