I just came back from seeing Wild, the Reese Witherspoon adaptation of Cheryl Strayeds book. And its got me thinking about adaptations. Usually, when a movie is made from a book, a great deal of discussion time is dedicated to how true to the book the movie is. This movie was pretty close to 100% true to the book, which left me thinking... maybe how true to the book isnt the right question. Because if its 100% just like the book, well, why see the movie if youve already read the book? It really is just a visual representation of whats on the page. If a movie adaptation of a book could be compared to a cover tune, well, this movie was a band with the same instrumentation replaying the song exactly how it was originally performed. In cover tune land, for me, thats not terribly interesting at all. I prefer when they change the feel, or mash it together with another song, or change the instrumentation, tempo, key. Just replaying the song, well, why arent I just listening to the original? And so, I think that movie adaptations maybe owe us an artistic/creative/interpretive angle that is specific to the film genre to recreate the original printed version. Otherwise, reading is just way better, isnt it?
Posted on: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 03:55:17 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015