MIddlearth, OZ and faithfulness

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

It is not my contention or position that you cannot make a movie that is more or less reasonably faithful to its source material. My point is that it is irrevelvant and means nothing to the success or quality of the film as both LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and WIZARD OF OZ show. And I would add the LOTR films to those. Further, it is irrelevant and silly to judge the quality of a film by some imiganary scale of "faithfulness" since the rest of the world cares little about it since it matters not to the final quality of the film.

If it is irrelevant, then why do directors and producers (and authors when they are still alive and working with the directors) discuss faithfulness and proclaim it as something they desired to acheive, even with, as The English Patient shows, many changes are essential? Why did Jackson and his writers loudly claim they were being respectful of and faithful to Jackson? Why bother if it is irrelevant?

Further more, there is no evidence that "the rest of the world cares little about it". While many viewers might not have read the original works and might not be aware of the changes, it is entirely possible that "the cinematic heart" is what beats in the two and what makes both so appealing to readers/viewers.

Originally Posted by StW

I am sorry but I cannot due your post justice because I have not read or seen THE ENGLISH PATIENT. I have seen brief snippets of it on cable and - no offense to you - I did not like what I saw very much, and was not inspired to invest any time in it. The infamous SEINFELD episode where Elaine Benis, bored to distraction, screams at the theater crowd watching the film "how can you people watch this stuff" comes to mind. But to each their own.

I haven't seen the film either. Seeing it is irrelevant to the point that in a context where major changes were deemed essential, both director and author strove to explain how those changes were made to accommodate the differences between book and film yet at the same time they sought to be "faithful" to an essential book experience.

Side note to Rune: Your example of Troy brings up the excellent point of translation. Whether from Greek to English or book to film, what is involved is the art and skill of interpreting or translating.

Originally Posted by StW

Jackson goes far beyond that and I think that is one reason why he was rewarded with the Oscar while Lucas has only the rewards of the bank account.

I suppose you have access to the thoughts of the Academy voters?

Originally Posted by StW

The problem with that is simple. How do you measure such things? Is there a objective scale of agreed upon measurement which pronounces the purity of such changes from one medium to another? Of course not. In the end, this reality will always permit complaining, carping and fault finding with any adaption in the minds of some viewers.

It is really a red herring to say that adaptation cannot be measured and so to claim that adaptation cannot be discussed or is not relevant. Art is not measurable on any absolute scale and the reason why people create and have and enjoy art is very different from the reasons why they explore science and philosophy and management accounting. Each book and each movie is unique and every experience of adaptation will have to be accommodated to that uniqueness. Might as well ask Minghella to explain what "cinematic heart" is.

What it comes down to it the right of any viewer/reader to have opinions and feelings about a movie or a book, whether those statements are unique and personal or whether they reflect some large commonality with other viewers. That's why people discuss art, for the sake of discussion, to carry on the initial experience, to understand the initial experience, to boldly take that experience where it has not gone before.

[Sauron the White]

from Bethberry

why do directors and producers (and authors when they are still alive and working with the directors) discuss faithfulness and proclaim it as something they desired to acheive, even with, as The English Patient shows, many changes are essential? Why did Jackson and his writers loudly claim they were being respectful of and faithful to Jackson? Why bother if it is irrelevant?

It may have significance to the creative team behind the movies and an aid in making the movie, although I think much of it is lip service and political correctness to those close to the source material. After all, do you think anybody is going to buy a property and then announce to the world that they intend to change almost everything and they care nothing about the original source? To some extent, this type of public bowing down before the source is like saying "I'll call you" after your business is done with that evenings hot date.

But you miss the point. I have repeatedly stated that how faithful a film is to its original source material is irrelevant to the quality or success of the movie. It means nothing or little. How do we know that and how can I state that so emphatically? I have provided you with links to two of the most successful and beloved films of all time - LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and WIZARD OF OZ. Both are on many experts all time best list and the prestigious American Film Institute ranks both in its Top Ten of All Time. If you carefully read the Wikipedia articles for both you will see that both films deviated greatly from the source material and were not slavishly faithful to it. The job of both Victor Flemming and David Lean was to make a movie that was as good as they could make it. They did that. That is not my opinion. That is the test of time since both movies have been around and beloved for decades now.

If those examples are not enough for you, just look at the success of the LOTR movies as measured by the standard industry measurement tools, a) box office revenues, b) response of professional film critics, and c) industry awards of excellence. That is how the world and the film industry keeps score of a films success. Nobody uses a scale of faithfulness to the source material.

When I mentioned Jackson winning Oscars for his directorial efforts while Lucas was neglected you wrote

I suppose you have access to the thoughts of the Academy voters?

I do not have to read anyones minds or thoughts. All I have to do is the same as you or anyone else. Simply check the results of their ballotting where they did make their thoughts clear to the world. Motivation means little next to results and the historical record. And that record is quite clear for anyone to see. You can access the official website - or hundreds of others to get Oscar results.

What it comes down to it the right of any viewer/reader to have opinions and feelings about a movie or a book, whether those statements are unique and personal or whether they reflect some large commonality with other viewers. That's why people discuss art, for the sake of discussion, to carry on the initial experience, to understand the initial experience, to boldly take that experience where it has not gone before.

I mostly agree with this statement. Anyone can have any subjective opinion they want to regardless of what it is based on or if it is logical or if it makes any sense compared to objective facts. I never said otherwise. My point is that to first invent a standard which is irrelevant to the way a film is measured, and then applying that standard to something, and pronouncing it wanting for those reasons, is meaningless to anyone other than yourself. It would be prudent to not try to foist it off on the world and claim its significant because the world has spoken loudly and clearly that they simply do not care. The standard which means so much to some, the standard which is impossible to quantify or measure, means next to nothing to the rest of the world.

How do I know that?

The historical record tells me that loudly and clearly in film after film. There is absolutely no relationship between a films success or quality and the faithfulness of the film to its original source material. If there is a relationship, I would love to see evidence of that. I have provided all here with the contrary evidence and used two of the best beloved and critically praised films of all time to illustrate my points.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

It may have significance to the creative team behind the movies and an aid in making the movie, although I think much of it is lip service and political correctness to those close to the source material. After all, do you think anybody is going to buy a property and then announce to the world that they intend to change almost everything and they care nothing about the original source? To some extent, this type of public bowing down before the source is like saying "I'll call you" after your business is done with that evenings hot date.

This of course is not evidence in support of your claim but a strawman--er, straw-woman?--arguement. It speaks more to your rhetoric than to the actual topic under discussion.

Originally Posted by StW

But you miss the point.

No. I just don't accept it.

Originally Posted by StW

I have provided you with links to two of the most successful and beloved films of all time - LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and WIZARD OF OZ . . . .

If those examples are not enough for you, just look at the success of the LOTR

Two or three examples do not a hardfast rule make. And, anyway, LoA and WoO demonstrate what Minghella called "cinematic heart".

Originally Posted by StW

Nobody uses a scale of faithfulness to the source material.

It's you who miss the point here, that objective scales are not of major importance in discussing art.

When I mentioned Jackson winning Oscars for his directorial efforts while Lucas was neglected . . .
I do not have to read anyones minds or thoughts. All I have to do is the same as you or anyone else. Simply check the results of their ballotting where they did make their thoughts clear to the world. Motivation means little next to results and the historical record. And that record is quite clear for anyone to see. You can access the official website - or hundreds of others to get Oscar results. [/quote]

But you were ascribing a motive and now you are saying motive means little. The history of the Oscars is full of anomalies where winners are now ignored and films that were overlooked or not even nominated have come to be more highly regarded. For all we know, at the time of the initial success of SW, the Academy was filled with voters whose dislike of space fantasy and adventure was not yet overruled by the money factor while by the time LotR hit the circuits, voters recognized that blockbusters provide money to finance more films. (And, anyway, the one which won is not largely or generally acknowledged as the best of the three films.) The Oscars are no more an objective standard than any business award. They are little more than a popularity contest amongst people in the business in one country. Nor are they the sole business award. There's a reason why Cannes remains important to the film industry and a reason why independents like Sundance exist.

Originally Posted by StW

My point is that to first invent a standard which is irrelevant to the way a film is measured, and then applying that standard to something, and pronouncing it wanting for those reasons, is meaningless to anyone other than yourself. Don't try to foist it off on the world and claim its significant because the world has spoken loudly and clearly that they simply do not care. The standard which means so much to some, the standard which is impossible to quantify or measure, means next to nothing to the rest of the world.

Gosh, little did I know that when we make comments here on the Barrow Downs we are foisting them on the world. Does this little corner of Middle earth really receive that many hits a day and do we really march off to other sites demanding to be heard by linking to our comments here? No, I think we're just happy to muddle around in our dark barrow watching others fulminating anathemas. It passes the time of day.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I thought Jackson's films were very good overall– arguably the best fantasy films ever made– but now that you mention it, the characterizations are done in broader strokes than in the original, and I think that does contribute to a Star Wars-esque comic book feel.

Yes, I think you've identified one similarity. I think that Lucas, however, was better able to integrate humour with the dramatic elements of the story.

EDIT: Cross posted with StW--or, well, I posted while he edited. Sauron, the discussion here seems to come to this: I don't accept your initial definition or premise of the issue and you don't accept mine.

[Sauron the White]

I don't accept your initial definition or premise of the issue and you don't accept mine.

You do not accept it because you choose not to accept it out of faith or belief or just plain refusal without grounds. My premise is supported by fact and example that is beyond challenge to the facts. Both WIZARD OF OZ and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA are considered great films by a large group of experts including Top Ten ratings by the American Film Institute. Both, were hardly faithful to their source material and changed things tremendously. Despite that, they were successful and much beloved.

Can you disprove my premise with concrete examples showing us that there is a direct relationship between a films success and quality and its faithfulness to its source material? And please explain how examples such as OZ, LAWRENCE and even LOTR are exceptions to the rule.

Two or three examples do not a hardfast rule make. And, anyway, LoA and WoO demonstrate what Minghella called "cinematic heart".

But in the absence of any facts presented by you, I think they go a long way to establishing that rule.

I have no idea what cinematic heart means to anybody but the coiner of that phrase. Its akin to discussing the "spirit" of something. It may have some meaning to the person who uses that phrase, but it is hardly something which has universal meaning, application or is widely understood. It certainly sounds wonderful and I picture a crescendo of violins as the words are uttered. It sounds wonderfully romantic and certainly makes one all pink and glowey. But it means nothing to me.

I have given the specific examples of two great films that were not at all faithful to their source material. Despite that, they are much beloved and are considered great films of high quality. If you take the contrary position, that there is a relationship between a films success and quality when compared to how faithfully it follows its source material, please present your list of films and explain why my examples are exceptions to that rule.

You and anyone else are free to reject the Oscars, Bafta's, Golden Globes or any other award bestowed upon a film. That is your right.

You and anyone else are free to reject box office revenue numbers as evidence of a films success and polularity. That is your right.

You and anyone else are free to reject the overwhelming opinion of professional film critics who highly praise a film. That is your right.

But those are the accepted standards of measurement by which the film industry measures its own product. The people who make film, who live by film, and who understand film best, use these scales of measurement. Faithfulness, whatever that gossamer term may mean to whoever wishes to use it, means little to nothing to a films success or quality.

Like what you want for whatever reasons you want to like it. That is fine.

[Sauron the White]

Bethberry
I want to give you more in response than my dismissive in the post above. You said that

"two or three examples do not a hardfast rule make."

So allow me the opportunity to give you many more. These are four films which did rather well at the box office, and some of which also were critically praised as good films. Two of them even won Best Film of the year awards.

This is taken from a list The Top Ten Historically Inaccurate Films. The commentary is brief but to the point. There has been much written on other sites about the failure of these films to be faithful to thier main source material.

GLADIATOR
Emperor Commodus was not the sniveling sister-obsessed creep portrayed in the movie. A violent alcoholic, sure, but not so whiny. He ruled ably for over a decade rather than ineptly for a couple months. He also didn't kill his father, Marcus Aurelius, who actually died of chickenpox. And instead of being killed in the gladatorial arena, he was murdered in his bathtub.
(Box office success and award winner.)

300
Though this paean to ancient moral codes and modern physical training is based on the real Battle of Thermopylae, the film takes many stylistic liberties. The most obvious one being Persian king Xerxes was not an 8-foot-tall Cirque du Soleil reject. The Spartan council was made up of men over the age of 60, with no one as young as Theron (played by 37-year-old Dominic West). And the warriors of Sparta went into battle wearing bronze armor, not just leather Speedos.
(Big box office success.)


APOLCALYPTO
This one movie has given entire Anthropology departments migranes. Sure the Maya did have the odd human sacrifice but not to Kulkulkan, the Sun God, and only high-ranking captives taken in battle were killed. The conquistadors arriving at the end of the film made for unlikely saviors: an estimated 90% of indigenous American population was killed by smallpox from the infected Spanish pigs.
-( quality film, good reviews, mediocre box office however)


BRAVEHEART
Let's forget the fact that kilts weren't worn in Scotland until about 300 years after William Wallace's day and just do some simple math. According to the movie, Wallace's blue-eyed charm at the Battle of Falkirk was so overpowering, he seduced King Edward II's wife, Isabella of France, and the result of their affair was Edward III. But according to the history books, Isabella was three years old at the time of Falkirk, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died.
(Good box office, good reviews, award winner)

If this is not enough, I can provide much more.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

You do not accept it because you choose not to accept it out of faith or belief or just plain refusal without grounds.

No. Please stop proffering motivations to me and consider the explanations. Otherwise I might not be able to stop myself from making up Really Silly Reasons.

Originally Posted by StW

My premise is supported by fact and example that is beyond challenge to the facts.

Okay, right, I really cannot stop myself. . . Nobody expects the Spanish, ah, er, challenge. Our chief weapon is faith...faith and belief . . . and refusal ... refusal . . . Our two challenges are faith and belief and rufusal ... ruthless refusal.... Our *three* challenges are faith and belief, and ruthless refusal...and an almost fanatical devotion to Tolkien.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our challenges.... Amongst our propositions...are such elements as .... I'll come in again.

Originally Posted by StW

Can you disprove my premise with concrete examples showing us that there is a direct relationship between a films success and quality and its faithfulness to its source material? And please explain how examples such as OZ, LAWRENCE and even LOTR are exceptions to the rule.

Forgive me, it was a few posts back now, and the sun's well past the yard arm here, but I don't think you proved that their success was due to their unfaithfulness? You simply showed they didn't adhere slavishly to the books which inspired the movies.

Come to think of it, Life of Brian was not terribly faithful to its source book either. But that was part of its point, wasn't it?

Originally Posted by StW

I have no idea what cinematic heart means to anybody but the coiner of that phrase. Its akin to discussing the "spirit" of something. It may have some meaning to the person who uses that phrase, but it is hardly something which has universal meaning, application or is widely understood. It certainly sounds wonderful and I picture a crescendo of violins as the words are uttered. It sounds wonderfully romantic and certainly makes one all pink and glowey. But it means nothing to me.

Funny, the way you describe it, I would expect to hear a raspberry. Metaphors, though, tend not to have 'universal meaning', as they are intended to create new meaning.

Originally Posted by StW

So allow me the opportunity to give you many more. These are four films which did rather well at the box office, and some of which also were critically praised as good films. Two of them even won Best Film of the year awards.

This is taken from a list The Top Ten Historically Inaccurate Films.

GLADIATOR
Emperor Commodus was not the sniveling sister-obsessed creep portrayed in the movie. A violent alcoholic, sure, but not so whiny. He ruled ably for over a decade rather than ineptly for a couple months. He also didn't kill his father, Marcus Aurelius, who actually died of chickenpox. And instead of being killed in the gladatorial arena, he was murdered in his bathtub.
(Box office success and award winner.)

300
Though this paean to ancient moral codes and modern physical training is based on the real Battle of Thermopylae, the film takes many stylistic liberties. The most obvious one being Persian king Xerxes was not an 8-foot-tall Cirque du Soleil reject. The Spartan council was made up of men over the age of 60, with no one as young as Theron (played by 37-year-old Dominic West). And the warriors of Sparta went into battle wearing bronze armor, not just leather Speedos.
(Big box office success.)


APOLCALYPTO
This one movie has given entire Anthropology departments migranes. Sure the Maya did have the odd human sacrifice but not to Kulkulkan, the Sun God, and only high-ranking captives taken in battle were killed. The conquistadors arriving at the end of the film made for unlikely saviors: an estimated 90% of indigenous American population was killed by smallpox from the infected Spanish pigs.
-( quality film, good reviews, mediocre box office however)


BRAVEHEART
Let's forget the fact that kilts weren't worn in Scotland until about 300 years after William Wallace's day and just do some simple math. According to the movie, Wallace's blue-eyed charm at the Battle of Falkirk was so overpowering, he seduced King Edward II's wife, Isabella of France, and the result of their affair was Edward III. But according to the history books, Isabella was three years old at the time of Falkirk, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died.
(Good box office, good reviews, award winner)

If this is not enough, I can provide much more.

First you must find... another shrubbery! (dramatic chord) Then, when you have found the shrubbery, you must place it here, beside this shrubbery, . . . Ah, dear. Again, forgive me, for the same reasons above, plus it's now much lower over the yard arm . . . but I thought the discussion was about literary adaptations. Examples of films filled with historical inaccuracies are . . . something completely different.

[Sauron the White]

Originally Posted by StW
Can you disprove my premise with concrete examples showing us that there is a direct relationship between a films success and quality and its faithfulness to its source material? And please explain how examples such as OZ, LAWRENCE and even LOTR are exceptions to the rule.

response from Bethberry

Forgive me, it was a few posts back now, and the sun's well past the yard arm here, but I don't think you proved that their success was due to their unfaithfulness? You simply showed they didn't adhere slavishly to the books which inspired the movies.

Where did I say that their success was "due to their unfaithfulness"? Now you are simply making this stuff up as you go along to try to weaken my argument. I never said that. My point was the exact opposite. The success of a film has nothing to do with their faithfulness.... or unfaithfulness for that matter. Its irrelevant since it has nothing to do with either film quality of public support in terms of buying tickets.

And you make crack wise all you want but I have provided factual documentation with concrete examples to support my claim but you have provided nothing on a similar plane. You have neither disproved the use of examples I provided nor have you provided any alternate support for your own ideas. You simply say you reject my idea and want to go on about it.

In poking fun of my list of a few historically inaccurate films you say

but I thought the discussion was about literary adaptations

Again, you attempt to redefine my main point to better suit your response. I never indcated that we were only discussing literary adaptions. We are discussion primary source material that led to being adapted as a film. Go back and look at my thread on LAWRENCE and you will see that.

For your benefit, and to clear the air, I will quote directly from my own post which opens this thread.

My point is that a good film is not dependent on a faithful adaption from its source. It mattters not and is no real consequence.

Please note that I never limited my point to literary sources. The term source or source material can be anything from a persons real life, historical events to anything fictional that provided a basis to make a film.

I am happy to discuss this with you but I only ask that you abstain from attempting to redefine my main points to better suit your arguments. It does neither of us any good and fails to meet the actual issue here.

I respectfully ask you again: I gave you at least two concrete real examples of very beloved and praised films which were not at all faithful to their source material. Why do the examples of OZ and LAWRENCE not show that a films success is not dependent on its adherence to being faithful to its source material?

[Bêthberry]

Dearie me, I am confused, as I am certain that the first post here directed the complaint to various and sundry persons who placed their aesthetic standards on Tolkien's books:

Originally Posted by StW

I believe it helps put the lie to the complaint heard here far too often that "the LOTR movies were not faithful to the books and thus were not very good".

Originally Posted by some mindless twits

Ximinez: Now, old woman -- you are accused of heresy on three counts -- heresy by thought, heresy by word, heresy by deed, and heresy by action -- *four* counts. Do you confess?
Wilde: I don't understand what I'm accused of.
Ximinez: Ha! Then we'll make you understand! Biggles! Fetch...THE CUSHIONS!
Biggles: Here they are, lord.
Ximinez: Now, old lady -- you have one last chance. Confess the heinous sin of heresy, reject the works of the ungodly -- *two* last chances. And you shall be free -- *three* last chances. You have three last chances, the nature of which I have divulged in my previous utterance.
Wilde: I don't know what you're talking about.
Ximinez: Right! If that's the way you want it -- Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions!
Ximinez: Confess! Confess! Confess!
Biggles: It doesn't seem to be hurting her, lord.
Ximinez: Have you got all the stuffing up one end?
Biggles: Yes, lord.”