Script tinkering

Play rehearsals for "Gossamer" have begun in Milwaukee, and that means the playwright is back at work. Funny how you don't perceive stuff until director and actors begin working with it. Jeff Frank, the director, emailed me that the transition from Scene 1 to Scene 2 didn't work well...getting the characters from one place to the next was difficult, but what if we...? And he was right. I re-wrote Scene 1 and now, he tells me, that problem is solved.

Now I am about to deal with a number of other thoughts/suggestions from Jeff after he held a reading in front of an audience. This is the type of thing (I hope he doesn't mind my posting his quote here):

As much as I love scene 17 and the humor within (which I think is necessary in the rhythm of the piece), I do feel that it goes on too long – interrupting the build in tension for too great a time. We also lose some of the dramatic tension in the scene if we venture too far into the humorous aspect.

Of course this is the sort of collaborative work that ultimately strengthens the play and for which I'm very grateful. It's fun, actually, to trim and tighten with the help of such input.

He also mentioned the possibililty of switching scenes 14 and 16 with each other and this is something I'll look at when I have a little more time to sit and think. Today I am flying to Newport News, Virginia, in order to speak at a Holocaust Remembrance ceremony there tonight. But I'll be home tomorrow (Friday) and back at my desk.

The differences between book/stage/screen are really fascinating. "To Kill a Mockingbird" of course has been successful in all three genres. I'm trying to think of others. Yesterday morning I had tea with writer Allegra Goodman, who lives nearby, and we talked about books-to-movies, in particular some that were better on the screen than on the pages. (Neither of us had been able to go see "The Kite Runner") For me, "House of Sand and Fog" fell into that category, and also "The Cider House Rules."

PLay-to-Screen is another interesting transition, with no book to impede or enhance the adaptation. "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf" worked brilliantly but of course it had director Mike Nichols to thank for that. Often such a jump means a movie that seems constrained and stagey. "Equus" didn't work very well.

And oh my, I could start thinking/talking abut Shakespeare now, and the various movie adaptations....the Polanski MacBeth, for example. Zeffereli's Romeo and Juliet. Mel Gibson as Hamlet. Olivier. Kenneth Branagh. Oh dear, I must stop.

Comments

[Elizabeth Berendzen]

Ms. Lowry,
I loved the book Gossamer. I hope it will make a very good play. Keep us posted.

Elizabeth Berendzen, Age 13

[Christine Eldin]

I wasn't able to comment on your previous post, but I found your discussion about character description fascinating. And I had to scratch my head because I honestly didn't remember that the mc in The Giver wasn't described. I guess I had him firmly developed in my head.

The transition from book to movie must be so exciting! Are you having to write more dialogue? Or are they basically editing and shuffling scenes around? Fellow blogger Pat Wood's book "Lottery" is also going to be made into a movie.
This behind-the-scenes look at process is a wonderful gift you're giving us.

[Kate]

I've always thought Ordinary People was better on screen. It's one of my favorite movies.

[Amy]

I loved The Kite Runner both on the page and on the screen, same with Feast of Love. (Curiously, I found Kite Runner more graphic as a book than a movie.) The Cider House Rules was great both ways, but was two entirely different stories (to me). I am usually hesitant to see a movie of a book that I've loved because it usually doesn't live up to the book (A Tree Grows in Brooklyn - my imagination is just so much better, and different every time), but I am excited for The Giver! There's so much that is so conceptual in the book that they should be able to do quite well (like the transfer of memories to Jonas). I'm looking forward to it :) (Ps just moved to Cambridge, narrowly missing your appearance at Porter Sq Books, look forward to catching you in the future!)

[Annie]

I have yet to see a stage version of "To Kill a Mockingbird," but both the book and movie versions get me every time. Also, I saw "The Cider House Rules" when it first came to theaters and loved it; when I picked up the book, I could barely make it past the first few chapters. (I just can't get into John Irving's books.)

I haven't read "Children of Men" but found the film extremely moving. "The Hours" was amazing in both film and book form.

[Oswaldo Jimenez]

This is a very interesting topic.

When I asked my daughter about what she thought
of the Harry Potter movies compared to the books
she quiclky answered "the details" she thought
movies leave many details out.

My preference as a reader is to dive into a book on
my terms and follow the author's lead. I love movies
and Clearly it makes a huge difference if the author
of the book works on the movie script, which is not
always the case.

(Shakespeare, I think, is better experienced
as a play than read)

Time Magazine has an article about this very
subject which I found useful:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1134742-1,00.html

Cheers!

[Betty]

I think The English Patient was a much better film than it was a book. It really clarified issues in the book. But movies that were an improvement on (or at least equal to) the original book are few and far between. Best of luck!

[PERRY G BUOTE]

Have you thought of JB Broasso from canada you can see sme of his work from the beach combers to king ralph. I beleive he would make a great Giver.