Edna Ferber's "Giant" -- From Page to Stage
Adapting a 447-page novel to the stage is not for the faint of heart, especially a tome with the sprawling nature and epic ambitions of Edna Ferber's Giant, which attempts to chronicle the entire history of Texas by examining the marriage of a cowboy landowner to a white-glove Virginian.
Still it can be done -- just witness the success of a little musical, also based on a Ferber novel, named Showboat, which will probably still be revived in American theaters until, oh, the end of time. Granted, it helps if your creative team includes Showboat's two geniuses, Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein II, and if they punch out catchy little tunes like "Ol' Man River."
The world premiere of Giant, running at Signature Theatre, is a bit of a runaway steer. The first two acts gallop by. When you get to the third, well, let's just say that you wish someone would lasso that longhorn. Looking at the different choices made by the producers of Showboat and Giant can be instructive in the art of making the leap from page to stage.
First things first: with a running time of four hours, 10 minutes the stage version of Giant is officially longer than Hamlet. Someone, some time, should have cracked the whip and ordered at least an hour's worth of trims. Showboat the musical, for instance, clocks in at a relatively compact 2 hours 45 minutes -- and the themes it deals with are every bit as sweeping and tough as are those in Giant.
Both novels deal with racism, in the form of so-called "mixed" marriages. In Showboat, the object of prejudice is a mulatto actress named Julie, and in Giant, it is a Mexican-American teacher named Juana. Both novels use geograph features as metaphors for social changes in the U.S. -- the state of Texas, and the Mississippi River, respectively.
But the stage version of Showboat knows how to focus it's material, and the stage version of Giant does not. Kern and Hammerstein knew that telling a story on stage essentially is a different process than telling a story in a novel, and they weren't afraid to bend Ferber's novel to fit their needs. They weren't afraid to begin the musical at the equivalent of Showboat the novel's chapter 7, bypassing dozens of pages of lengthy exposition and introducing audiences immediately to the story's two central couples.
Hammerstein (who wrote the script) wasn't afraid to elevate minor characters in the novel (Queenie) into major ones, and to take a major character in the book (Parthy) and give her a much-reduced role on stage. (Less successful was his decision to rewrite Ferber's plot to give the stage story a happy ending, but you can't win 'em all.)
Giant, in contrast, adheres closely to the book's plot, occasionally to its detriment. The main focus ought to be the triangle provided by rancher Bick, his genteel, society-bred wife, Leslie, and Jett, the sensual ranch hand who makes his fortune in oil. But for half of the third act, Sybille Pearson's script abandons this trio to recount the problems of the younger generation. The plot loses all momentum and moseys along like a hobbled and over-burdened pack-horse.
Of course, the romance between Juana and Jordy (Bick and Leslie's son) is key to Ferber's story. Lose that, and you'd lose the racism theme. But, the audience doesn't need to see the young couple's love develop as much as we need to see the effect it has on Bick, and the way his reaction strains his own marriage.
In a novel, you can ramble down twisting pathways for 447 pages. Readers will tolerate, and even relish, a few unexpected sidetriips. But in a musical or play, you better know what story you're telling, get to it right away, and stick to it.
I'm sure you have other examples of books that successfully made the transition to either stage or screen -- and those that floundered. (Harry Potter? To Kill a Mockingbird?) I'd love to know your thoughts as to which of these adaptations work, which don't, and why or why not.
Pictured are Lewis Cleale as Bick and Betsy Morgan as Leslie in Signature Theatre's new production of Giant.
Comments
Your comparison between "Showboat" and "Giant" is unfair and not instructive. The latter just premiered and no one believes it's in anything like its final form.
In the 6th paragraph, you've misspelled "its." If The Sun is going to hire amateurs to write reviews, it should at least hire professionals to edit them.
Posted by: Mike Klein | May 20, 2009 7:38 AM
I did like the movie version of Giant, although I haven't read the book. Although it's easier to enjoy a movie when you can pause it and walk around for a minute; I hear they frown on that in theaters. ;)
Posted by: Kelly | May 20, 2009 10:21 AM
Also, since the play has premiered and is not in rehearsals anymore, I think it's valid to compare it to other plays, especially one based on another Ferber novel.
Posted by: Kelly | May 20, 2009 10:23 AM
Hi Mike,
Actually, "Giant" IS in its final form --at least for now. That's why the press was invited to review it. There are no current plans to take it to Broadway, or elsewhere. Nor were my comments intended to be a review, which is why I didn't comment on the performances (many terrific), bewildering lack of choreography, the music, etc. I was focusing solely on the most "literary" aspect of the production, which is the script.
But, it sounds as though you've seen the show, and liked it a lot. Why don't you write your own mini-review, and we'll publish it in the comments?
Posted by: Mary McCauley | May 20, 2009 10:28 AM
Actually, I haven't seen the show and I imagine I would find it a bit tedious, at least it its current state. :)
I maintain that it's unfair to compare "Giant" to "Show Boat" at this stage in the game. These days, it seems like the first productions of musicals are almost never fully formed - consider the difference between the off-Broadway "Next To Normal" and the production that ran in DC last year and is currently on Broadway. It went from mediocre to magical, and this seems to be a pretty typical history for successful musicals today.
What I'm getting at is that comparing a fledgling (if very ambitious) musical to an iconic piece like "Show Boat" - especially considering that the "Show Boat" itself required quite a bit of working and reworking to get into final form.
Posted by: Mike Klein | May 21, 2009 7:58 AM
Mike and Kelly, thanks for your thoughts.
Mike, I think you're raising a really interesting question, which is at what point a show is "done." I'd guess that the answer varies by production. "Next to Normal" for instance, apparently found its final form in Washington. I'd argue that "Bounce" (or "Road Show" whatever it's called now) is still in transition. :)
If we accept that the development process is ongoing, we also have to accept commentary as provisional. We can react only to what we're seeing in front of us right now, not the form a show may or may not occur in the future.
Having said that, commentary, whether in print or online, is not necessarily meant to be a final judgment.
My comparison to "Showboat" wasn't meant to imply that "Giant" will never be the equal of that masterpiece. First, I can't predict the future, and second, precious few musicals will ever be in that rarified company.
I meant it more as instructive; "Showboat" and "Giant" are written by the same author and present many of the same problems to anyone faced with trying to adapt those novels, and here's how the "Showboat" geniuses solved those particular problems.
(Though I do think a 4.25 hour running time is self-indulgent. I can't believe that Eric or someone else didn't put the kabosh on it.)
And, Kelly, you raise an interesting point about the difference of watching a DVD or reading a book, vs. sitting in a theater. As you mention, one can put down a book or pause a video to fix dinner, pick up the dry cleaning, etc. Foe any live performance, the audience's time is far more regulated, and they have far less autonomy.
I've wanted for some time to write a piece about the rarely-acknowledged hostility that can spring up between up between performers at a live show and their audiences. In the case of the latter, I think it has something to do with the feeling of being held hostage.
At anyrate, I don't want to discourage either of you from seeing the show. The first three hours really do fly by. John Dossett (Bawley) is magnificent, Judy Blazer (Luz) burns up the stage, and Ashley Robinson (Jett) may be a star in the making.
Thanks again for writing.
Posted by: Mary McCauley | May 21, 2009 12:55 PM