Post by dawnoshiro on Dec 4, 2012 13:46:56 GMT -5
I've been doing a lot of thinking about the reason I didn't really enjoy reading "Arthur and George" as a play and I suspect it might have something to do with the staging.
In the novel, one of the things I really liked about the structure was the way it moves back and forth between George and Arthur and shows how different and separate their lives are, and the way that they converge almost as if by chance. The play focuses almost exclusively on Arthur and George in the present (it opens when George has already served his sentence and Arthur is already invested in his case). But this neglects a great deal of character development and context that makes the case so powerful.
What I would have liked to have seen in a stage adaptation of "Arthur and George" is the sense of separation and convergence of these two remarkable lives. Instead of starting in the present, I would have liked to have seen the play structured more like the novel--maybe with Act I as the past and Act II as the point of convergence. In terms of staging, I thought it would have been interesting if the stage were literally divided in half--with Arthur's world of privilege on one side, a small neutral zone in the center and the other side of the stage depicting George's world (Great Wyrley, the vicarage, etc.). When the focus is on an "Arthur" scene, the lights on the George section might be dimmed and vice versa, to mimic the alternating perspectives of the book.
Another thing that would have made the stage play so much more powerful for me would have been the sense of waiting and the passage of time. That is such a huge part of the novel--Arthur and Jean waiting for Touie to die, while George languishes for seven years in prison. It would have been kind of cool to see scenes with Arthur and Jean played in the foreground while Touie is lying in her sickbed or George is behind bars. If the actor playing George were onstage (visible, but in jail for much of the time), it might have made his situation even more sympathetic later.
The scene with Anson in the play lost a good deal of its bite for me because when he makes the crack that no one can be 100% innocent, Arthur sees how that can apply to his relationship with Jean, which he had tried to keep so pure and separate. The idea that he could be guilty even after all of his efforts (and all of his waiting!) makes that scene so intense. If the past and the angst of waiting had been dramatized, I think it could have been a much more profound moment.
I think I would have liked to have seen a little less emphasis on the "detective" aspect (recreating much of the trial, interviewing witnesses, Woodie stealing the weapon etc.). Personally, I don't care that much about Greatorex, Dr. Butter, and the other minor characters. I guess I just wanted more scenes that focused on Arthur and George individually.
The things that are at stake are more personal for Arthur and George and so tied up in the past. In the play "Inherit the Wind," the trial is essential--it's a battleground of ideas and a man's freedom is at stake. But here, George has already served the seven years...
In the novel, one of the things I really liked about the structure was the way it moves back and forth between George and Arthur and shows how different and separate their lives are, and the way that they converge almost as if by chance. The play focuses almost exclusively on Arthur and George in the present (it opens when George has already served his sentence and Arthur is already invested in his case). But this neglects a great deal of character development and context that makes the case so powerful.
What I would have liked to have seen in a stage adaptation of "Arthur and George" is the sense of separation and convergence of these two remarkable lives. Instead of starting in the present, I would have liked to have seen the play structured more like the novel--maybe with Act I as the past and Act II as the point of convergence. In terms of staging, I thought it would have been interesting if the stage were literally divided in half--with Arthur's world of privilege on one side, a small neutral zone in the center and the other side of the stage depicting George's world (Great Wyrley, the vicarage, etc.). When the focus is on an "Arthur" scene, the lights on the George section might be dimmed and vice versa, to mimic the alternating perspectives of the book.
Another thing that would have made the stage play so much more powerful for me would have been the sense of waiting and the passage of time. That is such a huge part of the novel--Arthur and Jean waiting for Touie to die, while George languishes for seven years in prison. It would have been kind of cool to see scenes with Arthur and Jean played in the foreground while Touie is lying in her sickbed or George is behind bars. If the actor playing George were onstage (visible, but in jail for much of the time), it might have made his situation even more sympathetic later.
The scene with Anson in the play lost a good deal of its bite for me because when he makes the crack that no one can be 100% innocent, Arthur sees how that can apply to his relationship with Jean, which he had tried to keep so pure and separate. The idea that he could be guilty even after all of his efforts (and all of his waiting!) makes that scene so intense. If the past and the angst of waiting had been dramatized, I think it could have been a much more profound moment.
I think I would have liked to have seen a little less emphasis on the "detective" aspect (recreating much of the trial, interviewing witnesses, Woodie stealing the weapon etc.). Personally, I don't care that much about Greatorex, Dr. Butter, and the other minor characters. I guess I just wanted more scenes that focused on Arthur and George individually.
The things that are at stake are more personal for Arthur and George and so tied up in the past. In the play "Inherit the Wind," the trial is essential--it's a battleground of ideas and a man's freedom is at stake. But here, George has already served the seven years...