Laughter on the 23rd Floor

I have always found Neil Simon's earlier works far more satisfying than his middle and later periods. It's understandable that comic writers such as Simon and Woody Allen felt the need to develop, having become tired of churning out pungent one liners. The transition from pure comic, to serious writer, albeit with a comic base, is a tricky one. Both Simon and Allen have on occasion handled this fusion of elements well, but by and large the challenge has not been well met by either.

"Laughter on the 23rd Floor" being a reminiscence of Simon's television writing days on the legendary "Show of Shows" was largely a comic piece when produced on Broadway. Since most of the characters in the play are loosely based on a group of writers famed for their wit, the play should have been a hilarious riot. While it made for an enjoyable evening in the theater, one couldn't help feeling it had somewhat missed the mark.

For the television adaptation Simon has turned "Laughter on the 23rd Floor" into a supposedly deeper and more serious work, in his portrayal of comic Max Prince. Depicting the complexities that make up the psyche of a comic is not an easy task but Simon's depiction of Max Prince does not go far beyond the clichés one would expect. Nathan Lane pulls out all the stops, but at times he seems to be unwittingly doing a Zero Mostel imitation. The biggest let down is that despite a group of fine and seasoned performers and many one liners, even the comic bits are not as funny as they should be.

Those who have a particular fondness for the period of 50's television and the tremendous talents around at the time are likely to be disappointed.

This cable adaptation is a huge improvement over Neil Simon's original play for two reasons. The original was one of Simon's laugh a minute (and you can set your watch by it) plays with a big problem: it was written as an ensemble piece but one character-television comic Max Prince, who's based on stories about Sid Caesar-was so overpowering it threw the ensemble off. For this version, Simon, who got his start writing for Caesar's "Your Show of Shows" and "The Caesar Show," wisely puts more focus on Prince, adding scenes to flesh out the character and incorporate even more of the legends. With Nathan Lane in the role, he can't miss.

This is a very different performance for Lane, one of the industry's most capable farceurs. His Max Prince is as over-the-top as Lane often is, but he also invests the character with a strong serious side (like most great comics, Prince takes himself with an almost desperate seriousness) that gives the role heart. In between temper tantrums and one-liners belted out for all the world to hear, Simon and Lane have crafted some wonderfully subtle moments. He's strongly supported by the actors playing his writing staff-particularly Dan Castellenata and Saul Rubinek. And Richard Benjamin, who directed another Sid Caesar pastiche in "My Favorite Year," keeps the whole thing moving efficiently. I'm going to look for a rerun on Showtime so I can catch this again and can't wait for it to come out on video.

A ring-tailed wonder of a non-stop spritzer with a dynamite cast headed by the incredible Nathan Lane. One of Neil Simon's all-time best, worth seeing over and over. It ranks with the classic comedies of Billy Wilder and Preston Sturges.

To see this film, is to see what television was and to a great degree still remains to be today. Nathan Lane with a wonderful supporting cast shows the audience what "real television" was like. It's a fine story of talent, respect and true friendship amongst a writing team and a proud star of a "Hit Show " as they face the end of an era of Americana, "Good Television Programming".

Lane demonstrates his breadth of talent by showing us the range of human emotion it takes to be a "Top Banana". Good direction and writing in this piece that could have lasted 10 to 20 minutes longer, as it left me wanting more for all the characters. Thank You Mr. Simon, Mr. Lane, et al.

Thanks, mercutio-8 for the information that it was based on a play, that helped me to understand that there might have been something to it once... But now there is almost no plot at all, just a couple of scenes with heavy bantering (sometimes somewhat funny) and some very unstructured criticism of the McCarthy era.

There has to be more to be made out of this concept - comedy under the strain of self-imposed (?) censorship during McCarthyism, rivalry and yet comradeship between writers, the actual process of brainstorming, the early TV-market economy demands from media barons vs. artistic freedom. I think there was an ambition to show these different themes - although the director accomplished none of the above.

No shadow should fall on the actors though - they're all top of the line. But when they get such a lousy script to work with, what can they do?