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