tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9156215.post5086268498687892797..comments2023-10-02T01:57:31.854+13:00Comments on multi-dimensional: Capturing the inner life of an adaptationhixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587761743163619803noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9156215.post-25625484506165775522009-06-01T19:42:38.067+12:002009-06-01T19:42:38.067+12:00Well I wouldn't say they are forced into a convent...Well I wouldn't say they are forced into a conventional structure, but when they do follow a conventional linear pathway through the life of someone then the story is forced to tell short vignettes of scenes over an extended period. Often this lessens the emotional impact of the scenes because they don't hinge together precisely. We don't see the growth of the character between the scenes, nor do we feel the breadth of their emotions within the scenes. Novels are obviously a much better way of translating a life than a film with it's limited time. A life encompasses many challenges a person must overcome, a film encompasses very few. Biopics tend to move quickly from challenge to challenge or completely ignore some challenges altogether. <br /><br />In a similar way novels that span a breadth of emotional challenges or large span of time tend to suffer in the same way when translated to film.<br /><br />I'm not saying it can't be done. Sometimes it is done very well, but it is very hard. I don't envy the people that are trying to do it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9156215.post-30119662858819667642009-05-30T10:29:03.598+12:002009-05-30T10:29:03.598+12:00Jarratt, I have two commenters who have worked on ...Jarratt, I have two commenters who have worked on a biopic. Hopefully, they'll stop by to share their thoughts on it.<br /><br />My frustration with biopics is usually that they're forced into a conventional story structure.hixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09587761743163619803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9156215.post-44781315862994180852009-05-30T10:26:41.572+12:002009-05-30T10:26:41.572+12:00Debbie and Jarratt, your insights into the use of ...Debbie and Jarratt, your insights into the use of the score and production design to capture the inner life of the source material are dead-on.<br /><br />Sure, the 'look' of the film is the most immediate clue that audiences get as to the mood of a movie. But the score, in some ways, is the most immediate equivalent to the author's voice a movie has. Not the dialogue or the 'what happens next' part of the source material, but the observations and language. Using music to convey intensity and tone - thank you Debbie; weirdly, I had kind of forgotten how amazing music can be.<br /><br />And Jarratt, you're so right: Production design can encapsulate pages and pages of a novel. The Will Smith version of I Am Legend has two or three big sequences set during the fall of New York. While that was all fun, none of it had the impact of his character breaking in to an apartment three years later, and as he looks around we see layers and layers of details that all build up a picture of people trying to deal with a pandemic.<br /><br />Yeah, production design and wardrobe are at their most powerful when they give us a sense of the types of lives these characters lead. And it's even better if they can hint at backstory.hixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09587761743163619803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9156215.post-74634697936386913372009-05-29T10:31:53.386+12:002009-05-29T10:31:53.386+12:00But books aren't the only things that are adapted....But books aren't the only things that are adapted. Real life is just as commonly used and more often than not ruined by film.<br /><br />Documentaries are one thing but biopics are basically adaptations that for the most part suck. So what makes one life story more interesting than another, and how can a life story be told in a compelling way on film (other than documentary).<br /><br />Seriously I find some biopics interesting because I might be too lazy to read about the person, but what I get from the film is no more than I would get from wikipedia. However I almost always can't stand the movies. They chop and change years, have little story direction and are mostly boring.<br /><br />Though Control and 24hr Party People are a couple off the top of my head that weren't bad. <br /><br />Obviously comics are source for adaptations as well, but more often than not a comic movie isn't a direct adaptation of the comic story but rather a fusion of the themes and events from the comic's history made into a new story. Watchmen is an obviously exception but Watchmen is also a completed work.<br /><br />And one more thought. LoTR steals much more liberally from the radio plays than it does from the books. It is more like an adaptation of the radio plays. And I completely disagree about LoTR losing the history in favour of the battles in the films. The visual imagery is thick with history, and there is all that backstory stuff. Places like Osgiliath are more fleshed out in the film, Helm's Deep is given about the same history. Yeah I pretty much disagree on that count.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9156215.post-45071330497337702332009-05-28T15:50:34.620+12:002009-05-28T15:50:34.620+12:00In our now defunct (or perhaps paused) book group ...In our now defunct (or perhaps paused) book group (it was called SLACULA, I can't entirely remember why) we used to read (mostly) classic novels and then watch as many adaptations as we could get our paws on. Mostly they were bad. Often they didn't 'get' the book. But it was usually fun. The most awesome was probably 'Oliver!' - especially when we watched part of it in German.Helen Rickerbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10652318704387476082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9156215.post-23178972901532687862009-05-27T17:58:52.321+12:002009-05-27T17:58:52.321+12:00Good call on Remains of the Day and Howard's End -...Good call on Remains of the Day and Howard's End - those of two awesome adaptations, (and I tend to be disappointed with most Merchant Ivory EM Forster film versions - theyr're not bad, just not as good as the books). As well as great scripting, RotD and HE also have the advantage of being visually stunning and having the powerhouse acting duo of Emma Thompson/Anthony Hopkins.<br /><br />Agreed - the idea of bloggers' group on film adaptations sounds great.debbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01570818912609472263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9156215.post-89079980150542184682009-05-27T13:18:47.735+12:002009-05-27T13:18:47.735+12:00Debbie: I think directors need to ... really ‘get’...Debbie: I think directors need to ... really ‘get’ the book.<br /><br />Yep. I think this sums it all up for me, as does your bit, Hix, about not being afraid to create fresh scenes.<br /><br />By "get" the book I would say the director needs to be able to say what the book is about. What is the message, or the theme or the conflict that the plot and characters illustrate. If they have a super clear idea of this then they can edit the source material and create new scenes and stay true to the original.<br /><br />I'm not big on most of the movies discussed on this blog, so I will shift to more comfortable ground. I have always tremendously admired Ruth Prawer Jhabvala's adaptations. She did Howards End and Remains of the Day (among others). She is super sensitive to the essence of the books she works with, and capable of great editing, and additions in her screenplays because she "gets" the books she works with.<br /><br />(Actually, this strikes me as quite a neat idea for a blogger's group - everyone reads a book and sees the movie and then picks over the results.)<br /><br />I have to agree though, that there are some places that only a book can really go and that making a movie version of The Golden Bowl or Ulysses is really a bit pointless because it is SO interior. The best that could be done here is really a more poetic kind of film-making that isn't interested in story.<br /><br />I can think of one example of this books vs movies thing. The English Patient has a scene where Kristen Scott Thomas leaves Ralph Fiennes and as she turns to go she bangs her head on a low hanging bar. In the book this is really a fantastic scene because so much is written into it, but in the movie it almost seems like they forgot to edit out a blooper. Nothing against The English Patient by the way... that scene always stuck out for me though as an example of the book working better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9156215.post-539970481154001742009-05-27T09:45:25.442+12:002009-05-27T09:45:25.442+12:00Debbie, this is great stuff. I will respond more f...Debbie, this is great stuff. I will respond more fully this afternoon.hixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09587761743163619803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9156215.post-45450786382139940712009-05-26T12:01:20.685+12:002009-05-26T12:01:20.685+12:00Schlinder’s List is another adaptation that I thin...Schlinder’s List is another adaptation that I think exceeds the book it was adapted from. It takes a far broader view than the book and becomes a more powerful film for showing more of what was going on in the holocaust without lessening the impact of Schlinder’s character and what he did.<br /><br />It’s hard to define exactly what makes a great adaptation rather like it’s hard to pinpoint what makes a brilliant film. It’s usually about the all the elements combining to make something great rather than just a great script, direction or acting.<br /><br />However, one thing I notice about most adaptations that I love is that the score if often fantastic and captures the feel and mood of the book. Fight Club soundtrack is perfect for the tone of the book and the Pixies playing at the end where they stand watching the buildings collapse is pure movie awesome. Likewise there are bits in the Shawshank Redemption score that send a shiver up my spine every time I hear them and I must have watched that movie over twenty times now.<br /><br />I think directors need to both really ‘get’ the book but also have enough guts to deviate from it and make their vision, not just a paint-by-numbers version of the book. Darabont seems to adapt Stephen King better than anyone else. Shawshank, Green Mile and The Mist are all movies that are really about the characters and showing not only the deplorable cruelty that humans are capable of but also the importance of the meaningful relationships people form. <br /><br />I think great actors are able to get a lot of the character on screen without everything about the character being shown on screen. Brooks must only have about 10 minutes of screen time in Shawshank, but you care so much about him and feel more deeply for his suffering than a lot of lead characters in other films. Casting becomes very important but a lot of adaptations fall down by rigidly casting based on the character’s physical appearance or worse yet, their star power ( like Tom Hanks in Da Vinci Code - even without the roadkill hairdo, he was so wrong for the part) rather than casting an actor who will make the audience care about and believe in the character. Morgan Freeman as Red is a perfect example of great casting not worrying about physical appearance. He must be the king of voiceover and without his performance, I don’t know if Shawshank would be a masterpiece.<br /><br />Also I notice a lot of great adaptations tend to be when the screenplay is written by the director. Maybe it helps the movie stay true to one cohesive vision?debbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01570818912609472263noreply@blogger.com