A Censored Movie

After reading the play and then watching the movie I have to say that like most adaptations of written work, I much preferred the play. The movie for me just had so many unanswered questions and vague  meanings. Sometimes I felt like if I hadn't read the play then I would have been lost in the movie. This also could be that my attention span may have hindered me from picking up every detail in the movie as it is easier to notice things like that in a book because they are literally spelled out for you. In any case I felt like many important aspects were left out.

 For starters the scene where Blanche is on a date with Mitch and she is telling him (very dramatically) about the young boy she used to love, it is spelled out to the reader that this man was gay and that she found him in bed with another man. In the movie not only is this aspect of Blanche's relationship with her young boy not addressed the story in which Blanche spins is one of a different tune. In the movie she claims that the young boy could not provide for her and she alluded to a couple other problems neither of which portrayed to the viewer that the young boy was gay. Another blatant change in the film would be the rape scene, or lack there of. In the film Stanley has Blanche in his hands and then sort of throws her up against the mirror and then the scene goes black. In the moments directly after the scene I would have had no clue that Blanche had been raped if not for my reading of the play and the discussion we had in class. It is not until later at the very end of the novel when they are carrying Blanche's writing crazy body in and out of the flat that hints toward rape are dropped. Mitch throws a couple Punches at Stanley accusing him of touching her which he blatantly denies. Other than this implied accusation from Mitch I would be oblivious to a supposed rape. Lastly, the ending in which given to the reader is ambiguous in that it could be interpreted two different ways. While at face value you could go along and pretend that Stella has actually left Stanley by the end of the film, I believe that there are still hints that she may return to him because she loves him, and the way in which she "left" him was running upstairs to Eunice's flat (something Stella has done on several occasions to escape the wrath of Stanley). 

For me I cannot be sure of the reasons for so many changes in the film. It could just be artistic freedom in that the director decided to go a different route or it could be that the film industry during the 1950s was very censored during this time. I believe it to  be the latter. The removal of controversial topics like the homosexuality and rape probably had to do with the sensitive content would not have been suitable for a movie during this time period. 

. 

I would like to say that the actors were casted perfectly. I couldn't have imagined a more dramatically annoying Blanche if I tried, and believe me she annoyed the living day lights out of me. Marlon Brando was the perfect Stanley, easy on the eyes and hard a muscular and toned everywhere else. Lastly Stella's very plain character was perfectly cast for a woman who is suppose to play comparatively passive person next to her ill-minded sister. The characters definitely played into the reactions and questions that I believe Tennessee Williams intended for viewers after watching the play. Its hard to sympathize with Blanche because she is so awful, and its hard to paint Stanley as the bad guy because he is easy on the eyes (where most terrible stock characters are ugly or have some kind of flawed visual appearance) and claims he does the things he does out of love for Stella and wanting what is best for his family. For this reason it opens other controversial doors... was Blanche "asking for it?," is she crazy or is everyone else crazy?, and lastly which ideals are better.. those of the Old South or those of the New South?