Re: [mythsoc] Public response
- In a message dated 12/31/2002 7:45:22 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> I've never heard, or read of, someone saying "The book was aI *loved* the film The English Patient, and was very underwhelmed by the
> disappointment after seeing the movie."
book. Also, as I just posted here today, I liked the film version of Tuck
Everlasting better than the book. I saw those films before reading the
books; I'll never know if I would have responded differently if I'd read the
books first. But I never would have read either of those novels if I
*hadn't* seen the films.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Sparkdog wrote:
>Does anyone have examples of film adaptations they would point to and say,And when someone, whom Sparkdog did not deign to identify, named "The Hunt
>"THAT is how an adaptation should be done?"
for Red October," Sparkdog replied:
>I think that's a good choice. Yet if you look at the way the book isSparkdog, you didn't allow much time for a flood of replies, and you've
>written, there are just as many liberties taken as with LOTR--pages and pages
>of technical matter.
>The fact that we can't come up with a flood of examples tells me an accurate
>film version of such a complex book is nearly impossible.
changed the terms of the question. You first asked for a good adaption
("how [it] should be done"), and now you say that an _accurate_ adaptation
of a complex book is difficult.
As someone (JP Massar, IIRC) already pointed out, nobody is asking for a
perfect replica of Tolkien's book on film. We recognize that's impossible
(and I expect it'd be dreary anyway); cuts and simplifications are
expected. What Carl Hostetter and I have repeatedly said we wanted was
something true to Tolkien's spirit. That would be a _good_ adaptation by
the terms of your original question, however many liberties were taken,
however much it was not accurate to the text, it would be a _good_ adaptation.
It so happens that I've already provided an example, before you asked the
original question! (Though if you're relying on digests, you might not
then have seen it.) In a post addressed to you yesterday, labeled "Movie
Interloper", I wrote: "After Tolkien's Arda, there is no fantasy creation I
revere more than Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast. The set design of the recent
BBC adaptation was not my vision. But within the freedom of artistic
creativity it was unquestionably true to Peake's vision, and I was
content." I would actually say much the same about most (not all) of
Jackson's visual design, just not any of his script.
All around I really liked the BBC Gormenghast, even the script, even though
the differences from the books in tone were frustrating, such changes as
were irritating were the direct and clear result of necessary compression;
they weren't gratuitous like Jackson's. Also, much of the acting in
Gormenghast was fabulous; the acting in Jackson was often very good, but
nothing revelatory. The BBC's Cora and Clarice were far eerier than any
hulking Jackson Nazgul.
That's one example. Here's three better ones, movies which made major
changes to the book yet were absolutely dead-on in conveying the spirit:
1. "The Princess Bride" (especially in the frame story, replacing the
book's introduction and "editorial notes")
2. "Cold Comfort Farm" (Schlesinger, 1995)
3. "The Battle of the Sexes" (Crichton, 1959) actually improves on its
source, James Thurber's "The Catbird Seat", by entirely changing the
setting and some of the characters, while conveying the spirit
perfectly. Only the film's lousy title is a bust.
More from Sparkdog:
>I've never heard, or read of, someone saying "The book was aWell, you have now. My usual reaction to a first-time reading of a book,
>disappointment after seeing the movie."
after seeing a good movie of it, is a severe sense of disappointment, even
if I can tell that I'd have liked the book better had I read it first. My
first encounter with Dickens on the page, at the age of 12 in the wake of
great enthusiasm for the musical "Oliver!", was such a shock that it put me
off Dickens permanently. If I were a 12-year-old LOTR-film enthusiast
turning to Tolkien's book today, I wonder if I'd have the same reaction.
>I think I would believe such a character in a novel, but would shade him asIt may be more interesting, and some have indeed found Tolkien's Aragorn
>they do in the film. I don't think it's a radical change, it's just an added
>dimension that adds to audience participation. In a film, to see a man
>totally ready to take the crown and then fighting for it is good, but seeing
>a man wary of taking the crown, who then participates in the fight, and in
>doing so gradually becomes ready to take the crown is more interesting.
boring (but then those people find most of Tolkien boring), but this is not
what Tolkien wanted to write. Changing a man who is tested and ready, and
doubts only whether he will succeed, into a man who has to gird himself out
of shrinking from the task, is a subtle change but an exceedingly radical one.
>I guess it's a case of Jackson and company needing to compress things THEIRThe only problem with that is in their choice of what to emphasize and what
>way; I don't know how someone could put the effort into these movies without
>putting his/her own imprimature on them, removing things they never cared
>for, emphasizing the things they liked over things that bored them.
to omit: "The failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and
in the intrusion of unwarranted material owing to not perceiving where the
core of the original lies. He has cut the parts of the story upon which
its characteristic and peculiar tone principally depends, showing a
preference for fights." That was written by J.R.R. Tolkien in 1958, on a
film scenario submitted to him (Letter no. 210). Other parts of his
criticism of that scenario would not apply to Jackson; but those words are
- In a message dated 1/1/3 3:45:22 AM, Sparkdog wrote:
<<I can't even recall once where a movie version affected the public's
to the book. I've never heard, or read of, someone saying "The book was a
disappointment after seeing the movie."
>>You're interpreting "response" in a very narrow way -- assuming it only
refers to evaluation (ie, not liking the book as much as the movie, etc.). I
think what was suggested is that the movie will determine how a reader will
ever after see the characters and background in the book. To give an example,
at last year's Mythcon there was a painting of Frodo and Sam in the art show
that depicted them as looking essentially like Elijah Wood and Sean Astin. It
is entirely possible that readers who come to the book after the movie will
be unable to imagine those characters as looking like anything other than
those actors, and that this will eventually become a convention -- a built-in
tradition in Tolkien illustration, perhaps. The movie will definitely have
restricted the potential scope of a reader's spontaneous imaginative response
to Tolkien's words.
- On Wednesday, January 1, 2003, at 01:36 PM, alexeik@... wrote:
> at last year's Mythcon there was a painting of Frodo and Sam in theAs Arden Smith will attest, I took one look at that painting and said:
> art show
> that depicted them as looking essentially like Elijah Wood and Sean
"And so it begins" (in my best G'Kar voice).
- At 01:43 PM 1/1/2003 -0500, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:
>As Arden Smith will attest, I took one look at that painting and said:When did that phrase, or words close to it, become a tired old film
>"And so it begins" (in my best G'Kar voice).
cliche? J-Theoden says almost exactly the same thing before the J-battle
of J-Helm's Deep, and IIRC J-Gandalf says something like it at the end of
- <<David Bratman wrote: All around I really liked the BBC Gormenghast....>>
The BBC did Gormenghast rather well because they did not approach it as one
might approach a fantasy novel, they took it as a costume drama and the BBC
does them better than anyone. Christopher Lee was also in that.
<<Sparkdog wrote: I've never heard, or read of, someone saying "The book was
a disappointment after seeing the movie.">>
Dracula. It dawned on me when I remembered Christopher Lee. As someone who
likes horror films more than any other genre -- and I don't mean this modern
rubbish with knives and chainsaws and popcorn, but proper horror films where
the bad guy leers or laughs archly and the set is used for at least half a
dozen other films -- I had been watching the Hammer horror films since I was
five. When I came to buy the book Dracula, when I was about nine, I found
it the worst kind of impenetrable nonsense. Diaries? Where did the diaries
come from? After watching what is probably the version which most closely
conforms to the book (I am told) -- Francis Ford Coppola's version -- I
tried to read it again and failed in the first few pages. Then in 2001 I
tried again and faired little better. I have seen countless Dracula films
but I have never seen page 30 of that book I bought when I was nine. It is
approximately six feet away from me now and still looks brand new.
I cannot say whether I would have been able to read the book if I had never
seen any Dracula films -- if indeed that's actually possible -- but I know
that my impressions of the story have been so set that I cannot accept the
written version. I find it both possible and likely that these films will,
far from encouraging other readers of LotR, actually discourage them. And
I'm in agreement with David Bratman in that the films will taint the
interpretation of everyone else. I had seen the LotR cartoon before reading
the book and even years later I found those images springing to my mind,
especially during the Nazgul bed-hitting scene.
I hope the artwork produced independently of the films does come to echo
them, that would be quite tragic and artistically redundant
- spark654@... [spark654@...] wrote:
> In a message dated 12/31/02 10:16:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,I'm coming out of lurking to ask sparkdog to articulate for us in a bit more
> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> > > the existence of a movie in no way affects the books already
> > > out there.
> > But it DOES affect =the response of the public= to the books already out
> > there.
> I don't see this. Again, "The book was better than the movie" is a modern
depth what he means by 'the existence of a movie /in no way/ [emphasis mine,
of course] affects the books already out there.' So far, I've seen the
assertion, the denial of the assertion (with an example of how the movie does
affect the book) which would seem to deflate sparkdog's original thesis, and
then a denial of the denial, but again without any actual defense -- just
Sparkdog, please elucidate what you mean by 'the existence of a movie in no
way affects the books already out there.' By itself, that statement is so
large in its scope as to be almost meaningless.
Matthew Winslow mwinslow@... http://x-real.firinn.org/
"Poets have been mysteriously silent on the topic of cheese."
Currently reading: J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century