Adapting Plays Into Movies

Adapting Plays Into Movies In theatre, you can change things ever so slightly its an organic thing. Whereas in sprout, you only strike that chance on the day, and you defecate no control over it at each, These insightful words were in iodin case spoken by actress (Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace) and Oscar winner Judi Dench, and they real clearly illustrate 1 of the biggest differences between theatre and film. However, a small hint of bias seems to be depicted in this point of view. The quote (and many others) seem to advert that maven framing of acting is more difficult than the other.It seems the opposite is consecutive that when taking one of these art forms (i. e. theatre) and transforming it into the other, one would come across a wide array of differences, as well as similarities. When researching a composition such as this, one mustiness(prenominal)(prenominal)iness go beyond reading. unitary must non only dive into a script or a periodical or academic jou rnal, one must assimilate themselves into the films that arrest come underweight as a result of the version of turning a tinker into a cinematic experience.When going about researching this topic, I watched the photographic film Chicago (Dir. Rob Marshall, 2002) as well as looked over the professional Broad flair script (By Jon Kander, Fredd Ebb, and Bob Fosse 1975). The original Broadway mathematical product opened June 3, 1975, at the 46th Street Theatre and ran for 936 performances. Chicagos 1996 Broadway revival holds the mark for the longest-running musical revival and the longest-running American musical in Broadway hi flooring, and is the fourth longest-running prove in Broadway history. aft(prenominal) all the success, What better way to continue the magic of this thrilling show than create a movie out of it? The story tells of twain women (Roxie Hart and Velma Kelley) who live in Chicago and are responsible for murdering their husbands and must fight to get out of prison, in clubhouse to pursue their dreams of Broadway stardom. After deciding to delve a bit deeper, I chose to go a bit farther back in history. The story of Romeo and Juliet (William Shakespeare 1591-1595) has been adapted into film over thirty judgment of convictions in one form or other.The original storyline is about 2 star-crossed lovers that end up tragically investting suicide as a result of their undying love for apiece other and their families undying hatred for the opposing kin. The one adaptation that seemed to disturb out to me was director Baz Luhrmanns rendition that he released in 1996 star Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes. The film is an abridged modernization of Shakespeares play. While it retains the original Shakespearian dialogue, the Montagues and the Capulets are represented as warring business empires and swords are replaced by guns.With a bit of help from Wikipedia, and the old Romeo and Juliet script I had deceit around from a past high scho ol production (in which I portrayed the vivacious, yet dim-witted Nurse) I was on my way to analyzing the differences and similarities of adapting plays into movies. When purpose key differences in movies created from plays, it is important that one realize that differences are really necessary. This comes about when dealing with time constraints. The average Broadway musical is about 2 hours, whereas the average movie is about an hour and a half.It is imperative that movie directors be wary about what parts of the storyline they cut, as to not disappoint the audience or remove an important portion of the play that the story relies on. I found this when watching the Movie Chicago, afterwards spirit over the script. In the original play, Velma Kelley and Mama Morton engage in a short and comical musical number entitled Class, soon after Velma discovers that Roxie is rather talented at keeping the paparazzi on her tail. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, Rob Marshall made th e decision to cut the number, as it served no real purpose in the plot of the show.As aforementioned, Baz Luhrmann made some very important and possibly story-altering changes in the presentation of Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet. Swords were replaced with guns, in army to bring the story a bit up to date, merely he maintained the original Shakespearean language found in the original script. In addition to this change, Luhrmann decided that a more dramatic way to end the tragedy would be to have Juliet awaken, leaving the lovers to see from each one other one last time before Romeo dies and Juliet commits her infamous suicide.The differences that one encounters when dealing with these adaptations goes far beyond the decisions of the director. The small concrete details that cultivate up how the story is told are vastly different when dealing with on- typify shows versus movies. For example, things as simple as make up and facial expression are very different between the two. When an actor is on stage performing for a live audience, thither are no close-ups. The actor must depend on his/her facial expression and gestures.On stage, an actor must survive comfortable with over exaggerating their gestures and expressions (often highlighted with argillaceous stage make up) in hostel to ensure that the emotions of the scene are adequately conveyed to the audience members in all parts of the house. In film, the cameras are able to do a close up on an actors face in entrap to show these emotions. This means that the actor does not exigency to wear heavy stage make up (in most circumstances) nor must they over act. This similarly seems to be the case when it comes to projection of an actors voice.On stage, one must be sure to project in order to establish lucidity to audience members, whereas in film, it is not necessary due to microphones and audio technology. there are several similarities when converting a play to a film as well. It is obvious that prepar ation is very similar, in the way that actors must commit to (in my opinion) the most dreaded part of theatre of all types memorization. In some(prenominal) film and stage shows, actors must memorize things such as lines, blocking, and choreography.Also, actors must establish clear characterization to create a believable soulfulness on stage or in movies. This means one must work very hard to establish their characters back ground story and tendencies, in order to become one with their role. Also, in both forms of art, there are the same roles backstage as well. There is always need for a director, stage designer, and stagehands, etc. In conclusion, it seems that one art form is no better or worse than the other, as they both have obstacles to overcome when attempting to illustrate a plot for audience members, whether live or recorded.There is a variety of similarities and differences between the two, but it seems one is not easier than the other, considering the two seem incompar able after close analysis. Chicago on stage whitethorn be longer than Chicago on a DVD, however both required work and preparation to create a masterpiece. Shakespeare had his profess idea of the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, where Baz Luhrmann chose to take a different approach, while mute maintaining the original storyline. These wo art forms are both different and similar, but one does not outshine the other it is when viewing other art forms that we may find this inequality. The gorgeous George Clooney once stated, There is a strange pecking order among actors. Theatre actors look push down on film actors, who look down on TV actors. Thank God for reality shows, or we wouldnt have anybody to look down on. However, one must leave that discussion for another day and realize film and theatre are both every bit entertaining, just not equally done