MovieChat Forums > Fences (2016) Discussion > A play...

A play...

posted 8 years ago by schmadie
8 replies | jump to latest

...is not a movie.

The film is a litany of scenes that evoke pain, frustration, depression, sadness...almost all carried out in what amounts to theatrical style.

They're fascinating to watch, and you can't help but appreciate ('look on in awe'?) them to the nth degree...but when the film shifts into 'cinematic' mode, for me the contrast is jarring. And made me wonder what would have resulted if a proper adaptation of the play had been written and filmed. (Which has me admitting that no, I don't see this as an 'adaptation' of the play per se.)

7/10

[–] joeftak 8 years ago

I agree. After the first couple scenes I could tell it was adapted from a play just from the way characters entered and left.

[–] MoviemanCin 8 years ago

Yes I also sensed that it was adapted from a play, but what does that matter? It's a brilliant film, and deserves the Best Picture Oscar IMHO. And Washington and Davis also deserve Oscars.

BUMP

Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar and doesn't.

[–] schmadie 8 years ago

While I acknowledge and appreciate your opinions, I respectfully disagree.

Filmmakers are free to put anything they want on the screen.

If you want to produce a film that is done in kabuki style, have at it.

If you want to produce one that is, in effect, an opera, go ahead.

I have nothing against a filmed version of 'No Man's Land' starring Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart; their West End theatrical event is currently being shown live at select cinemas.

But for me, a for-all-intents-a-play being produced as a movie doesn't work. There are theatrical conventions that do not work on-screen in movie form. For me, 'Fences' is solid testimony that proves this. Once more, the contrast of the theatrical portions with the clearly identifiable filmic versions reinforces my view.

There are some majestic performances. Denzel deserves to be nominated for an Oscar...in fact, he probably deserves to win. The rest of the cast are fantastic, especially Viola Davis.

But I still would have preferred to have seen a properly adapted version of the play, not simply a transference from the stage. I would have preferred to have seen these performances executed as a movie. For me, that would have been a far more satisfying experience.

[–] Last Tango 8 years ago

And FYI, cinema history is rich with films that have been adapted from plays and that are stylistically theatrical. There are even great films that are little more than filmed plays! I acknowledge your point that cinema has certain parameters that make it a "film" but it does not have to be a bounded art form and indeed pushing those boundaries has resulted in some of the best work in the medium.

[–] schmadie 8 years ago

Absolutely! Couldn't agree more! Artists (and Corporate Artists) are free to do what they're compelled to do, for whatever reasons they're compelled to do so.

I'm simply saying that for me, a genuine movie experience...according to what I've outlined...is preferable. That's just me. In the same way that I prefer butter on my popcorn as opposed to plain, or with seasonings, or having milk in my coffee, or my cream in tea, ice in my soft drinks. I can eat it, I can drink it...but I prefer what I prefer. That's all.

[–] Last Tango 8 years ago

That's totally fair. The most amazing thing about film (and art in general) is that subjective experience that we all have as individuals when we experience it. I'm a believer in the idea that we are all "co-creators" of a sort when we experience art because that experience is truly and absolutely unique. Nobody can experience that art in the same way you do and that is a beautiful thing that ought to be valued. I completely and genuinely respect your personal relationship to the art you experience :)

[–] mrsugaless 8 years ago

Last Tango, I couldn't agree more. Well said. There's many plays that have been adapted to decent movies ("The Bad Seed" for example). I suspect that if the majority of the didn't know "Fences" was originally a play, wouldn't have issues with the 'play trappings' of the movie. Now everyone is hyper aware of the play-ish aspects of the movie and are on the lookout for it.

I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the audience is unaware that "Fences" started off as a play. I originally didn't want to see the movie until I found out it was based on a play (because popular long lasting plays tend to have better dialogue & acting than most movies).

~It requires wisdom to understand wisdom: The music is nothing if the audience is deaf.~

[–] Bronte_Sista 8 years ago

I agree. It feels very "stagy." Long blocks of dialogue, very few scene changes, minimal sets, not exactly melodramatic performances but just no subtlety. On a stage, you have to make the performances larger.

I wish they would just stop adapting plays for film, but I guess this is the only way for most plays to reach a broader audience. It's unfortunate that more people don't just go out to the theater like they do for the cinema. Make a night of it. Get dressed up, have a nice dinner afterward. I went to plays alone all the time because I couldn't drag any friends or family away from their mobile phones.