Monday, March 30, 2020

What's so great about Neil Simon?

Here’s a Friday Question that became two complete posts. Part 2 is tomorrow.

It’s from Thomas Tucker:

I just re-watched The Odd Couple and still find myself wondering why people thought Neil Simon's works were so good. I don't but I see that as a fault in myself rather than a fault with Neil Simon. I know you saw him as a master playwright and wonder if you could give some details about why that is. What made him so good, and what am I missing?

Okay, first of all, you can’t judge his plays by his movies. None of his movies crackled the way his plays did. A few are just awful. What the movies should be are just filmed versions of the plays with a live audience, like a multi-camera show using the original Broadway casts.

Instead, studios would tamper with them. They would “open them up” and take them outside their normal settings to make them more cinematic. So they’re unnecessarily adding content when none is needed. You don’t need scenes of Oscar and Felix at a diner. You don’t need to see Jane Fonda & Robert Redford in the park in BAREFOOT IN THE PARK.

Also, they tamper with the spirit of the casting. PLAZA SUITE is supposed to have the same two actors play all three acts. In the movie it’s Walter Mattau and three different actresses.

The movies also don’t know how to judge for laughs, how long to pause. And when you’re watching alone at home the punch lines fall flat.

Add to that, Hollywood casting. Matthau and Jack Lemon were great, but Jane Fonda instead of Elizabeth Ashley for BAREFOOT IN THE PARK? I love Jane Fonda. I admire Jane Fonda. In her younger days I was in love with Jane Fonda. But she’s not funny. She always has this “clenched” quality that certainly goes against a character who is a flighty free-spirit. Many theatre adaptations were killed by bad Hollywood casting, shoehorning stars into roles they’re not equipped to play.

Finally, sometimes the studio rewrites the scripts. Simon’s first hit play, COME BLOW YOUR HORN, was totally rewritten and destroyed by Norman Lear, miscast with Frank Sinatra, and was a total piece of shit.

Now, for the plays themselves. Remember he burst upon the scene in the early 1960’s. What was American comedy like then? Other than THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW, all sitcoms were single-camera mindless fluff. GILLIGAN’S ISLAND, THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES, THE FLYING NUN. Or variety shows with quick sketches.

Movie comedies were frothy romcoms like PILLOW TALK and GOOD NEIGHBOR SAM. And bad remakes of plays like COME BLOW YOUR HORN. Attempts to do laugh-out-loud comedy were overblown affairs like IT’S A MAD MAD MAD WORLD. The jury is still out on whether it’s hilarious or just an exercise in excess. It was in Cinerama and loaded with stars so it was more a gimmick than well-structured comedy.

And on Broadway, plays were mostly dramatic, although there were a few comedies that broke through. But it wasn’t like the ‘20s or ‘30s when you had playwrights like George S. Kaufman & Moss Hart turning out blockbuster comedies like THE MAN WHO CAME TO DINNER and YOU CAN’T TAKE IT WITH YOU. Most of the “comedy” on Broadway in the early ‘60s was found in musicals (better known as musical comedies).

Then along comes Neil Simon with plays loaded with fantastic jokes that are all character-based and all move the plot forward. Audiences would go to the theatre and laugh out loud for two hours. No one else was doing that. Not to that degree. Not with that consistency. He was a revelation. Lines for tickets would be around the block. It’s a lesson that Broadway still hasn’t learned. People like to LAUGH. They stand in line for tickets for comedies, not dark depressing dirges on society’s woes.

But I digress…

Around the same time Herb Gardner wrote A THOUSAND CLOWNS. It’s my all-time favorite comedy play. It also has a lot of heart. But he never topped it. Never came close. And it took him years to write a play. Tony Shaloub was in a new Herb Gardner play and I asked how he rewrote. You need to be able to rewrite quickly while in rehearsals and previews. How does a guy who takes a year or more to write a play, rewrite on the fly? Tony said he didn’t. He over-wrote the play. It was originally way too long and he just pruned it as they went along.

Neil Simon was a master re-writer. He was super-tough on material and would rewrite constantly, sometimes whole new scenes over night.

The end result was a body of work that was remarkable. The older he got, the more depth found its way into his plays. But make no mistake; Neil Simon is the single most successful playwright in the American Theatre. (Maybe not the best, but the most successful.)

MORE TOMORROW

48 comments :

Jim S said...

Interesting point. Not living in New York, I don't really have the chance to see much real theater. I mean I saw a local community theater production of "God's Favorite."

The actors did their best, and the productions values were good considering, but . . . .

You make an excellent point about seeing a live production with a real audience. An audience really makes a different. Strange example. Last year about this time, "Avengers Endgame" came out. For the first weekend, it was sold out in movie theaters. I had to buy my ticket a day early, but having an audience react to what was on screen in real time actually does make a huge difference in the experience. The only problem is that it's rare to actually have a sold-out movie theater. "Endgame" was an exception that actually did prove the rule. (I dread the idea that Hollywood will just release every movie via Video On Demand even after the Coronavirus emergency is over, whenever that will be).

So yes, I can see how writing for an audience is hugely different than writing for the screen. Unfortunately, most of us won't have the chance to see those plays, which is why I was glad to hear that "Madison" was bought by Disney for something like $70 million, but when that film hits the screens, it will be just what you said - a filming of the stage production, complete with original actors.

Also, my condolences on the death of "Wings" actor David Schramm.

Keep up the good work. In these dark times it's nice to go to a blog like this that doesn't want to make you hide in your basement.

Kim T. Bené said...

Boy, I agree ☝️ 100% with the fellow who posted the question. I’ve seen a few Simon-play-based movies and wasn’t too impress. Pretty pedestrian. But I was always too embarrassed �� to admit I wasn’t very impressed in the face of all the praise heaped on him and his work buy actors and writers like you. Your insightful response explains it all. Thank you ��.

Will said...

Hey Ken, you must be so happy that the Royal couple have moved to LA yesterday.

Let us know if you bump into them while going for a jog or at supermarket.

Enjoy paying for their security. We got rid of that problem.

thirteen said...

"What the movies should be are just filmed versions of the plays with a live audience, like a multi-camera show using the original Broadway casts."

YES!!! I've thought so for many years. There was a time when I thought they might do Les Mis that way because they'd already come close, what with all the anniversary converts and so on. I still wish they had.

MikeKPa. said...

Saw David Schramm passed away this weekend. What a great, creepy (but in a non-threatening way) foil he was for the Hackett brothers. Any thoughts about what he brought to "Wings?" I saw a quote from him to Rebecca Schull, After the first table read, he said, "I think we just landed in a tub of butter" because he realized how well-developed the characters were.

Daisy Mae said...

Hi Ken, did you see this? https://www.facebook.com/frankvacc/videos/10219653484705743/UzpfSTU3NzYxMTM1OToxMDE1Njc2OTc1OTczMTM2MA/

Ted said...

Ken, I just saw a clip from 'Everybody Loves Raymond' and realized that 'Uncle Leo' was in that too. The happy shouting guy.

Please share memories of working with Len Lesser.

Thanks.

Link : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zIKud1rnCI


Troy McClure said...

Whenever Neil Simon is discussed, almost no one ever mentions MURDER BY DEATH. I can't be the only one who loves that movie. I'm not saying it was his best work, but it's so much fun with a glorious cast, though sadly most of them are no longer with us. Peter Falk in particular is fantastic.

He played a similar character in THE CHEAP DETECTIVE, another terrific Simon movie.

Anonymous said...

I liked (and like) the movie version of Simon's "The Out-of-Towners".

ScarletNumber said...

> Many theatre adaptations were killed by bad Hollywood casting, shoehorning stars into roles they’re not equipped to play.

This is a musical rather than a play, but a prime example of this is Mame. The 1966 Broadway production starred Angela Lansbury and was a smashing success, with Lansbury winning a Tony. In spite of this, when the 1974 movie was being cast, it was decided that Lansbury wasn't enough of a star. So we was replaced by Lucille Ball. Apparently no one at Warner Brothers noticed that Lucille Ball can't sing. The film flopped.

JeffinOhio55 said...

Ken - I played Felix in a local theater production of The Odd Couple, and made a point of watching the movie first. No comparison. The argument between Felix ad Oscar over gravy, of all things, is uproarious in the theater. In the movie it just slid by, as did most of the best lines. Oscar's frustration and Felix's fussiness play much better on the stage.

Tim G. said...

Thanks for expanding on Neil Simon as playwright. I watched the film of The Odd Couple this past winter and found it unbearable. In one early scene with all characters at the card table, everybody was doing erfing busy schtick like they were each in separate worlds.

Makes me think of those awful crowd scenes on stage in which everyone does something, endless rounds of moppets playing peekaboo, nuns walking by in pairs, villagers all talking at the same time and nodding their heads. Oops, I digress.

I can't tell if my problem is Simon's play and attendant stage business or a general aversion to Jack Lemmon (the Maya Rudolph of his time). I'm willing to think the plays are great but I'm just the wrong audience.

Jeffrey Graebner said...

In the early 1980s, HBO had a short-lived series of filmed versions of live performances of plays and one was a production of "Barefoot in the Park" starring Richard Thomas and Bess Armstrong. I would have been in my early teens when this aired and I remember it being basically my first real introduction to a Neil Simon play. I absolutely loved it and remember watching it quite a few times. I'm not sure that version is officially available (doing a quick search, it looks like there are taped-from-TV copies on YouTube), but it might be the best option out there for viewing a filmed performance as Ken suggested. I do remember later seeing the Redford/Fonda film version and being highly disappointed by it in comparison.

Off topic, but the only other production I remember from that HBO series was a performance of "Camelot" with Richard Harris that was almost immeasurably better than the film version (which also starred Harris). That one did get an official DVD release which is pretty easy to find.

RyderDA said...

I loved GOOD NEIGHBOUR SAM. But then, I also loved Jack Lemmon in darned near anything.

Anonymous said...

Jane Fonda?
No, never.

And I'm not talking about her acting.

Ted said...

Follow up question :

Is it true Seinfeld piggybacked on 'Cheers'to become a hit?

Ref : https://www.denofgeek.com/tv/seinfeld-from-flop-to-acclaimed-hit/

Michael said...

Neil Simon ended up marrying Elaine Joyce. He certainly WAS the most successful playwright ever.

I saw a "Kiss Me, Kate" revival on Broadway in 2000 and have seen the 1953 movie, and a more recent theatrical staging of "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum" as well as the film, which has its issues, of course. Obviously, there will be generational differences. But a stage show and a film are indeed so different. Which reminds me of a story I read somewhere that the film script for "Forum" was 20 pages too long, so they supposedly removed a bunch of directions.

BruceB said...

I’ve had the great pleasure of performing in many, many of Neil Simon’s shows in regional theatre over the years. Walking out in front of an audience, knowing how much fun they and you are about to have, is one of the best feelings an actor can have. Simon apparently rewrote like crazy, and I have to believe every tiny change was a wonderful improvement, because the end result is so exactly right. I’ve been Felix in “Odd Couple,” Multiple role guy in “Good Doctor,” (a fantastic role, BTW) Max Prince in “23rd Floor,” etc., etc. and I found some interesting things about Simon’s shows. The dialogue is remarkably easy to memorize. Every sentence seems like the only thing that makes sense to say. This is very hard to understand if you don’t act, but it is one of the things that makes Simon’s shows a pleasure to perform in. And even his less-loved shows, like “Star-Spangled Girl,” which I did twice in my youth, are hilarious. The dialogue is great and the laughs are consistent, even if the show itself feels less than satisfying in the end. “Girl” is not a beautifully decorated prize-winning cake, it’s a Twinkie. But it’s one sweet Twinkie. His skill with funny dialogue is just amazing. But best appreciated with an audience. See these shows live.

Dave Mackey said...

The other morning on CBS, Jane Pauley interviewed Matthew Broderick and Sarah Jessica Parker, who were about to start a new version of Plaza Suite before Coronavirus shut down Broadway. The clips they showed looked intriguing.

daniel in cherry hill said...

@jim S. I did G-ds favorite in college theater. its far from his greatest work. It was written after he lost his wife to cancer.it has great one-liners. "Son, do you know what it says in the Bible?" "Yes, Dad, this book belongs to the Sheraton Plaza Hotel." But its missing an ending. BTW- This is something that he often struggled with. He did a complete rewrite of the 3rd act of The Odd Couple.

The best translation of one of his plays into a movie is The Good Bye Girl.

Rick Whelan said...

Speaking of mega-miscasting by the Hollywood studios ... how about taking a wonderful novel like Truman Capote's Breakfast at Tiffanys and putting in Mickey Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi ... an offensive, unfunny rendition of a Japanese person.

Todd Everett said...

For a period in my life, I found myself covering a lot of community theater; a substantial hunk of it being Neil Simon plays.

While "The Odd Couple" remains an awe-inspiring piece of architecture -- funny, too -- I found a lot of the plays to be very dated, both in attitude and references. Even the more recent ones.

One thing I'll add: Unwittingly or not, he's ideal for community theater: smallish casts, minimal amount of work for the set and costume people (while giving them SOMETHING to do) and breezily-paced so you're never more than a minute or two from a funny line; often closer.


Anonymous said...

Jane Fonda and Tony Shalhoub, 2 of my favorite actors from my quarantine days. Grace and Frankie and Mrs. Maisel are keeping me sane these days. Shalhoub is brilliant. I'm patiently awaiting new episodes of these and the Kominsky Method.Stay Healthy. Janice B.

Buttermilk Sky said...

"Filmed versions of the plays with a live audience" -- no no no. There is nothing more unbearable because the actors necessarily play to the audience, which means they're basically yelling in the TV viewer's face. If they tend to be over-the-top to begin with, it's even worse. (For instance Nathan Lane in THE MAN WHO CAME TO DINNER.)

Ideally the cast would perform the play for a few months, so they know where all the laughs are, and then go into a studio and tape it for television. (This is how the Marx Brothers made their best movies.) But plays are verbal and movies are visual, and it usually takes a lot of re-writing and expert direction to make a good film out of a good play.

I hope you and your family are well, Ken. Say, we haven't seen any pictures of your granddaughter in a while. (Hint.)

gottacook said...

At least one commenter above seems to think there were stage versions of some movies that, in fact, Simon wrote directly for the screen. Movies such as The Out-of-Towners, Murder by Death, The Goodbye Girl, or The Heartbreak Kid (his adaptation of Bruce Jay Friedman's very short story "A Change of Plan") all originated as screenplays, although in the 1990s there was a stage musical version of The Heartbreak Kid for which Simon collaborated with Marvin Hamlisch.

Unknown said...

In 1968 I reluctantly went with my parents to see THE ODD COUPLE movie. I was 13, right at the age where I didn't want to do anything with Mom and Dad. But I'm so glad I went, because that was the hardest I ever saw them laugh in my life. It made such an impression on me that I remember it clearly to this day. I felt so good that they had fun and forgot their troubles for two hours. If Neil Simon had never written another word, he'd still be tops with me for that movie.

Anonymous said...

Singin' in the Rain was a different movie in a theater. All the pauses (and long dissolves) were filled in by laughter. Jean Hagen was brilliant. The songs and dances got cheers when they ended instead of silence.

Saw Desk Set, not one of Tracy and Hepburn's best, in a theater. Still a lot of fun with the crackle that the two of them had on the screen (plus the teacher I wish I had, "Miss Landers" from Leave it to Beaver--Sue Randall--was on the big screen in Technicolor). On TCM is was nice but not as memorable--though I do recommend it because the story, though out of date in some ways, is a scorching indictment of the still-insane (and bigoted) attitude that software can totally replace intuitive, deep-dive knowledge that comes from experience.

Funny how non-inclusion and non-representation are practiced out in the open as well as through verbal and digital code when it comes to age. A lot of old people can used sophisticated technology, but the stereotype is that they can't. Imagine if the same were said about certain other demographic groups. It would be like that scene in 12 Years a Slave when Leo DeCaprio presented the chart about the comparative brain sizes and capabilities for intelligence between, well, you know and you know.

Robert Ryder said...

First, a mild disagreement about the "fluff" of early 1960s TV: The Andy Griffith Show started in 1960 and was definitely not fluff. In fact, two of the best writers on that show, Jim Fritzell and Everett Greenbaum went on to write some excellent episodes of MASH, I believe. But you're right--there was a lot of fluff. Now, on to Neil Simon. I remember how he used to be dismissed as a lightweight--funny but not deep--and compared unfavorably with Woody Allen. Then his "Eugene trilogy" came along and he got a lot of critical acclaim, which was deserved because those plays are great as are the movies made from them, as I remember (it's been a while). But I never thought he was a lightweight. People just thought anyone who can write jokes like that must not be taken seriously. I can't speak to the difference between his plays and movies, because I know his work mostly through movies and in print, but you're on to something with the presentation. But he also wrote scripts for films that came out great, like The Goodbye Girl and Biloxi Blues.

Ken Davis said...


Though you'd enjoy this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WuaDK0mTc4

D McEwan said...

One can certainly debate whether It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World is funny or not (I find it funny, and watch my Blu-Ray of the over-three-hours cut often), and one can not dispute that it is overblown. Being overblown was always part of its intentions and appeal, the big cast, the big screen, the big running time (I know, you could cut to 90 minutes. Who wants to see it that utterly butchered? The standard-release cut was too butchered as it is). It's there in the use of the word "World" in the title of a movie that all takes place in southern California over the course of a single day (Except for the two minute denouement that takes place a few days later).

But neither, I think, can it be denied that IAMMMMW is well-structured, very well-structured. One of the things I love about it is how beautifully it is structured. Watching the symmetry of that plot, as it starts compact, expands and expands and expands to the wide-ranging farce chaos at intermission, and then the contracting again, as the plot lines all draw back together again for the final chase, is for me as great a pleasure as the pleasure of sharing those three hours with that army of great comics, comedians and comedy actors.

ScarletNumber said...

@Ted

I don't know if piggyback is the right word, but when Seinfeld was on Wednesday, it got destroyed in the ratings by Home Improvement.

gottacook said...

Sorry, I meant that The Goodbye Girl (not The Heartbreak Kid) was turned into a stage musical.

maxdebryn said...

Home Improvement aired on Tuesdays.

Pat Reeder said...

I've also seen a ton of Simon's plays in regional theater productions, watched the movie adaptations and read many of the scripts over the years, and each is a completely different experience. Reading the scripts is great for writers like me who want to study the craft, but it's not like reading something that's meant to be laugh-out-loud funny off the page, like Robert Benchley or Dave Barry. The laughs come from the timing and characters and the way they lines bounce off of one another as much as the jokes. When you see an original script performed in a theater with a live audience, it's a revelation how much funnier it seems than what you read.

And of course, it's a miracle if one of the movies survives all the rewriting and "opening up" garbage. That's why the few that did turn out well, like "The Odd Couple," seem like classics (or aberrations.)

BruceB above is right: "Star-Spangled Girl" was the first Neil Simon script I read from my school library when I was a kid (I memorized "A Thousand Clowns" that way and can recall most of it to this day.) Even then, I wasn't that impressed: with its politically-tinged '60s setting, it was already dated, the dialogue seemed a bit stilted, and to a kid like me in a small Texas town, the Southern Baptist girl didn't ring true (Simon admitted in his autobiography that as a Jewish man from NYC, he felt he failed to create a realistic character because he knew nothing about people like that.)

But I always try to catch revivals of any older plays, and recently, a new company here in Dallas did the show and I finally saw it performed live. It got huge laughs all the way through and cheers at the end. The dated aspect just made it seem charming and nostalgic (if something is from 20 years ago, it's dated; over 30, it's a period piece.) The cast was excellent, particularly the young actor playing the smitten writer, who had a sweet, ethereal, Robin Williams-like goofiness that made him seem lovably off-kilter rather than creepy/stalkerish.

You would never imagine from either the script or the movie (yes, there was one in 1971, with Sandy Duncan and Tony Roberts) that such a dated, flawed play could still kill in 2019, but the audience loved it. Even when certain aspects of one of his plays isn't up to scratch, they always have dialogue that gets laughs from live audiences if the actors just know how to perform it correctly.

James said...

Robert Ryder above reminded me of a possible Friday Q. What's your opinion or analysis of The Andy Griffith Show? I don't remember you mentioning it before.

The show was "rural" in the first year but rapidly lost it, and became a small-town show that could have originated from almost anywhere. The humor was character driven and looked like Shakespeare next to other "rural" shows like The Beverly Hillbillies and Petticoat Junction.

The thing I always admired about Griffith (once I was old enough to notice) is that it had a range that no other show had. At least when it had Don Knotts, you never knew from week to week what you'd get. Could be a drama (Opie kills a bird), could be a comedy (Andy trying to make time with a pretty girl), or a broad farce (Gomer becomes a deputy). Don Knotts ran the gamut very well, but so did the rest of the cast. At least during the B&W years. After that it seemed to settle as a gentle comedy and fizzled.

The only other sitcom I can think of that got close to that was MASH.

Randy @ WCG Comics said...

I'm reading the recently released Woody Allen biography and this reminds me of a section I just read where he talks about working on a play and the process he went through of constantly re-writing between preview shows. Oy, and this was in the days before computers/word processors! He also talked about having the benefit of an experienced director to help stage the shows and identifying what worked and what needed to be fixed.

Mike Doran said...

There's a scene in The In-Laws (the original with Falk and Arkin - you know, the good one) that got the single biggest laugh I've ever heard in a movie theater.
It's a scene you couldn't possibly do on a stage, because it involves a build-up of several minutes, changes of location, quite a bit of funny dialog leading up to the moment -
- and when The Moment happens, the audience is already laughing, and feels a moral obligation to laugh even harder.
It's not a gag line … or even a sight gag as such.
When the Big Laugh comes, the audience laugh covers up some plot-related dialog, which made it necessary to see The In-Laws several more times to try and get it.
Problem was, the Big Laugh happened each and every time with every audience; I only heard the dialog when I got the VHS tape - and when I showed it to my family, my dad's laughter almost drowned it out then.
If you know The In-Laws, you should have figured out which scene I'm talking about; if not - well, see the DVD … and try to get a crowd together to do it (Order in! Have a party! Run it twice!).

J Lee said...

I think the arc of the TV version of "The Odd Couple" was a case in point of why Simon's movies of his plays underwhelmed.

Paramount used the same sets as the movie and shot the first season of the TV show single camera and it just died for lack of energy, because Simon wrote his characters for audience reactions. Once they put the show into three-camera format and in front of a live audience, the characters and the situations came alive (one person who hated the first single-camera season of the TV show was ... Neil Simon. But his daughter reportedly convinced him a couple of years later to go back and take another look at the show in three-camera/live audience format, and he liked it enough to end up doing a cameo with Tony Randall and Jack Klugman in an episode filmed for the final season).

Mike Barer said...

I loved the Odd Couple on TV. I think it was one of the best shows of it's time.

scottmc said...

Admittedly, I was late to the Neil Simon fan club. When I was younger I thought of him the same way that I looked at the work of Oscar Hammerstein. Neither appealed to me. I could never understand the love that people had for The Sound of Music or Oklahoma. But when I heard 'The Last Time I saw Paris' and saw 'Carmen Jones' I began to reevaluate Hammerstein to the point that I now consider him on a par with Eugene O'Neill in terms of craft and influence.
The same with Simon. At some point, I looked at the work again and saw how deftly he structured the plays. The film adaptations don't succeed, I believe, because they never hired a top flight director. Jack Lemmon told the story that he wanted Billy Wilder to direct and adapt the film version of The Odd Couple. But that would have raised the cost of the movie and Simon didn't want someone else adapting the play. (Ironically, Simon adapted Wilder when he wrote the Book for the musical version of The Apartment.)
The film version of Biloxi Blues works, I think, because they got Mike Nichols to direct it.
Along with Larry Gelbart and the recently deceased Terrence McNalLy, Simon was the Book writer for a number of hit musicals. The Book writer of a musical hardly ever receives the credit when a musical succeeds but often receives the blame when it fails.
Simon's work is so good because you don't see the sweat, the effort.

Joe G. Minn said...

Anonymous said...
Jane Fonda?
No, never.

And I'm not talking about her acting.



She was right. You were wrong.

DBenson said...

Recall that Joan Rivers had a line about writing a play and titling it "The New Neil Simon Comedy". It would run forever, because people would call ticket agencies and ask for ...

Ralph C. said...

Nothing wrong with not liking Simon’s work. There’s no fault or failing by anyone. Everyone likes what they like. If you come to appreciate it later, great. If not, great.

mike schlesinger said...

If I may expound further on MAD MAD WORLD: Ken, I'm willing to wager you've never seen it in a theatre (preferably the Dome) with a packed audience. It is a completely, utterly, absolutely different experience than watching it on TV at home, even with a couple of other people. As with live theatre, presentation is everything: from the recognition applause for beloved actors to gags we know are coming and still make us laugh anyway to the sheer majesty of the image and sound that envelops us, it is the epitome of a film that suffers a colossal loss when reduced from 60 feet to 60 inches. After 54 years of seeing it the way it was meant to be seen, I can assure you that you haven't really seen it until you've done so properly.

D McEwan said...

"Mike Doran said...
well, see the DVD … and try to get a crowd together to do it (Order in! Have a party! Run it twice!)."


I'll get right on that, just as soon as the plague is over, if I survive it.

Anonymous said...

Jack Lemmon was the Maya Rudolph of his time?!?!?!

I...

He...

WHAT?!?!

I'm sorry - I apologize... It's just that... He...

I gotta go...

- Matt in RI. I think. Honestly, I can't think straight...

The Bumble Bee Pendant said...

Huge fan of Neil Simon.

surprised no one mentioned to read his plays. The Collected Plays of Neil Simon, Volume 1 and 2. Read them. EXTREMELY funny to read. laugh out loud.

best Neil Simon movies not mentioned are the Brighton Beach Memoirs and Biloxi Blues

Someone else mentioned MURDER by Death. Very funny (but dated to those of us that remember all those great fictional detectives)
and of course The Goodbye Girl.

Jack Leyhane said...

Mad Mad Mad World was mostly brilliant but also grossly excessive. It was a victim of the Hays Code -- pursuant to which Spencer Tracy had to get caught and punished -- when the logic of the story was that he would get away and live happily ever after. Instead, the movie had more endings than Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, none of them satisfying.

Say... did TCM know what you thought about Hollywood versions of Neil Simon's plays before they brought you in for the intros a few years back?