The Movie The Visit versus the Musical The Visit

[goldenboy]

I saw the musical the Visit twice and found it interesting but dull. It had no dramatic tension;there is no question of how it the musical will turn out. The people are downtrodden and grey. There is no out but money.

Now Chita Rivera is a Musical Comedy Goddess and she is wonderful in The Visit and the Kander and Ebb Score is quite good.  Kander and Ebb have long been my heroes but after watching the movie, I realized that this was a missed opportunity. I don't know if the problem was Terrency McNally or John Doyle or a collaboration of everyone, but after viewing the film, I realize there is something terribly amiss in the musical, The Visit.

I just watched the movie The Visit with Anthony Quinn and Ingrid Bergman. The citizens of the "poor" town are originally aghast about what Claire Zachanasian wants. There  seems to no way that they will put her lover to death.  For half the movie they dismiss the idea.  But slowly, Claire tempts them into seeing it her way. And there are more twists to it then just that. (I don't want to give it all away in case you check out the movie).

The townspeople of Galen (in the movie) are real people; not Brechtian pale people of Brachen (in the musical) . It also made it more interesting having real people instead of "gray Brechtian People."

The justification for Madame Zachanasian wanting justice in the movie makes sense.  Claire Zachanasian was impregnated by her lover at seventeen in both the movie and  the musical. In the movie, however, a pregnant Claire brings her lover to court to prove paternity. In order to get out of marrying Claire and marrying wealthy, the lover hires two men (with a bottle of brandy) to lie in court and say they slept with Claire many times. They ran her out of town in shame and she became a whore in Trieste where she married the wealthy Mr. Zachanasian.

The justification for kiling of the lover?? You killed me when I was seventeen. You shamed me in front of the town. Now its my turn to shame you. Now its my turn to shame you.

This suddenly makes sense. There is dramatic tension. There are real people here.

And Anthony Quinn is not a milquetoast but puts up a fight to live. He gets angry and afraid and paranoid and has a hand in his own demise.  You realize in the movie that he is greatly at fault. Marrying for money; hiring people to lie in court. He is a real human being that did some heinous things.  The character of the lover in the musical is almost non existent and a milquetoast.  He and the town are so grey that revenge seems redundant.   There is no struggle.

 

I urge people to see the movie and see the difference and put your thoughts about this.

 

 

[CapnHook]

Or, just read the original play.

[Mr Roxy]

Where did you see it? I do not believe it on Netflix. I want to see it to compare it.

[EricMontreal22]

It doesn't have an official release, but... is out there.  Durrenmatt hated the film and I remember it being a muddle--largely to make it a bigger crowd pleaser (yes, that probably gave away a big spoiler but I don't care--it's easy info to stumble upon.)

Interesting, a few years later Hal Prince did a stage production that flopped and he partly blames Durrenmatt who sent him an earlier, even more surreal draft to translate and use.

[qolbinau]

"In the movie, however, a pregnant Claire brings her lover to court to prove paternity. In order to get out of marrying Claire and marrying wealthy, the lover hires two men (with a bottle of brandy) to lie in court and say they slept with Claire many times. They ran her out of town in shame and she became a whore in Trieste where she married the wealthy Mr. Zachanasian."

I believe this is recounted in the musical...

[PianoMann]

I read the original Durrenmatt after seeing The Visit for the first time, and I actually didn't think there was much of a difference in terms of characterization of the townspeople. Yes, the original play takes more time with a few key townspeople in order to illustrate their temptation and eventual persuasion to accept the money, but in both the Durrenmatt and McNally's version, there doesn't seem to be any doubt that they will accept Claire's proposition. Perhaps my reading of the original was tinted by seeing the show, but it did seem pretty clear that Durrenmatt's townspeople start spending money and accruing debt almost immediately as in the musical. I don't disagree that the book needs fine tuning, but I don't think McNally bastardized anything integral to making the original text work.

[GavestonPS]

I haven't seen the musical, but I don't think you are being fair to the playwright who (with collaborators) created Mother Courage, Galileo, Polly Peachum, Jenny Diver, Edward II, Private Schweik, Arturo Ui, etc. and so forth. (I am referring to Brecht's versions of these characters. I realize he adapted some from other authors, and Galileo and Edward II were historical persons.)

If Kander, Ebb and McNally have made the characters of THE VISIT bland or didactic, it's on them. Don't blame Brecht.

(ETA Sorry, the "you" in this post is the OP. I wasn't responding to Pianomann.)

[ljay889]

"I believe this is recounted in the musical..."

 Yup, basically. In the musical, Claire threatened to report how Anton had wronged her but he told her that he had friends who would falsely testify against her, and they did. The trial is reenacted with gruesome staging between the Eunuchs and Young Claire. Seems pretty similar to the movie. 

[Fantod]

I really like the movie, but it is a totally different animal than the play or musical. It was an attempt to take a German epic theatre play and turn it into a serious American drama. As an adaptation of the original play, it fails to deliver the same heft and message, but as an original work, its pretty good. I still have no idea why they didn't just make a movie with the Lunts in it. That would have been great. 

[Mekroth]

There is also the consideration that the Durrenmatt's play is a very different beast than Valency's adaptation, which takes a lot of liberties with the text. To get a true image of Durrenmatt's vision, the best translation to go with is Joel Agee's. Patrick Bowles also wrote a wonderful english translation but it is incomplete, missing a scene that Durrenmatt added in the 80s where Ill (Shill/Shell in the adaptations) threatens to kill Clara. 

It seems to me, in the case of the first translation, the movie, and many other adaptations of the material in various languages, that the adapters are afraid of the flesh of Durrenmatt's chaotic and mercurial style, and only water the play down. But I think that Kander andEbb have been the exception, actually adding a different focus to the story, rather than just stripping elements away from it.

[goldenboy]

The movie is available on Amazon. com for  a $2.99 rental.  It just makes much more sense than the musical.

 

I haven't read the original or any translation. I guest that is next.

What I liked about the movie is that you saw everyone's point of view: the townspeople, Claire, the lover, the lover's wife and you didn't know how it was going to end.

In the musical, all the townspeople are the same. In the move they are individuals. Claire seems a vengeful bitch. Not so much in the movie.

I think it also helps that in the movie Claire and the lover are middle aged 40 ish. Not old.

[The Other One]

The book to the musical feels awfully empty.  There is no drama or tension to it at all.  Because I have seen the movie and a stage production in Los Angeles around 16 years ago, I found the musical disappointing.  Anton never registers the way he needs to, and I do not think the fault lies with Roger Ree's performance.  He is left with little to play.  The show is a great vehicle for Chita Rivera and adds a worthy new score to the Kander & Ebb canon, but otherwise it is hopelessly watered down .

[uncageg]

google play store also has it to rent for 2.99 and to buy.