Different Versions Of Plays

..and why not?
User avatar
Dr Markus
Posts: 17670
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Different Versions Of Plays

Postby Dr Markus » 09 Jan 2018, 15:03

Harvey K-Tel wrote:I'm mounting a version of 'Waiting For Godot' in which Vladimir and Estragon are running on treadmills, with a projection of a bear chasing them in the background.


I'd watch that, certainly different.
Drama Queenie wrote:You are a chauvinist of the quaintest kind. About as threatening as Jack Duckworth, you are a harmless relic of that cherished era when things were 'different'. Now get back to drawing a moustache on that page three model

User avatar
bobzilla77
Posts: 15884
Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 02:56
Location: Dilute! Dilute! OK!

Re: Different Versions Of Plays

Postby bobzilla77 » 10 Jan 2018, 19:48

My suggestion would be, go see a couple different productions of the same play. What was different? What made the most difference? I mean these are questions you have to ask yourself. But you will find the answer certainly.

EDIT - I have seen that you don't go to plays nor care for them. In that case, you will never find the knowledge which you seek. You will flail about hopelessly for the answer like Don Quixote in the original stage production of Man Of La Mancha tilting at his windmills. Tilt for tat.
Jimbo wrote:I guess I am over Graham Nash's politics. Hopelessly naive by the standards I've molded for myself these days.

User avatar
bobzilla77
Posts: 15884
Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 02:56
Location: Dilute! Dilute! OK!

Re: Different Versions Of Plays

Postby bobzilla77 » 10 Jan 2018, 19:54

I'd kind of like to start a theater company that did famous plays, but every single line was delivered sarcastically. It could completely change the ending!
Jimbo wrote:I guess I am over Graham Nash's politics. Hopelessly naive by the standards I've molded for myself these days.

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 12110
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: Different Versions Of Plays

Postby Sneelock » 10 Jan 2018, 20:01

I’VE always depended on the kindness of strangers. :roll:
scan not a friend with a microscopic glass

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 27343
Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'

Re: Different Versions Of Plays

Postby toomanyhatz » 10 Jan 2018, 20:09

bobzilla77 wrote:I have seen that you don't go to plays nor care for them. In that case, you will never find the knowledge which you seek.


I'm still confused as to why someone would seek knowledge about something they've already admitted they don't care about.
sloopjohnc wrote:Aslan has some good credenitals - got his BA from Santa Clara, a Jesuit school and his Masters from Harvard and PhD from Santa Barbara, a surfing school.


1959 1963 1965 1966 1974 1977 1978 1981 1988 2017 2018!!

User avatar
Samoan
Posts: 10283
Joined: 28 May 2008, 10:22
Location: still at Red Hen restaurant

Re: Different Versions Of Plays

Postby Samoan » 10 Jan 2018, 20:18

toomanyhatz wrote:I'm still confused as to why someone would seek knowledge about something they've already admitted they don't care about.

I wouldn't bother your pretty little head about it.
Nikki Gradual wrote: Santana is just lift music really, isn’t it ?

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23704
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: Different Versions Of Plays

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 10 Jan 2018, 20:19

toomanyhatz wrote:
bobzilla77 wrote:I have seen that you don't go to plays nor care for them. In that case, you will never find the knowledge which you seek.


I'm still confused as to why someone would seek knowledge about something they've already admitted they don't care about.


Me too. But I don’t care enough about the answer to ask.
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 27343
Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'

Re: Different Versions Of Plays

Postby toomanyhatz » 10 Jan 2018, 20:26

You say that as if an answer would be forthcoming shortly if you did...
sloopjohnc wrote:Aslan has some good credenitals - got his BA from Santa Clara, a Jesuit school and his Masters from Harvard and PhD from Santa Barbara, a surfing school.


1959 1963 1965 1966 1974 1977 1978 1981 1988 2017 2018!!

User avatar
Dr Markus
Posts: 17670
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Different Versions Of Plays

Postby Dr Markus » 10 Jan 2018, 20:56

bobzilla77 wrote:I'd kind of like to start a theater company that did famous plays, but every single line was delivered sarcastically. It could completely change the ending!



Sign me up.
Drama Queenie wrote:You are a chauvinist of the quaintest kind. About as threatening as Jack Duckworth, you are a harmless relic of that cherished era when things were 'different'. Now get back to drawing a moustache on that page three model

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 27343
Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'

Re: Different Versions Of Plays

Postby toomanyhatz » 10 Jan 2018, 21:04

"Alas. Poooooorrr Yorick. I "knew" him? Well..."
sloopjohnc wrote:Aslan has some good credenitals - got his BA from Santa Clara, a Jesuit school and his Masters from Harvard and PhD from Santa Barbara, a surfing school.


1959 1963 1965 1966 1974 1977 1978 1981 1988 2017 2018!!

User avatar
hippopotamus
Posts: 939
Joined: 22 Dec 2015, 11:00

Re: Different Versions Of Plays

Postby hippopotamus » 14 Jan 2018, 22:21

This might be my favourite thread ever.

For this I thank you, Markus.

I'm utterly torn... but I think I'll take the question seriously. It's not Necessarily such a stupid question.
I've had clever enough people ask what the point of orchestras putting on the same pieces over and over again compared with the live musicianship of a band who are writing and performing their own things.... I guess the artistry can be more subtle.

I GUESS the same could be true of plays...

But I love theatre. I grew up in a theatre type family.
The differences are the reason you do it. You do it because you want to communicate something to the public. A plotline/written script is the medium. But I'm in any 5 to 500 ways of saying the same lines you can bring different meaning.

But there really is no end to ways where you can bring meaning.
Sometimes just saying the thing at a different time changed the meaning. Putting on a performance of a play from the 17c that happens to imitate modern politics will obviously have new meaning today than it did then. This can be Outlined by making the sets and costumes modernised-where you're inferring that only cosmetic changes are needed to make it entirely relevant.

You can also have fun with the direction.... I absolutely love the company that put on the Bard in the Botanics productions in Glasgow. They are music and colour and glaswegian accents to show the fun and funny of Shakespeare. The staging is outdoors and even that helps disarm you as an audience. I've also seen them put on a very bleak and starkly empty staging of a very serious, lesser known one which let you focus on the strength of the language.

I was a little too involved with Gilbert and Sullivan societies in university. What nutcases. Performing the same 13 Victorian operettas year in year out for over 100 years. Some of my friends went on to dedicate themselves to doing it for life. It's hard to know why people would do this when they have been done to death and done in every way conceivable. My suspicion is that texts or plays that are rich enough can always spark Some thing new and imaginative to say or share.

I absolutely love seeing different interpretations. That s the good bit of theatre.


My big fat question, though, is how you think this is different for films?
Diamond Dog wrote:
nev gash wrote:What is point?


Indeed, what is point?

User avatar
Dr Markus
Posts: 17670
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Different Versions Of Plays

Postby Dr Markus » 17 Jan 2018, 11:23

hippopotamus wrote:This might be my favourite thread ever.

For this I thank you, Markus.

I'm utterly torn... but I think I'll take the question seriously. It's not Necessarily such a stupid question.
I've had clever enough people ask what the point of orchestras putting on the same pieces over and over again compared with the live musicianship of a band who are writing and performing their own things.... I guess the artistry can be more subtle.

I GUESS the same could be true of plays...

But I love theatre. I grew up in a theatre type family.
The differences are the reason you do it. You do it because you want to communicate something to the public. A plotline/written script is the medium. But I'm in any 5 to 500 ways of saying the same lines you can bring different meaning.

But there really is no end to ways where you can bring meaning.
Sometimes just saying the thing at a different time changed the meaning. Putting on a performance of a play from the 17c that happens to imitate modern politics will obviously have new meaning today than it did then. This can be Outlined by making the sets and costumes modernised-where you're inferring that only cosmetic changes are needed to make it entirely relevant.

You can also have fun with the direction.... I absolutely love the company that put on the Bard in the Botanics productions in Glasgow. They are music and colour and glaswegian accents to show the fun and funny of Shakespeare. The staging is outdoors and even that helps disarm you as an audience. I've also seen them put on a very bleak and starkly empty staging of a very serious, lesser known one which let you focus on the strength of the language.

I was a little too involved with Gilbert and Sullivan societies in university. What nutcases. Performing the same 13 Victorian operettas year in year out for over 100 years. Some of my friends went on to dedicate themselves to doing it for life. It's hard to know why people would do this when they have been done to death and done in every way conceivable. My suspicion is that texts or plays that are rich enough can always spark Some thing new and imaginative to say or share.

I absolutely love seeing different interpretations. That s the good bit of theatre.


My big fat question, though, is how you think this is different for films?


All valid points you've made, and pieces of work can still be relevant today. Your question about film is very easy to answer, a camera shot can change the complexion of a scene or enhance or limit an actors ability to shine. You can't do that with a play, you can't stop mid play and ask the audience to "shift over to the right there, so it will enhance this particular scene". There are some scenes in film that you can't picture them or imagine them shot differently. Some directors use the same camera techniques for similar scenes despite the movie they're shooting. The thing I can't get out of my mind when I've watched a play is, it seems to be just taking turns standing at the top of the stage so the audience can hear your lines. Very simplistic view I know, but that's all it seems to me.
Drama Queenie wrote:You are a chauvinist of the quaintest kind. About as threatening as Jack Duckworth, you are a harmless relic of that cherished era when things were 'different'. Now get back to drawing a moustache on that page three model

User avatar
space. invadere
hounds people off the board
Posts: 18651
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 23:21
Location: bit reliant on prawns

Re: Different Versions Of Plays

Postby space. invadere » 17 Jan 2018, 12:02

Yeah, film acting relies much more on facial expression, stage acting necessitates greater voice control - but nearly always you're projecting your voice, which can make the delivery of lines seem a little odd. Especially if you're not used to it. Which you aren't, 'cos you don't go to see plays.
GoogaMooga wrote:I've been GoogaMooga everywhere since I went online in 2005. There are copycats on the web incl a Brooklyn Food Festival, who have even adopted my camel case "M".

User avatar
Dr Markus
Posts: 17670
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Different Versions Of Plays

Postby Dr Markus » 17 Jan 2018, 12:22

Has any plays ever used microphones for actors, like them one you can just pin on? or would that be like Dylan going electric?
Drama Queenie wrote:You are a chauvinist of the quaintest kind. About as threatening as Jack Duckworth, you are a harmless relic of that cherished era when things were 'different'. Now get back to drawing a moustache on that page three model

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 12110
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: Different Versions Of Plays

Postby Sneelock » 17 Jan 2018, 16:12

they usually do - in bigger spaces, anyway. I remember I saw a production of "the Iceman Cometh" in the 80's and they made a big hairy deal out of the fact that no one was miked.
scan not a friend with a microscopic glass

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 12110
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: Different Versions Of Plays

Postby Sneelock » 17 Jan 2018, 16:23

hippopotamus wrote:
I was a little too involved with Gilbert and Sullivan societies in university. What nutcases. Performing the same 13 Victorian operettas year in year out for over 100 years. Some of my friends went on to dedicate themselves to doing it for life. It's hard to know why people would do this when they have been done to death and done in every way conceivable. My suspicion is that texts or plays that are rich enough can always spark Some thing new and imaginative to say or share.

I absolutely love seeing different interpretations. That s the good bit of theatre.


I'm hoping I can manage to see the Hypocrites production of "Pirates of Penzance" when it comes through the southland at the end of the month. they are famous for both taking brash liberties with the material while clearly loving and respecting it - that's a good trick!

L.A.'s own Independent Shakespeare Company does this sort of thing every year. Each production is well prepared and well performed. Each production also is sure to go WAY off the reservation at some point with snack bar announcements or offers to take selfies with the cast. I'm no Shakespeare scholar but it seems to be the people who fancy themselves as such are the ones who have the best time at these things. People don't really love dead things. we love things that live and theatre does.
scan not a friend with a microscopic glass

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 12110
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: Different Versions Of Plays

Postby Sneelock » 17 Jan 2018, 16:52

OCT wrote:Yeah, film acting relies much more on facial expression, stage acting necessitates greater voice control - but nearly always you're projecting your voice, which can make the delivery of lines seem a little odd. Especially if you're not used to it. Which you aren't, 'cos you don't go to see plays.


sure, it's a different skill set but I think it comes out of the same tool box. I think one of the main reasons film people have dailies is to gauge performances. the camera wasn't nick-named a "magic box" for nothing. Film's rich history is full of actors who have some weird MOJO when they are in front of a camera - from Lillian Gish to Brad Pitt. A thought can flash across their eyes and it can blaze across the screen like a comet.

some actors manage to get away with "stage acting" on film - I think Richard Burton was probably very much the same guy in both situations. I've always thought Walter Matthau was a guy who seemed to get away with more theatrical performances on film - maybe this is because those guys had the goods. they aren't reciting lines, they are acting in the true Barrymore sense of the word - they are feeling something and it shows.


hippopotamus wrote:My big fat question, though, is how you think this is different for films?


we're talking about taking liberties with the material? well, there's the obvious stuff like turning Tempest into Forbidden planet or "Joe Macbeth" making those guys mobsters. I got a kick out of Baz Luhrman turning "Romeo & Juliet" into a bizarre MTV seventies cop show but I don't know if it's a good movie.

I think where movies really shine in this regard is in reacting to things. like "red river" being "caine mutiny with cowboys" or "rio bravo" wanting to be an antidote to "High Noon". Luc Besson grew up watching "Star Wars" so he's got some Star Wars to get out of his system. Those Seventies Film School guys were all digging Fellini and Godard. Would "All that Jazz" have existed without "8 1/2?" probably not. it's not a remake or a rethink. it's a bee that gets in somebody's bonnet and needs to get out.

if you've watched George Stevens movies you might get a little Deja Vu when you watch certain P.T. Anderson films. you don't NEED to see it to enjoy it or think it's rich (or poor) film making. But, I think this is how film best achieves what we're talking about through a sort of cross pollination.

sure, you can turn "the shop around the corner" into "you've got mail" but you can also turn "bringing up baby" into "what's up doc" and it's not really stealing is it? it's more like a love affair.
scan not a friend with a microscopic glass