No jump cut in this post; sorry for the length. But: thoughts, I have them.
If you’re about to use one of the following criticisms of a film adapted from a book:
“_______[setting] wasn’t what I pictured.”
“______ [character] isn’t supposed to have a beard/be tall/be short/be blond/be black.”
“They left out___________” [a character? an important character? or an incident where a character blows his nose on a dirty hankie or passes by a cottage with a mean, barking dog outside?]
Please consider the following:
-Films and novels are different art forms. If it’s a book told from first-person point of view with a lot of internal monologue, in order to remain really true to the book, you’d have the character sitting or standing or walking around while a voiceover tells the story. Film gives the possibility of opening up the landscape. So instead of a montage and a voiceover, we are treated to a flashback of Katniss Everdeen with her dead father, and scenes from the Capitol where the gamesmakers are pulling the strings and talking about how to mess with the tributes and keep the audience at the edge of their seats.
- The visual medium is much faster at establishing character and setting. Nevertheless, in the interest of character development, some characters may be omitted or combined. See the bit about "establishing scenes" below.
-The POV of the book may not translate to film very well.
-Not everyone who is seeing the movie has read the book. Filmmakers have to consider a wider audience when adapting a text.
-“_________[character] was too short/ too tall/ not hawt enough.” If a male character described as tall is being portrayed by an actor who is only five-foot-six, please consider: would you rather have an actor who captures the character’s essence, personality, etc.; in short, one who plays the character well, or someone less talented who fits your daydreams? And “hawt” is certainly in the eye of the beholder.
Small rant on casting: Occasionally, and unfortunately, the most “bankable” actors are chosen regardless of talent or whether they fit the character. I grant you permission to complain about that one. Case in point: Tom Cruise as Claus von Stauffenberg in “Valkyrie.” The rest of the cast were perfect in their roles; Cruise, however, felt like a big blank spot to me. Tom Cruise in an American Army uniform circa 1867 (“The Last Samurai”) was also Tom Cruise in a Nazi uniform in 1942; rinse, repeat. I wasn’t at all convinced. Cruise has done fine work, especially in “Rain Man” and in “Born on the Fourth of July,” but this performance felt phoned in. My personal opinion is that Jim Caviezel would have been a much better choice, both for his physical presence (Stauffenberg was over six feet tall and so is Caviezel--physical presence is extremely important to a visual medium) and, more important, for his personal religious conviction. Stauffenberg was a devout Christian, and when the atrocities of the Nazi party began to conflict with what Stauffenberg considered his first commitment to a power higher than Hitler, he put himself on the line and spearheaded an assassination plot which failed, resulting in arrest and execution for treason. Caviezel is a devout Christian.He certainly could have used that to inform his performance--and my personal opinion is that "Claus" should have been given some dialogue to that effect. It could have been done without coming across as preachy.
-A book or book series that takes place over several months or years is going to need paring down to make it fit into a reasonable two-to-two-and-a-half-hour time slot--and again, make sense to an audience that hasn’t read the book. The events of Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird take place over more than three years; the film based on the book condensed it to a year. Because Atticus Finch was the moral center of the book, there was much more face time for Atticus in the film than in the book, and a good bit of time spent in the courtroom. No complaints here, as we get amazing performances from both Brock Peters as Tom Robinson and Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch. I admit I was disappointed at the combining of the characters of Miss Rachel Haverford and Miss Stephanie Crawford into the character of Dill’s “Aunt Stephanie,” though I understand the necessity for what the filmmakers intended. For me, the biggest disappointment was the POV shift to Jem. But back to my point: What filmgoers may not understand is that characters in films need “establishing scenes.” The same for The Hunger Games: Prim gives Katniss the Mockingjay pin instead of Katniss’s friend Madge from the book. I had to explain to my students that, for an audience who hasn’t read the book, Madge would have needed an establishing scene--the two girls passing notes in class, walking home from school together--and there were more important elements, such as showing the bond between the two sisters, the scenes with Katniss’s father, that were more important for the first film. Madge gets more face time in Catching Fire; we’ll see what the filmmakers decide to do with her then.
The 1940 film version of Pride and Prejudice featured costumes that looked like they were left over from “Gone With the Wind,” moving the setting from the early 1800’s to the mid-1800’s. The dances in the movie were mid-1800’s rather than Regency-era as well. Greer Garson was 36 when she played 21-year-old Lizzy Bennett. Lady Catherine comes as Darcy’s ambassador at the end rather than as an antagonist, which was a complete departure from the book. Yet I love the adaptation for its fidelity to the spirit of the book--the social satire and the madcap all-girl Bennett household are quite faithful to the book’s portrayals, as is the depiction of Mrs. Bennett, anxious to the point of neurosis, to see her daughters settled and secure. Plus, you have wonderful Edmund Gwenn as Mr. Bennett. Best of all, it was the catalyst for my reading the book and starting me down the path of near-obsession with Jane Austen’s work. (haters to the left!) I’ve seen other adaptations and liked different things about each one. How awesome is a literary work that it can be done and redone so many times and still be fresh?
My students have complained about the film adaptation of Rick Riordan’s The Lightning Thief. Their complaints range from change in characters’ hair color/ complexions to more principled complaints that scenes from the other four books were included in the first film. I asked if those changes were helpful to someone who hadn’t read the book. Many of them admit they were. “But what are they going to do for the other four movies?” was the question that arose. And they had a point. Since I haven’t read the books (yet) the movie was all right, but given the alterations made, I may have actually been unable to give the filmmakers a pass on what they changed. Perhaps there are some books or book series that are better left unadapted to film, even the ones with high action and adventure.
So. . . movie or book? Which one to go to first? My response: Look! A meteor shower! *runs away.*
No comments:
Post a Comment