Noises Off Question

[dramarama2]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 7:10pm

Yes, I've heard the play is much more better than the movie, but even so, I find the movie hilarious and I'm not sure if I will ever get a chance to see it on the stage.
I was wondering, Does the play go into details of the tour around the UK and The States like the movie does? Does the director provide commentary to the story between "Acts"? Is the success of the Broadway production shown at the end of the play, like in the movie?

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 7:16pm

The movie had various changes - the play isn't narrated, for one thing.

There are 3 acts, 3 different towns in England (there's no Broadway production), and the events transpire on stage and off.

Act I is the dress rehearsal, Act II is Wednesday matinee from the perspective of the backstage area, and Act III is towards the end of the tour when the actors are bored to tears and can't stand the sight of each other. Updated On: 1/10/08 at 07:16 PM

[courtney4]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 7:23pm

The play is much better than the movie. And the two are very similar dialouge wise but there is no commentary from Llyod, the director, and the show does not go to Broadway at the end. They do mention that the show is on tour, but it is set in England. The first act is just them running through the show on the night of the dress rehersal. There is no part where Lloyd is freaking out about the show like he did in the beginning of the movie. The second act is very much like it's portrayed in the movie, except there are no highlights of the tour. It takes place backstage while the show is going on onstage. The third act is also pretty similar, except it takes place on the night of the last preformance of the tour, and by now everyone is pissed at everyone. Basically, this act is them attempting to preform the show but it all ends in shambles. The end of the show ends with Selsdon saying "when all around is strife and uncertainty there's nothing like a good old fashion plate of...." He forgets the line like he always does at that part(in the show at least), and the whole cast screams CURTAIN, and that's where it ends.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 8:14pm

The changes listed above are pretty accurate.

I don't mind the movie (it's well cast), but the show loses a lot of its zip when it isn't onstage. Part of what makes the play so funny is the immediacy of it...it doesn't translate to screen that well.

[ggersten]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 10:22am

If you've seen the play, the movie is very much "eh". The advantages of film detract, because film telegraphs jokes by where the camera focuses, rather than you as an audience member taking in the whole stage and actions. And seeing the axe passed around and everything else in Act II, or the fall down the stairs in Act III "live" just makes those events funnier.

That said, people I know who only saw the movie thought the movie was very very funny. Until they see a good stage version.

[madbrian]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 10:34am

Agree with all that's been said. The movie is OK, but once you see a good production on stage, the movie pales by comparison. We went to see the most recent Broadway revival twice, and enjoyed it both times. Jane Curtain was MUCH better than Patti Lupone.

[morosco]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 1:42pm

I saw the original Broadway cast and I have never laughed as hard in a theatre as I did that night. A perfect production in every way. Loudon was outrageous!

Posted: 1/11/08 at 2:58pm

The show owns the movie in every aspect.

I saw a hilarious production of it last year and now I'm playing the character of Poppy in my own production! All I can say is I can't WAIT to block Act 2!

[D2]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 3:02pm

Wear padding.