MIddlearth, OZ and faithfulness

[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.”

[Nerwen]

Sauron,

I have said this before and I rather suspect I shall have to say it again: this is a grey area. You insist it's a black and white, either-or situation. It isn't.

Yes, people adapting a book to the screen have to change things. But how faithful to the original should they strive to be? A lot? A little? Not at all? This is a difficult question, and probably one on which there will never be universal agreement.

I don't know the answer myself. Neither do you. I think it's something we can discuss– which you never do, that I've noticed.

Instead you repeat, "Movies are different from books". Then you switch to an appeal to authority and remind us all that the movies were popular and won awards, which according to you is the ultimate stamp of quality.

Now, as I have said, I do like the LotR films– and I'm insulted! As it happens, I formed my own opinion. All by myself. I like some films that are popular, some that are unpopular– some that win awards and some that don't. (And just so you know, I thoroughly disliked "Gladiator".)

You attack people for using faithfulness as a criterion– but how is "majority rules" more valid? Some great films have been popular and/or have won Oscars. So have some not-so-great ones.

And really, how do you expect to sell a bunch of highbrow nerds on the general principle that the majority is automatically right?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I might suggest that history and fiction are apples and cinderblocks.

A history is not a story, it has no inherent form or structure, it is merely events that happened in the way events do. To make a story of it, whether an historical novel or a play or a film, requires considerable messing around. Nobody faults Shakespeare for rewiting history to suit his dramatic ends- but then nobody (with sense) accepts Will's plays as factual either.

[Sauron the White]

Mr. Hicklin
Are you saying that - in your opinion - if one makes a movie from actual real life events, then one need not be faithful to the persons, events, times, and other important factors that impact the narrative?

Are you also saying that - in your opinion - a work of pure fiction deserves a higher standard of faithfulness in its adaption to the screen than an actual real life happening deserves?

[Bêthberry]

A new day means a new approach . . .

First, let me reiterate my assumption that this question of faithfulness is best discussed in terms of literary adaptation. Certainly StW's complaint against the Downs' community faults their/our recourse to the Book. History is a much broader canvas and as the example of LoA demonstrates, the source material itself--Lawrence's book Seven Pillars of Wisdom--can be questioned by recourse to other historical documents. History is written largely and mainly by the victors and a little research will turn up a variety of points of view. A book, however, usually has but one author and in the case of film adaptations the adaptation is dependent upon legal right to do so. Such a legal control does not exist with the larger canvas "history", although those who lived any history filmed will of course claim the right to discuss authenticity, fidelity, faithfulness--whatever word they wish to use.

For my points, I assumed that StW's use of "source material" was a mere synonym for "book" rather than an opening up of the question to any source material. That point I think is too large for the issue here, which after all devolves upon how three films adapted a three part book. This has nothing to do with any unfair intent of redefining Sauron's point to stuff it into my point, but is a legitimate interpretation of the issue at hand.

As Nerwen points out, definitions of successful movies can vary. And, indeed, change over time. WoO barely made a profit in its initial screenings; indeed, it became the well loved movie it is largely as a result of its anual screening on television. And, as I will show with some of the links following, even appeals to popularity or majority rules will show inconsistent choices.

First of all, The British newspaper The Guardian some two years ago held a vote on Greatest Film Adaptations. Here's an analysis of the results: from paper to celluloid

And here's The Big Fifty readers chose from. Note that LotR did not make the cut to this top fifty. (That exclusion can of course be discussed.)

What is intriguing about this exploration of film culture (based on newspaper readers) from The Guardian is that choice of top adaptation was not dependent upon the prime point which StW implies, success as in awards and profits.

Another point to note is that fidelity of adaptation is not a pecadillo of the Downs community, but has been a topic of discussion in film going back to such early stalwarts as Griffith. While the topic can often be described in terms of book purists rightly (or wrongly) bemoaning the loss of what makes the book grand, the subject is open to many more questions, not merely the essentialist one of "a film is different from a book." Indeed, there are studies which categorically reject that argument.

Here's a link to D. Cartmmell's highbrow studyAdaptations: from text to screen, from screen to edit.

Here's a link to StW's favourite source: the Wikipedia on Film Adapation

Here'a a link to Brian McFarlane's Novel to Film: An Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation.

It could be argued that fidelity or faithfulness depends to some extent on how the director and producers see the target audience for the film: do they want to capture the book market only or do they go for 'virgin' viewers? But that's just one criterion to consider.

To say that faithfulness to book has nothing to do with popularity or success of a movie is a claim that overlooks many discussions of the issue, especially when even the definition of quality in movies can be so variously argued, as Nerwen again points out. Indeed, the grand thing about the topic of adaptation is that it can be viewed from so many different angles, no one of which is the absolutely correct one.