A Rebel with a Cause

o Look Back in Anger

1958 / B&W / 99 Min. / Tony Richardson, dir. / Embassy Home Entertainment

1991 / Color / 114 Min. / David Jones/Judi Dench, dir. /
Renaissance Theatre Company /Thames Video Collection

These two films are based on John Osbourne's prize-winning play of the same title. What is interesting is how strikingly different these two interpretations are.

Making a film based on a play is always difficult. Each medium uses its own "language" to communicate. In a film, visual cues are as important as the verbal ones. In a play, the words and their delivery are the key elements. A play that is simply filmed, without any regard to translating its language to a more visual one, will appear very flat.

One of the difficulties filmmakers face is knowing which dialogue to cut and which to keep. Because many works of drama are held in such reverence, filmmakers risk the wrath of their audience if they take too many liberties. This helps explain why Akira Kurosawa's Throne of Blood, based on Shakespeare's Macbeth, is one of the most successful translations of a play to film. Because the dialogue is in a language other than that in which the play was written, the audience can more easily accept the even greater "translation" into a visual medium.

Look Back in Anger is seen as an expression of frustration with Britain's post-war situation. Britain's economy was slow to recover from the war, and the inadequate response of an outdated elite that still clung to ideas of empire and privilege fueled dissension that is given voice in Jimmy Porter, the protagonist of Osbourne's play. In many ways he is a rebel with a cause. Both angry and articulate, Jimmy seems to vent his wrath in every direction. And at times it is difficult to sympathize with him.

Jimmy lives with his wife Allison and his close friend Cliff. Though he is university educated, Jimmy works running a sweet stall. His lack of ambition has poisoned his relationship with Allison's somewhat patrician family, and this in turn has embittered his feelings toward her. When Allison's friend Helena shows up, the mere thread that holds the couple together seems to be broken.

o Taking Liberties

Tony Richardson's film was made while the play was still enjoying both popular and critical acclaim. But of the two films, this is the one that tried harder to distinguish itself as a film. The "story" is credited to Nigel Kneale. Osbourne's name doesn't even appear on the video package and he receives only a "based on the play..." acknowledgment in the credits. To provide a more visual scenario, much of the play that originally took place in the small apartment has been relocated to various settings. To accommodate these changes, large parts of the script were reordered, rewritten or left out altogether.

This film, with its evocative locations and starring Richard Burton as Jimmy, would seem to have a lot going for it. The acting is powerful, the cinematography is quite competent and it in no way feels flat, or stagy. But the rewriting of the dialogue was done in such a way as to remove much of Jimmy's motivation. Here he comes off as unremittingly cruel toward both Allison (Mary Ure) and Cliff (Gary Raymond). And Burton's performance is often too powerful, making Jimmy appear more maniacal than bitter. After watching this film, the viewer unfamiliar with the play is apt to wonder why it received so much acclaim. It seems not so much the expression of a troubled generation as the rantings of a pathetic individual.

o The Faithful Approach

The more recent Renaissance Theatre Company production, originally made for television and shot in video, hews closely to the original. Little effort was made to translate the play to the medium of film. All the action takes place in the apartment shared by Jimmy (Kenneth Branagh), Allison (Emma Thompson) and Cliff (Gerard Horan). For all these reasons, this version feels very stagy. But this time Jimmy's character is much more understandable. Although viewers might not feel completely sympathetic, they will at least see what has made him feel and act the way he does.

The direction is seamless and the acting is uniformly capable, though perhaps not inspired. Little was done to translate this production into the language of film. This is most definitely a filmed play, and not a film based on a play. Another big minus is the flat video look. But this is not all that important when viewing on a television, where dialogue takes on more of a role than on the big screen. In spite of its shortcomings, this video provides an excellent opportunity to see a work that had much to say about its time, and much to say that is timeless.

-- Robert Stewart