Books and Movies

[butterfly]

Probably no one here actually needs to read this, but hey, I'm compiling that 'pet peeves' list.

Whenever I think of a book turning into a movie, The Princess Bride comes to mind. Now, the movie and the book are both excellent, but they're also quite different in parts.

The big thing? The book and the screenplay were written by the same person (S. Morgenstern being a work of fiction). The writer who knew the story most intimately and knew what needed to be kept and what didn't. Looking at the difference in treatment when the writer is the same should let anyone know how much more things will change when the screenwriter/director is different than the author.

Different eyes see different things.

The movie of The Lord of the Rings is, and can only ever be, an adaption of Tolkien's work. This is LotR as seen through Peter Jackman's (and the countless others who created the movie) eyes. It is not Tolkien's LotR. But no one is ever reading Tolkien's LotR - they're reading their LotR as seen through the eyes of Tolkien.

The only way to satisfy every purist (for they all get upset about different things) would be to film every shot exactly as Tolkien described it. Long speeches. Poems. Songs. Tom. And it would be a really long, really sucky movie. Movies aren't books. When you make an adaption and stay too close to the letter, you run the chance of missing the spirit (Harry Potter thus far comes to mind).

Shot-by-shot misses the point (which the color adaption of Psycho showed). Every medium works differently. And treatments vary depending on the culture of the time and place.

Changes will be, have to be, made. And the mere fact of a change is not an evil. Are some things in PJ's LotR not done as well as they are in Tolkien's? Probably. But some things in the movie version are better - Boromir comes to mind. And things have to be condensed - for example, it's silly to spend a long time on a bit character when you can be using that moment to introduce a major one. You don't have internal monologues, so some characters seem more emotional than they do in the books - their feelings need to show on their face, whereas in the book, they would just be implied.

It's different because books and movies are different. They're both art, both creation, but they're different forms. You don't draw anime the same way you sketch a landscape.

Comments

[therisingmoon.livejournal.com]

Funny that you mention the Princess Bride because I'm watching it on tape right now. *g*

I never read the Lord of the Rings books, nor have I seen the movies, but I understand what you're dring at because I've read several books that have been turned into movies and the books by far, are much more superb than the movie version (ie Cat in the Hat, Harry Potter, Chocolat, the Virgin Suicides, etc.)

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

It's a great movie. It's a brilliant book. The Princess Bride shows what works in film and in a novel - it's an excellent template to look at when deciding what sorts of things to keep in a movie and what sorts to change or leave out.

I adore the LotR movies beyond the telling of it - not anywhere near as fond of the books. Love the ideas, hate the prose. Love the characters, hate the prose. Love the world, hate... well, yes, you see what I'm getting at.

There are movie adaptions that suck, there are movie adaptions that are quite good but not good enough, and there are movie adaptions that are just as good but in a different way. And there are so many ways to categorize the various movies.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Shot-by-shot misses the point. Every medium works differently.

That's absolutely true. Which is why I disagree with your assessment on how to satisfy the "purist".

What we're talking about is not adapting the book to the screen, but rather the story. The truly faithful LotR adaptation is not a shot-by-shot adaptation, because Tolkien wrote LotR for print media, not for screen.

The truly faithful adaptation requires exhuming the Professor's remains, performing a ressurrection, and then having him supervise the adaptation.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

*giggles*

Right, well, as long as you think that the actors can handle the smell, I say go for it.

[odditycollector.livejournal.com]

The big thing? The book and the screenplay were written by the same person.
Um, no, actually, they weren't. The screenplay was written by the guy who put together the abridged version of the book. So it might be fair to say that the 'Good Parts' novel and the screenplay both count as Goldman's vision of the same story, but it was Morgenstern's story, originally.

That aside, I do agree with what you're saying, although I still hold that TTT would have been better if it followed the book closer. Or something, anyway.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Actually, Morgenstern didn't exist. William Goldman made him up. I remember when I first found that out, I felt so betrayed. It was like discovering that there was no Santa Clause all over again.

And now I feel horrible for telling you that. I was mad at the person who accidentally let it slip to me - because I'd had this great vision of S. Morgenstern and that world and... it's just a great work of fiction.

[odditycollector.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. That actually makes things much more interesting. (And sneaky, but I suppose I should know better than to trust anyone who writes fiction.)

Although, I now feel very dumb for bringing it up. Like one of those who got offended at the 'Legolas Dies!' icons for deeper reasons.

And what do you mean, no Santa Clause? (Pfft. I'm not *that* gullible, you should know. I met him once as a kid - there's photographs for evidence and everything...)

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I only found out myself a few years ago (and I felt dumb at the time, too - he did a great job in making it all feel real).

But yeah, it makes the story even more interesting, because he's critizing and praising and talking about his own work - he can take on the editing and publishing industry, and he can write a story that defies genre. It's a lesson in looking past authorial intent. Which is probably why I'm so blithe about doing that with Tolkien. The author's point of view is just that - a point of view.

[livinglaurel.livejournal.com]

I remember when I found out in an interview the book started when he told bedtime stories to his daughters, and they wanted one with a princess and a bride. And I was like, "WHAT are you talking about? The story was for JASON!" Oop.

moi

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Hee.

[oyceter]

Word. I think I had it good because I used to love the books and reread them up until maybe high school, and I haven't reread them since. So I've got great fond memories and a good enough grasp that I can pick up on the plot and the minor characters, but not enough attachment (or memory!) to care or notice most of the decisions.

I love PJ's Boromir, who I never liked in Tolkien, and I think I like his Faramir more than Tolkien too. And I will forever be thankful for the movie because there are glorious shots and scenes that will now be in my head whenever I decide to reread.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Boromir is so wonderfully sympathetic in the movies - you get all the same bad decisions, but you also get why he made them. And I, too, like Faramir - he grows, which is something he didn't need to do in the books.

[imation23.livejournal.com]

You read my mind - I was going to post on exactly the same thing. The short version? WORD.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

That's always a cool thing to hear.