Transition from Stage to Screen - Essay Example

Transition from Stage to Screen: Advantages and Disadvantages of Artifice and Realism Artifice and realism are two common approaches widely used by film-makers who adapt stories from stage to screen. There are two sides of the coin, so to say, in employing these popular approaches: the advantage and the disadvantage. And these two sides, the good and the not so good, are more pronounced in the movies directed by Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly and Fred Zinnemann: 1955 Oklahoma! and 1949 On the Town. This paper discusses the advantages and the disadvantages of the artifice and realism approaches in the two films mentioned above. In Zinnemann’s Oklahoma!, realism is remarkably apparent. From stage to screen, realism in Oklahoma! is attributed to the film’s setting and characterisation. Zinnemann’s chosen setting, for one, is evidently a departure from the Broadway type of background and props wherein objects and images are created by a man/artist. In fact, the director of the movie adaptation entitled Oklahoma! placed the location for his film in the actual world. The scenery is obviously in the field of a particular county perhaps in the West. In the scene wherein the two lovers serenade each other with the song “People Will Say We’re In-Love,” the rustic backdrop is utterly real and beautiful to the eyes especially that the film is in full color. Nevertheless, color technology and other “technological development” are different from the measure of realism in the realm of art (Durovicova, 1992, p.160). Zinnemann and several crew members of the movie had taken a serious advantage to the beauty, grandeur, and existence of the physical environment. On one hand, the positive side of making the film outside the Broadway stage and into the “stage” of the natural environment is that it makes the movie more real and appealing to the audience. The viewers can arguably identify and probably relate to the “message” of the film when it depicts its spatial dimension in a more realistic way. For the film-maker, on the other hand, the advantage of shooting the film in the field is that the director becomes freer in choosing what angle he or she desires -- namely, the film-maker frees him or her from the limitations inherent in props. And the open field offers the film-maker the vast array of areas or spaces wherein he or she can shoot a specific scene or episode in the movie that best suits him or her. Furthermore, Oklahoma! adds a certain level of reality through the portrayal of characters played by its actors. The way actors play their part is likely convincing. When Curly (played by Gordon MacRae) sings a lullaby entitled “The Surrey with the Fringe on Top” to his beloved Ado Anne (played by Gloria Grahame), the viewers are drawn to sleep not only by its mellow-dramatic music but also by how Grahame acted her character role. Grahame, among other actors, had played her role in a natural manner as if she was real and part of the world of the audience. In comparison to the realism characterised in Oklahoma!, the realism in Donen and Kelly’s On the Town is peculiarly distinct. The setting and the characterisation notable in On the Town are less far from real. The setting, in particular, marked in Donen and Kelly’s film is apparently transitory; it changes from artifice to real and vice versa. In the taxi scene wherein Chip (played by Frank Sinatra) and Brunhilde Esterhazy (played by Betty Garrett) sing the song “Come Up to My Place,” the background visible in this episode strikingly alters from artifice to realism. Inside the moving taxi, for instance, the images seen as a backdrop are merely pictures (or moving pictures) taken from the real world; that is, this particular scene was shot far from the actual city environment but rather from or within the studio or stage-like milieu. At the end of the singing act, however, the setting dramatically shifts from the artificial environment into the actual downtown area. Here, the advantage of realism is its ability to entirely transform the film into something real despite the abrupt use of artificial background. Moreover, the realism in terms of character portrayal characterised in On the Town is surprisingly unique. In the rooftop scene wherein Chip serenades Brunhilde with the funny love-song entitled “You’re Awful,” Sinatra played the Chip role in a more serious manner in contrast to other scenes wherein he was more comical and expressionistic. The good thing about this shift of acting from expressionism to realism is that it shows the sincerity of the lover’s feeling towards his beloved. Thus, the viewers are persuaded to believe that, indeed, Chip truly loves Brunhilde. Jack Lemmon (1998, p.xiii), a stage and screen actor, admits that the two realms -- namely, drama and film -- are sharply distinct especially when a particular scene is “blown up on the screen.” For one thing, film-makers have the power to manipulate angle or perspective in emphasising a specific gesture, movement, or imagery while stage-play directors have no ability to control on what or where the audience should look at. In contrast to the drama play, a film is more of a narrative (Fordin, 1975, p.76), which is recounted or illustrated through the camera, “an entertainment medium much more realist” than the theatrical play itself. Thence, the disadvantage for the film directors such as Donnen and Kelly is the problem inherent in the facial expressions made by theatrical actors; in particular, the problem on distinction between movies and plays in terms of expressions and/or characterisation. The Broadway version of the story On the Town, in a general sense, is an expressionistic type of stage narrative or portrayal. The drama under discussion is an example of a play that heavily uses the artifice approach. In Donnen and Kelly’s film adaptation, artifice is most visible in the styles, gestures, or expressions made by the actors. The problem, though, of adapting a stage play into a film is the dilemma concerning how actors should act in front of the camera. In the On the Town, the movie actors played their roles as if they were acting in front of the theater audience. In the episode wherein the three female protagonists sit on the floor with their backs positioned toward the camera, the women suddenly and surprisingly turn their heads toward the camera as if they are talking to the viewers. The bad thing about this is that it disconnects the characters unto them and to the narrative itself. Further, the viewers become disconcerted as to the reason or rationale of the protagonists on “talking” to them. Neil Sinyard (2003, p.105) reveals that film-maker Zinnemann found it challenging to “reproduce [the Oklahoma! drama] on the screen.” And Zinnemann’s problem of adapting the stage play into the screen, as Sinyard suggests, is due mainly to the stark difference between the realms of drama and film. Unlike films, plays are greatly embedded, says Mamet (2002 cited in Mitchell, n.d., p.12), in the “irrepressible artifice.” Similar to the setting apparent in On the Town, the scenes or scenery marked in Oklahoma! change at certain respect. At the wedding party, for instance, the scenery tremendously shifts from real to artificial environment. At the front-yard, in particular, the newlywed couple sings the Oklahoma theme song, together with the village folks, under the illusive sky. Here, the background and props are obviously akin to those found in the stage play. In fact, when Curly holds onto one of the posts located at the porch prominent in the house, the post almost breaks down due to its instability and poor foundation. To put it more bluntly, the house is fake. The disadvantage in using the realism approach in the adaption of a narrative from stage to screen is the problem associated to the blurring or distinction between what is real and what is unreal -- between what is a film and what is a drama. At the outset, the viewer is made to believe that the film Oklahoma! is realistic; in the unfolding of the events or scenes, nevertheless, it becomes apparent that realism and artifice alter from time to time. The artifice approach is very common in the 1949 film directed by Donnen and Kelly. The acting style of its actors is evidently overacting, so to speak. The eye movements, the facial expressions, the body gestures, among other physiological manifestations are embodiments of expressionism. In the taxi scene, in particular, the expressionistic style as performed by the actors is starkly obvious. When Chip talks to the driver Brunhilde while the vehicle moves on the city street, the woman-protagonist constantly stares to her man in a very long time. In real life, it works on the opposite direction: the driver’s eyes are always on the road. Nonetheless, the artifice approach has certain advantage, namely, it clearly shows the feelings, emotion, and even the background of the character. In the taxi episode, it is evident -- e.g., her angry eyes and frustrated look -- that Brunhilde dislikes the ideas or plans of Chip to roam around the metropolis. The driver-woman, however, loves her man to go to her place. Also, the characterisation of Chip as played by Sinatra informs the audience that he is a country boy. This becomes apparent through the actor’s expressionist style; that is, he moves and acts like an innocent man who is a complete stranger to the city life. Oklahoma! contains an artifice as well; this is most visible in the episode in which Annie sings the song “Out of My Dreams.” The backdrop is far from real. The floor wherein the two lovers dance a ballet dance appears to be a green meadow. At a close observation, however, the green-meadow floor becomes fictitious like the dream itself. In this context, artifice is advantageous. The illusion of the green field under the blue sky supports the reality of the dream that Annie is in. Paradoxically, the absence of realism in this particular scene transforms the dream per se into something realistic or believable with respect to the viewers. The spreading fog, the mirror-like characters, the shadows and all greatly facilitate the veracity of the dream. Artifice is necessary specifically when the subject matter is about and of dreams. Thence, the artifice approach makes the unreal real. In fact, Bazin (2002 cited in Lay, n.d., p.7) argues that realism in the field of art is “only possible through artifice.” Artifice has a drawback; and this drawback is mainly the appearance of artificiality. In the wedding-party scene, the artifice approach used by the film-maker makes the event very static and even lifeless. Besides the two main protagonists, there is hardly any distinction among actors visible in this episode. The Oklahoma folks are, in fact, almost the same in appearance, expression, and other manifestations. They always smile; their teeth are always shown in front of the camera. The homogeneous characterisation, despite the appearance of happiness, is reinforced by the boring scenery. A fake house and a dull dim sky -- perhaps the sky is also not true -- tremendously add the insincerity and hypocrisy of the actors. They lack the power of persuasion and, thus, fail to convince the audience that they are real at certain level. Furthermore, the artifice approach has a disadvantage. In On the Town, the male figures constantly wear navy uniforms. In the context of the actual/contemporary world, this is absolutely absurd. Uniforms are worn only in the realm of business or work. Perhaps in the context of time or history, wearing navy uniforms or any uniform for that matter was commonplace. It must be noted, however, that the film subtly informs the viewers that the three male protagonists are out of town and, thus, taking their day-off to the metropolis. Yes, their uniforms reveal the nature of their work. But these cloths are always worn by these male characters for the entire 24-hour day. By and large, the artifice approach is disadvantageous for the reason that it fails to convince the audience that what they are viewing is a reflection or representation of the real/human life. Adapting Broadway musicals for the cinema -- examples of which are Oklahoma! and On the Town -- is extremely challenging and complicated for the film-makers. The difficulty lies greatly in choosing the approach in making and producing films whose manuscripts are largely derived from drama plays: realism or artifice. In the movie adaption of Oklahoma! and On the Town, the film-makers had apparently struggled in handling or tackling the ambitious project. Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly and Zinnemann, in particular, had encountered complexities and complications in undertaking the laborious task. Of course, there were advantages in employing the two approaches -- several examples of which are the film-maker’s greater freedom and the visibility of the character’s emotive feeling. As a whole, the film-makers of Oklahoma! and On the Town had resorted to the shifting or mixing of the two approaches in producing/making their movie adaptation. References Durovicova, N., 1992. Translating America: the Hollywood multilinguals 1929-1933. In R. Altman, ed. 1992. Sound theory sound practice. New York: Routledge. Ch.7. Fordin, H., 1975. On the town. In P. Kerr, ed. 1987. The Hollywood film industry: a reader (British film institute readers in film studies). London: Routledge. Ch.3. Lay, S., 2002. British social realism: from documentary to Brit Grit. London: Wallflower Press. Lemmon, J., 1998. Foreword. In I. Bernard, ed. 1998. Film and television acting: from stage to screen. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. pp.xiii-xiv. Mitchell, R., 2002. Brecht in L.A. (intellect books - play text). Portland, OR: Intellect Books. Sinyard, N., 2003. Fred Zinnemann: films of character and conscience. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company. Read More