I've seen NOISES OFF on a stage several times, and I've seen the movie. As a live theatrical event, it can be far more impactive than the movie. The reason is two-fold. At their best, live actors in front of us have an effect not duplicatable in a film. (On the other hand film does many things the stage can't match, including the subtleties conveyable in close-ups. My lifetime of studying the three genres of novel, play, and film has persuaded me all three will survive because each has a sui-generis cherishable effect.)
The second reason for NOISES OFF's stage-impact is that the story has us watching the rehearsal and production of a stageplay. Ordinarily in theater, we know we're looking at a set, and we accept without reflection the setting is not real, and there's nothing behind it. When it gets turned around in NOISES OFF and we see the immense complexity actually behind it, the effect is stunning in a way it can't be in a film. In a message dated 10/31/08 11:16:20 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On Oct 31, 2008, at 11:11 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > The third of four plays I wrote was a farce. Don't sniff. I say the > > most > > durable play of any kind written in the last thirty or forty years > > will prove > > to be Michael Frayn's NOISES OFF > > I saw the movie. It started slowly (setting up all the gags and > jokes), then about the end of the first act, it hit its stride and > wound up being spectacularly funny. Plus, it had a stellar cast. > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ************** Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212416248x1200771803/aol?redir=http ://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav00000001)
