Book Nook Cafe discussion
Plays, Short Stories & Essays
>
You Can't Take It With You ~ August 2013
Discussion Suggestions - I've not read the play yet. I put in a request at the library, so I hope to get it by August 1. Therefore, I've cobbled these questions from around the Internet. I thought we could think about these questions as we read and discuss the play and the movie. Please feel free to pose your own questions to the group.
- Did you like the style of the play?
- What do you think the play has to say about the American Dream.
- Throughout the play, the Vanderhof-Sycamore way of life calls into question conventional definitions of success and failure. What are your views of Success and Failure?
- Compare and contrast Frank Capra's film adaption of You Can't Take It with You with Kaufman and Hart's original play. What alterations did Capra make which reflect his definition of family and community? How do the depictions of the business world in the play and film differ? Do the two versions emphasize the same political, economic, and social philosophies? Which did you prefer?
- In the 1930s, Americans needed to laugh. The United States was suffering through the harsh economic times of the Great Depression and people went to theaters and movie houses to forget their troubles. So it is not surprising that in 1936 George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart's You Can't Take It with You was a commercial success.
Why has this play enjoyed lasting popularity when many other clever farces from the same era have been forgotten? Would you go see the play?
- Throughout various points in the play,
people are at odds with those who are
different from them. For example, Alice is
embarrassed because her family is eccentric
and doesn’t adhere to the usual perceived
norms. Mr. and Mrs. Kirby find the Sycamore
family to be distasteful in their oddities.
What does diversity mean to you?
- Creativity & Eccentricity
From the opening moments of the play, we
are immersed in a world that is sometimes
a little strange. The people of the Sycamore
household all seem to possess certain quirks,
but does that make them creative? What do
you make of the family’s eccentricities? Do
you think eccentricity relates to creativity?
If so, how?
- You Can’t Take It With You is sometimes called
a purely escapist play—or a play that’s all
about entertainment and not necessarily
containing any deeper meaning than what’s
on the surface. What do you think—is this
play escapist in nature? Is there a place for
escapist art, or do you think that all art
should have some deeper, more profound
meaning?
-What did you like or dislike about the play?
- Did you think the movie was well cast ?
Just checked the link above for the movie - it is also available on Netflix (DVD mailing services, not streaming), as well as being a free Amazon Prime movie with unlimited streaming for Prime members, as noted at the IMDB link.Looking forward to this!
I was able to get the movie from the library. I am waiting on the book from them.
I've started to read the play and I've watched the movie.I'll wait until you all have started before I comment further. Suffice it to say, I enjoyed it a lot. I would love to see this play performed on Broadway.
Hee! Excited about this one, huh?? I will start it this week.
I had to go to the main branch of the library system to get the book. The main branch is so busy they take forever to ship books to the local branches. So I went there yesterday. It's near the botanical gardens, so I started the book on a bench among the beutiful flowers and trees. :) I have to say, the part that I read made me laugh out loud. The movie is still a comedy, though from the commentary that came with the DVD it seems they changed a lot from the book.
Anyone start the book yet? I saw the movie and am now reading the play. I know the movie won a few academy awards, but I think I prefer the play. Odd some of the things they choose to change with the movie.
Alias Reader wrote: "Anyone start the book yet? I saw the movie and am now reading the play. I know the movie won a few academy awards, but I think I prefer the play. Odd some of the things they choose to change wit..."I finished the book, but have not seen the movie yet. The play was light, witty, and uses a lot of physical humor. But it also has a message about the different measures of success--financial wealth vs personal happiness and love.
I was thinking that Grandpa Vanderhof's family would never have had the freedom to enjoy all their hobbies if he had not had the earlier financial success to put a roof over their heads. So everyone needs some balance in their lives. But the play was a comedy with lots of laughs, not to be taken too seriously.
The play reminded me of the more successful sitcoms on TV involving families or "friends that act like family"--an unusual bunch of people thrown together that care for each other despite their idiosyncracies. "Cheers", "Seinfeld", and "Everyone Loves Raymond" were a few that came to mind. Although it was written in 1936 and was a little dated, it was still humorous escapist entertainment.
Connie, I think this is the first play where even some of the stage directions made me laugh out loud. There are some lines where I think the play is more serious and they were cut in the film. I was wondering if the subject matter was too hot for that time period. The comments about Russia for example. I'll wait until you have seen the movie. And watch it again myself to see if I am remembering correctly. I am going to watch it again this weekend. Then I have to return it to the library.
I have to watch it again. I think they cut the character of the lady that is brought into the house and is drunk. I thought she was quite funny in the book.
Your insight into the TV sitcoms is spot on.
I am skipping over comments! I will read the book this weekend. I am in the middle of The Secret History - it's moving along so I will try to finish that off first.
I read the play again & enjoyed it as much as ever. This time, however, i wondered a bit about the fact that the family is loving but also only seems to give lip-service to the talents the others display. It's not that i don't think they appreciate the effort/work but more that they are more wrapped up in their own projects, so barely notice the others. Or maybe i'm just "in a mood"?Regarding Connie's sitcom observation, i think you are on to something there. However, in so many of them there is only one "kook", whereas in this play almost everyone is. Was it overkill to have so many? I don't think so, as it all helps to contribute to what i best like about the household--the constant, varied activity. Indeed, when i was younger this was the household i would have loved. Back then, i thought you could only achieve it by have a dozen children or something.
Do you know, (view spoiler)
I finished reading the play and watched the film. I loved it. When reading the play, at first I had to figure out who was who, since there were so many zany characters. It seemed that all the characters where creative in their pursuits. If I had to pick out a favorite character, I have to say that I could identify with Penny (mom) because, I hate to admit it, I am like her in many ways. She likes to write and paint, she's a loving mom who is concerned with her family's welfare, and she's a bit quirky. In the film, I love that she places & replaces the kitten on the stack of her manuscript.I liked the play better than the film. It was light hearted and even though it was it came out in 1936, it could still speak to "today's workaholics."
Madrano wrote: Do you know, (view spoiler)
Was it intentional? I have to go back and read that. I didn't get that sense from the movie of the play. What does that say about me !!! LOL
I think I liked grandpa best. When the Russian teacher says about that the painting and dancing "stinks". He responds well they are enjoying themselves or something to that effect. I love that non judgmental attitude. And the notion that you should only do something if you are really good at it.I'll try to finish the play today.
Alias, we learn that spoiler toward the end of the play. When you finish the play, you'll see what i meant.
Madrano wrote: "Alias, we learn that spoiler toward the end of the play. When you finish the play, you'll see what i meant."Thanks. I will try to finish up today. I actually went and re-read the scene where they come to dinner and didn't see anything indicating that it was on purpose. Also I don't recall that in the movie.
Carol wrote: "I finished reading the play and watched the film. I loved it. When reading the play, at first I had to figure out who was who, since there were so many zany characters. ----------------
Agree. They usually put a character list before the play. However, the editon I had doesn't have it.
I am going to post the following character list. And print out a copy for myself. Since most of you have finished I don't think you will be bothered by any spoilers. It will also help us when discussing the play/movie.
Character list:
Penelope Sycamore
Usually goes by Penny, Penelope is the mother of Essie and Alice, wife of Paul, and daughter of Martin. She writes plays and paints as hobbies because it makes her happy, but is terrible at both. Penny is a loving mother and wife who is constantly concerned with the welfare of her family. Her main goal is to make sure everyone is happy, particularly her daughter Alice. She is a main character
.
Essie Carmichael
Wife of Ed, daughter of Penny and Paul Sycamore, Granddaughter of Martin, sister of Alice. She is childish. As a hobby she makes candy that Ed sells. Essie dreams of being a ballerina. She has spent 8 years studying with Boris Kolenkhov, but is a terrible dancer.
Rheba
The African-American maid and cook to the Sycamore family. She is treated almost like a part of the family. She is dating Donald. In the words of Mrs. Sycamore, "The two of them are really cute together, something like Porgy and Bess."
Paul Sycamore
Father of Essie and Alice, husband of Penny, Son-in-law of Martin. He is a tinkerer who manufactures fireworks in the basement with the help of his assistant Mr. De Pinna. His hobby is playing with erector sets.
Mr. De Pinna
The ice man who came inside to speak to Paul eight years before, and never left. He helps Mr. Sycamore build fireworks, and moonlights as a model in Mrs. Sycamore's paintings.
Ed Carmichael
Husband of Essie, son-in-law of Paul and Penny. He is a xylophone player, and distributes Essie's candies. Ed is an amateur printer who prints anything that sounds good to him. He prints up dinner menus for his family and little quotes that he places in the boxes of Essie's candy. He also likes to make masks.
Donald
The African-American boyfriend of Rheba, who seems to serve as volunteer handyman for the Sycamores. In the words of Mrs. Sycamore, "The two of them are really cute together, something like Porgy and Bess."
Martin Vanderhof
Referred to mostly as Grandpa in the play. Father-in-law to Paul, father of Penny, grandfather of Alice and Essie. He is an eccentric happy old man who has never paid his income tax because he doesn't believe in it, as he feels that the government wouldn't know what to do with the money if he paid it. He lives his life by the philosophy 'don't do anything that you're not going to enjoy doing'. He goes to circuses, commencements, throws darts, and collects stamps.
Alice Sycamore
Fiancée of Tony Kirby, daughter of Paul and Penny, Granddaughter of Martin, sister of Essie. She is the only "normal" family member. She has an office job, and is rather embarrassed by the eccentricities of her family when she has Tony and his parents at her house, yet she still loves them. She tends to be a pessimist.
Wilbur C. Henderson
An employee of the IRS. He comes to collect the tax money owed by Grandpa, and can't understand why the latter won't pay income tax.
Tony Kirby
Fiancé of Alice, Son of Mr. and Mrs. Kirby. He sees how, even though the Sycamores appear odd, they are really the perfect family because they love and care about each other. His own family is very proper and has many issues none of them will admit. He is vice president of Kirby and Co.
Boris Kolenkhov
A Russian who escaped to America shortly before the Russian Revolution. He is very concerned with world politics, and the deterioration of Russia. He is the ballet instructor of Essie, aware that she is untalented at dancing, but knows that she enjoys dancing so he keeps working with her. He likes the Greeks and the Romans, questions society, and is interested in world affairs. He is opinionated and often loudly declares that something "stinks"!
Gay Wellington
An actress whom Mrs. Sycamore meets on a bus and invites home to read one of her plays. She is an alcoholic, gets very drunk and passes out shortly after arriving at the Sycamore's home.
Anthony P. Kirby
Husband of Mrs. Kirby, father of Tony. He is a very proper man who is president of Kirby and Co. and secretly despises his job. His hobby is raising expensive orchids. He is also a member of the Harvard Society, the Union Club, the National Geographic Society, and the Racquet Club.
Miriam Kirby
Wife of Mr. Kirby, mother of Tony. She is an extremely prim and proper woman and is horrified by the goings-on in the Sycamore household. Her hobby is spiritualism.
G-Man 1, G-Man 2 (Jim), G-Man 3 (Mac)
Three agents who come to investigate Ed because of the communist quotes he prints up and places in Essie's candy boxes, such as "God is the State – the State is God".
The Grand Duchess Olga Katrina
She was one of the Grand Duchesses of Russia before the Revolution, another being her sister, the Grand Duchess Natasha. Since then she has been forced to flee to America where she has found work as a waitress in Childs Restaurant. The rest of her family has had a similar fate, such as her Uncle Sergei, the Grand Duke, who is now an elevator man. She loves to cook as a hobby.
I finally finished the play and the movie. Very fun and light.Did you like the style of the play? I thought the play was very fun and more balanced than the (1938) movie. The story was easy to follow. I watched the movie first so pretty much knew most of the characters, though there were some differences in the characters in the book and movie.
In general, I like some screwball comedies, though I thought the play was a bit more controlled - I liked its tone and level of comedy better. The movie seemed a little manic to me and some things seemed a little forced. They also added stuff to the movie that seemed very heavy handed - the courtroom scene, the other business man (blanking on the name) dying, and selling then returning the house, etc. - and I frankly didn't enjoy those aspects. I felt like I was being told how I should feel about these people, whereas the play had a lighter touch.
What do you think the play has to say about the American Dream? I think the play suggests that there are different ways to realize the American Dream. One way is through work and another is through play - though I think the goal for most people is to combine these a bit more than the Kirbys or the Vanderhof-Sycamores do! They are really the two extremes.
Throughout the play, the Vanderhof-Sycamore way of life calls into question conventional definitions of success and failure. What are your views of Success and Failure? I think my definition of success is to be happy with one's choices. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter whether it works for others. However, a big caveat here is that it needs to work not just for an individual but for the other people who share the space. So, although the Vanderhof-Sycamores mostly seem to be happy with their choices, Alice has mixed emotions - their "success" doesn't exactly work for everyone in the house and (it seems apparent to me) that she will leave to make her own sense of success that may be a bit more conventional. Similarly, Mr. Kirby is not completely happy with his version of success - what the play didn't do is reconcile with Mrs. Kirby's views.
I didn't really like either option that we were given in the play. I thought the V-Ss were too focused on being individualistic and the Kirby's were too focused on society's view of success.
Compare and contrast Frank Capra's film adaption of You Can't Take It with You with Kaufman and Hart's original play. What alterations did Capra make which reflect his definition of family and community? How do the depictions of the business world in the play and film differ? Do the two versions emphasize the same political, economic, and social philosophies? Which did you prefer? I liked the fact that in the play Alice questioned the Vanderhof-Sycamore world view. To me, it was just as extreme as the Kirby's view - I was disappointed that it was not brought out more in the movie.
This is certainly something that reflected the time frame of the play and movie. On the heels of the Great Depression, the ability to relax and have "cheap" fun at home was something to which many families must have aspired. On the other hand, families like the Kirbys were, if not the enemy, then certainly not popular with the masses! The play did a better job of balancing the economic differences, IMO. The movie Mr. Kirby was pretty awful - throwing people out of their homes, taking over other businesses, etc.; the play didn't seem to get into that - he was a rich businessman but not twirling his moustache with an evil laugh.
I found the movie to be a little too much for me. As a shy introvert, I would have gone insane in the Vanderhof-Sycamore house! It was constant. And I agree with Deb's comment above about the people really not engaging with each other - they all did their "own thing" but the pace was so crazy that they didn't seem to slow down to appreciate each other. They obviously loved each other and were together all the time, but at the same time didn't seem to come together except for meals.
MORE IN NEXT POST
Why has this play enjoyed lasting popularity when many other clever farces from the same era have been forgotten? Would you go see the play? I would go and see the play. It's fun and no one wants to have to worry about money. The Vanderhof-Sycamores didn't have a lot of money, but apparently they had enough to live and they didn't have expensive tastes. Plus, it was like one long summer camp - everyone could do the activities that made them happy. That was fun to see, though I would have liked more family pulling together - again, I thought the play did this better than the movie. In the play, they seemed to be more responsive to Alice's horror of having the Kirby's show up a day early.Throughout various points in the play, people are at odds with those who are different from them. For example, Alice is embarrassed because her family is eccentric and doesn’t adhere to the usual perceived norms. Mr. and Mrs. Kirby find the Sycamore family to be distasteful in their oddities. What does diversity mean to you? It's unfortunate that Alice was embarrassed about her family - no one should feel that way about the people they love. I think the family seemed more responsive to toning things down a bit in the play than in the movie. I felt like the movie really stressed that the V-Ss were "right" and the Kirby's were "wrong" more than in the play - the play seemed a bit more balanced.
The V-Ss are certainly more fun and entertaining - uptight, rich snobs are not fun. However, one of the keys in appreciating diverse views and lifestyles is welcoming those who differ - this needs to come from both sides - in this case, the Kirbys and the V-Ss. Again, I think the play did this better. In the movie, I saw the Kirbys loosen up, but I didn't see much change from the V-Ss - it played into that Kirbys = wrong, V-Ss = right notion.
From the opening moments of the play, we are immersed in a world that is sometimes a little strange. The people of the Sycamore household all seem to possess certain quirks, but does that make them creative? What do you make of the family’s eccentricities? Do you think eccentricity relates to creativity? If so, how? Tough question. The freedom to not be afraid of appearing silly or crazy is related to creativity, I think. Being quirky is not necessarily related unless it is applied to something. Most of the V-Ss had some creative that they were working on - music, dance, writing, painting - but I'm not sure they were really growing in their work because they didn't seem to be thoughtful about their efforts.
You Can’t Take It With You is sometimes called a purely escapist play—or a play that’s all about entertainment and not necessarily containing any deeper meaning than what’s on the surface. What do you think—is this play escapist in nature? Is there a place for escapist art, or do you think that all art should have some deeper, more profound meaning? The deeper message, IMO, was that it's important to have fun and to have friends and family to share good times and bad. It is escapist on one level, but I did think about how my life is currently structured, whether I was happy and whether I am successful.
Although not all art has to have a deeper meaning, I think the most successful art touches people on more than a superficial level. It doesn't have to be about the meaning of life, but perhaps wants to be more than just "pretty" or "happy", etc.
What did you like or dislike about the play? It was entertaining and silly, which is nice every now and then. It seemed to be a pretty well-structured, though predictable, story with very likable characters.
Did you think the movie was well cast? I thought the main parts were well cast, though some of the supporting players were more entertaining in the play, I thought, than in the movie.
Sorry for the crazy long post! Would love to hear what others think.
Susan, i appreciate your dedication to answering those questions posed upthread. I don't have the time to do that at present (maybe later? not sure) but i wanted to comment on your post.I think the play is escapist but the deeper message is a strong one, tough to ignore. By offering a confusing household, i think the writers managed to illustrate the variety of ways to express one's self or interests. For me, that worked nicely--if you didn't like cooking candy, there was always printing...or fireworks...or writing. For myself, i could have used one person who knew tons of history, indicting some reading was going on in the household but that's just my prejudice. ;-)
I would pay to see this play. First of all, i enjoy plays were much action is on stage, even though not the focus of the script. Secondly, i find the juxtaposition of families. Finally, now that we have an image of the movie, it would be fun to see if stage actors pattern their work on what the world knows from the film or if they create the roles anew. (But this is true of many, many plays.)
I've probably seen the Jean Arthur movie a dozen times. I fell in love with her in this film and found Jimmy Stewart endearing this early in his career. And, as noted above, Spring Byington is a love! Indeed, the entire cast is great.
I agree about Jean Arthur and Spring Byington in the movie- they were both excellent. I thought Arthur really captured both that "embarrassed by but loves her family above all" quality very well - she was pulled between the two families. I think that was why I did not really like the courtroom scene in the movie (besides the pass-the-hat scene that was too reminiscent of It's a Wonderful Life - even if that one came later); it pulled her out of that conflicted but level-headed role. She regained it after that, but it just seemed off to me.I had just watched some movies with Mary Boland on TCM - she and Byington could be sisters! And it was fun seeing Lionel Barrymore play the anti-Mr. Potter.
I thought the Jimmy Stewart character was a little too enthusiastically accepting of her family's craziness, particularly when his parents were there. This seemed more pointed than it was in the play (i.e., it seemed that he liked and was amused by her family but was not as actively and vociferously defending them). To me, it felt a little like he was using the situation to tweak his parents - which seemed too adolescent for the play version of his character. In the play, I felt that he wanted his father in particular to lighten up a bit; in the movie, I felt he wanted to teach them a lesson - subtle difference.
Susan wrote: Did you think the movie was well cast? I thought the main parts were well cast, though some of the supporting players were more entertaining in the play, I thought, than in the movie.-----------------
Thank you for taking the time to respond so thoughtfully to the questions, Susan.
Sorry I still having finished. I have company, so reading it going to be in short supply this week.
I did want to comment on Essie's husband, Ed Carmichael. The one who play the xylophone. Also the FBI was following him because of the quotes he printed in the chocolates. I knew I saw the actor who played him, in another movie and it was driving me nuts. I finally remembered the actors name is Dub Taylor. He played the hotel desk clerk in the Frank Sinatra movie, A Hole In The Head. Love that movie!
I am watching the movie a second time.Interesting that the movie opens with Kirby's talking about making profit off the war. It's a good juxtaposition to the Vanderhof family. Who takes care of you, Mr. Poppins asks Mr. Vanderhof? Same one who takes care of the Lillies of the Fields. Grandpa says come to Poppins come live with us and be a Lilly of the Field. (Peace Lilly ?) Mr. Vanderhof is quoting the bible.
Matthew 6:28
And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin.
Also why is grandpa on crutches throughout the movie? It's not mentioned in the play. Was the actor hurt?
Odd some of the things they changed in the movie. Ed Carmichael when asked the tune he is playing on the xylophone says Chopin. Unless I am mistaken in the play it is Beethoven.
Grandpa quotes Lincoln, "with malice towards none. Now they say think as I do or I'll bomb the hell out of you."Again a good contrast to the Kirby family who makes money with war.
Interesting that Tony Kirby's plan for the future to make money is to harness the sun's energy- solar power. A peaceful endeavor as opposed to his father's which is war profiteering.
Mr. Kirby, when asked how business is, Kirby replies "it depends on which side of the fence you are on." When pressed he also says "Unemployment is not the problem". This is during the Depression.
Song they sing in jail---Oh, I went down South
For to see my Sal
Sing Polly wolly doodle all the day
My Sal, she is
A spunky gal
Sing Polly wolly doodle all the day
Fare thee well,
Fare thee well,
Fare thee well my fairy fay
For I'm going to Lou'siana
For to see my Susy-anna
Singing Polly wolly doodle all the day
Oh, my Sal, she is
A maiden fair
Sing Polly wolly doodle all the day
With curly eyes
And laughing hair
Sing Polly wolly doodle all the day
Fare thee well,
Fare thee well,
Fare thee well my fairy fay
For I'm going to Lou'siana
For to see my Susy-anna
Singing Polly wolly doodle all the day
Behind the barn,
Down on my knees
Sing Polly wolly doodle all the day
I thought I heard
A chicken sneezing
Sing Polly wolly doodle all the day
Fare thee well,
Fare thee well,
Fare thee well my fairy fay
For I'm going to Lou'siana
For to see my Susy-anna
Sing Polly wolly doodle all the day
He sneezed so hard
With the whooping cough
Sing Polly wolly doodle all the day
He sneezed his head
And tail right off
Sing Polly wolly doodle all the day
Fare thee well,
Fare thee well,
Fare thee well my fairy fay
For I'm going to Lou'siana
For to see my Susy-anna
Sing Polly wolly doodle all the day
Oh, a grasshopper sittin'
On a railroad track
Sing Polly wolly doodle all the day
A-pickin' his teeth
With a carpet tack
Sing Polly wolly doodle all the day
Fare thee well,
Fare thee well,
Fare thee well my fairy fay
For I'm going to Lou'siana
For to see my Susy-anna
Sing Polly wolly doodle all the day
Oh, I went to bed
But it wasn't no use
Sing Polly wolly doodle all the day
My feet stuck out
Like a chicken roost
Sing Polly wolly doodle all the day
Fare thee well,
Fare thee well,
Fare thee well my fairy fay
For I'm going to Lou'siana
For to see my Susy-anna
Sing Polly wolly doodle all the day
Lyrics from eLyrics.net
LOL, Alias, i feel as though i was watching the movie with you & hearing your running commentary. Thanks for the experience. Iirc, the reason Barrymore was on crutches is because the actor suffered from arthritis. By the next year or so he was mostly living in a wheelchair (off screen, i suppose, but am not sure, the only other later film by him i've seen was Wonderful Life). In the film they mention he got a broken leg from sliding down the banister. We were surprised to see Dub Taylor in the movie, as we're fans of him in westerns. I think he was a regular on "Little House..." for awhile, too. Not familiar with him & the Sinatra movie.
Did you recognize Ann Miller? She was a surprise to me, as i just didn't think she was that old--boy was i wrong! It helps, i reckon, that she was in her mid-teens when she got the role.
And i love the character actor, Donald Meek, who played Mr. Poppins. He'll forever be that tinkerer to me, although i've seen him in several old westerns. It's fun to see how careers developed from that time forward.
Susan, i think your assessment of Jimmy Stewart's interpretation of the role is dead on. It's more pointed on the screen, although i think there is also a bit more love for his parents than i felt in the play. Good observations.
Thanks for the info on Barrymore. I'll tell my sister. She mentioned that in A Wonderful Life he was in a wheelchair. It's good that he still got roles despite his disability. We should see more of that. No I didn't recognize Ann Miller. Though my sister did. Once she said it, than I realized it was her.
Did you like the style of the play?Yes, I did. Though I think he play should include a character list. At first it was hard to get a handle on who was who.
What do you think the play has to say about the American Dream.I think it says we can get so caught up in the race for riches that we can forget to enjoy life and our loved ones.
Throughout the play, the Vanderhof-Sycamore way of life calls into question conventional definitions of success and failure. What are your views of Success and Failure?I think success is to be able to afford housing, food and healthcare. It's also having the ability to have leisure time to enjoy family and friends. The luxury to have this balance.
Why has this play enjoyed lasting popularity when many other clever farces from the same era have been forgotten? Would you go see the play?I would love to see this play on the stage. I think it still speaks to current audiences because the average person is still struggling to make ends meet. The gap between the very wealthy and the poor is at historic levels.
Did you think the movie was well cast ? Yes. I liked the cast very much.
Susan wrote: I found the movie to be a little too much for me. As a shy introvert, I would have gone insane in the Vanderhof-Sycamore house!--------------
What would have killed me was all the noise. I can't deal with a lot of noise. I need my quiet.
Alias Reader wrote: "Susan wrote: I found the movie to be a little too much for me. As a shy introvert, I would have gone insane in the Vanderhof-Sycamore house!--------------
What would have killed me was all the no..."
It didn't seem as bad in the play, but I was wondering whether that was because reading is, you know, quiet!
Sometimes things are better left to the imagination.
Good point, Susan. Even reading about the firework experiments & the music playing, one can't grasp it. Were the kittens mewling? I can't recall but that would have pointed out the large range of noise levels.The lasting popularity of this play is an interesting question. I like watching movies from this time frame, so i'm not sure that i wouldn't like other plays from them too. However, there is something universal about wondering where success ends and overkill begins.
I don't know if this is apocryphal or not but my husband shares it often. " 'At a party given by a billionaire on Shelter Island, Kurt Vonnegut tells his friend, Joseph Heller, that their host, a hedge fund manager, had made more money in a single day than Heller had earned from his wildly popular novel Catch-22 over its whole history.
Heller said, “Yes, but I have something he will never have: Enough.” '"
This is something the family in the play understands, while Tony's family have yet to learn. Mixing with the Vanderhof-Sycamore home might lead them there. It's that possibility that intrigues us, i think.
Madrano wrote: Heller said, “Yes, but I have something he will never have: Enough.” '"Good one. :)
Compare and contrast Frank Capra's film adaption of You Can't Take It with You with Kaufman and Hart's original play.In the movie they took out the character of Gay Wellington
An actress whom Mrs. Sycamore meets on a bus and invites home to read one of her plays. I thought she was funny and would have left her in the movie.
In the movie they took out the character of The Grand Duchess Olga Katrina. I thought she was also interesting and helped to expand on the Boris Kolenkhov character. I would have left her in the play also.
In the movie they don't tie up the loose end of Grandpa not paying taxes. In the play they explain that when the milkman died they gave him grandpa's identity. So now grandpa might also get a refund from the government ! I thought this was a funny twist and also should have been included in the movie.
Having now seen the move and read the play, I do prefer the play. However, I enjoyed the movie, too. And since I've never seen the play acted on the stage, this was the next best thing. So I am happy we did the play/movie ~ compare/contrast. I enjoyed it and enjoyed reading everyone's comments.
Alias Reader wrote: "Compare and contrast Frank Capra's film adaption of You Can't Take It with You with Kaufman and Hart's original play.In the movie they took out the character of Gay Wellington
An actress whom Mrs..."
I agree with all of these points - interesting that they omitted these but added in other stuff.
They added in Mr. Poppins - anyone else? I like the actor and Mr. Poppins, but I don't know that he brought much to the story.
Yes. Poppins was another change. Good catch !
They also had Mr Kirby buying up all the property around the Vanderhof's home, and the Vanderfof-Sycamore family moving out of their house in the movie. That wasn't in the play.The dancing in the park scene, and the restaurant scene when Alice has the sign on her back and they pretend to see a mouse under the table were not in the play either.
Mr Poppins was one of my favorite characters because he showed so much of a change when he had work that excited him. I loved the twinkle in his eyes, and his creative inventions.
Susan wrote: "They added in Mr. Poppins - anyone else? I like the actor and Mr. Poppins, but I don't know that he brought much to the story. ..."Good observations. I didn't realize that this was part of our process, but like the idea. It might help us all figure out the whys of such changes. For me, Mr. Poppins allowed us to see an example of how these diverse people came together under one roof. And the toy was cute! ;-)
Connie wrote:They also had Mr Kirby buying up all the property around the Vanderhof's home, and the Vanderfof-Sycamore family moving out of their house in the movie. That wasn't in the play.The dancing in the park scene, and the restaurant scene when Alice has the sign on her back and they pretend to see a mouse under the table were not in the play either."
---------------------
Yes. Good catch. Buying up the property was a good fit with the theme.
However, I thought the the restaurant with the sign on her back was a bit silly.
Did you think the park scene with them dancing with the kids seemed out of place with the rest of the film? It was entertaining, but seemed a bit odd to me.
Mr. Poppins--He is first seen totally immersed in the calculations of numbers with the machine. He didn't enjoy it at all.
When he came to stay with the VS family his inner child was allowed once again to reemerge.
Was the man who worked for Mr. Kirby with the twitch in the play ? He was the one trying to get Grandpa to sell the house. Working for Kirby was so stressful that it had manifested itself in a tick.
Alias Reader wrote: "Mr. Poppins--He is first seen totally immersed in the calculations of numbers with the machine. He didn't enjoy it at all.
When he came to stay with the VS family his inner child was allowed ..."
I agree with this and with the fact that (as Deb mentioned above) the character showed how these various people came to live together. But, I don't know that it was as effective as it might have been. I'm also not sure that I really needed to see it - it was apparent to me why people would come. In some ways, it continued the relative heavy-handedness of the film versus the play (not that the film was anything but light entertainment but compared to the play ...).
For example, Poppins made his adorable toy even before he came to stay at chez V-S, so he technically had the time and opportunity to create - he just had a lousy 9-5 job to pay the bills and no distribution mechanism for his inventions. It might have been better if he just talked about what he wanted to do and then created the toy after he got to the V-S house.
And, of course he would be happier after coming there - he could spend all his time doing what he wanted! It's like when I'm between consulting gigs - I love it - I can read, watch movies, go for walks, etc.
All are encouraged to join in and discuss the play as well as the movie.
Play:
Author:
When: August 1, 2013
Where: The discussion will take place in this thread
Spoiler etiquette: The play is in 3 acts. If you are discussing a major plot element, please post a spoiler warning at top of your post and the Act.
Play Detail:
Paperback: 72 pages
Publisher: Dramatists Play Service, Inc.; Acting Edition edition (January 1998)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0822212870
Synopsis: You Can't Take It with You relates the humorous encounter between a conservative family and the crazy household of Grandpa Martin Vanderhof. Grandpa's family of idiosyncratic individualists amuse with their energetic physical antics and inspire with their wholehearted pursuit of happiness. Kaufman and Hart fill the stage with chaotic activity from beginning to end. Critics have admired the witty one-liners, the visual theatricalism, and the balanced construction of the play's three acts. Although You Can't Take It with You is undeniably escapist theater which prompts immediate enjoyment rather than complex analysis, it has clearly influenced American comedy.
Awards: The play won the 1937 Pulitzer Prize for Drama.
The Film:
You Can't Take it With You. (1938 version)
Stars: Jean Arthur, Lionel Barrymore, and James Stewart.
[image error]
IMDB Link for more information
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0030993/