Glens Falls (NY) Online Book Discussion Group discussion
GLENS FALLS-Goings-on about town
>
Neil Simon's play "Rumors" - presented by the Glens Falls Community Theater (at Wood Theater Apr. 29, 30; May 1, 2011)
date
newest »
newest »
Below are links to the website of the Glens Falls Community Theater:http://www.gfcommunitytheatre.org/abo...
http://www.gfcommunitytheatre.org/Ind...
That sounds like a good time!Neil Simon has done a lot of funny plays and movies based on his plays.
Hi Jackie. I had never heard of this play before ("Rumors") even though I had heard of so many of Simon's other plays. I've probably seen most of the movies. So I was pleasantly surprised that this one was so much fun.Below is a link to a NY Times article which panned the show:
http://theater.nytimes.com/mem/theate...
Gee, those critics can take the joy out of everything. I can only assume that the cast at the Wood Theater was better than the Broadway cast or that the producers have edited the play since it was on Broadway. Eddie and I both thought that the article didn't do the play justice.
Below is a link to the Wiki page on Neil Simon. It lists all of his plays, his screenplays, and his awards. What would we do without Wiki?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Simon
I never heard of Rumors either.The play is probably as it always was, critics are idiots IMO. It's highly unlikely that the actors are better here than on Broadway. Or that it was edited or changed. I think critics believe their reviews get more attention when they tear into said play/movie/book, I also think they're jealous or frustrated, talentless wannabes that can't help but spew negativity.
Just more proof that critics are a waste of my time.
I'm so glad you didn't let the awful review keep you from seeing the play. Otherwise you might have missed out on a really fun evening :)
Jackie, fortunately, I didn't see the negative review about the Broadway version of "Rumors" until after I saw the show at the Wood Theater. So I was unbiased as I watched. I only know that I had a good time. And that's what it's all about.Years ago, I saw "Legs Diamond" on Broadway with Peter Allen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legs_Dia...
I loved it. The critics panned it and it closed after a very short run. I only knew that I enjoyed "Legs" more than I had enjoyed some other Broadway shows which I had seen. "Cats" is one of them. I hated "Cats"! "Cats" was boring! Slowly I am getting very judgemental about this "arty" stuff, not only in theater but in books too. Call me a philistine!
PS-I felt very sorry for Peter Allen. He had gotten a bad rap. I wish I had seen the Broadway show they made about his life, "The Boy from Oz" (2003):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_...
It starred Hugh Jackman as Peter Allen.
It was originally produced in Australia in 1998 and starred Todd McKenney as Peter Allen.
Gee, I just found out that there's a musical documentary:
"Peter Allen: The Boy from Oz" (2004)
According to Wiki, it was "produced after his death (in 1992), featuring clips from his performances as well as interviews with performers who worked with him."
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Pet...
http://www.amazon.com/Peter-Allen-Boy...
http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/43647...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Allen
I'm ordering the DVD documentary from Netflix. (BTW, I couldn't find anything about it at IMDb.)
Joy wrote: Call me a philistine! Not so! You like what you like, you don't follow the crowd with sheep mentality. I'd say you're an original and that's far more precious and rare than a herd of sheeple.
And if you are a philistine, then I'm right there along side you, lol
LOL - Jackie. Join the crowd! LOLOL"Remember always that you have not only the right to be an individual; you have an obligation to be one. You cannot make any useful contribution in life unless you do this." -Eleanor Roosevelt
Another proud philistine checking in here! :-) IMO, a lot of what wins critical plaudits today tells us more about the warped and decayed sensibilities of today's elitist critical community than it tells us about what's really great or enduring in creative art. Like the courtiers in the old story, they're parading the Emperor in his new wardrobe --but he's buck-naked, woefully ugly, and has a awful rash! :-)
LOL - Werner, I like your "Emperor" metaphor. Yes, it's really puzzling. I can't understand what some readers see in some of the books which win prizes today. Their minds must work differently from mine. I often read the GR reviews to find out what people like or don't like about a certain book. It's frustrating to see people giving 5 stars to books I couldn't possibly appreciate. To make myself feel better, I sometimes filter the reviews so I can read only the reviews with only one star. That's where I often find readers who think the way I do. At least there are a few of us left. :)
It goes back to individual tastes, none of us are exactly the same so it would stand to reason we don't enjoy the same things. In regards to reviews, I follow the reviews of people who share a common interest in genres and ratings with mine, this way I know I can trust their recommendations.
That's a good idea, Jackie!
I think a lot of critics today are bandwagon jumpers. That is, they'll fulsomely praise a film that they really don't like, but are SUPPOPSED to, by virtue mainly of its director. They don't want to be thought contrary, and are of course, mindful of their blurbs extolling the film. Michael Medved wrote a book about a decade ago called, I think, "Hollywood vs. America", in which he relates the story of a private screening of Scorcese's "The Last Temptation of Christ," for critics.
He said that during and after the film most of the notable critics were laughing and making derisive remarks during and after the screening.
Yet, said, Medved, he was shocked to see how many laudatory reviews these same critics gave the film in their columns.
There are some notable exceptions---critics who have the guts to go agains the tide Leonard Maltin,imo, is one such; another is te rarely quoted Rene Rodriguez of The Miami Herald.
Arnie, I think that there's probably a lot of truth in what you say about critics who don't tell it like it is. I get the feeling that one critic who's on the level is James Berardinelli. He's not afraid to speak his mind. At one of his forums he once panned an old movie with Bing Crosby, "Going My Way". I commented at the forum that I disagreed strongly. I don't usually go to his forum, but I happened upon it for that movie. Here's a link to the forums I commented in. I signed under the name of Polly1934.http://reelviews.net/reelviewsforum/s...
Yes, I too like Leonard Maltin's reviews. Too bad they're not online. In fact I have copy of Leonard Maltin's 2000 Movie and Video Guide. I also have another edition for a later year. They're handy to have around for quick reference, especially when the computer isn't on.
Wiki says: "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide is a book-format collection of movie capsule reviews that began in 1969 and has been updated yearly since 1978. ... It was originally called "TV Movies", which became "Leonard Maltin's TV Movies and Video Guide", which then became "Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide."
FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_...
I haven't read any of Rene Rodriguez's reviews. Here's his page at the Miami Herald:
http://www.miamiherald.com/rene_rodri...
"Rene Rodriguez has been The Herald's movie critic since 1995. He studied film criticism and filmmaking at the University of Miami."
Of course, being from that area, you're aware of him. Is he syndicated?
PS-Here's a link to the book you mentioned above:
Hollywood vs. America (1992) by Michael Medved.
See Werner's comment about this book at Message 6 of the following thread in this group:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/3...
Thanks, Joy; you've got a good memory! I remembered that I'd mentioned Medved's book one time in this group; but I didn't think anyone else would, especially from a year ago.
No, alas, Joy---you'll rarely if ever see Rodriquez quoted on movie ads. As far as I know, he is not syndicated, but he's my "go-to" guy, along with Maltin, before I shell out $9 for a movie.
Werner wrote: "Thanks, Joy; you've got a good memory! I remembered that I'd mentioned Medved's book one time in this group; but I didn't think anyone else would, especially from a year ago."Werner, I found your post about Medved's book in a round-about way. It was sort of serendipitous. After Arnie mentioned Hollywood vs. America, I went its book page. I scrolled down to the bottom of the page. At the bottom of the page, where it says "Discuss this book", I saw that it listed two different topics from our group. One was the thread in which you had mentioned the book in April 2010. After you had mentioned it in 2010, I had repeated the title (in the post following yours) by adding it as a link. By adding it as a link, GR made note of the topic on the book page.
And yes, by coincidence that was a year ago. I LOVE Goodreads! There are all sorts of connections between posts, reviews, and books. Round and round we go...
One caveat about Medved is that he leans a bit toward the Tea Party political philosophy, and it informs a lot of his objections about modern American cinema---its supposed anti-religious views and so-called leftist leanings, etc.
Arnie wrote: "One caveat about Medved is that he leans a bit toward the Tea Party political philosophy, and it informs a lot of his objections about modern American cinema---its supposed anti-religious views a..."Just found your post now, Arnie. I wasn't notified. Hmmm. I'll have to start checking the group regularly instead of waiting for email notifications.
About for Michael Medved, yes, I see from Wiki that's he considered a conservative. He has a nationally syndicated talk show which airs throughout the U.S. on Salem Radio Network. Salem Radio Network ... specializes in syndicated Christian talk, music, and secular news/talk programming. (info from Wiki)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_Ra...
I might be a bit off topic (if I am, Joy, just give me a virtual knuckle-rap with a ruler :-) ), but one complication with using "liberal" and "conservative" as one-size-fits-all terms for political analysis is that one size doesn't fit all any more, if it ever did. There isn't a single continuum of positions on each issue ranging neatly from "Left" to "Right," and people who agree on some issues may disagree on others. Many people who self-identify with the Left or the Right have as many disagreements with those who are supposedly on "their side" as they do with those supposedly on the other side. That's also true of the Tea Party movement, which is far from monolithic and never had just one single organization and leader. I don't know what Medved's position on all issues is (though Joy's links might supply some information on that); but I'd guess that I probably have some disagreements with him, though I identify with a lot of Tea Party concerns and qualify as a "conservative" in most people's lexicons. Anyway, Hollywood vs. America was written years before the Tea Party movement as such existed.Arnie, you referred to the "supposed" and "so-called" anti-religious and leftist bias in modern American cinema. Do you believe that characterization to be a myth? You probably watch many more movies than I do, so your knowledge of the subject might be more solidly based than mine. (I mostly just know what I glean from articles and news reports here and there, and I'm afraid my direct experience with Hollywood consists of seeing the sign from the plane once, when I took off from the Bradley airport. :-) )
Werner, I suppose the litmus test for any work of art being "leftist" or "rightist" is how closely it hews to and represents factual social and personal reality.
Since many, if not most artists, tend to be humanists, politically concerned and sensitive to human injustice and suffering, I suppose Hollywood tends to be "leftist".
On the other hand, the Right, Tea Party. etc., seem to be most outraged by artistic content that challenges their assumptions about traditional "American" values--- as the Tea Party and many conservatives have amply displayed, these views are cherished shibboleths and self-congratulatory illusions.
Those political tests always peg me as a Libertarian since I'm split pretty evenly on the issues. That's so unfair.
Werner, don't worry about going off topic. Some of the most interesting conversations start when people go off topic. Besides, if anyone wants to go back on topic, all they have to do is post an on-topic message in the thread.As for terms like conservative and liberal, I'd rather take one specific issue at a time and not label the different sides of the argument with ambiguous terms. There's less misunderstanding that way.
Joy, that's my philosophy, too! (On both of your points. :-) )
Glens Falls (NY) Online Book Discussion Group
Books mentioned in this topic
Hollywood vs. America: The Explosive Bestseller that Shows How-and Why-the Entertainment Industry Has Broken Faith With Its Audience (other topics)Hollywood vs. America: The Explosive Bestseller that Shows How-and Why-the Entertainment Industry Has Broken Faith With Its Audience (other topics)
Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide 2000 (other topics)
It was hilarious! The cast and crew did a superb job.
Summary:
========================================================
"Four couples are getting together at the home of a fifth couple to celebrate the hosts' 10th wedding anniversary. But upon their arrival, the guest find that their hostess is nowhere to be found and the host has put a bullet through his earlobe. Neil Simons' Broadway hit is fast-paced and full of mistaken identities, cover-ups and outright lies as participants try to hide the goings-on from cops and reporters."
FROM a web page of the Wood Theater:
http://woodtheater.tix.com/Event.asp?...
========================================================
Bob Myers was the show's director. The cast featured Barbara Miner, Jerry McKenna, Gloria Ford, Nick Baroudi, Bonnie Wiles, Mark Griffin, Linda Clark, Peter Carrolan, Tommy Fredericks and Lynne Baldwin.
The show was co-produced by Mary Corcoran and Lynn Gorham. The stage manager was David Wiles, and set designs were done by Martin Seelye.
The Bare Bones Furniture Center loaned the group all the furniture and artwork for the set which was well done.
See article in the Post-Star at:
http://poststar.com/lifestyles/articl...
According to Wiki, the play originally opened on Broadway in 1988. The original cast included Lisa Banes, Christine Baranski, Ken Howard, Ron Leibman, Joyce Van Patten, and Jessica Walter. See more at the Wiki web page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumors
I love the Wood Theater. The seats are steeply tiered so that everyone has an unobstructed view of the stage. It's not too big and it's not too small. It has 300 seats. We came away from the play in a good mood after a jolly night of laughter and fun.