Friday, January 9, 2015

How Books are Changed for Film and Plays

I recently reread a favorite story of mine, "Flowers for Algernon" by Daniel Keyes. The story follows a young man named Charlie who is born with a low IQ. His teacher, Alice, becomes notified of a special surgery that will increase his intelligence. The story chronicles his thoughts before and after the experiment and shows the toll such experiments can take. Last year I was involved in a play adaption of the story. In order to best get into my role, I watched all the movies adaptions as well as read the book itself. This winter break, I reread the story because I am interested in examining the differences between her messages change throughout different mediums.

This book is particularly interesting because it is written in the form of progress report updates, almost in diary form. This structure is lost in the film and play adaptions. When reading the book, the reader is presented with a near-holistic perspective of Charlie's experiences, but the play and movie lose this perspective, as his thoughts are implied and have to be translated in other ways.

Without the help of voiceovers and with the curtailment of the story into a less than two hour film, much of the descriptive element of stories is lost. However, a visual element is added with scenery that books lack. Many movie directors use colors to set the emotional state of a scene. (See Wes Anderson, who has a different color palette for each film.) Additionally, more emotions are conveyed in close-ups and subtle facial expressions. 

However, in plays, the subtle reactions are even more difficult to convey. Whereas facial expressions, tone, and setting take precedence in movies, plays are all about motion and vocal inflections. On top of that, the instances in which there is a time change or scene change are even harder to convey, and inner thoughts have to be reflected entirely through movement. Take the following passage for example. This was condensed and translated into a monologue used for transitional purposes:


This weekend, I am at the Illinois High School Theaterfest, a convention where the weirdest of the theater kids gather to watch plays and take theater classes. I'm interested to examine how the plays I recognize are adapted, and how subtle details are altered to best convey the message. 

1 comment:

  1. I'm curious to know which version you prefer. From the tone of your blog it seems as though the book itself is your favorite, followed by the movie, and then the play. For me, I typically really dislike movie adaptions of books, because it always seems like they leave out so much of what made the book great. Furthermore, I'm someone who sees a book as they read it, meaning I create scenes in my head as they occur in the text. Then, when I go to watch the movie version, I get frustrated because it it often doesn't fit the image I had created for myself. However, this wasn't the case last year when I saw the play adaption of "Flowers for Algernon" last year, and I'm not sure why that was. Perhaps it was because it had been a long time since I'd read the book, or maybe it was because you and Atticus were in it and the familiarity of seeing friends made the frustrations go away.

    ReplyDelete