Did anyone notice major differences between the play and the film?Or does anyone think one was better than the other?
shareumm yeah that'd be helpful because I'm playing Jack Mundy at my school and I thought this was something COMPLETELY different and now I'm lost....
shareWell, I know this is quite a late response, since the original question was posted back in October, but just my two cents:
I was involved in a school production of Dancing at Lughnasa two years ago when I was a junior in high school. I played Rose Mundy (hello to my "brother" Jack...I hope your performance goes wonderfully!).
In terms of the script, there are a few major differences. I haven't seen the movie in quite some time, but I am somewhat obsessed with Brian Friel in general in addition to having acted in the play, so I can describe a few.
In the play, all of the action takes place at the Mundy family house, either indoors or out, but the script never calls for a change of set. In the movie, the action travels to Lough Anna with Rose and Danny Bradley (who never appears physically in the play), and to the Back Hills with Father Jack. Kate goes into town in Ballybeg, and the camera goes with her. This causes the movie to be a bit disjointed.
By making Danny Bradley an actual character with lines, his image is somewhat reduced. The audience gets an impression from the script that perhaps Danny is not someone who Kate, Aggie, and Chrissie approve of (and I as an observer happen to agree with them), and is perhaps dishonest, and perhaps not a particularly good person. However, the movie diminishes him by turning him rather abusive towards Rose. Danny is about Rose's (rather late) coming of age/entry to womanhood in the play...and in the play whatever happens between Rose and Danny at Lough Anna and out in the Back Hills, it is something that makes her happy, not frightened.
Another major difference between the movie and the play is that the play is a memory play, taking place entirely within the mind of the young man Michael. Michael looks back on the intense, memorable summer of 1936. We never see him onstage as a boy. The sisters do talk to the boy Michael, but he is visible only to them, not to the audience. The young man Michael speaks the lines of his younger self from a different area of the stage. The sisters do not see him. (The quote in my signature is actually from the final monologue that Michael speaks in the play, and perfectly sums up my feelings and emotions about the intense, memorable experience of acting in it). However in the movie, the young adult Michael narrates, but additionally his young self is played by a young boy. I can see the need for this particular change, but it's so major, and one of the reasons why often times, plays are best left as plays and should not be adapted into movies.
I'm sure there are more differences, but I can't remember them all.
I think it should be pretty obvious that I strongly prefer the play over the movie.
--
"[I think of it as] Dancing with eyes half-closed because to open them would break the spell"
ah, thanks for the reply! It was a little late, but at the same time, I never picked up the film so thank you! I didn't want to get any ideas as to how Jack should be played so I stayed away from the film. Oddly enough, we didn't mime the boy and have Michael provide the voice; our director's son played "Younbg Michael" which made it a little more like a "picture in action," bt violated the play a little bit. Our production is over, but it went well.
So you were Rose, my little sister, huh? Hahaha that's great, how did your performance go?
You're welcome! I'm glad to hear that your play went well.
"So you were Rose, my little sister, huh? Hahaha that's great, how did your performance go? "
My performance went very well. It was almost two years ago now, but it is still my favorite theater memory. It was definitely a challenge, though--being Rose wasn't easy, since she is "simple" and actually in her early 30s...I was seventeen at the time of the performance. I was told that I did well, though...but the whole thing was an amazing experience. By the end, I felt so close to the little family that the play brought together. It was just magic, and I really miss it, even though it's been quite a long time since. Sometimes around my friends, I catch myself falling into the Irish accent that we all learned for the play.
--
"[I think of it as] Dancing with eyes half-closed because to open them would break the spell"
how did your performance go, Operaman? my class is about to get cast in this play and im super nervous!
Sondheim is a god!
"how did your performance go, Operaman? my class is about to get cast in this play and im super nervous!"
Well, I'm not Operaman, but I thought I'd wish you all the best in your dealings with Dancing at Lughnasa! I hope you got cast--it's a truly unforgettable play, both for the audience and for the actors and crew involved.
You'll have to come back and let us know who you were cast as/how it's going and what you think of the play! :)
--
"[I think of it as] Dancing with eyes half-closed because to open them would break the spell"
I did get cast! I got Maggie! I'm so excited, she was my first choice. We haven't started rehearsals yet, but we've been doing alot of body work and I'm already bonding with the other girls in the play. I couldn't be happier!
Sondheim is a god!
Oh, yay, congratulations! I was Rose when I did the show. Maggie is a fun role, and I'm glad you're already bonding with your show sisters...that family atmosphere is one of the things I love about the play. Break a leg and enjoy the experience! :)
--
"[I think of it as] Dancing with eyes half-closed because to open them would break the spell"
I just got cast in it at my high school too! I got Agnes!
I'd really wanted to do Maggie from her description (all we were told about Aggie was that she's a knitter...yay knitter!) but after reading the script im jumping off the walls excited to play Agnes. And all the other girls cast are sweet-hearts, our Jack is already crazy, and our Michael was born in Ireland. The cast is pretty much perfect.
You gotta come back and tell us how your show went. Break a leg!
Thanks! You too! When do you open? We don't open until March. We haven't even begun blocking yet. We've just begun produtcion and we're doing research. My job is to research Catholicism, especially in Ireland. It's very interesting!
Sondheim is a god!
How's your show going? I hope you're getting as much out of the Lughnasa experience as I did!
When I did DAL, we performed in March, too.
--
"[I think of it as] Dancing with eyes half-closed because to open them would break the spell"
I am ecstatic about DAL so far. It's going swimmingly. You played Rose, right?
Sondheim is a god!
Glad to hear it's going well! I did play Rose. You're playing my sister Maggie, right? :)
--
"[I think of it as]Dancing with eyes half-closed, because to open them would break the spell."
Oh, indeed. I'm having a blast being so crazy awesome!
Sondheim is a god!
I saw this play on Broadway and it remains one of the greatest theatre-going experiences I have ever had. The movie in no way comes close to having the impact of seeing it live. Though it's very well acted and beautifully shot, there was something lost in translation that I can't quite put my finger on. The scene where the sisters dance was the climax of the play and I was left breathless afterwards. It just didn't happen when watching the movie.
shareA huge difference between the play and the film was the depiction of Jerry. In the play you initially think Jerry is a bad guy because of Kate's comments and the fact he left his child, then he seems quite charming and you think maybe Christine should run off with him, then there is a moment with Agnes where it becomes confused again. Then finally in the play you learn that during the period depicted in the play he had a wife and sons in another town.
shareJohn Lynch and Adrian Dunbar should have been cast in the younger male roles.
Rhys Ifhans was not up to the task.
I enjoyed the film,as much as the play.
Finally,I live for Irish cinema.