The screen adaptation of A Rasin in the Sun stays faithful to the play script written by Lorrianne Hansberry. The movie of A Rasin in the sun impacts the way we view the playwright because we no longer have the mental image of these characters, but a real interpretation of them. This can change how we relate and digest the story because now these characters seem more “real”. There were a lot of moments very faithful to the script, but what stuck out the most in my opinion is how Walter was portrayed. Seeing an exclamation point after a sentence in a book can help you understand the person speaking is upset, or excited, but seeing it onscreen creates an entirely different experience. A Character that stood out the most to me was Walter. His portrayal is very powerful and fuels the most difficult dynamics between the family and himself. This is seen in the play, but you see the full magnitude of his actions and words in the classic film.
In the first scene of the play, Walter is read to be very confrontational, he thinks very highly of himself and what he thinks a wife should be doing for him as head of the house. In the film, the actor portrays this very well, the difference between just reading and visualizing the stage directions and seeing it genuinely unfold is different. The stage directions during the argument between Ruth and Walter reads “WALTER (Rising and coming to her and standing over her) You tired, ain’t you? Tired of everything. Me, the boy, the way we live—this beat-up hole—everything. Ain’t you?” (35). These stage directions do show Walter towering over her, trying to show dominance but does not fully articulate the weight of the words being said by just reading. In the movie however, while the actor of Walter, Sydney Poitier, is following these stage directions, he is doing even more. He is sweating, visibly angry and unsatisfied with his life that his insults to ruth seem twice as harsh. There is an edge to his tone that hasn’t even reached its full potential as the rant from him is just starting. Ruth is played by Ruby Dee, who portrays her in a cold but submissive way, showing how the romance in this relationship is dead. She is visibly very annoyed with him, and he knows this, pushing further and further to get a reaction out of her. Walter is very articulated when he speaks, his eyes boring into ruth’s, as she tries not to make much eye contact with him as he blames and insults her. This is not the first time they have had conversations like this, even before they mention the fact that it is a constant argument you can see the exhausted look in Ruth’s eyes and how annoyed Walter is at her having little to no reaction to his words.
In this scene it is also evident the way he interacts with Beneatha is impacted by Poitier’s method of portraying Walter. Beneatha, played by Diana Sands, is the most comedic character in the movie, as she is very focused on living her life as freely as she wants and wanting to serve a purpose, this leads to some classically funny moments in the film. In the same scene, Walter instantly has a problem with Beneatha being in the room, the second thing he says to her being “WALTER (Pushing the paper across the table to her as he studies her almost clinically, as though he has never seen her before) You a horrible-looking chick at this Hour.” (39). While reading the screenplay, I thought of this as how siblings talk, they insult each other not truly meaning it. The tone of Walter’s voice in the film sets the difference between the script and the movie though, the way he says it in the film is filled with disgust. His voice is low and having just argued with Ruth, he is angry. This is very different from the possible playful interpretation that is seen in the script, even though they are the exact same words. This is a common dynamic throughout the movie, they bicker but it is more like strangers arguing rather than siblings, harsh tones being used. A moment that stood out the most between the two in my opinion is when Walter is drunk later in the movie and dances with Beneatha. You see them be playful and enjoy the company of one another and it is a wholesome sibling moment. Walter and Beneatha have a strained sibling dynamic enhanced by the performances of Sands and Poitier.
If not for Sydney Poitier’s powerful portrayal of Walter in this film, then these crucial relationships would have a different feeling to them, possibly changing the relationship of the film to the script.
Questions:
- What character stuck out the most to you because of how they were portrayed? How does this affect your interpretation of the character in the script?
- According to Turner Classic Movies, this film was voted One of the Year’s Ten Best Films by the 1961 New York Times Film Critics, how do you think this film impacted the audience at the time?
Citations:
“A Raisin in the Sun.” Www.tcm.com, www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/87646/a-raisin-in-the-sun#notes. Accessed 24 Feb. 2024.
A Rasin in the Sun. Directed by David Petrie, Colombia Pictures, 29 May 1961.
Hansberry, Lorraine. Lorraine Hansberry’s a Rasin in the Sun. New York ; London, French, 1984.
1. What character stuck out the most to you because of how they were portrayed? How does this affect your interpretation of the character in the script?
The character that stuck out most to me is Mama and how she is treated by her kids, Walter, Beneatha and Ruth and how differently they treat her. Ruth treats Mama in a good way and wants her to be the decision maker of the house, and even hands her the check that she earned of $10,000 which is $106,000 in today’s money. Walter wants to be the decision maker of the house and decide what to do with the money. A little into the book, it shocks me when Mama hands the reigns over to Walter because he thinks he has a plan. Mama is a great character because she has faith in her kids, and basically handing the keys of the family over to your son takes a lot. My interpretation of Mama’s character in the script is that she overcomes a lot of challenges, financially and socially and usually ends up making the right decision. Mama just has a good soul, she says “Well, let her have it. I’ll just call her up and say you have the flu- “(43) for Ruth when she was not feeling good and felt very tired.
Hi Derek! This is an especially insightful blog post. I especially enjoyed reading about your interpretation of the significance of a detail as small as an exclamation point! To answer your first question, a character that particularly stuck out to me throughout the entirety of the play was Beneatha. I find it in many ways inspiring how true to herself Beneatha was. Of course, there were moments where I did not particularly agree with her, however, it was certainly eye opening how well Beneatha constantly stood her ground and spoke her mind, despite that being heavily frowned upon during this period. This is clear within Lorraine Hansberry’s play when Beneatha tells her family that she is taking guitar lessons, “Mama (to Beneatha): Why you got to flit so from one thing to another, baby? Beneatha (sharply): I just want to learn to play the guitar. Is there anything wrong with that?” (47) Beneatha is clearly a strong minded character, but during this time period, where African Americans were discriminated against, and black female African Americans were discriminated against even more, this is such an important characteristic to have and never lose sight of. Beneatha is extremely confident and sure in herself, when she makes up her mind, no one can change it. Her decision to be a doctor was not a common thing for black African American women, and she did so without caring what anyone else thought. She makes it evident that there is nothing that will get in her way of reaching her goals. She is a character who does not let societal prejudices or norms control her, and I think that resonated with me significantly while reading this play.
Hi Derek! I really enjoyed your blog post and analysis of Walters’ character in the film! To answer one of your discussion questions, the character that stuck out to me the most was Beneatha and how she stuck to what she believed in, regardless of how it would affect her relationships both romantically and in her family. In the book Hansberry writes, “BENEATHA: Oh, I probably will … but first I’m going to be a doctor, and George, for one, still thinks that’s pretty funny. I couldn’t be bothered with that. I am going to be a doctor and everybody around here better understand that! MAMA: (Kindly) ’Course you going to be a doctor, honey, God willing. BENEATHA: (Drily) God hasn’t got a thing to do with it. MAMA: Beneatha—that just wasn’t necessary. BENEATHA: Well—neither is God. I get sick of hearing about God,” (53). Throughout this scene in the book Beneatha not only shows her ideas and beliefs on George, how different they are and how since he does not believe in her getting a job as a doctor they would not be fit to be together, but also shows how she feels about God, which she challenges Mama on.
I think how Beneatha was portrayed, her being a strong and independent woman throughout the film, was shown in how she was able to stand up to anyone who challenged her feelings and emotions. From her relationships with George, to her brother Walter and Mama, she has no problem standing up for what she believes in and attempting to have her family see her side of things. She struggles immensely with having Mama and Walter as her support system, and because of this I think she finds her support system within herself. I also feel that how I read Beneatha, vs how I saw Beneatha was two different characters in some ways. In the film, Beneatha’s actress changed some of the lines to either fit more sarcastically or funny, and sometimes she was serious and would end on a higher note because of her frustration. In the film, the actress that played Beneatha portrayed her as a young college student who, since she was the most educated of the Younger family, was always educating and “performing” to her family. I think this is shown more in the film because the actress is performing it, vs when I read the play I did not see her as showing off her knowledge.
Hi Derek,
This is an excellent commentary on Walter’s character in the movie and how it reflects and differs from moments in the play. I agree with you that the way the actors chose to portray their characters definitely influences our perceptions of the characters. I also think elements like pauses in language, and pauses in between lines become very apparent in the film version. It’s easy to read through the play rather quickly and lose the importance of imagining how the scene might be spoken in real time, and how important those beats of silence are. I noticed this especially with Walter’s character, because he tends to make harsh statements throughout the play, and in the movie, you can see the other characters’ reactions and silence or lack of silence after his statements.
For example, I noticed many things in the opening scene where Walter is complaining to Ruth about her lack of support for him that I did not consider when reading the play. Walter’s frustration in this scene builds and builds, specifically with the line “WALTER: (not listening at all or even looking at her) This morning I was lookin’ in the mirror and thinking about it… I am thirty-five years old; I been married for eleven, and I got a boy who sleeps in the living room– (very, very quietly) – and all I got to give him is stories about how rich white people live” (34). When you are reading this line, and this scene in the book, your focus is drawn to Walter. However, when I watched the movie, I found myself focused on Ruth’s reactions to his words – her facial expressions, and her actions. I noticed that while he was talking she was just continuing with her chores and what she was doing, not stopping to focus on him. I also noticed her frustration and weariness growing with every word he said. Finally, I think another important aspect that plays into the interpretation of scenes and characters in the play was the volume at which the characters spoke in the film. Walter was speaking very loudly in this scene, and Ruth was responding gently and quietly, further embellishing her character’s weariness. Anyways, great post and reflection on the film!
Hi Derek. Great blog post! I found myself resonating deeply with many of the points you made. It’s interesting how differently characters come across in the film compared to the book. As you pointed out, reading the book involves creating our own mental image of the characters, but watching the film offers a different perspective altogether. To answer your discussion question, one character that stood out most to me was Mama. While reading the book I created a mental image of Mama. I pictured her to be very old school, family oriented and have high expectations. After watching the film, I still believe this to be true, however certain details like receiving the check were portrayed differently then the mental image I created for myself. In the book it says “(She holds the check away from her, still looking at it. Slowly her face sobers into a mask of unhappiness) Ten thousand dollars. (She hands it to RUTH) Put it away somewhere, Ruth. (She does not look at RUTH; her eyes seem to be seeing something somewhere very far off) Ten thousand dollars they give you. Ten thousand dollars”(69). While reading this it is crucial to pay very close attention to the descriptions and actions of the characters. It does a great job explaining exactly what happens in the film. However, after watching the film and seeing the characters act it out gave me a new perspective. In the film, it shows how Mama is not in a rush to open it, she is rather reluctant. She tries to take it all in(now having ten thousand dollars) but we can very visibly see her shift in tone, she portrays sadness. She repeats the amount of money on the check and then completely dismisses the idea, walking away from the table she begins humming. She then changes the subject focusing on Ruth’s doctor’s appointment. This added to my understanding of her character which I had not fully grasped from the book itself. As I was reading, I did not fully understand the significance of Mama’s withdrawal from the check. Watching it in the film allowed for me to understand her emotions toward the check. Despite the family’s excitement, the check was not as important to Mama, her family was her biggest focus. This scene is very similar if not identical to the book, yet watching the film gave me a better perspective of Mama and her initial feelings upon recieving the check .
Hi Derek! I really enjoyed reading your analysis on how Walter’s character impacted the film of A Raisin in the Sun. I think you made very good points on the relation between the book, and how we read it, to the film and how we see it portrayed. To answer your first question of what character stuck out to me the most because of how they were portrayed, I would have to agree with you that it was Walter. We read through the script and think we can understand and picture who he really is, but on screen it is an eye-opening experience that, personally, I do not think can be done just through words. I think what stuck out to me the most with his character was just how much we see him in the bar and at home drunk. We don’t get the visuals of this so I feel as though we don’t truly understand him to the full potential we should. When Walter comes home from the bar one night and starts dancing around and shouting with Beneatha truly gives us an insight into the drunk aspect of his life. In the script, we read, “(Walter comes in during this performance; he has obviously been drinking.) … YEAH… AND ETHIOPIA STRETCH FOURTH HER HANDS AGAIN!” (77). I truly believe that this scene depicts Walter’s personality, except I did not quite see it through until I watched his character portrayed and acted out. I now see Walter as almost childlike, in the sense that when things don’t go his way, he storms out and makes a fool out of himself just to get attention. Watching this acted out showed just how much of a problem, in my opinion, Walter has and reading it doesn’t do his actions justice.
Hey there, Derek. I enjoyed reading your analysis on Walter, and the comparison of his character in the movie to how he is portrayed in the script/book itself. I also liked how you touched on the other characters as well and their relation to Walter himself, in the book and the film. I thought it was interesting that you found Beneatha to be the comedic relief, however. To me she brought a very youthful hint to the film. She seemed to modernize it at times with her way of thinking, but did less of a job making the audience laugh, at least in my opinion. To answer your first question of what character stood out to me, and how it affected my interpretation of them, I thought Mama was the most different from how she was portrayed in my head through reading the script. Specifically on pages 105 through 107, as Mama is handing off her title as head of the family to Walter. Part of Hansberry’s description of Mama in this scene wrote, “She stops and he looks up slowly at her and she meets his eyes pleadingly” (106). To me in this instance, I read Mama as being weak and begging. It showed a very vulnerable softness to her that we had not seen before. However, in the film, she still seemed to hold her firmness for her age, but had some added sympathy. At no point did she feel weak to me in the film. Mama was shown through this for me to be the most different character from how they were portrayed in the film.
Hi Derek, great blog post this week! The way you were able to break down and analyze each scene was great especially for us readers we were able to paint that picture as to what was really going on. A prime example of this is when Walter says to Beneatha “You a horrible-looking chick at this Hour.” (39). I feel like this direct quote just about sums up there relationship throughout the entirety of the book. That direct quote and the others you used were great examples of how these characters interact with one another.
To answer your first question the character I think struck me the most for how they are portrayed was definitely Walter. I feel that he is always looked at as selfish and kind of a jerk although I think his actions are a result of him wanting the best for the family as a whole. This affected my interpretation of him because I usually would rethink some of his questionable acts wondering if he is doing it to be selfish or does he really just want to be a leader for the family. My answer to the second question is I think the film impacted the audience at this time of the 60’s by the culture shock. I say this because I don’t think audiences had seen a film that talks about there struggles like that. Overall great blog post this week!
That was a great outlook Derek, I agree on your take about Walter. In the scene when the check comes, Walter and Mama go back and forth. As they argue about the check, Ruth is still in the background watching. And she’s being talked about, while reading you can forget that she’s there. But Walter makes comments like she will never leave and he will have her forever. MAMA Son—I think you ought to talk to your wife … I’ll go on
out and leave you alone if you want—
WALTER I can talk to her later
This line stood out to me because Ruth is being talked about like she isn’t even there. As well as the transitions from room to room showing movement instead of them just talking to each other straight. Also in the stage directions, emotion is hard to capture. Majority of emotions are to be interpreted. But when watching the movie, there is less to interpret.
Hey Derek,
This was a well-thought-out discussion post about Walter’s actor in the theatrical version of A Raisin in the Sun; I particularly liked the question you asked about which character sticks out the most in how they were portrayed in the movie versus the script. The most significant change in a character in the film came from Lindner. In the script of the play, Lindner initially explains the family’s offer to not move into their new house because of the neighborhood’s concerns due to excessive racist ideals. The script does not detail Lindner’s mood in how he explains the offer; all we get is that he seems aggressive about the deal. “Lindner: (More frustrated than annoyed No, thank you very much. Please. Well—to get right to the point I—(A great breath, and he is off at last).”
The movie version differs in that the actor who plays Lindner appears much more timid when talking to the family; this could change how the audience perceives the scene. From the script, Lindner is much more demanding about the offer to the family and tries to force them to follow through with the committee’s deal. From the movie, it feels like Lindner has sympathy for the family when pitching the agreement; the audience could assume that Lindner is only doing this because he is forced to by the committee, not on his own accord. The script seems to make it appear that Lindner himself is pushing this racist agenda. Meanwhile, the movie has the committee make this significant decision.
1. According to Turner Classic Movies, this film was voted One of the Year’s Ten Best Films by the 1961 New York Times Film Critics, how do you think this film impacted the audience at the time?
I believe this film was very impactful for many reasons. Primarily during the 1960s this story was a lot more relatable than current times. A lot of families had similar struggles to the youngers. Ideologies weren’t as racially progressive as they are today. Id assume this gave both an eye-opening message and motivate or drive people to be more progressive. Any movie, play, or piece of literature that highlights a racial struggle should have a very strong impact on its audience. This is also an underdog story as well; the entire time you’re cheering this family on and hoping they all get what they’ve been deprived of so far in life. The story will also inspire families and strengthen bonds between loved ones through struggle and hardships.
1. What character stuck out the most to you because of how they were portrayed? How does this affect your interpretation of the character in the script?
Derek, your blog post is very well written. Your thorough insight on Walter’s character development was intuitive and I think you bring thoughtful perspective to character analyzation! To answer your discussion question “What character stuck out the most to you because of how they were portrayed? How does this affect your interpretation of the character in the script?” for me, Ruth’s charter portrayal in the film was the most significant to me. In the play, we know Ruth is being pulled in all sorts of different directions, but I think giving a visual to her all of her responsibilities really highlights her exhaustion. For example, in the first scene of the film, we watch as Ruth wakes Travis up for school, and then wakes Walter up for work. She struggles with getting Travis to the bathroom, having to prod him multiple times. After Travis finally makes it to the bathroom we hear Walter complaining to Ruth: “And what is that boy doing in that bathroom—look he’s gonna have to start getting up earlier you know what I mean?” This starts a fight between Walter and Ruth as Ruth as Ruth defends Travis saying that he would wake up the first time if he didn’t have listen to Walter and his friends talk all night long. Watching Ruth argue with Walter, it is visibly evident that she is exhausted with all the repeated fighting and responsibility; dark undereye circles, she’s quick to argue back with Walter but quickly gives up. As an audience, we can feel sympathy for her, Walter complains about Travis rather than thanking Ruth for waking him up for school. It also should be noted that Walter’s constant criticism of Ruth adds to the tension of their mornings which adds to Ruth’s exhaustion.
Hi Derek, I liked how you emphasized that the characters throughout the play change in character and emotion which lets me know that the characters in the film or play are dynamic and not static. In the beginning of the film, you can see the dysfunction and the need for hope. Although the money was left behind for the family, the family had to battle through each individual character’s motives of what to do with the money which included a desire to buy a liquor store, Mama wanted to buy a house, and Ruth was pregnant all of a sudden. This led to frustration and tension in the family. To answer your first question, I believe that Walter certainly shows the most change due to his change of attitude at the end of the play. In the beginning, you really see him depicted as a drunk whose hot temper just seems to bring everyone else’s mood down. The arguments he had with Mama when she just wanted him to go to work or lose the money trying to get a business going. I couldn’t see the hope in him. I think the turning point is when he turned down Lindher’s option to buy the house back as it was a symbol that money was a very big concern, but it would not take away from what Mama wanted for the family. I think the rejection of the offer speaks to how Walter is now thinking about loving his family and starting relationships then he is with a liquor business.