Sunday, March 4, 2012

The Loss of a Teardrop Diamond


Great expectations; great disappointment.

Released in 2009, The Loss of a Teardrop Diamond wasn't screened where I live, and there was a long wait for the DVD.

Now I wonder:  Did I sabotage fair assessment with my long and eager anticipation?  Were my expectations realistic?  Is it possible to put Tennessee Williams' work on the screen authentically today, given contemporary audience and financing challenges?

Teardrop Director Jodie Markell says she developed "an affinity" for Tennessee Williams as a teenager and read everything of his ever published.  Later, a New York acting school teacher, aware of her interest, introduced her to an unproduced collection of Williams' screenplays, among them The Loss of a Teardrop Diamond.  She identified with unconventional Fisher Willow, acquired rights, and shot the film in Louisiana in twenty-eight days.  Written in 1957, the story is set in 1923 Memphis.

Ms. Markell and I appear to value different aspects of Williams' work; she (from her own words) relates to his empathy for society's misfits; I to Williams' cogent exposure of society's hypocrisy, injustice, willful ignorance and cruelty.  While the latter themes are in the film, they're peripheral, muted and vastly subordinate to Fisher Willow and her personal emotional journey.

Director Markell also says she wanted to faithfully embody and convey Williams' words and story, yet the film lacks his historic essence, his fearless intent and remarkable ability to make us see and powerfully feel everyday kindness and ugliness.  

Paraphrasing a favourite line from Madam X,  
This film is not the substance of Tennessee Williams, only the shape and shadow.

The plot is available at Wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Loss_of_a_Teardrop_Diamond


2 comments:

  1. I empathize with your disappointment on seeing this "lost work" brought to life.

    Do you feel one would need to read the screenplay as written, in order to appraise its strengths or weaknesses -- its literal worth, in comparison to the rest of his output?

    What occurs to me is if you feel this was a less-deserving effort than other, more famous works long ago adapted and produced , or is it the execution of this one which you feel was wanting? Clearly the director of this adaptation filters the source material in an individual way, and this will manifest itself in the many editorial choices made during production.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks, Evan.

    Your screenplay question is very interesting - psychic actually, since I deleted a sentence saying exactly that: that it seems unfair to judge without access to the screenplay.

    Having said that, I do believe Director Markell subjectively filtered the script through her own emotional prism, emphasizing storylines that spoke to her. It was her prerogative, I suppose, but surely more is expected when dealing with the work of a literary genius.

    To be fair, I also think she tried to remain faithful to the script, but didn't have the skill to effectively weave in the other themes.

    Williams wrote complex, multi-layered novels and plays that were readily understandable, yet powerful and entertaining. He had rare insight into the human condition and a unique gift for illuminating societal issues that remain relevant today. -- And the skill to integrate them seamlessly. He made us see ourselves and our world. His talent was rare, and translating his work to the big screen requires equally rare cinematic ability.

    Previous films have more successfully and authentically portrayed Williams' work, but times and sensibilities have changed.

    Jodie Markell deserves credit for at least taking on such demanding work. I share her "affinity"; we're Tennessee Williams kindred spirits.

    ReplyDelete