A Literature and Movie Rant
Matt is hosting a lively discussion on literature, movies, and specificity right now. I chimed in and decided that since my comment was post-length, I would share it here, as well. Perhaps I can get Jessica riled enough to get her to comment. :)
Here goes:
To think that because you’ve watched The Princess Bride you have experienced Goldman’s book is an excellent example of how a movie can be a disservice to a book. The movie captures the same sort of humor, but it is not fully an identical humor. The book and the movie are completely different animals and should each be appreciated separately as different and unrelated entities.
Books and movies are completely different mediums. Movies based on literature (as opposed to bestseller fiction) are always more condensed and less subtle. A director whose movie takes on the plot and title of a piece of literature should be duty-bound to capture as much as possible the author’s message and the author’s means of communicating that message.
The only movie I’ve ever seen that actually accomplishes that is the A&E Pride and Prejudice, but even that has its weak points (the Darcy scene where he swims through the pool is ridiculous and only there to signal that the viewer is now supposed to like him). The latest Pride and Prejudice takes the title, takes the character names, takes the general plot and tells a completely different story with it. Its message, its themes, its method of communication is completely un-Jane-Austen. Jane Austen mocks chick flicks; the movie is a chick flick. It’s like they thought her sarcasm was serious. It’s a good chick flick; it should not have Jane Austen’s name on it at all.
A movie being a good movie does not necessarily mean it was a good rendition of the book. In my opinion, filmmakers should stick to stories that are written for film — or, as in Clueless and others like it, take a classic plot, recreate it for film, and change the title.
And, just for clarification, Shakespeare adaptions are a unique category because Shakespeare was writing screenplays; it was meant to be portrayed and adapted. Moreover, watching several adaptions of the same play is a good way to see how much a change of tone and expression can change the meaning of written lines.
My favorite example of this is To Kill a Mockingbird which is frequently recommended as a great movie. It may be a wonderful movie but it is not anywhere near as wonderful as the book.
You’re absolutely right Cindy. This book report clearly shows the differences between the book and the movie. Ugh, Hollywood.
Thanks for keeping things literary, bro. :)
Yeah I’m pretty classy.
Another great movie version of a book is the BBC version of Brideshead Revisited, though there too you come across scenes that delete crucial lines for no obvious reason are deleted and would have taken an extra three seconds to include.
Movies are truly a diferent medium and the people who built the movie industry were not the people who built the English dramatic industry – including Shakespeare, that shrewd businessman.
Good thinking and fun to read.