What do you think of the cast of the new Anna Karenina film?

[PoeticPassions]

Keira Knightly is an awful choice. Both by her acting and her physical appearance. If anything, she's way too anorexic looking to play Anna.

Jude Law is also a huge miss. But who knows, maybe he'll pull it off.

As for the adaptation question... I don't think we should always compare these two mediums in the sense of one being better than the other... they're art in their own ways and film and literature both have their strengths and weaknesses. One of the better Comp Lit classes I took in college (as a fun elective) looked at adaptations of literature into film... Most works seem to have been adapted in some form or another.. some loosely, some almost identical to the original work. The class gave me a new appreciation of both art forms and of the differences (and similarities) between them... A spectacular film that was adapted, for example, is Rick Moody's The Ice Storm.

Or the movie Adaptation. Which was very loosely based on the book The Orchid Thief, and really shows the struggle of adaptation and of writing in general.

Also, everything that Kubrick has ever directed is an adaptation of a novel (or story), I believe.

[Intuition]

The art forms all have a symbiotic relationship. Sometimes it results in disaster (take the musical version of Gone With the Wind, which was savaged by critics), sometimes it produces classic pieces of art (the film of Gone With The Wind).

The aim of adapting novels is not necessarily to improve them- whenever that is the aim, the film normally fails (take the 2009 film of Brideshead Revisited). Film versions of Anna Karenina will never be able to do full justice to the novel- there's simply so much in it- but they can be good films in their own right. I'm looking forward to it (Tom Stoppard's doing the screenplay) but the casting of this 2012 film is dubious and I don't entirely trust Joe Wright, considering that he destroyed Pride and Prejudice.


EDIT: I think the link I originally gave leads to the message boards so here's the main page: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1781769/

Although Gone with the Wind is considered a classic piece of Hollywood, it is far from being an artistic piece of Cinema. It is merely a classic due to the acting of Gable and Leigh, and not the direction of Fleming.

Shakespeare did resort to artistic prostitution - had he done what he wanted to, he would have written solely poetry. But there was no money in poems, so he wrote plays(the were considered the cultural equivalent of television nowadays). He wrote plays, he made them beautiful and he earned a fair amount of money. And you complain about Michael Bay using lots of explosions and beautiful naked girls? Shakespeare did the elizabethan equivalent. Every play is full of sword fights and sexual puns, lots of gore and death. Exactly what the Elizabethan masses wanted, like our masses want explosions and sexy girls in bikinis.

So before you criticize Hollywood know that you criticize most art by extension.

Firstly, without a doubt Shakespeare was conventional for his time, but his formative technique was far superior than his content. A director of Hollywood has no artistry in either form or content. Green-screens and CGI happen to be their cinematography, although at least the films that use the aforementioned devices will usually contain an original narrative. Not so with adapted works, they merely use classic literature as a way of attracting audiences, just like Shakespeare may have done with his content, although they do not care to write it themselves-- that's the problem; and it isn't likely their form with be as perfect as a director such as Orson Welles.

Raphael, Michelangelo and Da Vinci - do you think they were religious fanatics who only desired painting religious paintings. If they could have they probably would have painted about many things - but the majority of their art is religious iconography, why? Because the church had the cash - so in effect they to artistically prostituted themselves. Much like all the other of thousands of their contemporary painters - they all knew that a starving painter was useless.

Actually, Michelangelo is far from artistic prostitution in any sense. I believe you haven't an idea of what I mean by artistic prostitution. Examples:

Hollywood

1. A Hollywood director is going to make a film.
2. He decides he does not want to write anything, because he hasn't adequate writing abilities. He picks a classic novel to be adapted into script format, he decides on taking what many call the masterpiece of Leo Tolstoy, the writer who many critics believe is the greatest novelist of all time.
3. He decides to pick an actress for the lead role, one whom happens to also be a model, and the second highest paid actress of 2008.
4. This is close to being the tenth time this film is being adapted onto the silver screen.


Michelangelo

1. Michelangelo is going to sculpt a sculpture.
2. He believes Donatello's rendition of David was not a good one.
3. Michelangelo decides not to depict David with the slain head of Goliath, like his predecessors had. His representation is far less conventional than those of his time. In the sculpture David's humanistic properties are addressed, this happens to be a breakthrough in terms of content and form.

Oh, the parallels I see! Or perhaps you believe that in hundreds of years this adaptation of Anna Karenina will not be seen as a duplicate of many, and that it will have the same artistic importance as the sculptures of Michelangelo!

As for the adaptation question... I don't think we should always compare these two mediums in the sense of one being better than the other... they're art in their own ways and film and literature both have their strengths and weaknesses. One of the better Comp Lit classes I took in college (as a fun elective) looked at adaptations of literature into film... Most works seem to have been adapted in some form or another.. some loosely, some almost identical to the original work. The class gave me a new appreciation of both art forms and of the differences (and similarities) between them... A spectacular film that was adapted, for example, is Rick Moody's The Ice Storm.

I don't believe anyone has insulted either medium. The insults are aimed at the adaptation of one medium into another, most specifically that of novels. Truthfully speaking, the greatest films of all time have been adaptations of horrible novels, or they have been original work. In this case there is no better example than Citizen Kane.

[kelby_lake]

Although Gone with the Wind is considered a classic piece of Hollywood, it is far from being an artistic piece of Cinema. It is merely a classic due to the acting of Gable and Leigh, and not the direction of Fleming.

You don't think the cinematography is artistic? Or that the theme tune for Tara has become iconic? Yes, GWTW had an erratic production but to dismiss it as a Hollywood relic doesn't take into account the talent of the filmmakers and actors.

Firstly, without a doubt Shakespeare was conventional for his time, but his formative technique was far superior than his content. A director of Hollywood has no artistry in either form or content. Green-screens and CGI happen to be their cinematography, although at least the films that use the aforementioned devices will usually contain an original narrative. Not so with adapted works, they merely use classic literature as a way of attracting audiences, just like Shakespeare may have done with his content, although they do not care to write it themselves-- that's the problem; and it isn't likely their form with be as perfect as a director such as Orson Welles.

I dislike green-screens and CGI, but to be fair a lot of the older films were stagebound. By Hollywood, do you mean films made in Hollywood or any film that isn't independant?

[QUOTE]
Hollywood

1. A Hollywood director is going to make a film.
2. He decides he does not want to write anything, because he hasn't adequate writing abilities. Directing and writing are two different disciplines and not all directors write their own screenplays. He picks a classic novel to be adapted into script format, he decides on taking what many call the masterpiece of Leo Tolstoy, the writer who many critics believe is the greatest novelist of all time.
3. He decides to pick an actress for the lead role, one whom happens to also be a model, and the second highest paid actress of 2008.
4. This is close to being the tenth time this film is being adapted onto the silver screen. It's a rich and diverse enough novel to withstand 20 adaptations

I don't believe anyone has insulted either medium.

Perhaps not an outright one but whether it's intentional or not, this post does come off as a little snobbish. The suggestion is that cinema is inherently incapable of creating artistic masterpieces.

The insults are aimed at the adaptation of one medium into another, most specifically that of novels. Truthfully speaking, the greatest films of all time have been adaptations of horrible novels, or they have been original work. In this case there is no better example than Citizen Kane.

Originality is always going to be praised above adaptation.

[Intuition]

You don't think the cinematography is artistic? Or that the theme tune for Tara has become iconic? Yes, GWTW had an erratic production but to dismiss it as a Hollywood relic doesn't take into account the talent of the filmmakers and actors.

I think that being made in the same year as La Règle du jeu the cinematography is far from being anywhere close to the height of its time. Of course the theme tune has become iconic, I never claimed that it is not a "classic." The film was made for entertainment's sake, if entertainment is the sole goal of an artist then Fleming has achieved a state in this film, similar to that of Chaplin. As for the talent of film-making, I do not find Fleming to be a talented filmmaker, far from it. He merely belongs to the class of Hollywood directors who are driven by their actors and screenwriters.

I dislike green-screens and CGI, but to be fair a lot of the older films were stagebound. By Hollywood, do you mean films made in Hollywood or any film that isn't independant?

When I was speaking of green-screens and CGI I was retorting the gentlemen who claimed that the greatest artists of history were just as much prostituting their artistry as Michael Bay is now.

By Hollywood (in the classic era) I meant one of the major studios producing a film. In the modern era, Hollywood can mean two things: any film made in order to attract a large amount of viewers through conventional methods, or-- a film which happens to be heavily financed, and made within the United States. Although Hollywood has been able to sink themselves deep in the culture of European countries.

Directing and writing are two different disciplines and not all directors write their own screenplays.

Correct, they are two different disciplines, a director should have knowledge in both the camera and the pen.

It's a rich and diverse enough novel to withstand 20 adaptations

That isn't the point. Have I somehow given the impression of insulting the novel? The fact is, the novel is 850 pages... there is no way it could be properly adapted into film-- unless the film itself was a good ten or so hours, like R.W. Fassbinder's esteemed adaptation of Berlin Alexanderplatz (which happened to be much longer than that).

Perhaps not an outright one but whether it's intentional or not, this post does come off as a little snobbish. The suggestion is that cinema is inherently incapable of creating artistic masterpieces.

I apologize if I have given the impression of being pompous. I doubt I have alluded to cinema being incapable of creating masterpieces, as cinema is the one art I take most interest to. I am a student of it. Therefore, I feel insulted when directors are driven to adapting the great pieces of another medium only to make mediocre pieces out of their own medium. Great directors like Orson Welles have adapted some of the most horrible novels ever written, an example like Lady from Shanghai; with his knowledge of form he turned this horrid plot into a technical masterpiece.

Bazin, in his influential Qu'est-ce que le cinéma?, also disliked the adaptation of great literature. He believed film should be a personal vision of the director, not the personal vision of an author from another medium.

Originality is always going to be praised above adaptation.

And why shouldn't it?

[kelby_lake]

I think that being made in the same year as La Règle du jeu the cinematography is far from being anywhere close to the height of its time.

Black and white cinematography is different from colour cinematography. Didn't they used to have two separate oscars for each? I think they did for costume design. Art direction may have a lot to do with it as well but I think the cinematography creates the epic sort of feel that the filmmakers presumably wanted.

The film was made for entertainment's sake, if entertainment is the sole goal of an artist then Fleming has achieved a state in this film, similar to that of Chaplin. As for the talent of film-making, I do not find Fleming to be a talented filmmaker, far from it. He merely belongs to the class of Hollywood directors who are driven by their actors and screenwriters.

I only know two films that Fleming directed so I'm not saying that he's a genius director but he managed to keep the film together after it had already gone through two directors.

In the modern era, Hollywood can mean two things: any film made in order to attract a large amount of viewers through conventional methods, or-- a film which happens to be heavily financed, and made within the United States. Although Hollywood has been able to sink themselves deep in the culture of European countries.

Presumably this Anna Karenina adaptation would count as an example of the first, in your opinion? I think that Wright might aim for some sort of artistic merit- the critics seem to love his stuff- so there should at least be some nice cinematography and period feel.

Correct, they are two different disciplines, a director should have knowledge in both the camera and the pen.

Knowledge and understanding of screenplays is different to being able to, or even wanting to, write your own film.

That isn't the point. Have I somehow given the impression of insulting the novel? The fact is, the novel is 850 pages... there is no way it could be properly adapted into film-- unless the film itself was a good ten or so hours, like R.W. Fassbinder's esteemed adaptation of Berlin Alexanderplatz (which happened to be much longer than that).

You haven't insulted the novel at all but you suggest that because the film will have to be selective in what it focuses on, this means that it isn't worth bothering. Unfortunately I have a feeling that Wright is going to claim fidelity towards the novel, whilst actually making a hollow film. But that's not to say that there are directors capable of making it. My knowledge of current film directors isn't strong enough to say who but that doesn't mean that nobody could do it.

I feel insulted when directors are driven to adapting the great pieces of another medium only to make mediocre pieces out of their own medium. Great directors like Orson Welles have adapted some of the most horrible novels ever written, an example like Lady from Shanghai; with his knowledge of form he turned this horrid plot into a technical masterpiece.

Being a Drama student, I understand the fear that your medium has become derivative and made mediocre works out of things that were best left in their own format (such as the trend for stage musical adaptations of films)

Bazin, in his influential Qu'est-ce que le cinéma?, also disliked the adaptation of great literature. He believed film should be a personal vision of the director, not the personal vision of an author from another medium.

It's a personal perspective. The director chooses what he wants to focus on and so indirectly their own political opinions will come through. If you're going to adapt a classic novel, it should be your perception and reaction to that novel rather than a vain attempt to recreate every page.

And why shouldn't it?

Yes, the filmmaker should get brownie points for originality but the main factor should be whether it's a good film or not.

[Intuition]

Black and white cinematography is different from colour cinematography. Didn't they used to have two separate oscars for each? I think they did for costume design. Art direction may have a lot to do with it as well but I think the cinematography creates the epic sort of feel that the filmmakers presumably wanted.

Although B&W cinematography is different from colour cinematography this does not prevent us from comparing the aesthetic importance of both. Gone With the Wind was not a breakthrough in being one of the first films to use colour adequately-- that award goes to Curtiz' Robinhood. Both films have horrible camera-work either or. On the other hand, Renoir's masterpiece influenced generations of cinematography, besides of course, influencing Citizen Kane. Gone with the Wind was not influential in form.

I only know two films that Fleming directed so I'm not saying that he's a genius director but he managed to keep the film together after it had already gone through two directors.

Merely the fact that the film went through two directors, shows that it was not influenced by a single hand. In other words, there was no personality attached to the work.

Presumably this Anna Karenina adaptation would count as an example of the first, in your opinion? I think that Wright might aim for some sort of artistic merit- the critics seem to love his stuff- so there should at least be some nice cinematography and period feel.

That depends on what you mean by "nice cinematography." There is no chance that it will be able to contend with the formative artistry of Malick's Tree of Life, which again happens to be original. As for period feel-- that is the only thing modern directors have had on their mind, ever since they watched Kubrick's Barry Lyndon.

It's a personal perspective. The director chooses what he wants to focus on and so indirectly their own political opinions will come through. If you're going to adapt a classic novel, it should be your perception and reaction to that novel rather than a vain attempt to recreate every page.

Political opinions? Whoever spoke of political opinions? That is an amateur's way of personalizing a film. That also happens to be the downfall of Jean-Luc Godard in the late 1960s, when he began making his films far too political, that they lost their artistry. The type of personalization I mean is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasujir%C5%8D_Ozu

Scroll down and read the topic Legacy and style.

Yes, the filmmaker should get brownie points for originality but the main factor should be whether it's a good film or not.

I think by calling them brownie points you are disregarding how important it is for a director to write his own screenplay. If a director does happen to write his screenplay he can have in mind the formative aspects of the film while writing it. On a second note, he can also personalize the film with distinct themes that connect an author to his work, or a painter to his style.

You claimed that such a novel as Gone with the Wind proved to be a successful adaptation of a great novel, (although I would never come to call the novel a great one to begin with, but that's besides the point) but how many other "great" novels have came to be recognized as the greatest of films? I'm sure Arthur C. Clarke has never been considered an author of great literature-- nor Mario Puzo. Perhaps you would claim Rashomon to being of this category. True, it is based on one of the greatest pieces of Japanese literature, but in this case it is a short story by Akutagawa. The length is acceptable. Although Kurosawa, being the brilliant director he is-- make this film his own, through his formative style; by no means do I believe that there are many directors alive who can accomplish such feats.

[kelby_lake]

The political opinions comment is to do with Anna Karenina and Tolstoy's political views. You can't avoid elements of politicism in your work, even if the film is not overtly political, because political beliefs are a core part of you as a person.



I'm citing Gone With The Wind as an example of a film which succesfully adapted a novel- not a classic novel but a bestseller which lived up to the expectations of the novel's readers. The expectations of Anna Karenina readers are going to be sky-high, and that is the problem that directors adapting a novel will face. If it's some obscure novella by some obscure classic writer, the work may be good but the problem of expectation isn't as strong.



You say that there aren't any great films which have been adaptations of great books? 8of the films on the AFI list of greatest films are adaptations of novels that are either classics or 'modern classics'. My Fair Lady and West Side Story are film adaptations of stage musicals which are adaptations/versions of classic works. I'm sure there were people who whined about adapting those novels but luckily the films got made.

I think for the most part that directors shouldn't direct their own stuff. Actors need the freedom of interpretation not to become the puppets of an auteur. Welles had talent (although he wasn't above adaptation and brutal cutting at that) and Woody Allen is thought of as talented (though his recent film was described as derivative of his earlier work), and there are a handful of other auteurs, but they are the exception. Are most directors, present and past, capable of writing and directing without being self-indulgent? Even auteurs occasionally get that criticism.

Directors who stand back a little and let the work speak for itself are not bad directors and directors who write and direct are not automatically good directors (or writers).

[Intuition]

You can't avoid elements of politicism in your work, even if the film is not overtly political, because political beliefs are a core part of you as a person.

Correct, but if one goes to the point of making a film didactic due to political beliefs, then he is not an artist. Social commentary is merely something that may or may not be present in a great film, it is never valued highly-- unless of course, the film is meant for propaganda-- such as Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will or Eisenstein's Potemkin . Consequently, the aforementioned films are cherished for their formative techniques, and not their political beliefs. This exemplifies my argument of personal formative techniques being far superior to political opinions.

I'm citing Gone With The Wind as an example of a film which succesfully adapted a novel- not a classic novel but a bestseller which lived up to the expectations of the novel's readers. The expectations of Anna Karenina readers are going to be sky-high, and that is the problem that directors adapting a novel will face. If it's some obscure novella by some obscure classic writer, the work may be good but the problem of expectation isn't as strong.

Yes, expectations are sky-high, although it's also the novel's incremental style of detail which makes it what it is. The prolonged sequences will be horribly transmuted into film, they will lose their magic undoubtedly. Trimming could easily work for Gone with the Wind, for not everything was essential in a novel such as that. Such metaphors as Anna's life fading away like a candle light-- if used, will only be a recreation of Pabst's ending of Pandora's Box. Some may claim that it came from Anna Karenina first, but since Pandora's Box was the first to use a metaphor such as that in film, it does not matter.

You say that there aren't any great films which have been adaptations of great books? 8of the films on the AFI list of greatest films are adaptations of novels that are either classics or 'modern classics'. My Fair Lady and West Side Story are film adaptations of stage musicals which are adaptations/versions of classic works. I'm sure there were people who whined about adapting those novels but luckily the films got made.

I'm sorry, but I just gave out a laugh when you mentioned AFI. They are possibly some of the worst critics on this planet. You realize they do not even include foreign films? (which would take up 50% of the list, at least).

Here are some better lists:

http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1...l1000films.htm

That's a top 1000 films of all time list. Although not perfect, you may get the idea.

Your beloved My Fair Lady falls into the spot of being 768th place.
West Side Story falls into the spot of being 276th, far too high if you would ask me, but definitely in a more agreeable spot than AFI's list.

By the way, by "great films," I mean films that have the possibility with comparing to the greatest films of Welles, Hitchcock, or Fellini... If you somehow believe that Robert Wise (the director of West Side Story, in case you did not know) could ever make a film that would be on the same level as the aforementioned directors then you're suffering from either one of the following maladies:

1. You lack understanding of cinematic form
2. You have a tendency to insult the old masters of Cinema

Of course I don't mean to say that a modern director could ever make films as great as those-- but it definitely does not help following false steps.

Here's another great list, but also flawed.
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/...tics-long.html

Also, an old one: http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/...tory/1992.html

I think for the most part that directors shouldn't direct their own stuff. Actors need the freedom of interpretation not to become the puppets of an auteur. Welles had talent (although he wasn't above adaptation and brutal cutting at that) and Woody Allen is thought of as talented (though his recent film was described as derivative of his earlier work), and there are a handful of other auteurs, but they are the exception. Are most directors, present and past, capable of writing and directing without being self-indulgent? Even auteurs occasionally get that criticism.

Directors should not direct their own material? Maybe painters should not be able to pick their own pigments and colors? Actors need the freedom of interpretation for what? Let them do that on the stage. One of the reasons Coppola had to suffer much stress in the production of Apocalypse Now was because he had to explain to Dennis Hopper why his character was uttering his lines. On the same production he also had to mollycoddle Marlon Brando through his role by reading him The Heart of Darkness
page by page. If only they could have been puppets.

Welles wasn't just talented, he was a universal genius. A Leonardo of film. He was the main writer of Citizen Kane (shared with a credit of Mankiewicz, who was known for being a drunkard and procrastinator) he was the star of his films, and the director. Before you claim that Welles adapted novels, it was not to his liking. He only adapted novels because he never had the carte blanche he received after broadcasting War of the Worlds on air.

Now, speaking of Welles' adaptations-- his Don Quixote remains unfinished, so we cannot comment that. Most of Welles' lesser films were the adaptations of greater work. While Magnificent Ambersons happens to be one of his greatest works, the novel itself is nothing of a landmark of world literature. Secondly, as ironic as it may be-- Tarkington was a friend of Welles' father, and there were rumors that the main character of Ambersons may have been inspired by Welles himself, which would allow Welles to add a personalization to that character of his. The other great film of Welles' being Touch of Evil one of the most horrible novels ever to rear its face.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badge_of_Evil

This is arguably Welles' second greatest film, and easily one of the top twenty greatest films of all time. Made by adapting a horrible novel as a placeholder (since he was not allowed to write it original) it is a formative masterpiece and exemplifies on Welles' personal formative style.

Woody Allen's work is just as dead as he will be in a few years.

Auteurs occasionally get the criticism of personalization in films? On the contrary, I often see more criticism of auteurs not being personal enough. As history has come to show it, the most personal directors were the most critically successful.

http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/...directors.html

http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1...0directors.htm

[Intuition]

Also, everything that Kubrick has ever directed is an adaptation of a novel (or story), I believe.

I'm sorry for taking so long to answer you, I did not notice your post. What I despise is the adaptation of great literature. My point is that a director can make a great film without adapting great literature. It may even be an adaptation of horrible literature, and it still has just as much potential as being great.

[kelby_lake]

The AFI list is limited to American films, isn't it, hence the reason why there are no foreign films? I don't take it as an example of the top ever films- I'm merely using it as a reminder that there have been successful adaptations and so adaptations aren't pointless or some sort of insult to cinema. Even if you're just scratching the surface, you find adaptations that work.

Robert Wise directed some great musicals (clearly you don't like musicals, which is kind of snobbish but fair enough). I wouldn't expect him to make an auteurish film but then I wouldn't expect Welles to have directed a musical. They are different types of film.

I'm not talking about Welles adapting novels- I'm talking about his Shakespeare adaptations. His version of Julius Caesar was chopped and fiddled with, and shock horror, it was done in modern dress! Very timely but as it was truncated, Welles surely came under some criticism. You may argue that it's theatre being translated into theatre, but a lot of people (with whom I disagree) would rather we all read Shakespeare to appreciate his every word. However Welles was not precious about Shakespeare (as you are being with Tolstoy and Welles). He simply saw the power and relevance of the play and did what he wanted to do to the script in order to bring out his vision. And now it's become a theatre legend.

If I'm being naive about the worth of commercial cinema, you're being naive about the 'masters of Cinema'. It's preciousness that stifles creativity. I doubt your Masters were precious or allowed themselves to be intimidated. Perhaps people don't fully appreciate the Masters because attitudes like yours puts them off.

[kelby_lake]

Anyway, back to discussing Anna Karenina. I had hoped that we could discuss the necessary elements that the film would need to include, or how we viewed the characters- or even discuss the difficulties of translating certain parts to film. The Levin thread has always been tough for film to deal with. The 1997 version overemphasised it, thus making the film clumsy and not doing any justice to Levin's character. Alfred Molina was miscast as Levin and the girl playing Kitty was bland. The 1935 film cut it down to practically nothing, and so we miss out on some wonderful moments in the novel.

[Intuition]

The AFI list is limited to American films, isn't it, hence the reason why there are no foreign films? I don't take it as an example of the top ever films- I'm merely using it as a reminder that there have been successful adaptations and so adaptations aren't pointless or some sort of insult to cinema. Even if you're just scratching the surface, you find adaptations that work.

Yes, the AFI is limited to American films, my point is that their selection of American films is horrible, and you'll notice that most major critics disagree with these views.

On another note, I never claimed there was never a successful adaptation of any sort. My main problem is that this director is attempting to direct what many call one of the greatest novels of all time. Of course there have been adaptations that have worked, there's no doubt about that. 2001: A Space Odyssey is an art-work of a film.

Robert Wise directed some great musicals (clearly you don't like musicals, which is kind of snobbish but fair enough). I wouldn't expect him to make an auteurish film but then I wouldn't expect Welles to have directed a musical. They are different types of film.

Clearly I don't like musicals? I find Fred Astaire to being one of the greatest actors that has ever lived. Also, Singing in the Rain is a technical masterpiece, a film such as West Side Story does not stand a chance to it. Assumptions are snobbish as well.

Secondly, genre does not restrict personalization. I'm sure you've never heard of Howard Hawks.

I'm not talking about Welles adapting novels- I'm talking about his Shakespeare adaptations. His version of Julius Caesar was chopped and fiddled with, and shock horror, it was done in modern dress! Very timely but as it was truncated, Welles surely came under some criticism. You may argue that it's theatre being translated into theatre, but a lot of people (with whom I disagree) would rather we all read Shakespeare to appreciate his every word. However Welles was not precious about Shakespeare (as you are being with Tolstoy and Welles). He simply saw the power and relevance of the play and did what he wanted to do to the script in order to bring out his vision. And now it's become a theatre legend.

Firstly, it is theatre being translated into theatre. I don't believe your comment of the required reading of Shakespeare is relevant to this argument. I do not disagree with your point, as Shakespeare did not write closet-dramas (I believe).

Secondly, you're treading far off topic.

1. Welles, as a theatre director-- changed a drama meant for the theatre.
2. It also does not happen to be one of Shakespeare's greatest plays. (Those would be Hamlet, King Lear, and Othello)

Whereas I was claiming that--
1. a modern director-- took a novel of Tolstoy's and is going to convert it to film.
2. It also happens to be one of Tolstoy's greatest, if not truly his greatest.

The adaption of Tolstoy's Anna Karenina into film would be the intellectual equivalent of adapting Citizen Kane into a novel. The horror.

If I'm being naive about the worth of commercial cinema, you're being naive about the 'masters of Cinema'. It's preciousness that stifles creativity. I doubt your Masters were precious or allowed themselves to be intimidated.

Creativity? You find it creative to receive money for your "interpretation" of another man's arduously created artistic work? No, it is a cheap method to attempting to garner audiences and give off a false impression of being high-brow.

Perhaps they did not hold the work to such esteem as I do, although I can easily exemplify on their errors in lacking cautious approach to such work.

Easily one of Renoir's worst.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0025442/

That happens to be considered by many to being second only to Anna Karenina.

Renoir's best.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031885/

What a surprise, an original work. That film happens to be rated by critics as the third greatest film of all time, and at one point it was even considered the second greatest.

Perhaps people don't fully appreciate the Masters because attitudes like yours puts them off.

If I have offended you, it is only because you have offended me with your statements of how directors should not direct their own work. You may believe this works in the theatre, but I believe quite a different opinion in film.

[kelby_lake]

Perhaps my point about directors directing their own work is badly phrased. There were and perhaps are directors that can successfully direct their own work, and this is the area in which they excel, so it seems natural that they should do this. However I believe that a director reacting in an intelligent and creative way to a novel, even a classic one, is also worthy. Even when the film is flawed, it prompts discussion and debate of the novel, and it's interesting to see how it is interpreted by others. This is particularly true of Anna Karenina.

As for the worth of Madame Bovary, I've never heard it being praised as "second only to Anna Karenina". Perhaps in the way it deals with the subject of adultery, but then Anna Karenina is about more than adultery.

[kelby_lake]

I was underwhelmed by Singin' in The Rain. The numbers were flawless but the story and characters were rather cardboard, because it's a "putting on a show" musical, not a dramatic musical. I prefer musicals with a strong story that are heightened by the songs. The songs in West Side Story are greater than those of Singin' in The Rain hence why I prefer it.

Howard Hawks directed Gentleman Prefer Blondes, I think, and wasn't he the subject of The Aviator? Gentleman Prefer Blondes was fun.

[Intuition]

Perhaps my point about directors directing their own work is badly phrased. There were and perhaps are directors that can successfully direct their own work, and this is the area in which they excel, so it seems natural that they should do this. However I believe that a director reacting in an intelligent and creative way to a novel, even a classic one, is also worthy. Even when the film is flawed, it prompts discussion and debate of the novel, and it's interesting to see how it is interpreted by others. This is particularly true of Anna Karenina.

As for the worth of Madame Bovary, I've never heard it being praised as "second only to Anna Karenina". Perhaps in the way it deals with the subject of adultery, but then Anna Karenina is about more than adultery.

Madame Bovary is praised because of its influence of technique. A great deal of the content is rather simple, and not noteworthy.

Perhaps it does spark debate for the novel, although that does exemplify on the fact that the director was not intending to make a film for film's sake to begin with.

I was underwhelmed by Singin' in The Rain. The numbers were flawless but the story and characters were rather cardboard, because it's a "putting on a show" musical, not a dramatic musical. I prefer musicals with a strong story that are heightened by the songs. The songs in West Side Story are greater than those of Singin' in The Rain hence why I prefer it.

I would disagree that the narrative was lacking in Singin' in the Rain. Of course, like all Hollywood films, the narrative and central characters are going to be happy-go-lucky. There is no avoiding it. It's fodder for a deteriorated society.

The narrative is influential in how it represents the transition of the silent era to the sound era. The flabbergasted faces of studios reacting to The Jazz Singer. The stars with chalk-screeching voices, whom beforehand looked wonderful on the silent screen. Of course, it also exemplifies on the glamor and overly-excessive needs of the fans-- who can't bear seeing anyone but those same two stars always paired together.

Although, it is also debatable of whether or not the numbers in West Side Story are greater than Singing in the Rain. You are able to take West Side Story more seriously-- and Singing in the Rain is a comedy, so perhaps that's why you find it lyrically inept; but, without a doubt, Singing in the Rain perhaps the most famous musical sequence of all time, even though that sequence happens to be devoid of technical mastery. Gene Kelly singing in the rain with an umbrella and yellow rain coat remains an immortal image. Also, Singing in the Rain has brilliant art-direction and color cinematography in certain sequences, especially the conclusive fifteen or so minute musical sequence which is reminiscent of Busby Berkley. Not to forget, it helped influence special effects for countless ages, the duplication of extras through double exposures, etc.

West Side Story is famous for being a modern rendition of Shakespeare, and it has garnered some critical acclaim for it, although whenever I re-watch films I find it prosaic when its formative qualities are lacking. It is also impossible to dislike Gene Kelly in a musical.

On a final note, the musicals I prefer are the ones that have technical mastery. The so called "putting on a show musicals," are actually usually the ones with the most formative innovation. ie. 42nd Street, Gold Diggers of 1935, and Dames (from Berkely). For narrative I would prefer to re-watch some of the Vincente Minnelli pictures, such as Band Wagon or Meet me in St. Louis.

Howard Hawks directed Gentleman Prefer Blondes, I think, and wasn't he the subject of The Aviator? Gentleman Prefer Blondes was fun.

Hawks did direct that film. Although the subject of Aviator was Hughes (who also happened to produce Hawks' Scarface in 1932 I believe).

Hawks was recognized for his famous style of women, which he managed to implement throughout every genre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawksian_woman