Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
That's the thing right there. The movie ISN'T the book. People who have read the book get all attached to the book as what "really" happened, and lose sight of the fact that both the film and the novel are works of art.
The Shining is one of the best films of all times. You really can't say that The Shining is one of the best novels of all times. Same with 2001.
|
<b>ratbastid</b> speaks the truth.
The thing is, if LOTR and Fight Club can be done and done well, then any book can be done well. Books and film are separate works of art, but they are related, and it is possible to do a successful film that completely betrays the meaning and purpose of the book. Dune, Congo, The Scarlet Letter - I don't know if any of them were successful works of art as films, but they all butchered their respective books.
Should one get all bent out of shape about this? I don't know. I guess it depends on one's emotional investment in the book. I wouldn't watch a David Lynch movie for 10 years (no shit) because of what he did with Dune (my favorite book). On the other hand, he would have been the perfect director for Congo, which is the first adult fiction I ever read. And I'm kind of happy that the Scarlet Letter got butchered. I hated that fvcking book.
The Shining, however, is the perfect example of doing it right, because there is Kubrick's definitive film, which takes huge liberties with the book, and then there was the TV movie with the guy from Wings, which tries to be letter perfect, and is also excellent, but not as good or memorable as Kubrick's.