As for Dickens becoming carried away, don't you have to be something of a 'power-house' in order to get anywhere?
Timid intellectuals make no imprint.
Was ever any Artist remembered for being timid?
However that may be we must not forget the later Victorian attempts to reconcile two major streams of Poetic Controversy:
The mocking (Parody) against the 'high-brow' aesthetic (Oscar Wilde again) flamboyant personalities in and around the Aesthetic Movement in art and poetic tradition, of a limp and languid kind. Versus the 'low-brow' idyllic form (of Tennyson), each tradition having a special place in the comic Operas of late Victorian times, where fun was made of both camps in the works of Gilbert and Sullivan, for example,the complex genre parody of 'Patience'.
Hastings Forum
Turning a novel or literary work into a Drama or Play
Re: Turning a novel or literary work into a Drama or Play
J K Rowling for many years was shy, self-effacing and gave no interviews, just got on with the job of writing powerful stories. John le Carre very similar. I could quote a thousand other "timid" intellectuals who saw no need to be any kind of "powerhouse" in public or anywhere else .. I think you are getting confused with the modern obsession with celebrity and image ..
Some chose to be flamboyant of course. If the written product hadn't been any good, the authors would never have been heard of again.
Some chose to be flamboyant of course. If the written product hadn't been any good, the authors would never have been heard of again.
Re: Turning a novel or literary work into a Drama or Play
Hi seahermit,
I think we are getting too distracted about novelists and their individual personalities, versus the interpretation of their works when brought to a broader public, via stage plays or Film adaptations.
You can't really put on a Stage-Play with timid actors can you?
The working-classes have always enjoyed raw, earthy themes, not intellectual high-brow stuff and their tastes have to be catered for.
Gilbert and Sullivan were hugely popular, at the time, for a downright loud and extrovert mockery of upper-class stupidity and their foibles, nothing at all wrong with that.
It was a timeless need of Stage Plays (before the advent of film and TV) to present themes and ideas in a clear and unambiguous manner. Did the private life peccadillo's of the author of written product really matter that much if the public appetite for 'show' was catered for? In the case of Oscar Wilde maybe public ideas of illegal homosexuality at the time created a hostile environment.
Celebrity image may have had something to do with it, in Victorian times as, after-all, we can easily forgive a famous author, whatever their human weakness, who continues to entertain and yet falls foul in terms of public-morality issues.
Was Dickens being publicly castigated for having a mistress at the time?
Nowadays it matters little about celebrity image, or does it?
If J.K. Rowling was found to have found to have fallen outside of the law in personal matters then maybe her reputation would have been damaged, it seems likely that, in the case of Dickens in Victorian times that the damage would have been far greater.
And don't tell me that the shy personality of J.K. Rowling had any bearing on the massively and theatrically flambouyant films. In no way did this outlet imply that her works were of poor quality.
TV versus Stage and Screen-Plays are a different 'kettle of fish'. TV adaptations are often more sophisticated interpretations of novels in the sense that a different and perhaps more intellectual audience is being addressed.
Stage Plays are generally 'live' and can be ruined by poor actors or weak production.
Screen-Plays at the cinema, on the other hand, seem to be arranged to appeal more to a sensation-seeking audience, looking to be 'spoon-fed' with special effects and unreal or impossible stunts and similar contrivances.
I think we are getting too distracted about novelists and their individual personalities, versus the interpretation of their works when brought to a broader public, via stage plays or Film adaptations.
You can't really put on a Stage-Play with timid actors can you?
The working-classes have always enjoyed raw, earthy themes, not intellectual high-brow stuff and their tastes have to be catered for.
Gilbert and Sullivan were hugely popular, at the time, for a downright loud and extrovert mockery of upper-class stupidity and their foibles, nothing at all wrong with that.
It was a timeless need of Stage Plays (before the advent of film and TV) to present themes and ideas in a clear and unambiguous manner. Did the private life peccadillo's of the author of written product really matter that much if the public appetite for 'show' was catered for? In the case of Oscar Wilde maybe public ideas of illegal homosexuality at the time created a hostile environment.
Celebrity image may have had something to do with it, in Victorian times as, after-all, we can easily forgive a famous author, whatever their human weakness, who continues to entertain and yet falls foul in terms of public-morality issues.
Was Dickens being publicly castigated for having a mistress at the time?
Nowadays it matters little about celebrity image, or does it?
If J.K. Rowling was found to have found to have fallen outside of the law in personal matters then maybe her reputation would have been damaged, it seems likely that, in the case of Dickens in Victorian times that the damage would have been far greater.
And don't tell me that the shy personality of J.K. Rowling had any bearing on the massively and theatrically flambouyant films. In no way did this outlet imply that her works were of poor quality.
TV versus Stage and Screen-Plays are a different 'kettle of fish'. TV adaptations are often more sophisticated interpretations of novels in the sense that a different and perhaps more intellectual audience is being addressed.
Stage Plays are generally 'live' and can be ruined by poor actors or weak production.
Screen-Plays at the cinema, on the other hand, seem to be arranged to appeal more to a sensation-seeking audience, looking to be 'spoon-fed' with special effects and unreal or impossible stunts and similar contrivances.
Re: Turning a novel or literary work into a Drama or Play
Oh dear, I'm sorry Richard but there are several statements here which are simply the opposite of the truth! I'm not trying to shoot you down but you really should examine the reality first ..
There have been plenty of shy, timid actors (Alec Guiness, Laurence Olivier was a very shy, self-doubting man) who have managed to get into a different persona on stage or in front of a camera and deliver an amazing and extrovert performance. I know what you mean but it is all more subtle and complex than that.
TV adaptations are absolutely not "sophisticated interpretations for a more intellectual audience". In comparison to the films Rebecca or Great Expectations?! By the very nature of the medium, TV dramas have to be made accessible to a wide and often poorly educated audience - as a result many of them come over to me as pale, shallow and often unconvincing dramas and I cannot stand them. A few outstanding exceptions of course - some of the Dickens dramas and remember the Forsythe Saga?
I don't think TV is markedly different from any other medium in the sense that many of the same rules of acting apply. But the immediacy and striving for perfection of a live stage drama keeps the cast on their toes mentally and I find TV pretty wooden and awful by comparison. I can remember many fantastic and electifying
nights spent watching plays at the Old Vic or say Fiddler on the Roof at the Shaftesbury. None of that passion on the goggle box.
There have been plenty of shy, timid actors (Alec Guiness, Laurence Olivier was a very shy, self-doubting man) who have managed to get into a different persona on stage or in front of a camera and deliver an amazing and extrovert performance. I know what you mean but it is all more subtle and complex than that.
TV adaptations are absolutely not "sophisticated interpretations for a more intellectual audience". In comparison to the films Rebecca or Great Expectations?! By the very nature of the medium, TV dramas have to be made accessible to a wide and often poorly educated audience - as a result many of them come over to me as pale, shallow and often unconvincing dramas and I cannot stand them. A few outstanding exceptions of course - some of the Dickens dramas and remember the Forsythe Saga?
I don't think TV is markedly different from any other medium in the sense that many of the same rules of acting apply. But the immediacy and striving for perfection of a live stage drama keeps the cast on their toes mentally and I find TV pretty wooden and awful by comparison. I can remember many fantastic and electifying
nights spent watching plays at the Old Vic or say Fiddler on the Roof at the Shaftesbury. None of that passion on the goggle box.
Re: Turning a novel or literary work into a Drama or Play
seahermit - I have already mentioned the Forsyte Saga, perhaps you were not aware.
I wouldn't say that it was watched by the "wide and often poorly-educated audience" at all.
Eric Porter, a Shakespearean actor, played the tortured solicitor, Soames Forsyte in 1967 and won critical acclaim.
TV is cheap and popular, compared with the costs of going to the Theatre and in that sense it has had to cater to the masses, especially in recent years but mainly with the advent of complete trash from American films and the relentless episodic shows with canned laughter.
Plays are much more vulnerable and easily ruined by a poor cast of actors, whereas the novel is interpreted 'verbatim' by the reader who has to conjure ideas in his/her mind.
TV and Film (Cinema) can show a much wider variety of material than the Theatre and make better money in the process of showing dross and 'Soaps'. But that's where the market lies unfortunately.
They all have their place and rather than spitting out the dummy it seems better to just take what you find to be of interest and enjoy it whilst you can. At least we have a choice, for which we should be grateful.
We should perhaps not be too snobbish and decry the pleasure that suits the level that others are able to connect with.
Without naming any you say that "many TV dramas come over to me as pale, shallow and often unconvincing". Others may disagree and I say 'the more the merrier' and then you can at least compare and contrast.
Becoming bitter and annoyed or condescending is not really very helpful.
I wouldn't say that it was watched by the "wide and often poorly-educated audience" at all.
Eric Porter, a Shakespearean actor, played the tortured solicitor, Soames Forsyte in 1967 and won critical acclaim.
TV is cheap and popular, compared with the costs of going to the Theatre and in that sense it has had to cater to the masses, especially in recent years but mainly with the advent of complete trash from American films and the relentless episodic shows with canned laughter.
Plays are much more vulnerable and easily ruined by a poor cast of actors, whereas the novel is interpreted 'verbatim' by the reader who has to conjure ideas in his/her mind.
TV and Film (Cinema) can show a much wider variety of material than the Theatre and make better money in the process of showing dross and 'Soaps'. But that's where the market lies unfortunately.
They all have their place and rather than spitting out the dummy it seems better to just take what you find to be of interest and enjoy it whilst you can. At least we have a choice, for which we should be grateful.
We should perhaps not be too snobbish and decry the pleasure that suits the level that others are able to connect with.
Without naming any you say that "many TV dramas come over to me as pale, shallow and often unconvincing". Others may disagree and I say 'the more the merrier' and then you can at least compare and contrast.
Becoming bitter and annoyed or condescending is not really very helpful.
Re: Turning a novel or literary work into a Drama or Play
The Forsythe Saga WAS in fact watched by a very wide audience up and down the country. It was wildly popular, got huge audience figures and numerous churches put their Sunday evening services back an hour because otherwise nobody turned up (my own church in Forest Hill was one!). The serial was not dumbed down in any way, it was popular because it was extremely well-made, well-acted and absorbing.
I am not looking down on popular TV or being snobbish - I enjoy a good sitcom or an escapist action film just as much as anyone else, but the fact is that a lot of the fare on TV is simply not very good - hence the delight nowadays in watching some of the better classic sitcoms from the 60's and 70's when there was more attention to quality of performance and detail. I have no time for mediocrity when a little effort could produce a better product. Writer, actor, whatever, we should always deliver our best performance, not just what is easy ..
I am not looking down on popular TV or being snobbish - I enjoy a good sitcom or an escapist action film just as much as anyone else, but the fact is that a lot of the fare on TV is simply not very good - hence the delight nowadays in watching some of the better classic sitcoms from the 60's and 70's when there was more attention to quality of performance and detail. I have no time for mediocrity when a little effort could produce a better product. Writer, actor, whatever, we should always deliver our best performance, not just what is easy ..
Re: Turning a novel or literary work into a Drama or Play
The 1967 television 'Forsyte Saga' is structured differently from the books, by John Galsworthy and is an interesting illustration of the problems of dramatisation.
The TV adaptation spared its audience the dry, civil-service style of John Galsworthy’s original nine novels, but preserved their underlying dramatic momentum. Galsworthy in his time was admired at least as much for his theatre pieces as for his novels, and the play lurking beneath the narrative prose was not in itself difficult to assemble.
However, the huge costs, attention to detail and editing and re-arranging of the novels structure cannot be denied.
It was a TV costume drama, the most ambitious of its kind ever and sold to Russia, America, Canada and 23 other countries. It was originally presented in black-and-white.
The themes of the Saga include the rise of the (commercial) upper middle class, and how their snobbery and slavery to convention preserves their position but ruins their lives. Perhaps it was on account of a demonstration of English character that the working-classes of the 1960's still found this to be relevant viewing.
Galsworthy's Forsyte Saga, as presented on TV, consisted saw the reworking of a number of novels, Man of Devon (1901) The Man of Property (1906), Indian Summer of a Forsyte (1918), In Chancery (1920), Awakening (1920) and To Let (1921); and Galsworthy's later trilogy A Modern Comedy.
The hugely successful TV dramatisation of Galsworthy's novels was repeated, to a lesser degree, with 'Upstairs Downstairs', written by two actress friends with TV comedic dramatisation originally in mind.
Another period-piece dramatisation saw the popularity of Downton Abbey, itself a spin-off from Gosford Park, both written by Julian Fellowes - novelist, film director and screenwriter.
As for poorly produced modern sitcoms and dreadfully sordid 'Soaps' being broadcast regardless of their mediocrity, it all goes to show that a production which people can identify with and perhaps makes them feel better about their own shortcomings, has an enduring appeal regardless of quality acting or production.
The TV adaptation spared its audience the dry, civil-service style of John Galsworthy’s original nine novels, but preserved their underlying dramatic momentum. Galsworthy in his time was admired at least as much for his theatre pieces as for his novels, and the play lurking beneath the narrative prose was not in itself difficult to assemble.
However, the huge costs, attention to detail and editing and re-arranging of the novels structure cannot be denied.
It was a TV costume drama, the most ambitious of its kind ever and sold to Russia, America, Canada and 23 other countries. It was originally presented in black-and-white.
The themes of the Saga include the rise of the (commercial) upper middle class, and how their snobbery and slavery to convention preserves their position but ruins their lives. Perhaps it was on account of a demonstration of English character that the working-classes of the 1960's still found this to be relevant viewing.
Galsworthy's Forsyte Saga, as presented on TV, consisted saw the reworking of a number of novels, Man of Devon (1901) The Man of Property (1906), Indian Summer of a Forsyte (1918), In Chancery (1920), Awakening (1920) and To Let (1921); and Galsworthy's later trilogy A Modern Comedy.
The hugely successful TV dramatisation of Galsworthy's novels was repeated, to a lesser degree, with 'Upstairs Downstairs', written by two actress friends with TV comedic dramatisation originally in mind.
Another period-piece dramatisation saw the popularity of Downton Abbey, itself a spin-off from Gosford Park, both written by Julian Fellowes - novelist, film director and screenwriter.
As for poorly produced modern sitcoms and dreadfully sordid 'Soaps' being broadcast regardless of their mediocrity, it all goes to show that a production which people can identify with and perhaps makes them feel better about their own shortcomings, has an enduring appeal regardless of quality acting or production.
Re: Turning a novel or literary work into a Drama or Play
Turning a novel or literary work into a Drama or Play is certainly nothing new.
However it is no mean feat to take on the challenge and costs involved in producing a 'staged' event that will cover the whole, and doubtless great, expense of its showing.
Anyone with a good basic education should be able to read a novel, to write a good story is maybe more of a learning curve.
To then go on to write a Play from a novel (or otherwise) seems to be even more dependent on special skills.
Certainly it can be quite difficult to read a Play and even more so to stage one, given also that poor actors or production can make or break it, which is clearly quite crucial in terms of financial costs being covered.
Another issue concerns who owns the rights to the novel being interpreted. The BBC had to pursue the rights to the Galsworthy novels in order to produce the 1967 version of the 'Forsyte Saga' when, at that time, they were actually held by MGM who had already made a film 'That Forsyte Woman' (1949).
A novel is what it is and remains that way unless someone with greater skills sees the potential of making it more readily available to an audience.
However it is no mean feat to take on the challenge and costs involved in producing a 'staged' event that will cover the whole, and doubtless great, expense of its showing.
Anyone with a good basic education should be able to read a novel, to write a good story is maybe more of a learning curve.
To then go on to write a Play from a novel (or otherwise) seems to be even more dependent on special skills.
Certainly it can be quite difficult to read a Play and even more so to stage one, given also that poor actors or production can make or break it, which is clearly quite crucial in terms of financial costs being covered.
Another issue concerns who owns the rights to the novel being interpreted. The BBC had to pursue the rights to the Galsworthy novels in order to produce the 1967 version of the 'Forsyte Saga' when, at that time, they were actually held by MGM who had already made a film 'That Forsyte Woman' (1949).
A novel is what it is and remains that way unless someone with greater skills sees the potential of making it more readily available to an audience.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests