Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueIn this live made-for-TV adaptation, elderly Norman Thayer copes with age and the nearing of death; middle-aged Chelsea tries to build a belated father-daughter bond; and her boyfriend Bill'... Tout lireIn this live made-for-TV adaptation, elderly Norman Thayer copes with age and the nearing of death; middle-aged Chelsea tries to build a belated father-daughter bond; and her boyfriend Bill's teenage son deals with parental divorce.In this live made-for-TV adaptation, elderly Norman Thayer copes with age and the nearing of death; middle-aged Chelsea tries to build a belated father-daughter bond; and her boyfriend Bill's teenage son deals with parental divorce.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Nommé pour 1 Primetime Emmy
- 2 nominations au total
Photos
Avis à la une
This live production of Ernest Thompson's classic "On Golden Pond" was a refreshing experience. Its good to see culture on network television again. That being said,I must say that although billed as a live version of the play,its not quite a correct statement to make. Act II features several changes in the material (I.E. Bill returning with Chelsea to the lake,an absurd altercation between Bill and Charlie).
The changes do not, for the most part, effect the plot all that greatly,however. The only exception(although the actor is talented) is the treatment of Charlie the mail man..he becomes too obsessed and less fun.
As performances go...Plummer leads the pack..he gives a completely sincere performance and stays clear of any hint of Fonda's famous screen portrayal. Andrews is also fine as Ethel,equally acerbic and loving...again,not a hint of Hepburn.
The only supporting actor I though weak was Glenn Headley as daughter Chelsea,she seemed to lack any sense of fire or assertiveness.She should be as the character says 'In Charge in Los Angeles" but feeling like the little fat girl at home...we only glimpse the fat girl..even with Bill.
Over all OGP was a strong production. Hopefully the Networks will show more live on stage productions of classic plays in the future.
The changes do not, for the most part, effect the plot all that greatly,however. The only exception(although the actor is talented) is the treatment of Charlie the mail man..he becomes too obsessed and less fun.
As performances go...Plummer leads the pack..he gives a completely sincere performance and stays clear of any hint of Fonda's famous screen portrayal. Andrews is also fine as Ethel,equally acerbic and loving...again,not a hint of Hepburn.
The only supporting actor I though weak was Glenn Headley as daughter Chelsea,she seemed to lack any sense of fire or assertiveness.She should be as the character says 'In Charge in Los Angeles" but feeling like the little fat girl at home...we only glimpse the fat girl..even with Bill.
Over all OGP was a strong production. Hopefully the Networks will show more live on stage productions of classic plays in the future.
I know the years have dimmed my memories of the original movie staring Fonda and Hepburn. However, I feel that this remake surpassed the original in many ways. First, the chemistry between Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer was superb. It was completely believable that these two had been married for years, and yet loved each other very much (in a rather kooky and dysfunctional way). Secondly, Norman's memory problems were present, but were not portrayed in as depressing a manner, and the overall movie was much more light hearted and funny than the original. Finally, the interactions between Norman and Billy were priceless! It was so much fun watching the two of them interact.
Sure, there were a few technical goofs (like the lighting guy that happened to be in the scene for a few moments, the shadows appearing outside the windows, etc.), but this was LIVE theater. Anything and everything can go wrong in that situation, but the show went off with hardly a hitch.
Bravo to the cast and crew. And it was so great to see Andrews and Plummer back together again. I hope we see more!
Sure, there were a few technical goofs (like the lighting guy that happened to be in the scene for a few moments, the shadows appearing outside the windows, etc.), but this was LIVE theater. Anything and everything can go wrong in that situation, but the show went off with hardly a hitch.
Bravo to the cast and crew. And it was so great to see Andrews and Plummer back together again. I hope we see more!
On Golden Pond is a timeless classic and the 1981 movie is one of the greatest films ever made. So it was very difficult for this version to come close to the movie. Andrews and Plummer are fantastic together and I can't believe they waited 36 years to do something together again. They are brillant as usual but the rest of the cast is way out of their league and look very unconfortable. This is a good try but it comes nowhere near the emotional resonance of the movie. Henry Fonda and Katherine Hepburn and Jane Fonda are unforgetable in these roles and it's hard to picture anyone else comparing to them.
It's great to see a live play on television again...especially this play, with theatre/movie/TV legends Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer. And Julie even gets to sing. . .Personally, the couple reminds me of my 60ish parents. . .but beyond that, this is a wonderful treat for us baby-boomers who sort of grew up with live/live-on-tape TV, who also love live theatre. Julie is beautiful and emotional and real. Plummer is morbid and hateful and opinionated. . .and how many times have we heard "bull-s**t" on network TV. . .at last, TV has grown up.
10KatMiss
It was a risky experiment, but on the basis of last night's live presentation of "On Golden Pond", I'd say it was a major success. Despite a few flaws (no live presentation is completely perfect), this is one of the years' best films:a great film in the so far (with the exception of a few undeniable gems) lousy film year 2001.
It's becoming a trend, I'm afraid, that good, intelligent entertainment is being relegated to television more and more. So far, we've been treated to such excellent films as "Wit" and "61*" (both HBO), "Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her" (Showtime) and "The Miracle Maker" (ABC). These are all films that deserved theatrical release. Why not?
The answer, I'm afraid, is that they wouldn't appeal to the mindless teenagers who go to films these days. They are actually about something, which is deadly to those affected by what Roger Ebert calls the "Screen Attention Defecit Disorder". But at least TV is giving these lost films a chance to be seen and heard. For that we should be grateful.
Now, back to the movie. Since it's inevitable that it will be compared with the highly regarded (deservedly so) 1981 film, I might as well start. There is much more comedy in this version than the 1981 version, and I think that's the way it should be. Henry Fonda's more grave and serious portrayal was just right in that version and Christopher Plummer puts his own personal spin on Norman. Of course, Plummer has had more success with comedy than Fonda did, so the change is good, in this case.
Also, there's more time spent on the personal relationship between Norman and his wife Ethel than in the 1981 version, and I think that's also a good change; you don't want to see a retread of the original, you want to see another reading of the same material and this live version takes risks. It's not shy about the material, which is what plagues most TV movies (and theatrical features, for that matter)
But I don't want to give away too much, since a video version is inevitable, I would like to save some of the nice changes for you to discover. Like I stated before, there are a few flaws (some shaky camera work and you can hear the director speaking through the soundman during one of Julie Andrews' big speeches), but what amazes me about this live version is how it constantly surprised and entertained me, especially since I loved the 1981 version.
During the commercial break, it was announced that this was the first in a series of live presentations. That's good news; in an era of trash TV, perhaps an exciting, offbeat format like live TV (these days, at least)will make TV worth watching today.
**** out of 4 stars
It's becoming a trend, I'm afraid, that good, intelligent entertainment is being relegated to television more and more. So far, we've been treated to such excellent films as "Wit" and "61*" (both HBO), "Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her" (Showtime) and "The Miracle Maker" (ABC). These are all films that deserved theatrical release. Why not?
The answer, I'm afraid, is that they wouldn't appeal to the mindless teenagers who go to films these days. They are actually about something, which is deadly to those affected by what Roger Ebert calls the "Screen Attention Defecit Disorder". But at least TV is giving these lost films a chance to be seen and heard. For that we should be grateful.
Now, back to the movie. Since it's inevitable that it will be compared with the highly regarded (deservedly so) 1981 film, I might as well start. There is much more comedy in this version than the 1981 version, and I think that's the way it should be. Henry Fonda's more grave and serious portrayal was just right in that version and Christopher Plummer puts his own personal spin on Norman. Of course, Plummer has had more success with comedy than Fonda did, so the change is good, in this case.
Also, there's more time spent on the personal relationship between Norman and his wife Ethel than in the 1981 version, and I think that's also a good change; you don't want to see a retread of the original, you want to see another reading of the same material and this live version takes risks. It's not shy about the material, which is what plagues most TV movies (and theatrical features, for that matter)
But I don't want to give away too much, since a video version is inevitable, I would like to save some of the nice changes for you to discover. Like I stated before, there are a few flaws (some shaky camera work and you can hear the director speaking through the soundman during one of Julie Andrews' big speeches), but what amazes me about this live version is how it constantly surprised and entertained me, especially since I loved the 1981 version.
During the commercial break, it was announced that this was the first in a series of live presentations. That's good news; in an era of trash TV, perhaps an exciting, offbeat format like live TV (these days, at least)will make TV worth watching today.
**** out of 4 stars
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThis was telecast live on CBS, which was rare for a television theatrical presentation after the invention of videotape in the late 1950s. It was performed on the same Television City stage in Los Angeles, California that was home to The Carol Burnett Show (1967).
- ConnexionsReferenced in TV's Most Censored Moments (2002)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant