Films/DVD Asylum

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

70.243.200.19

This Post Has Been Edited by the Author

In Reply to: RE: "The BOOK had the same ending." Sure, blame the author... nt posted by clarkjohnsen on December 17, 2007 at 11:49:53

...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 reedited and handed to fellow Director Rex Ingram then the 2 1/2 hour version which he had edited was cut again by a less talented editor to bring the running time close to it's current 1 hour 40 minute length. Unfortunately, many of the secondary stories 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 the 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

Edits: 12/17/07

Follow Ups: