The 1961 adaptation of Lorraine Hansberry’s play, Raisin in the Sun, is a close adaptation in terms with a disproportionate ratio favoring kept to dropped or altered. Much of the dialogue, and themes, are maintained, and many scenes are exactly as they are in the play text. The theme Hansberry bases her entire play on is from Langston Hughes’ poem “Harlem” (A Dream Deferred), and the title of her play, Raisin in the Sun, is taken directly from the poem. The poem questions what happens to a “dream deferred” or a dream that is never actualized. In the play, Hansberry’s characters are vehicles to explore and embody the African American community and the inability to actualize their dreams in a society that’s against them. A moment that perfectly exemplifies such failure is when Walter after he is double-crossed and loses all Mama’s money, decides to settle with Lindner:
“What’s the matter with you all! I didn’t make this world! It was give to me this way! Hell, yes, I want me yachts someday! Yes, I want to hang some real pearls ‘round my wife’s neck. Ain’t she supposed to war no pearls? Somebody tell me— tell me, who which women is suppose to wear pearls in this world. I tell you I am a man— and I think my wife should wear some pearls in this world!” (143).
Walter’s response to the family is a declaration by the African American community. Walter goes through these struggles which could be seen as his mode of survival in capitalism. He must follow the rules in a world that was not created by him or for him. Earlier in the play, Walter also asserts that money is what is most important in life. In anger, Mama responds that freedom used to be what was most important in life. Walter claims the African American community only recently got freedom and has only been shown the harsh truth that money runs the world. Both of these essential interactions and developments in the story are retained in the transfer to the film adaptation.
Along with an outstanding cast, Sidney Poitier performs a close adaptation of the play, with much of what Hansberry describes in the stage directions kept. In John Desmond’s chapter “The Play” in Adaptation: Studying Film & Literature, he describes seven ways a filmmaker can “open up” the drama or move away from the conventions of theater to the conventions of theater to film. Director Daniel Petrie’s adaptation of Raisin in the Sun “opens up” the play text to film conventions using some of the techniques Desmond outlines. In transferring the drama, Petrie visualizes sets, scenes, and symbols only mentioned or implied in the play. Desmond also leaves us with three categories of how far removed a director can take the material from its initial theatrical origin. As an adaptation, Raisin in the Sun is “a few more degrees separated from a Filmed Stage Play,” which is in the middle of close to a filmed stage play and far from a filmed stage play.
In place of the play’s second-hand description of the house the Younger family put a down payment on, Petrie chooses to visualize the new home. In the middle of the film, he has the family visit the house, and we can see white background characters walking in the neighborhood as they arrive. One of the expectations of an audience when watching a film is realism. In contrast, drama allows for imagination because of its limited abilities regarding what it can show on stage. Petrie’s choice of having the family come to the house is realistic. He has the background look like any other traditional suburban neighborhood that is primarily white. Visualizing the exterior gives us an atmosphere opposed to the hustle and bustle of the southside of Chicago. Once the family enters the house, it can be noted that seeing the wide-open space provides a visual contrast to the family’s cramped living quarters in their apartment. In the opening stage directions of the play, Hansberry illustrates: “That was long ago. Now the once loved pattern of the couch upholstery has to fight to show itself off from acres of crocheted doilies and couch covers which have finally come to be more important than the upholstery.” (23). The film version of the Younger house shows that it is disorderly through the visualization of these items. We are not told this like we are in the play text, which describes the vivid decay in eloquent and heavily detailed descriptions. Petrie demonstrates the house’s state by having the apartment’s space all in frame with at least four characters at once in many scenes, which would also be done on stage. However, the way Petrie adds the visualization of this set with the family arriving in Clybourne park gives more expressiveness compared to the theater stage’s three walls. Even though he includes this visual, most of the play occurs in the cramped apartment like a filmed stage play. So, it can be concluded that the degree of Petrie’s “opening up” is in between filmed stage play and far from a filmed stage play. It retains its origins but also alters the play through some incorporation of set visualization unique to cinema.
Occasionally, Petrie visualizes the scenes differently than what was written for the stage. He also displays scenes that the characters in the play only mention. Petrie omits some of the dialogue in scenes which might have been done because he felt it was superfluous. A simple example is the film scene that visualizes Walter as a chauffeur driving by his employer’s mansion. As far as the play goes, it only describes Walter’s profession through dialogue, and we never see him in action. This scene is unique to film. A play could not show an area or the act of Walter driving the car. As I mentioned before, this scene’s visualization adds to the realism of the film. It also allows us to connect with Walter and his struggles since we are not confined to wait for when he gets back to the cramped apartment. Moreover, the bar scene at the Kitty Kat Klub when Mama comes looking for Walter adjusts how the scene is in the play text. In the play, the conversation happens in the apartment. Walter describes the neighboring club that he goes to, “You know what I like about the Green Hat? I like this little cat they got there who blows his sax… He blows. He talks to me. He ain’t but ‘bout five feet tall and he’s got a conked head and his eyes is always closed and he’s all music—” (106). Instead of having this dialogue about the bar Walter frequents, Petrie decides to take us to the bar— renamed “Kitty Kat Klub.” Interestingly, Petrie does not include the sax player Walter describes, and the relaxed atmosphere while three men play is not in the film. What the film emphasizes is Walter’s alcoholism. The bartender becomes a minor character shown a few times in the background as he pours Walter drinks. As Mama comes in and pays for Walter’s drinks, he can barely stand. The scene’s dialogue is cut down. For example, Walter taking Willy Harris’ car and driving it past South Chicago and then to Wisconsin in the play text is not referenced or shown in the film. The film moves a scene that was in the apartment to the bar. Although it is described differently, he moves the scene that talks about the bar to the bar itself, visualizing the scene. The translation of this scene’s dialogue to the visual indicates the film as a visual medium and theater as a dialogue-driven art. The metamorphosis of conventions is an intermediate “opening up” because Pietre keeps most of the original dialogue in many scenes while also visualizing some of it.
There are a handful of symbols or motifs in the play that Pietre visualizes— Beneatha’s hair, Mama’s plant, and the house. Beneatha, Walter’s sister and future doctor, is often experimenting with her identity. She has two love interests; George Murchison and George Asagai. Pietre includes both of these characters in his film. However, the talk about Beneatha’s hair when Asagai, the Nigerian student, calls her an assimilationist is omitted by Pietre. He does not include mention of her hair, just her overall appearance and actions. Without the mention of her hair in dialogue, the filmmakers choose to manifest it visually. We witness Beneatha’s hair even if the filmmakers decided to omit reference to it specifically. In the play, Asagay says, “You wear it very well… very well… mutilated hair and all…” and she responds, “But it’s so hard to manage when it’s, well— raw.” (61-62). The hair dialogue is not in the film. Pietre shows us her hair just as he shows us the traditional clothing Asagay brings her in the same scene. For the plant, the filmmakers were incredibly close to how Mama, or Lena, talks about the plant in the play. The visualization of the symbol is on point. The stage directions state: “She crosses through the room, goes to the window, opens it, and brings in a feeble little plant growing doggedly in a small pot on the windowsill.” (39).The film shows it precisely as it’s described in the play. There is even some added dialogue in the film about the plant being feeble. Both versions keep the scene when Mama says the plant is her’s. As far as symbols go, the film version follows the stage directions while deviating from the dialogue in favor of the visual.
Raisin in the Sun (1961), as an adaptation, is quite close to its source material. Many scenes in this film are extremely close. The scene where Ruth contemplates an abortion and both Karl Lindner (renamed Mark Lindner in the film) scenes are kept. The ending scene with Walter confronting Linder and how Mama says he finally reached his manhood: “Kind of like a rainbow after the rain…” (151) are all there. The conflict with the Clybourne Park Improvement Association and Lindner— “people should learn to sit down and talk to understand each other’s perspectives”— is all kept. Nevertheless, the film conventions that Petrie utilizes in transferring the drama are visualized sets, scenes, and symbols only mentioned or implied in the play. He effectively blends film and theater conventions, creating a filmed stage play that deviates enough from the stage to the cinematic. Petrie uses close-up POV shots which are more flexible than the viewer’s fixed vantage point from their seat in a theater. The technique is often used; however, he also frames many scenes in the claustrophobic apartment in long shots with all the characters present— reminiscent of the theater. The filmmakers’ choice of visualizing sets occurs several times, but most of the scenes take place in the apartment like they would on stage. The filmmakers also took the liberty of visualizing dialogue into scenes. The presentation of symbols from the play are also relatively similar to the original. Much of the adaptation is close to the original in content. Still, Raisin in the Sun “opens up” the play text to the cinematic. In transferring the play, the filmmakers’ end with a product Desmond describes as “a few more degrees separated from a Filmed Stage Play.”
References:
“The Play.” Adaptation: Studying Film and Literature, by John M. Desmond and Peter Hawkes, McGraw-Hill Education Create, 2006, pp. 158–187. Hansberry, Lorraine. A Raisin in the Sun. Vintage Books, 1994.
— Christian Mietus, Blog Editor.
Christian’s Bio:
Christian is a Senior at Lewis University who is an English major and a minor in Film Studies and Russian Language and Culture. In 2019, he received the “Dr. Stephany Schlachter Excellence in Undergraduate Scholarship Award” for his collaborative piece “Assimilation through Sound.” Additionally, his poem “The Japanese Photography is Covered in Dust” is forthcoming from City Brink Magazine. In his free time, he appreciates and dissects cinema as well as consistently rating and reviewing it. Some of his favorite directors are Andrei Tarkovsky, John Cassavettes, Ingmar Bergman, and Kenji Mizoguchi. He also appreciates different art forms, such as music and literature. Christian hopes to continue expanding his skills as a writer and to encourage others to do so as well. He writes about film for the JFR blog, so check out Christian’s Cinematic Syntax.