In that case, I will.Originally Posted by Calidore
In that case, I will.
That is a perfect example. LOTR really shows how a movie should sometimes deviate from the book.
I'm guessing you haven't been to the IMDb boards much, nor have too much experience with "fanboys." Some would gladly make any deviations from source material punishable by death. Just look at the complaints about the re-release of the Star Wars trilogy (episodes 4-6). While I agree mist changes were stupid, it just infuriates (irrationally) a lot of people.
Your argument is different than what I was talking about. If a movie is based on a book, it is telling the story of the book-hence the name of the book "The Great Gatsby", and the name of the movie "The Great Gatsby". The characters in the movie are supposed to be the characters in the book
According to whom? A film is a work of art created by a group of artists... the most important being the director. The original book is but a starting point... just as the "original" narratives employed by Shakespeare were but starting points. A film and novel cannot help but differ. They employ different media. They must respond to different limitations. A film-maker beginning with an original text will make any number of deviations from the original text. Some of these may be deviations necessitated by the art form. Others are artistic decisions.
one would assume the movie keeps to the story...
Some would make this assumption... but this assumes that the film is subservient to the book and that the goal of the film-maker is nothing more than to re-tell the original narrative adhering as closely as possible to the original.
The Great Gatsby movies of the past were not that good because they did not or could not tell the story effectively...
If the film versions of the Great Gatsby of the past failed, they failed on their own terms... as films. Martin Scorsese's Last temptation of Christ differs a great bit from Nikos Kazantzakis novel of the same name... and both are quite divergent from the original Biblical Gospel narratives. All three succeed as works of art on their own terms.
Due to the unique narrative style of the book, I am skeptical of the upcoming movie.
My only reason for questioning the film would be based upon my doubts as to "Baz" Luhrmann's abilities as a film-maker. His over-the-top manner of directing is hit-or-miss. In the case of Romeo + Juliette he missed by a mile... and I say this without the least expectation that he should have been more respectful of Shakespeare's text... which itself was stolen from Italian models. It was simply one endless MTV video marketting Leonardo di Caprio and Claire Danes to giddy adolescents.
It is a problem for me and many others who love the book.
Again, the question is "WHY?" You still have the book. Even if the film were brilliant and adhered as closely to the novel as possible, the film would not replace the book. A film is an independent art work that may be inspired by a great novel, my a short story, by personal experiences, by a visual idea, by a work of music, by a painting, or by nearly anything. Now I fully understand as a book-lover a feeling of disappointment with almost any adaption of a favorite book... for the simple reason that nothing can possibly match the image or film we have in our heads while reading. Of course a great film-maker brings something of his or her own to the table... and after I get over the initial dislike, I will probably find myself coming around to admiring the unique interpretation of a great film.
It is only a problem if one anticipates seeing a good movie though.
The path to making a "good movie" is not limited to those who adhere most closely to the original text.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
Those are all really great points stlukes, which I agree with. I don't think the two forms should be compared in the manner in which we often compare them... they're different art forms and as such produce quite different impressions and products.
This is another reason I love the movie Adaptation. Brilliant and it touches on all of these issues and more.
"All gods are homemade, and it is we who pull their strings, and so, give them the power to pull ours." -Aldous Huxley
"Sooner murder an infant in its cradle than nurse unacted desires." -William Blake
That's such an amazing movie. Charlie Kaufman is fantastic. We like a lot of the same stuff, PP.
J
Yes, I love Kaufman. And it would appear that we do... we should randomly list things we like and see how many overlap between us
"All gods are homemade, and it is we who pull their strings, and so, give them the power to pull ours." -Aldous Huxley
"Sooner murder an infant in its cradle than nurse unacted desires." -William Blake
Probably a lot would. We're classy. Cheers.Yes, I love Kaufman. And it would appear that we do... we should randomly list things we like and see how many overlap between us
J
I'm with stluke.
Thirty-odd years ago, Jonathan Miller gave a lecture called Putting Shakespeare On, in which he said that it really doesn't really matter if someone offers a production of King Lear set in a space station on one of the moons of Jupiter, with all the daughters' lines spoken by robots and the King himself played as a transvestite second-hand warp-engine salesman - because the original text is still there on the page the following morning, and someone'll be along in a minute to give a production of Lear in full Elizabethan garb, with the smells and sounds of fifteenth century Southwark piped in through the vents and flagons of mead and gnawable hambones provided for the constantly chattering audience. As a theatre-goer, you might like one, you might like both, you might like neither. But that's all there is to it.
(It does raise, actually, the theoretical possibility of a person who loves King Lear but has never seen a theatre production of it that he thought was any good.)
The same principle applies to movies based on books. The movie is an interpretation or an adaptation or a loose exploration of the text, in a completely different medium. All that matters is whether it works in its own terms. To say that it's "not as good as the book" is like saying that Rhapsody in Blue isn't as good as the New York skyline.
Last edited by MarkBastable; 02-10-2012 at 06:05 AM.
Right this is true... but also I would like to add that most books are not written with the intent to have them made into film or produced, whereas Shakespeare wrote his plays to have them be on stage... I think that they were not so much meant to be read as to be seen.. so in this sense you could critique a production of Shakespeare's... But the text is still there of course, and I think it is great that there are so many versions of his plays...
Speaking of King Lear, however, I still haven't seen a production I like. Last winter I went and saw it in DC as part of the syntetic theater (no words were used) and I was so appalled by the production that I walked out half way through (which I had never done.. ever... not even in a movie theater). But maybe because King Lear is my favorite play and I felt like they had really done a disservice to it...
"All gods are homemade, and it is we who pull their strings, and so, give them the power to pull ours." -Aldous Huxley
"Sooner murder an infant in its cradle than nurse unacted desires." -William Blake
King Lear gives the 'experimentalists' plenty of scope but audiences should be warned of their extent. A colleague once told me that he went to see a production in which Lear stripped naked and then did hand stands on the stage. At which point a row of uniformed schoolgirls departed with the teacher who was accompanying them.
Last edited by Emil Miller; 02-10-2012 at 07:37 AM.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
Um, how do I say this politely? Duhhh! I know this already.
[/QUOTE]
Some would make this assumption... but this assumes that the film is subservient to the book and that the goal of the film-maker is nothing more than to re-tell the original narrative adhering as closely as possible to the original.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. The film would not be subservient to the book. It is a really exciting challenge to be able to re-create this book on film, adhering to the story. That in itself would be a wonderful accomplishment.
[/QUOTE]
If the film versions of the Great Gatsby of the past failed, they failed on their own terms... as films. Martin Scorsese's Last temptation of Christ differs a great bit from Nikos Kazantzakis novel of the same name... and both are quite divergent from the original Biblical Gospel narratives. All three succeed as works of art on their own terms.
[/QUOTE]
Certainly that is true.
[/QUOTE]
My only reason for questioning the film would be based upon my doubts as to "Baz" Luhrmann's abilities as a film-maker. His over-the-top manner of directing is hit-or-miss. In the case of Romeo + Juliette he missed by a mile... and I say this without the least expectation that he should have been more respectful of Shakespeare's text... which itself was stolen from Italian models. It was simply one endless MTV video marketting Leonardo di Caprio and Claire Danes to giddy adolescents.
[/QUOTE]
Your claim that it was stolen is still debatable. But as you state above, the adaptation of a great writers text should be held with much respect. I don't know if I have faith in the director either.
[/QUOTE]
Again, the question is "WHY?" You still have the book. Even if the film were brilliant and adhered as closely to the novel as possible, the film would not replace the book. A film is an independent art work that may be inspired by a great novel, my a short story, by personal experiences, by a visual idea, by a work of music, by a painting, or by nearly anything.
[/QUOTE]
Again, duhh. I know this already
[/QUOTE]
The path to making a "good movie" is not limited to those who adhere most closely to the original text.
[/QUOTE]
But as I said before, it this movie is not adhered closely to the original text, it will be either a different story of the same name, or a boring failure, in my opinion.
Oh I am kidding, I know you didn't mean it in the literal sense. I have no idea what a "fanboy" is, I don't really think I want to know.
I'm only talking about ONE PARTICULAR book here. I don't go to a movie and think "oh, I hope this is just like the book". I am 54, and I do know better.
I've never understood the complaint that they shouldn't have "changed the book." Like you said, it's two completely different art forms, so sometimes a different interpretation for the screen is going to work better than the book, and sometimes it's an improvement. Still, there will always be some who will believe, no matter what, that any deviation from the book is a crime.
Just to give an example of a movie that's leaps and bounds better than the book because of changes made: Jurassic Park.
It's amusing that he quotes Jurrasic Park because, although I gave it a wide birth, as I do to all catch the impressionable kids efforts, two different people in their early twenties and not in the least connected, told me that they fell asleep while watching the film. Perhaps the explantions for the over the top computer generated graphics were too long for their attention span. At 54 you are bound to know better but try telling that to a 20+ who has still to learn that he/she doesn't know it all.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
I don't?!?!?!?!?
"You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus
https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
Feed the Hungry!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
