The stage has long been a source for filmmakers to draw from. Since the dawn of talking pictures, stage to film adaptations have dominated Hollywood and often found huge success. What is it about stage plays that attracts filmmakers and film-goers? How does one make these adaptations work? What are some pitfalls to avoid? Let’s go backstage and discover how the adaptation is made.
The film King John, released in 1899 by British Mutoscope and the Biograph Company, was the first stage to film adaptation. Based on the Shakespeare play of the same name, the film is a silent picture made up of four separate short films. Each short film was simply a filmed scene from the forthcoming performance of the play at Her Majesty’s Theatre in London. While there were more Shakespeare adaptations in the silent era, predominantly comedies, they pale in compassion to the plethora of adaptations that were made once sound films were created. From Britain, to America, to India, adaptations of Shakespeare’s work could have an entire article of its own. Suffice to say, the Bard’s work has been reinterpreted, revitalized, and faithfully adapted for the mass-media of film more than any other playwrights.
Sir Laurence Olivier’s Hamlet (1948) was the first sound adaptation of what many consider to be the Bard’s best work and won the Academy Award for Best Picture. The film runs for a little less than two hours and effectively chops up the lengthy play to create a more fast-paced and cinematic version of the story. This is one of the most contentious parts of stage to film adaptation. Plays are often much longer than theatrically released films, so the original script needs to be edited drastically or a new script needs to be written for the movie. While many will call into question fidelity to the original source material, it is necessary to recognize the way film and theatrical languages differ. Movies use more naturalistic dialogue and quick cuts. It is a visual medium that immerses the audience much deeper into a scene than a play, performed on a stage with a stationary audience, can. To create an effective movie, one must use the tools at their disposal; this means they must shorten soliloquies, add new locations, cut lengthy dialogue scenes, and use closeup shots.
Theatre is hardly a stagnant art form, however, and has evolved greatly since the Bard’s storied career. The plays of Tennessee Williams have been adapted with great success. His stories of real, common people with large personalities and emotionally dramatic plots fit right in with post World War Two cinema. A Streetcar Named Desire (1955) brought forth the talents of method actors Marlon Brando and Vivian Leigh, who would go on to become icons of the generation, and showed how American art was changing in this post-war world. Gone were the fantastical worlds and shimmering stars of the golden age of Hollywood, and in came the trendy, naturalistic approach of filmmaking and stars. Through the many oscillations in the film industry, stage to film adaptations have always had a role to play. Perhaps this is because the mediums are so intertwined– actors often reprising their stage roles in films and the original writers often working on the film screenplay. It is also the fact that theatre is a rich and intriguing medium, allowing for many forms of creative expression and catharsis, that is sadly limited to a cloistered few who live in urban areas and can afford tickets. Movies, on the other hand, are the epitome of accessible pop culture. The chance to allow so many others to watch a wonderfully performed story is too tempting to resist.
While there are many challenges with translating a play into a film, when done right and when utilizing all the techniques of movie making, the product can even elevate the original story. Amadeus (1985) tells the darkly dramatic story of composers Salieri and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. When adapted to the screen, the movie soundtrack can be used to full effect to bring Mozart’s famous compositions to life. The sound quality is rich and deep, as opposed to the flimsy speakers in a theatre, and every audience member can hear the tenor of Mozart’s composition as he narrates to Salieri from his sickbed. This added dimension elevates the film and uses the advantage of movies to add upon the already rich play. Similarly, The Sound of Music (1965) can depict the majesty of the Alps and the beautiful scenery of Europe using camerawork which, constrained to the stage and limited props, the play could not.
Stage acting and film acting are different beasts. On stage, the actor must gesticulate and enact their emotions more strongly and vividly, so that the people at the very back of the theatre can still feel the emotions they are trying to get across. Film suits itself to more subdued and nuanced portrayals. Using closeup shots and camera techniques to highlight the actor’s face and body language. In some cases, when an actor reprises their role for the film adaptation, it can be difficult to make the transition. At other times, particularly in the cases of musicals which are always in a heightened reality no matter the medium, the actor can shine with their natural vocal talents. Tim Curry in The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) so embodied the campy, theatrical, and fantastical character of the original stage production that there simply could not be another Frank-N-Furter. Similarly, the great Barbra Streisand made her film debut with Funny Girl (1964), reprising her Broadway role with great aplomb. There are also a great many cases where new actors, used to the medium of film, are recast in film adaptations. Rita Moreno, for instance, gives a charismatic and heart-stopping portrayal in West Side Story (1961), for which she won an Oscar. Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom (2020), based on a 1982 August Wilson play of the same name, features Chadwick Boseman giving an electric, multifaceted performance that captures the audience in a trance. It truly depends on the actors and the type of adaptation one is making.
That can be said for all aspects of stage to film adaptations. There are a great many of them still to this day and each is its own creation. Some are insistent on being as highly accurate to the source material as possible. Others feel free to cut and reassemble as they see fit. Some stars practically invented and embody roles, making them irreplaceable. Other directors feel that the stars of the silver screen can do more with the part in its new form. Whichever way you look at it, stage to film adaptations is here to stay and we can only hope that the two art forms continue to bolster and challenge each other to greater heights.