To adapt a play into a movie, you have to change it.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Whether you're in a blockbuster or an art film, you have to be able to adapt.
I don't write plays for them to be turned into movies.
In a play, you only get one chance, and you have to get it perfect. In a film, you can change and fix it whatever way you want, so really, there's a pretty big difference.
I know I can't play funny roles in movies. I tried, and it didn't work.
Most adaptations of plays I hate, because they don't envision something as cinema at all, you know?
Most films are rooted in a book or a comic strip, but I don't go out there saying I want to do adaptations.
I was fed up with not being able to play a movie the way I wanted to play it.
I'd say there's more of a difference between a play and movie to TV than there is between TV and movies. But there's something involved in the repetition of things that require something different from me in order to sign onto a script.
When you're adapting, you are working on someone else's problem that they have already solved. The work has been fine-tuned and read countless times, and you're just arriving at the end and taking what you want, so of course it is the regal way to moviemaking. Plays are just the ideal scripts - the structure is there and waiting for you.
You know, essentially when you do a play you're reinterpreting a work of art that already exists. That's not what happens with a movie.