Films/DVD Asylum

Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

While I would've loved to see the 8 hour version of Greed, there's a reason ...

Posted by Audiophilander on December 17, 2007 at 23:31:00:
...why MGM took the film away from Erich Von Stroheim when he wanted to release his page for page filmed interpretation of Frank Norris's novel McTeague. A four hour version personally edited by Von Stroheim was also removed from his control and handed to fellow Director Rex Ingram who re-edited Greed into a 2 1/2 hour version which was cut again by a less talented editor at the request of the studio to bring the running time closer to it's current 1 hour 40 minute length. Unfortunately, many of the subplots and intimate details of the character's lives were lost, but in spite of that the movie doesn't bog down, get sidetracked or lose it's central theme and with it the audience's attention.
My point is that Literary Naturalism can be a tedious exercise in communicating ideas regardless of a film's length; that's why adapting a novel to the screen, especially a literary novel that is imbued with strong allegorical content, is rarely the most suitable candidate for conveyance to the screen in a literal fashion, exactly as written.
An author's vision may communicate perfectly from the pages of his/her book, where the absorbing of ideas is completely under the control of the contemplative reader, but literary cinema requires a specific investment of time and an immediate emotional connection. Films, especially films based on literary works, demand one's full and undivided attention which is complicated by extraneous distractions on screen and off.
Literary fiction which ends on a poignant allegorical message can communicate a strong sense of satisfaction, but that same scene in a filmed interpretation of the author's work might convey an unresolved solution to a central theme that leaves the audience frustrated or confused and trivializes the irony that jumped forth from the pages of the novel so successfully.
Finally, to make a long story even longer, does any of this suggest that we should blame the author of the novel for the film interpretation? I've seen nothing to suggest that, but the criticisms I've read and share do point to the fact that literary and film conventions are entirely different animals. IMHO, film should be approached differently, not literally, if success is to be achieved from the source material. Also, for all intent and purpose, film seems to be the tougher beast to tame because so many variables are involved, but that's a topic for another thread.
G'night all! :O)
Cheers,
AuPh