Screengrab Presents: The Worst Stage-To-Screen Adaptations Of All Time (Part Seven)

Posted by Andrew Osborne

And now, the not so good...

A CHORUS LINE (1985)



I’m a theater geek from way back, and so I’ve always had a special place in my heart for A Chorus Line, that old warhorse musical tribute to the nameless show biz gypsies who sing and dance their hearts out not for money or fame but (to paraphrase the show’s unabashedly sincere lump-in-the-throat anthem) simply for the love of their art. And, really, what better way to pay tribute to that altruistic, egalitarian spirit than...um...a cynical vehicle for a non-singing, non-dancing movie star which pretty much banishes the musical’s main characters to, well, the chorus. Michael Douglas hogs the spotlight in a role played by an offstage voice in the stage version, while Sir Richard Attenborough (a director hardly known for intimate chamber dramas) eschews the original's claustrophobic stage door setting in favor of “opening up” the action, restlessly tracking Douglas around Manhattan while the songs and stories of the rest of the characters -- the people the show's about -- somehow keep winding up offscreen and ignored.

OLEANNA (1994)



I've had some disastrous first dates in my day, but it's hard to know what I was thinking when I chose the May 1992 premiere of David Mamet's incendiary exploration of sexual politics Oleanna at the American Repertory Theater in Cambridge, Mass. as a means of wooing the cute blonde of my affections. In my defense, I hadn't heard much about the play when I bought the tickets; I think I was under the mistaken impression that it was about pirates. In fact, it's a calculated but highly effective outrage about a smug college professor who is stunned to be accused of sexual improprieties by a young female student he claims he was only trying to help with her studies. The play is designed to start arguments – it's either about sexual harassment or political correctness run wild, depending on your point of view – so it's not exactly primo first date fodder. (As it happens, it wasn't even my least successful date with this young lady, but let's not even go there.) It was undeniably riveting as a theatrical experience, however – William H. Macy and Rebecca Pidgeon, certainly the Mamet-est pairing imaginable, tore the house down. Two years later Mamet turned Oleanna into a movie, in the process giving no indication that he had any idea how or why it had worked in the first place. Pidgeon was gone, replaced by some nonentity named Debra Eisenstadt. Macy was still aboard, but given such a dull, flat adversary, his professor character now tilted too far to the monstrous side. Everything elliptical and ambiguous in the play had become blunt and obvious; there was no longer anything to argue about. Incidentally, Doubt shares these same problems, but at least it has a striking Meryl Streep performance. That's not to say I'm recommending it as a date movie.

ABOUT LAST NIGHT... (1986)



David Mamet's first big stage success, the 1974 Sexual Perversity in Chicago -- a hilariously cold-eyed and profane take on the mating rituals of young urban types in the age of singles bars, porno chic, and "serial monogamy" -- was a one-act that needed to be expanded on (i.e., padded out) to make its weight as a feature film, and by the time it was green-lighted, America was in the post-sexual revolution "age of AIDS" and newspapers, nervous about legal reprisals from the Reagan-Meese Department of Justice, were reluctant to even run ads with the original title. All of which would have presented a problem for filmmakers with a little integrity, as opposed to the makers of this Rob Lowe-Demi Moore vehicle, which bears less resemblance to any Mamet ever produced than a scaled-down, MTV-friendly St. Elmo's Fire II. The only one of the four main characters who retains some detectable link to his stage version is Lowe's male-chauvinist sidekick Bernie, who, as regrettably incarnated by Jim Belushi, is reduced to bellowing in the background of what's now a conventional young-spuds-in-love movie.

EQUUS (1977)



The British playwright Peter Schaffer is the Maxwell Anderson of our day, a mediocre dramatist who dresses up fancy, fraudulent conceits in fake-poetic language and palms it off as high theatrical art by invoking historical giants and Greek deities. The success of the current Broadway revival of his horse-god bullshit play Equus (starring Harry Potter and his naked pudder) is sad evidence that people can still be suckers for this stuff, though the work fared less well in its movie incarnation, which had the misfortune to be directed by a man -- that famous tough customer Sidney Lumet -- who actually seemed to think it was the literary masterpiece that it keeps screaming that it is. If Lumet had seen through this hunk of junk, he might have been so disrespectful as to try to turn it into a movie, the way John Huston did with Key Largo, the only film based on an Anderson text that remains watchable today. Instead, he was content to stick Richard Burton, fresh from his career-crowning performance in Exorcist II: The Heretic, facing the camera from within a sea of black, and have him hurtle through his monologues as if daring us not to be awed. The ideas he has come to set before us, poor Burton declaims, are "less than worthless; they are in fact subversive." Got it right the first time.

FOOL FOR LOVE (1985)



Burned out on Hollywood, Robert Altman spent most of the 1980s working on filmed plays. Some of these worked out a lot less well than others, but this mounting of what, at the time, was widely held as Sam Shepard's masterpiece as a playwright stands out partly for how perfect it sounds in theory and how thoroughly it goes splat in the execution. Altman employed Shepard to both do the screenplay and star as Eddie, the cowpoke who's meant to have an untamed, fiery, yet sporadic relationship with May (Kim Basinger), who may be his half-sister. But in altering the text of his play (which takes place entirely in a motel room) so that the action rolls all around the motel complex and adjoining highway, Shepard inadvertently revealed how silly the material could be made to seem without the tension produced by two actors going head to head in a tight, enclosed space. And by casting Shepard in the difficult leading role, Altman inadvertently revealed his limitations as a film actor: the poor guy wrote his own part, yet he has trouble keeping up with Kim Basinger.

THE FUGITIVE KIND (1959)



After A Streetcar Named Desire, Tennessee Williams was understandably eager to write another role for Marlon Brando, and he was also keen to see Brando paired with Anna Magnani, the Italian powerhouse who had enjoyed a great success in the movie version of Williams' play The Rose Tattoo. Sadly, the only time that Brando and Williams did team up again was for this version of Williams' play Orpheus Descending, which all too perfectly captures the playwright's florid, self-parodic side. The opening, with Brando, as Val Xavier (Williams' notion of a modern Orpheus as a tortured blues-playing Adonis with a guitar and a snakeskin jacket) seen alone on screen as he faces the bar of justice hits the wall as soon as it opens out into a grotesque and unbelievable world -- and as Brando has his first scenes with Magnani: not until Godzilla met Megalon would the screen see such chemistry in action. Also doing their reputations no favors are Joanne Woodward in a misguided attempt by a likably grounded, naturalistic actress to enter the pantheon of the movies' all-time great weirdos, and Victor Jory as a rich cracker so rotten that Cape Fear's Max Cady would report him to the Neighborhood Watch Program.

Click Here For Part OneTwo, Three, Four, Five, Six Eight

Contributors: Andrew Osborne, Scott Von Doviak, Phil Nugent


Comments

Mike D said:

The comments about the author of "Equus" and "Amadeus" reek of envy of the worst sort.

December 11, 2008 7:03 PM

Phil Nugent said:

Now, Mother, they do not, and you know it. I understand the urge to address an opinion with which one disagrees with the suggestion that it was inspired by some dark, scurrilous emotion on the writer's part, rather than a serious counterattack arguing the opposite view: it's a lot easier. And, since it generally makes the comment writer look like more of an ass than a reasoned counterargument, I encourage it! But when the charge is this far from being effective, then I, as a practiced master in the art of the cheap shot, feel that I have to call foul. It would make more sense to write in saying that I only pretend to think that Shaffer's plays suck because he jilted me at the altar or used to live next door to me and played his Van Der Graaf Generator records at top volume till four in the morning. These things would not be true either, but they'd be more plausible than suggesting that I, or anyone else, might pretend to dislike the man's work because of feelings of envy. Who in the name of screaming blue Jesus could ever feel envious of Peter Shaffer? And why?

For a second the thought crossed my mind that maybe the idea was that I was supposed to be envious of Dr. Dysart's creator just because he's enjoyed good reviews and worldly success, but then I realized that if that was the idea, it would have to come attached to a detailed explanation for why I'm not envious of all the writers, directors, actors, etc., who have enjoyed worldly good reviews and worldy success about whom I have written nice things, so that can't be it. Anybody who'd even think of throwing that out there would be too stupid to operate a computer without shorting it out by spilling the contents of his drool cup all over the keyboard, so I apologize for even briefly entertaining the notion that this could be what you were driving at. So the charge would only work it if meant that I envy Shaffer for some personal reason. I'm not saying he's not enviable as all get-out; for all I know, he combines the most enviable qualities of George Clooney, Jimi Hendrix, Mikhail Baryshnikov, and Rupert on "Survivor"--the way he was in the "Pearl Islands" season, not on "All-Stars", where he started acting like a yutz. But I swear, the only two things I know about Shaffer are that his plays couldn't be goofier if they enrolled in Scientology and that when he dies, which I hope is a long ways off, he's going to report to the other side and find that Mozart is waiting for him with a scowl and a baseball bat. My mouth to God's ear, I do not envy him these things.

Anyway, thanks for writing in, but I wish you'd saved this particular devastating insight for the next time I make fun of Liev Schreiber. Did you know that dude's got it going on with Naomi Watts? Now you want to talk about somebody making me reek of envy of the worst sort...

December 13, 2008 6:32 PM

in