Posts by electriccanyon26

Laura Palmer25 said:They can go or not go, they can prep for a movie one way or another, but the fact remains: they are making the film based on Shakespeare's play (the BOOK), not some specific stage production of Hamlet.

Every single show in a drama theater is a play, kid, aside from the vaudeville, cabaret, or certain Eastern theatrical styles that barely work on screen... so, besides those, what other kind of plays are there that aren't plays?

And which plays are written based on movies?

What are you even rambling about?

electriccanyon26 said:What's the point of constantly repeating "independent work of art"? Are you trying to separate it from the theater? Why? Because you read it at home instead of actually going to see it in a theater?

edit: Have either of you actually watched a single drama in a theater? When you finish the book "Romeo and Juliet," do you bother reading about Shakespeare, his life, or the context of his works? Did you learn anything about drama in school? Have you even seen the movie In Love Shakespeare, so you’d know he founded his own theater, wrote everything specifically for the stage, and lived for the theater? Don't tell me you have!!

Are you going to claim in your next post that there are no plays based on movies either?

Here is an answer for you and your slang:
I know a film student who wrote a script for his own play, performed by actors currently in training—it was an amateur production, of course. The man wrote the text from his own mind; that text is a literary work (who says otherwise?), it can be read as literature, and its genre is drama (there is such a thing as comedy, if you weren't aware). If someone decides to make a movie later, will it be based on that script or the stage play the script was originally written for?

Karen Smith9 said:The very title of your thread implies this... if a film is based on a theater production, then regarding the film itself, you have to think about a specific run—that is, one individual performance... you're jumping to conclusions again... you can't film something based on four or five different versions if you're going to insist on that direct connection...

That's just not how you look at it; those are just your own conclusions. I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth here: some movies aren't based on plays that have millions of performances worldwide. Classics aside, certain films, like Tape, are their own unique versions. Theater productions. It doesn't have nearly as many different productions.

Laura Palmer25 said:Look, it seems like you need a visual aid just to wrap your head around this.



Take Hamlet. That's a book containing literary text.

John Smith is a theater director who likes the play, so he decides to stage it at the Globe Theatre in London.

Paul Smith is a film director who decides to adapt it. He hires a screenwriter WHO DOESN'T GO TO THE THEATER to watch the play, but instead picks up the book and writes a screenplay. Then the actors prepare, as they always do (some might even drop by to see the actors currently performing Hamlet at the Globe Theatre just to see how they handle it. Curiosity, right? Maybe Paul Smith is just curious and will show up to see how John Smith staged it). But they aren't making a movie based on a stage production; they're making it based on the book.

DO YOU GET IT NOW?

So what exactly would he grab instead? What? Curious actors? If a director wants to make a "more literal" adaptation of a play—and I mean a PLAY—actors will CERTAINLY head to the theater where that play is originally being performed just to get some inspiration for their roles, if nothing else. If a director wants to make their own version, fine, but who's to say that isn't based on a production? Some movies are based on stage shows that aren't even the plays you're talking about! What then? Do we say: "the film is based on a text written for the theater that has only ever been staged in a theater?" Like I said before: it's all the same thing.

Both theater and film have their own writers and scripts; whether we say a film is based on a stage script or just based on a theatrical production doesn't really matter. There are plenty of stage plays written based on movies; are those plays based on the film or based on the film's screenplay? Honestly, what are we even debating here?

Karen Smith9 said:😂 Goodness, I simply cannot believe this... Pasolini's Medea on film is his autonomous work of art—just as it is his own specific interpretation of Euripides' text. Similarly, a director's version of Medea at an American summer arts festival would be their autonomous work of art through the lens of staging a new production of Euripides' text... these are two distinct things based on the same text. I don't see what part of that is confusing.

I stated it quite clearly: just because a film is an independent work doesn't mean it has no connection to the theater... OMFG

Karen Smith9 said:True, absolutely... but do you realize that, say, Hamlet has millions of different performances? And I mean everything from traditional theater productions to shortened versions, or even avant-garde pieces that barely use the text at all.
Film has an even wider scope for adaptation... please don't try to tell me you could just follow Macbeth's text in the Kurosawa version... and it isn't even because it's in Japanese, but because the script itself was altered and adapted specifically for the screen... that's why I'm saying it's a completely different beast than the stage play.

But who ever said a film has to relate to just ONE specific performance? Of course, productions vary—some stay literal—but nobody else is even arguing that point except you.

Karen Smith9 said:Well, one could argue that—since a film based on a dramatic script is its own autonomous work of art, just as a stage production of that same text is its own distinct entity. Is that clear enough now?

What's the point of constantly repeating "independent work of art"? Are you trying to separate it from the theater? Why? Because you read it at home instead of actually going to see it in a theater?

edit: Have either of you actually watched a single drama in a theater? When you finish the book "Romeo and Juliet," do you bother reading about Shakespeare, his life, or the context of his works? Did you learn anything about drama in school? Have you even seen the movie In Love Shakespeare, so you’d know he founded his own theater, wrote everything specifically for the stage, and lived for the theater? Don't tell me you have!!

Karen Smith9 said:Well, one could argue that—since a film based on a dramatic script is its own autonomous work of art, just as a stage production of that same text is its own distinct entity. Is that clear enough now?

Don't you see that a written drama—take >, for instance, which I assume we've all read—can be taken straight to a theater where you follow the actors word for word. THAT DRAMA IS THEATER. It lives in the THEATER; it is meant for the THEATER. WHAT IS SO CONFUSING ABOUT THAT?

Laura Palmer25 said:Where did I ever say drama isn't connected to the theater? My point is that a film based on a play doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the theater—not the drama itself.

How can you argue that a movie based on a play performed in a theater has nothing to do with the theater? It’s like saying the drama itself isn't linked to the theater. Where is the logic in that?

Laura Palmer25 said:Hold on... I pointed out that minor terminology slip in the first post on the main page, and the OP actually AGREED WITH ME that it was fine. The discussion was moving in a productive direction until you jumped in to try and convince me and Karen Smith9 that we were the ones in the wrong... because honestly, does it even matter if the chicken or the egg came first?

So now we should just leave the Greeks out of it since they weren't interesting enough without film stock.

And apparently, we've been labeled snobs—those people who actually care about correct terms and happen to know a bit more about literature and theater.

Then the author gets defensive again. Even though he originally admitted his title was a bit off, now he's arguing with us over terminology just because his ego took a hit.

And in the end, somehow, we're the bad guys!😂

I didn't take that post as a critique of the wording. To me, it sounded like you were just asking if we include films based on plays intended for the theater. I had no idea you were making a distinction between films based on dramas versus films based on stage productions.

Karen Smith9 said:It’s intended for the stage, sure, but the text itself is a written, published work of art. He adapted the text—get my point?—he adapted the Shakespearean text, not necessarily a specific theatrical production. It doesn't matter if Macbeth has been performed a million times before; Kurosawa took the script and adapted it for film in his own unique way. I really don't see why this is confusing you.

Nothing at all. You're just accusing me of having an issue with it... I don't get why you feel the need to strip away the most fundamental element—theater—from a drama that was originally written for the stage long before cinema even existed. You claim Kurosawa adapted it his own way and that theater isn't relevant here? Why? Claiming a drama has nothing to do with the theater is just an invention of yours and Laura Palmer25.

Laura Palmer25 said:Ha ha, and what's wrong with ancient Greek dramas? In case you weren't aware, those were adapted for the screen too. And they were stage plays long before they were movies. If you wanted to discuss modern Anglo-Saxon plays that Hollywood most frequently pulls material from, you should have made that clear in the title. Let's just set antiquity aside then.

As for the "snobbish" comment, why don't you go back and actually read what I wrote and look at the context? Since Christian Taylor3 kept insisting that movies are made based on stage plays, I simply pointed out that only counts if the directors or producers actually see the show on Broadway first before deciding to film it, rather than just reading the script. Which is true 90% of the time. It isn't snobbery.

Maybe learn some basic art terminology before jumping into debates like this.

It seems you're here just to tell me what I think and what I know. I never said anything against plays—quite the opposite. If you have an issue with the specific films I listed as my favorites, then go ahead; I have nothing more to say. I chose them specifically because they aren't famous plays, and perhaps most people don't even realize those movies are film based on stage play. I intentionally left out the ones I love more because they are too well known. What's the problem there? It's a bit reckless of you to jump to conclusions about how much I value drama...

Laura Palmer25 said:Ha ha, and what's wrong with ancient Greek dramas? In case you weren't aware, those were adapted for the screen too. And they were stage plays long before they were movies. If you wanted to discuss modern Anglo-Saxon plays that Hollywood most frequently pulls material from, you should have made that clear in the title. Let's just set antiquity aside then.

As for the "snobbish" comment, why don't you go back and actually read what I wrote and look at the context? Since Christian Taylor3 kept insisting that movies are made based on stage plays, I simply pointed out that only counts if the directors or producers actually see the show on Broadway first before deciding to film it, rather than just reading the script. Which is true 90% of the time. It isn't snobbery.

Maybe learn some basic art terminology before jumping into debates like this.

...and how much I value ART.

Laura Palmer25 said:Ha ha, and what's wrong with ancient Greek dramas? In case you weren't aware, those were adapted for the screen too. And they were stage plays long before they were movies. If you wanted to discuss modern Anglo-Saxon plays that Hollywood most frequently pulls material from, you should have made that clear in the title. Let's just set antiquity aside then.

As for the "snobbish" comment, why don't you go back and actually read what I wrote and look at the context? Since Christian Taylor3 kept insisting that movies are made based on stage plays, I simply pointed out that only counts if the directors or producers actually see the show on Broadway first before deciding to film it, rather than just reading the script. Which is true 90% of the time. It isn't snobbery.

Maybe learn some basic art terminology before jumping into debates like this.

That's it: your definition of what is a film based on stage play is that it isn't one unless the director saw it on Broadway instead of just reading the script—that's something you made up, and it has no basis. It's pure snobbery.

edit: If a director sees a production and then directs a movie based on that memory, then it's a film based on stage play. That's your logic. But if the director watches the play, goes home, reads the script, and writes the screenplay, what is that movie then? A film based on a play? Your rhetoric is like saying you're fixing a leak by plugging the pipe; it's missing the point entirely.

Karen Smith9 said:You really seem stuck on Broadway... though—believe it or not—theater actually exists outside of the USA too. Strange, isn't it?
And that list you provided? It’s completely nonsensical. Kurosawa adapted a Sheik-like text—the script itself—not a specific stage production... do you even grasp the distinction? That is precisely why I keep bringing up interpretation and the director's unique creative vision...

Hold on, I never mentioned Broadway, so please don't assume what I know about theater. You can project whatever you want onto me, but don't pretend you know my thoughts. Kurosawa adapted a stage play based on a drama. Sure, he adapted a drama, but a drama is meant for the stage and was almost certainly performed there first. What defines a stage play? If that term is confusing, maybe look it up.

Karen Smith9 said:What we're discussing here is essentially modern Broadway semi-literature (with a few notable exceptions, of course)... plus, even those professional awards being mentioned are American, for American productions... why reduce an entire branch of cinema to just one American perspective? A much more compelling issue is the adaptation of the classics—ranging from the ancient Greeks all the way down to the Sheik...

What exactly is wrong with this "Broadway semi-literature" you mentioned? Is this whole debate driven by your own subjective take on Hollywood adaptations and Broadway? If you wanted us to discuss films based on plays by the ancient Greeks, you should have just said so. Decide what you actually want to talk about...

edit: Or perhaps this discussion stems from Laura Palmer25's snobbish view that directors don't understand drama until they see it on stage, and now she wants to put plays back on her own personal pedestal..

Karen Smith9 said:What kind of nonsense is that, first of all?? A drama being a subcategory of stage plays?? Drama is one of several literary genres, and this specific one is intended for performance on a stage.
So what if actors study stage plays? What does that even have to do with anything? It's like saying actors for The Three Musketeers had to go see a fencing instructor.
We are talking about the foundation for a screenplay. By knowing the literary work—where a stage play is just one interpretation—a film script is created as a second, different interpretation. What part of that is unclear?
There are countless productions of Hamlet, both on stage and in film, and which one is based on which? They are all done according to the personal vision of the director or screenwriter regarding the original drama, the text, which the Sheik wrote... And that's it—less is more in all these cases we're discussing...

Laura Palmer25 said: "A 'stage play' is a drama performed in a theater, but it is still a drama." I am saying that dramas aren't the only things performed in theaters. Someone can write a theatrical script that isn't a drama!! Can you grasp that the theme is to be "films based on stage plays," yet you are narrowing that concept down to just dramas! Do you even know what you're talking about?

Karen Smith9 said:The title of this thread is slightly off, which has led to some confusion in the posts. Films based on the works of William Shakespeare or Tennessee Williams are actually adaptations of dramatic texts—not specifically adaptations of theatrical productions. A stage production itself is merely a director's interpretation of a single written work of art. Based on how the topic is titled, those movies would essentially be an interpretation of an interpretation, which simply isn't the case.

No, this is actually ridiculous. Posts are wrong? Stage productions are a director's INTERPRETATION of a written work??? So then we have an interpretation of an interpretation? Please... do you actually know what you're saying?

Laura Palmer25 said:electriccanyon26, let's not get into a fight over the title right now because the topic itself is actually good and worth discussing. But I can't agree with your claim that all movies are made from stage plays or that actors prepare specifically through theater. Where is that written, and who is saying that? An adapted screenplay is any script not originally written for film but reworked from a literary source, whether it's a novel, a novella, or a drama—it doesn't matter. When a movie starts, it says it is "screenplay written by play" and not "by stage performance." Play in English refers to drama as a literary genre, not a specific theatrical production.

Films are based on works written specifically for the stage. Using the term Stage to Screen isn't an oversimplification; it's just the reality. And I was specifically referring to how actors prepare their roles...

Laura Palmer25 said:Actually, the title is a bit off. These are movies based on plays, meaning they stem from a literary source that likely predates any actual stage production. It’s not usually a play that exists first just to be turned into a movie; rather, both the play and the film originate from the written script.

Your simplification of "stage to Screen" assumes the reader already knows exactly what we're talking about.

What kind of simplification? I'm completely lost here...

Terry Scott34 said:One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is actually based on a novel—not a play—though there is a stage version out there too...

That’s exactly it. It seems like a common misunderstanding around here. Based on the plot alone, it clearly has potential for the theater, which is precisely why the film caught my eye. I haven't read the book.

Terry Scott34 said:Ahh... that’s just how it goes with me! 🥳

Anyway, about six months ago I checked out Rabbit Hole and The Woodsman . They were good movies—just felt like they needed a bit more depth, you know? Kidman's and Kevin Bacon were absolutely stellar though...

And two total classics: Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and Dial M for Murder . 😍

I haven't seen Rabbit Hole yet. As for The Woodsman, it didn't really grab me, which is why I left it out of that list of more modern adaptations.

Karen Smith9 said:That list of 20 films is honestly hilarious. Not because the movies themselves are bad—on the contrary, there are some great ones in there—but because it is almost entirely Anglo-American. Then, out of nowhere, Kurosawa pops up at the top (which, objectively speaking, makes him the best one on the list). But what about the Frenchmen, the Germans, or the Russians? Are Americans and the English really the only ones who do adaptations well?
Besides, another Kurosawa masterpiece, "Ran"—basically King Lear done Japanese style—is better than half the films mentioned here.
I'm sticking to my guns: the thread title is wrong. A film might be inspired by a play, or perhaps a specific production by a certain theater director, and then those elements carry over to the screen. But the foundation of the screenplay—the only actual basis for a script—must be the dramatic text itself.
It feels like the OP just stumbled upon a catchy article, thought, "Hey, this would make a great topic," without actually digging into the deeper implications of what they were posting.

Dramas, since everyone keeps bringing it up, are written specifically for the theater. Dramas are essentially a subcategory of stage plays—so is my title really misleading? Most films are modeled after theatrical performances; even actors prepare their roles by studying stage work. Am I talking nonsense? A theatrical script isn't the same thing as a film script. There is such a thing as an adapted screenplay, meaning we take a script meant for the stage and modify it for the screen. Why should I obsess over every nuance? Just to satisfy people looking for flaws in everything? You might have found a convenient article, but I simply stated that I enjoy these types of movies, and the goal was to share recommendations and talk about cinema.

Rachel Young3 said:So, we're talking about film adaptations of William Shakespeare's dramas?? 🤔

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lm_adaptations

That’s all of them. Which ones have you actually watched? Any particular favorites you'd recommend?

Laura Palmer25 said:When you say stage to Screen Adaptations, are you talking about plays that hit the stage first before being moved to the big screen? Any play can be turned into a movie, provided there's a solid screenwriter who knows how to translate the script into cinematic language. Plays are dialogue-heavy; you have to trim all that excess chatter and monologue and figure out how to weave it together with visual storytelling. If they mess that up, I can usually tell a movie was based on a play just by how much it talks. They end up feeling too literary, too grand, and just not very cinematic. Here are a few of my favorites:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089816/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048563/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051534/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053318/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056196/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039636/

Honestly, most of the adaptations from Tennessee Williams and Eugene O'Neill turned out to be absolute masterpieces. If anyone actually wants the list, feel free to grab it and watch.

Yes.

Laura Palmer25 said:When you say stage to Screen Adaptations, are you talking about plays that hit the stage first before being moved to the big screen? Any play can be turned into a movie, provided there's a solid screenwriter who knows how to translate the script into cinematic language. Plays are dialogue-heavy; you have to trim all that excess chatter and monologue and figure out how to weave it together with visual storytelling. If they mess that up, I can usually tell a movie was based on a play just by how much it talks. They end up feeling too literary, too grand, and just not very cinematic. Here are a few of my favorites:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089816/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048563/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051534/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053318/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056196/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039636/

Honestly, most of the adaptations from Tennessee Williams and Eugene O'Neill turned out to be absolute masterpieces. If anyone actually wants the list, feel free to grab it and watch.

👍 Perfect.

Michael Ortiz68 said:Dogville isn't actually a film adaptation of stage plays

Well, technically it isn't, but the movie itself is a stage Play... 🙂