Tag Archives: theater

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Sipping at the Cup of Jon Stewart’s ‘Rosewater’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Yesterday, while at the theater to watch Nightcrawler, I saw the trailer for the Jon Stewart film Rosewater.

I have to admit, I’m a bit skeptical about this production. Stewart directed the movie and wrote the script for it, and although I think he’s a funny, often insightful guy, I’m far from a devotee of his work and don’t agree with him on everything. This serious picture, which documents the imprisonment and questioning of a journalist in Iran, is hardly comic material, and comedy is Stewart’s specialty. From a cinematic standpoint, it’s a big risk.

On the other hand, the trailer suggests some interesting cinematography and intriguing dialogue, which would be a big step forward for the usually lighthearted Stewart. It’s also topical subject matter, given the tyrannical regime currently in Iran, and might call further attention to the events occurring there. So there’s a part of me that’s looking forward to seeing it.

The question is: Will it be good? It’s hard to say. I guess I have to wait and see.

I hate doing that.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Your Seats Won’t Make a Bad Movie Better

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613It’s nice to know there are movie theaters out there that are trying to make the film-consumption process more palatable than the tired popcorn that’s churned out every day before being drizzled with slimy butter topping.

I recently had the experience of sitting in such a theater, which featured a kind of stadium seating that might be found in the first-class cabin of an airplane … if such flights featured cinema-oriented stadium seating. Composed of soft padding, the chair had a bit of a recline thing going on, as well as lots of space for me to shift my tuchas when my position became the least bit uncomfortable. The requisite cup holder added convenience; extra leg room added area.

Unfortunately, it didn’t improve the movie I was seeing: This Is Where I Leave You.

That’s too bad. I only wish the theater concentrated more on providing a better film than it did on offering cushy seating. For a good picture, I’d sit on hard wooden benches. I’d sit on the floor. I’d sit in the smoking lava of the Mount Doom caldera.

Well, maybe I wouldn’t go that far.

My point is that the quality of the seating in a theater is less important to me than the quality of the filmmaking. I prefer to see movies based on how good they may be, not how comfortable the space is. And I just don’t think a huge number of mainstream theaters consider that.

I understand numbers are important. I understand luring eyeballs is essential. But I just would like to see more of a focus on bringing great pictures to the theaters than one geared to bells and whistles. I don’t know if this will happen; it’s probably not a realistic hope. It’s the wish of a moviegoer, though. The wish of an individual.

That should factor in somewhere.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: What Happened to All Those Great Opera Movies?

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Remember Franco Zeffirelli’s excellent film of Verdi’s Otello? Lush production, sexy direction, terrific acting, and of course, the great Placido Domingo as the titular Moor.

Why can’t we get more movies like that today?

It seems like there isn’t as much of an impetus to develop cinematic spectaculars based on classic operas as there was three decades ago, and I think that’s a shame. Once upon a time, you had Ingmar Bergman doing Mozart’s The Magic Flute, too. But now, it appears that directors of a certain stature are more content to craft large-scale pictures out of popular contemporary musicals than operatic standards. It makes sense from a commercial standpoint, as the latter have a more limited audience. From an artistic perspective, however, it’s lamentable.

I want to see a great celluloid version of Wagner’s Tristan und Isolde, darn it! And not the nonsense that is Tristan + Isolde, see?

Today, with New York’s Metropolitan Opera doing HD films of various productions, it’s easy to think that we’ve come to an era where the genre is made accessible to everyone. I don’t think that’s the case, though. Movies of productions aren’t the same as cinematic iterations that aren’t confined to one stage; Zeffirelli’s Otello is proof of that. It was an actual film, not a filmed opera. That’s one of the reasons why it worked so well onscreen. Editing, cinematography, music, art direction – everything combined to make a powerful whole. It became a motion picture.

I don’t think opera is a dying art, nor do I believe it should be relegated to the upper class. It’s for everyone, and the great works deserve to be viewed and listened to by all. That’s why I’d like to see more of the type of thing that Zeffirelli has done in the theaters – not just HD versions. Many of these stories are quite cinematic, with fanciful plots and engaging characters. Shouldn’t they be put onscreen where they belong?

I think so. And I hope one day, we’ll see opera once again take its rightful place in the cinema.

Skip’s Quips: I Still Like Going to the Movies

~

Blog Sketch 082813I have to admit: I’ve been staying at home a lot and watching films on TV rather than going to the theaters to see them.

That includes no-longer-first-run movies. These days, I generally wait until they hit pay-per-view to watch ’em.

But that doesn’t mean I don’t like going to the theaters. On the contrary. There’s something beautiful about viewing a film in the dark amid a host of unfamiliar people while nursing a bucket of artificially moistened popcorn and a strangely sweet diet soda. I like it. That I haven’t done it much lately is more a testament to my laziness than my desire to stay home.

That will change soon. I’m making a non-New Year’s resolution. I plan on going out to see more movies … as soon as I drop the remote.

No, that doesn’t mean I’m going to stop watching films on pay-per-view or the commercial channels. It just means I’ll be in the theaters more often – where movies are meant to be shown.

I may even go see a bad flick or two, just for the heck of it. Now that’s a change in philosophy if there ever was one. You gotta be dedicated to the cinema if you make a resolution like that.

Well, I am. I’m dedicated to the cinema. And I’ll be at the theaters more. I promise you.

What channel is that TV menu/guide thingy on again?

Setter’s ‘Spectives: To Leave or Not to Leave

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613If a movie isn’t compelling in the first 15 minutes, then you don’t need to see the rest of it.

That’s my opinion, and I’ve held it for a while now, as well as lived by it … for the most part. Viewers shouldn’t force themselves to watch terrible flicks because they a) paid for them or b) are too polite to walk out on them. If they don’t grab you right away, chances are they won’t do so an hour into them.

Nowadays it’s easy just to change the channel on TV. It’s a lot harder to leave a theater in the middle of a picture, and I admit I haven’t always had the guts to follow my own mantra. Still, having the right to exit is enough for me.

I just wish I could’ve done so while viewing Watchmen. Oh, well.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: The Times They Are A-Spacin’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613My father has an interesting story that he likes to tell about the original Star Wars movie.

Back in the late 1970s, after the flick came out, he went to see it in the theater. Once there, after the picture started, he fell asleep.

What? you say. Fell asleep during Star Wars?

Yea, verily, yea. Apparently, all the noise and flashing lights from those proletarian blasters combined with the dark theater put him right into slumberland.

Nowadays, that may seem bizarre, but it’s an interesting reflection of the times, I think. In those days, not everyone regarded Star Wars as the classic it’s thought of today. Even Alec Guinness, Obi-Wan Kenobi himself, reportedly didn’t think much of the script when he first read it. Since then, after repeated viewings, my father has come to like the film, but it took a while for that to happen. Like a fine wine (or perhaps, more appropriately, cheese) Star Wars gets better as it gets older. And it just goes to show you: Not everything good has immediate appeal.

See? Sometimes, to decide whether you like something, you just gotta sleep on it.

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.

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.