MIddlearth, OZ and faithfulness

[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.