Explain how meaning changes when form of a text changes?

Question

I have an assessment task concerning that. We READ Oscar Wilde's play "The importance of being earnest" and then watched the film version. We now have to do an oral report on how meaning changes when form of a text changes. I have absolutely no idea how to go about doing this... What i have now is:

"How directors interpretation and/or actors execution can either enhance or detract from a scenes emotive value, therefore effecting the emotive value of the entire film"

It's hard because... How does meaning change from READING a play (your OWN interpretation) to seeing a film version? - Meaning of WHAT? I seriously just don't get how I can write about this. Any answer at ALL would be very much appreciated

Thank you in advance.

Answer 1

There are many aspects to this question. I think one of the most noticeable ones is that a film version is much more specific. In a written text, you can have someone described as "a young gentleman", and it's up to the reader to fill in the details - height, facial features, voice, etc. But in a film, the same character will have to be played by a specific actor, with a certain height, certain facial features, a certain voice, etc. So here the film adds more specific meaning to the description of the character. The specific details are not part of the meaning of the written play, but they are part of the meaning of the film.

(The same also goes for sets - the vague "This scene takes place in the dining room" of the script becomes a specific dining room with specific furniture and wallpaper in the film.)

The same is true with the *way* lines are said. True, in a script it will often say something like:
BOB angrily : I didn't say that!

But it's up to the reader to decide if he's saying this with a slightly upset tone of vice, or if he's yelling and hopping up and down going red in the face mad.

In the film, an actor says the line a certain way (as per the director's instructions) and that's it - that's how the line "is".

Again, the film adds more specificity.

Apart from that, when reading a text, the reader has complete control. You can skip a few lines you find boring, or read a confusing statement two or three times till you get it. You can even flip back a few pages to look up "Who was this guy again"? A film is linear, it just keeps moving forward. Admittedly, it's possible to stop and rewind and watch the same line over and over again (unless you're seeing the film in the theater) - but it's more complex, and interrupts a the flow more, than re-reading. Besides, you can only do that with a film - if you saw the actual stage version, you could not get up and tell the actor, "sorry, could you repeat this line?" (Well, you could, but that's certainly not the idea of the medium - plus, they'd throw you out. ;) ) Remember, Wilde wrote for the actual theater stage.

Hope this'll help to get you started. :)

Answer 2

It would be really useful to know if this essay has to be about Wilde's play or is a more general question about forms. If it has to include references to the film version, I suggest you rent the video so you can stop at particular moments and refer to them in comparison to the written play. What you are looking for are aspects of dramatic portrayal which are available in the film but not the play and vice versa. For example, certain facial expressions or shoulder shrugs or movements which express meaning in the film but are not mentioned in the text. Equally, there may be stage instructions in the play which may or may not be included in the film. The director in each case has to make many choices about how each scene will be staged and acted. In the written play, there is just the author (and the reader of course but that's another theory) which makes it closest to original meaning. Many directors take great liberties with the written text, with varying degrees of agreement from the author. How close do you think the director of the film came to Wilde's original ideas for the play?