Ivo Van Hove to direct stage adaptation of The Shining — Page 2

darquegk said: "I'm not sure how true the "Shining was intended originally as a play" thing is; what I believe to be the case is actually that early drafts of the novel had a theatre-based structure with acts and a prologue, and would feature more theatrical imagery throughout.

The original "prologue" is out there among King's apocrypha and uncollected stories."

What do you mean re. theatrical imagery? The book has five parts.

Ooooooooooooooooh.

Awhile ago, I joked about this being Van Hove's next project - only to be chagrined to find out it was real!

I'm still haunted by The Damned at the Barbican (in French). I can barely imagine what impact The Shining will have.

Please, if Alex Timbers can have his shtick all over Broadway so can Van Hove.

I could get on board with Ivo directing Dustin Hoffman and Ben Stiller in a Shining/Our Town mashup. Might be more interesting than either production on its own.

Pardon my ignorance, but does Stiller have stage chops? I feel like I could see it, but I would worry about it being a Bruce Willis in MISERY situation. Unlike Paul Sheldon, Jack Torrence requires someone who can really go there--especially live.

Do I think Ivo is the best director for this? No. Do I still want to see the s_it out of it? Yes.

OhHiii said: "I just don't know that I truly believe Ivo even likes the medium of theatre. His recent work typically does all it can to NOT be theatrical and instead an audio/visual spectacle."



Your comment baffles me. Do you believe that theatre should NOT be audio or visual in nature?? If so, you are confusing theatre with reading a book.

JSquared2 said: "OhHiii said: "I just don't know that I truly believe Ivo even likes the medium of theatre. His recent work typically does all it can to NOT be theatrical and instead an audio/visual spectacle."



Your comment baffles me. Do you believe that theatre should NOT be audio or visual in nature?? If so, you are confusing theatre with reading a book."

They are referring to use of video in live theater.

Bwaygurl2 said: "JSquared2 said: "OhHiii said: "I just don't know that I truly believe Ivo even likes the medium of theatre. His recent work typically does all it can to NOT be theatrical and instead an audio/visual spectacle."



Your comment baffles me. Do you believe that theatre should NOT be audio or visual in nature?? If so, you are confusing theatre with reading a book."

They are referring to use of video in live theater."

I think that’s pretty obvious. But the original comment seems to imply that by virtue of being an A/V spectacle, it’s not theatre. It is absolutely theatre and his shows are highly theatrical.

Now, your mileage on whether you want to see live feeds in your theatre pieces may vary, but it doesn’t make it not theatre. He’s also hardly the only director to employ film in his work, and if you think otherwise, you’re mistaken.

ColorTheHours048 said: "They are referring to use of video in live theater."

I think that’s pretty obvious. But the original comment seems to imply that by virtue of being an A/V spectacle, it’s not theatre. It is absolutely theatre and his shows are highly theatrical.

Now, your mileage on whether you want to see live feeds in your theatre pieces may vary, but it doesn’t make it not theatre. He’s also hardly the only director to employ film in his work, and if you think otherwise, you’re mistaken."



I don’t think otherwise, I do think that Ivo’s reliance on it is unique to him, however. Theatre is an inherently immediate human interaction between those on stage and those in the audience. Screens and live feed video of on stage action is lazy in my view and puts up a literal wall(screen) between the actors and the audience. You could say the aim is to amplify emotion and the performance of the actors, but I find it to have the opposite effect in practice. It’s very stark. I felt the same way about the production of Madea with Rose Byrne at BAM. Theatre, like all art is subjective. I find his practice of this to be lazy and cold. I think he benefits from an “edgy”/cool factor that isn’t always totally earned. See: his West Side Story.

Ivo van Hove is the Cirque du Soleil of avant-garde theater.

My stance on this Ivo debate is right in the middle, which is to say: sometimes the video stuff works, and sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it feels like it's getting in the way of the live theatrical experience, and other times it complements the live performance to create a distinct kind of hybrid experience, with the live component still feeling prominent and significant. He's inconsistent, but he's put out a lot of fantastic LIVE productions in his prolific career.

I've always said that Ivo does better work when he's directing material that was originally written for the stage, as opposed to adaptations of films and books. That doesn't bode well for The Shining, but I'm still very curious to see what he does with it. Particularly because it's more of a horror/thriller story, and Ivo's strength lies more in his visceral impact than his intellectual interpretations (or lack thereof).