I was thinking about the form of musicals and generally how easily they can take on a lighter tone. In Pajama Game we generally feel this lighter tone amongst the musical scores and brightly designed costumes. This lends to the portrayal as the union as a good thing and a way for workers to have the ability to control the nature of business. In Bissel’s novel, we see more of a sarcastic, critical and bleak picture of this world. When reading the book I would never imagine Babe Williams parading around in a bright blue trench coat. Bissel’s world, to me, seems dull and boring and immensely more painful to live through.
I wonder then if this is because of this difference in interpretation, the transfer from literature into a lighthearted musical, or merely an attempt on the part of the screenwriters to give a more favorable view on factory life. From the pictures we saw in class today we would assume that it is the first, as many union workers seemed to enjoy the thrill of a strike. Yet, I think more importantly that we are again brought back to the question of form and interpretation. It would be difficult to translate Bissel’s critique of the working world into a romantic musical comedy like the Pajama Game simply because the form of a musical and the ever-existing need for romantics in cinema. On interpretation, it seems again the difference between a collective view of a story and the individual view.
I read Bissel’s novel much as it was his own personal beliefs on factory life. In Sid Sorokin’s bled the personality I figured was engrained in the author. His voice, although often ignorant, seemed to project the absurdity of everything happening within the functions of “Sleep Tite.” He often rejects Babe’s pleas of understanding that everything will simply work out in the end (which it does) without anyone needing to get hurt. His final act of quitting seems to represent Bissel’s overall rejection of this world as just a naturalistic force where things simply happen without regard to people.
A musical does not really have room for this personal satire. Sid Sorokin’s focus must blend in with the commune of dance and work and picnics. His voice will not be heard above the singing joy of flamboyant sewers. This also coincides with the structure of making a film or a musical. So many pieces function as important that it is impossible to retain the sort of critical analysis within the novel. While the rhythm of dancing might lend to show the true nature of the working environment, it doesn’t show its absurdity (perhaps it does), but rather a more technical detail of the life.
I think that the loss of personality here is important when considering an adaptation. It causes the meaning of them to shift in an entirely new way. If the meaning of this is lost, why is it adapted in the first place? Does the story simply serve as a vessel to give a light-hearted, romantic twist on the union? Why then do they need the story at all?
Just another thought on why considering adaptation is useless.
No comments:
Post a Comment