The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Kalessin · 01-12-2003, 11:54 AM

Hmm ...I understand fully that for each of us our experience of the books has created a personal and sacred bond with the works, and as such the movie can easily be seen as a flawed and incomplete reflection of what the narrative means to us. This could be argued for many literary adaptations, most of which have been decried by fans of the original literature. But I think that, while we can all like or dislike any film, some of the criticism is disproportionate and is based on the premise that the film should somehow 'be' the book, or in any other way do justice to it. Even if this is what the film-makers intended, this is not how film works.By way of illustration of my argument, here are Frank Herbert's reflections on the adaptation of Dune (by David Lynch) ... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>... I understand film to be a language different from English ...To make a film, you translate, as though from English to German. You can say things in one language you cannot say in another.The film of Dune (and, you could argue LotR - K) is the result of a paradox - product of an industry that pretends to creativity and shies away from risks. So many films are aimed primarily at early-to-late teens because this age group is more easily seduced by hype. These also are viewers with time and money ... Don't condemn this out of hand. Never forget it's an industry.Don't ask yourself if I (the author) succeeded or if the film succeeded. The only valid critic is time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Given the above, I would say the more valid comparison is NOT betweetn the film and the book - certainly not by those who invest such emotional attachment to the book - but between this film and other films, similar or different.On that basis, I think the LotR movies so far are far superior as cinema to, say, Star Wars, or Dragonheart, and so on. Better comparisons might be made with epics such as Ben Hur or Spartacus. The problem with any sort of re-make is that is a betrayal of sorts. A rare exception would be Sturges' Magnificent Seven, but for a Kurosawa purist even that is no more than a pale pastiche. Perhaps The Shawshank Redemption qualifies also. And recently, the remakes of Nakata's Ringu, Mann's Manhunter and Philip K D1ck's Minority Report, among others, have all been pretty feeble in my view. I am told there is an upcoming remake of Tarkovsky's classic Solaris, itself a sometimes criticised adaptation of Lem's novel. Of course, Legolas skateboarding down the steps at Helm's Deep would have been anathema to Tolkien, and was for me the most cringeworthy moment of TTT .But as cinema, the two parts to date have merit, and anecdotally, is it perhaps true that the reactions of those who have not read the books but seen the films seem to bear this out?Peace Kalessin[ January 12, 2003: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

01-12-2003, 11:54 AM	#11
Kalessin Wight Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Earthsea, or London Posts: 175	Hmm ...<P>I understand fully that for each of us our experience of the books has created a personal and sacred bond with the works, and as such the movie can easily be seen as a flawed and incomplete reflection of what the narrative means to us. This could be argued for many literary adaptations, most of which have been decried by fans of the original literature. <P>But I think that, while we can all like or dislike any film, some of the criticism is disproportionate and is based on the premise that the film should somehow 'be' the book, or in any other way do justice to it. Even if this is what the film-makers intended, this is not how film works.<P>By way of illustration of my argument, here are Frank Herbert's reflections on the adaptation of Dune (by David Lynch) ...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>... I understand film to be a language different from English ...<P>To make a film, you <I>translate</I>, as though from English to German. You can say things in one language you cannot say in another.<P>The film of Dune <I>(and, you could argue LotR - K)</I> is the result of a paradox - product of an industry that pretends to creativity and shies away from risks. So many films are aimed primarily at early-to-late teens because this age group is more easily seduced by hype. These also are viewers with time and money ... <P>Don't condemn this out of hand. Never forget it's an industry.<P>Don't ask yourself if I (the author) succeeded or if the film succeeded. The only valid critic is time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Given the above, I would say the more valid comparison is NOT betweetn the film and the book - certainly not by those who invest such emotional attachment to the book - but between this film and other films, similar or different.<P>On that basis, I think the LotR movies so far are far superior as cinema to, say, <I>Star Wars</I>, or <I>Dragonheart</I>, and so on. Better comparisons might be made with epics such as <I>Ben Hur</I> or <I>Spartacus</I>. <P><B>The problem with any sort of re-make is that is a betrayal of sorts.</B> A rare exception would be Sturges' <I>Magnificent Seven</I>, but for a Kurosawa purist even that is no more than a pale pastiche. Perhaps <I>The Shawshank Redemption</I> qualifies also. And recently, the remakes of Nakata's <I>Ringu</I>, Mann's <I>Manhunter</I> and Philip K D1ck's <I>Minority Report</I>, among others, have all been pretty feeble in my view. I am told there is an upcoming remake of Tarkovsky's classic <I>Solaris</I>, itself a sometimes criticised adaptation of Lem's novel. <P>Of course, Legolas skateboarding down the steps at Helm's Deep would have been anathema to Tolkien, and was for me the most cringeworthy moment of TTT .<P>But as cinema, the two parts to date have merit, and anecdotally, is it perhaps true that the reactions of those who have not read the books but seen the films seem to bear this out?<P>Peace <P>Kalessin<p>[ January 12, 2003: Message edited by: Kalessin ]