From Stage to Screen

[Mashinka]

QUOTE (4mrdncr @ Mar 27 2010, 03:01 AM)

Totally agree about "Dangerous Liasons"; it 'opened up' and 'realized' the play, and maybe having americans play the parts made the story/characters more accessible to modern viewers, than if british actors had done it, with all those latent connotations (at least in colonial minds) of superiority-superciliousness and a 'remoteness in time, place, class'.

Now hold on there, as an impartial Irishwoman I feel very uneasy about such unfair aspersions being cast upon British actors. In the case of Dangerous Liaisons the American actors cast in the film just happened (to my mind at least) to be better than those in the London play and as I mentioned, the authentic settings added a great deal to the overall enjoyment of the film, but as the story is set in the 18th century and depicts the corrupt Ancien Régime “superiority-superciliousness and a remoteness in time, place, class” is exactly what the plot is all about: Wealthy people with too much time on their hands getting up to no good.

Moving on to another filmed play, C.P. Taylor’s Good was shown on TV a couple of days ago and it really didn’t have the impact of the original stage production at all, perhaps that was because taking it out of the claustrophobic confines of the stage somehow diminished the horror of it all. Although after a gap of almost thirty years I don’t remember fine details of the production, I still vividly remember the sense of shock when the central character comes on stage near the end of the play dressed as an SS officer. Opening up the story which in the original had almost a domestic feel in many of the scenes seemed to dilute the impact that the original play had as the central character was on the whole a fairly ordinary likeable man struggling to juggle his job and family responsibilities.

Viggo Mortensen was uncannily like the actor who created the role, the matchless Alan Howard, with the same demeanour and even the same hairstyle, though I imagine Mortensen might be too young to have actually seen the original stage production. I’m not knocking the film actors as they were actually quite good, but the film just didn’t work for me.

Alan Howard:

http://www.alanhoward.org.uk/goodnewyorkpost.htm

Viggo Mortensen

http://goodthemovie.com/about-the-film

[bart]

Re: Dangerous Liaisons. There's also Milos Forman's Valmont, which opened shortly after the Frears version. I don't think it did as well, but some of the performances were -- in my book -- preferable to the Frears.

Mme. de Merteuil: Glenn Close (DL); Annette Bening (V). I vote for Close.

Valmont: John Malkovitch (DL); Colin Firth (V). Colin Firth by several dozen lengths. (Why do I detest Malkovitch's acting so much?)

Mme. de Volanges: Swoozie Kurtz (DL); Sian Phillips (V). Phillips is remarkable.

Cecile: Michelle Pfieffer (DL); Meg Tilly (V). Pfieffer, Pfieffer, Pfieffer.

Frears was also more faithful to the long novel than was Forman. It's a book well worth reading even today(though you need lots of leisure time).

[bart]

Re: Dangerous Liaisons. There's also Milos Forman's Valmont, which opened shortly after the Frears version. I don't think it did as well, but it was interesting -- at the time -- to be able to compare two versions, both moderately high in budget, side by side. As is often the case, I liked some cast members from each film. A perfect cast, I think, would be:

Mme. de Merteuil: Glenn Close (DL); Annette Bening (V). I vote for Close.

Valmont: John Malkovitch (DL); Colin Firth (V). Colin Firth by several dozen lengths. (Why do I detest Malkovitch's acting so much? His mannerisms affect me like fingernails on the chalk board, and his Valmont was the Napoleon of Mannerisms. Quite spooky too.)

Mme de Tourvel: Michelle Pfieffer (DL) (can't remember the actress from Valmont)

Mme. de Volanges: Swoozie Kurtz (DL); Sian Phillips (V). Phillips makes a narrow character and small role into something complex and memorable.

Frears's treatment was more faithful to the main details and structure of Choderlos de Laclos' novel than was Forman's. It's a book well worth reading even today (though you need lots of leisure time) -- one of the most engaging of the 18th century epistolary novels, and the only one I actually managed to read all the way through.

Off topic: DL also has a young, beautiful Keanu Reeves (visiting from an acting school on another planet) and a young, even more beautiful Uma Thurman, quite excellent.

[dirac]

Mashinka writes:

Moving on to another filmed play, C.P. Taylor's Good was shown on TV a couple of days ago and it really didn't have the impact of the original stage production at all, perhaps that was because taking it out of the claustrophobic confines of the stage somehow diminished the horror of it all. Although after a gap of almost thirty years I don't remember fine details of the production, I still vividly remember the sense of shock when the central character comes on stage near the end of the play dressed as an SS officer. Opening up the story which in the original had almost a domestic feel in many of the scenes seemed to dilute the impact that the original play had as the central character was on the whole a fairly ordinary likeable man struggling to juggle his job and family responsibilities.

"Opening up" the play can be a tricky business. For some plays it works, for others not so much. Certain plays that depend on a feeling of claustrophobia, where the limitations in space are part of the drama, can suffer. The power of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" was somewhat diluted in the Burton-Taylor movie version by taking the characters away from the house and out and about. (And it becomes even harder to understand why the younger couple don't look at their watches and say, "Oh my, just look at the time! We really must be going!" Onstage you can feel, as they do, that they don't have any option. They're stuck in that house.)

Alan Howard is a wonderful actor. I wish he made more movies.

[papeetepatrick]

I've mentioned the French 2003 miniseries version of 'Les Liaisons Dangereuses', which I liked far better than any other I've seen. It was updated to the 60s, but this didn't bother me as it usually would have. But there's my weakness for Deneuve, who just stands there bewildered by her own vices like nobody else can, and Rupert Everett gives a terrific performance with perfect French, and there's even Natassia Kinski and yes, even DANIELLE DARRIEUX. you can't beat a cast like that, but every time I've mentioned it, nobody else seems to have caught it. I mention it again, just in case they have. I don't think I ever finished the Laclos novel, and never saw the play, so I'm no expert on how the work ought to be treated, although this lengthy miniseries was very effective in just bristling with slow evil, I thought. Don't think Everett has ever been that good before, but Deneuve born to do Marquise de Merteuil. When I discovered this, it was as if 'How could it be possible that she NOT do the Marquise?' Thought little of the old Vadim/Moreau version, but I see I'm off-topic while still talking about Laclos, because the Close version was based on the play, and the Deneuve one not. Oh well, sorry about that part.

[bart]

Certain plays that depend on a feeling of claustrophobia, where the limitations in space are part of the drama, can suffer. The power of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" was somewhat diluted in the Burton-Taylor movie version by taking the characters away from the house and out and about. [ ... ] Onstage you can feel, as they do, that they don't have any option. They're stuck in that house.)

I agree 100%. A few years ago I saw the most powerful production of Virginia Woolf I've ever seen, including the original cast's. Seated in the first row a small theater, with the stage floor at first-row level, I was almost literally sitting at George and Martha's coffee table, facing their sofa, with arm chairs on either side. I remember the feeling of being physically trapped, like Nick and Honey, though strangely ignored (as in a bad dream) by everyone in the cast. Fortunately I resisted the temptation to intervene in the verbal abuse.

The only film in which I've experienced such a feeling was one that has already been mentioned here -- Long Day's Journey into Night.

[canbelto]

Opening up" the play can be a tricky business. For some plays it works, for others not so much. Certain plays that depend on a feeling of claustrophobia, where the limitations in space are part of the drama, can suffer. The power of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" was somewhat diluted in the Burton-Taylor movie version by taking the characters away from the house and out and about. (And it becomes even harder to understand why the younger couple don't look at their watches and say, "Oh my, just look at the time! We really must be going!" Onstage you can feel, as they do, that they don't have any option. They're stuck in that house.)

Which is why I think Elia Kazan was so smart in not "opening up" Streetcar Named Desire. The crowded, squalid New Orleans apartment set really heightened the claustrophobia and tension that builds up during the play. I also think not "opening up" Streetcar made Leigh's performance more effective. It had a certain staginess to it, and being constantly reminded that this was originally based on a play I think made Leigh's mannerisms less irritating.

[dirac]

Kazan certainly made the right choice there, although I think Leigh gave a great if imperfect performance nor can I say that I find the movie particularly stagey; Kazan is able to move around a lot in those confined spaces without drawing too much attention to what he's doing.

Of course, staginess can show up in different guises. The Big Revelation Scene with the nun and the pupil's mother in the recent movie version of Doubt wasn't overtly theatrical, but structurally it screamed its stage origins and I found it quite unconvincing.

I remember the feeling of being physically trapped, like Nick and Honey, though strangely ignored (as in a bad dream) by everyone in the cast. Fortunately I resisted the temptation to intervene in the verbal abuse.

Thanks for that story, bart. I think if you had intervened it might have made for an interesting Living Theatre sort of situation.

[canbelto]

Kazan certainly made the right choice there, although I think Leigh gave a great if imperfect performance nor can I say that I find the movie particularly stagey; Kazan is able to move around a lot in those confined spaces without drawing too much attention to what he's doing.

I like Leigh's performance as Blanche too, but I think it definitely was aided by Kazan sticking so closely to the unit set. It wasn't a "filmed stage play," but he didn't try to open up the play at all. Leigh's Blanche definitely is on the surreal/kooky side, and the contrast between Blanche's behavior and the earthy Kowalski apartment added to the film's appeal a lot.

Another stage to screen adaptation that I thought worked well without much "opening up" was His Girl Friday. I knew before watching the movie that it was an adaptation of a play (The Front Page), but again, the crowded, frantic environment of the newspaper room was necessary for the film's success. But the fluid direction of Howard Hawks (as well as the acting) never made me feel that the film was stagey.

On the other hand I do think there is a danger of a director refusing to open up a play AT ALL. A Raisin in the Sun is a good example; I might as well have watched a film of the staged work.

[dirac]

You're right about the Russell-Grant version of The Front Page, canbelto, although I have to confess I've never liked the movie, skilled as it is. (Too noisy. Too frantic. All on one note. Those terrible outfits on Rosalind Russell.)

[canbelto]

You're right about the Russell-Grant version of The Front Page, canbelto, although I have to confess I've never liked the movie, skilled as it is. (Too noisy. Too frantic. All on one note. Those terrible outfits on Rosalind Russell.)

See, different strokes for different folks. I thought one of the movie's charms was the fact that Hildy wore an ill-fitting suit, kind of mannish hat, and clunky pumps that look believable when she runs down the street. I thought to have Hildy be such a ball-buster, and Cary Grant kind of the dandy (first seen shaving, and always impeccably tailored) was a nice gender bending running joke.

[papeetepatrick]

Just remembered how great I think the film of 'Our Town' is, which is saying something, given its popularity as a play at all levels of amateur and professional. Plus, it has Martha Scott, fresh from her Broadway debut as Emily, and she is unforgettable. Holden is pretty wonderful too, in fact they all are. This movie is just special.

[dirac]

There's also the charming Blithe Spirit with Rex Harrison and Margaret Rutherford.

Stage Door with Ginger Rogers and Katharine Hepburn is a vast improvement on the Ferber-Kaufman original (in fact the play was more or less tossed out entirely, a great idea as it turned out).

[bart]

Just remembered how great I think the film of 'Our Town' is, which is saying something, given its popularity as a play at all levels of amateur and professional. Plus, it has Martha Scott, fresh from her Broadway debut as Emily, and she is unforgettable. Holden is pretty wonderful too, in fact they all are. This movie is just special.

Especially the scene in the cemetery -- with the deceased sitting in rows of chairs, gradually losing contact with, and even interest in, the human matters that used to absorb them so much. I first saw this when very young and have never forgotten that particular scene, though most of the rest of the film has evaporated from my memory.

Was this scene copied from the original stage production, I wonder? It certainly says "theater" rather than "movie" to me.

[papeetepatrick]

Just remembered how great I think the film of 'Our Town' is, which is saying something, given its popularity as a play at all levels of amateur and professional. Plus, it has Martha Scott, fresh from her Broadway debut as Emily, and she is unforgettable. Holden is pretty wonderful too, in fact they all are. This movie is just special.

Especially the scene in the cemetery -- with the deceased sitting in rows of chairs, gradually losing contact with, and even interest in, the human matters that used to absorb them so much. I first saw this when very young and have never forgotten that particular scene, though most of the rest of the film has evaporated from my memory.

Was this scene copied from the original stage production, I wonder? It certainly says "theater" rather than "movie" to me.

Bart, I've been looking at this some more. And here's first what wiki says: "The film was a faithful reproduction of the play except for two significant changes: the film used scenery, where the play had not, and the events of the third act, which in the play revolve around the death of one of the main characters, were turned into a dream that she awakens from, able to resume a normal life. Producer Sol Lesser worked with Wilder in creating these changes."

Also the 3rd Act 'Emily Ghost' at her 12th birthday is very cinematic, with Scott in a luminous delicate aura. Her performance in this long scene is unlike anything I have ever seen anywhere else, it oscillates with incredible speed from joy to sadness, sometimes so much so you're not even sure which one it is, they seem to be simultaneous. And, since she had done the original Emily on Broadway, she could make you know from the days of the old ending when Emily really is dead, and it's not a dream as in the movie, not know that this ending has been changed.

The scene in the cemetery, I agree, is very theatrical, but I think this is a great movie, without ever having seen a stage version. And I only discovered it a year or so ago, watching only because I was researching film scores of Copland and V. Thomson, authors of the 'American sound', with Copland's score here and in 'The Red Pony' and Thomson's beautiful scores for 'Louisiana Story' , 'The Plow that Broke the Plains' and 'The River'. The scoring, by the way, is part of what makes this open up as cinema, and Copland's score never fails to move.

What interests me most about the way this film has become so important to me is that I not only never saw a stage version, whether amateur or professional, but had to read it in high school, and thought it was quite boring as just a piece to read. And it was. You get almost none of what Wilder has uniquely created just on paper. This film is definitely in my Top 10, and that doesn't usually happen later in life. I believe the 50s teenage romance film 'the Restless Years', with Sandra Dee and John Saxon, has 'Our Town' being doing by the high schoolers in it, but that's been many years, and I think it was never released to commercial vhs or dvd. These were the Best Actress nominees that year: * 1940 Ginger Rogers - Kitty Foyle as Kitty Foyle

o Bette Davis - The Letter as Leslie Crosbie

o Joan Fontaine - Rebecca as The Second Mrs. de Winter

o Katharine Hepburn - The Philadelphia Story as Tracy Lord

o Martha Scott - Our Town as Emily Webb

I thought Joan Fontaine was excellent in 'Rebecca', but Scott was the best of all these IMO that year. Bette Davis good, too, and a good movie. Ginger Rogers getting the award for 'Kitty Foyle' is a little like Luise Rainer for 'The Good Earth', but the Oscars don't make sense, or at least not consistent sense.

It's actually a relief to have changed the ending, given that we know Wilder himself worked on it, because it's nearly unbearable without it (and I'm not one for the happy ending usually.) In fact, I had forgotten from watching it only a year and a half ago, that it is changed into a dream. Watching it again last night, I was totally surprised at the ending. I think all this has to do with Scott's performance, and all of the other cast is blue ribbon as well. There were 10 Best Picture nominees that year, with 'Rebecca' winning, and 'Our Town again nominated. It's a fine film, too.

[4mrdncr]

I saw a televised version of the stage play, I think on PBS, in the mid-'70's with Hal Holbrook as the narrator/stage manager, Robby Benson, and Glynnis O'Conner. It was essentially the "bare stage" production; they kept the original version of Act III(?) including the scene in the cemetary with the row of chairs, and Emily's return to her 12th birthday. Not sure how accurate this was to the play, but given the staging and network, I would think so. (It might even have been part of the that PBS series "American Playhouse" I posted about before?)

[papeetepatrick]

Just remembered how great I think the film of 'Our Town' is, which is saying something, given its popularity as a play at all levels of amateur and professional. Plus, it has Martha Scott, fresh from her Broadway debut as Emily, and she is unforgettable. Holden is pretty wonderful too, in fact they all are. This movie is just special.

Especially the scene in the cemetery -- with the deceased sitting in rows of chairs, gradually losing contact with, and even interest in, the human matters that used to absorb them so much. I first saw this when very young and have never forgotten that particular scene, though most of the rest of the film has evaporated from my memory.

Was this scene copied from the original stage production, I wonder? It certainly says "theater" rather than "movie" to me.

Bart, I've just watched the cemetery scene a few more times, and the deceased are standing in the film, the cemetery is on a hill, and Emily is at the back, in rather shining white, and has just started talking to Mrs. Soames, her mother-in-law Mrs. Gibbs, and others, all of whom are standing with their backs to her, and just as you say, talking about 'losing contact with, and interest even, in the human matters that used to absorb them so much'. I still have the film with me, and may watch parts of it again, but I think there may be as many as 20 figures standing at various parts of the hill, not too far apart. It's very effective. I wonder if you also saw some stage productions which could have made the chairs be imprinted on your mind. I'd be very interested to see what you thought of the scene if you saw it again. So that that cemetery scene really is saying 'movie', not so elaborately, to be sure, but then 'Our Town' is only about simplicity. I have to say that the basic message of it never left me just from the reading in high school, although none of the earlier events in the town itself had any radiance to them as they do when you have the visual and aural enhancements. Reading a Tennessee Williams or Shakespeare (and dozens of others) can be very moving even on paper, but I didn't really appreciate 'Our Town' till I saw this.

Also was thinking about Quiggin's remark about the Janet Leigh section of 'Psycho' being a little movie in itself. I think 'Born Yesterday' is like this, too, and similar in a couple of ways, although Billie Dawn is in it the full length of the picture. Most agree with me that the dumb blonde part is by far the greatest, showing as it does Holliday's sublime comic gift. As she becomes more brainy with her studies with William Holden, there are still entertaining parts, but it's actually a bit anticlimactic in the same way the 'Vera Miles section' of 'Psycho' is--not that we aren't happy Billie escapes the horror of her brute Broderick Crawford (I believe Paul Douglas did it with Holliday on B'way), but as a piece of art itself, the 'new Billie' is not nearly as uncanny as some of the 'dumb Billie', esp. when she's singing with that big tape recorder.

Also interested in that three of these films that I've focussed on in this thread--'Our Town', 'Picnic', and 'Born Yesterday', all have William Holden in them. Yes, he was good.