Film as literature

[larkin]

Film as literature.

This is a request to post films that moved you emotionally or a film that really effected your view on life.   

There are films out there that rise to the level of great books. 

 

Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451" is my first pic.

Kubrick's "Dr Strangelove"

Huston's  "Treasure of the Sierra Madre"

Midnight Cowboy

The Deer Hunter.

The Matrix #1

 

 

 

[D'Artagnon]

well, for film as literature...

 

Sword in the Stone - yeah, i know it's animation but it's a well told story.

 

Star Wars: A New Hope - i don't think i need to defend how this changed our culture

 

Taps - scary how some things can get out of hand so quickly, and how honor and duty get so easily traded for monetary gain

 

Better Off Dead - because, uhm, because... John Cusak, that's why!

 

This one might be disavowed because it was a television miniseries, but V - It's parallels to the rise of the Nazis was very frightening to young me

 

and lets end with....

 

American Beauty - because as I grew into adulthood, I too wanted to alter the crap in my life for the better.

 

there's probably more, but, let's see what others think

[larkin]

yes there films that make a childhood impression.  Close Encounters

[ken barber]

Funny Robbie How as I started to think about my list these popped right to the top
 

Star wars

Taps

 

Of course I have to add a few
Glory-and amazing story about honor and courage.

Indiana Jones and the temple of doom-because lets face it everyone wants to be an adventurer deep down

[Zach Caldwell]

Not sure I am on the same track as the rest of you. The movie was alright, but the book was 100 times better. I am thinking of the Hunt for Red October

[D'Artagnon]

Oh boy.  hehe, uh, this is sparked by Ken above, but is not about him.  One of the two persons who I sort of combined into the character of "Kenny" in my Coupe and Riposte stories (The boy in question also being named Kenny), sort of  groped me for the first time while we were watching Raiders of the Lost Ark.  His dad was the projectionist at the base theater when we were at the tender ages of 12 (Kenny) and 11 (Me).  That led to, shall we say, other adventures.  Let your mind wander, you're probably right.  But that was such a good movie.  It has that memory, but I have always been an action-adventure junkie.  You might could say that I didn't mind the distraction, LOL.

 

Indiana Jones movies are still awesome.  There was a series of other adventure type movies at that time.  Really badly done, compared to the books the stories were based on.  Alan Quartermaine stories (sp?), if my memory is to be believed.  And this is just something that hit me, I seem to remember the slave quarters from Star Wars: the Phantom Menace being in another movie as either ruins or some sort of ancient city.

 

My brain works in weird ways.

[Mark C.]

I still love the opening scenes of 2001: A Space Odyssey. The dawn of time and the trip to the moon while the Blue Danube played in the background... I loved reading Sci-fi back then but this movie showed me I truly 'grok'ed it.

[ken barber]

Raiders of the Lost ark was based off graphic novels so I don't know if that really fits the Film a literature concept but I had to include it.

 

One lesson my grandfather taught me at an early age was to never expect a movie to be on par with a book. A movie is like the cliff notes. The example he used after we saw a movie that both of us had read the book before (I dont remember the movie unfortunatly) I made the comment "That was a horrible adaptation."  (I was maybe 13 trying to impress my mentor with a very intellectual response). He said nothing until we got home and pulled out a photo album and show me a picture of him and I at the statue of liberty the previous summer.

 

"Remember this?"

 

"Of course."

 

"Wasn't the statue tremendous and amazing?" 

 

"Breathtaking" (I might be embellishing here)

 

"Do you get the same since of wonder, pride and amazement when you look at the picture."
 

"Not really"

 

"Taking a poloriod (yes he would have said this) of a massive sculpture like that will never do it justice but we still enjoy the picture, we just enjoy it for different reasons."

 

Watching a movie adapted from a book is  the poloriod we can not expect the same results, its two different forms of art trying to tell a similar story. The Book allows you imagination to fill in the blanks and the film appeals to your visual and auditory senses. 

 

I

[Steve T.]

I've always been a huge reading fan, and generally didn't care for movie adaptations.  It seemed to me that when watching a movie, you can only see it one way...basically however the cinematographer/director/editor chose to show it to you.  I never felt a part of film.  It was almost as if the film was being directed AT me while with the book I usually felt as if I was included in the story.

 

The only movie that I ever enjoyed as much as the book was Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird."  We were tasked to read it in my freshman English class.  We had what seemed to me to be an inordinately long amount of time to read it (like 5 or 6 weeks!) so I actually read it close to 10 times.  It really spoke to me.  (Thirteen years old and already socially conscious!)  When we were finished with all the testing and book reports required, the teacher brought in a VHS copy of the film and we watched it over the next 2 or 3 days.  From then on, whenever I read the book (and I've read it dozens of times since) Gregory Peck WAS Atticus Finch.  The child actors who were cast became Jem and Scout and Dill.  Even Robert Duvall became Boo Radley for me.  In my mind, no one else could EVER be those characters.  Fortunately, I think they did some of the best casting ever when they cast that film. 

[Azorf]

Raiders of the Lost ark was based off graphic novels so I don't know if that really fits the Film a literature concept but I had to include it.

One lesson my grandfather taught me at an early age was to never expect a movie to be on par with a book. A movie is like the cliff notes. The example he used after we saw a movie that both of us had read the book before (I dont remember the movie unfortunatly) I made the comment "That was a horrible adaptation."  (I was maybe 13 trying to impress my mentor with a very intellectual response). He said nothing until we got home and pulled out a photo album and show me a picture of him and I at the statue of liberty the previous summer.

 

Watching a movie adapted from a book is  the poloriod we can not expect the same results, its two different forms of art trying to tell a similar story. The Book allows you imagination to fill in the blanks and the film appeals to your visual and auditory senses. 

Unless you want to have films several hours -or more- long they can only be a precis of the book at best. At worst they pick one or two highlights and then add a ton of irrelevant or fabricated trash just to appeal to a mass market, but I suppose when you are spending hundreds of millions on a film you want it to appeal to the widest market possible. The book not only allows the readers imagination to fill in the blanks but can run parallel descriptions to flesh out the plot, something which would become very tedious to a film audience. I often come back to books I've read many times before and each time I have a different vision in my mind, shaped and colored by my life experiences up to that moment.

Film as literature: I would say Sergio Leone's films (Fistful of Dollars etc) would be the equivalent of a good book in the way he used the music and closeup shots to build the suspense or emphasise the plot. I love scifi films but Star Wars leaves me cold, unlike other recent ones like Interstellar or Gravity. Just read The Martian, at least the film kept pretty close to the book, allowing for dropping bits to keep it watchable, though I keep thinking Matt Damon will start chopping the bad guys any moment a la Jason Bourne!

[Al Norris]

I've come back to this thread several times in the last week, so I suppose I should give my own opinion.

The best that I've seen (in my lifetime) was the adaptation of Lord of the Rings (LOTR). At a little over 11 hours of movie watching (for all three movies), Peter Jackson did a heck of a job. Was stuff left out? Yes. Was the series faithful to the books? Yes, within the limitations of the art form.

I suppose to those purists out there, there was a lot to criticize about the adaptation. The purists however, forget the limitations of the screen. As a stand-alone art form, Peter Jackson got this one spot on.

His second try at this type of adaptation (The Hobbit), fell flat in my opinion. That book is not one that lends itself to the "Big Screen" in the same manner that LOTR does.

Peter Jackson's LOTR fills the bill as Film as Literature, until something better comes along.

[Rilbur]

The best that I've seen (in my lifetime) was the adaptation of Lord of the Rings (LOTR). At a little over 11 hours of movie watching (for all three movies), Peter Jackson did a heck of a job. Was stuff left out? Yes. Was the series faithful to the books? Yes, within the limitations of the art form.

I suppose to those purists out there, there was a lot to criticize about the adaptation. The purists however, forget the limitations of the screen. As a stand-alone art form, Peter Jackson got this one spot on.

I'm sorry, but Faramir was something that was well within the 'limitations of the screen'.  The fact that he was a better man than his brother -- that he rejected the siren's call of the ring from the get go, was a major point of his character in the books.  He didn't start out dragging it home then change his mind halfway there.  (Mind you, that's a limited enough complaint, but... it's a major one)

Edited May 17, 2016 by Rilbur

[Al Norris]

I give you: Tom Bombadil!

A movie goer will not know who the heck I'm referencing.

Faramir notwithstanding, as I said, the purists found a lot to criticize. Thank you for making my point!

[D'Artagnon]

Ugh!  I hated that character, and his whole singing about "marrying the river's daughter."  We get it, you married a river nymph.  Congratulations, here's your prize.  You serve no purpose to the story, please move to the back of the line.

 

Sometimes, and I use this very, very delicately, sometimes the movie is better than the book.  Maybe not as in depth as the book can be, nor as profound in characterization, realizations, historical references and such, but there is just some things in the book that a decent editor should have asked the author "uh, WTF, mate, over."  Sometimes, it is good to leave some things out of a film version of popular literature.

Similarly, while director acting as editor is a good thing, sometimes, director acting as ghost writer is a bad thing.  In the Hobbit, the relationship between the one dwarf and the female elf doesn't factor into the book at all, but is a prevalent theme in the movie.   And the whole barrel riding down the river didn't have a rolicking running melee with the elves showing off their gymnastics, the dwarves showing off their manual dexterity and the orcs showing how tough yet stupid they are.  It was just them stuck in barrels floating away, unseen.  Yet to make the story more exciting, the director tweaked a 20 minute sequence out of it. 

Better than the book's version of that event?  Arguable, but it isn't what the author wrote either.  Did it make the movie better, especially for those who haven't read the book, either ever or in many years (such as in my case)?  I remember thoroughly enjoying the popcorn during that scene, and was perplexed when at the scene's end, the bucket in my lap was ended as well.  I did enjoy it, but I feel that it changed the nature of the story.  Bilbo was hired as a burglar.  For his stealth and cunning, even if he doubted those traits in himself.  The barrel escape as in the book was brilliant, and showed his resourcefulness to the dwarven party, yet again.  So, I'm of two minds there.

[Al Norris]

Tom Bombadil is listed as a 'supporting character', yet I have always wondered what it was that Bombadil was supporting! Regardless, I agree with Peter Jackson's decision to cut him out of the adaptation. He serves no purpose in the story line, other than to show us that there are enigmatic beings in the world, and that we don't get to have more than a fleeting experience with them.

Yet the 'purists' screamed bloody murder, that he was excluded. sigh.

In Jackson's adaptation of 'The Hobbit', I can agree that he (Jackson) took way more liberties which actually changed the nature of the story. For the worse in my opinion.

Let me just say that as 'Film as Literature', Jackson's version of 'The Hobbit' fails.

[Rilbur]

Let me just say that as 'Film as Literature', Jackson's version of 'The Hobbit' fails.

And fails horribly.

[Jeikor]

I have to agree that as Film as Literature The Hobbit Fails horribly. However, I find them to be quite enjoyable movies if I forget I ever read the book while watching.

Another horrible failure was Eragon. It barely was recognizable to the book version.

Lord of the Rings was quite good. I also thought the Harry Potter movies did good by the books until the last movie. They totally missed the final battle and what happens to the Elder Wand.

[Rilbur]

They may have been wrong on what happened to the elder wand, but I felt the final battle in general was well handled.