Post by spiderwort on Sept 19, 2017 18:22:01 GMT
I understand now, kijii. And I agree with you that Sturges was a pioneer, in particular because he was the first Hollywood screenwriter to became a director (foregoing Chaplin, Keaton, et al, who fall into a slightly different category, imo).
As for the difference between writing for the screen and the stage - of course, plays are more confined and rely upon dialogue to tell their stories. Films, on the other hand, almost always "show" their stories more through action. This means they usually have to be "opened up" and taken out of their stage roots. Not always, of course, as evidenced by the artistic (and cinematic) success of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, A Streetcar Named Desire, and Long Day's Journey into Night, among others. But West Side Story, The Lion in Winter, The War Horse, et al, would have been disasters, if they hadn't been opened up. Not all playwrights are good at that, but many are. Simon was. Robert Anderson was. Robert E. Sherwood was.
For the record, William Inge's Oscar winning screenplay, Splendor in the Grass, was an original screenplay, not based on any of his plays. His next and last screenplay, All Fall Down, was adapted from a novel. I don't think that effort was very good, but I think that was because Inge wasn't writing about his beloved small town midwestern milieu - also I don't know how good the novel was.
To my knowledge O'Neill only wrote plays. Most of those over the years were adapted into films or television productions by screenwriters - with the exception of Long Day's Journey, which Lumet directed as the play (as Kazan did with Streetcar).
And for The Long Voyage Home, I haven't seen it in decades. I loved it then. But a few years ago I tried to watch it again and didn't get very far before I gave up. I think that may have had more to do with O'Neill than with Ford. Not sure. I would have to see the film again to answer your question in full.
Hope this helps.
As for the difference between writing for the screen and the stage - of course, plays are more confined and rely upon dialogue to tell their stories. Films, on the other hand, almost always "show" their stories more through action. This means they usually have to be "opened up" and taken out of their stage roots. Not always, of course, as evidenced by the artistic (and cinematic) success of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, A Streetcar Named Desire, and Long Day's Journey into Night, among others. But West Side Story, The Lion in Winter, The War Horse, et al, would have been disasters, if they hadn't been opened up. Not all playwrights are good at that, but many are. Simon was. Robert Anderson was. Robert E. Sherwood was.
For the record, William Inge's Oscar winning screenplay, Splendor in the Grass, was an original screenplay, not based on any of his plays. His next and last screenplay, All Fall Down, was adapted from a novel. I don't think that effort was very good, but I think that was because Inge wasn't writing about his beloved small town midwestern milieu - also I don't know how good the novel was.
To my knowledge O'Neill only wrote plays. Most of those over the years were adapted into films or television productions by screenwriters - with the exception of Long Day's Journey, which Lumet directed as the play (as Kazan did with Streetcar).
And for The Long Voyage Home, I haven't seen it in decades. I loved it then. But a few years ago I tried to watch it again and didn't get very far before I gave up. I think that may have had more to do with O'Neill than with Ford. Not sure. I would have to see the film again to answer your question in full.
Hope this helps.