Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by Audiophilander (A) on July 11, 2005 at 17:01:02

In Reply to: A film should stand ENTIRELY on its own merit! posted by RGA on July 11, 2005 at 11:44:44:

... back in junior or senior high. I'm kind of surprised that you haven't because you seem to be a well educated fellow.

>>> "The problem with people who have READ the book is that they can read into the film polititical or societal satire because in the book it may have been quite profound. When it is NOT there in the film but one remembers the book they "fill-in" the missing gaps. The audience who have not read the book don;t have the gaps to "fill-in" and therefore the film is in isolation and can be more objectively viewed." <<<

It isn't a matter of needing to read the book in order to understand the film, it's a matter of visualization and interpretation of a classic work from a different medium.

>>> "It is the same with LOTR - the film without reading the Book is overlong tiresomme one note and not the least bit deep. I can only imagine that the book has some sort of political satire or point other than power corrupts whioch is the only thing the films harped on for 9 hours and thanks I alreayd know that." <<<

Of course you can read whatever you want into any book or film, but according to Tolkein himself, LoTR wasn't intended as some sort of political satire; sadly too many folks try to read things into fantasy that isn't there. Yes there are strong indications of trust and sacrifice, but that shouldn't necessarily reflect any particular time or place in the real world.

Which brings me back to the subject at hand. Fans of Lord of The Rings and War of The Worlds have ALWAYS been concerned that it wouldn't be done properly; I'm talking about fans of the books. Fans often don't want to see ONE WORD changed from a favorite novel or series of books even when failing to make alterations in transitioning to film drastically impairs the flow of the film. Note: Most of the fans of the literature, however, were delightfully surprised by the outcome, and no one needs to read Tolkein's Ring's Trilogy in order to appreciate these fine films.

Peter Jackson respected the work while making necessary alterations, including the dropping of a well liked minor character, to keep the flow of the story moving. My point being that no one NEEDS to read a book before seeing the movie in order to appreciate the film interpretation; if they do, then the filmmaker has failed in his effort. OTOH, the true test of a classic film is how much of the original author's written word can make it's way into the film and still be true to that original work.

IMHO, Spielberg succeede with WoTW by re-envisioning and embellishing upon H. G. Well's classic tale, which is always a risk, but he somehow managed to do it without compromising the original work. The fact that you apparently dislike both LoTR and WoTW suggests to me that adult fantasy & SF isn't your cup of tea. Nothing wrong with that, but we'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess.

AuPh