Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by Harmoia on November 17, 2004 at 13:11:33

In Reply to: Bambi B, in a post below, brings up an important point posted by Victor Khomenko on November 17, 2004 at 10:12:42:

See my post below, where I addressed similar points.

(BTW, POB is hardly Tostoy. But it is quality writing of its type.)

The two mediums are so different, the stories must be told differently. I find people often mistale "plot" for "story". I also find that people don't know how to read the visual storytelling, and often miss the details of the films that *are* there from the book. You have to look, but there are scores of clues in M&C that portray the compexities of the characters and their relationship. But Weir is not going to underline it for you.

A literal adaptation of a book is usually a stale and lifeless thing, absent of poetry and metaphor, containing incident and dialogue from the original, but lacking "soul".

For me, M&C the movie exists in parallel to the beloved books. It adds to my enjoyment, neither supplanting nor interferring with my love for the books. M&C must be judges first how well it succeeds as cinema. IMO, the films also succeeds in capturing much of the feel of the books. But as I said below, no 2 hour film can emoby the breadth and complexity of 20 volumes of dense prose. Weir elected to tell one aspect of the stories, and tell it well.

Vast, complex works can hardly be compellingly explored in 2 hours.