MovieChat Forums > Tape (2002) Discussion > Why filming a play is often a bad idea

Why filming a play is often a bad idea

posted 16 years ago by The_Great_Pantubo
11 replies | jump to latest

I hardly ever go out to plays, but when I do, it's usually a good time. When you invest an entire evening to buying tickets, going out, and watching talented people perform live, there is a whole lot that you are willing to let slide. A weak storyline; ridiculous plot twists; irrelevant conversations; all these things are minimized when you are viewing a live performance. You are literally eavesdropping on peoples' lives, and the bad things (if small) will not detract too much from the experience.

And when you film a play, bad things become glaring incompetencies. And that's why this movie is so poor. I could list ten glaring flaws, but I'll stick with two, in the interest of brevity.

First, movies need visuals. They are not optional. Musical recordings need sound, and movies need visuals. This entire movie takes place in an ugly motel room. It would have been better to make this a radio show than to waste film in this manner. I can't think of an uglier film -- and that's with an appearance by Uma Thurman, mind you.

More importantly, the filmmakers had no clue about the use of dialogue in film. In a play, dialogue is almost all you have. Much like a talk radio show, it is necessary to use "filler talk" in a play or else all of your meaningful dialogue will be used up in 25 minutes. Incredibly, in this movie, all of the filler talk is filmed! So you get long exchanges like this:

"What are you talking about?"
"What do you think I'm talking about?"
"Don't be coy with me."
"No, really, I want to know. What do you think I'm talking about?"
"I don't know. But it better not be what I think it is."
"And what is that?"
"Don't you know?"
"No, I really don't."
"I think you do. Why don't you just come out and say it?"
"I'd rather not. I want to hear you say it."
"Say what, exactly?"

And on. And on. And on. And on. Just brutal.

This work probably would have ranked a 5 or 6/10 as a play. As a movie, ir is a 3/10 -- fairly painful, but if you're bored, you'll probably stick it out to see how it ends.

[–] CypheredWolf 16 years ago

I disagree. I liked the fact that the movie takes place in only the hotel room. Sure I like bright colors and lots of movement but this seemed realistic to me. The filler talk added to that. People accused of rape especially rape they don't think they've committed don't just say it. Its also interesting to see the change in Jon's perception. At first he thinks it was just rough sex and feels a little guilty about it. He then starts to think he raped Amy. He's not just going to automatically believe Vince. There has to be something between I shouldn't have done that and oh my freaking God. What have I done?

[–] bhessle-1 16 years ago

I disagree too. I think it was refreshing to see a movie that was driven by dialogue and that took place in one room, because it's very rare in cinema since most movies try to be as cinematic as possible most of the time. So, it was minimalistic nad refreshing.

[–] eastcoastguyz 16 years ago

I agree. I found it exciting how they transformed what seemed to be little more than a reunion into a real drama. The tension was building as if it felt like we were watching the entire movie in real-time.

[–] universe56 16 years ago

I disagree totally. This is one of the best films in recent years, possibly the best film ever for its budget. Hawke is incredible. Loads of suspense right until the very end. If you're into cheap thrills and catchy visuals then of course you aren't going to like this incredibly intelligent film. I almost like this movie more than waking life.

From now on, please try to not split infinitives

[–] luhrmannsbohemian 15 years ago

I disagree with just about everything you said.

I'm a complete theater rat and have collected an entire paint bucket of stubs, but my main passion has always been filmmaking.

This film is probably one of the best stage to screen adaptations I have ever seen.

Perhaps if you were to watch more plays an venture into more experimental films, you would see that:

-the stage can cover up flaws much weaker than you think
-"visuals" in a film can be interpreted about a million different ways

and finally

-human interaction is human interaction, whether it be live or taped.

-Elliot

[–] fallenangelwithfroglegs 15 years ago

Well, I both agree and disagree with you on this. I agree that film is a completely different medium to the stage (just as the stage is to the novel, the novel to the poem and so on). There's an old saying that goes something along the lines of "If you can tell your story in any way apart from film, why the hell are you making a film?".
That said, while Tape does occasionally fall into the "filmed play" category (rather than the "adapted play" category), it has a lot to offer as a film in itself. Take another look at the style of the film if you will. The use of barely graded DV gives the film a rather ugly and raw look and there's barely a flattering angle or lighting set up throughout the entire film. It looks ugly on purpose. The back and forth camera panning is often downright annoying and nauseating (again, I'm quite sure this was purposeful).
Had this been done on film and relied on "risk-free" set-ups trying to hold itself up on the strength of the play (a la Glengarry Glen Ross), then it would have failed miserably. But it doesn't do those things. It takes a lot of risks and pays out dividends.
I remember when this film came out, DV was relatively new, and given it's cheapness compared to film (even 16mm, let alone 35), my friends and I were constantly trying to figure out ways to try and make DV look more like film. Then here comes a movie that embraces the ugliness of DV and uses it as another story device.

I guess what I'm saying is this: I see where you're coming from, and from a traditional McKee type analysis it would be a failed film, but if you take a step back from thinking, "this is a filmed play and it looks ugly" you may understand why it's so ugly and appreciate it a little more. The way I see it is Linklater saying, "well, it would be silly to try and make a grandiose film out of this play, so I'll take a different approach and get in there with video, warts and all!".

PS. Another reason to consider why plays are turned into films at all - especially nowadays - is that not many people go out to the theater, but pretty much everyone has a DVD player in their house. I'm not saying that's a good reason, and I personally find it to be something of a sad fact, but it is a fact nonetheless, and thus it is a way to get a stage play to a larger audience.

[–] RaspberryWaffles 15 years ago

Very much so, I am a major film fan, and I love the theater. Yet it is a lot cheaper to go out and buy a DVD that you can watch over and over again. As opposed to spending upwards of fifty dollars at a theater show. Sure the theater is fantastic, yet most people believe that "live entertainment" does not compare to a major motion picture. I would have agreed on that point, until last weekend when I saw the Wizard of Oz at the Scranton Cultural Center. The stage presentation was in most part, better than the actual film.

Yet never having seen the stage presentation of Tape and only having to rely on the film version, I would say that this is one of the greatest indie flicks I have ever seen and the best movie I have ever seen at such a low budget. The characters interact in a way that you don't see in a lot of your major releases. Why? Minimalism, you don't have explosions or intricate story lines, mothers who are their sons grandmothers etc. They keep the suspense, climax it, bring it back down, then build it up and climax it again.

This movie is a wonderful depiction of realism in a realistic setting, realistic people, and a realistic problem.

"She can't stand the sight of me. Now I see the funny side, now I'm always smiling!"

[–] cherubalways 15 years ago

I'm not sure this was such a good play in the first place, maybe that's where the "fault" is. I understand filler is necessary but, if it had been tweaked just a bit from the time RSL enters, up to the confrontation with EH about what really happened with Amy, it might have stifled my urge to hit fast forward (naturally, by doing that I missed critical plot information and had to go back.)
It boils down to a flawed original screenplay. I didn't even realize EH's character was deliberately creating a desired ambiance in the opening--I thought the character was either crazy, distressed, angry, it just wasn't clearly drawn enough to understand (it was made clearer listening to Linklater's DVD commentary.) I didn't feel engaged until the three character confrontation, and if the whole screenplay had that energy, it would've rang all the chimes. Plus, Ethan Hawke has been an acquired taste for me, so seeing so much of him was difficult. I prefer him playing more quiet characters. His "angry" characters all look the same to me. But, if you compare his quieter characters in "Training Day" and "Dead Poets Society," he is capable of nuance.
(I do have similar problems with Robert Sean Leaonard, though his acting on the t.v. show "House" has warmed me to him.)

[–] Biscuitchris7 15 years ago

Well, I was going to post a whole rebuttal to your initial post, but, when I found out that you are the type of a person who calls "The Deer Hunter" a 'Breathtakingly Stupid Film' and "Dog Day Afternoon" a 'very weak film.' I'd just assume try and talk a cerebral palsy victim through brain survey on a paraplegic with a pair of Vise Grips.

There's a mad man in there with his hand on a...on a BUTTON!

[–] ankush_jha53 14 years ago

i see many presenting you arguments why they disagree to your opinion. I just think you don't deserve that.
Visuals??
Classics like 12 angry men, rear window, clerks and tape are enough shut your hole.

filmmaker had no clue about use of dialogues?? to a men who has made so many wonderful movies just based on dialogues.
before sunrise, before sunset, dazed and confused, waking life etc.

That is how real people talk, hence it is filmed that way, get up n smell realist cinema.

3/10??

sorry for being harsh but 3/10 really pissed me off and the fact that i am die hard fan of linklater movies. Nothing personal, just difference of opinions.

what the f*u-c~k is the internet!

[–] WiiD_nugz420 13 years ago

it seems the movie went right over your head, especially if you gave it a 3/10...the main problem i have with what you said is the thing about the hotel room and how it's ugly...it's ugly on purpose because it represents the shared past of the 3 characters and the ugliness that their pasts represent

idgafBRO