My friends probably see me as a man at odds with the movie industry. Time and time again they listen to me critique and rant about this movie or that movie. Often times I find myself engaged in an argument about the merits of a particular film, and I’m usually the one pressing the attack against the movie. After watching a rather popular, even famous, movie last weekend I began to put myself to the question in order to give a definitive answer for my attitude toward films, movie theatres, and the craft of storytelling in general. While this is by no means complete, I hope to show what things I find important, what things I disagree with, my rational behind my decisions, and a driving passion of mine.
I have long been an avid fan of stories. My earliest memories are of my parents reading me books, my grandfather telling me stories, and me making up my own tales. When I learned to read I would tear through a library reading all manner of stories, from fables to legends I would read anything with a story in it. That attitude has not changed over the decades. I still embroil myself with a good book, and enjoy well written TV shows or movies. When I find a TV show or a movie I like it is usually because the story is fantastic. To me the story is the reason to watch. Most often I hold a higher regard for the author than for the screenwriter, thus when I see a movie based on a book, I tend to avoid it; experience has taught me that 2 hour movie is never anywhere near the quality of a 200+ page book. I usually go home disappointed and I like to avoid those situations.
It should come as no surprise that my values are at odds with the modern filmmaker, and also the majority of audiences. I have long held the plot of any story to be the most important element, all else are details that add life to the story. In movies, the special effects, the music, and even the stunt-work (excepting of course Jackie Chan) can in no way make a movie, they exist to help the story’s believability. A bad story with good special effects is still a bad movie (with good special effects). However, as can still be seen in the black and white archives, a good story with bad special effects can still be a good (or moderately so) movie. I used to be less discriminate in my younger days, buying and watching movies that looked cool, and I enjoyed them for a time, but they soon grew old, too old to watch again. Yet I still have some movies that are old but the story is so captivating I can still watch it regardless of how dated it appears. These are the movies I find worth watching. Here is where my values lay.
When I find myself on that rare occasion whereupon I visit a movie theatre, I am often disappointed. Not always with the movie, for there have been some movies that were well worth watching (and owning). I usually find the entire experience to be overpriced. Mind, this is not a rant about the price of admission into movie theatres. Rather, I find that I can still enjoy what I am looking for in a movie, without having to go to a theatre. Upon my last visit to a theatre I commented to my wife that the only two things we do not have at our disposal for watching movies at home are THX surround sound and a massive screen. I admit that these things can help make the movie more enjoyable, but when I care more for the story, I can certainly wait to rent the widescreen edition DVD and watch it on my stereo TV and enjoy it satisfactorily. Here now I find the oft searched for reason why I do not like theatres much: theatres do not offer enough unique features to make it worthwhile. (Theatres still do offer a great place for a date with the wife.)
My final point I wish to expound upon is one that has greatly bothered me and proves to separate me from seemingly all others: I desire to see a faithful adaptation of a book to screen. Since I have such an affinity for books it pains me to see them adapted to the screen and then altered. The only time this does not bother me is when the author of the story is also the author of the screenplay; in those cases I accept the changes because the author accepted the changes to his original vision. What I greatly disapprove of is when a dead author’s tale is altered by a director, a producer, a screen writer, or an actor because they didn’t like the way it fit, or they didn’t like the way the author did it, et cetera. These attitudes make me furious for they take what can sometimes arguably be called masterpieces, and alter them to their own tastes. I honestly feel that the details in a book that an author put there ought to remain unaltered, if they are in the movie. Another point of contention are the parts left out of a movie. If a story is good enough to make a movie out of it, then the entire movie ought to be made into the story, unabridged. Books are good for many reasons, but if we were to read books the way movies portray them I daresay we would be too bored to finish them, nor ever read again.
Now I grant you that not every word in every book translates itself well to the screen. Narration is sometimes impossible to dramatize. And I will also grant that some pieces of storytelling can only be hinted at or mentioned in writing because it is impossible to describe (i.e. who wants to read about a martial art fight move by move). Here are areas that careful work needs be done and areas wherein the translation from paper to drama has some leeway, but not enough leeway to adjust the plot, swap lines with characters, merge two settings into one, etc. All too often I have seen this and I am too numb to feel anything any more. Now I steer clear of movies based on books, because I cannot stand that they get them wrong. The worst part for me is knowing the illiteracy (as in people choosing not to read, not people unable to read) of the average American will prevent them from ever reading the original book and knowing the joy and splendor of the unsullied story.
Were I to ever write a book I fear my heart would break and my ink fail to flow should it be made into a movie.
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Of Movies and Stories:
» Credit Check: Screenwriters? from Chilling Words
Of late I have been wondering and thinking about television shows and movies. We have long acknowledged actors for their role in these stories. Actors usually take center stage in our society, people want to be like them, we are eager (as a society) ... [Read More]
Comments
I have just a few comments to make. First, about the books made into movies point you made. I don’t think you are being entirely fair to film industry. There are many things that do not transfer well from book to screen (as you mentioned). Many more than you mention. One of the greatest obstacles for filmmakers is lengthy detailed books. I have a hunch that this point was made more alive in your head from the recent Lord Of The Rings movies. [before I go on I must state that I have never read the books. But, my entire family has and my wife has and they love them and I have respect for the books.] If someone were to try and include everything in those books, it would not turn out to be 3:30 or 4:00 extended DVDs, they would be 12 hours each! That is impossible in movie making. What was done with LOTR by shooting them all at the same time (taking 2+ years of actors lives) is unheard of in filmmaking. After all is said and done, Peter Jackson will have spent half a decade (or more) creating these films. That is a long time and a lot of work. A lot of people with a deep love of the books were involved with that project. But, a movie is a VERY different thing than a book. A book is designed to create pictures in your mind. Your mental pictures will be different than everyone else’s. A movie gives you those pictures for you. A book has the luxury of lengthy descriptions and character development. A movie has a very short amount of time (even in a 3 or 4 hour movie) to do the same thing. Filmmakers deserve a little more slack than you are giving them. They have the terrible task of trying to get across the same story, characters, etc.. And, beyond that, if it is an older story it may need slight adaptation for our culture today in order to be successful. When you have a project as large as LOTR, it needs to be successful. The trilogy was originally estimated at over $200M. Who knows what the final number is/was. When you are spending that kind of money, you need to get it back when the movie shows. People don’t have that kind of money to throw around.
Anyway, this is getting a lot longer than I wanted and a lot more specific that I wanted it to be. I simply don’t think you are cutting filmmakers enough slack. They have a tough job. Not being a reader, but rather a movier (hehe), I have a very different outlook though. Anyway, that’s my thought.
While I tend to disagree with scb on the particulars of this debate I can’t help but think he is being unfarily criticized.
He didn’t say he what particular movies he may have had in mind when writing this rant. I for one would probably have written much the same rant (but far more vehemently) when I first saw Bram Stoker’s Dracula, clearly the worst example of a director/screenplay/actors ruining the very theme of a story.
I may not be as strict about setting, timeline, and some particulars. But in my opinion, it fails to be an adaptation when it changes the themes, dialogue, or characters. At that point it’s a reinterpretation, which means it is lesser than the original work. When an artist’s work is reinterpreted without that artist’s input or approval I believe that is just wrong.
So, tho I like the movies and think Peter Jackson did a fair job, they are still reinterpretations. They are moraly bereft, because they take liberties with an artist’s work who can not even defend himself.