I owe "Throne of Blood" and my valiant readers an apology for a recent column. Consider this a do-over.

I owe "Throne of Blood" and my valiant readers an apology for a recent column. Consider this a do-over.

Looking back, the 22-inch verse "Throne" review I excreted three weeks back is among the worst pieces of writing I've ever produced. And that's saying something, folks.

I maintain that the Oregon Shakespeare Festival's stage adaptation of Akira Kurosawa's film is one of the craziest things you'll see this year.

"Throne" is by no means one of The Master's greatest films. I place it squarely on the second tier of his work — right there with "The Hidden Fortress" and "Dersu Uzala."

However, the film-to-stage experiment intrigues me. Since seeing the play a few weeks ago, I've caught myself thinking about other Kurosawa films that would better translate to stage. Truth is, OSF proved once again that it knows more than I about matters of drama. "Throne" is the most obvious choice because as a take on the Bard's "Macbeth," it was, y'know, originally made for the stage.

Now let us take a step back from Kurosawa and consider other films that could make the jump from celluloid (or digital, these days) onto the stage.

Sure, there are the obvious flicks that critics already consider "stagey." In this camp you've got "The Breakfast Club," "Reservoir Dogs," "My Dinner with Andre," "Tape," etc.

Of all the films that take place in one or two rooms, I'd say "The Exorcist" would make for one helluva play. Soup this thing up with some creepy flat lighting and some suspension effects for the lead demon and pair the spectacle with some of the substance of William Friedkin's film and you'd have stage gold, baby.

The main set would comprise the infamous bed and dresser, while a dark stairwell could set off to the right as a place where the beleaguered priests could sit and talk religious philosophy while wiping pea soup off their glasses.

The best part of "Throne" was how the director did not allow the stage to keep the expansive visuals stuffed in a box. "Throne" made inventive use of theater screens to give the world depth and atmosphere.

It convinced me the stage is ready for heavy science fiction.

Have I lost you? Not yet? Just hear me out.

My heart would swell and burst if some intrepid director could bring "Blade Runner" to the stage. It's worth doing.

As far as sci-fi flicks go, "Blade Runner" is among the slower narratives you'll find. Ridley Scott's film is more concerned with humanistic debate than gun fights and space ships.

But when you think "Blade Runner," the first thing to come to mind surely is flying cars and neon landscapes stretching beyond forever.

We can do these things. Use a larger digital theater screen, much like the one utilized to great effect in "Throne," to provide the dystopic backdrop to "Blade Runner's" narrative.

Characters can mumble "Blade Runner's" thick, hesitant dialogue as the screen backdrop shows flying cars whizzing by and huge futuristic factories belching fire into the horizon.

It would be necessary to reduce settings to three, perhaps four, areas of the film, one of which would have to be Deckard's dismal apartment and the other the upper floor of the Bradbury Building where the fake animals are made and one of the most famous murders in all of filmdom — Rutger Hauer's terrible eye gouge — is staged.

Keep the director's-cut dour ending, where the remaining characters step into an elevator and disappear into the bleak unknown instead of escaping into sunny pastures somewhere outside the city, and you've got a viable science fiction stage show.

"Throne of Blood's" greatest achievement is not its fast-paced story or the across-the-board strong work of its actors. This might sound like a slight, but I assure you it is not.

"Throne" reminded me of the endless possibility of the stage.

Reach reporter Chris Conrad at 541-776-4471; or e-mail cconrad@mailtribune.com.