Greatest stage to Screen Adaptations

electriccanyon26 said: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...

...and how much I value ART.

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.

Good grief, a movie can't be a stage-to-film adaptation if the director saw the material on Broadway for the first time... and it wouldn't be based on a play if they hadn't.

What are you even talking about? I'm just saying that American producers get the idea to adapt something when they see a script being performed live; it doesn't always mean that, but usually, it does... But whether they saw it or not, the movie is based on the play. It literally says "Screenplay written by the play" at the start of the film.
Who cares how the idea for an adaptation popped into a producer's head? Through theater, TV, a book, or a dream?

electriccanyon26 said: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.

It seems you’re struggling to distinguish between a drama as a written text and a theatrical production. That confusion really comes through in your thread title. Even your argument—which, granted, is technically true—that theater is a completely different medium than film, leads to the implication that a director providing a personal vision of a dramatic text doesn't care how that text was staged in a theater. I am emphasizing the *director's* specific, personal vision here. That is precisely what defines both great stage productions and great films based on dramatic texts.
Simply taking a Broadway show and filming it isn't necessarily part of that same category.
Take, for instance, Pasolini's "Medea" based on Euripides... that is a highly specific, personal vision; I highly doubt Pasolini cared one bit about some classical, academic interpretation from a particular theater... well, because he was Pasolini.

electriccanyon26 said: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.

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.

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.

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?

electriccanyon26 said: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?

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?

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?

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!!

electriccanyon26 said: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?

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.

electriccanyon26 said: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?

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?

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!!

😂 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.

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:😂 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

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?

electriccanyon26 said: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.

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...

electriccanyon26 said: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?

Alright then, give me an example of a film—and please, don't give me a musical—that is based on a stage production but isn't based on a play.

electriccanyon26 said: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?

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?

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.

Quote: that hasn't even had many different runs.

electriccanyon26 says: That’s really not how you look at it—those are just your own assumptions! I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here, but some movies simply aren't based on plays that have been staged a million times in theaters all over the world. You know, those massive classics? Some films—like Tape—are based on versions of a stage production

The point being made is this: Tape is a 1999 play by Stephen Belber. So, the text exists, and the screenplay was adapted from that text... is a screenwriter really going to sit there watching a live performance and transcribe dialogue for a movie like some kind of court reporter tracking events on a stage? It's the same damn story all over again...

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?