 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
161.149.63.100
In Reply to: RE: Not so impressed and it has nothing to do with being a "cognitive viewer". posted by Audiophilander on December 17, 2007 at 00:33:16
I, for one, think if this didn't have the cats that made 'Fargo' or 'Barton Fink' or 'Miller's Crossing' listed on the 'Directed By' title card, it wouldn't have been nearly as well-received.
If any one of those ended like this did, they'd start to attain (de-attain?) M. Night Shyamalan-like status.
There's something that just doesn't work about art (endings being a part of the 'big picture') that ends up calling attention to itself, despite itself.
That being said, I thought, there were plenty of redeeming qualities found within the phhotography and performances to keep one's attention. Roger Deakins seems to do his best work with these guys and Bardem's 'Anton Chigurh' has got to be one of the scariest on-screen villains in a long time.
Follow Ups:
The BOOK had the same ending.
z
...why MGM took the film away from Erich Von Stroheim when he wanted to release his page for page filmed interpretation of Frank Norris's novel McTeague. A four hour version personally edited by Von Stroheim was also removed from his control and handed to fellow Director Rex Ingram who re-edited Greed into a 2 1/2 hour version which was cut again by a less talented editor at the request of the studio to bring the running time closer to it's current 1 hour 40 minute length. Unfortunately, many of the subplots and intimate details of the character's lives were lost, but in spite of that the movie doesn't bog down, get sidetracked or lose it's central theme and with it the audience's attention.My point is that Literary Naturalism can be a tedious exercise in communicating ideas regardless of a film's length; that's why adapting a novel to the screen, especially a literary novel that is imbued with strong allegorical content, is rarely the most suitable candidate for conveyance to the screen in a literal fashion, exactly as written.
An author's vision may communicate perfectly from the pages of his/her book, where the absorbing of ideas is completely under the control of the contemplative reader, but literary cinema requires a specific investment of time and an immediate emotional connection. Films, especially films based on literary works, demand one's full and undivided attention which is complicated by extraneous distractions on screen and off.
Literary fiction which ends on a poignant allegorical message can communicate a strong sense of satisfaction, but that same scene in a filmed interpretation of the author's work might convey an unresolved solution to a central theme that leaves the audience frustrated or confused and trivializes the irony that jumped forth from the pages of the novel so successfully.
Finally, to make a long story even longer, does any of this suggest that we should blame the author of the novel for the film interpretation? I've seen nothing to suggest that, but the criticisms I've read and share do point to the fact that literary and film conventions are entirely different animals. IMHO, film should be approached differently, not literally, if success is to be achieved from the source material. Also, for all intent and purpose, film seems to be the tougher beast to tame because so many variables are involved, but that's a topic for another thread.
G'night all! :O)
Cheers,
AuPh
The full length "Greed" would make a terrific mini series. It's too bad that the Turner four hour "restoration" is not available yet on DVD. "Greed" is one of my all time favorites and I watch it or parts of it frequently (I have the laserdisc with a wonderful score by Andrew davis). How powerful this film still is.
...it seems to me that readers will allow themselves a far greater variety of literary experience (including endings) than moviegoers, who tend to like a nicely-wrapped package.
In that regard, I thought the last two lines of The Lives of Others were among the best ever. "Shall I gift-wrap that?" "No, it's for me."
clark
PS Topped only by "We can't all be perfect."
So it seems the book has much more in common with the film then just the same ending.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]