5 comments about Natural Born Killers: The Original Screenplay.

1. Tarantino's original script for 'Natural Born Killers' is vastly superior to the movie. Oliver Stone's film version (while still entertaining and transgressive)is meandering and extreme for the sake of extremity (in everything from the jarring editing to unnecessary scenes-like the young woman-Scagnetti murder scene to Mickey hinting at the rape of his hostage and Mallory's subsequent seduction of the gas station attendant). To his credit, I understand what Stone is trying to achieve: a statement about media culture and an increasingly amoral American psyche, but he doesn't quite succeed, in my opinion. The result is an uneven movie with a bit too much padding.
   
   Unlike the original script, the film provides the background stories for Mickey and Mallory so that the audience can empathize with why they are the way they are. There is also a scene in which the killer couple have a spiritual epiphany after encountering a Native American shaman. Despite their respect for the shaman, Mickey accidentally kills him after a bad dream. The movie is effectively commenting on several things: The hypocrisy of a 50's American ideal of family and it's disillusioning affect upon our serial killing antiheroes, in addition, the shaman scene also screams of American hypocrisy-the history between the colonists and Native Americans and also an insincere, self-righteous idea of spirituality on the part of Mickey and Mallory. But these things are lost in translation-what exactly is the movie trying to be, a psychological profile of the American serial killer and how American history and culture shaped such human beings? Or, is it a satire of the 'serial killer' and the (media) culture surrounding him/her? Because Stone's film tries to do both at once, the film feels shallow (even if impassioned) since it cannot satisfy both topics completely.
   
   Tarantino's script, on the other hand, is much more focused. It knows exactly what it is-a black satire of serial killer culture in America. Mickey and Mallory are much more absent in Tarantino's version. Instead, the two are more of a symbol or driving force for the real story, that of the journalists and policemen whom are after them. The hypocrisy of this story is in the characterization of the policemen and journalists because they are less concerned with the welfare of the people than they are with furthering their careers, social status and so forth.
   
   The biggest change, however, is with Mickey and Mallory themselves, who are much more mythical here than in the movie. In the film we understand why they are so extreme (what with their backgrounds and all), not so with this script, where they are ambiguous-they serve more as moderators of the unjust (the corrupt policemen and the opportunist paparazzi), which heightens the satire because the roles of the just and the unjust have been reversed (Mickey and Mallory, although killers, represent love and are the only truly honest characters).
   
   The script has far less unnecessary story bits. As I said earlier, the Stone version has a scene in which Scagnetti kills a young woman. Why is this important? We already knew that he was an opportunist and a corrupt police officer. In the script, Scagnetti's corruption is hinted at several times but doesn't include the murder/rape scene, which would've been overkill. The script is much more subtle in this regard.
   
   Simpler and more focused than the film (not to mention much more fun), I highly recommend this original script. Get it with the flick and compare for yourself!



2. I've always wondered why people read plays but not movie scripts, and after reading "Natural Born Killers," I wonder that even more.
   This is a great script for a movie that could have been excellent if Quentin Tarantino, the script's author, had directed the movie himself. I don't know WHAT Oliver Stone was trying to do.
   The script, in case you don't know, is the story of a husband and wife with an insane past that go on a love-fuelled, almost invincible killing rampage across the country. Their crimes are senseless and random, and the media (and the public) LOVES them. It's the bizarre story of their killing sprees, their romance, their capture, and their escape, and...well, I don't want to give too much away.
   The script follows an incredibly cool format, of being mostly an hour-long TV special about the two killers, intertwined with the people making the TV special and interviewing the killers themselves, intertwined with flashbacks.
   It could have been an amazing movie, but instead we got a weird, cartoonish mess that exudes barely any of the well-developed themes, tight action, and believable characters (individuals and mobs) that Quentin Tarantino actually wrote.
   Read the script, and skip the movie--that's what I say. Read the script, and hope that maybe someday Tarantino will remake the movie himself, the right way, the way it should have been.



3. There are people who seem to either enjoy Stone's movie and hate Quentin's screenplay or vice versa. Fact is I enjoyed both. Quentin Tarantino's original screenplay for "Natural Born Killers" is far different from the nightmarish acid trap that it became once Oliver Stone got his hands on it. Stone's film is far more epic and sadistic though Quentin's version isn't exactly a day at Disney World either. Much of Quentin's work is used in the film version though the way the story is told is so completely different than it was clearly conceived. The opening diner sequence is nearly the exact same as presented in the film though this is really the only one of Mickey and Mallory's murder spree sequences that Quentin intended to include (aside from the court room murder which was "deleted" from Stone's cut). Following that, the script takes a much different approach with it being told almost entirely in a documentary style with Wayne Gale (played in the film by Robert Downey) acting as the central character. Jack Scagnetti, who was a sadistic crooked cop in Stone's "NBK", is far less brutal in this one and is not positioned as a longtime rival of the murderous couple but more as a veteran cop being sold into hauling the two killers to the asylum. While the character of Dewight McClusky (played by Tommy Lee Jones in the movie) was a character in this script as well, his role is decreased and most of his action was written for a character named Wurlitzer, who didn't make Stone's version. The majority of the first half of the filmed "Killers" was not a part of the original Tarantino story and most of the social commentary was also absent. If you're a Tarantino fan or someone who would like a different take on the "NBK" story, this is an intruiging read.



4. I rented the movie directed by Oliver Stone due to the fact that Quentin Tarantino's name was on the story credits and I knew that Oliver Stone among others had messed with his script and Tarantino had removed his name from the screenwriting credits but I wanted to see it anyways.I thought the movie sucked,I hated it.So I bought the original script to see how the movie could've been and this is a great script.There's no mention of how the cinematography should look.There's no sexually abusive sitcom father,nor indian guy.This is how the film should have been.The movie is virtually just a big TV special by Wayne Gale who was played in the movie by Robert Downey Jr. The story is amazingly different.The opening scene is the same though.The story is basically Mickey and Mallory Knox in jail while Mickey is being interviewed by Wayne Gale.That's it.Buy this script.Burn the movie.Enjoy



5. A man who has not lived a life cannot tell a real story. Tarentino's films are universally and fundamentally boring for anyone who has ever lived a real life and not just fantasized about having one. His dipictions of violence eminate from his own personal lack of sexual energy. Sadly, teenage males without girlfriends seem to like these slammed together video games that are being called brilliant, and continue to support the trash factory that generates this type of hyper garbage. It's especially sad when a true film afficienado understands the brilliance of all of the original pictures which he doggedly ripped off and claimed the scenes for his own. If one more person calls this sad, pathetic, lack of a man a genious, I will become even more sick of him. Please get a life and buy a real movie.

4 comments about The Amadeus Book of the Violin: Construction, History, and Music.

1. This book answers the mail if what you need is knowledge of what a violin is, how it became, and how it is used. Provocative, this book goes beyond the usual "...violin evolved from the rebec..." and poses the theory that a violin was developed out of the desire for its timbre vice a straight-line evolution from other stringed instruments. For those with an insatiable appetite for knowledge on this instrument, I recommend this book.



2. While the book isn't, in parts, a real page turner, it is a thorough survey of violin information. With 250 pages on construction and history of violin making, it brings to light much important and interesting information. It really makes clear the unique market that violin buying-selling is and gives historical reasons for this unique market.
   
   Overall, a necessity for the violin lover.



3. A must for all violin players and lovers alike...if you have ever wondered about the life and times of the 4 string wonder instrument that is the violin, this is your book. It goes into construction, history, players and techniques...GET THIS BOOK!!!



4. This book is splendid, talking about the history,playing and the construction of Violins. This Book reveals secrets about the old Italian varnishes, eyewitness accounts of Paganini's performances, bow making, and Ideal thicknesses for places on the bridge. Also, a comparison of different f-holes, string making, bow holds, harmonics, how famous people tested thier strings,the "bach bow", and experiments conducted on the violin are also included. A must see to believe! Indispensible!Way too much to type here!

2 comments about The Sanford Meisner Approach Workbook II : Emotional Freedom.

1. In my opinion, Lee Strasberg's indefatigable attachment to "Emotional" or "Affective Memory", a technique that Stanisklavski later disregarded as unusable, has done more to harm the training of an actor than it did good. This misconception was the basis for "The Method". Both Sandy Meisner and Stella Adler knew that Strasberg got it wrong. This was partly the reason for the rift in The Group Theatre. Sandy knew from his experience as an actor, that using memory to re-create emotion on stage would disconnect the actor from his environment, and done night after night, would lead the poor fellow to madness or a nervous breakdown. Dustin Hoffmann's performance in "Death of a Salesman" on Broadway are living proof. While "The Method" might sometimes work for the camera, it doesn't work for the rigor demanded of the stage. Meisner's approach relies on and nurtures the actor's imagination to put him or herself into the appropriate emotional state for the imaginary circumstances of the drama. Silverberg's book is practical and essential. It is a workbook, not a textbook. It contains practical exercises, frank anecdotes and the underlying theory behind the exercises. Great work, Larry. I am certain that Sandy would be very proud of his star pupil.



2. Larry Silverberg clarifies his mentor's theories and provides us with a systematic, effective approach to acting's emotional component. Gone are the exercises dealing with the actor's personal emotional trauma--no more teacher as therapist. Meisner's approach is in the "now" and works in the fertile field of the actor's imagination. With practice it works every time. Larry Silverberg has crafted a treasure.

2 comments about In a Dark Dark House: A Play.

1. Another disturbing but impossibe to put down play by the young heir to Tennesse Williams, Edward Albee and Mamet. A must-read for LaBute aficionados.



2. I am a true admirerer of the work of Neil LaBute. I've seen many of his plays in New York and have seen all of his films (Even Hollow Man...Ugggh). In a Dark, Dark House is a very valid addition to his repertoire. Recently I have found his plays have become a bit predicatble, possibly due to the rapidity in which he writes. His recent works have also had a tendency to hit you with an unapologetic ton of bricks with the theme or "moral." However, this one took me by surprise. Not only by the original structure and pattern but also by the incredibly intricate characterization. Both leads are an actor's dream and I wish I was in New York when it was playing. It would have been interesting to see what was done. Bottom line, it's a good and surprising read folks, especially if you are a LaBute aficionado.

2 comments about Costume Design.

1. I have Cletus as my design teacher at Carnegie Mellon University this year. I have looked at the book, and it is definitely worth using and referring to regularly. The main thing to know is that Cletus has done everything, knows everything and really, he is the end all source of theatre, costume and artistic information and advice. He got through Yale School of Drama Grad program without ever turning in anything late... think about that. Now why would you choose another book?



2. I have used this book as the text in my Costume Design class for years and find it is the only one to my knowledge that covers both the conceptual aspects of costuming for the theatre as well the craft of rendering and construct. It even addresses historical information briefly. I was saddened to hear that the book was out of print. I am hoping a new edition will be out soon

4 comments about Profondo Argento: The Man, The Myths And The Magic.

1. PROFONDO ARGENTO is the second book I have ever bought from FAB Press. The first was ART OF DARKNESS: THE CINEMA OF DARIO ARGENTO which, to say the least, was a disappointment. A beautiful but empty pseudo-anyalis of the filmmaker's career, ART OF DARKNESS was about as stale and lifeless as any film book you'll ever encounter. It seems this problem has plagued a lot of the other tomes in the FAB Press line-up: BEYOND TERROR, their Lucio Fulci book, has also been cited as something of a waste. But PROFONDO, thankfully, trumps both of them and turns out to be one of the best, most invigorating studies of a cult filmmaker ever published.
   
   The reason is simple: British author Alan Jones has spent the past twenty-five years or so working with Argento himself. He has been on the film sets of virtually all of the man's post-PHENOMENA films, and has access to rare behind-the-scenes info, opinions, and interviews that no one else would. Whereas Stephen Thrower felt merely content to sit in his room and type up 350 pages of heartless dross and call it a book, Jones actually has something to SHOW us. Simply put, any Argento fan cannot go without this book. Unless the director himself writes it, there will never be a better book about his career.
   
   Features chapters dedicated to each of the man's movies up to NON HO SONNO (SLEEPLESS), interviews with cast and crew (and Argento himself), behind-the-scenes photos, color artwork, and brief sections on Argento contemporaries like Asia, Michele Soavi, etc. The only thing it doesn't have is information on the man's childhood, etc.



2. 
   Despite the popularity of horror throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's and its acceptance by academia and critics as a valid form of cinematic expression, it is astonishing that there has been so few books about Italian director Dario Argento. The first serious study was by Maitland McDonagh in 1994's BROKEN MIRRORS, BROKEN MINDS. This was followed in 2003 by ART OF DARKNESS edited by Chris Gallant. If you're looking for books that explore the deeper themes of Argento's work then I would recommend both of these over Alan Jones' PROFONDO ARGENTO. Jones' effort is perfectly usable, but lacks the sophistication and thematic depth of the other two. The book also suffers from an irritating degree of sycophancy, which comes from Jones' well documented friendship with Argento. This is all very good, but why do we need to know about it? Far too much of this book is anecdotal, which detracts both from the enjoyment and any objective critical stance. In compensation though, as one would expect from FAB PRESS, the book is attractively illustrated. Many of the photos come from Jones' personal collection, and for this he should be commended. There is certainly enthusiasm here and one can tell that for Jones it was a labour of love, and on occasion the prose is exciting and imaginative.
   
   As an introduction to Argento's cinema I would recommend PROFONDO ARGENTO as your first port of call (having made sure you have watched all the available films of course), compared to the other two major works on him, it is light, entertaining and readable. But be warned, in this book the story of Argento's cinema is also the story of Alan Jones, and I for one am certainly not interested in the latter.



3. If there is one valid complaint to be made about this book it is that there is too much information presented within its pages. Argento fans know there is no such thing as "too much information" when it comes to the master of Italian film, though.
   
   Interviews, rare photos and lobby cards, film reviews and more are presented in this gorgeous book. If you are an Argento fan and haven't read this, you are truly missing out. There is something for even the most die-hard fanatic to learn.



4. All Argento fans can rejoice with the publication of Alan Jones' book Profondo Argento: The Man, The Myth And the Magic. Everything a fan(or newcomer)wanted to know about Dario Argento's work(films, reviews, interviews, articles, etc.) is practically here. It is extremely well researched, with lots of interviews and articles, and it is profusely illustrated with images, posters and people associated with Argento's work and world. The best thing is that the book is pretty much up to date, covering Argento's latest giallo "The Card Player." This book is definitely a work of love by a fan for the fans and I find myself always referring to it quite frequently. A true delight well worth for the price. I highly recommend it.

5 comments about Life: The Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality.

1. This is an absolutely fascinating look at the notion of entertainment, as it evolved as a form of popular culture into a political and even life compulsion. From the beginning, I was rivetted by Gabler's wonderful writing and unusual ideas. You can read this many times to great profit.
   
   Gabler begins with a definition of what entertainment is: as opposed to the high art tradition, which requires elite education and effort to "get" it (e.g. to "properly appreciate" Opera), entertainment emerged as a democratic impulse soon after the beginning of the 19th century. Rather than high brow fare for esthetes, entertainment brought an immediate sensation of pleasure to the masses and a sense of losing oneself in a story without preparation. WIth the development of technology, Gabler continues, entertainment entered the news, particularly as images, but also as exciting stories, first in the penny press and then in film and finally TV. The penny press brought news to the masses at a price it could afford, largely replacing the elitist partisan editorials that cost 5 times as much in Jefferson's day. The trick was finding the right hook for less educated audiences, to get them into a narrative with which they could identify personally. This history is told in splendid detail, in a well spring of ideas that makes the reader (or at least me) want to research a lot more into this.
   
   From popular culture, Gabler then argues that the need for entertainment created a kind of bizarre feedback loop, according to which it must be manufactured, even when it does not exist. That means that reality is made to fit the story, not the other way round. This leads not only directly to celebrity - those who are famous for being famous more than for having accomplished anything, e.g. Zsa Zsa Gabor as a "personality of glamour" - but also to a transmogrification of the news and even politics, particularly with Ronald Reagan. Rather than pondering complex issues, Gabler believes, the public now wants flashy stories, mood, and outsized personality. As such, he posits, Reagan could say it was "morning in America" while ignoring pressing issues, keeping the public lulled - diverting them - by spin and PR. This Gabler sees as a significant problem in our body politic and I would agree: who doesn't feel disgusted with the way the news media examines politics as a horse race rather than help to analyse the problems that politics should solve? As Gabler says, what reporters tend to report on is how campaign tactics get people to react. It is a bore.
   
   In another example, Gabler tells the story of when doing a story on Christie Brinkley's lifestyle in her new Long Island house, House Beautiful journalists arrived to discover that she had not yet moved in or even decorated it. No problem! Without her approval, they hired an interioir decorator to "do it" for the interview photographs, and Brinkley liked it so much that she kept it. That is what readers, in Gabler's view, would take for a reality to model their own lives on!!
   
   Or alternatively, we get celebrities "writing" books (with a little help from expert word smiths) that get attention because they are who they are rather than what they have to say. You even find public intellectuals taking outrageous positions because it will get them attention, as Gabler argues Camille Paglia has done with her attacks on feminism. In my reading, this is what gets thinkers like Steven Pinker to argue that parents have no impact WHATSOEVER on their children's personalities, whom he argues both learn more from their peers and whose behavior is primarily genetically determined. That argument is outrageous to parents, but it gets him ample media attention. The issues, even the truth, are secondary to entertainment value in this view.
   
   To conclude, Gabler argues that we are all now seeking to create lives that are entertaining, drawing our own narrative in a kind of "mediated self"; the sources of these, he says, are film, celebrity journalism, and over-hyped "news". Reality, in his view, matters less than the idea one can make and maintain of one's life story; while this flatly contradicts Frued's "reality principle", perhaps it is possible now for people who live in a bubble of affluence.
   
   Of couse, my description cannot do justice to the subtlty and elegance of Gabler's argument. This is extremely heady intellectual stuff. While I believe that he takes the argument too far as intellectuals often do when creating a new metaphor, the book is so dense with ideas and frankly so right on the money that it is worth a careful read.
   
   For example, in my own work researching business, this argument is extremely relevant. I have been in many companies whose marketing strategy is to develop a kind of narrative for the consumer to enter, either to imagine they belong to some "tribe", or as a feeling of taking part in something bigger than themselves, or simply a series of products that evolve as a story progresses. For example, Ducati is making motorcyles that recall the company's past glory in races: they are still excellent bikes, but they also evoke an experience of belonging to a story, complete with accessories, the periodic appearence of Ducati bikes in films, etc. This is also true of Disney self-reinforcing multimedia marketing (characters in film and parks = buzz, which sells toys), LEGO's bionicles, Alessi's quirky appliances that bring art into the home, and any number of other companies: they are in part manufacturing an alternative reality, an experience (of entertainment), that is to be found in how we describe ourselves to ourselves.
   
   This book has allowed me to articulate this to myself in a new way, though I must sift through the ideas in my own mind over time. I am sure that anyone interested in culture, politics, or business will feel the same way once they have read this book. This is delicious brain food.
   
   Warmly recommended as an outstanding intellectual adventure. This is a masterful essay that consolidates a huge range of research, including updates of Neil Postman, Marhall McLuhan, Daniel Boorsten and many others. His prose is unusually dense and vivid. A final thing that I should add is that, while Gabler is very critical about these developments, he states very clearly that he wants to stimulate debate rather than offer prescriptions - he admits he has none.



2. Gabler lays out his controversial opinions about culture in America very clearly in this book. You may disagree or agree with him, but the book is worth reading either way. Could be very useful for any college students writing about media.



3. Gabler has written about an age where collective narcissism finds its outlet in a culture where cinema represents our highest reality, where the movie screen projects all our unfulfilled fantasies. His thesis is that we have become actors, either unconsciously or not, and that as such events are contrived and/or interpreted as being "cinamatic." We all want to be the stars of the movie, that which is life.
   
   Another important theme is that entertainment has trumped substantive knowledge in the media currency so that we are well entertained but grossly underinformed.
   
   He quotes from and praises Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death, a fine companion piece to Gabler's Life: The Movie.



4. A good, often acid analysis of "entertainment state," Gabler's main thesis is that under the influence of the movies and the concomitant rise of the consumptionism, we have created an entertainment state where everyone is constantly considering how their performance is going -- which amounts to a new kind of discipline as Foucauldians might say. Further, these "roles" require props (material goods), which in turn supports the consumer society and the entertainment state at the expense of nearly everything else. To lay the basis for his theorectical claim, he cites the early 1960s thinking on the phenomenon of celebrity and the changes it has wrought in the American psyche. Here cites Boorstin's "The Image," and Riesman's "The Lonely Crowd." But he's not averse to cites postmodernists to serve his thesis, Umberto Eco, and Baudrillard come in for brief insights, too.

   Some might say Gabler overstates his case. Have we really become so infused with "lifies" projected at us on a billion screens that we no longer know where we begin and where we end? Compared to the post-mods who can't resist hyperbole and grand gestures, though, he grounds his case historically, culturally and economically. Moving from a quick periodization of the rise of mass entertainment in the U.S. in conjunction with Jacksonian era during which elitist amusements were challanged and overthrown -- in 1849 29 b'hoys in NYC were killed during a riot where protested the English actor MacCready's reading of Shakepeare as a disparagement of the American style of Edwin Forrest -- he shows how entertainment has always been contested terrain. He also suggests that popular entertainment and diversion are as American as apple pie with supporting examples of the popularity of the political speech, the Great Awakenings, the Lyceum and Chatauqua.

   Most chilling is his description of the two Americas: those who live behind the glass (TV) and those who don't, and how those who don't know that because they don't live behind the glass are lesser citizens. That people fight to obtain some type of stardom, or at the minor forms of celebrity, that CEOs now bestride the world like Hollywood stars of old, that brands now have personalities, are cited as evidence of celebritization of the world. The section of the dark side of celebrity-seeking -- e.g. Mark David Chapman, the Unabomber, and Arthur Bremer -- is effective in showing how these individuals' quest for celebrity was rewarded by the media in wall to wall coverage. The slippage of mainstream media into the gutter once occupied by the tabliods is also of related interest, though it cites the usual examples: e.g. Gary Hart, Monica, O.J.

   Gabler's larger point is that all these "lifies" take up space in our collective consciousness, that they distract us, circumscribe our lives by setting norms, casting us in roles, and both limit and expand whom we might be and how we might behave: the affable talk show host, the news anchor, the family man, etc. These norms and role models now live behind the screen, he says. There is no "backstage" where we think our private thoughts and a "frontstage" where we interact with the world. It's all "frontstage." Observe an average Californian for awhile, he suggests. Steeped in movie and entertainment culture, they have no "backstage."

   Gabler cites evidence that those who have ability to positively delude themselves, to "act" as if they are the center of our own postively scripted, headed- toward-a-happy-ending movie, do better in their lives and occupations. He notes that Prozac's popularity may be connected with this phenomenon. All in all a good, solid, and dare it be said, "entertaining" book.




5. Remarkable and lamentable by what it manages to ignore this work
   is more an example of what it tries to describe than an implement
   for its understanting! That Gabler manages to write a book about
   the spectacular engulfing of the everyday without engaging the
   views of Guy Debord, Herbert Marcuse, Goddfrey Reggio, Georges Perec, Vince Packard or David Riesman is in itself a testemonial of how entertainment effectively compresses the depth of any analysis of its effects to a waffer thin prespective! What is advertised as revelatory soon is revealed as the author's emphatuation with his own subject. Wwept by the uncontainable wave of superficiality that he purports to denounce, Gabler is already a stand-in in the movie called Life, the delusion he
   fully welcomes in his naive reconning...

1 comments about Red Letter Plays (Theatre Communications Group).

1. Two incredible works from Suzan-Lori Parks!
   
   If you don't deal well with rawness and language these are not the plays for you.
   
   But if you're looking for an unique American voice in the theatre, this is the place to turn!

5 comments about Cyrano de Bergerac: by Edmund Rostand translated by Anthony Burgess.

1. Although I am an Anthony Burgess fan, I find this translation to be nowhere near as good as the classic Brian Hooker translation.



2. If there's one thing that has me miffed, it's those ridiculous academic critiques of this play. Yes, it's unrealistic, yes, it's energetic to the point of insanity, yes, the character of Cyrano is particularly vulnerable to the ridiculous Freudian analyses that Lit. professors are obsessed with. But the essence of this work, what makes it breathe, are the very qualities so mocked by elitists: its color, its flamboyance, and above all its wonderfully unashamed idealism.

   First of all, this is entertaining reading at its best: a combination of witty repartee and laugh-out-loud humor, balanced with emotional depth that is subtle yet wrenching in its intensity. With just a few lines the scenes come alive, with characters whose brash gallantry is reminiscent of Dumas' Musketeers.

   All this virtuoso treatment finds a focal point in the character of Cyrano, who is at once comic and tragic: his biting wit provides a facade for a soul in torment, for his sensitivity to beauty makes his own ugliness that much more painful. Yet there is so much fire and pride in Cyrano that never once does he beg for our pity, and endures the pain of thwarted love with the same charisma and bravery with which he does battle.

   The contradiction between Cyrano as he is inside--a veritable furnace of eloquent passion--and his markedly ugly exterior, is his tragedy. Through the vehicle of this contradiction, Edmond Rostand explores the nature of love, particularly regarding how much of it is dependant upon exteriors. Yet this theme does not smother the tale, which is such a heady mixture of beauty, hilarity and subtle insight that it fairly intoxicates. My only complaint, upon finishing it, was that it had to end.




3. Cyrano -loosely based on the actual Savinien Cyrano de Bergerac, an early predecessor of science fiction- is a swordsman for the French King Louis XIII. He is also a man with an extraordinary gift for poetry and versification, as well as the owner of an extremely large nose. He is deeply in love with his cousin Roxanne, but she happens to love Cyrano's friend and colleague, Christian. So, being a good fellow and having a quixotic nature, Cyrano accepts to speak of love to Roxanne, impersonating Christian. Under her window, in the dark, Cyrano recites love poems so well crafted, that Roxanne falls even more in love with Christian, who is the supposed lover. After that, both men leave to fight at war. Roxanne shows up at the siege of Arras, to bring food to the soldiers. There, for reasons I won't spoil here, their love affair comes to an abrupt end, leaving their relationship unfulfilled. What comes next shows the true heroic nature of Cyrano, his strength of character, and his loyalty to his friend, but also to his eternal love for Roxanne. This play, which has originated at least a couple of good movies and several tv interpretations, is a homage to the Romantic spirit so rare in our greedy and selfish times. It is full of beautiful images and scenes, and Rostand's writing is perfect for the task. Read it first, and if you haven't seen the movies, watch them. Cyrano is a grand character that will remain as an epytome of chivalry, loyalty, and emotional strength. Not to forget.



4. When I was a kid, back in the days before even those excruciatingly edifying Afterschool Specials began to plague daytime TV and the talk shows were Mike Douglas and Dinah Shore rather than Jerry Springer and Oprah, there was a terrific series of Animated Classics that were broadcast in the afternoons. They were, as far as I can recall, pretty faithful to the original stories, though obviously abridged and edited. I remember two in particular, The Count of Monte Cristo and Cyrano de Bergerac. The appeal of these two, despite their French provenance, is obvious--what more can a kid ask for than a great swashbuckler? Then, as if this cartoon version wasn't enough, I saw the 1950 Jose Ferrer film version of Cyrano and was hooked on the story for life.

   Rostand's is just one of several fictions to be based on the life of the historical Savinien Cyrano de Bergerac (1619-55). Set in the reign of Louis XIII, the play, of course. tells the story of the fiercely independent swordsmen, poet, playwright and political pamphleteer with the prodigious proboscis, of his unspoken love for his cousin Roxanne and of his intercession on behalf of his beautiful fellow guardsman Christian de Neuvillette, on whose behalf he surreptitiously woos her.

   Now when you're a kid, you can hardly see past the dueling and brawling. I mean, obviously the point is that the guy is lovable despite his beak, but c'mon, the love parts are yucky anyway. But returning to the story as an adult, Rostand's other themes emerge, particularly Cyrano's insistence on meeting life on his own terms. If his failure to realize Roxanne's love remains tragic, his Quixotic nature, his enduring political independence and personal integrity, serve to make him one of the great heroes in all of literature.

   Blending swordplay, comedy, tragedy and romance in equal measure, this is truly one of the most thrilling dramas of all time. If you can find the cartoon version, by all means watch it. In the meantime, instead of renting Lethal Weapon # 8, next time you're at the video store look for Jose Ferrer as Cyrano or buy a copy from Amazon for 7 bucks. It's well worth the price of two rentals; I guarantee you watch it more than once.

   GRADE: A+




5. Well, I gotta get something published for my English class, and being that we read this play in class I thought I might as well write a review of it. First off, the play is very well written. We had just finished off reading Shakespeare in class and reading Cyrano De Begerac was a wonderful relief. The writing is very easy to understand, and the actors lines are mostly short. The character, Cyrano, is also a very well-made character. It makes the book a lot more exciting with a character like Cyrano. However, the story cannot apply at all with real life. I am not going to give away the plot, but it has nothing to do with real life. So if you are thinking about reading this play to learn some good moral lessons, don't bother. Otherwise, give it a shot. You might like it!

3 comments about Words with Music: Creating the Broadway Musical Libretto.

1. If WORDS WITH MUSIC: CREATING THE BROADWAY MUSICAL LIBRETTO sounds familiar, that's because it originally appeared in 1972, only to go out of print for years thereafter. Now it's back - and it sports an expanded version and updated commentary by NY Times theatre critic Howard Kissel to return a classic to new life. Engel's background in the Broadway heyday provides important reference material for his survey of major musical works, documenting major scenes, surveying how good musicals are written to stand out from mediocre productions, and revealing which basic theatre elements are employed to best usage for particular types of productions. An outstanding survey, recommended for any Broadway fan.
   
   Diane C. Donovan, Editor
   California Bookwatch



2. Written by legendary musical director Lehman Engel in 1972, this book has been long out of print with copies selling for high amounts when you could find one at all. Now Howard Kissel, theater critic for the New York Daily News, has updated the book by applying the same analysis techniques to several modern shows such as 'A Chrous Line,' 'Rent,' 'Phantom,' 'Les Miz,' and 'Wicked.'
   
   To be sure, styles change over time as the modern audiences grew in a more rock oriented environment that Lloyd Webber was able to capture in his list of successful hits. But as the music has evolved, the basic rules of musical theater plot lines and character development have remained almost fixed.
   
   It is the current fashion to lament the passing of the musical, to look back to a supposed 'Golden Age' of the musical that is long past. This book ends with a quotation, 'The era of sterling drama and talented actors is in the past, perhaps never to return.' This came from a guidebook to New York that was published in 1868.
   
   The musical is not dead. And the same rules still apply when Mr. Engle wrote them in 1970. To be sure, most of the musicals put on Broadway are not so very good, but then one comes along ... And it is likely to have followed Mr. Engel's basic rules.



3. 'The New Yorker' claims that "Everyone interested in the theatre can learn something from this book." Each chapter begins with a fitting quote, and Howard Kissel has updated and revised the original for today's reader.