|
well, there are a few ways to look at this.
in general, why would you look for or expect--or even really want---a "faithful" adaptation of a novel into cinema?
the forms are entirely different: they do not and cannot do the same things.
one that worked kinda is raul ruiz's version of proust's "time regained"----but it was so close to the book that if you hadn't read and remembered it in considerable detail, the film would not make sense.
michael haneke's version of kafka's "the castle" tried and was ok, mostly (for me) because i liked the actor who played barnabas (the messenger from the castle)...and i love haneke's films for the most part--but this one wasn't so great.
straight narrative books are different--"the getaway" and "the grifters" and "black and white in color" are all great adaptation of jim thompson novels...
films that are among my favorites--like kobayahi's "kwaidan"--use the texts are jump-off points, retaining some elements, tweaking others, adding alot. they aren''t the same---they're kind of loosely parallel, addressing the same kind of questions, that sort of thing.
the forms aren't the same so i dont see the point of looking for, requiring or even wanting a translation from text to film.
i detest ayn rand and i really detest this book.
if you want a self-indulgent fantasy that enables an adolescent sense of one's own superiority to be reinforced and routed through a philosophical framework, read nietzsche's zarathustra.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|