movies I saw in December
Dec. 26th, 2006 06:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
prusikI actually caught a few movies in a movie theater in December. For the most part, I liked all of them.
This is a movie adaptation by Alan Bennett of his own play of the same name. I saw the stage production at the very end of its Broadway run. The same cast made the movie. On the whole, it made the transition the screen pretty well. With the same writer, same director and same cast, I figure they would not ruin what was wonderful about the play and they haven't.
It's about a bunch of English students in the '80s who have done well enough on their A-levels that they spend an extra semester studying to prepare for the entrance exam to Oxford and Cambridge. They are all planning on reading history. The play follows what happens to them and their instructors over the course of that semester. The play is actually much more interesting than I'm making it sound. I'm trying to avoid spoilers.
The movie is, inevitably I suppose, History Boys Lite. The movie doesn't play around with time or the narrative frame the way the play does. I miss the latter. The former could arguably be an improvement. The movie is definitely less rich an experience, but most of my favorite lines made it in, and all of my favorite scenes.
There's a scene entirely in French, played for physical comedy when I saw it on Broadway. It, surprisingly, survived the adaptation to BBC radio play (where it was, obviously, not played for physical comedy). It's in the movie and, honestly, just as hysterical. I think Alan Bennett may have watered down the dialogue a bit to give non-French speakers (like me) a prayer at understanding what's happening. Or maybe it was that it was my second time watching the scene.
Likewise, I was thrilled that the last scene of act I made it intact. The two brilliant performances in that scene which I saw on stage have now been preserved on film. This is a good thing.
Over all, I enjoyed it. It isn't the play, but I really didn't expect it to be. Alan Bennett has opened things up skillfully. It's a terrific adaptation. History Boys doesn't strike me as the kind of play which will get many productions in the United States so this might be the best way to see it in the States
I thought Casino Royale was terrific. Keep in mind that the last Bond movie I saw was The Plot Is Not Enough, under duress from my family. Also, my ideal James Bond is someone who is plausibly a former Special Forces type. (I'm not a fan of the glamorous James Bond.) I don't know if Daniel Craig is ideal, but he does a great job in the role.
One thing that struck me as I watched it was something Kit Reed said at ReaderCon two years go. She said that a thriller doesn't tell you what things happen; a thriller tells you when things happen. So, on the plus side, they've timed events precisely. Everything happens at exactly the right moments. On the minus side, I found the plot predictable. I wasn't taken by any of the feints because I knew how long the movie was. Also, this is a James Bond movie which means you know that he's psychologically damaged and women are not to be trusted. (This, BTW, makes casting a female M an exceptionally interesting choice. I hope Judy Dench has a nice, long run in the role.)
I think I'm supposed to be outraged because rather than Chemin de Fer, they play Texas Hold 'Em at the casino. Honestly, I can't work up the outrage. They've thoroughly updated the plot to modern day. e.g., no SMERSH, the plot relies on the use of cell phones. I have no idea what they play in casinos but Texas Hold 'Em strikes me as plausible. I could have done without the explanatory dialogue though. (The poker play was pretty predictable. I'm not a poker player, so when I can call what the winning hand will be, it's predictable.)
Anyways, there was lots of all the stuff that one goes to see a Bond movie for. In addition, there was a plot which made sense and some characterization. For me, that was fine.
The producers rebooted the continuity with this movie. He gets promoted to double-0 status during the opening credits. I wonder if this means they're going to through and remake all of the Fleming novels again. I don't think it would be a bad idea, especially if they update all of them to modern day, the way they did with CASINO ROYALE.
BTW, why do people bring kids to James Bond movies? I'm not automatically opposed to the idea. However, if your kid can no idea with the notion that people have sex, do not bring them to James Bond movies. It's not like anyone should be shocked, shocked that James has sex. So if your kid is given to making noises of disgust and discomfort when James is seducing some woman, please leave the kid at home. He or she will be much happier and so will the people in the audience who won't have to listen to him or her.
The notion of a Dreamgirls movie has been bandied around for years. For a while, the rumors were that it would star Whitney Houston. Well, we finally have a movie. If the result isn't what I had hoped for, the result is not bad. I enjoyed it for what it is. I have no idea what someone who doesn't know the stage musical will make of it.
On one hand, Dreamgirls is a no-brainer for a movie musical. Many of the songs are diegetic, i.e., performance numbers. Dreamgirls uses the device of making diegetic numbers relate back to the plot. This neatly side-steps the problem that audiences have problems accepting the convention that people will sing in a musical as a matter of course. (I note that these are the same people who have no problems accepting the convention of underscoring, or physically implausible fight sequences.) Also, the original production played very much like a movie with instantaneous changes in scene and reproduction of film effects on stage. On the other hand, the stage musical is almost completely sung so there is still plenty of non-performance singing. Filmic effects look impressive on stage, but in a movie, they are, by definition, typical.
Personally, I think I would have been happier if they had left the book and score of the musical essentially intact, doing only the minimal adaptations to open it up for the screen. The stage show is a bit elliptical, making references to all sorts of off-stage events and leaving the audience to fill in a bunch of gaps. The stage show also moves at such a clip, that it works because you don't have time to notice the plot holes. e.g., Effie sings "And I'm Telling You I'm Not Going" and then she goes. Bill Condon, in reconceiving the story for the movie, has tried really hard to explain things. He's also tried to work in the greater fabric of social change in the '60s and '70s. This does not work as well as he might have hoped for. None of his changes improve the story. They don't hurt the story either. They're just different. (I do understand the necessity of new songs so that the movie can be eligible for the Best Song Oscar.)
However, he slows down a story which, frankly, can not withstand the scrutiny of a slow pace. Also, not surprisingly, he does his best to eliminate non-diegetic sequences or disguising them (e.g., turning them into montages). To be fair, I suspect some of them looked like montages on stage and while some of them were necessary on stage, they probably are not in the movie. (e.g., all the sequences which point out the rise of their recordings on the charts.) However, the best segments of the movie are the bits which are essentially lifted from the stage musical. e.g., It's All Over/And I'm Telling You I'm Not Going. However, they kind of stick out since for much of the movie, he's trying to hide the non-diegetic singing.
There are a bunch of great performances. The big surprise for me was Eddie Murphy. Usually, I hate his work, but he was terrific as James "Thunder" Early, the James Brown analogue. I think everyone did as well as they were able with the material they were given. (Bill Condon wasn't completely successful filling in the gaps.)
Like I said, I enjoyed it. I don't think it's the triumph that it could have been. But I think that would have required a more ambitious screenplay and an audience versed in the conventions of the movie musical.
This is a movie adaptation by Alan Bennett of his own play of the same name. I saw the stage production at the very end of its Broadway run. The same cast made the movie. On the whole, it made the transition the screen pretty well. With the same writer, same director and same cast, I figure they would not ruin what was wonderful about the play and they haven't.
It's about a bunch of English students in the '80s who have done well enough on their A-levels that they spend an extra semester studying to prepare for the entrance exam to Oxford and Cambridge. They are all planning on reading history. The play follows what happens to them and their instructors over the course of that semester. The play is actually much more interesting than I'm making it sound. I'm trying to avoid spoilers.
The movie is, inevitably I suppose, History Boys Lite. The movie doesn't play around with time or the narrative frame the way the play does. I miss the latter. The former could arguably be an improvement. The movie is definitely less rich an experience, but most of my favorite lines made it in, and all of my favorite scenes.
There's a scene entirely in French, played for physical comedy when I saw it on Broadway. It, surprisingly, survived the adaptation to BBC radio play (where it was, obviously, not played for physical comedy). It's in the movie and, honestly, just as hysterical. I think Alan Bennett may have watered down the dialogue a bit to give non-French speakers (like me) a prayer at understanding what's happening. Or maybe it was that it was my second time watching the scene.
Likewise, I was thrilled that the last scene of act I made it intact. The two brilliant performances in that scene which I saw on stage have now been preserved on film. This is a good thing.
Over all, I enjoyed it. It isn't the play, but I really didn't expect it to be. Alan Bennett has opened things up skillfully. It's a terrific adaptation. History Boys doesn't strike me as the kind of play which will get many productions in the United States so this might be the best way to see it in the States
I thought Casino Royale was terrific. Keep in mind that the last Bond movie I saw was The Plot Is Not Enough, under duress from my family. Also, my ideal James Bond is someone who is plausibly a former Special Forces type. (I'm not a fan of the glamorous James Bond.) I don't know if Daniel Craig is ideal, but he does a great job in the role.
One thing that struck me as I watched it was something Kit Reed said at ReaderCon two years go. She said that a thriller doesn't tell you what things happen; a thriller tells you when things happen. So, on the plus side, they've timed events precisely. Everything happens at exactly the right moments. On the minus side, I found the plot predictable. I wasn't taken by any of the feints because I knew how long the movie was. Also, this is a James Bond movie which means you know that he's psychologically damaged and women are not to be trusted. (This, BTW, makes casting a female M an exceptionally interesting choice. I hope Judy Dench has a nice, long run in the role.)
I think I'm supposed to be outraged because rather than Chemin de Fer, they play Texas Hold 'Em at the casino. Honestly, I can't work up the outrage. They've thoroughly updated the plot to modern day. e.g., no SMERSH, the plot relies on the use of cell phones. I have no idea what they play in casinos but Texas Hold 'Em strikes me as plausible. I could have done without the explanatory dialogue though. (The poker play was pretty predictable. I'm not a poker player, so when I can call what the winning hand will be, it's predictable.)
Anyways, there was lots of all the stuff that one goes to see a Bond movie for. In addition, there was a plot which made sense and some characterization. For me, that was fine.
The producers rebooted the continuity with this movie. He gets promoted to double-0 status during the opening credits. I wonder if this means they're going to through and remake all of the Fleming novels again. I don't think it would be a bad idea, especially if they update all of them to modern day, the way they did with CASINO ROYALE.
BTW, why do people bring kids to James Bond movies? I'm not automatically opposed to the idea. However, if your kid can no idea with the notion that people have sex, do not bring them to James Bond movies. It's not like anyone should be shocked, shocked that James has sex. So if your kid is given to making noises of disgust and discomfort when James is seducing some woman, please leave the kid at home. He or she will be much happier and so will the people in the audience who won't have to listen to him or her.
The notion of a Dreamgirls movie has been bandied around for years. For a while, the rumors were that it would star Whitney Houston. Well, we finally have a movie. If the result isn't what I had hoped for, the result is not bad. I enjoyed it for what it is. I have no idea what someone who doesn't know the stage musical will make of it.
On one hand, Dreamgirls is a no-brainer for a movie musical. Many of the songs are diegetic, i.e., performance numbers. Dreamgirls uses the device of making diegetic numbers relate back to the plot. This neatly side-steps the problem that audiences have problems accepting the convention that people will sing in a musical as a matter of course. (I note that these are the same people who have no problems accepting the convention of underscoring, or physically implausible fight sequences.) Also, the original production played very much like a movie with instantaneous changes in scene and reproduction of film effects on stage. On the other hand, the stage musical is almost completely sung so there is still plenty of non-performance singing. Filmic effects look impressive on stage, but in a movie, they are, by definition, typical.
Personally, I think I would have been happier if they had left the book and score of the musical essentially intact, doing only the minimal adaptations to open it up for the screen. The stage show is a bit elliptical, making references to all sorts of off-stage events and leaving the audience to fill in a bunch of gaps. The stage show also moves at such a clip, that it works because you don't have time to notice the plot holes. e.g., Effie sings "And I'm Telling You I'm Not Going" and then she goes. Bill Condon, in reconceiving the story for the movie, has tried really hard to explain things. He's also tried to work in the greater fabric of social change in the '60s and '70s. This does not work as well as he might have hoped for. None of his changes improve the story. They don't hurt the story either. They're just different. (I do understand the necessity of new songs so that the movie can be eligible for the Best Song Oscar.)
However, he slows down a story which, frankly, can not withstand the scrutiny of a slow pace. Also, not surprisingly, he does his best to eliminate non-diegetic sequences or disguising them (e.g., turning them into montages). To be fair, I suspect some of them looked like montages on stage and while some of them were necessary on stage, they probably are not in the movie. (e.g., all the sequences which point out the rise of their recordings on the charts.) However, the best segments of the movie are the bits which are essentially lifted from the stage musical. e.g., It's All Over/And I'm Telling You I'm Not Going. However, they kind of stick out since for much of the movie, he's trying to hide the non-diegetic singing.
There are a bunch of great performances. The big surprise for me was Eddie Murphy. Usually, I hate his work, but he was terrific as James "Thunder" Early, the James Brown analogue. I think everyone did as well as they were able with the material they were given. (Bill Condon wasn't completely successful filling in the gaps.)
Like I said, I enjoyed it. I don't think it's the triumph that it could have been. But I think that would have required a more ambitious screenplay and an audience versed in the conventions of the movie musical.
