> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Edmunds > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 01:26 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > > > > >From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:50:24 -0800 > > > > > > > > > > > > You make some good points. And I tend to agree in a > generalized way. > > > However my argument lies not in movies as movies, but in books as > > > movies. For > > > example, a film that is NOT based on a book (for our purposes > > > we shall call > > > it a stand-alone film) can indeed be judged by your > gereral criteria. > > > However, a film that is based on a book must, I repeat must > > > be scrutinized in relation to that book itself. > > > >Why? > > > > > Why you ask?
Well, your post allows little to no room for any sort of interpretation of the films as works of art in and of themselves, and instead categorizes them only as translations. You also narrowly define the criteria in which one can interpret them in such a fashion to define the conversation down to an automatic negative result. Asking "why" you insist that one work of art that is based on another can only be judged based upon its relationship to the original work is hardly "sanguine" or a "wave" (I'm not even sure what that means..) > Allow me instead to answer your question with a question of my own: I generally find that discussion technique to be rather poorly used and a tad offensive, but I'll bite and try to answer you. > Do you deny that the story of The Lord Of The Rings is > contained in the books themselves? No, I do not, although I do dispute that the story is the sole measure of the work. I also deny that your definition of what constitutes the "story" of LotR is accurate. You seem to only want to use the measure of the literal words, in which case any attempt at creating a film version of a text will fail. > Here we are, both sitting at a table > with a concept smack dab in the middle of that table staring > us down. Like > it or not the concept is there. Yet you deny it's existence, > whilst viewing it with your own eyes. I'm unsure if you're actually claiming I deny the existence of the story, or if you're constructing a metaphor of some sort. :-? > In fact it is open to an infinite > number of interpretations in regard to the reader-writer relationship > involved with literature. But that is not of what I speak. I > speak simply of > the adaptation of a book to a film. It is in that adaptation > that of course > no real consensus of derivitave or reinterpretive art needs > to reflect > anything other than the secondary artists interpretations of their > experience of the art. However the fact remains that in > interpreting this > art one must also be faithful to the story. Is this not so? No, I don't believe that's true. It is the job of the artist, if they are truly acting within the bounds of "art" (whatever THAT means, which is another converstaion perhaps) to reinterpret the original work. If they fail to do so, what you get instead is Harry Potter movies - laundry lists of everyone's favorite scene. Such "adaptations" are failures; what's the point of using a different medium to retell the same exact story in such a fashion that fails to account for the limitations and freedoms offered by both the new medium as well as the source medium? Cat in the Hat - ok, this may be a bad example, as it was a DREADFUL film, but if you were to make a film that was faithful (as you define it) to the source book, it would be about 10 minutes long, and be a glorified music video for the spoken word version of the text. GRinch Who Stole Christmas, a fairly decent adaptation, also strays from the source material wildly, yet no one complains about that. Why? To my mind, Jackson's (and hiw writers') vision of what to HIM was important about the material, what he chose to highlight, explore, and yes, chose to cut, is interesting and illustrative of the original material - it is celebratory, not degenerative. This happens all the time with music, when one musician covers anothers song; if they stray from what is set forth in the original, is that incorrect? Is it wrong when a symphony orchestra with only 7 violins attempts a piece written with a violin section of 8 envisioned? > You evade the true essence of this debate. It's not about > who's right. It's > about what's right. Do not misinterpret me however. I'm asking you questions so that I do NOT misinterpret you. I'm not trying to assign motivations or ideas to you, I'm trying to get you to explain in detail what you really think. Work with me here ;) > But don't you see? I'm groping for middle ground > here, whereas you are taking the side of impossibility. I've made no blanket statements about fidelity, haven't narrowly defined criteria of evaluation, or otherwise made concrete, universal declartions about WHAT MUST BE. How is evaluating a work of art based upon itself, the original, its fidelity, and its -relationship- to the original an impossibility? I'd also like to point out that I'm not "taking sides" here. I'm honestly trying to explore where you're coming from, because as I currently understand it, your position makes no sense to me. Obviously though, it does make sense to you, and I'm trying to understand.. NOT tell you you're an idiot. I would never do that. [0] -j- [0] ok, I would, but you'd have to be a Dutch stalker.. and it'd be over a pint ^_^ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
