deconstruction Books vs. movies
We have all been brought up in unique ways that shape our interests, and it is those subtle environmental distinctions that form how we interpret literature. “Deconstruction aims to remind us of the arbitrary and unstable nature of language by taking text apart.” This type of theoretical stance helps in weeding out the works that fail the test of entertaining the reader. The problem that was apparent in the article I read titled ‘Books Vs. Movies’ was the fact that people that are fans of the book tend to be harsh critics when it comes to the movie’s interpretation of the novel, comic book, video game, biographical works etc. For example, when a scene is left out or a character doesn’t die like they do in the book, the fan is outraged. They sit down at their chairs all night writing hateful comments about how unfaithful the movie was to one of their all-time favorite epic novels. Even though screenwriters and directors do change events in the plot of these epic stories, it is not to confuse or enrage the audience in any way.
This brings up an interesting problem that movies have to deal with when trying to create a visual spectacle out of an already widely read piece of fiction or nonfiction: creating a storyline within the movie that a person who has not read the book can follow with the ultimate goal of trying to reach out not only to the audience that has already read the book, but also to an audience that is clueless to the plot in its entirety. In fiction novels the story can take up vast amounts of one’s personal time. The person who reads them falls victim to becoming another statistic in the never-ending additions and subtractions from the literary canon. It makes sense that the people that have gone as far as to interpret the book should be the more scrupulous critics.
Kennedy wrote:
When I showed the class the short video of that young man giving his dissenting view on the inconsistencies that Harry Potter 4 the movie had with the textual version I wanted to get arise out of the class. It seems that every time Harry Potter is brought up in class a fierce debate ensues. I was really impressed by all the comments that all of you made during the class period. I really enjoyed listening to all of your opinions on the subject movies vs. books. The reason I wanted to show you the clip first was to see how all of you would deconstruct any particular piece. Also I wanted to get the input of those that had read the book and seen the movie and see if the arguments that the boy made would parallel those made by those of the class that wanted to defend Harry’s textual adventure against the motion picture version. I think the class as a whole touched on most of the key issues at hand. One thing I thought that was interesting that wasn’t brought up was that society is impatient. In such a demanding society, people have to get information as quickly as possible so that their “precious” time is not wasted with arbitrary annoyances. This includes such menial activities as reading and actually interpreting the piece of literature to create a more personal experience that elevates your level of thought. Alas, it is not my place to ridicule these people that have no love for a good book, but I do hope they see the error in their ways some day. Lastly, I want to ask the class if it believes that there is a movie cannon and what should be the criteria for a movie to get in to it? Since motion picture has only been around for about a century is any movie worthy? Does longevity or perhaps the controversy make it canon worthy? I’m curious to your opinion.
Posted 26 Nov 2007 at 10:35 pm ¶
harold bloom wrote:
There’s another issue at work here, one related to but perhaps more legitimate than the simple question of faithfulness. The original piece will always be present as a standard for judging the adaptation. Often the original work has some quality that makes it great – or at least memorable – enough that a director will desire to adapt it. The director is certainly his own artist, but he faces the unique problem of working with raw material that already speaks aesthetically and thematically. His task is one of faithfully condensing the material or replacing its ideas with his own.
In the latter case, the director becomes accountable for his judgment. Sometimes, he adds a redeeming quality that was not present in the original work – take for example, Blade Runner, in which Ridley Scott reduces the subtle plot of a great novel to a one-dimensional chase, but sets it in an atmospheric and visionary future that has certainly earned the film canonicity. Or, for that matter, Minority Report, in which Steven Spielberg takes a clever sketch by the same author and fleshes it into a longer mystery with deeper characters and a new set of futuristic technologies. But this road also has its failures – I consider the the Wachowski Brothers’ V for Vendetta to be a significant example. The original work starts off undifferentiated, as a blank totalitarian thriller without much independent merit. The story of a lone freedom fighter resisting a corrupt government is an old one. But as the work develops, author Alan Moore detaches from historical specifics and tenderly cultivates his characters. The result is a well-paced and thoughtful drama that allows personality to motivate history. (Moore’s dictator dies, for instance, not in a climactic showdown with a revolutionary, but at the hand’s of a functionary’s ambitious and frustrated wife.) The adaptation eschews Moore’s approach and dives into historical cliché, conflating post-9/11 America and Nazi Germany and relying on familiar conspiracy theories for drama. It replaces moments of intimacy with out-of-place Hollywood revelations. Obviously, such a concise format leaves no room for Moore’s careful pacing. But there is a gaping hole in the film where Moore’s originality should have been, and the Wachowski Brothers cannot provide enough explosions and stabbings to distract the original work’s readers.
Hopefully these comparative valuations appear to be more than simple fanboyism. If not, I suppose I should just see the movie first.
Posted 10 Dec 2007 at 9:15 pm ¶