Books and films both tell stories, but what we want from a book can be different from what we want from a movie. Is this true for you? If so, what’s the difference between a book and a movie?
One of my pet peeves are "loosely adapted" or "based on" the book movies. Those are the ones that take the characters and basic situations from the book and then make major changes to the plot or ending of the book. The vast majority of the time I leave the theatre shaking my head sadly and sometimes in irritation.
Why can't they just tell the story the author told? Is it cheating or laziness or something even worse? I must say that when I see a loosely or poorly adapted film my first thought is that the screenwriters have poor reading comprehension skills and do not understand the story nor know how to choose those elements that most define it.
That said, there is alot of leeway for directors and actors to flavor their film and have a different vision. For example these two versions of Pride and Prejudice. They are the same story with very different flavors but both work within the correct boundaries of the story. Most people have a favorite but I think both work well.
8 comments:
I agree with you about the 'based on' issue and also about the two adaptations of 'Pride and Prejudice'. I had a student some years a go now who did a comparison of the Colin Firth P&P and the previous BBC version that had been made about 12 years earlier. What was really interesting was not what the two dramatisations said about the book, but what they said about the social and political climates in which they were made.
One movie I can name which I watched and liked a lot was The Passion of the Christ directed by Mel Gibson. I learnt a lot from it about Christ and Christianity.
I'm not a big fan of "loosely adapted" material, either. And I like both versions of Pride and Prejudice, too! I did this Booking Through Thursday, too :)
I think the main thing is that movies have to be different, because their composition is so different than that of books. I've gone into this in much more depth in my BTT post, but I think that my point is this: books and movies are so different that they can't be truly compared, even when based on each other. Different isn't necessarily bad or good. I'm trying to learn now to appreciate movies in their own right, and not to constantly compare them to whatever book they came from. (That way lies disappointment).
That being said, I definitely agree you about these two P&P adaptations. I think that, of the two of them, the 1995 version is far superior -- but I like the modern version as well.
Have you ever seen the one from 1941 (?) with Sir Lawrence Olivier as Darcy? It's a hoot.
I so agree with you, Jaimie! I feel that the film-makers should make their movies closely to the books, otherwise why produce them in the first place?
I watched the P&P movie which featuring Keira Knightley, although I'd like to see the other version too. ;)
Table Talk - Interesting take on the two adaptations. That seems to be a factor in many films, especially classics.
Gautami - I saw Passion of the Christ too but I was too shocked and disturbed to really enjoy it.
Gentle Reader - They both tell the same story from slightly different perspectives. I love the music in both as well.
She Reads Books - They are very different mediums and maybe we set our hopes too high. I did see the 1941 version of P&P and that was very loosely adapted. But who cares when Sir Lawrence Olivier is in it!
Melody - Oh I hope you can see that earlier version. It's got a very different flavor but it's really funny. It's a mini-series so you need to have about seven or eight hours to spare!
Films and books don't necessarily have to be different in their basic composition -- and the latter has no doubt had an effect on the former.
Take "No Country For Old Men." The film is about as like to the book as any book-basesd film I've ever seen.
Anything by Elmore Leonard is the same thing; although Hollywood takes its liberties with his stories where it needs to, the composition of his stories is very film-like.
Books that are heavy in scene or recreated action are probably easier to adapt faithfully since everything is shown in the first place.
Books that are heavy on summary or suggested action pose different problems -- and if you happen to be dealing with the work of a beloved prose stylist, a real superstar, something will obviously be lost.
For books that have already had many faithful adaptations -- the classics -- I'm completely in favor of trying new, unconventional things. Just as the Greek tragedians took Homer's stories, or the oral myths from which he took those stories, and reworked them, filmmakers should, at some point, be at liberty to rework the famous stories of our past.
j.d. - Thanks for your comments. I have seen several Shakespeare plays and other stage productions that have reworked the old stories, some with astonishing success. Not so much in film, unfortuantely.
It's not the vision, but the story changes that I have a problem with. We can't have Hamlet marry Ophelia and live happily ever after, can we? :)
Thanks for visiting me and taking the time to leave such detailed comments. I appreciate it.
Post a Comment