Stage -> Fire Swamp -> Screen
This started as a brief email to my grandparents about a potential bounced check and, as often happens with me, soon turned into this monster (financial drabble deleted, natch) Seems about the only way I update this thing lately.
I was getting over a rotten head cold this weekend and finally got to a few Netflix offerings I had been sitting on for much too long. First up was "Bell, Book and Candle," which I had thought I had seen before many years previous but upon watching could remember nothing but the basic theme of witchcraft. I found it delightful as an adaptation of a stage play, imagining how it would be on stage but appreciating what film (albeit from an earlier time) was able to add. Those '50s playwrights managed to nail the more complex nuances of love and romance every so often, and as something of a "Hollywood romance" skeptic it's always nice to see the whole matter presented more realistically, even in a movie about witches! But I kept seeing Kim Novak's giant painted eyebrows popping up randomly in my dreams, and my "inner voice" can't decide today whether to emulate the distinctive voice of James Stewart, Elsa Lanchester or Hermione Gingold. Such indecision, you might imagine, could easily be disastrous (haha).
.
Also in that vein was my second venture, "Proof," another adaptation of a very successful Pulitzer Prize-winning play from several years ago that I had always heard great things about but wasn't able to see performed (I think I was still in high school), so I got the film as more of a substitute. It's the kind of movie whose plot revolves around a totally alien/baffling academic topic that makes you feel smarter for having watched it and at least knowing why you're baffled. It also speaks to the talent of the playwright/screenwriter that a story about complex mathematics is still accessible to a math-o-phobic English major (although it is set in and among elite academia, which I like). It was refreshing to see Gwyneth Paltrow in a role different from her standard fare, and also features one of my favorite, woefully underused actresses, Hope Davis; rounded off by Sir Anthony Hopkins and Jake Gyllenhaal, I found the casting and acting alone worth the rental. Plus it's short, just over an hour and a half. I recommend for a satisfying (pre-happy hour) viewing.
.
I have heard criticisms of the current film version of "Doubt" that are similar to critical reaction to "Proof," mainly that neither effectively utilizes the unique capabilities of the film medium and are, in effect, little more than a recorded version of a successful Broadway play. I've noticed, actually, after "Chicago," that what at first looked like it might be the revival of the movie musical has turned into more of an uninspired exercise in synergy and recycling (one that is still, however, more than welcome for theatre buffs such as myself who lack the funds or locational opportunity to consume as much "Broadway" theatre as they might like...but, as companies are finding out, such people do not amount to $100mil opening weekends). Perhaps, though, that's because most if not all of the good film-able musicals have already been made into similarly excellent films (Cabaret, Sound of Music, Gigi, Oliver!, Fiddler, How to Succeed...the list goes on) and the Broadway musical trends over the last couple decades have tended toward either the unfilmable (i.e. Sondheim) or, well, the crap (Lloyd Webber...).
.
There have been a few exceptions: Chicago, for one; Tim Burton's "Sweeney Todd," (which if you have not yet seen you really should-even Dad liked it); and another movie now playing, "Frost/Nixon." I haven't seen the stage version, but one thing that made the film one of these "exceptions" is that unlike its contemporaries it functions fully as a film separate and unique from its stage ancestor. I imagine that those who moan about "Proof" and "Doubt" likely look at "Frost/Nixon" as an example of their preferred stage-to-screen adaptation. But beyond that, the performances of the two men (Michael Sheen and Frank Langella) were astounding from start to finish. I saw a preview screening that turned out to be a large group of pre-weekend gay men, hardly known for their maturity or reverence, and one could hear a pin drop at every critical moment. And there were plenty. Who knew history could be so intense? I haven't met anyone who has seen it who has not been at least marginally impressed, which considering some of my USC film snob friends is saying something. If you ever get the itch to hop on down to the local cinematheque, this is a good one to catch.
.
Well good gracious, this turned out to be quite the dissertation, didn't it? I guess I'm still a little sore from my brief couple of weeks butting heads with LA Times film critic Kenneth Turan in a film criticism class at USC my senior year. I had always thought highly of him until the first couple of classes made it clear that we had some fundamental disagreements on theory, and as he was a bit of a jerk as well I didn't feel like conforming my last semester of college. So I took Susan Estrich's class instead and had one of my best learning experiences of my life. Go figure.
.
Well, the students are back today, and already I've noticed a significant change in my energy, excitement and efficiency in the office. The last four or five weeks of just busy work with little to no interaction with students (and those who did come by tended to have just been expelled or other such catastrophes) were really starting to get me down a bit; a few mornings last week were the first and only times I've actually not wanted to go to work, which has been one of the highlights of this whole new career thing.
I was getting over a rotten head cold this weekend and finally got to a few Netflix offerings I had been sitting on for much too long. First up was "Bell, Book and Candle," which I had thought I had seen before many years previous but upon watching could remember nothing but the basic theme of witchcraft. I found it delightful as an adaptation of a stage play, imagining how it would be on stage but appreciating what film (albeit from an earlier time) was able to add. Those '50s playwrights managed to nail the more complex nuances of love and romance every so often, and as something of a "Hollywood romance" skeptic it's always nice to see the whole matter presented more realistically, even in a movie about witches! But I kept seeing Kim Novak's giant painted eyebrows popping up randomly in my dreams, and my "inner voice" can't decide today whether to emulate the distinctive voice of James Stewart, Elsa Lanchester or Hermione Gingold. Such indecision, you might imagine, could easily be disastrous (haha).
.
Also in that vein was my second venture, "Proof," another adaptation of a very successful Pulitzer Prize-winning play from several years ago that I had always heard great things about but wasn't able to see performed (I think I was still in high school), so I got the film as more of a substitute. It's the kind of movie whose plot revolves around a totally alien/baffling academic topic that makes you feel smarter for having watched it and at least knowing why you're baffled. It also speaks to the talent of the playwright/screenwriter that a story about complex mathematics is still accessible to a math-o-phobic English major (although it is set in and among elite academia, which I like). It was refreshing to see Gwyneth Paltrow in a role different from her standard fare, and also features one of my favorite, woefully underused actresses, Hope Davis; rounded off by Sir Anthony Hopkins and Jake Gyllenhaal, I found the casting and acting alone worth the rental. Plus it's short, just over an hour and a half. I recommend for a satisfying (pre-happy hour) viewing.
.
I have heard criticisms of the current film version of "Doubt" that are similar to critical reaction to "Proof," mainly that neither effectively utilizes the unique capabilities of the film medium and are, in effect, little more than a recorded version of a successful Broadway play. I've noticed, actually, after "Chicago," that what at first looked like it might be the revival of the movie musical has turned into more of an uninspired exercise in synergy and recycling (one that is still, however, more than welcome for theatre buffs such as myself who lack the funds or locational opportunity to consume as much "Broadway" theatre as they might like...but, as companies are finding out, such people do not amount to $100mil opening weekends). Perhaps, though, that's because most if not all of the good film-able musicals have already been made into similarly excellent films (Cabaret, Sound of Music, Gigi, Oliver!, Fiddler, How to Succeed...the list goes on) and the Broadway musical trends over the last couple decades have tended toward either the unfilmable (i.e. Sondheim) or, well, the crap (Lloyd Webber...).
.
There have been a few exceptions: Chicago, for one; Tim Burton's "Sweeney Todd," (which if you have not yet seen you really should-even Dad liked it); and another movie now playing, "Frost/Nixon." I haven't seen the stage version, but one thing that made the film one of these "exceptions" is that unlike its contemporaries it functions fully as a film separate and unique from its stage ancestor. I imagine that those who moan about "Proof" and "Doubt" likely look at "Frost/Nixon" as an example of their preferred stage-to-screen adaptation. But beyond that, the performances of the two men (Michael Sheen and Frank Langella) were astounding from start to finish. I saw a preview screening that turned out to be a large group of pre-weekend gay men, hardly known for their maturity or reverence, and one could hear a pin drop at every critical moment. And there were plenty. Who knew history could be so intense? I haven't met anyone who has seen it who has not been at least marginally impressed, which considering some of my USC film snob friends is saying something. If you ever get the itch to hop on down to the local cinematheque, this is a good one to catch.
.
Well good gracious, this turned out to be quite the dissertation, didn't it? I guess I'm still a little sore from my brief couple of weeks butting heads with LA Times film critic Kenneth Turan in a film criticism class at USC my senior year. I had always thought highly of him until the first couple of classes made it clear that we had some fundamental disagreements on theory, and as he was a bit of a jerk as well I didn't feel like conforming my last semester of college. So I took Susan Estrich's class instead and had one of my best learning experiences of my life. Go figure.
.
Well, the students are back today, and already I've noticed a significant change in my energy, excitement and efficiency in the office. The last four or five weeks of just busy work with little to no interaction with students (and those who did come by tended to have just been expelled or other such catastrophes) were really starting to get me down a bit; a few mornings last week were the first and only times I've actually not wanted to go to work, which has been one of the highlights of this whole new career thing.