I vaguely remember reading that Edward Albee was unhappy with this film adaptation of his play. Does anybody know why? Was it the typical writer's objections when a line or two of his work gets changed or deleted, or was there more to it?
shareOn the extras of the 2006 DVD release he says quite clearly that he liked the film. Something along the lines of:
"I feel very fortunate that it was as good as it was and it's pretty damned good."
He also says he was lucky because the producer who wrote the screenplay didn't screw up my text... the film basically represented the play fairly.
There's a fairly extensive interview with him and Haskell Wexler and others on the dvd and it's quite informative.
I could be wrong, but I could have sworn that I remember reading that Albee was very pleased with the film adaptation of A Delicate Balance but disliked Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf. Perhaps his opinion of the film has changed for the better over time?
shareFor years Albee complained about the movie because it deleted dialogue from the play, especially the baby talk. HOWEVER, years later I saw the complete play in Hollywood, directed by Albee himself and starring John Lithgow and Glenda Jackson. It was promoted as a triumphant vindication of Albee's original script, but even these talented veterans of the theater struggled, and everyone was bored and exhausted by the finale. Breaking down everyone's defenses is the point of the play, but this vanity project just ran out of gas. The movie is substantially better, IMHO. Love live Liz and Dick!
shareI can understand authors being upset over drastic changes to their plays (for instance, Robert Shaw demanding that his name be removed from the credits when they changed the ending to The Man in the Glass Booth).
What I don't understand is the demand of some writers to have every single line in their works performed verbatim. Shakespeare's plays were almost never performed in their entirety, word for word. Some of the best realizations of Shakespeare in film (Olivier's Hamlet) cut out entire characters and subplots, with the understanding that it's just standard operating procedure. Why should Albee's plays be treated any differently just because he's alive?
Apparently, Albee was much happier with the Hepburn/Scofield film of A Delicate Balance, no doubt because it didn't make any major cuts to his play. The result was a rather tedious movie that would have benefited from some cuts to help the pacing.
Albee has an ego the size of Mount Rushmore. Truly irritating man. He
was initially upset by the film because he wanted Bette Davis and James
Mason for the lead roles. I can understand his frustration in the beginning,
but certainly he must've been quite pleased with the casting choices,
especially Sandy Dennis, who was brilliant.
His other complaint boggles my mind: the black-and-white photography. I
get 18 year-olds not liking black-and-white, but he should've been pleased
by Wexler's gorgeous lensing of the picture.
A strange man, to be sure.
'What I don't understand is the demand of some writers to have every single line in their works performed verbatim'
---------------------------------
LIkely because it's very personal and means something to the writer than we may not relate to. I don't mean a change of pronouns, or 'capable to 'able'(etc.)
It's like you writing a love letter with every line intended to be interpreted a certain way by the reader.
Also,if the writer knew lines would be cut,changed..they may never have agreed to sell their story
It's in contracts that changes may be made. Modern day... JK Rowling insisted in her contracts for HP that she have input into screenplays for that very reason. This is part of the reason it has taken 20 years for any of Gabaldon's Outlander series to be put to film, although she didn't have the power to insist (as JKR did) input on changes, she could choose the venue and to sell only to those she felt would do an acceptable adaptation.
shareYes, an author's work is very personal, and therefore any changes would be difficult to abide.
But a film is not a play, and can't be presented as such. It would be a crashing bore to just watch a filmed version of a stage play, unless that's the point of the production. And even then, liberties are taken with camera angles in order to engage the viewer.
The primary difference is in the genesis of both theater and film. Theater was originally very little movement; just actors standing there declaiming. It's a medium based on oratory. "Attending" a play originally meant literally "hearing" a play.
Film, on the other hand, is visual. It was born and developed in silence, so it relies more on what is seen than what is heard. The next movie you watch, observe how many scenes - important scenes - have little or no dialogue, yet still are memorable and meaningful.
It's possible that Albee, being a product of the theater, didn't completely appreciate (or at least like) this fact.
As Albee has told it in many interviews, he originally signed off on a film version of VIRGINIA WOOLF with the promise of James Mason and Bette Davis in the leads and the assumption that the highly successful play script would not be altered. The casting pleased him because Davis read older than Mason, and Martha's being older than George is a big part of the play's character dynamic. (He also thought that Davis doing a Bette Davis impersonation — as Martha does in the script — would be marvelous.) Things started to go wrong when the film's producer, veteran screenwriter Ernest Lehman (NORTH BY NORTHWEST, WEST SIDE STORY, THE SOUND OF MUSIC), decided to pay himself $250,000 to write the screenplay adaptation himself, and then hired Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton rather than Davis and Mason. Taylor was nearly 20 years too young for the role, and so efforts began to age her look for the film. The upside of Tayor and Burton's hiring is that they completely rejected Lehman's screenplay adaptation — which apparently took great liberties with the text — in favor of performing a slightly edited version of the play script. According to Albee, only two lines remained in the film that weren't in the original play — "Let's go to the road house" and "Let's go home from the road house" — for which Lehman still collected (to Albee's amusement) $250,000, screen credit, and an Oscar nomination. Overall, Albee has said that he's very pleased with the final results. His only regrets (and yes, Albee is a renowned control freak) is that Taylor still reads younger than Burton, and that the film was made in Black & White. (The Black & White was used to further harshen Taylor's youthful appearance.) But Albee has said many times that in general the entire project came out much better than he expected.
shareI've never seen this performed on stage, but I know everything takes place in Martha & George's living room. Most plays converted to film or TV have to be "opened up" to avoid claustrophobia and I think it's done quite well here: Nick and George in the front yard; the four main characters interacting with one another and the employees at the roadhouse; the scenes in the car (would YOU want to be a passenger in a car driven by George or Martha?); and George confronting Honey in the parked car and seeing the silhouettes on the bedroom curtains.
May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?
I recall his displeasure was in not having the screenwriting credit that should have been shared. As I recall, he expressed this issue on The Tonight Show. Or some such talk show.
An aside: In the 1980s I went to a New Year's Eve Party at his loft. All male. No female invited or allowed. Supposedly much debauchery occurred after we left.
"Victor, what are we going to do to stop this fiendish tit?"