Jack Briggs
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 1999
- Messages
- 16,805
To get back to my point:
Film adapations of novels and short stories should use the source material as an inspirational starting point. Otherwise, what's the use of simply making a visual replication of another artist's work? The director, therefore, should use the source material to transform it into his or her own vision of a story.
That's what Stanley Kubrick did. (Ah, that's right. You can't stand his work.)
Harper Lee's fine novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, is a touching and bittersweet story, but doesn't really rank as a "great literature." Yet in making its transition to film, it became great. Mulligan shaped the story into his own vision, and the resulting film is close to being great art.
Same with Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. What began as a nicely written little morality tale of a novella and popular entertainment became a serious work of art under the aegis of Truffaut. The director broadened the novella's emphasis on action into a film that made a much deeper statement about the human willingness to submit to despotic, authoritarian regimes.
And then there's the novel The Verdict. It was such a forgettable piece of potboiler paperback fiction I can't even remember the author's name. But the film took the novel's basic character and plot and elevated the story into another timeless statement about the human urge to rise against all odds in order to stand for what's right.
For a filmmaker to adhere rigidly, scene for scene, to a novelist's work is to shortchange the audience. I'd rather stick with the book then. But when a filmmaker uses the novel as a springboard to advance his or her own ideas and vision, beautiful things can happen.
It's a joy to see a mediocre piece of potboiler, best-seller fiction transformed into something truly meaningful.
Not that Journey to the Center of the Earth is high art, but it's a joyful entertainment in its own right.
In short, I don't much respect blueprint-rigid adapations. Just look at the Psycho "remake." It may be a shot-for-shot redo of the Hitchcock classic, but where's the artistry?
Easy: Ain't none there.
Film adapations of novels and short stories should use the source material as an inspirational starting point. Otherwise, what's the use of simply making a visual replication of another artist's work? The director, therefore, should use the source material to transform it into his or her own vision of a story.
That's what Stanley Kubrick did. (Ah, that's right. You can't stand his work.)
Harper Lee's fine novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, is a touching and bittersweet story, but doesn't really rank as a "great literature." Yet in making its transition to film, it became great. Mulligan shaped the story into his own vision, and the resulting film is close to being great art.
Same with Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. What began as a nicely written little morality tale of a novella and popular entertainment became a serious work of art under the aegis of Truffaut. The director broadened the novella's emphasis on action into a film that made a much deeper statement about the human willingness to submit to despotic, authoritarian regimes.
And then there's the novel The Verdict. It was such a forgettable piece of potboiler paperback fiction I can't even remember the author's name. But the film took the novel's basic character and plot and elevated the story into another timeless statement about the human urge to rise against all odds in order to stand for what's right.
For a filmmaker to adhere rigidly, scene for scene, to a novelist's work is to shortchange the audience. I'd rather stick with the book then. But when a filmmaker uses the novel as a springboard to advance his or her own ideas and vision, beautiful things can happen.
It's a joy to see a mediocre piece of potboiler, best-seller fiction transformed into something truly meaningful.
Not that Journey to the Center of the Earth is high art, but it's a joyful entertainment in its own right.
In short, I don't much respect blueprint-rigid adapations. Just look at the Psycho "remake." It may be a shot-for-shot redo of the Hitchcock classic, but where's the artistry?
Easy: Ain't none there.
