So, there has been an enormous upswing recently in fantasy movies--especially movies adapted from books. From old favourites to books barely cooling from coming off the printing press, science fiction and fantasy films are big big business nowadays, for good and for ill. This week's post is an attempt to discuss fantasy films a little bit, as well as to establish some of my feelings about fantasy films in general, especially how they relate to fantasy books (as always a little bit of science fiction may slop over into the discussion, since the two genres are so closely related). Actually, this topic is very germane to last week's topic, and the one flows from the other. Especially, because as my Master (for those who are unaware, the being known as Inkling in theInterwebs is the same man who instructed me in the Jedi Arts--go read his 'blog on Star Wars and related points) pointed out, imagination does seem a little bit on the downward spiral and some of this is very likely ascribable to the ready availability of entertainment options (such as movies and video games) to feel our needs. In fact I read an article once by a game designer who felt that Christopher Tolkien's famous animosity towards movies based on his father's work--and you can too right here (the language is a little blue in a couple of places, but nothing too drastic). This author worked on The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying Game for Decipher, Inc., and so had a chance to interact with with the Tolkien Estate. His observations are insightful and made me appreciate Christopher Tolkien a little bit more.
Essentially, Christopher prefers people to experience his father's world through the interaction of the words Professor Tolkien wrote and our imagination, and not through the fixed medium of the cinema. Sir IanMcKellan might play a fine Gandalf (and I think he does), but that is not necessarily the point. Gandalf in the book is a mutable character, experienced differently by every reader. One does not have nearly the same flexibility when dealing with the film version of the character, even with some kind of viewer response mechanism. He can only appear one way, for example.
I do not wish you to think that I am one of those people who always believes that movies made from books are always inferior to their source material. Although I am sure that I have leanings in that direction I try to judge each movie on its own merits. I thoroughly enjoy the Lord of the Rings movies (Return of the King is in second place for movies which I've seen the most often in theatres at 5 times). I recently saw The Spiderwick Chronicles and enjoyed it as well.
I suppose that my real difficulty comes from the fact there are actually two (at least) operative principles to be dealt when adapting a book to film. One is the inherent differences between the two media. There are different tools, et cetera, to be used in print and on film. The plot is moved forward by different mechanisms. Anyone setting out to adapt a book as a film has to make allowances for that and modify the source material accordingly. The other issue is that there are more people involved in making a movie than in a book. In a book there is usually an author or two, an editor, and a publisher, with the author having almost all of the say of what goes into the book. A film is a much more collaborative effort, as even a cursory examination of the credits at the end goes to show. With so much input from so many sources, it is in fact, a small wonder that so many accurate adaptations get made. Even those, however, suffer from the difficulty mentioned above, wherein the film becomes somehow fixed.
Actually, the most frustrating adaptations, to me at least, are those where somewhere in the film-making process the film-makers decide that they need to improve the story. Some changes I can understand. For example, although I was saddened by the removal of Tom Bombadil from the film version of The Fellowship of the Ring, but I understood it. Streamlining is one of those things that movies need to do when adapting books. Other changes are less forgivable. I do not enjoy the Harry Potter movies, for example, because in an effort to ensure that all of the important plot points make it onto the screen all of the whimsy and the jokes were cut, which is a pity, since I like the whimsical parts the best.
Even more unforgivable is when a director imposes their own vision over and above that of the author's. The most egregious example I can think at the moment is Hiyao Miyazaki's abominable adaptation of Diana Wynne-Jones's Howl's Moving Castle. I loved this book as a child. I had enjoyed a number of Miyazaki's other films, such as Princess Monoke and Spirited Away, and so was pretty interested in seeing the adaptation. I was not too put off by the fact that it was to be a cartoon--since one of my favourite film adaptations of a fantasy book is a cartoon (The Last Unicorn)--actually because of the technology, for a long time the cartoons could be more fantastic than the live action ones; lower fantasy, such as Willow, seemed to work best for fantasy movies. Anyway, back to my narrative, when I discovered that this film was playing at Brigham Young University's International Cinema, I was very excited. I was sorely disappointed. The second half of the movie is unrecognizable from the book, lost in Miyazaki's heavy-handed anti-war message. Now, there is not anything inherently wrong with a director having a message to put forward. It's part of their right as artists. What bothered me was the imposing of the message on the book. It did not sit well with me.
Ultimately, I agree with Christopher Tolkien. I'd rather read The Lord of the Rings than watch it. I still enjoy watching movies, and the occasional fantasy movies, but the closer they are to my heart the harder they are to swallow. I enjoyed The Spiderwick Chronicles, but I have not been around to reading them yet. I have not enjoyed the new Narnia movies, because I think they meddle too much with things best left alone (also they don't feel particularly Narnian—more like someone saw that The Lord of the Rings movies made a lot of money, and said, hey, didn't they know each other. Let's cash in on this one). Narnia is very near and dear to my heart though.
So, are there any fantasy movies you love? How about those you think are horrible, either on their own merits or as travesties of a well-loved book? Let me know what you think, and I'll see you in seven.
Excelsior!
4 comments:
As an aspiring author I agree that I prefer writing over watching. The Simpsons for instant have a interesting quote about a fake Harry potter book.
When the Comic book guy comments on Lisa's costume not be accurate she says, "I based my costume on the book and not the movie."
That is the problem that Movies set a picture in stone for many people and they can't help but imagine Vigo Mortensen as Strider or Orlando Bloom as Legolas. This happens.
The challenge now becomes to move beyond these images and imagine again and do it ourselves.
Also just because a movie is made doesn't mean we have to accept it as the end all be all of the visualization of a work. Infact in many cases I think it only inspires me to be more fantastic in my imagination of what could be.
For example my belived "Dragonlance" series recently had the movie treatment and it turned out horrible. For one it was a cartoon which has potential but then they mixed it with 3D animation and voice actors who had not read the book additional choppings of the story left it hardly the story it was before. However it only inspired me to remember it better in my head and use my imagination to fill in the blanks better.
So to finish as a reader and a future author I prefer books to films.
Okay side note though Hogfather from the BBC. is perhaps the best television rendering of a book I have ever seen.
I could (and probably will) write a whole post on this topic. I am with you on every point, Jedi. I love The Lord of the Rings movies, but I love the books even more. Now, years later, even though I would dearly love to see the films again (and own every DVD release of them that's been made), I am avoiding them. That's because I want the movie image to fade a bit more, and want to try re-read the novels to get my original concept of the story back.
Try as he might, an actor can never accomplish what our imaginations can. For example, Viggo Mortenson was exemplary as Aragon, but Tolkien's character (and my interpretation of it) has nuances that he can't begin to touch in a three-hour film. I loved what Viggo did, but I want my Aragorn back. It is as von schenck observes — the movie imagery is hard to shake sometimes.
(By the way, I am sorry indeed to hear that the Dragonlance movie failed to live up to the books).
I also agree that the current Narnia adaptations are more motivated by Disney's desire to have its very own LOTR franchise (and mind you, I am a huge Disney fan). I think they did a more than passable job adapting the first book to the screen (haven't seen Caspian yet). But I think it was mistake to deliberately hike up the battle scenes in order to make the films seem more like Jackson's epic. Alas, this is an old story in Hollywood; just look at the way "Titanic" spawned "Pearl Harbor."
But that's another post...
I like movie adaptations from books. I really do. I love movies and love the artistry that goes into making a movie. I greatly enjoyed The Lord Of The Rings, The Last Unicorn, and countless other book adaptations. However, for me one of the most important things about such movies is summed up by Gonzo the Great in the film adaptation of Charles Dickens' Christmas Carol. Gonzo said, "If you enjoyed the movie then you should read the book."
One of the reasons that I like all the movies is that they have inspired many people to read the books that they are based on. From the top of my head I can think of several people who have read The Lord Of The Rings because they enjoyed the movies so much they wanted to learn more. I myself only read The Last Unicorn because I enjoyed the cartoon so much. I say that any movie that can inspire an audience to read the book is a good thing. If it manages to capture the feeling of the book at the same time, so much the better.
On the subject of Narnia though, I am of the opinion of my beloved brother, I do not like them. The heavy-handed Christianity and God-like nature is too important to me, and too absent from the first film. Aslan is the hero, not the kids.
That said (and for that reason) I enjoyed Prince Caspian quite a bit. It was completely different from the book. It added plot elements and fight scenes that were not in the story. Peter annoyed me every time he got on screen. Susan was a bother. Caspian was way too old (why wasn't he king yet if he was in his twenties?). And yet for all that I loved the film. The reason is that the particulars are bad, but the overall feel of the film is right. They kids get to Narnia, and the first thing they do is play in the water. Reepicheep and the animals are all wonderful. The Telmarines are convincing. But the real kicker is that Aslan is terrible and awesome. First off He is like as big as a horse. Secondly He is obviously omnipotent. And thirdly He is the hero. The whole movie is spent with the kids whining and complaining about there being no Aslan. They never get along, and nothing they do works. They start having a victory when they finally send Lucy off to find Aslan, and then they win when He shows up. I am willing to forgive a lot of Susan being a fighter and Peter being a whiner for a good Aslan. I still have no desire to buy the movie, but I strongly assert that it is worth seeing at least once.
I like movie adaptations from books. I really do. I love movies and love the artistry that goes into making a movie. I greatly enjoyed The Lord Of The Rings, The Last Unicorn, and countless other book adaptations. However, for me one of the most important things about such movies is summed up by Gonzo the Great in the film adaptation of Charles Dickens' Christmas Carol. Gonzo said, "If you enjoyed the movie then you should read the book."
One of the reasons that I like all the movies is that they have inspired many people to read the books that they are based on. From the top of my head I can think of several people who have read The Lord Of The Rings because they enjoyed the movies so much they wanted to learn more. I myself only read The Last Unicorn because I enjoyed the cartoon so much. I say that any movie that can inspire an audience to read the book is a good thing. If it manages to capture the feeling of the book at the same time, so much the better.
On the subject of Narnia though, I am of the opinion of my beloved brother, I do not like them. The heavy-handed Christianity and God-like nature is too important to me, and too absent from the first film. Aslan is the hero, not the kids.
That said (and for that reason) I enjoyed Prince Caspian quite a bit. It was completely different from the book. It added plot elements and fight scenes that were not in the story. Peter annoyed me every time he got on screen. Susan was a bother. Caspian was way too old (why wasn't he king yet if he was in his twenties?). And yet for all that I loved the film. The reason is that the particulars are bad, but the overall feel of the film is right. They kids get to Narnia, and the first thing they do is play in the water. Reepicheep and the animals are all wonderful. The Telmarines are convincing. But the real kicker is that Aslan is terrible and awesome. First off He is like as big as a horse. Secondly He is obviously omnipotent. And thirdly He is the hero. The whole movie is spent with the kids whining and complaining about there being no Aslan. They never get along, and nothing they do works. They start having a victory when they finally send Lucy off to find Aslan, and then they win when He shows up. I am willing to forgive a lot of Susan being a fighter and Peter being a whiner for a good Aslan. I still have no desire to buy the movie, but I strongly assert that it is worth seeing at least once.
Post a Comment