There are two ways to film a play. Either stay faithful to the text and
setting of the original, and have the work dismissed as "too stagy"; or
"open up" the production--shorten scenes, add scenes, mix up locations--and
run the risk of losing what made the original worthwhile. Frankly, I prefer
stagy. I don't get to see many plays, and I'm not bothered by minimal
settings. Two of the better-filmed plays I've seen in recent years--Noises
Off and Oleanna--were both slavish reproductions of their theatrical
versions; both, unfairly, were roundly panned. An even more illustrative
example is Glengarry Glen Ross, in which director James Foley intercuts the
three scenes of David Mamet's first act in a disjointed, stop-and-start
manner, then films the second act straight to superior effect.
Now comes Love! Valour! Compassion!, the movie version of
Terrence McNally's Tony-winning play, which has been opened up so wide that
large pieces of it seem to have fallen out. The film was directed by Joe
Mantello, who directed the stage version, and the screenplay is by McNally
himself. The entire original cast has been assembled, with the exception of
Nathan Lane, who has been replaced by Jason Alexander. The structure of the
story has also been retained--eight gay men gather at a country house on
three successive summer holiday weekends to talk about culture, politics,
and love.
What's missing are the words. Love! Valour! Compassion! is a very
chatty play, filled with jokes, arguments, and insights. The film version
has been practically vetted; the characters are all in place, but their
dialogue trails off. What's left is the outline of a story, filled in with
long, silent passages in which the actors roam about the grounds of their
appointed country house, as though they were delighted to be free of the
stage at last.
The movie suffers from its sketchiness. The play had its heavy-handed
moments of speechifying, but its dry humor soaked up the soggy spots.
Without the naturalistic ebb and flow of conversation, McNally's
observations about AIDS and promiscuity seem overemphasized, as if speeches
alone were the story's raison d'tre. The characters are weaker for the
abridgment as well. Reckless young dancer Ramon (Randy Becker) comes off as
more horny and shallow than free-spirited and passionate; and the
complicated relationship of committed couple Perry (Stephen Spinella) and
Arthur (John Benjamin Hickey) has been reduced to hugs and spats.
Bright moments do remain. Alexander gives a charming performance as
Buzz, even if he lacks the fringe of sorrow that Nathan Lane would've
brought to the role; and John Glover is commanding as both the petty lout
John and his sweet, frumpy brother James. Also, the play's genial
camaraderie remains unsuppressed, as does its compelling portrait of a
lively, close-knit gay community--a portrayal that allows a gay audience to
feel connected and makes straight audiences wish they had such a base of
support.
But there's a telling line in the play that's missing from the movie.
Buzz, the aficionado of Broadway musicals, comments at dinner that "movies
are for people who have to eat popcorn while they're being entertained."
Does this reflect McNally's attitude toward cinema? Does this explain why
the film of his play seems so flat and uncomplicated? Certainly the source
material has the seeds of an interesting movie. Robert Altman, who has made
several dynamic and faithful filmed plays, could've done wonders with the
characters' constant asides to the audience, a conceit that's mostly absent
from the film until its effective, climactic dance scene.
Instead, we seem to have gotten the version of Love! Valour!
Compassion! that McNally and Mantello think middle America
deserves--insultingly curtailed, with lots of pretty scenery where blood
used to flow. It has become a clichd joke that great works are butchered
when they get to Hollywood, but who'd have thought the day would come when
the authors would be wielding the knife?