I cannot improve on some of the fine comments by other users, so let me instead argue why this play for TV complements the film and the novel. (I refer to the 1954 feature film as the film and this 1988 teleplay as the play.) The play has virtues and the film has virtues and the virtues of each deepen the novel. If asked to choose, I refuse to do so. The novel plus the film plus this play make the story richer.
Eric Bogosian's defense attorney sustains guilt and ambivalence throughout the play, while Jose Ferrer's defender is a sardonic commentator until he shocks the victory party by explaining the moral of the story. Bogosian's Greenwald is darker and far less stentorian; Ferrer's polished drunk is more eloquent and less rowdy. A little eloquence and a little rawness together make for a cinematic cocktail that brings out the taste of the novel.
Jeff Daniels' defendant is far less motivated than was Van Johnson's in the film because the film dramatizes the events leading to the courtmartial while the play covers the courtmartial and the party only. Still, Daniels conveys a defendant who, once again, must decide whether an authority (his lawyer) knows what he is doing or is erratic and unreliable. Van Johnson's defendant is more about deciding what to do then learning after his acquittal that he did the wrong thing.
Each "author" of the Caine mutiny is a plausible bad guy who lends slightly different emphases to instigators who escape blame for what they goad others into doing.
Bogart's Queeg is far better at hiding his weirdness and flaws, which accentuates Wouk's lesson that Queeg, with truly loyal subordinates, might not have melted down. Davis's Queeg raises the intriguing possibility that an officer might be flat-out nutty in a way difficult for psychiatrists to detect but easy for an attorney to expose. I find Bogart's subtler characterization more interesting, but Brad Davis is terrific.
I agree that the caricature of the psychiatrist is hokey. I never thought that I should write that Whit Bissell was a superior performer, but that's the case.
Finally, the play has no hokey romance cluttering up the narrative. That makes the play better for me but perhaps less varied for others.
Eric Bogosian's defense attorney sustains guilt and ambivalence throughout the play, while Jose Ferrer's defender is a sardonic commentator until he shocks the victory party by explaining the moral of the story. Bogosian's Greenwald is darker and far less stentorian; Ferrer's polished drunk is more eloquent and less rowdy. A little eloquence and a little rawness together make for a cinematic cocktail that brings out the taste of the novel.
Jeff Daniels' defendant is far less motivated than was Van Johnson's in the film because the film dramatizes the events leading to the courtmartial while the play covers the courtmartial and the party only. Still, Daniels conveys a defendant who, once again, must decide whether an authority (his lawyer) knows what he is doing or is erratic and unreliable. Van Johnson's defendant is more about deciding what to do then learning after his acquittal that he did the wrong thing.
Each "author" of the Caine mutiny is a plausible bad guy who lends slightly different emphases to instigators who escape blame for what they goad others into doing.
Bogart's Queeg is far better at hiding his weirdness and flaws, which accentuates Wouk's lesson that Queeg, with truly loyal subordinates, might not have melted down. Davis's Queeg raises the intriguing possibility that an officer might be flat-out nutty in a way difficult for psychiatrists to detect but easy for an attorney to expose. I find Bogart's subtler characterization more interesting, but Brad Davis is terrific.
I agree that the caricature of the psychiatrist is hokey. I never thought that I should write that Whit Bissell was a superior performer, but that's the case.
Finally, the play has no hokey romance cluttering up the narrative. That makes the play better for me but perhaps less varied for others.