 
|
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 |
68.82.238.89
I have always maintained that books and films based on such classic, important or just popular books, should be considered separate creations.I think that rule is near universally true as we discuss 90 minute films. The sheer time scale dictates that the film has no chance of being a screen reincarnation.
That however begins to change as we get into three and four hour films, and that notion goes out of window with mini series.
There I think it is expected that the film would be much closer following on the book, down to small details sometimes.
If this sounds like a defense of Master and Commander, I have no problem with that. Fair is fair. So I understand the reaction of the Master cult members - they might not be completely right, but they are entitled to their feelings... those feelings are human and natural.
Being unable to trace the character development outlined in a book might force the movie creator to in fact create a new character, only weakly related to the one in the book. I think that is normal, as long as that new one has strong legs.
But enter the areas of 12 hour War and Peace, or the Forsyth Saga... and you better stick to the story line, as you have no excuse to do otherwise.
Follow Ups:
These are mostly two differents vision, the writer of the book and the director ( If he is a real one...) and even the one who write the script, who rarely is the author of the same.
And then there is the time window, as being the BIG cutting machine...
Victor,Yes, it is very tempting to judge the movie against the book, but as the example we were talking about- "Master and Commander", there is really too much prejudice brought to bear before the movie is even finished. I guess in modern life we break into factions as soon as possible! Critical cults everywhere.
There is even another layer to this- look at the speculation around the now TWO new versions of "War of the Worlds" - one a "literal" Well's version, the other set in present day. The variance in setting is imagined to result in a very subtle non-competition between them, but watch the sparks fly later! Now the criticism and predjudices will be on another plane as everyone will compare the new versions to each other, and the 1950's one, AND the book. People will be using the word "authentic" with great abundance and inaccuracy.
Will anyone be happy? Probably only if they do as you suggest and position themselves in a critical limbo and see the movie afresh and separate, but in the complex world of constant remakes (I'll never forgive those who remade "Diabolique") and new adaptations (everything of Austen, even the diabolical Hamlet with Mel Gibson- (I call this version "Hamfat"), Mutiny on the Bounty, War of the Worlds, etc.), there is so much critical baggage.
Cheers,
Bam
See my post below, where I addressed similar points.(BTW, POB is hardly Tostoy. But it is quality writing of its type.)
The two mediums are so different, the stories must be told differently. I find people often mistale "plot" for "story". I also find that people don't know how to read the visual storytelling, and often miss the details of the films that *are* there from the book. You have to look, but there are scores of clues in M&C that portray the compexities of the characters and their relationship. But Weir is not going to underline it for you.
A literal adaptation of a book is usually a stale and lifeless thing, absent of poetry and metaphor, containing incident and dialogue from the original, but lacking "soul".
For me, M&C the movie exists in parallel to the beloved books. It adds to my enjoyment, neither supplanting nor interferring with my love for the books. M&C must be judges first how well it succeeds as cinema. IMO, the films also succeeds in capturing much of the feel of the books. But as I said below, no 2 hour film can emoby the breadth and complexity of 20 volumes of dense prose. Weir elected to tell one aspect of the stories, and tell it well.
Vast, complex works can hardly be compellingly explored in 2 hours.
Film is a very different medium than books or stories or plays. By necessity, the film makers have to condense and change things to involve a movie audience. At times what works in a book just doesn't on film. although the solution can be clever (as in Pinter's screenplay for "The French Lieutenant's Woman"). On the other hand, sometimes a screenwriter and director can achieve a filmk remarkably close to the book, as in "Mystic River". At times, the film is much better than the book ("Far From the Madding Crowd", "The Godfather") and at other times the film is an abject failure ("Bonfire of the Vanities"). I look for whether the film has caught the "spirit" of the original, rather than an outright copy.BTW, "The Forsythe Saga", as long as the two TV mini series have been, only cover a couple of the novels.
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 ]
