A novel approach? How to bring the page to the stage

There’s a Monty Python sketch in which the Gumby Theatre present their version of Anton Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard. After several minutes of inanity and anarchy, Eric Idle announces that the play was “adapted for radio by putting it onto a piece of wood and banging a few nails through it”.

While the Python method might have worked for the notoriously inept Gumby clan, one suspects there might be a bit more to a successful adaptation than that. Last month’s opening at the RSC of Hamnet, the theatrical version of Maggie O’Farrell’s prize-winning novel about Shakespeare’s son, has put the question centre stage once more.

The writer behind this new interpretation, Lolita Chakrabarti, is no slouch in the adaptation stakes. Almost exactly two years before Hamnet‘s opening night, she picked up the WhatsOnStage Award for best new play courtesy of Life of Pi, her rendition of Yann Martel’s beloved novel. But while the earlier piece romped off with a clutch of prizes, the script for Hamnet has been faintly praised by some critics with phrases such as “staid”, “sensible” and even “honourable”. Combine this with the excellence of her debut original play, Red Velvet, in 2012 and you can begin to see just what a minefield the decision to adapt novels for the stage can be.

Among the potential pitfalls, there are several Big Questions to be addressed. Which threads of an often epic narrative are you going to choose to reveal? How do you convert naturalism in a novel into convincing dramatic dialogue? How are you going to make it fundamentally theatrical, rather than simply – to paraphrase Monty Python – putting it onto the stage and banging a few nails through it?

But pretty much all of the challenges facing stage adapters can be summed up in one Even Bigger Question: whose story is it anyway?

Different writers have different approaches. Chakrabarti was grateful to Life of Pi author Martel for giving her “the freedom to tell the story as I wanted” – something echoed in her treatment of Hamnet, which jettisons O’Farrell’s time jumps in favour of a linear chronological structure.

Veteran adapter Mike Poulton, whose credits include Dickens, Hilary Mantel and, ironically, The Cherry Orchard, prefers to step out of the novelist’s way as far as possible. “I’m not a writer who likes to impose myself on the piece,” he told me. “It’s about finding the dramatic story in the material.”

It’s a delicate balance, as I know from personal experience. Having attempted a stage version of The Pickwick Papers, I embarked on a musical adaptation of Hardy’s much-loved novel Tess of the d’Urbervilles with composer Michael Blore. As with any other dramatic narrative, we decided, story must be king. The only problem is, which story? You can judge the results for yourself at www.tessthemusical.com.

In the world of television, there are writers who have made a brilliant career out of adaptations, preferring to focus on them rather than their own original material. While Andrew Davies proved his worth in his own right with series such as A Very Peculiar Practice, it’s his specialisation in adaptations from Dickens to Delderfield that has made him one of the most sought-after writers on the screen today.

There will always be playwrights well capable of adapting a novel at the request of a producer with a newly-acquired option. But maybe there’s also an opportunity for a dedicated writer to go truffling about in other mediums to carve themselves a stage version of Davies’s little niche.