The play's the thing
Remember a time when movies werent cookie cutter crap driven by star power, special effects, based on real events or bestselling fiction? Nothing like sex, flashing lights, and/or the abbreviation of a +300 page book to guarantee a built-in audience for what could otherwise be described as a multi-million dollar pile of crap. Remember a time when stupid utterly crappy sequels of utterly stupid crappy originals just wouldnt get made? Remember when movies werent simply the product of a marketing formula of variables arriving at an output whose quality was determined by a sufficient return on investment?
Ok, me neither. But there was a medium before movies that in great part didnt have the advantages, and arguably the obstacles associated with film production. Its still around but certainly not as widely regarded as the medium once was, back when there was virtually no competition. The plays the thing! And Ive suddenly become obsessed with film adaptations of stage plays. In the first place, plays are just really cool things for a few very important reasons. First, they are endlessly interpretive and flexible (at least good ones). They provide the most basic framework of dialogue and setting and then its up to the director and the actors to provide the rest. And as we all ought to know, we can watch the same play done by two different casts and directors and be seeing a completely different presentation of the material - with different stage action, not text, changing relationships and motives. Second, the lack of flashing lights and other ostentatious crap forces the focus squarely where it ought to be - on the dialogue. Someone probably went to considerable effort to craft the lines, as advancement of the plot and fleshing the characters rest solely on their quality.
I was recently watching a film and started to wonder at how intelligently the characters would speak to each other, having discussions that might last five minutes or more without interruption. The answer was revealed as the credits scrolled that the film was based on a play adapted for the screen by the author. I probably should have known. Some other retrospectively obvious telltale signs that youre watching a movie adapted from a play:
If the movie only has four or five speaking characters, its quite possibly a play. Perhaps more telling is that the entire story takes place in the same room, or indoors, and there is nearly no traveling. I suddenly realized that one of my favorite Hitchcock films dial M for murder fit these criteria, and sure enough I discovered that it was adapted from a stage play. Now Im obsessively questing for more film adaptions of stage plays. The list I have so far:
Dial M for murder
Death of a salesman
Closer
Amadeus
Death and the maiden
And the more obvious Branagh-helmed Shakespeare adaptions.
If youre aware of any others, do tell.
Btw, for those of you who care, the KB version of Hamlet will be released on DVD in early 2006, or so they say.
www.kenbranagh.com
Remember a time when movies werent cookie cutter crap driven by star power, special effects, based on real events or bestselling fiction? Nothing like sex, flashing lights, and/or the abbreviation of a +300 page book to guarantee a built-in audience for what could otherwise be described as a multi-million dollar pile of crap. Remember a time when stupid utterly crappy sequels of utterly stupid crappy originals just wouldnt get made? Remember when movies werent simply the product of a marketing formula of variables arriving at an output whose quality was determined by a sufficient return on investment?
Ok, me neither. But there was a medium before movies that in great part didnt have the advantages, and arguably the obstacles associated with film production. Its still around but certainly not as widely regarded as the medium once was, back when there was virtually no competition. The plays the thing! And Ive suddenly become obsessed with film adaptations of stage plays. In the first place, plays are just really cool things for a few very important reasons. First, they are endlessly interpretive and flexible (at least good ones). They provide the most basic framework of dialogue and setting and then its up to the director and the actors to provide the rest. And as we all ought to know, we can watch the same play done by two different casts and directors and be seeing a completely different presentation of the material - with different stage action, not text, changing relationships and motives. Second, the lack of flashing lights and other ostentatious crap forces the focus squarely where it ought to be - on the dialogue. Someone probably went to considerable effort to craft the lines, as advancement of the plot and fleshing the characters rest solely on their quality.
I was recently watching a film and started to wonder at how intelligently the characters would speak to each other, having discussions that might last five minutes or more without interruption. The answer was revealed as the credits scrolled that the film was based on a play adapted for the screen by the author. I probably should have known. Some other retrospectively obvious telltale signs that youre watching a movie adapted from a play:
If the movie only has four or five speaking characters, its quite possibly a play. Perhaps more telling is that the entire story takes place in the same room, or indoors, and there is nearly no traveling. I suddenly realized that one of my favorite Hitchcock films dial M for murder fit these criteria, and sure enough I discovered that it was adapted from a stage play. Now Im obsessively questing for more film adaptions of stage plays. The list I have so far:
Dial M for murder
Death of a salesman
Closer
Amadeus
Death and the maiden
And the more obvious Branagh-helmed Shakespeare adaptions.
If youre aware of any others, do tell.
Btw, for those of you who care, the KB version of Hamlet will be released on DVD in early 2006, or so they say.
www.kenbranagh.com