MOVIE: one more word (okay, lots) on Horribly dissapointed

[Haggridd]

No: HPFGUIDX 21725

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Amanda Lewanski <editor at t...> wrote:
> I forgot this, sorry. I also have to point out something that my 
husband
> and I, and other friends, have discussed over the years when 
favorite
> books became non-favorite movies (or sometimes favorites, quien 
sabe?).
> The visual medium of movies is different from the text medium of
> literature. Even if a moviemaker did a movie of some work, 
absolutely
> faithful to every single jot and tittle of text, some things will be
> altered; it's inevitable.
> 
> Bear with me, here. A scene taking place in a room, in a book, need 
only
> describe the setting sufficient to set the mood, or maybe refers to 
only
> one item or glance that is significant. Translating this to a 
visual,
> even with slavish adherence, is going to provoke discussion, for now 
we
> must build and furnish a room. Where are the windows? Does it say
> anywhere? If there are no windows, can the mood we want still occur,
> visually? What furniture is in there? Where is it placed? That lamp 
she
> mentions, what's it sitting on? What are the characters wearing? 
What
> time of day is it? What direction do the windows face, will they 
have
> full or indirect sun? Etc., ad nauseam. If the author is available 
to
> ask, they're going to be able to get more accurate details, because 
she
> can provide more information as to how she "saw" the characters
> standing, who was facing which way, what was on the bookshelves, if 
the
> room was well-lit, etc. But even so....
> 
> The point here is that the answer to every single one of these 
questions
> will be argued with by at least one, maybe more, dedicated reader of 
the
> work. When the domino effect starts, and the answer to others of 
these
> questions depends on an earlier answer (which readers believe was
> Wrong), it gets worse. But movies build their atmosphere and direct
> their emphasis in a totally different format than the written word; 
they
> have to give you a whole world and then winnow it, where text gives 
you
> only what you need and builds on it.
> 
> An example here from the trailer is the clearly NON-dungeon where 
Snape
> says that purring line to Harry. We ALL know the potions classroom 
is in
> the dungeons. No windows. Period. So in this instance, the movie is
> inarguably WRONG. But. But. But. Watch the trailer and look at the 
angle
> from which they introduce Snape. You're looking up at him, and those
> windows (lovely, by the way, if inaccurate) backlight him so that he 
is
> a towering, indistinct, threatening figure. Whose line parallels 
this in
> its ambiguity--soft, calm, measured, but clearly powerfully 
threatening.
> So I totally applaud this change; it took the "feel" that the books 
had,
> and translated it into a faithful visual--faithful to the "feel," 
not to
> the letter of the book.
> 
> Granted, it's iffy extrapolating a whole movie from a trailer or 
two.
> But again, although details are altered, the whole "feel" or 
atmosphere
> that comes across from the trailers is correct, perfect, much more 
than
> I expected them to achieve. I would rather have a movie that is, 
well,
> magical in its scope and cinematic sweep, and not entirely faithful 
to
> all the little details, than a movie which renders each and every 
detail
> perfectly, but which falls flat.
> 
> --Amanda, really have to stop pontificating now, I have to go buy 
shoes
> for my boys....sigh

The most faithful movie to its book of origin that I have seen was 
"Rosemary's Baby."  Ira Levin's novel was so tightly plotted that the 
director (Sidney Lumet, I believe) felt he could not alter it.  Even 
so, there are those choices Amanda has so eloquently delineated that 
must be made in order to translate a scene from one's mind's eye to a 
scene that will be viewed bu other real eyes. They are two different 
media.  I find that I enjoy reading far more books than I have enjoyed 
seeing movies, but those movies were in no way inferior to the books, 
be they original screenplays or adaptations.

Haggridd (who was most like Albus Dumbledore according to the test 
on the link in OT, with Hagrid a close second--Yay!)