shall I ever be able to watch western musicals again?

being so impressed with SP I became eager to listen to the songs in the original. some of them were good, some of them were not, but the only conclusion I have made - I have no wish to listen to the original songs from the Broadway

the next musical I compared was 'Romeo and Juliette'. 'twas not deliberate comparison, I just wanted to check what musical is the sourse of the beautiful 'aimer' sung by Honda-san in her 'kokoro o komete' album

my surprise was indefinite when I realized I do not like the original 'aimer' even a bit. just no moment, no single moment in the song impressed me. then I remembered of the Zuka version and was surprised again that I do not remember the Zuka's version of 'aimer'. well, of course I could not, as the first act was cut severely by someone who glued together the first and the second act, and all that was left in the second was an instrumental variation with some two lines sung by the characters

then I remembered of another song I loved when I first heard it in the Russian version - 'les rois du monde'. I checked the original version and >___< again

what is wonderful - or strange, perhaps - though I did not like the Zuka's 'Romeo and Juliette' in the whole, I cannot still enjoy the western originals of the musicals I watched by Zuka. if I take the singing separately - I cannot blame the actors for singing badly, if I speak of the costumes or decorations - oh, they might seem awkward, but are they not awkward in Zuka? well, I wanted to name the manner of playing as the primary reason, but when I tried to look closely at the actors, I saw they are doing their best and portraying all the feelings with all their might

the problem is, everything is ok when taken separately. and when 'tis put together it makes nonsense. I do not believe in the feelings of the characters, I do not hear those feelings in what they sing, I do not see those feelings in the way they behave on stage, I just cannot enjoy the performance at all, as 'tis a performance, a simple performance where everyone is pretending to be what they are supposed to be

when I heard Zuka fans saying they could really forget they are watching a play and they felt themselves a part of the performance, I sometimes could not help thinking it was a nice phrase and nothing else. and I heard it a lot - from my friend whom I thank for taking me to Zuka twice, from the fans in the web, and from the hosts of 'Tokyo eye' which I mentioned in my post yesterday. however, I can not help joining those who say that after I compared some of the musicals scenes. Zuka offers us a chance to see a story of real lives, even though I might dislike the performance in the whole. in those lives people act and feel, and we feel that they do. moreover, they interact and 'interfeel'. now that I noticed this I can state there is a significant lack of interaction in all the western musicals I have seen so far, not just the two I mentioned. there is an unchangeable fact that I noticed how Takarasiennes look at each other on stage - that is, every single word of theirs is supported by their eyes and the lines of their face, how minor roles players look when something important is happening - concerned and affected, though they could do nothing considering themselves as unimportant actresses who are not obliged to act when they are not in the 'center spot'. I did notice holding hands, looking back when being called by name, arm graspings, hugs and kisses, simply walking side by side or dancing in a passionate rhythm. I did notice that Takarasiennes are always present on stage and conscious of what they do, though they might have to move and sing and act simultaneously. this is what the Western actors cannot do that brilliantly, as far as I can judge now

Takarasiennes are living on stage, and we, those who watch, are living together with them
_____
p. s. what is even more strange... I like the Russian version of the 'les rois...' much more than the original. how can it be???

a comparison

me finally found the strength to watch other interpretations of 'Scarlet Pimpernel' than the Zuka's.
the first one is of the year of grace 1982. the second is of the 1934
the first one was a great delight. the second was a disappointment.
the first one is British and 'tis comparatively new. the second is American and 'tis black'n'white.
the first one combined the 'SP' book itself with that of 'Eldorado' showing the brightness of the skills to design a new plot of those screenplay writers and the director. the second followes the book to the letter in some details, such as singing Percy entering the house of Brogart in France, but changes the other details so that Margo's connections with Cyr are quite the opposite and the behaviour of Percy is sometimes simply in contradiction with what they were in the book, that can bee noticed by an unaided eye while they speak in the cabinet somewhere in the middle of the movie
the first one was full of true feelings. the second presents a mere effort to create something real.
the first one is that me could believe. the second one was just a show.
let your humble servant try to explain.
sir Anthony Andrews was not too handsome, as me dares to think. still he was the best choice I could imagine. so full of gallantry, so noble and firm. and the eyes were the greatest. those eyes betrayed his every emotion, his adoration for Marguerite, his sadness when he knew her possible betrayal, his hope when she came to his cell. his accent changed when he was serious and when he was playing the part of the idle fop. he was the best, and me will be ever firm in this conviction.
some said madam Jane Seymour isn't that suitable for the part of Marguerite. she isn't, that me can agree, as she has brown hair and looks a bit older that Marguerite was. real Marguerite had the hair of the colour of gold and blue eyes and childlike face, as my honourable guests may remember. apart from this me cannot blame Jane for that she failed in portraying the loving woman in happiness and sorrow.
me cannot say anything for the others, as me didn't pay enough attention to them, but they were credible enough, otherwise me would notice.
as for Chauvelin, he's much more of a human than he is in the book, and there's some feeling in his heart for Marguerite, which could even be called as love by someone, though me doesn't like the variant quite much.
when we proceed to the American old movie, we see an arrogant Margo who is just too proud of her beauty that she is even not capable of casting her pride away to seem tender and cute. her words to her husband are all insincere, her intonation doesn't indicate any of her feelings and her look never changes so we are only to guess that we see the Margo grieving. sir Percy is not much better in terms of verisimilitude. he's trying hard to do something close to what is necessary not able to do it the way we don't notice his efforts. and those are in vain. just a semblance of that famous smile, that fire in the eyes... self-admiration we can see in the movie, nothing more.
all the happenings seem to be in a great hurry and the jokes, however clever and sophisticated, never made me laugh. there's everything we need to be in a complete admiration for the 1934 movie, and still me is not. so disgusting me finds it that me could hardly watch it to the end...
there are so many lines and situations that are exactly the same in the 1934 version and in the 1982 version. my dear visitors may compare those parts themselves if only they pay a little attention to the movies. the obvious conclusion would be, methinks, that the lines in the old version are simply lines while there is a whole universe of feelings in those spoken by sir Anthony and lady Jane
considering the ending of both films, 'tis quite different from that of the book and methinks that's a pity. though 'tis not very spectacular 'tis rather interesting and quite worthy of being presented in a movie
me would like to state that the series of 1998 seem that far from the original and the actors are that unsuitable that me will never waste me time for that 'piece of art'.
the conclusion is, that the 1982's version is much better than the others, though there are obvious changes in the plot. still what is that you want to see, my dear guests? is it the frame, the skeleton, the plot itself, just a ghost of the book? or is it the true people whose sufferings and happiness were tangible to the extent you can touch 'em?

Шовелан ты мой Шовелан

позволю себе кое-что процитировать по-русски

" А из Масао так и бьёт её неистребимый задор, её герой не может страдать дольше минуты. А затем, как только он начинает задумывать "страшную мстю", от одного этого задумывания его настроение улучшается)"
 ______
"для Шовлена Масао, кажется, главный девиз "сделал гадость, на сердце радость"
______
источник
http://maestas.diary.ru/p165099063.htm?from=0

ваш покорный слуга долго валялся на полу от смеха. вообразить себе довольную улыбочку на хитрой мордочке Масаки не представляет никакого труда, не правда ли? вот только проблема в том, что ваш покорный слуга все равно не может согласиться с вышесказанным. может быть, насмотревшись на Масао примерно так, как это есть сейчас, он и мог бы углядеть вышеназванный задор в Шовелане, да только первые увиденные предстваления с Масаки были для вашего покорного слуги совсем другими, ибо это (помимо "первоцвета") были "Алжир" и "цыганский барон", в последнем правда, роль Масаки-сан уже не отвечает канонам warui yattsu на все сто из-за забавнейшего хеппи-энда, тем не менее, именно такое впечатление закрепилось у вашего покорного слуги относительно Масао. уж если сравнивать тех, кто играл Шовелана, то на эту роль не подходит как раз Мирио-тян, вот уж чье доброе-предоброе выражение лица не вяжется с сорокалетним уставшим от жизне мужчином, нэ?