(no subject)

[jfb]

Montmartre as post-Amélie tourist destination.

Griping about the Angelika Film Center in Manhattan. The seats are too small! The lines are too long! I can hear the subway when it goes by! New Yorkers are spoiled rotten.

A.O. Scott reveals that movies are different from books. Why are we still having this conversation?

Comments

[bnewmark.livejournal.com]

seriously - i miss the angelika so much. how dare they complain. stupid new yorkers. and what indie theatre exists that isn't run-down with tiny screens and few seats? they don't appreciate what they have.

[jfb.livejournal.com]

YEAH. When I was a kid we had to drive 60 miles to see independent movies. Through a blizzard! Uphill, both ways!

I think it's great that independent cinema has gotten to the point where we have options and can complain, but some of my best filmgoing experiences have been in the worst venues. Landmark may be able to provide stadium seating, but the comfiest chair and the biggest screen can't beat a wild-eyed visionary movie.

[(Anonymous)]

Something really bugs me about both of these complaints-about-complaints. (Well, maybe the latter is a complaint about a complaint about complaints?) I think it's perfectly reasonable to want a movie theater that shows good movies and is also comfortable, and to want a movie adaptation that stays true to the virtues of its source material and yet also tailors the presentation of the story to the medium of film. But I suppose I've always wanted to have my cake and eat it too. (That expression never really made sense to me: why would you want a cake if you couldn't eat it?) Anyway, sure, a good movie in a bad theater is better than a bad movie anywhere, but so what? It still sucks that there are good theaters and they don't show good movies. (Although the Kendall Square Cinema comes pretty close to both-- but it's not in New York.)

Also, I'm tired of people perpetuating the myth that the Harry Potter movies (and the Lord of the Rings movies) are faithful to their sources. Most people who feel that way seem to have not read the books recently, or else didn't like them.

--Doug

[jfb.livejournal.com]

Oh sure it's reasonable to want your art house to be comfortable. I think my point was that New Yorkers are spoiled rotten. Maybe I wasn't clear.

And it's reasonable to want an adaptation to "stay true to the virtues of its source," but I'm not sure I agree that it's reasonable to complain if it doesn't. If The Truth About Charlie, adapted from Charade is a bad movie, it's not because Mark Wahlberg is a different actor from Cary Grant--it's because he's a worse actor. Or whatever. I guess I'm not really interested in what a work says it's based on, as long as it works on its own.

But regarding books to movies specifically, everybody knows the translation is not direct. A movie can show things a book can only tell, and can't show things a book can easily tell. A movie can cover maybe two hours of plot, a book can take weeks. Everybody knows this, right? But people keep writing articles about it.

I'm with you on the cake thing, though.

[(Anonymous)]

I definitely agree that a movie ought to stand on its own as a good movie regardless of its source material. But, I still think that a movie based on a book, especially a well-regarded book, ought to in addition be faithful to the intentions of the book's author (note that this can be different from preserving plot elements or characters-- I don't mind, for instance, the way they enlarged Arwen's character in the LOTR movies, or the fact that the movies aren't 9 hours long each). I realize this is debatable, just like it's debatable whether a director ought to stick verbatim to a screenplay, but I think there should be a really good reason to stray in either case.

And, for what it's worth, remaking a movie is a pretty different subject than making a book (or a TV show, or a...theme park ride) into a movie, since there's no cross-media translation. Unless you want to say modern film is a different medium than 1950s film, which I'm willing to consider...

--Doug

[jfb.livejournal.com]

I was going to say we'll have to agree to disagree, but I think both of us admit enough gray area that I'm not sure we're disagreeing.

Remaking within a medium is different, mostly in that cross-media translations require change in obvious ways that intra-medium adaptations don't. But for me, I think the same principles apply. I just chose the Charade example because it's been on my mind lately.

Cover songs are another related topic. I adore M. Ward's cover of "Let's Dance" in large part because he invests it with a yearning sincerity that I don't think Bowie ever meant. (I love the original, too.) That sort of thing is why I'm suspicious of the idea that the adapter is obligated to follow the intent of the original author.

[(Anonymous)]

Yep, thinking of cover songs was what made me point out that remaking a movie was different. If you're doing the same thing in the same medium, there does need to be something different about the new version or else there's not much point. Ride's cover of Kraftwerk's "The Model" struck me as rather pointless, since it sounds almost identical to the original (although the fact that Ride usually sounds nothing like Kraftwerk makes it somewhat impressive). I didn't see Gus Van Sant's Psycho but I'm guessing that's either an example or a counterexample...

Anyway, you're right, there are plenty of gray areas. I enjoyed Clueless more than Emma, for instance, and it's hard to even compare the two versions of The Shining. I guess it's just that when I read a book and enjoy it, I really want to see it the way the author would want it to be seen, just once. I'm happy to see other interpretations after that.

[jfb.livejournal.com]

Psycho is a great example of why you should never go to horror movies on opening night, even if they're really art-house experiments marketed as horror movies.

But seriously: It's exactly an example of a cover version so like the original that there's no point to it--except for the sort of meta point that no one had ever made a remake that uninteresting before. You'll recognize the Martin Gardner reference (http://www.wordsmith.demon.co.uk/paradoxes/#interesting).

[bnewmark.livejournal.com]

just because it seems sort of on topic, i watched "adaptation" the other night, which is based on _the orchid thief_, which i read, and i have to say, i thought it was very creative and unique, given that adapting that book would be... incredibly difficult, to say the least.

[rollerboogie.livejournal.com]

The Angelika has reasonably-priced refreshments. My citymen need to shut the hell up. Ithaca's indie film places have seats that fall backwards if you lean too fast.

[jfb.livejournal.com]

Crossing "see independent movies in Ithaca" off my cross-country itinerary. I'll just wait till I get to the Angelika.

[rollerboogie.livejournal.com]

Ithaca popcorn is good!

[jfb.livejournal.com]

Will it keep on the trip to the Angelika?

[rollerboogie.livejournal.com]

No way. It's...TOO FRESH.

RE: Montmartre as post-Amélie tourist destination.

[evandra.livejournal.com]

Gross me out. The hostel I'm staying in in September is in Montmartre. I guess I'll have to spend a lot of time avoiding packs of Japanese tourists. Bleargh!