by Sam Juliano
Controversy has raged for decades over whether film directors should maintain the essence of the plays that are being adapted for the screen, or whether they should open up such works for the sake of cinematic purity. There has never been an easy answer to this dilemma, and it seems to matter little, whether the said helmer chooses the first or the second option. In other words you’re damned if you do or damned if you don’t. Eugene O’Neill’s Long Day’s Journey Into Night and Robert Anderson’s I Never Sang For My Father are two works that spring to mind, but the equation can be applied to many others, including Williams’ Streetcar and The Glass Managerie, and some Shakespeare adaptations. If a director is bold, he aften loses grip with the material and compromises its power. If he chooses to keep the work fully intact he is criticized for being unimaginative.
John Patrick Shanley’s critically-praised Broadway play, Doubt has fallen victim to the same kind of second-guessing, and again the conflict has been resurrected. Shanley’s stage play was minimalist; the new film based on it (both written and directed by Shanley) doesn’t really open anything up outside of some seasonal transitional shots which are strictly the territory of film. But the decision is a wise one, as the drama here would lose its edge if the focus shifted to style. “Staginess” isn’t quite the same kind of criticism as it was years ago , as the contemporary thinking supports the notion that to gain one thing is too lose another. The price is too steep. The director takes a pass on expanding the parameters of the original script and chooses not to use fancy camerawork. (more…)
Click on names for archives
Writers/Founders
Wonders in the Dark 