Cakebug Tranch

I'm picking Across the Universe again.

Yes! Great pick! I loved this as a kid but had forgotten that I had until I saw the trailer for the remake, at which point I found myself weepy with nostalgia about the original version. I never saw the remake: did anyone else? I wonder if it'll be worthwhile watching that too for comparison (although of course the focus will be kate's pick).

My first great laugh for the week. Thanks, Mrs. Bert!

Apologies for the double-post, but one more thing: Why does Charlie say that he comes from such an outlandishly-named place as 'Paradise Falls, Ohio'? That doesn't sound like a place in Ohio to me, and immediately sends up a red flag as a place worth checking out. Why not say you're from Cleveland? Why not New York City or Los Angeles or somewhere large that doesn't around suspicion? And as a Stephen King joint, why is this set in Indiana and not Maine? WHY?

Okay, so I'd like to talk about the pre-title card that introduces the concept of Sleepwalkers, interpreted entirely through the Oxford English Dictionary. Ready? A few things. This strategy of reinforcing the following material by prefacing it with an authentic-sounding authority figure is a common approach in fiction writing, to bring the audience on board by saying 'trust me, it's from a dictionary'. We see an excellent example of this in the Cohen brothers' Fargo: This title card is replicated in every episode of the TV series as well, so as to trick the audience into thinking something this outlandish could actually be true. The additional credence that we give the story of the scam gone wrong in Fargo hinges entirely on this title card, where we think that the following was real, because we were told that's the case. In terms of the content of the Sleepwalkers pre-titles card, the syntax of the phrasing absolutely outs it as being a modern construction. It claims to be taken from the Chillicoathe Encyclopaedia of Arcane Knowledge, 1885. It's an interesting touch that they spell 'Encyclopaedia' in the English way (as opposed to the American 'Encyclopedia') to give it a sense of old-timey gravitas. It's another nice touch to suggest it's the 'First Edition', which implies that there are many other editions, too. But, when you look at the phrasing, it's entirely modern. The use of the term 'life-force' is the dead giveaway: according to the Oxford English Dictionary, there are only two nineteenth century uses of the term, and only one that pre-dates this encyclopaedia entry, whose usage is unconnected to the way the encyclopaedia uses it: It's been well established on the boards that the Chillicoathe Encyclopaedia is fictional, and there appears to be little online that suggests other than the term was coined by the screenwriter as a generic name for a Necronomicon style book, or something else from HP Lovecraft (an excellent piece of HDTGM crossover since Paul Scheer played Lovecraft in an old episode of PFT's Dead Authors Podcast!). There is a town called Chillicoathe in Missouri, but there's little reason to think there is a connection. As for the sleepwalkers themselves, the term does pre-date this encyclopaedia entry: There is little in the etymology of the word (essentially a portmanteau) that gives hints as to why this term was chosen, aside from the idea that these people stumble through the world groping for...light? I don't know. I feel like I'm circling around something. I'll continue to ponder on it.

I want an episode of 'I Was There Too' where Matt Gourley interviews the production assistant whose job it was to throw cats at actors during action scenes.

To no one's surprise, The Phantom punched his way to an underdog victory in my bracket, humiliating Xanadu in the final.* *

Oh. But... Oh. Okay.

Hey, has anyone seen 'Julie's Green Room' - a new kids' show on Netflix? Julie Andrews and muppets teach kids about the fundamentals of theatre. My kids are transfixed by it. It's painfully cute, in a pretty good way.

ETA

Good point, and I like where you're going with this. Guys, beer party at Taylor's place! She's buying!

lol, that's sweet. - signed, an Australian/Canadian

On the contrary, that sounds like a very relevant point based on your experience - kind of like when Ryan Sz posts about being a prison guard (which seems to be relevant often!). That's no humblebrag. That's germane to the topic.

Your point was much more sophisticated though Taylor... ETA - wait I don't think Cam or Tom have seen this yet. Are we about to find justice over the 'Iron Fist' debacle?

FUCK TO THE YES. I've been saying 'Get Out' to that movie all week because I can't stop thinking about it.

Etymology lesson time: 'Adaptation' comes from the Greek 'Adaptere', meaning 'To make fit'. 'Rent' is absolutely an adaptation, where the themes of 'La Boheme' were made to fit 1990s New York City. Some adjustment is always required for such a process. But adaptation is the correct word, not update.

I hear what you're saying, but this is part of the adaptive process - I have taught adaptation theory in the past and this is something that students grappled with when putting together their own adaptation projects. The reasons for adapting past materials are many: it's a ready-made structure, you know it works, you know people like it, you think the old themes might work today, etc, etc etc. But the deal you make when actively adapting a text is that you're tipping your hat to the past for the benefit of the audience. In many ways, the adaptive process is a very metatheatrical gesture, by acknowledging the past while creating the present. I recently adapted Maxim Gorky's The Lower Depths to be set today in Toronto in a low-rent district, and while I could very easily have obliterated all reference to Gorky, by doing so you're taking away the audience's pleasure who may know the original material. Much like the Mimi/Mimi connection, I retained the name of Luka, the pilgrim, as a wink to audiences who know the source. This can become a kind of easter egg for an audience - it's what Linda Hutcheon calls the 'knowing/unknowing audience', and the impact on a knowing audience - or someone who watches 'West Side Story' with full knowledge of the content of 'Romeo and Juliet' as opposed to someone who doesn't know the Shakespeare - is far greater. The audience goes through a pleasurable process of oscillation between the source and the adaptation, mentally flipping back and forth to note connections and to compare choices. The unknowing audience (arguably most of the 'Rent' crowd) can also enjoy the show, but not as an adaptation. They'll enjoy it as a fun musical without the additional layer. It's like Cam's note above about 'Ten Things', for example - that film is RIDDLED with Shakespearean easter eggs that are there for the benefit of the knowing audience member, but the film doesn't depend on them. I think at the heart of it, things that survive long enough to be adapted prove that they have staying power as great stories, so that's the core motivation. By referring back to easter eggs they not only signal that they're knowingly adapting (and avoiding accusations of plagiarism) but that they're aware that some of the audience will know the source. It's a point of respect, I think.

No, the point is that without Larson's death, the question is, would the buzz have been the same? All I'm saying is that it might have been a well-received little show that ran Off-Broadway for a while. Lots of great shows don't make it to Broadway, but the bump that his death gave made the buzz explode. It's a crowded marketplace, and without deep pockets behind you (and from all the oral histories, many investors were put off by the music and the subject matter) no matter how good you are, you're going to struggle. Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Award_for_Best_Musical#1990s

No, I get you. I just hear things in 'Rent' that sound so 90's much in the way that Dame Sir Andrew's synths make 'Phantom' sound, and that takes me right back to that time and place. 'Rent' is absolutely strong, in many, many ways, but to get the bump from NYTW to Broadway - where Steven Spielberg showed up for the second show because of the buzz around the composer's death before the first show made it immediately must-see - was something that, if it were written in a script, you'd write off as outlandish. Mormon's fine. I saw it once, was so glad I didn't pay $1500 to see it on Broadway. I would totally pay that to see Hamilton, had I the money, but Mormon? Once was enough.

Oh good! I'll look for the article too. But I mostly meant controversial in the fact that most people in here seemed to like the stage musical a bunch.