ABSTRACT
Whereas previous chapters – with the exception of a number of silent film examples – have explored filmed theatre and the contexts in which theatre is presented or nested in cinema, the present one will concentrate on adaptations designed specifically for the big screen with relatively little reference to the theatre. The notion of an absolute division between theatre and cinema, as postulated by some eminent critics and practitioners, is the primary focus. My central argument is that, despite the prejudice that theatre and film do not belong together, it is evident that dynamic chemistry between them can be discovered by highly creative artists. The artistry of such purely cinematic adaptations differs from the artistry involved in generating embedded films and filmed theatre, where the stage and theatricality contribute more visibly to the authenticating conventions of the particular film. Although I make the case for three levels of intermedial relationship between stage play and film adaptation – or rather, three significant gradations along a conceptual continuum – the case studies will concentrate on what, I argue, are the two more creative types of transfer. The distinction between these two more creative types of screen adaptation/appropriation and the more common, competent stage-to-screen adaptation according to this schema is fundamentally the difference between distinguished art-work and well-crafted analogue. In a relatively small number of cases, films that reflect the script and dramatic trajectory of a stage play with considerable fidelity can be considered as great film art. However, as I argue with reference to the subsequent case studies, there will always be a strong element of creative autonomy evident in such examples.
