Let’s welcome in November with Friday Questions.
Jeff starts us off:
I recently had the opportunity to see a local production of The Odd Couple. Amateur/semi-pro actors, but very well staged and performed. Prior to seeing the play, I took the time to re-watch the 1968 movie and the first two episodes of the television sitcom. I enjoyed them all, and am wondering if you have any thoughts about the various incarnations of this classic and stage to screen to television in general?
THE ODD COUPLE is one of my favorite plays. Unfortunately, I never saw it on Broadway with the original cast – Walter Matthau and Art Carney, but did see the movie with Matthau and Jack Lemmon, which was terrific.
But to me, Tony Randall & Jack Klugman from the TV series are “the” Felix & Oscar.
Years ago, there was a stage production of THE ODD COUPLE at the now-demolished Schubert Theatre in LA with Randall & Klugman reprising the roles. How cool was that???
It played like the all-time greatest episode of the series.
Every so often the play gets revived on Broadway. A number of years ago there was a version with Nathan Lane & Matthew Broderick. Nathan Lane as Oscar. I love Nathan Lane, but can not picture that at all.
Michael has two questions.
With yet another round of streaming services from Apple, ATT, Disney, etc starting soon, will you even try to keep up with all of the new shows being created by big-name talent?
Unless it’s a big name talent I really want to see (and I can’t think of a single one at the moment), I tend not to watch new shows. I just wait for enough people to recommend a specific show and then I go back and sample it.
It’s not like the old days where if you missed an airing of a show it was gone. Now you can access anything, binge-watch to catch up, so why sift through a million shows when I can just focus on the cream of the crop? Word-of-mouth is the best publicity.
Somewhat related, do you think it is inevitable we will end up with everyone paying for 5-10 streaming services instead of just subscribing to a cable package plus 1-2 streaming services?
No. I think the 10 streaming services will combine in various configurations and when the dust settles we’ll still be paying for only 2 or 3 streaming services.
If there’s any kind of recession and people have to tighten their belts, what’s are the first luxuries to go? A streaming service and satellite radio would be my guess.
And finally, richfigel asks:
Aloha, Ken! What do you think about the constant use of EXTREME CLOSE-UPS in TV shows and movies these days? In the classic movie comedies and sitcoms, wider shots allowed audiences to see actors use their whole bodies. Now we get to see every wrinkle, blemish and nose hair blown up in high def -- not flattering for actors. Plus, they could be in two different places and you wouldn't even know it since it's all cross-cutting from face to face shots. Got any theories why so many directors are doing this?
No theories other than that seems to be the current style. I find it disconcerting but not as bad as the hand-held camera trend where the screen was always jiggling. People loved FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS. I couldn't make it through one episode without getting nauseous.
But I digress...
Yes, with Hi-Def those crows feet and worry lines become more apparent. Especially in extreme close ups. Time for another Botox shot.
For TV comedy the unwritten rule is a close-up includes the shoulders. Any closer and it feels too close, as if the actor is invading the viewer’s space. When that happens, comedy goes away.
I’m not a fan of extreme close-ups unless they’re there for a very specific reason – e.g. an extreme reaction to something.
To me the best use of close-ups was in the 1957 movie TWELVE ANGRY MEN directed by Sidney Lumet.
Twelve jurors are sequestered in a room and tension mounts as they argue the case.
If you watch that film, you’ll see that the opening section features all master shots. And as the movie progresses the camera slowly pushes in. The wide masters give way to tight masters, then three-shots, then two-shots, then singles, then close-ups, and by the end extreme close-ups. The walls of the room seem to be closing in on you. You start to really feel the tension along with a sense of claustrophobia. As magnificent as that script by Reginald Rose is, I think the shot selection really makes that movie.
Happy November. Please ask your Friday Questions. I’ll answer as many as I can. Thanks.
from By Ken Levine
Jeff starts us off:
I recently had the opportunity to see a local production of The Odd Couple. Amateur/semi-pro actors, but very well staged and performed. Prior to seeing the play, I took the time to re-watch the 1968 movie and the first two episodes of the television sitcom. I enjoyed them all, and am wondering if you have any thoughts about the various incarnations of this classic and stage to screen to television in general?
THE ODD COUPLE is one of my favorite plays. Unfortunately, I never saw it on Broadway with the original cast – Walter Matthau and Art Carney, but did see the movie with Matthau and Jack Lemmon, which was terrific.
But to me, Tony Randall & Jack Klugman from the TV series are “the” Felix & Oscar.
Years ago, there was a stage production of THE ODD COUPLE at the now-demolished Schubert Theatre in LA with Randall & Klugman reprising the roles. How cool was that???
It played like the all-time greatest episode of the series.
Every so often the play gets revived on Broadway. A number of years ago there was a version with Nathan Lane & Matthew Broderick. Nathan Lane as Oscar. I love Nathan Lane, but can not picture that at all.
Michael has two questions.
With yet another round of streaming services from Apple, ATT, Disney, etc starting soon, will you even try to keep up with all of the new shows being created by big-name talent?
Unless it’s a big name talent I really want to see (and I can’t think of a single one at the moment), I tend not to watch new shows. I just wait for enough people to recommend a specific show and then I go back and sample it.
It’s not like the old days where if you missed an airing of a show it was gone. Now you can access anything, binge-watch to catch up, so why sift through a million shows when I can just focus on the cream of the crop? Word-of-mouth is the best publicity.
Somewhat related, do you think it is inevitable we will end up with everyone paying for 5-10 streaming services instead of just subscribing to a cable package plus 1-2 streaming services?
No. I think the 10 streaming services will combine in various configurations and when the dust settles we’ll still be paying for only 2 or 3 streaming services.
If there’s any kind of recession and people have to tighten their belts, what’s are the first luxuries to go? A streaming service and satellite radio would be my guess.
And finally, richfigel asks:
Aloha, Ken! What do you think about the constant use of EXTREME CLOSE-UPS in TV shows and movies these days? In the classic movie comedies and sitcoms, wider shots allowed audiences to see actors use their whole bodies. Now we get to see every wrinkle, blemish and nose hair blown up in high def -- not flattering for actors. Plus, they could be in two different places and you wouldn't even know it since it's all cross-cutting from face to face shots. Got any theories why so many directors are doing this?
No theories other than that seems to be the current style. I find it disconcerting but not as bad as the hand-held camera trend where the screen was always jiggling. People loved FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS. I couldn't make it through one episode without getting nauseous.
But I digress...
Yes, with Hi-Def those crows feet and worry lines become more apparent. Especially in extreme close ups. Time for another Botox shot.
For TV comedy the unwritten rule is a close-up includes the shoulders. Any closer and it feels too close, as if the actor is invading the viewer’s space. When that happens, comedy goes away.
I’m not a fan of extreme close-ups unless they’re there for a very specific reason – e.g. an extreme reaction to something.
To me the best use of close-ups was in the 1957 movie TWELVE ANGRY MEN directed by Sidney Lumet.
Twelve jurors are sequestered in a room and tension mounts as they argue the case.
If you watch that film, you’ll see that the opening section features all master shots. And as the movie progresses the camera slowly pushes in. The wide masters give way to tight masters, then three-shots, then two-shots, then singles, then close-ups, and by the end extreme close-ups. The walls of the room seem to be closing in on you. You start to really feel the tension along with a sense of claustrophobia. As magnificent as that script by Reginald Rose is, I think the shot selection really makes that movie.
Happy November. Please ask your Friday Questions. I’ll answer as many as I can. Thanks.
from By Ken Levine
Comments
Post a Comment