Author's Note
Believe it or not, but I wasn't always a great writer (if you're laughing at this statement, I can't hear you).
In my first year of college at UC San Diego, I took a class called 'Theatre And Film' (I think), in which we studied (watched) films that were based on stage plays. Instead of exams, we were graded on essays comparing each adapted film we studied to its original written play.
Obviously, I got an 'A' in this class (this is a verifiable fact, and I am boasting because it was my first A in college). But on a more serious note, this class (and the 'A' grade, just saying) was particularly important to me because it was the first time I wrote something I wanted to write.
Basically, when historians in the future research my life, they will find traces of Launchora's origins in this class.
So to continue celebrating Launchora's first weekend of story-publishing (i.e. June 20-22, 2014), I'm going to publish some of my college writings/essays in this multiple part series, which I would like to call "The Origins of A Writer". Yes, I just made that up and then changed the name of this story to reflect it.
First up is my first ever college essay, a Film Vs. Play analysis of Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest.
This essay written on April 21, 2008, and reproduced here word-for-word, typo-for-typo. As always - don't judge my writing, judge 18-year-old me's writing.
ESSAY ONE
The Importance Of Being Earnest:
Film Vs. Play
Between films and theatre plays, it is the former that has to compete with reality. A play, from beginning to end, looks artificial, unreal - the set, the lack of a fourth wall, etc. The audience is not seeing it through the eyes of a specific character nor are they focusing on a single actor. Everything is given to the viewers and they choose what to see. Recreating a play originally written for the stage into a film involves making a huge jump from artificiality to reality. On stage - the artificiality, the fake background, and the overemphasized and loud manner of speech cries out "this is not reality" or "you will not see this anywhere else". When on screen, the setting is real, the houses are real (or look real at least), the entire city is recreated to the almost exactly as it might have looked it 1890s; everyone and everything on the screen is forcing the viewers to believe in their world. This makes the story real.
The Importance of Being Earnest, the film directed by Oliver Parker, in my opinion, is a faithful representation of the original play written by Oscar Wilde. When you see the film on screen you are transported a century back in time. The play was written in late 19th century and set in the same time period too. The film was made more than a hundred years later. The audience had changed. No one talked like they did in the play anymore. The world of the play no longer existed. Everything was recreated and the result was praiseworthy. The entire cast is exceptional in their roles and the city of London looks beautiful.
Bringing a play from the stage to the screen gives room for a lot of things. On stage it is the words, actions, expressions, and emotions of the actors that make the play. On screen it is all of those things, as well as the locations that are used to tell the story. In the play there are only three backdrops (something usual for a play) - Algernon’s apartment in Albany, and the other two at Jack’s country house. The film, however, could not be limited to just three locations. The director takes us to several sites; splitting conversations across days and different venues, something done obviously to be faithful to both the lovers of the original play as well as a regular film watcher.
There are a few changes or modifications made to the story by the director. These additions are only to further enhance Wilde’s story and characters, something hindered by the limitations of stage. The characters of Jack and Algernon, who in the play are less than 30 years old, are played by older actors and in fact are older in the film's storyline (Jack being 35 in the film and 29 in the play; Algernon over 35 in the movie and less than 29 in the play). The director, who also wrote the screenplay, may have done this for two reasons. Firstly, the two actors playing these roles are phenomenal actors and extremely popular, fitting seamlessly as Wilde’s Jack and Algernon. Secondly, by making the characters older, the director aims to highlight Wilde’s concept of immaturity being amongst those mistakably considered wiser by age. By further increasing the age difference between the men and the women of the story the director reinforces the fact this story is a satire of romance.
Speaking of women, the addendums made in that area, even though slightly comical, fit comfortably into the characters of Gwendolen, Cecily, Miss Prism and Lady Bracknell. Each character is given something new by the director, something I feel fuses seamlessly into their respective personalities. Gwendolen’s tattoo of ‘Ernest’ displays her childishness and immaturity, as well as her passion for the name of Ernest. When I first saw the scene where she is getting the tattoo I laughed, but then I thought “Of course! Gwendolen is capable of doing such a thing”. Similarly, Cecily’s diary’s pages coming to life with the appearance of Algernon as her ‘Prince Charming’ gives visual references to the thinking of young girls of the Victorian age.
In fact, it is the friendship between Gwendolen and Cecily that has always been my most favorite part in the story. In the film there is a scene that takes place right after Jack and Algernon’s true identities have been revealed in front of their fiancés. In this scene we see Gwendolen and Cecily reading each other’s diary enthusiastically and in absolute enjoyment, something not seen in the play. In my opinion, this scene is what truly represents Wilde’s view of those times and is carried out beautifully by the director while at the same time not pressing upon it or underlining it. It explains everything we have seen till now about their relationship. Just as Jack had predicted, they, ever since the first time they met, were absolutely fond of each other and behaving like sisters. This artificial but permanent layer of love is replaced by their true self when they learn of each other’s alleged engagement to Ernest. They are back to their normal selves when they gain knowledge of who Ernest really is. All this, which till now seems like just a comical scene, is given a coating of reality and seriousness when we see them reading each other’s diaries. It tells us what was important for the women in those times and exactly how crucial it was for their reputation and their survival in society.
Jack’s real name, a twist in the film, made a lot of sense to me. It brought a whole new meaning to Jack’s last line about how vital it is to be Earnest. It indicated how Jack needed to be everything but Earnest to be Ernest. The director's take as a whole makes sense to have that ending, and comparing only the endings is out of question. I am uncertain if the different ending makes a difference to me, but I do know it makes the film a twisted adaptation of Wilde’s play.
In conclusion, I find that both the play and the film are perfect versions of themselves.