Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Sean Michael Bach on February 19, 2013 at 12:46am

I remember seeing the first part of the film adaptation of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness.  The book was beautifully written, sending the reader into a deep, dark jungle, with strange things lurking about just beyond sight; terrible atrocities, lazy, depressing cruelty upon an undeserving people.  When Marlow spoke, I felt that I, too, was on the River Thames with him, listening to him in that darkness.

To say the film was a poor representation of the book is a vast understatement.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bruno Ferra on February 19, 2013 at 3:07pm

Yeah the same idea got stuck at my head. They spend a lot of money and work in a poor representation. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Wisbrock on February 19, 2013 at 3:56pm

In drama studies, one of the things they stress to both the actors and the playwrighting students is that the theatre of the imagination is always greater than anything that can be put on stage or screen, and it is essentially true.  One can always imagine things that are hindered by something in the material world.  That's why cinema and theatre are never as good as the book.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LShieldes on February 19, 2013 at 4:29pm

Can you expand on what you mean by "post-modernism" movies as well as what you mean by a "big delusion from the cinematography?

Movies aren't here to make the lover of the individual book love it more, they are there to introduce it to a broader audience in a totally different medium.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sam I. on February 20, 2013 at 12:45pm

  Hello Bruno

  I'm not sure if you've seen the discussion we're having on the changes from book to movie in John Carter, but it's much along the lines of what you're talking about. It's not an identical subject because we're talking about recent film incarnations of pulp novels, but you might find it interesting.  I started it because of my frustration with the modernization and softening up the protagonist. Some of the responses had some great insight.

    At times though, modernization and anachronistic behavior is what some people want.  My darling wife for example, is a middle ages fan and loves the old Heath Ledger movie; A Knight's Tale.  It's not a bad flick, and it's anachronisms are intentional.  A much more fitting view of Knights in action however, was the movie Ironclad, which she didn't make it past the first few uses of that Zwiehander.   

  As Shields said above, the real flavor of any book is bound to be altered to introduce it to a wider film audience. It is, after all, a money making industry, and they are keeping the concerns of the average viewer (who probably hasn't read the associated book). Thus the "action" added to the Hobbit, and the songs and feasts taken out of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. They were popped in, or taken out to make would hopefullly be a better movie.   

   In short, some of us will always be dissapointed with certain incarnations of book to film translation.  We're at the mercy of the director and cast to bring our stories to life.  That being said, thanks for the warning about Karenina, Keira was the crush of my misspent youth, I wouldn't want the duckface to ruin her!

                                                             Sam

• ▶ Reply