Monday, January 1, 2018
Important Christmas Videos to watch every year
My family and I watch these comedy videos every year around Christmas, and I thought I should organize them all in one place. I may add more as I remember them throughout the year.
Coco Goes to Walgreens - The Search for Panettone
Miss Coco Peru tries to get her Christmas Shopping Done, searching for Panettones for her neighbors.
The Christmas Tree
If you like Linda Belcher, you'll probably love this video about the life cycle of a Christmas Tree, from the point of view of one mother.
Captain Picard sings "Let it Snow!"
Fantastic mashup of Next Gen clips to sing Let it Snow.
Deck the Hall & Oates
Two guys adapt Hall and Oates songs for Christmas.
Peace on Earth/Little Drummer Boy with Will Ferrell & John C. Reilly
Will and John recreate the Bing Crosby / David Bowie duet.
Monday, July 7, 2014
Monday, June 23, 2014
Script Changes
So there was a lot of uproar over the weekend about two productions of plays that changed major elements without permission of the authors.
One was a Houston production of the musical Hands on a Hardbody, in which the order of songs was switched around, which necessitated (since the show is about a competition where characters drop out one-by-one) certain characters leaving the stage earlier than planned, as well as some editing of which characters sang specific vocal lines. Some songs were cut. In this case, the director, Bruce Lumpkin, invited the creators to see the production, specifically Amanda Green, who attended; Lumpkin apparently expected the creators would be pleased with the unauthorized changes. The show was shut down.
The other was a production of David Mamet’s classic play about political correctness in the 90s, Oleanna. In this case, one of the characters in the two-person play was played by a male actor instead of a female actor, as Carol is traditionally played. The casting decision was kept secret until the play opened, and as soon as the reviews were registered and the unauthorized changes were known, the theater got served with a cease-and-desist order and the production was shut down after the one performance.
Let me be very clear that it doesn’t matter if the new changes were brilliant or not. They were not authorized by the contract that was signed. A playwright has the right to expect that a play will honor the intent of her or his play.
Stephen Sondheim halted a production of Company in the 80s which substituted a gay couple for one of the set of Bobby’s married friends; it was an unauthorized change. In 2002, he granted permission to a college production directed by Billy Porter where they ASKED if they could experiment and change Marta into Marty, making Bobby more openly bisexual (then having two girlfriends and a boyfriend)- I think that choice possibly strengthens the play by eliminating the pesky and trite “Bobby’s secretly a closet-case, that’s why he can’t commit” argument. And then of course there was a recent reading of the show at Roundabout with Sondheim’s blessing which featured Alan Cumming as Joanne.
In 2011, BoxCar Theatre in San Francisco did a production of the stage musical Little Shop of Horrors which edited the script they’d contracted to include elements of the original movie upon which it was based and the musical movie that was eventually made of the musical, as well as interpolating songs from entirely unrelated property The Rocky Horror Picture Show. It was, unsurprisingly, shut down.
But again, regardless of how interesting making alterations to the script is, doing it without permission after having signed a contract is wrong.
I personally think that the bit of Oleanna casting is kind of brilliant; Carol as written in the text is a proto-lesbian who is manipulated by her offstage feminist group into hitting political buzzwords that will get the straight white male to not only check his privilege, but to in fact lose his job and regret that he ever set foot in academia. The play is not about sexual harassment per se, it’s right-wing propaganda about The Dangers of Political Correctness.
In this new production, they didn’t change any of the text, but had a male performer playing “Carol”. What no one seems to have mentioned is that Carol in this production was clearly intended to be a transgender character. All of the reviews and stories have focused on the play now being about Two Guys, when it appears that the intent was to bring the play into this century and present a more modern antagonist as a transgender woman. Yes, if the play is two men, the script is nonsense. If the play is a privileged man vs. a marginalized woman who gains power, there’s the drama.
Now, it’s difficult to write or talk about transgender people, as so few people understand the vocabulary and aren’t given the basic tools to understand the lifestyle (I’m not even sure if I’m being entirely sensitive here), so it’s not unsurprising that this would be overlooked and/or misunderstood by critics and those writing on the piece.
It’s possible it wasn’t even the original intent of the director, as in an article about it Erica Case and Aaron Kopec, owners of Alchemist Theatre, said: "We excitedly brought this story to the stage because even though it was written years ago, the unfortunate story that it tells is still relevant today. We auditioned for this show looking for the best talent, not looking for a gender. When Ben Parman auditioned we saw the reality that this relationship, which is more about power, is not gender-specific but gender-neutral.” That’s bullshit. If they didn’t intend to cast the show this way in the first place, I don’t know why a young man would even be auditioning for this show. If true, it speaks to poor auditioning practices.
Regardless, the changes were unauthorized, kept secret, and now the show is shut down. But I suspect if they had asked for permission to do something interesting with the show, and made their case for the updated casting, possibly Mamet would have said yes, and then they would have been able to promote the show as a Daring New Take on a Classic, instead of looking like privileged and unprofessional assholes. A missed opportunity.
One was a Houston production of the musical Hands on a Hardbody, in which the order of songs was switched around, which necessitated (since the show is about a competition where characters drop out one-by-one) certain characters leaving the stage earlier than planned, as well as some editing of which characters sang specific vocal lines. Some songs were cut. In this case, the director, Bruce Lumpkin, invited the creators to see the production, specifically Amanda Green, who attended; Lumpkin apparently expected the creators would be pleased with the unauthorized changes. The show was shut down.
The other was a production of David Mamet’s classic play about political correctness in the 90s, Oleanna. In this case, one of the characters in the two-person play was played by a male actor instead of a female actor, as Carol is traditionally played. The casting decision was kept secret until the play opened, and as soon as the reviews were registered and the unauthorized changes were known, the theater got served with a cease-and-desist order and the production was shut down after the one performance.
Let me be very clear that it doesn’t matter if the new changes were brilliant or not. They were not authorized by the contract that was signed. A playwright has the right to expect that a play will honor the intent of her or his play.
Stephen Sondheim halted a production of Company in the 80s which substituted a gay couple for one of the set of Bobby’s married friends; it was an unauthorized change. In 2002, he granted permission to a college production directed by Billy Porter where they ASKED if they could experiment and change Marta into Marty, making Bobby more openly bisexual (then having two girlfriends and a boyfriend)- I think that choice possibly strengthens the play by eliminating the pesky and trite “Bobby’s secretly a closet-case, that’s why he can’t commit” argument. And then of course there was a recent reading of the show at Roundabout with Sondheim’s blessing which featured Alan Cumming as Joanne.
In 2011, BoxCar Theatre in San Francisco did a production of the stage musical Little Shop of Horrors which edited the script they’d contracted to include elements of the original movie upon which it was based and the musical movie that was eventually made of the musical, as well as interpolating songs from entirely unrelated property The Rocky Horror Picture Show. It was, unsurprisingly, shut down.
But again, regardless of how interesting making alterations to the script is, doing it without permission after having signed a contract is wrong.
I personally think that the bit of Oleanna casting is kind of brilliant; Carol as written in the text is a proto-lesbian who is manipulated by her offstage feminist group into hitting political buzzwords that will get the straight white male to not only check his privilege, but to in fact lose his job and regret that he ever set foot in academia. The play is not about sexual harassment per se, it’s right-wing propaganda about The Dangers of Political Correctness.
In this new production, they didn’t change any of the text, but had a male performer playing “Carol”. What no one seems to have mentioned is that Carol in this production was clearly intended to be a transgender character. All of the reviews and stories have focused on the play now being about Two Guys, when it appears that the intent was to bring the play into this century and present a more modern antagonist as a transgender woman. Yes, if the play is two men, the script is nonsense. If the play is a privileged man vs. a marginalized woman who gains power, there’s the drama.
Now, it’s difficult to write or talk about transgender people, as so few people understand the vocabulary and aren’t given the basic tools to understand the lifestyle (I’m not even sure if I’m being entirely sensitive here), so it’s not unsurprising that this would be overlooked and/or misunderstood by critics and those writing on the piece.
It’s possible it wasn’t even the original intent of the director, as in an article about it Erica Case and Aaron Kopec, owners of Alchemist Theatre, said: "We excitedly brought this story to the stage because even though it was written years ago, the unfortunate story that it tells is still relevant today. We auditioned for this show looking for the best talent, not looking for a gender. When Ben Parman auditioned we saw the reality that this relationship, which is more about power, is not gender-specific but gender-neutral.” That’s bullshit. If they didn’t intend to cast the show this way in the first place, I don’t know why a young man would even be auditioning for this show. If true, it speaks to poor auditioning practices.
Regardless, the changes were unauthorized, kept secret, and now the show is shut down. But I suspect if they had asked for permission to do something interesting with the show, and made their case for the updated casting, possibly Mamet would have said yes, and then they would have been able to promote the show as a Daring New Take on a Classic, instead of looking like privileged and unprofessional assholes. A missed opportunity.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Ken Davenport Doesn't Care About Playwrights
So Ken Davenport’s Davenport Theatrical Productions is hosting their third annual Ten-Minute Play Contest.
There is a $10 fee to apply, and IF selected, the playwright must produce her or his own work and present it in the contest. Asking for a fee to submit a play to a theater is a practice that is frowned upon and discouraged by The Dramatists Guild, and has been for several years.
Contests are a grey area, to be sure, as there is a possible benefit, in that it’s possible to actually win something substantial. Though asking for playwrights to put in money in order to put in more production money for the slim possibility to win that elusive $500 seems to be taking advantage of playwrights. In their favor, Davenport Theatricals does have an open submission policy for full-length plays, if you want to get on their slush pile.
Or they have a “Script Coverage” option, where you can pay them money to actually read it and give feedback.
I will say that I did apply to the Ten-Minute Play Contest the previous two years, considering that the possible plusses outweighed the minuses, as Davenport is a legitimate producer who has been involved in shows that have been to Broadway. The judges of the finalists were prestigious (and in previous years the 10 finalists received $50 each, even if they weren’t the $500 winner).
But this year, in his blog post about the contest (linked above), Davenport goes on to be frankly offensive to playwrights. He says:
And then later:
It is frankly appalling that someone in his position a) has so little respect for the craft of playwriting, and b) is apparently using this contest to lure gullible people into giving him another $10 each for something they can just “sneeze out”. In his previous blog posts on his contests, he doesn’t reveal exactly how many people actually applied, but in the 2012 contest, they were “overwhelmed with so many submissions”, “of the hundreds submitted”… So even assuming it was only (the lowest possible) 200 submissions, 200 x $10 is $2,000 from the playwrights, which should tidily cover the $500 prize plus a little left over.
It seems this contest is merely a way to bilk money out of playwrights (who I assure you work hard to create GOOD ten-minute plays), and naive wannabes with stars in their eyes.
I’m planning to avoid it this year.
Addendum: I commented directly on the original post on his blog, questioning the fees, a couple of days ago, as did another poster. Both our comments were deleted.
There is a $10 fee to apply, and IF selected, the playwright must produce her or his own work and present it in the contest. Asking for a fee to submit a play to a theater is a practice that is frowned upon and discouraged by The Dramatists Guild, and has been for several years.
Contests are a grey area, to be sure, as there is a possible benefit, in that it’s possible to actually win something substantial. Though asking for playwrights to put in money in order to put in more production money for the slim possibility to win that elusive $500 seems to be taking advantage of playwrights. In their favor, Davenport Theatricals does have an open submission policy for full-length plays, if you want to get on their slush pile.
Or they have a “Script Coverage” option, where you can pay them money to actually read it and give feedback.
I will say that I did apply to the Ten-Minute Play Contest the previous two years, considering that the possible plusses outweighed the minuses, as Davenport is a legitimate producer who has been involved in shows that have been to Broadway. The judges of the finalists were prestigious (and in previous years the 10 finalists received $50 each, even if they weren’t the $500 winner).
But this year, in his blog post about the contest (linked above), Davenport goes on to be frankly offensive to playwrights. He says:
What’s great about a 10 minute play is that anyone can write one. Doesn’t matter if you’re an actor, a producer or a veterinarian who specializes in tropical hamster diseases . . . you can write a 10 minute play (huh – you know what’s funny – a hamster vet’s office is a pretty interesting place to set a 10 minute play).
And then later:
And then get writing. No excuses. Including if you’re not a writer. I promise you, you can sneeze out a 10 minute play. And then, poof, you’re a writer.
It is frankly appalling that someone in his position a) has so little respect for the craft of playwriting, and b) is apparently using this contest to lure gullible people into giving him another $10 each for something they can just “sneeze out”. In his previous blog posts on his contests, he doesn’t reveal exactly how many people actually applied, but in the 2012 contest, they were “overwhelmed with so many submissions”, “of the hundreds submitted”… So even assuming it was only (the lowest possible) 200 submissions, 200 x $10 is $2,000 from the playwrights, which should tidily cover the $500 prize plus a little left over.
It seems this contest is merely a way to bilk money out of playwrights (who I assure you work hard to create GOOD ten-minute plays), and naive wannabes with stars in their eyes.
I’m planning to avoid it this year.
Addendum: I commented directly on the original post on his blog, questioning the fees, a couple of days ago, as did another poster. Both our comments were deleted.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Dangerous Liaisons
The latest in the "How did they adapt THAT?!" files: "Les Liaisons Dangereuses". I of course LOVE the 1988 "Dangerous Liaisons" movie, which I saw in theaters. I'm only now (finally!) reading the book- it's entirely epistolary, the Marquise and Valmont hardly ever even meet in person, it seems. Hampton did an AMAZING job adapting it to the stage (and that script is what the movie "Dangerous Liaisons" is based on), I have no idea how I would have gone about it. Very odd that it's been adapted so many times (Opera, Films, Musicals, stage (I've even seen an onstage all-male adaptation)) "Cruel Intentions" is so obviously based on the movie and not the novel. Also explains why Jean-Claude Carrière's script for "Valmont", which came out in 1989, is so different from Hampton's. (that movie, btw, is worth a look - Annette Bening is incredible as Merteuil. Colin Firth is a bit too adorable as Valmont. Fairuza Balk(!) as Cecile, and the kid from E.T. as Danceny- they're BABIES.)
Thursday, April 21, 2011
The Real Theatregoers of New York
A comment on the brilliant Time Out New York review of Wonderland...
Now, I assume this person ("Anonymous - Unverified" - if that is their real name), means Broadway theatregoers, in which case, probably correct- most of them are tourists who've come for "culture" and expect to be as bored by theatre as they would be by a museum. The guy texting next to me at Wonderland clearly didn't speak English, there were people crackling bags of whatever food they brought in... The families who are desperate for something they can bring their children to, something they won't have to explain or talk to them about. People who can afford Broadway prices, but don't really care about the shows they see beyond the spectacle all that money can provide. These are the real theatregoers.
Charles Ludlam said in the 1980s:
I've personally abandoned any hope or dream that a play of mine will actually be on Broadway one day. The "real theatregoers" can keep it.
The real theatergoers of New York will prove you Communist homosexual perverts who hate wholesome family entertainment wrong--AGAIN!
Now, I assume this person ("Anonymous - Unverified" - if that is their real name), means Broadway theatregoers, in which case, probably correct- most of them are tourists who've come for "culture" and expect to be as bored by theatre as they would be by a museum. The guy texting next to me at Wonderland clearly didn't speak English, there were people crackling bags of whatever food they brought in... The families who are desperate for something they can bring their children to, something they won't have to explain or talk to them about. People who can afford Broadway prices, but don't really care about the shows they see beyond the spectacle all that money can provide. These are the real theatregoers.
Charles Ludlam said in the 1980s:
What's wrong is that Broadway is not the pinnacle of achievement that it should be. It should be something that you long for, that you should want to be on. We all should want this, because it represents achievement and accomplishment and is a fair measure of our talents. Unfortunately, it is not that.
But there should be a wonderful place where you're crowned with laurels if you achieve something in art. That's not good enough in the commercial theatre. It has to be an idea you're sure you can sell, and sell a lot.
I've personally abandoned any hope or dream that a play of mine will actually be on Broadway one day. The "real theatregoers" can keep it.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Adaptation
Made myself a personal course of study: to watch movies where I'd read the book and said to myself: "How the HELL could they adapt THAT BOOK into a movie?!"
SO watched The Fountainhead last night. Movie's not bad. The adaptation (also by Ayn Rand) is rather impressive, contracting that long-ass book into 2 hours. A lot of stuff gets relegated to backstory, and Katie disappears entirely. Story focuses on the love drama between Dominique and Roark (and Dominique doesn't marry Peter in the book, she goes right to Gail). Since Dominique is the only character who really changes in the book, very smart to keep the emphasis on her (much like Dolly in Hello, Dolly; the original original text was called The Merchant of Yonkers, referring to the Vandergelder character*); though it's interesting that although the four sections of the book of The Fountainhead are named after the 4 main male characters, Dominique is in all of them.
Storytelling brisk and interesting till it drops dead for Roark's big speech.
Gary Cooper a bit boring as Roark, Patricia Neal is fantastic as Dominique.
Then decided to get out of the way my other personal assignment: The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Though the book is quite cerebral and philosophical, the actual plot events are interesting enough to warrant dropping the fascinating philosophy. Makes the movie a bit more sentimental than the book, in some ways. Acting is great; Juliette Binoche and Lena Olin are fantastic. Baby Daniel-Day Lewis is weirdly un-sexy (to me), though his Informed Sexiness is of course a given in the world of the movie.
Didn't really miss the philosophical stuff (which includes the meaning of the title), because enough of it was dramatized to still be interesting; and some of the philosophy is actually enclosed within the plot, though in the movie it's more "these things happened, draw your own conclusions".
Prague is gorgeous. Cinematography perfect. Mirrors everywhere in the film, commented on and interacted with, or sometimes just there, though of course nothing can be "just there" in a film, working with a mirror you have to be very careful not to get the camera reflected in the shot.
One whole section is dramatically shot with extra grain and switching from color to black and white to integrate new scenes with actual footage of the Warsaw Pact Invasion of Czechoslovakia; fascinating.
Didn't realize till I was about an hour in (because I was riveted) that the movie is nearly 3 hours long. After about an hour stopped being riveted, but was still entertained.
As good as the book, but in a different way.
* I was just reading that in previews Vandergelder ended Act I of Hello Dolly! with a song called "Penny in My Pocket", but audiences were loving Dolly so much that the focus shifted, so "Before the Parade Passes By" was written for Dolly (apparently in a couple of hours).
SO watched The Fountainhead last night. Movie's not bad. The adaptation (also by Ayn Rand) is rather impressive, contracting that long-ass book into 2 hours. A lot of stuff gets relegated to backstory, and Katie disappears entirely. Story focuses on the love drama between Dominique and Roark (and Dominique doesn't marry Peter in the book, she goes right to Gail). Since Dominique is the only character who really changes in the book, very smart to keep the emphasis on her (much like Dolly in Hello, Dolly; the original original text was called The Merchant of Yonkers, referring to the Vandergelder character*); though it's interesting that although the four sections of the book of The Fountainhead are named after the 4 main male characters, Dominique is in all of them.
Storytelling brisk and interesting till it drops dead for Roark's big speech.
Gary Cooper a bit boring as Roark, Patricia Neal is fantastic as Dominique.
Then decided to get out of the way my other personal assignment: The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Though the book is quite cerebral and philosophical, the actual plot events are interesting enough to warrant dropping the fascinating philosophy. Makes the movie a bit more sentimental than the book, in some ways. Acting is great; Juliette Binoche and Lena Olin are fantastic. Baby Daniel-Day Lewis is weirdly un-sexy (to me), though his Informed Sexiness is of course a given in the world of the movie.
Didn't really miss the philosophical stuff (which includes the meaning of the title), because enough of it was dramatized to still be interesting; and some of the philosophy is actually enclosed within the plot, though in the movie it's more "these things happened, draw your own conclusions".
Prague is gorgeous. Cinematography perfect. Mirrors everywhere in the film, commented on and interacted with, or sometimes just there, though of course nothing can be "just there" in a film, working with a mirror you have to be very careful not to get the camera reflected in the shot.
One whole section is dramatically shot with extra grain and switching from color to black and white to integrate new scenes with actual footage of the Warsaw Pact Invasion of Czechoslovakia; fascinating.
Didn't realize till I was about an hour in (because I was riveted) that the movie is nearly 3 hours long. After about an hour stopped being riveted, but was still entertained.
As good as the book, but in a different way.
* I was just reading that in previews Vandergelder ended Act I of Hello Dolly! with a song called "Penny in My Pocket", but audiences were loving Dolly so much that the focus shifted, so "Before the Parade Passes By" was written for Dolly (apparently in a couple of hours).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
