Author's Note
This story is the second installment in my "Origins of a Writer" Series.
Part 1: http://www.launchora.com/story/origins-writer-part-1
If you don't have time to read Part 1, it's okay! Lucky for you, the actual stories aren't related, so all you really need to know before you start reading Part 2 below is the Author's Note portion of Part 1. And just because I'm so accommodating, here it is ---
Believe it or not, but I wasn't always a great writer (if you're laughing at this statement, I can't hear you).
In my first year of college at UC San Diego, I took a class called 'Theatre And Film' (I think), in which we studied (watched) films that were based on stage plays. Instead of exams, we were graded on essays comparing each adapted film we studied to its original written play.
Obviously, I got an 'A' in this class (this is a verifiable fact, and I am boasting because it was my first A in college). But on a more serious note, this class (and the 'A' grade, just saying) was particularly important to me because it was the first time I wrote something I wanted to write.
Basically, when historians in the future research my life, they will find traces of Launchora's origins in this class.
So to continue celebrating Launchora's first weekend of story-publishing (i.e. June 20-22, 2014), I'm going to publish some of my college writings/essays in this multiple part series, which I would like to call "The Origins of A Writer". Yes, I just made that up and then changed the name of this story to reflect it.
---- End of Author's Note from Part 1
This (we're back on Part 2) essay was written on May 19, 2008, and is reproduced here word-for-word, typo-for-typo. As always - don't judge my writing, judge 18-year-old me's writing.
ESSAY TWO
Proof: Film Vs. Play
People take a play from the stage to the screen to give it a realistic backdrop and a much larger canvas for the director to show his creativity and his interpretation of the story. A film gives the viewers something to relate to - a real-life setting, along with recognizable actors playing the roles of the characters in the play.
John Madden, in his film Proof (2005), a play written by David Auburn, has no such intentions. He wants to bring the play from stage to life but he does so by adding more to the characters rather than the background. He gives the characters more depth. In my opinion the film is much better than the play because the story is also improved upon, making it much more believable. The screenplay was written by David Auburn himself and the duo of Auburn and Madden tells a darker and much more convincing story about Catherine and the people in her life.
In the play we are never really left alone with Catherine and it is more of a third-person approach, whereas in the film we see what Catherine sees and does. The film works a lot harder to question Catherine’s sanity by adding elements to both possibilities. When I read the play I was not so sure how the first scene, where Catherine sees Robert’s ghost, fit into the rest of the story, where such supernatural elements are absent. After seeing the film I realized that the play is much nicer to the character of Catherine. Reading the play, I was quite convinced that Catherine, in fact, wrote the proof, and I did not think there was enough evidence to question her sanity. In the film, we are given a lot of reasons to believe that she might be going insane, something done until the very end of the film, making it all the more gripping.
The story of Proof talks about how the most brilliant mathematicians do their best work in their early twenties, and how Robert, Catherine’s father, did his best work before he was 24. In the film, Catherine’s age is changed, from 24 (in the play) to 27. It is also mentioned that Robert first got sick when he was the same age. By just changing a little detail about her age the screenwriter is further pushing the possibility that Catherine may be suffering the same ailments as her father and that she may not have written the proof, making her argument less believable.
The story in the film really focuses on what is going through Catherine’s mind during the week after her father’s death. She sees her dead father numerous times. The first time is during the scene where we learn that he is dead. She catches another glimpse of Robert during the party after the funeral, right after Hal’s band plays their song “i”. There is another time Catherine sees Robert, and converses with him again. This sequence takes play after Catherine gets rid of the cops in the first scene(this scene was deleted from the theatrical film but can be found in the DVD extras).
The one common detail in all the scenes between Catherine and her dead father is Robert’s clothes. Catherine sees her father wearing the same clothes as he did in the flashback sequence where she locks her proof in Robert’s desk drawer. Of all the memories of her father, it is the most painful one that is burnt into her mind and is making her doubt her sanity. Seeing that version of Robert again and again reminds her that she does not want to have to do anything with his legacy. All of these scenes added by Auburn in the film show how he wanted the film to go with Catherine: see what she sees, feel what she feels, think what she thinks; and not just observe her like the play version. Catherine’s final narration at the end gives the film a more personal touch, which makes the viewers feel more for the character.
The part where Robert is sitting out in the cold is moved to right after Catherine tells Hal and Claire about the proof, hinting that there is a chance that Robert may have written the proof.
Moreover, during the week it takes Hal to verify the authentication of the proof, we see Catherine locked in her room, alone. Seeing all the evidence against her, being alone in the same house where she nursed her ill father, and having no proof that she is sane, Catherine convinces herself that she stole the proof from her father. At certain points, she is even scared that she wrote the proof, since that would mean that she inherited her father’s genius, along with his illness. All these factors lead to the climax of the film and play a crucial role is separating the film from the play.
The film adds a few things to the characters of Robert and Claire as well. I always saw Robert as a supporting actor, with a minor role in the play. That is not true for Anthony Hopkins’s portrayal of Robert. He adds so much more to Robert with just his body language. Every time he is on the screen he is absolutely marvelous to look at. It’s as if he has a certain inner turbulence which fits perfectly with Robert’s erratic personality.
Claire’s character, on the other hand, is dealt with a thoughtful yet simple approach, fitting well with the regular stereotype of the big-shot-big-sister, but at the same time glimpsing at what makes her different. We often see Claire using a checklist in the film, a character trait absent from the play. I personally feel that giving such a habit to Claire’s character may not make any tangible change to the story, but it certainly gives me a better understanding of who Claire really is and why she does what she does. Claire's protective yet ignorant nature, and Hal’s concern for Catherine’s future, is what makes Catherine come over her fears and start again.
The main title of the play and the film is something everyone can relate with and come about with one’s own take on the meaning. I see Proof as a story dealing with the proofs in life that we can’t find. The proof of love, the proof of trust, the proof of commitment – we believe it exists and we assume that we have it, but when push comes to shove we aren’t sure of what we have. In fact, it is choosing to believe that becomes the most important thing and what keeps us from having doubts or making bad decisions. I learnt all these things from the film, which answered questions I didn’t even have yet.
To me, the film is not just a good adaptation of the play, but an adaptation that stays true to the core of the story and the message behind it.