{ Monday, June 23, 2003 }
Saturday night Mark and Julie came over and we watched Focus, which we rented mostly because William Macy and Laura Dern were in it. It is based on a book by Arthur Miller of Death of a Salesman fame, about a couple who are victimized by anti-semitic bullies during WWII. While we had some beefs with the director (disconnect between character cluelessness and sense of forboding, graceless transition between supersaturated "Pleasantville" scenes and threatening noirish scenes), Arthur Miller creates flawless characterizations of impotent, aspirant 50s men, always eager to please if it means they can get ahead, vain and cowardly, unable to take a stand.
Then last night we went to Jason and Alice's to watch Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring, which I hadn't initially wanted to see because of the same old reason: having loved a book, it feels like a dirty cheat to have a movie replace your own fiercely imagined images with the likes of Elijah Woods & Co. Now, someone tell me: was that little love scene between Liv Tyler and Aragorn in the book? That irritated me to no end! I love gigantism in architecture -- so long as it's virtual -- and so particularly appreciated the Piranesian Moria scenes.
LINK | 12:34 PM | TB
It'd be horrible if the movie was identical to the book. Screenplays work with the more of the visual in mind, and aside from budgetary and time considerations, need to do the most with the limitations of one-sitting. Screenwriters working on book-to-screen adaptations, diverge from the book! Make it a different creature (as you already do). Think how horrible American Psycho would have been had it been so Easton-Ellis bound.
PS | June 23, 2003 8:32 PMThough much of the Arwen storyline is
in Return of the King's appendices (you
did read the appendices, didn't you?),
there wasn't much dialogue from what I
remember.
I don't recall posting here before, so I'll start off by saying how much I enjoy the site—it's on my dailies list FWIW.
Okay... that aside, I can't tell you how frustrating it is to hear folks complain about such and such movie being different that the book.
I've always believed that the medium was the message, and that storytelling was a malleable art form... I have no complaints as long as a movie based on a book is true to the spirit of the book.
Is LoTR true to the spirit of the book? I think so.
Anyway, that's enough of that.
vis10n | June 24, 2003 9:57 AMThat "Fellowship of the Ring" Love Scene was a nasty, pandering and faithless suckup to the box office tallykeepers due to some perceived need for a "love story" -- in the freaking Fellowship of the Ring! You can't sell that to me as filmic license. I'm quite content with filmic license -- but to flimsy pretexts for kissy-swoony I always say, roundly, NO!
On the subject of faithfulness to the source, a friend of mine once said, of Oliver Stone's The Doors, "It wouldn't have been such a bad movie if it had been about a band called "The Windows"."
Caterina | June 24, 2003 6:55 PMI was annoyed by that scene too, though have become less so on repeated viewings. I think it felt out of place, but maybe that's because I've read the books. Might feel quite normal to someone who never had. Annoyance aside though, it was a nice film tribute to Maxfield Parrish paintings.
By the way, I recommend Jackson's earlier film "Heavenly Creatures". It's an odd story, very well told.
Dinah | June 26, 2003 9:10 PMMy problem with the "Piranesian Moria" scenes is that they looked too much like a video game. I could just about hear the boop-boop-beep-boop soundtrack and see Super Mario or somebody jumping from level to level. I always thought that Moria should feel claustrophobic, not agoraphobic, until the Fellowship reaches the bridge of Khazad-Dûm.
That and I hated how the movie represented orcs.
Prentiss Riddle | June 26, 2003 9:41 PM{ Post a comment }
i don't think that scene was in the book - but you know how it is, if 75% of the book makes it into the movie then you know you are doing ok. i thought it was pretty good overall and stayed pretty close to the book.
michael | June 23, 2003 2:39 PM