In this piece, I discuss how works of art change when the medium is changed and whether we should change the original medium of a work of art. My main focus is on turning plays into films and the difference between plays to film and musicals to film. I also discuss whether or not plays should be turned into musicals.
Before diving in, I would like to clearly state that I do not have a favorite concerning plays, musicals, and film (I was a dual major in theater and film after all). All of them are exciting mediums. In this post, I am merely analyzing how each art form changes when the medium is changed. I am not saying one form is better than the other.
Plays to Film: The (Only) Pro and The Importance of Live Performance
There has long been a history of plays being turned into films, and there are pros and cons to this. The biggest pro (and honestly the only pro I can think of) is a film version of a play could be the only way someone can see a play. Plays are not easily accessible to the masses because of how expensive they are. An $80 (at least) ticket is much more expensive than a $15 movie ticket. Theater therefore excludes people from seeing a show and a film version could be the closest they have to seeing it (the cost of theater is a whole other issue).
Secondly, even if you have the money, a film version could be the only way someone can see a show they love that is not widely produced, or is produced in areas they do not live in. For example, I really like Wendy Wasserstein’s play, Uncommon Women and Others, and since it is not widely produced, the chances of me seeing the play are slim. Since plays are originally meant to be seen, not read, the television-film version of Wasserstein’s play was the only way I could see the show. However, though I liked the television version, I knew seeing it on the screen was a very different experience than seeing it live. This is because theater is meant to be live and performed in front of an audience. Plays are written specifically for the stage, and stage and screen are very different because there are a lot of things you can do on the stage that you cannot do on the screen, and vice versa.
For example, Thornton Wilder’s Our Town is an incredible play but would not make for a successful film adaptation because it involves next to no set pieces and miming of activities. Those are huge aspects of the play and would not bode well for film. If you did adapt Our Town for the screen and eliminated these aspects, the show would be a completely different show (and not in a good way).
The filming of a live stage production is the closest we get to seeing it live; but as anyone can attest to, the video version is never as good because the camera becomes another character, forcing us to look at certain things instead of allowing our eye to wander (discussed later). The stage version of Our Town was actually filmed for television, and trust me, it was not the same (I was unable to get through it). It had nothing to do with the acting, staging, etc. It all had to do with the fact that it was filmed, not live.
Plays to Film: How Film Changes the Story
One of the problems with theater to film is film often Hollywood-izes a theater production. A great example of theater to film is how many of Tennessee Williams’ plays were turned into films. In this piece, I will discuss A Streetcar Named Desire and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. Though I think the film version of A Streetcar Named Desire is excellent, mainly because Williams wrote the screenplay and Marlon Brando, Kim Hunter, and Karl Malden originated the same roles they played on Broadway, the film’s ending is different from the play’s ending, which completely changes the play.
In the play, Stella does not leave Stanley, while in the film, she does. Williams did not want to change the ending but was told to do so and reluctantly changed it (McCarthy). Yes, the film’s ending is good in the fact that it shows women that an abusive husband is not a loving marriage and a woman should leave her husband. However, and unfortunately, especially when the film came out, a woman leaving her husband is not always a feasible option (for many different reasons).
In my opinion, the play’s ending is more realistic, and A Streetcar Named Desire is supposed to be an accurate portrayal of mental health and how it was treated during the 1940s. The relationship between Stella and Stanley is also sadly realistic, as it would be very difficult during that time for Stella to leave, especially with having a newborn. I think it is also important to show how difficult it can be for women to leave abusive marriages, and Williams’ play portrays that.
The play is also not a happy play and that is purposeful. It is supposed to make you think and its unsettling nature makes you really think about how people with mental health are treated and how society makes it difficult for women to leave abusive marriages. However, the film’s ending wants the audience to feel a sense of relief by Stella leaving Stanley, which negates what the play is meant to be. Instead of coming out and having witnessed the truths of society, you are less inclined to worry about them because the film has a somewhat “uplifting” ending. By changing the ending to a more hopeful one, the play completely loses its purpose.
The film version of A Streetcar Named Desire also erases the references to homosexuality, which happens again in Williams’ Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. Unlike the film version of Streetcar, Tennessee Williams did not write the screenplay for Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. The topic of homosexuality is erased from the screenplay, completely changing the play’s story and main character, which Williams was not at all happy about. There is creative freedom when adapting a story for another medium, but this change was drastic. However, the reason behind this change was because the Hays Code limited the portrayal of homosexuality in film. The film is therefore a product of its time. If the play was to now be re-made into a film, censorship would not affect the script and the theme of homosexuality would be able to stay. Since these films were products of their time, it can be hard to completely fault them for changing a script, as censorship hindered an artist’s work. (Broadway could get away with more “risky” subject matter than film could).
Plays and Musicals to Film: Is One Better Suited for Film than the Other?
Though I believe that plays and musicals are meant to be live, I do find that musicals are more adaptable to film than plays are. I am not at all implying that musicals are superior or inferior to plays, but just that a musical’s structure has more flexibility.
Musicals have a tendency to be more theatrical than plays and can require more special effects, which transfers very well to film. Musicals have a fantastical element because of people breaking into song at random, while plays are more realistic in that no one breaks into song (though no judgment if you do that in your daily life). Audiences are able to suspend their disbelief when it comes to musicals, but not as much with plays. Film can therefore be freer with effects when it comes to musicals because there already is a suspension of disbelief.
Musicals also often have more changing scenery and that obviously works well for film, as a benefit of film is how you can change locations. Plays are more like a single image and therefore don’t translate as well to film. Plays seem to be more about the story rather than the setting, while film really thrives on story and setting (which is not a bad thing).
When plays and musicals are adapted to film, the camera becomes a very active character (unless it stays in one position the whole time and does not move, which is not going to happen). The camera controls what an audience can and cannot see, for an audience can only see what the camera films. For musicals, since there are many things going on at once with the dancing and singing, your eye can wander a lot. The wandering eye makes musicals more mold-able for film because film can control what you see on a screen at any given time. In a large group of dancers, a camera can bring attention to a specific area. With plays, it is more about the image as a whole and there is less going on because there is no dancing. For plays, it is a more controlled setting so your eye does not need to be drawn to something particular. Your eye will be drawn to the person talking and you do not need a camera to show you that. Since dancing is more chaotic (in a wonderful way), your eye has a harder time focusing on one thing, and a camera can direct your focus.
I am not saying this is good for musicals, as part of musicals is the big picture and seeing everyone dance together (and choosing what you want to look at). I am just saying it makes it slightly more mold-able to film than stage to film. However, nothing can replace the experience of live dancing, and so I would much rather see a musical live than on screen. I will confess though that it could be next to impossible for me to see any stage production of The Sound of Music because of how amazing the film is. There is definitely a conundrum when a film version of a stage show becomes the more popular one. I think this is alright as long as the material’s original roots are recognized.
Musicals and plays are both altered by film because film has a tendency to shorten musicals and plays. Since material in a script is there for a reason, it should not be eliminated. This change is a negative side effect for musicals and plays.
Plays to Musicals
Not only have plays been turned into films, but they have also been turned into musicals. Is this okay? The answer is: yes, as long as we recognize the roots. The musical Chicago is very famous and is a wonderful musical, but did you know it was originally a play, written by Maurine Dallas Watkins? That is not a very widely known fact, and I did not learn of it until about a few years ago, and that is a huge shame. Chicago has become a musical adaptation and a film adaptation, and though both are great, the original source needs to be remembered (the play is very good). Spring Awakening is also a play that became a musical, and I must admit that I enjoyed the musical more than the play (though I love both). However, I do recognize how seminal the play was during its time (and how it remains important to our current times), and I can appreciate the play and musical as exceptional works of art. Plays can be adapted into musicals, we just need to remember the original roots.
Closing Remarks
When it comes down to it, I do find that the cons outweigh the pros of turning a play into a film. Theater is meant to be live, and by taking that away, you are changing the work of art. This becomes very complicated though when these film adaptations can turn out to be very good. For example, the film version of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible is an excellent adaptation, and that is in great part to Arthur Miller having written the screenplay (and the eventual lack of censorship in the film industry). However,even though some of these films turn out to be very good and some stay true to the story, changing the medium still changes the essence and purpose of the work. There is a reason why these scripts are originally written for the stage, not for the screen. I am a proponent of creating new works for different mediums rather than adapting material to a different medium.
Adaptation After Adaptation
Works Cited
McCarthy, Jaycee. “Currents.” Colby, colby-sawyer.edu/currents/streetcardesire.html.
Images
"Adaptation After Adaption" images designed by LB Playwright through PicCollage
Comments