The movie "A Streetcar Named Desire" is much different from the play. Most of the differences have to do with the characters being different from how we pictured them when reading the play. I think this is most obvious in Blanche's case. In the play, we see her as being a tragic figure who falls from grace and the "Old South" aristocracy to the slums of New Orleans and eventually a mental institution. When the movie begins, Blanche already appears to have lost it. This creates a much more hysterical, annoying character that I felt much less sympathy for than the character in the book-which says a lot. Vivien Leigh, the actress who plays Blanche, never stops moving. She is always bouncing around the set, in and out of the lights (mostly out), which automatically makes her look suspicious and the viewer immediately distrusts her. We don't really see Blanche this hysterical in the play until about Scene 10, after Stanley has confronted her, Mitch has left her, and she is dressed in a dirty, wrinkled gown.
Unfortunately, I have seen the movie several times before, and it is impossible for me to see Stanley Kowlaski as anyone other than Marlon Brando. When we talked in class about the actor who played Mitch originally being cast as Stanley, it did make sense to me because it would seem to be truer to Tennessee Williams' original vision for the play. "I have always been more interesting in creating a character that contains something crippled."(629) Physically, there is nothing crippled or defective about Brando's Stanley. "Mitch" was obviously not as physically attractive as Brando. The only defect I see in Stanley in the movie is his violent temper-but this seems to be the an intrical part of what Stella finds attractive about him. If Stella is his only weakness (as we see after the leaves him after the poker game and goes to Eunice's, only to return to Stanley begging for her kn his knees), then he has to maintain this primitive rage because it is a big part of what makes him so "manly" in this role. Stella tells him to clear the table, and he smashes the dishes all over the apartment. I'm willing to bet that she secretly liked this "abuse" a little bit, kind of how she liked it when he smashed all the light bulbs with her shoe on their wedding night. Clearly, this rage becomes a serious danger when he rapes Blanche-which still, like the play, leaves Stanley's motives for raping Blanche in question.
Stella didn't appear to change too much from the play to the movie. She seems the weak person who does everything for Blanche and Stanley and nothing for herself. Despite being the third best looking person on screen most of the movie, Stella comes off as more sexual in the movie than in the play. When she returns to Stanley, he is on his knees and she stands, which shows the power she does have over Stanley, even if it isn't visible most of the time. She kisses him and runs her hand over his back, almost scratching it-I had forgotten about that scene but it really shows Stella as a very sexual being. I thought it was interesting, then, that they used such a plain looking actress for this role instead of a they typical gorgeous actress. Maybe they were trying to go along with Williams' intentions of showing all facets of American life, and not the typical version that Hollywood always presents us.
4 comments:
I definately liked how you pointed out how Stella was much more sexual in the movie than the play. It almost seemed as though the only reason she was with Stanley was because of the way he treated her like basically a piece of meat. But in the movie her power over him was definately much more evident. In the play it seemed as if she didn't have much control over him, but the way he acts when she leaves you can see that he actually cares and she is his only weakness. Good thoughts. :)
I agree with that Blanche's character was the most dramatic change. I thought that in the play she was always a little on the side of crazy but the movie changed that. The movie I think overemphasized her craziness. The movie almost made her to be tragically insane from the first moment. I hadn't thought of her actions but since then I have recalled that she never really sits still. Se moves constantly and gives the audience the impression that she is always anxious.
I HATE BLANCHE in both the play and the movie she is the most annoying character, but in the movie I see her as being fit for a straight jacket. In the play I guess I couldn't really see her as being that crazy but in the movie (especially in the ending when she has the dress and rhinestone tiara on and she pretending to be at some fancy party) she really shows her insane side. I really liked how you brought up the idea of Stella being more sexual in the movie than the play. I believed this the most when she comes down the stairs all sexy like and makes Stanley fall to his knees in shame.
I agree with you, the main differences had to do with the characters. I think that part of the problem is that everyone, when reading a story gets their own personal picture in their heads of what it looks like. The problem is when they make the movie most people don't see what they saw in their minds reading the book so they usually don't like the movie version or it doesn't affect them as much.
Post a Comment