In theatre, making the jump from screen to stage is rarely easy. Cast and crew often face audiences accustomed to bigger sets and bigger stars, and if something goes amiss onstage, there's no take two. Alternatively, even the best stage adaptation is unlikely to leave as great a legacy as a film can. It's not impossible for a stage production to improve on a screen’s, but when the films in question are both critically acclaimed and popularly beloved, it is a tall order.

Two theatre companies, Theatre Calgary and Vertigo Mystery Theatre, will put their own stamp on familiar films this fall.

Dennis Garnhum, artistic director at Theatre Calgary, believes that Dale Wasserman's 1963 adaptation of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest more than meets the challenge. Many people (probably most) don't know there's a theatrical version of Ken Kesey's novel, says Garnhum. But if they come to his theatre, he predicts they'll find it's even better as a play than it is as a film.

It's a claim that naturally invites skepticism. Milos Forman's 1975 film adaptation, which won five Oscars, ranks in the Top 10 on IMDB's user ratings poll and ranked 20th in the American Film Institute's 1998 list of the 100 best American movies. Garnhum doesn't dispute that the acclaim is deserved. Indeed, he agrees with the AFI that the film, starring Jack Nicholson and Louise Fletcher, is “one of the greatest movies of all time.” But he believes the play will offer audiences an experience only theatre can provide.

“It’s a great play, which is why it was turned into a movie,” he says. “They wouldn’t have taken an OK play and turned it into a movie. Usually, when you see a play version of a movie, it can be substandard to the movie experience. But I believe it’s far superior.”

A key strength of the play, Garnhum believes, is its comparative similarity to the novel. In the film, the native character Chief, a giant man who everyone falsely believes is deaf and mute, only speaks in the second half. The novel, by contrast, is anchored from beginning to end by his narration, which the play replicates through monologues.

“Between every scene, we go back to the Chief and he tells us more about the state of things. We are in on the secret that he is as aware as anyone else in the room,” says Garnhum. “So I think that also creates a dramatic (effect) that is perfect for the stage. In the movie, they really changed it to fit how the movie works, but in this it’s an incredibly traditional — in a good way — form.”

Over at Vertigo Theatre, the company is preparing a screen-to-stage adaptation of its own. While originally written for television, Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men seems like a natural fit for the theatre. The action takes place over a single day and, except for brief periods at the beginning and end, is confined to the cramped, sweaty jury room. Director Kate Newby watched the 1957 film as part of her research, but any potential influence on her stage production ended there.

“I didn’t really spend much time evaluating the film, I just watched the story and moved on from there,” she says. “Because I’m not interested in re-creating the film version of the piece, I’m interested in actually telling the story with the people that I have.”

Nonetheless, the parallels between the two versions are difficult to avoid. Rose, who also penned the stage version, hewed closely to his film script for the play, which actually came later. The similarities surprised Newby.

She says it’s fascinating to compare the two adaptations, only to discover that not much was changed. “It feels like a theatre piece, and yet it wasn’t intended to be that originally.”

Actor Paul Cowling, who plays Juror 10 (none of the characters’ names are ever revealed), is quick to laud the film, directed by Sidney Lumet and starring Henry Fonda and Lee J. Cobb. He’s not seeking to one-up this classic, but, like Garnhum, he believes the stage is where it’s at if audiences want to share in the moment.

“It’s a great film,” he says. “It’s one of those classic American films, sort of, that’s always managed to stay relevant. For sure, we’re not re-creating the film, because the play stands alone on its own, and I find it to be far more passionate than the film.”