From Novel, to stage/film, or film/stage...why?

[jovie27]

Posted: 8/18/11 at 12:50pm

I asked a friend of mine the other day if he was interested in seeing WICKED and or CATCH ME...he replied with a big fat "NO". I asked him why.

He said "Because, if I wanted to know about the story they are telling, I would pick up the book and read it or watch the film...I don't need a stage version to tell me the same story that I already know from the film or novel. Besides the book and film tend to be much better because it stays true to the story much more than a stage-version ever does in my experience."

That got me thinking, why do we adapt things to different forms/mediums. Is it for pure entertainment alone, or that we are so bored of what is originally printed, that we have to see it in some other way?

Would love your comments on this.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/18/11 at 12:51pm

Your friend must be a real pistol at parties.

[jovie27]

Posted: 8/18/11 at 12:55pm

Phyllis...that really cracked me up....omg I am so going to tell him.

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/18/11 at 12:55pm

If no one ever adapted works that originated in different mediums, we wouldn't have:

SHOW BOAT (based on the Edna Ferber novel of the same name)
SOUTH PACIFIC (Michener's "Tales From the South Pacific")
A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC (Bergman's "Smiles of the Summer Night")
CABARET (Isherwood's "I Am A Camera")
NINE (Fellini's "8 1/2")
RAGTIME (Doctorow's novel and Foreman's film)
THE LIGHT IN THE PIAZZA (Spencer's novella)
RENT ("La Boheme")
THE THREEPENNY OPERA (Gay's "The Beggar's Opera")
SPRING AWAKENING (Wedekind's play)
PROMISES, PROMISES ("The Apartment")
...and the list goes on and on. Frankly, I find what your friend said to be ignorant and insulting to the creative minds who bring their considerable talent and fresh eyes and ideas when undertaking an adaptation.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 8/18/11 at 1:03pm

Soo does your friend not see films based on novels then, either? Because that really limits the field.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/18/11 at 1:07pm

Interesting that your friend said he would pick up the book or watch the film. Why watch the film when the book came first? Why is the stage version the issue? Adaptations are about telling a familiar story in a new way. The film versions give us the visual when the book requires the use of imagination. When taken to the stage, generally it is to streamline the story and tell through song (or completely reconceptualize the setting, story and characters), layering a style of music and exercising some creativity in the structure, writing, composing and staging. Yes, Catch Me if You Can tells essentially the same story as the book and the film, but you can't say it's the same experience. The Wizard of Oz must make your friend's head explode. I mean, why see My Fair Lady when you already have Pygmalion? Oh yeah, because of the score.

And if film treatments are generally more faithful to their source material, then I suppose your friend hasn't had much exposure to adaptations.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 8/18/11 at 3:05pm

Although novels and films are occasionally adapted into plays, it is more often the case that the stage versions are musicals and your question seems geared to musicals, so I'll focus on that.

I think musical theater creators adapt works from other media for several reasons:

Musical theater librettists, and other members of the creative team searching for ideas for musicals, are looking for stories that lend themselves to musical theater treatment. One obvious place to find them is in novels, films and non-musical plays that have the requisite qualities they are looking for (romance, plot, subplot, feeling, etc..... See Lehman, Words and Music, for a bible on what values go into a good musical play).

Often the impetus for a musical starts not with the librettist but with a producer or a composer. Producers or composers are generally not librettists (although they are sometimes lyricists and sometimes, although less frequently, may also be librettists). Those who are not librettists generally look for stories for their shows in literature, in film, and in real life; where else are they going to find inspiration given that they themselves are, as a rule, not novelists, playwrights, poets or screenwriters?

As has already been noted (see AC, above), there is a long and very successful history of musicalizing material from other media. Verdi found inspiration in, among others, Shakespeare and Schiller, for instance. Rodgers and Hammerstein took inspiration from novelists (like Steinbeck and Michener), playwrights (like Molnar) and memoirists (like Leonowens). The list goes on and on...

Given that the great majority of successful musicals (as well as a lion's share of operatic works) were taken from works from other media, that is a tradition that many people working in the musical theater often favor in creating new works.

Even before the age of opera and well before the age of musicals, playwrights often looked to other media and stories for inspiration. Shakespeare generally found inspiration in stories that had already been told, often written in other forms, including the histories of the kings and queens of England, often as had already been written down by Hollinshead in his Chronicles.

And of course, films very often come from novels and plays, including musicals. People who love novels, plays and musicals often clamor for films to be made from works they love (see the countless posts on this site on this topic).

Writers in all manner of media often long to have their works adapted for both creative and financial reasons.

Lastly, people who work in the musical theater often also work in and are almost always at least usually interested in "legit" theater. They are also generally interested in
film (which might also be part of their show biz resume) and literature. When they come across something in these other forms that makes them think, "Gee, this would make a good musical," they often follow through with that idea. It would be odd if they didn't.




Updated On: 8/18/11 at 03:05 PM

[quizking101]

Posted: 8/18/11 at 3:14pm

Adaptations are always a hit-or-miss.

I actually loved CATCH ME as much as the movie, if not more, because it was a CREATIVE RETELLING of the story. Sure, it had its bad moments, but so did the movie. I originally refused to see CATCH ME because of my familiarity with the material, but when I saw it, I was glad I did.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 8/18/11 at 3:20pm

"Adaptations are always a hit-or-miss."

You could say the same thing about musicals in general, especially since almost all musicals are adapted from something already written. Although quite often, I would venture to say usually, musicals, whether they are original librettos or adapted from other sources are not hits or misses, but something in between.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/18/11 at 3:37pm

jovie, your friend seems to be focused on just one element of novels, their plots.

Adaptations don't always retain the same plot. (My Fair Lady is generally considered faithful to Pygmalion, but by changing the ending the adapters made it a very different story.)

A plot is only one element of the six identified by Aristotle over 2000 years ago. The others are character, thought, diction, rhythm and spectacle, and all of them commonly change a great deal when a piece is adapted from one medium to another.

Some musicals--Show Boat and South Pacific immediately come to mind--are based on sources that, despite their quality, are rarely read today. Their "stories" only live on for most people because of the musicals (and film versions of the musicals).

So basically, I saying that if you're a good friend, you will tell your pal his remarks make him sound ignorant. 'Cause that's what good friends do.

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 8/18/11 at 4:17pm

To use your examples from the original post, the obvious reason to see the musical versions of Wicked or Catch Me If You Can is that these versions contain songs. As simplistic as that may be, it's just true. An argument of the quality of the work doesn't seem to be necessary here (ie, in my opinion, Wicked is better as a novel than as a musical, but that's not the point your friend seems to be making). Sure, you can read the novel version of Wicked and read about Elphaba and get the same gist of the story, but there is no Defying Gravity in the novel. Film versions of novels are made so that the audience can see what they've read played out on the screen, and musical versions of novels and films are made to make the characters sing. And, besides, Catch Me If You Can is a great example of a musical that tells the same basic story but in a COMPLETELY different way than the novel or film. Perhaps your friend just doesn't like musicals...

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/18/11 at 4:24pm

Let's not forget the musical of Wicked is wildly different than the novel. It borrowed the relationships and the barest plot elements, but it tells the story a completely different way and makes quite a few noticeable changes. It's not the novel on stage. Far from it. I could only imagine LaChiusa making an attempt at a more faithful adaptation.

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 8/18/11 at 10:13pm

This topic always makes me think of "A Little Night Music", Sondheim and Wheeler's adaptation of Ingmar Bergman's film "Smiles Of A Summer Night". Smiles Of A Summer Night is a marvelous film, I think one of Bergman's best, but it being a good film doesn't invalidate A Little Night Music, which is a marvelous show. Naturally there are changes made from the film to the play, and the tone is different, but to suggest that it's somehow inferior simply by virtue of being an adaptation is extremely silly.

Your friend's priority seems to be on story and plot, rather than experience, which is a pretty pedantic way of going about things.

[sondhead]

Posted: 8/18/11 at 10:51pm

Unfortunately, there has been a trend of "franchise" musicals on Broadway lately, meaning musicals that are created because putting an already popular franchise on stage (often a successful movie) provides a vehicle for a whole lot of money making. When this is the initial impetus for the work, often the resulting piece is.. let's say not a classic of the genre. I'd list examples, but they'd be purely my opinion and some people love them, which is great. I think we all know what I'm taking about.

Because of these kinds of shows, adapting movies to musicals has gotten a pretty bad rap. I'd argue, however, that the act of adapting a movie to stage is no less worthy than than adapting a novel or play. What matters is how well the adaptation is executed. For every audience-pandering poorly-written franchise movie adaptation, we get a "A Little Night Music," "Little Shop of Horrors," "Promises, Promises," or "Nine."

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 1:37am

The mention of LaChiusa reminds me of another pertinent example on this topic: The Wild Party. Not one but two musicals were made from the original poem. The adaptation was varied enough in both cases that two separate musicals could be created from the same story in the same season and give you two different experiences.