![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
We've got to risk implosion!
As you may have noticed, I've been absent lately. Between the show and a week-long family vacation on the Oregon coast, I haven't been able to check my f-list or update or anything--which is too bad, since I wish I'd recorded my thoughts about the show while they were still fresh. Anyway, here's a little round-up of things I've been thinking about.
If you want me to know/see anything, let me know! Sorry I've missed a bunch, and I won't be able to catch up.
"The Naked Time"
The crowds and the reaction, despite our low budget and some rain, leave every indication that this was a success! By our fourth show, we had standing room only, speaking to the power of word-of-mouth over any advertising we could do. We also had people complaining about how few shows we were doing (as in, their friends wanted to come but didn't know in time) and people very generously wanting to help out. Enough that unless something happens we'll definitely be back next year.
The show was very simple but, I think, effective. We went with colored t-shirts in blue/yellow/red, the set marked out by folding chairs, wooden blocks, and chalk. I think we could go even more minimal, which might offset some of the remarks we've heard about a lack of "professionalism" presumably because we didn't mimic the costumes. The shirts were convenient, sure, but also a valid choice and I thought they looked good and clean and simple. Our attempt was not to recreate the show, but to treat it as you would Shakespeare--it's an interpretation. Hence, also, the casting.
We learned a lot from the experience and one day we'd like to expand our repertoire to Shakespeare (in space?), original works, other television (possibly), and adaptations of books and fairy tales. How to go about it, I'm not entirely sure, but we did this by just deciding that we could. And we did. I was, and am, extremely proud of the results.
Plenty of photos here.
Inception
My basic problem with the film is that we've got millions of dollars being funneled into a neat idea and a smokin' hot cast that I feel were misused. For me, a film about dreams and the subconscious shouldn't have to explain itself--I found the attempt to make it sound like science, as well as the extremely literal dreamscapes, to be missing what should have been the point. With a film/cast/money like this, you have the opportunity to go completely wild. To dredge up all sorts of things about how we think and dream and feel that aren't about literal crumbling and opening doors and whatnot. You don't need to explain it--the premise is set up so that you can do anything at all and we have to buy it. There are certain films I don't need a play-by-play for because the writing/directing/premise have set themselves up such that "normal" no longer holds any sway. Aronofsky comes to mind. As does Lynch. And maybe that would make things too "arty" but I really don't think that's a foregone conclusion. We've all had dreams that make no sense--I'd have preferred if this film had tried to make less sense in certain ways which would have made it make more sense, and have more relevance, in others.
Tl;dr: basically Cillian Murphy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Ellen Page need to make out.
Sherlock Holmes
I didn't talk about this at the time, because again, feelings were running pretty high, but I didn't like the recent film. Don't get me wrong, I love adaptation and playing with old works but they need to do one of two things, for me: show me a faithful adaptation of the material in another medium or give me exciting new insights. The Ritchie film, for me, only pushed Holmes closer to everything else, and was neither "my" Holmes nor one I was curious about.
The reason I mention it now is that the new BBC show is. I've only seen the first episode but oh my goodness, I loved it. Not unequivocally--I actually hate the "look" of it, the text all over the screen, the jerky chase sequence, that sort of thing. (I am not a fan of the idea that something needs to be moving ALL THE TIME to keep our interest.) But Holmes and Watson? I'm sorry, Sherlock and John? I love them. I thought the writing, the character work, and the acting were all great, and most importantly a lot of thought was put into updating these characters and making them people who weren't the originals, but were entirely valid interpretations of who those people would be. And that's exactly what I wanted. I am excited about watching the last to, and I suspect I'll be upset about there being no more.
YOU
Your turn! Write anything I should read? Have exciting news? Anything interesting going down either in life or on the internet? Something I haven't touched on you were curious about?
If you want me to know/see anything, let me know! Sorry I've missed a bunch, and I won't be able to catch up.
"The Naked Time"
The crowds and the reaction, despite our low budget and some rain, leave every indication that this was a success! By our fourth show, we had standing room only, speaking to the power of word-of-mouth over any advertising we could do. We also had people complaining about how few shows we were doing (as in, their friends wanted to come but didn't know in time) and people very generously wanting to help out. Enough that unless something happens we'll definitely be back next year.
The show was very simple but, I think, effective. We went with colored t-shirts in blue/yellow/red, the set marked out by folding chairs, wooden blocks, and chalk. I think we could go even more minimal, which might offset some of the remarks we've heard about a lack of "professionalism" presumably because we didn't mimic the costumes. The shirts were convenient, sure, but also a valid choice and I thought they looked good and clean and simple. Our attempt was not to recreate the show, but to treat it as you would Shakespeare--it's an interpretation. Hence, also, the casting.
We learned a lot from the experience and one day we'd like to expand our repertoire to Shakespeare (in space?), original works, other television (possibly), and adaptations of books and fairy tales. How to go about it, I'm not entirely sure, but we did this by just deciding that we could. And we did. I was, and am, extremely proud of the results.
Plenty of photos here.
Inception
My basic problem with the film is that we've got millions of dollars being funneled into a neat idea and a smokin' hot cast that I feel were misused. For me, a film about dreams and the subconscious shouldn't have to explain itself--I found the attempt to make it sound like science, as well as the extremely literal dreamscapes, to be missing what should have been the point. With a film/cast/money like this, you have the opportunity to go completely wild. To dredge up all sorts of things about how we think and dream and feel that aren't about literal crumbling and opening doors and whatnot. You don't need to explain it--the premise is set up so that you can do anything at all and we have to buy it. There are certain films I don't need a play-by-play for because the writing/directing/premise have set themselves up such that "normal" no longer holds any sway. Aronofsky comes to mind. As does Lynch. And maybe that would make things too "arty" but I really don't think that's a foregone conclusion. We've all had dreams that make no sense--I'd have preferred if this film had tried to make less sense in certain ways which would have made it make more sense, and have more relevance, in others.
Tl;dr: basically Cillian Murphy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Ellen Page need to make out.
Sherlock Holmes
I didn't talk about this at the time, because again, feelings were running pretty high, but I didn't like the recent film. Don't get me wrong, I love adaptation and playing with old works but they need to do one of two things, for me: show me a faithful adaptation of the material in another medium or give me exciting new insights. The Ritchie film, for me, only pushed Holmes closer to everything else, and was neither "my" Holmes nor one I was curious about.
The reason I mention it now is that the new BBC show is. I've only seen the first episode but oh my goodness, I loved it. Not unequivocally--I actually hate the "look" of it, the text all over the screen, the jerky chase sequence, that sort of thing. (I am not a fan of the idea that something needs to be moving ALL THE TIME to keep our interest.) But Holmes and Watson? I'm sorry, Sherlock and John? I love them. I thought the writing, the character work, and the acting were all great, and most importantly a lot of thought was put into updating these characters and making them people who weren't the originals, but were entirely valid interpretations of who those people would be. And that's exactly what I wanted. I am excited about watching the last to, and I suspect I'll be upset about there being no more.
YOU
Your turn! Write anything I should read? Have exciting news? Anything interesting going down either in life or on the internet? Something I haven't touched on you were curious about?
no subject
Oh, rock on. Trek is so perfect for outdoor theatre because everybody knows it the same way everybody knows Romeo and Juliet, but it also has a special geeky freshness to it. (Community theaters have been adapting fairy tales and silly resettings of Shakespeare forever.) I'm trying to think what else would have the same vibe. Oh, oh! Old sci-fi and horror movies! Godzilla, and The Blob, and things like that! Roald Dahl. I ushered a brilliant outdoor staging of Jacob Two-Two and the Hooded Fang, once. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?
Those are good criteria. I didn't like the plot of the Ritchie film, and thought all the explosions and effects were ridiculous, but I did like watching RDJ and Jude Law together.
My initial reaction to the pilot was, "SQUEEEEEEEE!" I loved a whole bunch of little details in their performances. But some of the writing was really boneheaded. Sherlock refusing to put on slippers at the crime scene? SHERLOCK HOLMES risking evidence contamination, for no apparent reason but "slippers are dweeby"? MY ASS. I could go on about some other peeves, but I don't want to harsh your squee. Especially if it gets Joy posting fiction. :o)
Waaaatch Avataaaar. (The "Ender Wiggin as played by the Dalai Lama" version, not "Dances with Smurfs".)
no subject
That's interesting! My personal feeling is that adapting our own, public-domain stuff (hence Shakespeare and fairy tales) gives us better legal ground, but I guess we're not going to be big enough to be noticed and sued, for the most part. But we probably don't have the money to actually purchase performance rights, you know?
It's early days yet.
Those are good criteria. I didn't like the plot of the Ritchie film, and thought all the explosions and effects were ridiculous, but I did like watching RDJ and Jude Law together.
I liked that aspect, but RDJ, while good, wasn't given a reading of Holmes I found that interesting. Law's Watson was lovely, though. One of the most annoying aspects was the bones I felt they were throwing to the fans--hey, guys, look, we've read canon, can't you forgive us for everything else?
I could go on about some other peeves, but I don't want to harsh your squee. Especially if it gets Joy posting fiction. :o)
Oh no, I get it. So does she--we both have major problems with the thing (probably many of the sames ones as each other and as you) but it's rare that I like anything unequivocally anyway. So rare that the things I like are usually things I'm surprised into liking despite a bunch of stuff I don't.
Wow, that sounds crabby.
Point is, the level of button-pushing here trumps (for now, at least) the level of "oh god no," and that's a nice change.
Waaaatch Avataaaar. (The "Ender Wiggin as played by the Dalai Lama" version, not "Dances with Smurfs".)
Ahahahahaha. Yes, we are.