After having read Ariel Dorfman’s play and then watching the
film adaptation, I must say I think the play was far more impactful. The point of the play was to show the cycle
of tyrannical violence that often happens when the oppressed come into power
and how easy it is to become a tyrant. What
also made the play far more moving was its ability to never resolve if Dr.
Miranda was guilty, if Gerardo was ineffective or if Paulina was striking out
in blind vengeance.
While
the acting was very well done in the film I was disturbed by the choice to make
everything so deliberate and final.
Paulina destroys Miranda’s car establishing that there is no hint of
escape. Gerardo strikes Miranda instead
of remaining distant as the Law is distant.
And finally, the audience views what seems to be an honest confession
from Miranda while they Paulina say that people like him are often given
alibis. The audience was practically fed
Polansky’s interpretation of the play.
In the end though I suppose that is what would make the film far less controversial. It is what Polansky himself took away from
Dorfman’s work. It is not a visual recording of Dorfman’s work.
I definitely agree with you about the play. Having something open ended is a lot better, in my opinion. You have free range to decide how the piece is going to end, and I really enjoy having that ability. Any film adaptation of a book or play is going to have the director's interpretation. I also commented on that in my response.
ReplyDeleteLaura, I agree that the film was very blatant and in your face. There was not much room for interpretation or guessing, since the plot was basically spoon fed to the viewer through obvious 'hints' mixed with the actors spelling out what will happen next. I also agree that the ending was a butchered when a force conclusion was given. For me, this lost all credibility of a powerful ending and unfortunately turned a brilliant play into a modern day Western film where endings are a must.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your statement that Polanski basically force-feeds the audience his interpretation of Dorfman's play. The entire point of the play was to show a.) the fragility of human morality and how anyone can become a tyrant, essentially and b.) how many people who do crack and succumb to tyranny often are not brought to justice for their crimes. The play purposely keeps Dr. Miranda's guilt ambiguous at the end so as to show how these crimes often go unpunished. I thought Polanski pretty much ruined Dorfman's main message by completely changing the end. And I totally agree that the ending the Polanski did choose was kind of confusing. Dr. Miranda is left stranded essentially in the middle of no where with no car at the end. How does he get home? Why would the fact that many of the torturers had set alibis be brought up just for Miranda to give a meaningful confession? Were we, as the audience, supposed to still be confused on whether or not Dr. Miranda was guilty? From my understanding, Miranda's confession at the end was truthful and, having got what she wanted, Paulina let him go. I don't know, I just don't think that ending is nearly as effective as Dorfman's.
ReplyDelete