film adaptations (veering off-topic?)

[Scott <insanus_scottus@yahoo.co.uk>]

Tyler (You?) said:
"I don't think there's EVER been a film adaptation of a book that 1. 
is completely loyal to the source and 2. didn't frustrate fans of 
the book.

me:
I have five words for you- "A Room With A View." (aRWaV)  This is 
one of my favourite books, and consquently one of the best movies 
I've ever seen. Perhaps not perfect but pretty darn close. I've said 
before that I "hear" more that I "see" when I'm reading, and the 
other day when feeling sick from the flu I reread aRWaV; it was like 
playing the movie over in my mind. 

This could be because there are amazing people in it...Maggie Smith, 
Helena Bonham Carter, Simon Callow, Denholm Elliot, Daniel Day 
Lewis, and I could go on and on but I needn't.  (After all there are 
some great actors in HP, but...well I'm coming to that.)  The point 
is good acting, a good script, sets, directing, whatever, 
individually none of these makes for a good film.  But aRWaV 
feels right like the clear notes of Puccini that fill the background.

(if I must complain it's that Lucy and George kiss in a field of 
poppies instead of violets, but even that's forgivable)

I must also say that whilst Merchant-Ivory film's are generally 
delightful (and I can't wait to see "Le Divorce") I didn't like 
"Howard's End" nearly as much. I also have never seen the other 
major Forster film adaptation "A Passage to India" which was 
directed by David Lean.

JenD wrote:
"what's got so many Potter-fans hot and bothered is the spirit has 
 been violated. Compromises, yes, but just totally re-arranging 
 characters, taking away their strengths, making them 2-dimensional, 
 getting them to utter silly phrases that never occured in the books 
 (as in "Don't worry, I will be...") well that seems unnecessary. If 
 you have good bones, why change them? Use them, build on them. Make 
 the compromises but why would you have to change the essence of 
characters?"

me:
Hear! Hear! (or is it Here! Here!? I can't seem to remember) In any 
case you are absolutely right.  Hogwarts might look right but it 
isn't really Hogwarts at all. Dan *is* Harry Potter, but 
the onscreen Harry Potter isn't Harry at all.  Which is what makes 
one so incredibly mad; they picked someone ripe with the potential 
to be an amazing Harry, but then they make a mediocre film that 
limits the opprotunity for any sort of brilliance.


What I can't understand is...when you've got great stuff why change 
it first the worse? Surely not time constraints, Hermione says all 
of Ron's lines but it wouldn't take any longer for Ron to say them.  
In fact some things could go, I think, quicker and more clearly if 
they hadn't been altered.


So who's to blame? They're *all* to blame, but ultimately this movie 
is made for children, and the adults who made these movies, though  
not *all* adults for I don't think this, seem to believe that 
children are more entertained by caricature-- brilliant Hermione, 
stupid wimp Ron and superhero harry-- than by people who are 
remotely like them.  But I at least 
think that, were I still 12 years old, I'd still want to see the 
characters that I'd grown to love from the books.  

Stephen Cloves is largely to blame, but so is Columbus for not 
minding the crap that was handed over to him masquerading as a 
script, and I say that only in light of the list discussion and what 
we all know these movies *could* be.

As for Jo...well my friends and I have long been of the sentiment 
that she wears too much eyeshadow (and all the things which that 
implies that one can contemplate for one's self).

there.


scott