A Raisin in the Sun is a play by Lorraine Hansberry that was first performed in 1959. It was adapted into a movie in 1961, directed by Daniel Petrie.
The story centers on the Younger family, an African-American family living on the South Side of Chicago in the 1950s. The play explores themes of dreams, family, race, and poverty.
The movie version of A Raisin in the Sun received mixed reviews from critics. Some felt that it was too faithful to the original play, while others praised its performances and direction. However, the film was a commercial success, grossing over $4 million at the box office.
In comparison to the play, the movie features several changes. The most notable alteration is the ending, which deviates from Hansberry’s original vision. Some argue that this change makes the film more hopeful, while others find it to be a betrayal of the play’s themes.
Other changes include the addition of several new characters, and the deletion of some scenes from the play. Despite these differences, the movie remains true to the spirit of Hansberry’s work.
When confronted with the prospect of earning money by selling his home in Dumbo, Brooklyn for a higher price than he paid for it, Walter decided not to take it. I felt this took tremendous bravery on his behalf. I also thought that this was a significant turning point in the story. It showed that he had grown as a person and made many things clear through him declining the money.
When I first saw the play, A Raisin in the Sun, I was amazed by how well it was written. The dialogue was sharp and the characters were incredibly believable. I was also struck by how relevant the story still is today. The play is set in the 1950s, but many of the issues it addresses are just as relevant today.
I was equally impressed with the movie version of A Raisin in the Sun. The acting was phenomenal and the film did a great job of capturing the essence of the play. However, there were some key differences between the two versions.
One of the biggest differences between the play and movie is that the film focuses more on Walter Lee’s dream of opening a liquor store. In the play, this dream is only briefly mentioned, but in the movie it is a major plot point. This change gives the film a different focus than the play and makes Walter Lee’s character more central to the story.
Another difference between the two versions is that the film includes a number of flashback scenes that are not in the play. These flashbacks help to provide background information on the characters and their relationships with each other.
Overall, I enjoyed both the play and movie versions of A Raisin in the Sun. They are both well-done and offer different perspectives on the same story. If you have the opportunity to see both, I would recommend it. But if you can only see one, I would say go with the play. It is a classic for a reason and is sure to leave a lasting impression.
However, at the very end of the story, he discovered that family was more important than anything else. He refused to accept the buyout in order to protect himself and his family. I believed it was one of the most courageous things Walter had ever done when he rejected the offer. Was it better on paper? There was an extra layer of passion in the air, and it caught you by surprise.
It was a powerful moment. In the movie, it seemed like a foregone conclusion that Walter would end up accepting the offer. I didn’t feel the same sense of tension and release that I did in the play. The scene just wasn’t as effective.
The best scene in the film, in my opinion, was when Walter held the check they received. The director focused right on Walter’s face and you could see a look of crazed excitement. This foreshadowed that Walter would do something with this money.
I don’t think that the playwright did a very good job of showing what was going on in Walters mind.
When Mama gave her speech about the plant, I think that it was much more moving in the movie. In the play, it just seemed like she was rambling on. But in the movie, you could see the love and the hope in her eyes.
I also think that the movie did a better job of showing the relationship between Beneatha and George. In the play, it just seemed like they were friends. But in the movie, you could see the attraction and the tension between them.
Overall, I think that the movie was better than the play. It was more exciting and showed more of what was going on in the characters’ minds.
I experienced more emotion while watching the film than reading the book. I think this is because when you read, you can imagine whatever you want, but in a film, you see what the director sees. I feel that being able to watch the film helps convey the emotions that each character feels simply by being able to observe them interact with one another. You become attached to each individual character.
When it came to the characters I definitely had a favorite. In the play, Beneatha is more independent and self-confident. She is also very studious and wants to be a doctor. I feel like she is ahead of her time. In the film, she seems more lost and confused. She parties a lot and doesn’t seem to have any ambition. I think I prefer the play’s version of Beneatha because she is more relatable.
I would say that my favorite character in the film was Lena Younger (played by Queen Latifah). She was just so strong and wise. Even though she didn’t have much, she was still grateful for what she did have. And she always tried to see the good in people. I just really admire that about her.
I think the film did a good job of staying true to the play. Even though it was made almost 50 years after the play, I think it still captured the essence of what Lorraine Hansberry was trying to say. And I think that’s why the film is still relevant today. We may have made some progress when it comes to race relations, but there is still a long way to go.