If you’re a Pratchett fan who can get to Chicago: Lifeline Theatre (Morse and the L-tracks) is doing their adaptation of MONSTROUS REGIMENT. It was terrific, and my wife and I highly recommend it. (I know, we usually don’t allow commercials, but it’s a small theatre that needs encouragement, and I got moderator approval in advance.)
This is the first time we’ve seen a live-action play based on one of Pratchett’s novels. We had re-read the book in prep, and they did it wonderfully – troll was a stitch, and the vampire was wonderful beyond description.
I saw it last week based on the glowing review in the Reader. Yeah, the troll and the vampire were the stand-out cast members, but Sgt. Jackrum and Lt. Blouse were excellent as well. I thought the actor who played Jackrum got that world-weary, used-to-handling-officers attitude just right, and I haven’t seen supercilious played as well as the Lt. in a long time.
Their dialect coach(es) also deserve praise - very good overall.
For some reason, I haven’t got around to reading Monstrous Regiment yet, but I’m anxious to get to it now. Knowing Pratchett’s writing style, I know that there is a lot that had to be cut out to make it work on stage, and occasionally it felt like there were things in there that warranted more time or explanation, or just should have been left out (as much as I loved seeing the character, I’m not sure the scene with Death was necessary; it felt a little shoe-horned in).
But I did enjoy it, and it makes me hopeful that they might do more Pratchett adaptations.
Monstrous Regiment is an unusual book in the series. It’s almost entirely stand-alone, with only a few familiar characters fleetingly passing through, and involves countries that had never been mentioned before. It’s also a bit clumsily structured in order for the twists to work out.
That’s undoubtedly why they decided to en-theatricize this one, there’s little to no prior knowledge needed.
Yes, it’s not one of Pratchett’s best, by far. Yes, the title gives the trick away if you know history, but (in fact) so do most of the actors. After all, you’ve very clearly got female actors playing males for many of the roles, and the audience KNOWS they’re female. Some are still surprises unless you’ve read the program. But they didn’t play it for surprise for the audience, it was surprises for the characters. I thought they did that well.
I agree, the appearance by Death seemed a little gratuitous, but again, I thought they handled it well. And since more theatrical productions of Pratchett are in England or Australia, I was delighted to have this one in Chicago. I hope it gets supported for two reasons: I’d love to see more Pratchett-plays in Chi, and I think this little theatre does an outstanding job. (They did TALE OF TWO CITIES earlier this season, which was astonishing – with a cast of, I dunno, maybe ten, they managed to convey the French Revolution and capture of the Bastille. Great theatre.)
The book uses the same “twist” a half-dozen different times, and after the first one, it’s pretty obvious to the readers where it’s heading (the main character figures out pretty quickly, too). I don’t think it’s meant to be “twisty”.
It’s also Pratchett’s least humorous book. It’s sometimes labeled as “comedic fantasy”, but I think that just comes from misguided editors who lump it in with the rest of the Discworld. Not that that’s a bad thing: Pratchett handles the serious tone very well.
The theater is a teensy performance space (about 100 seats) with big action pieces very imaginatively shoe-horned into a small multi-level stage.
But they had plenty of elbow room at the downtown former library building when they expanded the “Floating Market” from their production of Neil Gaiman’s Neverwhere as a benefit:
I know it’s sacrilege, but I enjoyed the play much more than the book. Some of the book is very heavy handed (the laws that their god promulgates), and the play left all that out.
I’m not in the Chicago area and haven’t seen the play, but just reading the title of this thread I thought “While that’s not my favorite Discworld book, I could believe it works better as a play.” As already mentioned, it has a stand-alone plot with recurring characters only in cameo roles. It’s also about a small group of people who are together for most of the story, has some funny dialogue even if much of the book is fairly dark, and the disguises and revelations are probably fun to see on stage. I also assume there are special costumes and makeup for the troll, vampire, and Igor characters. With a good cast that sounds pretty entertaining to me!
FWIW I don’t think the title of the book really gives anything away, not just because the “twist” is more a running gag than a real twist but also because it works as a joke title of the (rather tired) “literal interpretation of a well-known phrase” variety. There’s a regiment, and not only are they initially not very good but some of them are actual [del]monsters[/del] people of other species and/or differently animated.
Yes, I know where it comes from. I’m saying that even with that knowledge the title doesn’t give much away, because plenty of books have titles that reference other works just to make a joke. Within the Discworld series The Fifth Elephant is a good example; the title is a play on The Fifth Element but the story is totally unrelated to that of the movie. A literal fifth elephant is mentioned in the book, but even that’s just part of the backstory. There’s no particular reason why someone browsing the titles of Discworld books should take Monstrous Regiment to mean anything more than “a regiment with monsters in it”, even if they recognize the title as a reference to the Knox tract.
More importantly though, the title of Monstrous Regiment is not hinting at some shocking plot twist. Someone who correctly understands the full significance of the title knows only a little more than what is revealed by the cover blurb. After the first 50 pages or so, most people could probably guess where things were headed.
John Knox wasn’t writing about women in the military. His full title was The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women. The idiosyncratic Scottish/English “monstruous” has been translated to* monstrous* but “regiment” should have been translated to* regimen*. Or, the unnatural situation of rule by women. He searched the Bible & classical literature to bolster his arguments, while female Catholic monarchs ruled & oppressed right-minded Protestants. England soon had a good Protestant ruler but Elizabeth did not care for Knox’s arguments.
Ford Madox Ford wrote a suffragist pamphlet called *The Monstrous Regiment of Women *in 1915. He probably knew the real meaning of the word, but women were marching in the streets for the vote & it amused him. (He even called himself a suffragette at times–he enjoyed being amused.
Joseph Wiesenfarth wrote Ford Madox Ford and the Regiment of Women about the major women in the writer’s life, considered “scandalous” in those days.
A Monstrous Regimen of Women is the title of Laurie R King’s second Mary Russell/Sherlock Holmes novel.
All of which has little to do with the OP, but the various uses of grouchy old Knox’s title amuse me. And I would* love* to see the play…
It’s pretty much gratuitous – in the book, Death walks along with the main character for a while, they have a brief conversation, and then Death fades away.
Your other thread title only showed up as “Lifeline Theatre and Terry,” and I thought it was going to be about something completely different, even if you did misspell Terri
But they didn’t play it for surprise for the audience, it was surprises for the characters.