STAGE TO SCREEN

The fifth school in film appreciation, organized by the Wellington Film Society, in conjunction with the Regional Council of Adult Education, and held at VIctoria Unversity of Wellington over the Queen's Birthday weekend, was devoted to a study of the changes, for better or worse, when a stage play is transferred to the screen. The tutors for the school were Russell Reid and Frank Ponton, both well known in the theatre world as producers, and both having had experience as unit directors with the National Film Unit.

At the introductory session, the chief characteristics of the two media were discussed, and certain changes to be expected in a film made from a stage play were pointed out. A detailed study of two films, exemplifying these and other changes, occupied the attention of the school for the remainder of the weekend. On the general subject of acting, the tutors were of the opinion that there is no real difference between stage and screen acting, but that the cinema can use close-ups to focus attention, while a stage director must use other means, such as lighting and movement, for the same purpose. The acting in the two films screened was larger than life and proceeded at a pace faster than is usual in stage presentations, but acting of the same kind is possible on the stage. In a stage play, and in a film made from a stage play, it is acting that matters most, and it was noticeable in both films that there had been little use of exclusively cinematic techniques except to heighten the acting.

The Browning Version, Terence Rattigan's play about an ageing schoolmaster, Crocker-Harris, disliked by his class and despised by his wife, whose life is altered by a gift from one of his pupils, was presented as a stage play by a Hutt Repertory Society group on the Saturday afternoon, and the film version, directed by Anthony Asquith from a screenplay by Rattigan himself, was screened the same evening. The play occupied an hour while the film ran for an hour and a half. This extra length had been achieved by presenting in full several incidents which had been merely narrated in the play, and by carrying on the story to a point beyond the termination of the play. The play had been set entirely in the sitting-room of Crocker-Harris' flat, but the film took advantage of the greater range of the camera to move over the whole school.

It was felt that the film had gained by the opening sequence, which not only established the setting, but introduced all the principal characters and sketched their relationships to one another in the first few moments. All the essential dialogue and incident of the play had been retained in the film, but there had sometimes been a gain in effectiveness through a new location. A remark of Taplow's about sadistic schoolmasters, addressed in the play to the science master, Hunter, was placed more naturally in the film in a conversation among the boys, while the scene between Crocker-Harris and the new master who is to succeed him was immensely improved by being placed in the classroom. This change also enabled the film to dispense entirely with the new master's wife, who had been introduced in the play seemingly for the purpose of keeping Crocker-Harris's wife, Millie, engaged during the conversation between the masters. On the other hand, the scene in which Crocker-Harris learns that he is not to receive a pension and Millie reacts spitefully to this news, lost by being placed in the afternoon tea marquee where Mille was unliklely to reveal her feelings.

There had been no signifiant alterations in sequence, although some scenes which necessarily had to follow each other in the play were made to occur simultaneously by cross-cutting in the film. There were differences of opinion as to whether any gain had been made by this. There was general agreement, however, that the ending of the film had been weakened by showing Millie leaving her husband, a decision which had remained unresolved in the play, and by presenting Crocker-Harris's farewell speech to the boys - which would probably have caused them acute embarrassment!

The second film screened and discussed was Death of a Salesman, directed by Laslo Benedek from a screen play by Stanley Roberts, based on the play by Arthur Miller. It concerns a salesman, Willy Loman, whose mind is becoming unhinged by personal misfortune and the failure of one of his sons to achieve a successful position in life, and who is ultimately driven to suicide for the sake of the insurance money. In this case, the transition to the screen had been much easier because the play had itself been greatly influenced by cinema techniques. Consequently, the film followed the play very closely, giving some the impression that it had been intended as a film in the first place. The stage set had used an open-sided house so that action could move from one room to another accompanied by changes in lighting, but changes of location of this kind are commonplace in the cinema. The film had made only one significant change in location, one incident being made to occur in the subway instead of at Willy's home. Willy spends much time reliving incidents of the past, indicated on the stage by crossing an imaginary frontier and using lighting and transparent sets to change the background. In the film the same effect is achieved more strikingly by moving from one room in the present through a door of another room in the past, or, as in one effective scene, merely swinging the camera from the son in his football clothes of the past to a differently dressed son in the present.

The film had gained in some cases, as in the use of low-angle shots to present Willy's dead brother, Ben, and in Willy's final drive into rows of converging lights attracting him like diamonds. In some cases, the film had lost, and there were some who felt that the social comment of the play had been blunted. Again, the ending had been weakened, and there was unanimous agreement that Charlie's final speech should have been eliminated. The film would have carried more punch if it had ended with Linda's statement that she had made the last payment on the house and now there was no one to come home to it.

Laurie Lee, Wellington Film Society, reported in the Newsletter of the NZ Film Institute, 1958.

.

 Create your own free wiki!HelpPublic, not yet premium Privacy Policy RSS