Film and Literature

[free]

Film and literature are very closely connected. There can be no film without literature. Literature has been greatly influenced by film since the beginning of the later. As in all activities of human mind, there are various people involved in them both. Some call them - small and great people of one or another. Small people tend to contribute to it in their own small, oftenly not so recommendable, way. The other ones, the great people of it, think only about how to improve the field they are giving their contribution to. If one is 'in love' with the field, should be very careful in selection of whom to believe when communicating with the representatives of the field. It is not easy, especially if you trust people in general. And this can apply to other fields of human activities, too.

[hannah_arendt]

Film and literature are very closely connected. There can be no film without literature. Literature has been greatly influenced by film since the beginning of the later. As in all activities of human mind, there are various people involved in them both. Some call them - small and great people of one or another. Small people tend to contribute to it in their own small, oftenly not so recommendable, way. The other ones, the great people of it, think only about how to improve the field they are giving their contribution to. If one is 'in love' with the field, should be very careful in selection of whom to believe when communicating with the representatives of the field. It is not easy, especially if you trust people in general. And this can apply to other fields of human activities, too.

One of my academic teachers used to say that film is an art of moving pictures and nothing more. Literature and film seem to be connected. However, there are many differences. If you look at for instance "LOTR" film and "The Lord of the Rings" books, many things are completely different. Film give so many opportunity to explore the book. You have light, voice, image. If you are a writer you have to work much harder in order to show the same because you have only words.

[Iain Sparrow]

One of my academic teachers used to say that film is an art of moving pictures and nothing more. Literature and film seem to be connected. However, there are many differences. If you look at for instance "LOTR" film and "The Lord of the Rings" books, many things are completely different. Film give so many opportunity to explore the book. You have light, voice, image. If you are a writer you have to work much harder in order to show the same because you have only words.

Much more than only words... the writer has the reader's imagination to spark into action.:)

[hannah_arendt]

But you use words to do it, words that create certain images.

[Eskeyp]

I much prefer the literature, in the imagination of a lot more interesting looks after the book and the film looks like it has not really

[hannah_arendt]

I prefer literature too.

[Iain Sparrow]

But you use words to do it, words that create certain images.

Yes, but the images are created by the reader... though some people have trouble imagining visually, and some not at all. Which would be horrible, I think.

[PSRemeshChandra]

Films, when they originated from literature, have proved themselves to be good ones, always to be remembered. It not only provided the literature involved in those film to rise up, cross geographical and linguistic barriers and travel the world, inspiring and reviving minds and peoples wherever they are shown, but also placed those films in higher and much broader perspectives. The Count of Monte Christo and Les Miserables have thus reached people in continents and made them learn a few things they even did not know existed which those books in print could never have done as successfully. And classic films were born out them which provided the most skilled two or three hour versions of stories which normally took hours and days to read in full. Even though literature, without being made into films, has succeeded brilliantly in many times, films not made from literature have too often found it quite impossible to succeed in screen. This might be because literature is born from a single man’s patience and convergence which can go into the makings of a compact, balanced and great story. And this maker of literature would not be burdened with the commitments of money already invested. This is not the story and situation with film making. There is no element there to come up with a compact, balanced and great story.

[free]

A filmed novel is a good advertisment for the novel, anyway. It is interesting to see and compare one's own impression about a certain novel and that same novel's impression upon its film-maker. Most of the time I see that my impression is different from the film-makers'. Especially in the case when a novel is filmed by some one who is not from the same country of the novelist. I remember watching an American version of 'The Brothers Karamazov'. While reading the novel I used to imagine the characters in a completely different manner.

[hannah_arendt]

If it comes to russian literature, I would like to see new, russian adaptation of "War and Peace", "Anna Karenina" or "Crime and Punishment". Western directors in my opinion may understand many aspects in a different way.

[free]

Western directors in my opinion may understand many aspects in a different way.

It's true. Western, particularly American, man's temperament is different. There was a scene with Ivan Karamazov spending a stressful night when he had a kind of nervous break down. After the night was over the actor who played the role, looked so neat, his hair was combed as if he had just made it, no physical signs of the psycic turmoil he had gone through. The Western people tend to stay cool in whatever situation they might be, the point is not to show the feelings.

[stlukesguild]

Film and Literature (Novels, Poetry, Plays) are completely different and unique art forms. The goal of the film-maker is not to remake a given novel. The narrative is but the starting point. Of course a film-maker's impression of a given novel is going to be different from yours... just as your impression of the same novel is going to be different from mine or anyone else'. The first goal of the film-maker is to create a powerful, memorable... and perhaps entertaining work of film. He or she must work with the elements at his/her disposal. Films are limited by time constraints. On the other hand, they have the added advantage of sound, music, and photographic imagery. Some films are based upon great novels which must be brutally culled... with the film-maker making decisions as to which elements are essential to his/her vision. Other films... some of the greatest... have been built upon the simplest... even the weakest of literary premises.

[Ecurb]

Films are made using screenplays, which (of course) are a form of literature. I've always thought it a little strange that playwrights are feted as great artists, while the director of a film (rather than the screenplay writer) is considered to be its "auteur". Obviously, both plays and films are collaborative works of art, and no one person is their author. I've been reading Elia Kazan's autobiography, and it's obvious that in the days of the studio system the producer was often almost as much the author of a film as the director. That's because (unlike today) the producer had the final say in casting, scoring and (often) cutting and editing the film. According to Kazan, a producer like David Selznick was not only responsible for funding a movie, but was a major creative force behind many of the films he produced.

Of course there can be films without literature: they're called "silent movies". It is also true that some film directors write their own screenplays. Nonetheless, film is a collaborative art that relies on literature (screenplays), acting, visual images, and musical scores. If we are to say that films and literature are "completely different and unique art forms", mightn't we also say, "stage plays and literature are completely different and unique art forms"? I'll grant that few screenplays are simply read (unlike Shakespeare's plays, which are clearly a form of literature because they are read *as* literature as well as being performed on the stage). Is that because films are not a form of literature, or because they are rarely a form of good literature? (Shakespeare's plays, after all, have been filmed, as have "Streetcar Named Desire", "Long Days Journey into Night" and many other stage plays of accepted literary merit.)

[Carousel]

I think to find the real gems of cinematic genius, don’t confine your search to the present day. A portrayal of sheer cold bloodied menace from a movie made in 1957, way before I was born, contained a scene that in my opinion has never been bettered.

The actor before he made this movie was typecast with ‘All American hero’ parts. Just say the lines and show us your muscles. It shows what you can rise to when let off the leash and a real script is placed in your hands.

Do yourself a favour and watch this clip, no apologies if you’ve seen it before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7lLS7agQl4

[Emil Miller]

It is wrong to assume that film needs literature, some of the best films have been made from screenplays unconnected with it.
The greatest of these is, of course, Citizen Kane: produced, co-scripted, directed and acted by a 25-year-old genius who had never made a film before.
Backed by RKO who financed the film, Welles was given carte blanche to do as he pleased and he said it was like a child being given a gigantic train set to play with. With the famed photographer Greg Toland at hand and a group of first class stage actors, Welles produced the greatest film of all time. The films he made subsequently were good but never came near Citizen Kane's legendary status.

In this stunning scene which is one of many, the hapless reporter Thompson, who has been given the task of tracing the meaning of Kane's last spoken word, is given permission to read a section of of the jealously guarded memoir of Kane's deceased former guardian: the immensely rich and powerful Walter P Thatcher.


http://youtu.be/rIz_xhYK2Mo

[Ecurb]

It is wrong to assume that film needs literature, some of the best films have been made from screenplays unconnected with it.
The greatest of these is, of course, Citizen Kane: produced, co-scripted, directed and acted by a 25-year-old genius who had never made a film before.
]

As you point out, Wells co-wrote the screenplay for "Citizen Kane", with Herman Mankiewicz. Aren't screenplays a form of "literature"?

Some screenplays are adapted from novels or plays, some are not. But if the "written" version of stage plays are a form of literature, why wouldn't screenplays qualify as well?

Movie scores are a form of music, aren't they?

I'll grant that few people read screenplays. But few people read some other literary works, too.

[Emil Miller]

As you point out, Wells co-wrote the screenplay for "Citizen Kane", with Herman Mankiewicz. Aren't screenplays a form of "literature"?

Some screenplays are adapted from novels or plays, some are not. But if the "written" version of stage plays are a form of literature, why wouldn't screenplays qualify as well?

Movie scores are a form of music, aren't they?

I'll grant that few people read screenplays. But few people read some other literary works, too.

I agree that stageplays and screenplays are literature but I was alluding to it in the general sense of it being written as novels or poetry.

Welles was already well versed in stageplays before making Citizen Kane, due to his work at the Gate theatre Dublin and also later in America

[cacian]

film and literature they are chalk and cheese. one can be without the other but the other cannot be without one.

[Emil Miller]

film and literature they chalk and cheese. one can be without the other but one cannot be without it,


Or put another way.......

[cacian]

Or put another way.......

how do you mean? I am not sure I understand. :)
do you mean rephrase it?
''film and literature they are chalk and cheese. one can be without the other but the other cannot be without one.''
or maybe not :)

[free]

how do you mean? I am not sure I understand. :)
do you mean rephrase it?
''film and literature they are chalk and cheese. one can be without the other but the other cannot be without one.''
or maybe not :)

Film has emerged from literature, painting, photography, music. It is an art that gethers all other forms of art. This is why it is great. The other question is how does it affect human mind and intellect. Does the human mind looses its sophistication with film, and gains it with literature?

[Marcus1]

Literature > African Masks > Cats > Film > Music > Dance > Painting

[free]

I wonder if there is a book witten based on a film. I feel like writing one based on my favourite movie. :) .... and how would it be accepted by readers.... hmmm...

[Lokasenna]

I wonder if there is a book witten based on a film. I feel like writing one based on my favourite movie. :) .... and how would it be accepted by readers.... hmmm...

The most distressing thing about the release of that awful 2007 film version of Beowulf was the day I walked into Waterstones, only to be confronted by a huge display books marked 'Beowulf' containing... the novelisation of the film. A glance at a few pages made it clear that it in no way resembled, or compared favourably to, the Anglo-Saxon original.

Sometimes I despair of our species.

[Ecurb]

Sometimes I despair of our species.

I remember seeing stacks of "Anna Karenina" in a bookstore promoted with a huge shield on the cover of the book saying, "Now A Major Motion Picture starring Keira Knightley". Well!!! In that case, I'll take one of these!

[free]

I like them both.

[prendrelemick]

Is there any book that simply cannot be made into a film?

I'm reading James Joyce at the moment (Ulysses ) . It would be pretty hopeless as a film I think - too much crazy inner consciousness going on.

[YesNo]

I've tried Ulysses three times and enjoyed the first 20 pages. Finnegans Wake might be an even better candidate for a hopeless film. I've been able to tolerate a few pages of FW. I like quoting it. Just pick anything and it should work. I figured I might as well learn quantum physics or brain surgery as try to understand the book. The task would be at least possible. However I'm glad Joyce wrote the book.

[Emil Miller]

Is there any book that simply cannot be made into a film?

I'm reading James Joyce at the moment (Ulysses ) . It would be pretty hopeless as a film I think - too much crazy inner consciousness going on.

It was filmed in 1967 but had a lukewarm reception from the critics.

[prendrelemick]

There was also a film about an attempt to film Tristram Shandy fairly recently with Steve Coogan (A **** and Bull Story)- not very good.

I was suprised when Life of Pi made it to the screen so sucessfully.

[prendrelemick]

I've tried Ulysses three times and enjoyed the first 20 pages. Finnegans Wake might be an even better candidate for a hopeless film. I've been able to tolerate a few pages of FW. I like quoting it. Just pick anything and it should work. I figured I might as well learn quantum physics or brain surgery as try to understand the book. The task would be at least possible. However I'm glad Joyce wrote the book.

It is hard going. I think the key is to be aware of the strange/imperfect relationship between written language and the sounds actually used for commuication. This is the passage that got me thinking about it. (I only read it last night.)

"-Stephen stared at nothing in particular. He could hear, of course, all kinds of words changing colour like those crabs about Ringsend in the morning burrowing quickly into all different colours of different sorts of the same sand where they had a home somewhere beneath or seemed to. "



It would also help to have been born in Dublin in the late 19th century.

[YesNo]

It is hard going. I think the key is to be aware of the strange/imperfect relationship between written language and the sounds actually used for commuication. This is the passage that got me thinking about it. (I only read it last night.)

"-Stephen stared at nothing in particular. He could hear, of course, all kinds of words changing colour like those crabs about Ringsend in the morning burrowing quickly into all different colours of different sorts of the same sand where they had a home somewhere beneath or seemed to. "



It would also help to have been born in Dublin in the late 19th century.

That quote sort of makes sense.

I like quoting this one from Ulysses:


--You're not a believer, are you? Haines asked. I mean, a believer in the narrow sense of the word. Creation from nothing and miracles and a personal God.
Joyce, James (2009-10-04). Ulysses (p. 12). Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.

This was published in 1922. Later that decade the idea of the universe expanding was first considered. Recently I read that Lawrence Krauss says it came from "nothing". It is amazing how far we have come in a hundred years.

However much that makes sense, here is a sample from the first page of Finnegans Wake: https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/j/joyce/james/j8f/episode1.html


He addle liddle phifie Annie ugged the little craythur. Wither hayre in honds tuck up your part inher.

Can one make a movie out of this? Perhaps. If one has some creatures speaking in this language which one can sort of understand but not quite and then have a normal plot and dialogue above that like what one gets in the movie "Minions": http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/minions/

[free]

I think that it takes a great screen writer and a director to make a movie of a book that is mostly philosofical (like the ones you quoted). There are, also, philosofical movies reminding of such books (Bergman's, for example). Only, they wouldn't be much commercial, I guess. That is why they don't attract movie creators.

Some times ago, I read Clarke's The Space Odyssey, only to try to see if the book is offering more to understand the film. I didn't find it, the movie was made perfectly in accordance with the book, nothing is different.

[prendrelemick]

^ That is a great film.

What usually happens is some writer or production team imagines they can make a classic better by adding sex, violence, or worst of all, current social mores.

[free]

What usually happens is some writer or production team imagines they can make a classic better by adding sex, violence, or worst of all, current social mores.

Maybe because they think it would attract more public. I like the films in which one can sense its creator's admiration for the novel's author.

[Leopard]

I agree that film and literature are closely connected (even silent films have screenplays) and it annoys me how undervalued the screenwriter (not to mention the composer) often is compared to the director. The literary and musical aspects of a film are just as important as the visual in my opinion.