Bill Peet moved major plot points (and many of the bells and whistles) from Dodie Smith's novel 101 Dalmations to the big screen for the Disney version half a century ago.
Apparently translating a book into another medium is not always as successful as the 1961 model turned out to be.
Broadway in Chicago’s ‘101 Dalmatians’ a dog of a musical
The conceit of this ill-conceived show is that the dogs are played by regular-sized people in spotted outfits, so Director Jerry Zaks has made all the people playing humans larger than life by putting them up on stilts. The resulting dog-people aren’t very doggish and the humans are like nothing on earth.
The pop-tinged score, by Styx singer Dennis DeYoung is almost completely forgettable, the exceptions being “Hail to the Chef,” a bouncy food song crooned by Cruella to the dogsitting cook while her henchmen make off with the pups, and a recurring reggae number, “Be a Little Bit Braver ...”
Four adults, ten kids, 15 real Dalmatians and a few dummy dogs and puppets portray the 101 canines of the title, but not very well. ... The puppetry simulating the puppy pack could have been done much better ...
I read Ms. Smith's opus about dalmations decades ago, but it stays with me still. Mr. Peet was faithful in his adaptation, although he left out a few poignant scenes (one with an old man remembering his faithful dog in front of a blazing fireplace) that failed to make the cut for the animated version, probably because they played well on the printed page but not on a storyboard.
A shame that the stage version of the book wasn't more riveting, but knowing the novel's challenges, I don't know how it could be. Animation really was (and is) the ideal medium for it.
Posts
8 comments:
Is this Disney related? The production, I mean...
Oh...I see. No. (note to self...go to link first...)
Too bad they didn't work harder to translate the Harry Potter movies to the medium of Cinema. By slavishly following the books, the series plays like a low-rent soap opera.
I hear you about Potter. The worst part about the movie series' adherence to the books is the Hermione/Ron romance. That didn't work in the books, and it's even less convincing onscreen because, unfortunately, Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson actually have onscreen chemistry. None exists between Watson and Grint, which made the weepy, heartsick Hermione embarrassing to watch.
I read the book for a book report in grade school(I'd already seen and was a fan of the film of course)...as I recall the book version it's very well written and Peet adhered pretty closely to it.
This "musical" adaptation sounds fucking horrible.
Actually, with a few exceptions, the musical adaption comes closer to the original novel than the feature film. It upsets me that people bash the storytelling of Dodie Smith’s original Novel when in reality, the original novel is better than the feature animated film.
I remember 1959 and everything feeling right about this project. It was very fresh and exciting after the rather tedious years of "Sleeping Beauty."
Loads of talent made this film happen. Bill Peet, Ken Anderson, Tom Oreb and Walt Peregoy. Some projects just seem to come together - while others are like pulling teeth.
If you're working from existing material, the adaptation really has to work. Luckily, this one did.
Not sure if this was produced by Disney Theatrical (who thought gave up shows after that Little-Mermaid-on-rollerskates thing), but the "stilts" thing sure -sounds- goofy enough to have been at one point.
Makes you wonder why the studio put out that "Human stories only" suggestion back in the 90's (for more stage fodder), and then proceed do fish on skates, fish on sticks, apes on wires and lion puppets...
Post a Comment