Category Archives: plays

Skip’s Quips: Movies and What to Make of ‘Uriel Acosta’

~

Blog Sketch 082813I’m afraid I’m none too knowledgeable about the world of avant-garde theater, so this post might lead anyone with more than a small understanding of the genre to look askance at me.

This past Saturday, I went to see the Target Margin Theater’s production of Uriel Acosta – I Want That Man! at The Chocolate Factory in Long Island City. What does this have to do with film? Well, the thoroughly bizarre performance – which had something to do with the life of the titular Jewish philosopher, the Yiddish play about him and all sorts of other related material – featured some very interesting video-centric content, including images of bearded men, Hebrew words and more projected onto plumes of smoke drifting upon the stage area. The performance also included a bit of curious puppeteering that was projected onto screens for the audience’s viewing pleasure. So there was a significant multimedia component.

Unfortunately, it didn’t stop the production from being rather dull and confusing – the many sequences during which the actors spoke their lines loudly and concurrently exemplified this issue. Still, the piece got me wondering about the future of cinema and how it could relate to live theater … how these media could be juxtaposed in creative ways. There’s no reason to think these are exclusive from one another, but while theater may include snippets of film, you’d be hard pressed to find movies outside of The Rocky Horror Picture Show where live performance forms an integral (albeit cosmetic) part of the experience. Perhaps we need more of the latter, though in a form where we’re not reacting to the proceedings onscreen but in accord with them. That somehow our decisions affect what happens in the movie.

That may sound like a futuristic idea, but it’s already been toyed with in films such as Fahrenheit 451, in which the characters participate in mundane teleplays whose characters seem to react to the outside participants. Hopefully, a new breed of this type of thing could be more involving.

There’s a chance this has already been done, by the way, and I’m just not privy to it. So if I’m wishing here for something that’s already obsolete, I apologize in advance.

A Skip and Setter Q&A: The Ancient Art of Swearing

~

Skip and Setter QandA Sketch 092213At a recent imaginary panel that didn’t happen at any industry conference we know of, Skip and Setter locked horns on the topic of profanity and why it’s so prevalent in movies today. The following is an excerpt from their overlong, admittedly tiresome debate.

Skip: You’ve said in the past that you like seeing profanity in movies because it calls attention to the need to upgrade the English language. Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that many venerated writers–from Ben Jonson to e.e. cummings–have used vulgarity in their works? English doesn’t need upgrading!

Setter: You’re so misinformed. I’m talking about profanity when it’s used to replace inspired dialogue. As in every flick these days that tries to emulate Pulp Fiction. I’m not talking about profanity with a purpose.

Skip: Well, don’t you think all profanity has a purpose–as long as it’s in character?

Setter: No. Read my latest book.

Skip: I’m not reading your book, dude. I hate your writing.

Setter: Well, I outline my “Theory of Profanity” there. It basically states that it’s cooler to say a swear word in a movie than to get a “G” rating.

Skip: So you’re against overusing profanity.

Setter: Sure. Unless it concerns your reviews.

Skip: I love you, too. Now, why don’t you think the vulgarity-filled sports film has survived? Slap Shot, Major League? Seems like more folks want to do a film about profane, hipper-than-thou mobsters than they do locker-room sagas.

Setter: They’ll be back. I think people are afraid of seeing depictions of the way hallowed sports figures really talk. But they’re generally more credible than watching the story of a hired assassin who likes Schubert.

Skip: Sounds like a double standard. As long as it’s not believable, it’s OK to use profanity.

Setter: Maybe. Read my latest book.

Skip: No thanks. Anyway, profanity’s part of our lexicon. It’s been around for centuries.

Setter: Doesn’t mean we should use it. Look at the Hays Code era. Lots of great movies were made without profanity.

Skip: And lots of junk came out, too. Ever see Turnabout? Blecch.

Setter: For every one of those, there’s a Casablanca. See my point? You don’t need a swear word to make a good movie.

Skip: It might sell more tickets.

Setter: It might. Read my latest book.

Skip: To channel e.e. cummings: “I will not read your CENSORED book.”

Setter: Pompous CENSORED.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Let’s Put On a Movie-Inspired Show!

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Do you remember the (sometimes) good old days when Hollywood turned Broadway musicals into motion pictures?

Yes, we still get that to some extent with Chicago, Phantom and others of their ilk. But, uh …

Well, but. It’s not the same, is it?

Definitely not the same is the trend to turn motion pictures into Broadway musicals. The Lion King is one example. Another’s Newsies. Even My Favorite Year got into the stagebound act (terribly, I might add).

What are we going to say about the cinema 20 years from now? “Hey, where were you when the film of the musical based on the movie The Producers came out?”

I know how I’d respond: “Me? I was watching the film of the opera based on the Beaumarchais play The Marriage of Figaro at the Met. After that, we ate at the restaurant spun off the novel based on the  video game inspired by … ”

Blah, blah, blah.

There’s something truly uninspired about creating a play or musical based on a movie–especially if the original’s a good one. Film’s not like theater; it’s permanent, constant. Actors don’t flub lines one night and get them perfectly the next. You’ve got a completed work.

So if the source movie’s good–as is the case with My Favorite Year and The Producers–why bother translating it for the stage? Shouldn’t we consider ourselves lucky that we have a film we can always return to, laugh at, quote the lines from? And isn’t that one of the main reasons why we can watch great movies over and over again … because we know them like we know our significant others, our families, our friends?

Because they never change?

That’s why I’m not interested in seeing any more Broadway shows based on films. The theater begs for interpretation, transformation; movies don’t. I’ll watch the motion picture version of Sunset Boulevard, not the musical, thank you very much. Because the latter, like so many of its kind, just isn’t ready for its close-up.