1952 version
I agree that the '52 version captures the essence, and I think the delight, of the play. Add to the cast mentioned in the previous review Joan Greenwood, and you have even more delights occasioned by the unique players of the "original." And Margaret Rutherford.
As long as I can see the former, I seldom prefer the latter. Some things should be left alone - definitely not re-invented.
Any success in remakes seems to come from sticking to the original, just "fresh" players. If the old stuff works, why mess with it? Do something different along similar lines, but rename it. Don't change it all about and call it the same thing.
When people like former versions (evidenced by initial AND enduring interest), they generally enjoy new (but TRUE) versions, if done half well.
Personally, I enjoy newer versions that stay with what I liked in the first place, but deplore "updates," "modernizations" and "reinventions" which basically depart from what formerly delighted. It's just annoying.
Do whatever you like, but don't call it by the same name. Create or refresh; don't despoil.
One person's opinion.
As long as I can see the former, I seldom prefer the latter. Some things should be left alone - definitely not re-invented.
Any success in remakes seems to come from sticking to the original, just "fresh" players. If the old stuff works, why mess with it? Do something different along similar lines, but rename it. Don't change it all about and call it the same thing.
When people like former versions (evidenced by initial AND enduring interest), they generally enjoy new (but TRUE) versions, if done half well.
Personally, I enjoy newer versions that stay with what I liked in the first place, but deplore "updates," "modernizations" and "reinventions" which basically depart from what formerly delighted. It's just annoying.
Do whatever you like, but don't call it by the same name. Create or refresh; don't despoil.
One person's opinion.
- misctidsandbits
- 4 sept. 2011