TS+Play

1. The film adaptation of Beckett’s //Play// deviates from the guidelines that Beckett laid down in the script in order to adapt the play to the medium of film. One of the most noticeable differences in the film adaptation is the presence of scenery in the background. In the script for //Play// the only set pieces that Beckett mentions are the 3 large urns that hold the actors, but in the film version, there is a background, which consists of other people inside of urns, a gloomy sky, a dead tree, and fog. This scenery leads the audience towards the conclusion that the characters are in some sort of purgatory or hell; whereas, the theatrical version leaves gives the audience no clues as to where the play is taking place, and allows them to draw their own conclusions. I think that the scenery was added in the film version to make it more visually interesting for the audience and to add to the already bizarre tone of the work. In the script for the play, Beckett says that the heads of the characters should be illuminated when they speak and only when they speak, as if the light is triggering their speech; however, in the film version, the characters’ speech is triggered by the camera focusing on the actor’s head. The quick cuts and bizarre zooms also serve to contribute to the bizarre tone that is established by the background and by the nature of the play itself. The last deviation in the film is that the urns are spaced apart. In the script Beckett says that the urns should be touching each other, and I feel that this change was made in the film version simply to allow the necessary shots to be made more easily. The differences between the theatrical and film versions of //Play// give this already bizarre work an even more twisted feel. Though the choices made in the setting of the film version guide the audience towards a specific interpretation of the piece, the confining nature makes sense in the context of film and does not take away from the enjoyment of the piece.

Theatricalism: At a glance, the difference between theatricalism and realism simply boil down to whether or not what is happening in the play is possible in real life. Obviously, if the event can take place in real life, then the play is realistic, and it it can't, then it is theatrical. But leaving the description of theatricalism at 'a play in which the events are not what would happen in real life' is doing it a disservice. At it's core, theatricalism strives to display to the audience how a character views their world, which differs from realism, where the audience is shown how the world reacts to the character. Because you often see things from the perspective of the character's mind in theatrical plays, the world is often warped. The set pieces used are often very symbolic, and the clutter of daily life is often left out of the scenery because it is not needed in order to connect with the character. Overall, symbolic gestures and scenes are much more prevalent in the theatrical style, and because of this, theatrical plays can often delve deeper into the questions they raise. Theatricalism makes use of unrealistic settings, costumes, characters, and situations to create its plays. Often, theatrical plays are largely based on realistic situations, with some sort of crazy element thrown in. We can see this in the play //Angels in America// which discusses, among other things, AIDS in the homosexual community, but it is considered a theatrical work because one of the characters is visited by the ghosts of his ancestors, a woman's hallucinations are played out on-stage, and because many of the characters almost seem to be satirical at times.