Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Film vs Play

Probably the most obvious difference between the play and the movie is that the movie has a greater ability to show what's going on. It's an inherent limitation of a stage play, but one of the great strengths of film: you can jump all over the place. Scenes which played out with lots of dialog in static locations, now take place in varied circumstances. Events merely explained or hinted to, are now shown in full. The dramatic possibilities are infinitely greater.

That said, the play does have some strengths. Now, I've never seen the play performed myself, so I can't comment on how it holds up there, but the film version suffers from what I guess you'd call "overdrama." Every three seconds people are screaming and screaming and running around like the world's about the end. The play, to me, was most impressive because the plot kept moving forward almost without you thinking about it. It was a silent evil. The movie version seems to stutter along from crisis to crisis, to the point of stretching believability. Even the editing seems to suffer from the same problem. The movie has excellent cinematography and a great cast of actors, but the editing doesn't bring it out. The job of an editor is to bring out the best of what's given to you. The movie, essentially, cuts too much, it never let's up for a moment and that adds to the jarring nature of it.

Maybe that's what they were going for.

-- Matthew

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with you about how the movie gives you more insight by giving you a concrete defintion of where they were, what the characters looked like, the position of the town, the ages of the girls...but in my opinion, that's why I always liked books better...it gives you the opportunity to make your own perceptions. The movie today was the interpretation of one casting director, one producer. The difference between the movie and the play is that you can take the play and make it your own in a way, so you're more attached to the characters and the storyline in general because in part, you've created them.

7:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Jillie that the book leaves room for more interpretation for the reader, thus making it more enjoyable in some respects. The thing is, Arthur Miller wrote the screenplay for the movie. This might have allowed him to develop the story more or further his message. So the added scenes and dialogue could be seen as authentic and authorized supplements to the original script, and not just limitations to our interpretations.

Also, the movie's editing may make it seem rushed, but I think that effect might be a byproduct of the story's transfer from paper to film. The book has added character backgrounds and stories spread across the dialogue that allow it to develop more slowly and steadily, and are sort of impossible to completely include in the film.

10:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The book The Crucible starts of with Reverend Parris at his daughter's bedside after she fell ill after dancing in the forest. Reverend Parris cannot wake her. The movie version starts off with the children actually performing witchcraft in the forest. Both are effective in getting their point across, but which version is better? Is it better to let the reader think about the idea of children performing witchcraft before it is given to them, or is it better to give the scene straight out?

1:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think the added scene of the girls dancing in the woods is incredibly significant, and having it is just a small luxury of a film adaptation. I must remark, however, on the scene where Abigail bites into the chicken. The crazed look in her eyes and the blood all over her face make her seem, well, really crazy. It was shocking, and was a display of an outright insanity that wasn't as apparent in the book. The book's Abigail, though not completely sane, seems to act considerably out of youth and naiveté. Winona Ryder's Abigail seems to be just mentally unstable.

4:44 PM  
Blogger Albert said...

I think the film gave valuable insight into the characters vs the book. With Goody Putnam, you really couldn't feel the hysteria she was going through when she was accusing people that they killed her babies. With the film however, you really could see the anger and desperation she felt because of the other women in the village.

The book really didn't give that clear insight on each character's alignment until later on in the book, even then, it was still difficult to tell who was actually good and evil. In the film, you can almost immediately tell who were the good guys and who were the bad guys. For example, John Proctor, for me, didn't seem to be the main good guy in the book. His name is pretty generic and it's tough to place any "good" label on him because of that. In the movie however, you see him as a down to earth farmer (pun?) who has a good sense of reason in him.
To bring up Abigail again, she could easily be seen as evil in the film through her threats, biting the chicken's head off, and a bunch of other things. Maybe it's because I knew beforehand she was evil, but while reading the book, her evil-ness didn't really sink in for me.

So basically, the film highlights a lot of aspects of the story that some people (like me) may overlook whlie reading the book.

2:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the ambiguity of the characters' essential "goodness" or "badness" in the play is deliberate, though. The Crucible deals heavily with people struggling with their inner conscience, as evident in John Proctor's "sin" of adultery and subsequent role as one of the few rationally thinking people during the witch trials. Reverend Parris is a huge perpetrator in Salem's paranoia, but he later seems to have redeemed himself by wanting John Proctor to live. Arthur Miller was obviously frustrated with the House Un-American Activities Committee so quickly labeling people as good or bad, communist or patriot. I think that's reflected in the Crucible's characters not being outwardly good or evil. Perhaps it is wrong, then, if the movie successfully polarizes the characters in the manner Albert describes.

5:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home