dirac

Religious views take precedence for some. They may not for others. Sandy’s comment also speaks to the question that started this thread. My own feeling is that I may or may not clap as the mood takes me. If I am specially requested not to clap, I may well do so depending upon the circumstances, as a matter of courtesy. I might not, however, refrain from clapping or other audible expression merely because I’m told that I’m about to see something of “religious significance.” That's something that should come out in performance and not as a program note or admonition....

Political views are often held with the same kind of intensity and personal identification. But leaving that aside, if a work is presented for appraisal by critics and public, it should expect the treatment of any other work so presented.

A new exhibition at Buckingham Palace showcases Victoria and Albert's taste in art. Did anyone else see the movie?

Thanks for posting about this, volcanohunter. I hope some were able to tune in. Did you hear it? This is such a beautiful opera.

I agree with that. Dancers didn’t look as young to me even ten years ago as they do now. Another decade or so and I’ll probably be wanting to burp them. From what I understand, the younger set are actually (relatively) uninterested in Twitter. It’s very much a phenomenon among adults as well. And dancers using Twitter may well be doing so for professional as well as personal reasons.

As they say in real estate, location, location, location. Obviously no one would boo singers and dancers performing in church as part of a religious service. (Applause would no doubt be inappropriate in most cases as well.) If you are in a theater charging spectators for the privilege of watching you, then you should expect to deal with audience reactions, which can range anywhere from ecstatic happiness to vocal disapproval, no matter what the religious nature of your material or intent. Such is life. Thanks for reviving the thread, bart.

This is wonderful, Mme. Hermine. Thanks for the link!

I too would be interested to know more, sandik. There is a Dance Theater of Harlem Ensemble that performs from time to time.

A breaking news release from Opera News that notes the late Met debut mentioned by Richard.

Sounds like a wonderful and colorful performance, cubanmiamiboy. Thanks for telling us about it.

Much obliged for the heads up, volcanohunter. I hope anyone who sees it will post about it here. The reviews were...interesting.

Thank you for posting this sad news, richard53dog. The name rang a bell with me but not the voice.

Hi, Ed. thanks for posting. I went through a period years ago where I read a ton of mysteries (none of the names you've mentioned). I haven't read very many contemporary ones. I tried one or two of the Kinsey Millhone books, which didn't work for me. Also read the first of the No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency books, which I liked but not enough to follow up with the rest of the series. Read one title I can't recall by George Pelecanos. That's about it. Any other suggestions?

Thank you for reporting, cubanmiamiboy. Please keep us posted. It's pretty chilly in some parts of the country over here, too....

It is certainly true that they are less likely to have recourse to supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. Not necessarily a bad thing.

Thanks for the background information, 4mrdncr. That's what I remembered, they just taped the play in the studio. Too bad. It’s certainly a new and valuable option, but speaking for myself I prefer not seeing actors who are emoting for the balconies too closely – it’s not fair to them or us, even if one as a viewer makes allowances. Putting a camera onstage doesn't necessarily enhance when everything has been staged for an audience on the other side of the proscenium arch viewing the stage picture as a whole.

I never saw Cabaret on stage, but I’m perfectly willing to accept that Haworth or just about anyone else would be a better Sally Bowles. Nothing against Minnelli, I just don’t think the character makes much sense as an American girl and Liza was too much The Star. I think Cabaret is a marvelous movie, though. There's a Doll's House with Jane Fonda that was a feature film, but I haven't seen it. I don't recall any Arms and the Man, either, but I can understand if nobody wanted to try that. There are the three Shaw pictures made by Gabriel Pascal, Pygmalion, Major Barbara, and Caesar and Cleopatra. All of them are good and Pygmalion is not only a legitimate classic but provided the uncredited basis for My Fair Lady. I think we have a separate thread related to Shakespeare on film somewhere. I agree, it's a subject to itself.

Thanks for posting, chiapuris, I enjoyed reading that.

Television shows are visually more sophisticated than they've ever been (not that the shows are always better).

Another clip from the Williams thread: papeetepatrick: In the case of big Broadway hits such as Carousel and Oklahoma! the idea was to give movie audiences as good an approximation of the stage experience as possible. They aren't great as film, but then they weren't made with that in mind. I remember that show from years ago, which was great, and I think you're right. They didn't shoot a live performance, but basically just taped the play. It probably wouldn't work for a feature film but it was just fine for television, and Malkovich and Sinise were terrific.

Jean Brodie is a special case, because it's an adaptation of an adaptation - from novel to stage to film (like the 1940 version of Pride and Prejudice, which isn't taken directly from Austen but from a stage adaptation). There are many things to love about it. The costumes by Beatrice Dawson are divine. (You can get fixated on all the doodads on the ladies’ hats.)

Yes, and although there are many examples, one of the most glaringly obvious, which looks like a filmed version of a televised play is 'Glengarry Glen Ross', which I enjoyed despite this total absence of the cinematic. Surely because of the performances, Pacino and Lemmon especially good, but so are all the others too. Not that I know how it should have been filmed. Was this the best way for those of use who didn't see it onstage. Definitely a cut above just a televised live performance of a play. What's an example of a play that went to the screen and seemed both like the play and also seemed like a real movie? Is 'The Importance of Being Earnest' a good example'? Maybe so, because it's so 'naturally artificial' that you need the sense of staginess even on film. I realize I've seen very little Williams onstage, maybe only 'Streetcar', with Rosemary Harris at the old Vivian Beaumont, and I preferred this to either of the film and/or TV versions I've seen (Leigh/Brando/Hunter and Ann-Margret/Treat Williams/d'Angelo, although I liked both of those as well. Lots of food for thought in your post, papeetepatrick. I took the liberty of cutting and pasting it as a new topic, since I think the discussion could go in many different directions!

Papeetepatrick brought up something on the Tennessee Williams thread that I thought would make a good topic on its own. Yes, and although there are many examples, one of the most glaringly obvious, which looks like a filmed version of a televised play is 'Glengarry Glen Ross', which I enjoyed despite this total absence of the cinematic. Surely because of the performances, Pacino and Lemmon especially good, but so are all the others too. Not that I know how it should have been filmed. Was this the best way for those of use who didn't see it onstage. Definitely a cut above just a televised live performance of a play. What's an example of a play that went to the screen and seemed both like the play and also seemed like a real movie? Is 'The Importance of Being Earnest' a good example'? Maybe so, because it's so 'naturally artificial' that you need the sense of staginess even on film. I realize I've seen very little Williams onstage, maybe only 'Streetcar', with Rosemary Harris at the old Vivian Beaumont, and I preferred this to either of the film and/or TV versions I've seen (Leigh/Brando/Hunter and Ann-Margret/Treat Williams/d'Angelo, although I liked both of those as well. I agree that the film of Glengarry Glen Ross is very good. . There's nothing necessarily wrong with a "photographed play" if it's done right. The movie version is opened up but not too much, although I thought it was a bad mistake to amplify – to create, really -- the subplot involving Shelley and his sick daughter (the movie milks it for all it's worth and then some, while the play relies much more on the power of suggestion). The film also has a nice bonus in the speech that Mamet wrote for Alec Baldwin, whose character doesn't appear in the play. And you would never get such a powerhouse ensemble for a stage production. I love The Importance of Being Earnest (the Anthony Asquith version; I think there's been another one since?). It's close to perfect and it has Edith Evans. Asquith did noodle with the text a bit, mostly by trimming scenes and moving them around, but not too much. What other such adaptations did you like, or not like, and why?

The moviemakers are between a rock and a hard place, because what worked on stage won’t necessarily work on screen even if transferred over with minimal changes. You can get away with stuff in the theater that the camera won’t let pass. I thought Vidal did as good a job as could be expected of opening up Suddenly Last Summer even if it is too long and too talky. (Kazan was smart in electing not to open up Streetcar, though. The movie suffers from a certain staginess, but on the other hand retains a lot of power it would not have had with the addition of the naturalistic filler you rightly mention.) And censorship certainly did hurt. There are some things in Streetcar and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof that make considerably less dramatic sense with the cuts demanded by the censors of the time, and I’ve already mentioned the shillyshallying about Sebastian’s sex life. Especially amusing for this viewer are the scenes where Taylor is using everything but semaphore to convey to Clift that Sebastian was gay, and poor Monty has to blink his eyes and pretend he doesn’t understand what she’s getting at.....

The nominations were announced today. No surprises to speak of. The new and inclusive Best Picture nominees have some mediocrities but they'll have fewer beefs from those who were left out, so I guess it's worth it to the Academy. I don't think there will be any surprises on the likely winners front, either.