DISCLAIMER:
Copyrighted material that may appear on this blog is for the usage of further commentary, criticism, or teaching within the standards of "fair use" in Section 107 of the Copyright Act. All video, music, text, or images shown, all belong to their respective creators or companies. I own nothing so…PLEASE DON'T SUE ME!!! (If you own any of the copyrighted material on this blog and oppose its presence, please be civil and contact me at sansuarobi@hotmail.com or sansuthecat@yahoo.com, the content will be removed ASAP).
 | |||||
| Picture by Andy Mabbett |
I have recently started watching the original anime adaptation of the manga Fullmetal Alchemist. I am enjoying it a great deal, but when sharing my enthusiasm with certain people, they are always sure to point out that it is inferior to the source material. In fact, I have been dissuaded from the anime on the basis that I should read the manga instead, or at least, that I should read it first. I even knew someone who wouldn't watch the anime of Neon Genesis Evangelion for similar reasons.
I recall similar cries of foul-up leveled against the Harry Potter films for not including Peeves the Poltergeist or Arthur Weasley's flamboyant entrance through the Dursley's chimney. Even writer Stephen King famously despises Stanley Kubrick's film of his novel The Shining because it's, "Cold. I'm not a cold guy. I think one of the things people relate to in my books is this warmth, there's a reaching out and saying to the reader, 'I want you to be a part of this.' With Kubrick's The Shining I felt that it was very cold, very 'We're looking at these people, but they're like ants in an anthill, aren't they doing interesting things, these little insects.'" (Gompertz, BBC)
I can't imagine the numbers of people who despise the Hunger Games for its lack of avoxes, Lord of the Rings for its lack of Tom Bombadill, or Disney's 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea for its addition of seal. Apparently, the Bible isn't the only holy text. There's this infectious idea among some that literature must be adapted as true to the text as humanly possible, and even the slightest divergence is a cause for criticism. I call this idea book purism and it can damage one's perception of an otherwise excellent film or television show.
To deconstruct book purism, we must first understand what an adaptation is. One definition of the word adaptation, according to my Webster's Dictionary, is,
"3. b. a form or structure modified to fit a changed environment" (10)
So, based on this definition, fundamentally, making a visual adaptation that is completely true to the text is impossible. The literary and the visual exist in two very different worlds. One world unfolds in your mind, while the other is presented before you. One medium describes the scenery in a paragraph or a panel, while the other can show it in an establishing shot. So clearly, things change when your story is taken from one world into the next. Understandably, parts of a text will be lost during the transfer, but also, a film could bring dimensions to the story that it otherwise may not have had. I believe that a visual work and a literary work should live as independent entities, each one to be judged on their own merits. Their relationship should be like that between a parent and a child. Yes, the child and the parent are related, but both can live differently. So when Christopher Tolkien, son of Lord of the Rings author J.R.R. Tolkien, said in an interview for Le Monde that, "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15-25," he, being very close to author of the novels, tends to judge the films more by their differences to the book, as opposed to judging the films in their own right. I think that his critique, however, is more appropriate for the Hobbit films.
Now when I say book purism I mean a sort of blind worship to the text. So much so that any change, regardless if it improves the visual text or no, is inherently wrong. It is the belief that the book is always better than the film or show. This is not to say that there aren't ideas in the text that wouldn't make the film or show better, or that authors shouldn't care about how their works are represented in other mediums. We have to balance respecting the intent of the creator, while recognizing the variations of the art forms.
First off, the elitist idea that books are inherently better than films and television in every case. Now, being a writer, and something of a reader myself, I have a deep respect for the literary form. In fact, I would argue that reading is an essential activity to learning about human nature and the world around us. Much of our knowledge and much of the world's best storytelling was put down into books. Indeed, books, in their forms, be it novels, poetry, plays, or graphic novels, have very much enriched my life. However, man need not experience art through the text alone. I believe that movies are also very enriching, and to a degree, essential.
In an interview for the Archive of American Television, Roger Ebert said on films, "They affect the way people think and feel and behave and they can be both a good influence on society and a negative influence." The same could be said for television. Books are a more challenging art form that require active engagement on behalf of the reader, whereas films and TV simply require you to sit in front of a screen for an hour or more. Since books have been around longer than films and television, they are seen as above them. In most cases, I agree, they often are, but not in all cases. Book purism tends to reinforce the idea that if one truly wants to enjoy an adaptation, they must do the so-called "busy work" of reading. Why do we punish people in this way? People should come to literature out of love, not force (though a little nudging here and there couldn't hurt). Since when did film and television become dessert and books the vegetables? (They're both treats as far as I'm concerned). Are visual arts, because of their easy accessibility, these sinful things that we should steer from unless we jump through all of the hoops? This whole ordeal reminds me of passage in Matthew 12: 41, "The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgement with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here" (418, King James Bible). To provide some context here, Jesus is discontented that the people who praise the old prophets of God, will not lend that same praise to him, the messiah. Now the point that I'm trying to make here isn't that Jesus was the messiah, (that's up to you), but that simply because something is new doesn't mean you can't find as much, if not more value in it than an older thing. Yes, moving pictures are a relatively new way of viewing the world, considering that literature and paintings are centuries old, whereas films and television are little over a hundred. Yet this fact does not make the visual adaptation inherently inferior, but opens new possibilities that otherwise may not have been conceived. We have an abundance of moving pictures to explore, let's appreciate them without the stigma.
Second, a visual adaptation can improve on or add things otherwise unable to be conveyed in its literary form. Take Walt Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, which was based on the Grimm Brothers' fairy tale. Now the original fairy tale is a fine one, but one of its problems was that the dwarfs were all the same, and this would be boring to see on film. So Disney gave each of the dwarfs distinct characteristics, and thus, they add some of the most entertaining humor to the story. Disney later did something similar with the fairies in Sleeping Beauty. Consider, also, Hayao Miyazaki's adaptation of Diane Wynn Jones's Howl's Moving Castle. In the book, the walking castle, while being a fascinating object, was, to my memory, more of a backdrop to the bickering romance between Sophie and Howl. Whereas in Miyazaki's film, the castle takes on this radical makeover as an organic steampunk chimera. It serves as a great centerpiece of the story and becomes something of a character in and of itself. It is a visual treat that you can't quite get by reading the book. In short, just think about this: would you rather read about a Quidditch match in Harry Potter, or see one before your eyes?
Third, for best results, the visual adaptation should respect the intent of the creator. This means understanding the soul of the story and expressing that through the visual piece. So when Stephen King says things like, "Shelley Duvall as Wendy is really one of the most misogynistic characters ever put on film, she's basically just there to scream and be stupid and that's not the woman that I wrote about" (BBC), it means that Kubrick probably didn't understand what King wanted to convey, or for that matter, even cared. This difference in vision in The Shining is further elaborated by Laura Miller in her article "What Stanley Kubrick Got Wrong About The Shining." for Salon,
"King is, essentially, a novelist of morality. The decisions his characters make — whether it's to confront a pack of vampires or to break 10 years of sobriety — are what matter to him. But in Kubrick's "The Shining," the characters are largely in the grip of forces beyond their control. It's a film in which domestic violence occurs, while King's novel is about domestic violence as a choice certain men make when they refuse to abandon a delusional, defensive entitlement. As King sees it, Kubrick treats his characters like "insects" because the director doesn't really consider them capable of shaping their own fates. Everything they do is subordinate to an overweening, irresistible force, which is Kubrick's highly developed aesthetic; they are its slaves. In King's "The Shining," the monster is Jack. In Kubrick's, the monster is Kubrick."
I bring this up to demonstrate that while Kubrick's The Shining may be a poor adaptation of the novel, that does not necessarily make it an equally poor film. Yes, Jack Nicholson's performance is not much different than his others, and yes, Wendy's depiction as a nitwit damel-in-distress is sexist, but the movie still has a frightful visual presence hardly rivaled by most horror pictures. So it is important that when we judge an adapted piece, we are sure to distinguish between its success as as a good story and its success as a good adaptation.
Now I think that Christopher Tolkien had a good point about the Lord of the Rings films, when he also said in Le Monde, "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away." A similar criticism was also echoed by film critic Roger Ebert, who said in his review of Fellowship of the Ring that,
"The Ring Trilogy embodies the kind of innocence that belongs to an earlier, gentler time. The Hollywood that made "The Wizard of Oz" might have been equal to it. But "Fellowship" is a film that comes after "Gladiator" and "Matrix," and it instinctively ramps up to the genre of the overwrought special-effects action picture. That it transcends this genre--that it is a well-crafted and sometimes stirring adventure--is to its credit. But a true visualization of Tolkien's Middle-earth it is not."
Ebert and Tolkien both lament the darker and more action-paced tone than an epic picture like the Lord of the Rings would have in today's blockbuster Hollywood. I feel that Ebert, being a film critic, recognizes this as more of a reality for the film, than Tolkien, who decries it. Now I have deep affections for both the film trilogy and the book trilogy. The books, to me, felt more like epic fairy tales, with compelling characters and flawless descriptions. They also have degrees of subtlety in presentation and welcoming atmospheres in tone. The films, on the other hand, are incredibly shot, acted, and written. I really feel that they captured the heart and the scale of the novels, even if Tolkien doesn't think so. I will admit, however, that some of the subtleties in the text are lost on the films. Take the scene, for instance, where Galadriel is tempted to take the Ring from Frodo. In the book, it certainly had an ominous and dramatic atmosphere, "She lifted up her hand and from the ring she wore there issued a great light that illumined her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful" (410, Tolkien, J.R.R.). In the film, however, Galadriel turns into a glowing green monster whose lines were apparently dubbed by a female Darth Vader with water in her helmet. The event is so campy that it undercuts the seriousness of the scene. (The awkward close-ups throughout had a habit of doing that, too.) Tolkein's other critique, that Lord of the Rings is now a franchise to be sold in any way possible, is sad, but this is not really a fault on the films. It's a fault on our commercialized culture, in which the mass arts struggle to survive without compromise. Nevertheless, this is still, once more, a judgement on the films as adaptations, as opposed to them as their own stories. Now that is not to say that there isn't overlap in these analyses, but the influence of the book is certainly a stronger inclination in these criticisms. Ebert even admitted to this in his Fellowship review, "That "Fellowship of the Ring" doesn't match my imaginary vision of Middle-earth is my problem, not yours." There are so many different ways of seeing Lord of the Rings, in fact, that Marcel Aubron-Bulles of the Tolkeinist wrote a great article entitled "Why the 'film purists' and the 'book purists' will never understand each other – on how (not) to appreciate Peter Jackson's work". Okay, so I'm not the first person to use the term book purist, but getting back on subject, Aubron-Bulles wrote on the different perspectives that general movie goers, film critics, and fans of the book would use in criticism of these films. By the end of the article, he still loved the films, even if they were different from the source,
"I love the films, I love the books and I find it very hard sometimes to agree with all these positions brought forward – I am just a Tolkien fan who thinks that his favourite writer and his books are the best there are and if someone like PJ does films then they are amazing, too (even if they have nothing to do with the books.)"
Fourth, yes, mistakes can happen in adapting a work between the mediums. Horrible mistakes. We need to ask ourselves, should the story even have a visual adaptation at all? Some literary stories don't make good films. Has there been a filmed version of The Great Gatsby that's worthy of the status the book's reception apparently gets? For some reason, F. Scott Fitzgerald's story is just kind of boring when put on a screen. Perhaps it's a pacing issue. We should also consider how making the story animated or live-action will affect its presentation as well. Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland received a great animated version by Walt Disney in 1954, since the animators had few limitations in illuminating Carrol's colorful world. On the other hand, when Tim Burton took a crack at it in the live-action format, limitations in special effects were obvious and unable to produce the same believability that the 1954 version did. When Beowulf, however, got the animated treatment, it didn't look impressive so much as distracting and awkward at times. A live-action retelling of the poem would have been able to better convey the story's somber tone.
Oftentimes, as the book purists will happily tell me, distancing oneself from the text is what can make an adaptation less satisfying. In the Hunger Games, for instance, Katniss's personal narration from the novel is virtually absent. This would have been an easy way to slip exposition into the film and show Katniss's relationship with Peeta was clearly one of convenience as opposed to an actual romance. At that point, anyways. Without the narration, this undercurrent to Peeta and Katniss is made unclear in the film, confusing audiences, while the lack of exposition will sometimes necessitate abrupt interruptions from the talking heads of Capitol TV which break the flow of the narrative. In the Guin Saga novels, the battle scenes are described with enough of bloodshed and gore to please Quentin Tarantino. This brought a brutal sense of realism to the story, and more tension to fights. In the anime (a medium known for its ultra-violence), the battles are completely toned down to almost Pokemon levels, and thus, the dimension of reality that the fight scenes once had is lost. These changes, I must emphasize, are only worth noting insofar as they affect the enjoyment of the film or show on its own. To illustrate, the exclusion of Peeves the Poltergeist from the Harry Potter films was not a bad idea. Reducing Cho Chang's development in Order of the Phoenix was. By the way, staying too true to the book has its own slew of problems as well. Take, for example, the decision in Catching Fire to include the white baboons in the Quarter Quell. No amount of CG wizardy could make that look any good.
In the end, the literary and the visual often oppose, but they can also complement each other. In an interview with Joseph Gelmis, director Stanley Kubrick had this to say about the filmed and written versions of 2001: A Space Odyssey:
"I think it gives you the opportunity of seeing two attempts in two different mediums, print and film, to express the same basic concept and story. In both cases, of course, the treatment must accommodate to the necessities of the medium. I think that the divergencies between the two works are interesting."
Indeed they are.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll get back to watching Fullmetal Alchemist.
Bibliography
Aubron-Bulles, Marcel. "Why the 'film purists' and the 'book purists' will never understand each other – on how (not) to appreciate Peter Jackson's work." The Tolkienist. September 27, 2012. Web. http://www.thetolkienist.com/2012/09/27/why-the-film-purists-and-the-book-purists-will-never-understand-each-other-on-how-not-to-appreciate-peter-jacksons-work/
Ebert, Roger. "Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring." rogerebert.com. December 19, 2001. Web. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/lord-of-the-rings-the-fellowship-of-the-ring-2
Gompertz, Will. "Stephen King returns to The Shining with Doctor Sleep." BBC News. September 19, 2013. Web. Video. http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-24151957
Kubrick, Stanley. "An Interview With Stanley Kubrick (1969). " Interview by Joseph Gelmis. Excerpt. The Film Director As Superstar. Garden City, New York: Doubleday And Company, 1970. Print. The Kubrick Site. Web. http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0069.html
Miller, Laura. "What Stanley Kubrick Got Wrong About The Shining." Salon. October 1, 2013. Web. http://www.salon.com/2013/10/01/what_stanley_kubrick_got_wrong_about_the_shining/
Rerolle, Raphaelle. "My Father's "Eviscerated" Work - Son Of Hobbit Scribe J.R.R. Tolkien Finally Speaks Out." Le Monde. July 9, 2012. http://www.lemonde.fr/culture/article/2012/07/05/tolkien-l-anneau-de-la-discorde_1729858_3246.html Trans. Worldcrunch. Web. http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/my-father-039-s-quot-eviscerated-quot-work-son-of-hobbit-scribe-j.r.r.-tolkien-finally-speaks-out/hobbit-silmarillion-lord-of-rings/c3s10299/#.VC4VBRbp9EP
Rutkowski, Gary. "Roger Ebert On Film Criticism-TV LEGENDS." The Archive Of American Television. November 2, 2005. YouTube. December 30, 2008. Web. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FCVlQ_5aSI
The King James Bible. pg 418. Colombia: Tom Nelson, 1987. Print.
Tolkien, J.R.R. The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring. pg 410. United States: Del Rey, 1954. Print.
Webster's Universal College Dictionary. pg 10. New York: Gramercy, 2004. Print.
"3. b. a form or structure modified to fit a changed environment" (10)
So, based on this definition, fundamentally, making a visual adaptation that is completely true to the text is impossible. The literary and the visual exist in two very different worlds. One world unfolds in your mind, while the other is presented before you. One medium describes the scenery in a paragraph or a panel, while the other can show it in an establishing shot. So clearly, things change when your story is taken from one world into the next. Understandably, parts of a text will be lost during the transfer, but also, a film could bring dimensions to the story that it otherwise may not have had. I believe that a visual work and a literary work should live as independent entities, each one to be judged on their own merits. Their relationship should be like that between a parent and a child. Yes, the child and the parent are related, but both can live differently. So when Christopher Tolkien, son of Lord of the Rings author J.R.R. Tolkien, said in an interview for Le Monde that, "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15-25," he, being very close to author of the novels, tends to judge the films more by their differences to the book, as opposed to judging the films in their own right. I think that his critique, however, is more appropriate for the Hobbit films.
Now when I say book purism I mean a sort of blind worship to the text. So much so that any change, regardless if it improves the visual text or no, is inherently wrong. It is the belief that the book is always better than the film or show. This is not to say that there aren't ideas in the text that wouldn't make the film or show better, or that authors shouldn't care about how their works are represented in other mediums. We have to balance respecting the intent of the creator, while recognizing the variations of the art forms.
First off, the elitist idea that books are inherently better than films and television in every case. Now, being a writer, and something of a reader myself, I have a deep respect for the literary form. In fact, I would argue that reading is an essential activity to learning about human nature and the world around us. Much of our knowledge and much of the world's best storytelling was put down into books. Indeed, books, in their forms, be it novels, poetry, plays, or graphic novels, have very much enriched my life. However, man need not experience art through the text alone. I believe that movies are also very enriching, and to a degree, essential.
In an interview for the Archive of American Television, Roger Ebert said on films, "They affect the way people think and feel and behave and they can be both a good influence on society and a negative influence." The same could be said for television. Books are a more challenging art form that require active engagement on behalf of the reader, whereas films and TV simply require you to sit in front of a screen for an hour or more. Since books have been around longer than films and television, they are seen as above them. In most cases, I agree, they often are, but not in all cases. Book purism tends to reinforce the idea that if one truly wants to enjoy an adaptation, they must do the so-called "busy work" of reading. Why do we punish people in this way? People should come to literature out of love, not force (though a little nudging here and there couldn't hurt). Since when did film and television become dessert and books the vegetables? (They're both treats as far as I'm concerned). Are visual arts, because of their easy accessibility, these sinful things that we should steer from unless we jump through all of the hoops? This whole ordeal reminds me of passage in Matthew 12: 41, "The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgement with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here" (418, King James Bible). To provide some context here, Jesus is discontented that the people who praise the old prophets of God, will not lend that same praise to him, the messiah. Now the point that I'm trying to make here isn't that Jesus was the messiah, (that's up to you), but that simply because something is new doesn't mean you can't find as much, if not more value in it than an older thing. Yes, moving pictures are a relatively new way of viewing the world, considering that literature and paintings are centuries old, whereas films and television are little over a hundred. Yet this fact does not make the visual adaptation inherently inferior, but opens new possibilities that otherwise may not have been conceived. We have an abundance of moving pictures to explore, let's appreciate them without the stigma.
Second, a visual adaptation can improve on or add things otherwise unable to be conveyed in its literary form. Take Walt Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, which was based on the Grimm Brothers' fairy tale. Now the original fairy tale is a fine one, but one of its problems was that the dwarfs were all the same, and this would be boring to see on film. So Disney gave each of the dwarfs distinct characteristics, and thus, they add some of the most entertaining humor to the story. Disney later did something similar with the fairies in Sleeping Beauty. Consider, also, Hayao Miyazaki's adaptation of Diane Wynn Jones's Howl's Moving Castle. In the book, the walking castle, while being a fascinating object, was, to my memory, more of a backdrop to the bickering romance between Sophie and Howl. Whereas in Miyazaki's film, the castle takes on this radical makeover as an organic steampunk chimera. It serves as a great centerpiece of the story and becomes something of a character in and of itself. It is a visual treat that you can't quite get by reading the book. In short, just think about this: would you rather read about a Quidditch match in Harry Potter, or see one before your eyes?
Third, for best results, the visual adaptation should respect the intent of the creator. This means understanding the soul of the story and expressing that through the visual piece. So when Stephen King says things like, "Shelley Duvall as Wendy is really one of the most misogynistic characters ever put on film, she's basically just there to scream and be stupid and that's not the woman that I wrote about" (BBC), it means that Kubrick probably didn't understand what King wanted to convey, or for that matter, even cared. This difference in vision in The Shining is further elaborated by Laura Miller in her article "What Stanley Kubrick Got Wrong About The Shining." for Salon,
"King is, essentially, a novelist of morality. The decisions his characters make — whether it's to confront a pack of vampires or to break 10 years of sobriety — are what matter to him. But in Kubrick's "The Shining," the characters are largely in the grip of forces beyond their control. It's a film in which domestic violence occurs, while King's novel is about domestic violence as a choice certain men make when they refuse to abandon a delusional, defensive entitlement. As King sees it, Kubrick treats his characters like "insects" because the director doesn't really consider them capable of shaping their own fates. Everything they do is subordinate to an overweening, irresistible force, which is Kubrick's highly developed aesthetic; they are its slaves. In King's "The Shining," the monster is Jack. In Kubrick's, the monster is Kubrick."
I bring this up to demonstrate that while Kubrick's The Shining may be a poor adaptation of the novel, that does not necessarily make it an equally poor film. Yes, Jack Nicholson's performance is not much different than his others, and yes, Wendy's depiction as a nitwit damel-in-distress is sexist, but the movie still has a frightful visual presence hardly rivaled by most horror pictures. So it is important that when we judge an adapted piece, we are sure to distinguish between its success as as a good story and its success as a good adaptation.
Now I think that Christopher Tolkien had a good point about the Lord of the Rings films, when he also said in Le Monde, "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away." A similar criticism was also echoed by film critic Roger Ebert, who said in his review of Fellowship of the Ring that,
"The Ring Trilogy embodies the kind of innocence that belongs to an earlier, gentler time. The Hollywood that made "The Wizard of Oz" might have been equal to it. But "Fellowship" is a film that comes after "Gladiator" and "Matrix," and it instinctively ramps up to the genre of the overwrought special-effects action picture. That it transcends this genre--that it is a well-crafted and sometimes stirring adventure--is to its credit. But a true visualization of Tolkien's Middle-earth it is not."
Ebert and Tolkien both lament the darker and more action-paced tone than an epic picture like the Lord of the Rings would have in today's blockbuster Hollywood. I feel that Ebert, being a film critic, recognizes this as more of a reality for the film, than Tolkien, who decries it. Now I have deep affections for both the film trilogy and the book trilogy. The books, to me, felt more like epic fairy tales, with compelling characters and flawless descriptions. They also have degrees of subtlety in presentation and welcoming atmospheres in tone. The films, on the other hand, are incredibly shot, acted, and written. I really feel that they captured the heart and the scale of the novels, even if Tolkien doesn't think so. I will admit, however, that some of the subtleties in the text are lost on the films. Take the scene, for instance, where Galadriel is tempted to take the Ring from Frodo. In the book, it certainly had an ominous and dramatic atmosphere, "She lifted up her hand and from the ring she wore there issued a great light that illumined her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful" (410, Tolkien, J.R.R.). In the film, however, Galadriel turns into a glowing green monster whose lines were apparently dubbed by a female Darth Vader with water in her helmet. The event is so campy that it undercuts the seriousness of the scene. (The awkward close-ups throughout had a habit of doing that, too.) Tolkein's other critique, that Lord of the Rings is now a franchise to be sold in any way possible, is sad, but this is not really a fault on the films. It's a fault on our commercialized culture, in which the mass arts struggle to survive without compromise. Nevertheless, this is still, once more, a judgement on the films as adaptations, as opposed to them as their own stories. Now that is not to say that there isn't overlap in these analyses, but the influence of the book is certainly a stronger inclination in these criticisms. Ebert even admitted to this in his Fellowship review, "That "Fellowship of the Ring" doesn't match my imaginary vision of Middle-earth is my problem, not yours." There are so many different ways of seeing Lord of the Rings, in fact, that Marcel Aubron-Bulles of the Tolkeinist wrote a great article entitled "Why the 'film purists' and the 'book purists' will never understand each other – on how (not) to appreciate Peter Jackson's work". Okay, so I'm not the first person to use the term book purist, but getting back on subject, Aubron-Bulles wrote on the different perspectives that general movie goers, film critics, and fans of the book would use in criticism of these films. By the end of the article, he still loved the films, even if they were different from the source,
"I love the films, I love the books and I find it very hard sometimes to agree with all these positions brought forward – I am just a Tolkien fan who thinks that his favourite writer and his books are the best there are and if someone like PJ does films then they are amazing, too (even if they have nothing to do with the books.)"
Fourth, yes, mistakes can happen in adapting a work between the mediums. Horrible mistakes. We need to ask ourselves, should the story even have a visual adaptation at all? Some literary stories don't make good films. Has there been a filmed version of The Great Gatsby that's worthy of the status the book's reception apparently gets? For some reason, F. Scott Fitzgerald's story is just kind of boring when put on a screen. Perhaps it's a pacing issue. We should also consider how making the story animated or live-action will affect its presentation as well. Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland received a great animated version by Walt Disney in 1954, since the animators had few limitations in illuminating Carrol's colorful world. On the other hand, when Tim Burton took a crack at it in the live-action format, limitations in special effects were obvious and unable to produce the same believability that the 1954 version did. When Beowulf, however, got the animated treatment, it didn't look impressive so much as distracting and awkward at times. A live-action retelling of the poem would have been able to better convey the story's somber tone.
Oftentimes, as the book purists will happily tell me, distancing oneself from the text is what can make an adaptation less satisfying. In the Hunger Games, for instance, Katniss's personal narration from the novel is virtually absent. This would have been an easy way to slip exposition into the film and show Katniss's relationship with Peeta was clearly one of convenience as opposed to an actual romance. At that point, anyways. Without the narration, this undercurrent to Peeta and Katniss is made unclear in the film, confusing audiences, while the lack of exposition will sometimes necessitate abrupt interruptions from the talking heads of Capitol TV which break the flow of the narrative. In the Guin Saga novels, the battle scenes are described with enough of bloodshed and gore to please Quentin Tarantino. This brought a brutal sense of realism to the story, and more tension to fights. In the anime (a medium known for its ultra-violence), the battles are completely toned down to almost Pokemon levels, and thus, the dimension of reality that the fight scenes once had is lost. These changes, I must emphasize, are only worth noting insofar as they affect the enjoyment of the film or show on its own. To illustrate, the exclusion of Peeves the Poltergeist from the Harry Potter films was not a bad idea. Reducing Cho Chang's development in Order of the Phoenix was. By the way, staying too true to the book has its own slew of problems as well. Take, for example, the decision in Catching Fire to include the white baboons in the Quarter Quell. No amount of CG wizardy could make that look any good.
In the end, the literary and the visual often oppose, but they can also complement each other. In an interview with Joseph Gelmis, director Stanley Kubrick had this to say about the filmed and written versions of 2001: A Space Odyssey:
"I think it gives you the opportunity of seeing two attempts in two different mediums, print and film, to express the same basic concept and story. In both cases, of course, the treatment must accommodate to the necessities of the medium. I think that the divergencies between the two works are interesting."
Indeed they are.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll get back to watching Fullmetal Alchemist.
Bibliography
Aubron-Bulles, Marcel. "Why the 'film purists' and the 'book purists' will never understand each other – on how (not) to appreciate Peter Jackson's work." The Tolkienist. September 27, 2012. Web. http://www.thetolkienist.com/2012/09/27/why-the-film-purists-and-the-book-purists-will-never-understand-each-other-on-how-not-to-appreciate-peter-jacksons-work/
Ebert, Roger. "Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring." rogerebert.com. December 19, 2001. Web. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/lord-of-the-rings-the-fellowship-of-the-ring-2
Gompertz, Will. "Stephen King returns to The Shining with Doctor Sleep." BBC News. September 19, 2013. Web. Video. http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-24151957
Kubrick, Stanley. "An Interview With Stanley Kubrick (1969). " Interview by Joseph Gelmis. Excerpt. The Film Director As Superstar. Garden City, New York: Doubleday And Company, 1970. Print. The Kubrick Site. Web. http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0069.html
Miller, Laura. "What Stanley Kubrick Got Wrong About The Shining." Salon. October 1, 2013. Web. http://www.salon.com/2013/10/01/what_stanley_kubrick_got_wrong_about_the_shining/
Rerolle, Raphaelle. "My Father's "Eviscerated" Work - Son Of Hobbit Scribe J.R.R. Tolkien Finally Speaks Out." Le Monde. July 9, 2012. http://www.lemonde.fr/culture/article/2012/07/05/tolkien-l-anneau-de-la-discorde_1729858_3246.html Trans. Worldcrunch. Web. http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/my-father-039-s-quot-eviscerated-quot-work-son-of-hobbit-scribe-j.r.r.-tolkien-finally-speaks-out/hobbit-silmarillion-lord-of-rings/c3s10299/#.VC4VBRbp9EP
Rutkowski, Gary. "Roger Ebert On Film Criticism-TV LEGENDS." The Archive Of American Television. November 2, 2005. YouTube. December 30, 2008. Web. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FCVlQ_5aSI
The King James Bible. pg 418. Colombia: Tom Nelson, 1987. Print.
Tolkien, J.R.R. The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring. pg 410. United States: Del Rey, 1954. Print.
Webster's Universal College Dictionary. pg 10. New York: Gramercy, 2004. Print.
Want to watch Fullmetal Alchemist, too? See it on YouTube through Funimation's official page: https://www.youtube.com/show/fullmetalalchemist
In this video, director Mick Garris discusses why the film of The Shining is a poor adaptation of the book. Warning: the clip shows scary images from The Shining
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario