Chicago Tribune: A quartet of Scrooges bowed together on the stage of the Goodman Theatre on Monday, part of the theater’s opening-night celebration of 40 years of “A Christmas Carol,” which the Goodman likes to position as a beloved holiday tradition of the kind where change not only is unnecessary but unwelcome. The Scrooges — Scroogi? — were surrounded by many previous cast members from a show that has played, the Goodman claims, to more than 1.5 million patrons over the years and employed a veritable plethora of Chicago’s finer thespians.
3 comments:
It is sometimes hard to watch classic shows with poorly retrofitted new technology because the cringe factor is unimaginable. It is almost the same with movies made when CGI was a new technology. The difference is, in movies, realism is key. If a movie does not look realistic, it is written off as soon as it comes out (see: most of the problems with Justice League). That is why movies with mostly practical effects last longer (see: the actual dinosaur they built for Jurassic Park). In theatre, it is sometimes easier (and better theatre) if instead of going for poorly constructed realism, ask the audience to suspend their disbelief a little further. Instead of weird half baked digital effects, maybe traditional, practical effect would read better. Especially for a show whose selling point is it's longevity and classic-ness, staying away from digital effects is probably wise. I won't be seeing this adaptation of the Christmas classic.
I’ve been thinking lately that A Christmas Carol deserves a rereading. The story feels timely and necessary. And I agree with the author of the article that it “remains the greatest seasonal story of all.” It’s right that Christmas’ greatest secular story is one about social justice, generosity, and redemption (wish a good old-fashioned dash of Victorian horror.) These are themes that are always important, but seem especially needed right now.
Though obviously I didn’t see the production that the author saw, I think this show must deserve a reboot. A fresh, contemporary retelling that stays true to the original story while making a nod to the way we digest stories now (see the author’s comment about narration.) There’s soooo much in A Christmas Carol that’s aesthetically interesting, relevant, and moving. And it’s hard to imagine that The Goodman lacks the resources to brush the dust off what’s traditionally a money-maker. It’s time to give a worthy classic some life again.
I feel like the updating of theater should be considered carefully, as in this case of A Christmas Carol. Indeed, the production, now on its fortieth run, is likely growing repetitive and a bit stale, but to attempt to update it carelessly would likely make for a flawed production for other reasons of its' own. I do agree that we need to diversify our theater and film options today in general, however. In a world where every movie seems to be a sequel or a remake of something, do we really need to watch A Christmas Carol every year? I think we should start looking to new works more to cultivate the diversity we need, rather than by attempting to update A Christmas Carol and teaching an old dog new tricks. I think its about time we get a new classic Christmas tale, as we are already mostly familiar with the ones that already exist.
Post a Comment