Darabont working on Farenheit 451! (1 Viewer)

[Terrell]

I understand Darabont is working on Bradbury's Farenheit 451. He wants to get it to the screen while Bradbury is still around to see it. I have never read this book, but have heard many rave about it. Looks like another great movie to look forward to. Anyone read the books that can give some impressions and their thoughts on the books and how this would translate to the big scree?

 

[Michael Dehaven]

Darabont worries me as each of his films has increased the Ham factor exponentially.

Shawshank Redemption= 5 heavy handed hams

The Grenn Mile= 25 heavy handed hams

The Majestic= 100 heavy handed hams

There is so much ham in his productions now that there is no room for actual story development. His manipulation of his audience has crossed into violation. ;>}

 

[Terrell]

I know it has to do with a character that's a fireman. His name is Montag and he burns books. His life is changed by an innocent young girl who shows him how empty his life really is. I also know it's set in the future. That's the extent of m knowledge. I'm intrigued mainly because I've heard so much about the book.

As for Darabont, I've never been a huge follower of him. I'm just glad to see another great book brought to the silver screen. Looks like another damn book I'll have to read.

 

[Michael Dehaven]

Well, the Great François Truffaut directed this 1951 novel, my birth year by the way. There is a good dvd from Image of this version. It is now oop but copies are still floating around, pick it up if you can.

 

[Ryan Peter]

Terrell, read the book, it'll be 100x better than the movie-to-be. It's not that long either. If you don't read, Truffaut did a movie based on the book in 1966. I'd say this book/story is out of Darabont's league, bigtime. Spielberg could do a good job with it though.

 

[Terrell]

Thanks for the info. As for reading the book, I'll definitely have to give it a go. It'll have to wait. I'm just about to start LOTR. The Hobbit will be my first book.

 

[Bill J]

I read the book years ago and it's by far one of the best science fiction books I've ever read. For those who don't know, it's about a society in the distant future where books are banned. It's considered a crime to own a book so they are burned.

I enjoyed the book so much because it was written like 50-60 years ago and some of the aspects of society and technology are strikingly similar to what we have today.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Terrell, you know that I'm a big LOTR fan. I've read the books many times. I find them deeply moving.
That being said, 3 books truly changed my outlook on life as soon as I read them: Animal Farm, 1984, and Fahrenheit 451.
The original film is okay, although it's been some time.
Anyway, my advice is to skip the LOTR/Hobbit till after 451. It's shorter anyway and an amazing read.
As for Darabont doing this film, I don't know. Not really his type of material, he seems to avoid darker films. Fincher could nail this one, IMHO. I think Kubrick could have run with it as well. Soderbergh in his minimalist style (Limey) might get it right - lots of handheld work maybe. Just can't think of any other directors right now that work in the mood of that book.
Truffaut actually strikes me as one of the better fits for the material as well. Montag's world always stuck me as being a bit existential and the film should be able to carry over that emotional detachment as well, without losing sympathy for Montag. THX-1138 would be very close to it IMHO in terms of style/mood/effect.

 

[Ryan Peter]

My Spielberg pick is based on A.I.. Otherwise, going at it existentially, I'd say Lars von Trier could suffice. Maybe he could blend Dogme with regular cinema techniques, or simply go back to regular cinema since his golden heart trilogy is done. He'll need to incorporate the sci fi parts which don't really agree with dogme's origins.

 

[DaveBB]

Hasn't this project been bouncing around Hollywood for years? For the longest time wasn't Mel Gibson going to do the film?

 

[Ted Todorov]

Yet Another Pointless Remake. Go see Truffaut's film (which is in English, BTW).
Is there really so little imagination left in Hollywood that we are burried by pointless remakes? How about adapting one of the many, many great SF books out there that have never been filmed? Fred Hoyle's The Black Cloud, and his October The First is Too Late? Isaac Asimov's The Gods Themselves his Robot & Foundation novels? That is just a slight scratch on the surface.
Come on guys, do something new for a change! I know it's more difficult than just showing the studio execs the original movie and telling them that yours will be exactly the same, only it will star Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts and have more action -- but still, make an effort, please!
Ted

 

[Terrell]

There's not much left to do in Hollywood that's wholly original. But your point is clear. However, if this movie is depicted right, I'd look forward to seeing it. As for Darabont, he didn't say he was directing in the piece that I saw on him. He just said he was gonna try to get it brought to the big screen. So maybe he's just trying to get the project going.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Ryan, Von Trier is even better. Good call.

Zentropa really has the 451 mood I think. Leopold reminds me a lot of Montag actually, especially his situation.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Truffaut's attempt at Farenheit 451 was (I think) his first attempt at an English language movie. Personally, I think it's rather lacklustre and generally the critics haven't been kind to it. It's neither flesh nor fish nor fowl. The movie could be a fairly thought-provoking 'ideas' movie, or an action movie or a study of the relationship between official duty and a higher moral code. Arguably, Truffaut would have been better at the last of the three, but instead went for something which was a mixture of all of them, and it didn't really work. However, a disaster by Truffaut is a good film by most other director's standards, and it's worth seeing if you haven't already done so.

The book is a curious piece, which neatly anticipated our current concerns about dumbing down. Set in the near future, literacy has been made illegal - there are books, but they are picture books. Knowledge is acquired through rote learning. The main home entertainment is provided by TV screens the size of walls, with more affluent homes having surround sound and vision. Montag, the hero of the book, is a fireman - that is, he belongs to a group whose job is to seek out old-style books and burn them ('Farenheit 451' is the temperature at which paper ignites). Gradually he becomes disillusioned and seeks a way of escape.

I cannot see Darabont doing this movie, but there again, we may be pleasantly surprised. If anyone had said that the director of Bad Taste would one day direct Lord of the Rings to great acclaim, would you have believed them?

 

[Eric Peterson]

I was just looking on IMDB a matter of a few hours ago, trying to see what was going on with this film. There used to be a listing for it underneath Mel Gibson, but it appears to have been deleted.

The book is without a doubt, the best book that I have ever read and I would love to see a new adapation with the proper treatment and with Bradbury involved. I own the Truffaut version and have seen it several times, but there is something missing that I can't quite put my finger on.

I'm not sure that Darabont is the man, but as long as Bradbury is involved it should turn out alright. I'll give another vote for Fincher though, but his schedule is busy for quite some time.

 

[Bill Huelbig]

I'd like to put in a good word for the 1966 Truffaut version. It presents a future world in a most unusual way, differently than it's ever been done before or since. And the music by Bernard Herrmann is one of the most beautiful film scores I've ever heard. Whoever remakes the movie should use Herrmann's music again, the way Martin Scorsese did in his remake of CAPE FEAR.

I also remember reading that Ray Bradbury approved of the Truffaut film. He said the final scenes in the railroad yard always make him cry.

--Bill

 

[Jack Briggs]

I must also put in a good word for Truffaut's marvelous 1966 effort: It's an amazingly cinematic piece of work, one that betters the material upon which it is based. Ray Bradbury's work possessed nothing of the subtext to be found in the superior Truffaut film.

To elaborate a bit on what Seth was saying:

Originally, Ray Bradbury wrote a novella called The Fireman, which was first published in Horace Gold's seminal science-fiction magazine, the original Galaxy. Reaction to the shorter work was so positive that Bradbudy expanded on it and sold the resulting novel to Bantam Books as Fahrenheit 451 (its origins, therefore, are very similar to Theodore Sturgeon's brilliant More Than Human, which itself began life as a novella called Baby Is Three).

So, given our era of short attention spans and the quick, easy CGI fix, I am not hopeful about a new film adaptation of the Bradbury book. The core of the author's message--beautifully expressed and expanded upon in the Truffaut film--may not come through at all. Instead, we'll get tons of SFX. I fear.

 

[Bill Huelbig]

You said it all, Jack. I remember hearing how Mel Gibson condemned the Truffaut version as being slow and boring. You can be sure his version would've had lots of CGI action. For what it's worth, I'll take Truffaut's FAHRENHEIT 451 over BRAVEHEART any day, and I liked BRAVEHEART.

By the way, do you mind if I ask you a personal question? Where are the posts describing your experiences at the Egyptian Theater over the past few weeks? I haven't been able to find any.

--Bill

 

[Jack Briggs]

That's because I haven't started a thread about seeing the film at The Egyptian--I simply mentioned it in another thread (and I forget which one).

I went to three screenings in all, bringing my commercial-theater exposure to 2001 to sixty-one viewings since 1968. (When all other formats are factored in, including the times I watched a jointly owned 16mm 'Scope print of the film, I have absolutely no idea how many times I've seen 2001--easily in the hundreds.)

Perhaps I'll critique The Egyptian's presentation in a new thread in the next day or so.

 

[SteveGon]

One of the more interesting things about the Truffaut version was the lack of onscreen credits. If I remember correctly, all the credits were expressed to the viewer via a voiceover. I wonder if Darabount, or anyone else for that matter, would have the nerve to do that?