Comparative Essay: 'Dirty Rotten Scoundrels'

Film 106
23 November 2011
Comparative Essay: Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
The musical Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is based on a popular 1998 film by the same title. The storyline is about two conmen, (1) Lawrence Jameson who is played by Patrick McBride and (2) Freddy Benson who is played by Tom Andrew/Reed Willard, living on the French Riviera. Now Lawrence is a cultivated and suave gentleman who cons rich ladies out of their money by pretending he is prince of a small country that doesn’t exist and his throne was stolen from him. Whereas Freddy on the other hand is an American thief who cons women into giving him money by telling made up stories about his sick grandmother who needs an expensive operation. One day they meet on the train, but soon find out that the small French town they live in isn't big enough to support two conmen. Since neither one want to leave they decide to setup a challenge. They agree that the first
person to successfully swindle $50,000 from a young Christine Colgate, who is played by Virginia Gregg, will get to stay in town whereas the loser has to leave only gets certain countries to con. This is when the true story begins and the audience undergoes many twists and laughs.
The play and the film were both very good but in my opinion there were some things that were lost from the film interpretation. Though the details that I missed were nothing that the director of the play could have done and the director did a very good job of finding substitutes. Such as the fact that he couldn’t hire Steve Martin so he found another actor that did a very good job of playing Freddy Benson. He couldn’t bring the French Riviera to him so instead he attempted to have backdrops that would help the allusion and have some props that would help its effect. I didn’t find it intriguing but the actors definitely tried to pursue the audience into believing it was unbelievable. The play also added a relationship into the storyline to try and help it to be a little more interesting which was a success. Inspector Andre and Fanny Eubanks were very funny and added emphasize in the romance area.
The stage production compensated for a lack of budget and limitations of physical space by trying to make the actors move big, have interaction with the audience, and of course lots of choreography. I was surprised with the lack of flashy props to fill the stage and the few that were present seemed not stable and one actually broke during the show. Even so, the actors kept in mind that “the show must go on” which I was very impressed with. I was also very impressed with the choreography because it looked like a lot of fun and made the audience wish they can go on up and join the fun. The main actors were very good especially Freddy Benson. He did not disappoint with any particular scenes.
As an audience member I was affected intellectually and emotionally by the live production versus the film version.
Intellectually I was affected because I felt like I had to focus a lot more on the play than the film because I was only going to see it once on preview night and then have to finish watching the movie to then have to write this comparative essay. It was much harder to grasp since I hadn’t finished watching one or the other first. Emotionally I found that both the actress of Christine Colgate in the play and Janet Colgate in the movie played their roles very well because I wasn’t able to predict that she was also a conmen until the very near end of the movie and the play. Same with Freddy Benson I felt he did a very good job trying to get the Jackal’s sympathy. Lawrence I wasn’t very touched by although that wasn’t really his role. I found him to be much more comedic because he would almost set up the domino effect of laughter. I believe this affected the play and the movie in a very positive way because it was very
captivating.
As a conclusion I believe the movie was a better production than the play for many reasons. Although the storyline was kept pretty much the same for the play I felt it was better interpreted in the movie. The audience was able to see the French Riviera more clearly and was only able to see what the director wanted. I believe the audience was more captivated with the camera angles and how everything came out as a final product. They were able to feel that more emotional connection and see the downfalls and rises of the characters as more intimate than in the play. The play was lacking the connection because the props didn’t capture much attention so all attention was on the actors and the empty stage.