5 ms·

Standing up for cinema

33 points by prismatic 9y ago

jasode 9y ago
More of the Adam Mars-Jones quote from cited January 4 review[1]: >Even the most relentless book filters diffusely into the life of the reader, while a film suspends that life for its duration. The transposition of a novel like Endo’s Silence into film, however “faithful”, can only amount to a distortion, an exaggeration overall however many elements of the book are represented. [...] In a book, too, reader and writer collaborate to produce images, while a film director hands them down. AMJ repeats the common criticism that books are superior to movie adaptations. He also repeats the claim that books are "active" and movies are "passive" entertainment. Those dismissals have been so common for decades since the invention of "moving pictures" that I'm surprised Scorsese even responded to it. [1] http://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/subtle-absolutisms/ http://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/subtle-absolutisms/
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  While wrong, they are based on a very real set of differences to the relationship of the media to the consumer. That should be celebrated however. Neither is better. You can argue the merits and effectiveness of an adaptation but the media it's communicated on has very little to do with that (usually). I don't know why people treat it as a team sport.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    Why "wrong"? Certainly the idea of a book as active and film as passive dovetails with my own experience. Reading a book, well a story at least, to me is a creative process: I create the world the characters live in using the elements the author offers up. Watching a film I get absorbed, hopefully, in to a world that is a fait accompli. Edit: I should say "more active", etc.. I'd agree with the OP that watching a film is still collaborative but in a markedly different way to reading a story.
    - ghostly_s 9y ago
      Cinema entirely possesses the capacity to suggest elements of the world which are not defined explicitly, just as books do. In fact I think it's a fundamental misunderstanding of perception to think a film can possibly be a 'fait accompli'. As an easy example, I just watched Tarkovsky's Stalker this past week. The film revolves around the exploration of a physical supernatural phenomenon called 'The Zone'. Yet there is not a single thing on screen to demonstrate the supernatural characteristics of this place, aside from the protagonist's reactions to it.
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      > Why "wrong"? I'm saying they're wrong to dismiss one medium just because... well, it's that medium (which is basically all they are doing). There is nothing intrinsically wrong about an adaptation of a book: they are just fundamentally different due to the medium. It's the dismissiveness that's wrong, specifically, not the observation of differences.
- pwaivers 9y ago
  I think Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a great example that being "faithful" is not entirely important. It was first a radio show, then a book, then a play, then a movie. Each iteration changes the story a bit, but keeps the core humor and ideas. So even when you know the story, each medium provides a different view on the same story. After delving into the many iterations of Hitchhiker's, "faithfulness" is not as important to me. I see movie adaptations as a creative and different way to retell a story.
jonny_eh 9y ago
This reminds me of when Roger Ebert dismissed video games of being incapable of becoming art. Anything that requires creativity to make is art. Different mediums offer different avenues for creative expression as well as different ways of interacting with an audience.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  > Anything that requires creativity to make is art. I strongly disagree with this statement, in the context of the definition of "art" that Ebert was using. His definition also excludes the vast majority of movies, paintings, and other things that are generally acknowledged as "art". Ebert was talking about sublime art. It's easy for something to be creative without being sublime.
  - cholantesh 9y ago
    Ebert ultimately had to invent that definition of art when he found himself unable to defend his original premise. Or, really, unwilling,because he didn't want to spend time playing video games so as to bolster his argument.

33 points by prismatic 9y ago

More of the Adam Mars-Jones quote from cited January 4 review[1]: >Even the most relentless book filters diffusely into the life of the reader, while a film suspends that life for its duration. The transposition of a novel like Endo’s Silence into film, however “faithful”, can only amount to a distortion, an exaggeration overall however many elements of the book are represented. [...] In a book, too, reader and writer collaborate to produce images, while a film director hands them down. AMJ repeats the common criticism that books are superior to movie adaptations. He also repeats the claim that books are "active" and movies are "passive" entertainment. Those dismissals have been so common for decades since the invention of "moving pictures" that I'm surprised Scorsese even responded to it. [1] http://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/subtle-absolutisms/ http://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/subtle-absolutisms/

abritinthebay 9y ago
While wrong, they are based on a very real set of differences to the relationship of the media to the consumer. That should be celebrated however. Neither is better. You can argue the merits and effectiveness of an adaptation but the media it's communicated on has very little to do with that (usually). I don't know why people treat it as a team sport.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  Why "wrong"? Certainly the idea of a book as active and film as passive dovetails with my own experience. Reading a book, well a story at least, to me is a creative process: I create the world the characters live in using the elements the author offers up. Watching a film I get absorbed, hopefully, in to a world that is a fait accompli. Edit: I should say "more active", etc.. I'd agree with the OP that watching a film is still collaborative but in a markedly different way to reading a story.
  - ghostly_s 9y ago
    Cinema entirely possesses the capacity to suggest elements of the world which are not defined explicitly, just as books do. In fact I think it's a fundamental misunderstanding of perception to think a film can possibly be a 'fait accompli'. As an easy example, I just watched Tarkovsky's Stalker this past week. The film revolves around the exploration of a physical supernatural phenomenon called 'The Zone'. Yet there is not a single thing on screen to demonstrate the supernatural characteristics of this place, aside from the protagonist's reactions to it.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    > Why "wrong"? I'm saying they're wrong to dismiss one medium just because... well, it's that medium (which is basically all they are doing). There is nothing intrinsically wrong about an adaptation of a book: they are just fundamentally different due to the medium. It's the dismissiveness that's wrong, specifically, not the observation of differences.
pwaivers 9y ago
I think Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a great example that being "faithful" is not entirely important. It was first a radio show, then a book, then a play, then a movie. Each iteration changes the story a bit, but keeps the core humor and ideas. So even when you know the story, each medium provides a different view on the same story. After delving into the many iterations of Hitchhiker's, "faithfulness" is not as important to me. I see movie adaptations as a creative and different way to retell a story.

jonny_eh 9y ago

This reminds me of when Roger Ebert dismissed video games of being incapable of becoming art. Anything that requires creativity to make is art. Different mediums offer different avenues for creative expression as well as different ways of interacting with an audience.

khedoros1 9y ago
> Anything that requires creativity to make is art. I strongly disagree with this statement, in the context of the definition of "art" that Ebert was using. His definition also excludes the vast majority of movies, paintings, and other things that are generally acknowledged as "art". Ebert was talking about sublime art. It's easy for something to be creative without being sublime.
- cholantesh 9y ago
  Ebert ultimately had to invent that definition of art when he found himself unable to defend his original premise. Or, really, unwilling,because he didn't want to spend time playing video games so as to bolster his argument.