big life; small space

I'd disagree entirely. First of all, don't be swayed by his talk about stories anf fairytales and truth. Anyone can spout that ramadoola and _still_ make bad movies. Look at George Lucas, who practically bought Joseph Campbell for PR work on his movies.

Second, treating the HP books as sacred makes me worry, a _lot_. That's what bugged me about the Chris Columbus movies; they were _too_ close to the books, and they went for the casting and Big Scenes that everyone in the world imagined. They weren't _bad_ movies, but they were kinda blah. But the last two films, they got directors who were willing to play around and _surprise_ the audience a little.

The _main_ reason they make movies out of books is to make shitloads of money. But the best _artistic_ reason for adapting a book isn't to simply "film the book." It's to make a movie that either captures the book's spirit within a decent movie-- which means that making a good movie is more important than making a slavish adaptation. (Look at _Prixoner of Azkaban_ as a decent example.) Or, one could use the book as a springboard for a movie that's very different, but potentially a great movie-- like Stanley Kubrick's _The Shining_ or Curtis Hanson's _L.A. Confidential_.

From:

Okay, you're saying that Azkaban's film version is better than the first two? You need to put down the crack pipe. By your logic above, are the Lord of the Rings films bunk for being too close to their source material? Any film adaptation is problematic, but come on.

From:

_Azkaban_ better than the first two? Absolutely. The first two were decent movies, but they weren't anything more than what I'd imagined in the books. They shoehorned in the major plot points and showed them as efficiently as they could.

But _Azkaban_ was very different. It's as though they realized that they could stick to the book as a general outline, but they could do things that made for a better _movie_ instead of a compression of the book. Also, the director had a sensibility that was really distinct, and it made it a more interesting and surprising movie.

To be blunt, the general consensus among most reviewers, and most of my friends, is that _Azkaban_ was leagues better than the first two films. I'm interested to know why you don't share that opinion.

Personally, I loved the _Lord of the Rings_ films, and no, they weren't too close or too far away fromthe source material. There were some _radical_ differences, but they made for a better movie of that story.

From:

From a cinematography standpoint, Azkaban was a beautiful film and I think the director did a wonderful job with that. I think however the film left out some fairly important points of development, such as the explanation of the map and how it came to be. I also thought the end was problematic.

It's difficult to adapt a book into film but I think it's presumptious to state that there is "a best artistic reason." That comes off as condescending and a bit ridiculous.

From:

Sorry if it sounds condescending, but it's true. Here's why.

Let's say you're a filmmaker, and you've just read a really good book. So you ask yourself if you might want to make a movie from it. It's not a casual question, since making a movie requires months of scripting, negotiating, acquiring funding and contracts, casting, filming, editing, etc. So you'd have to have a really good reason for an adaptation. In other words, you don't adapt a book into a movie merely because you liked it. You have to have a good reason (apart from making money, that is).

And as I said, there are only two really good reasons. The first is that you want to create a film that will convey, to an audience, your experience in reading it. You want to capture a spirit within the book. And since books and films are two different ways of telling stories, you're probably going to make changes that tell the story more vividly as film. (For example, all of that exposition in the Shrieking Shack got cut down a _lot_.) So that's the first reason.

This doesn't mean that the film has to be a direct translation into film. Filmmakers have varying degrees of skill and creativity. Chris Columbus did a crafstmanlike job on the first two films. But others can create scenes, events, or even characters that _support_ the adaptation, or help create the mood present in the original book. (Remember that scene where the boys are eating candies that make them roar like animals? Not in the book, but it was a _perfect_ touch.)

(Come to think of it, _L.A. Confidential_ fits here: they couldn't translate the book, so they developed a simpler story that incorporated the major scenes _and_ told it in a way that captured James Ellroy's voice extremely well.)

But the other reason is, well, a more artistic choice. There are filmmakers who find a story, and who bring so much of their own sensibilities and ideas to the project that the film they create is more of _their_ creation than of the book's author. You get this with filmmakers like David Cronenberg, or Stanley Kubrick. When they adapt a book, you don't go expecting a mere translation of the book: you go to see _their_ ideas and sensibilities at work, and the results may be radically different than what the book was, originally.

If there's a third artistic reason to adapt a book into a movie, please, let me know.

From:

I haven't even read all of this yet (but so far I sort of disagree with both of you, and I'm saving it up), but would you please tell me how an opinion can be "true"? Other than when and how a piece of art was made, most discussion about art is relegated to the world of opinion -- some informed, some less so, but such matters are not possibly the domain of fact, the willfulness of all concerned quite aside.

In discussing the HP films there are a few issues on the table:
- adaptation, which requires knowledge of the source material as well as the nature of adaptation to discuss well.
- art, in which we're talking about the pure filmmaking values of the final product and the participants in it
- storytelling, fairytales and community knowledge and events

Since no one in this discussion has writen a dissertation on HP, and I'm fairly certain no one here has a film degree (correct me if I'm wrong), we are all merely armchair scholars, although often thoroughly self-educated/informed ones.

However, I wouldn't tolerate a statement of opinion as fact from the fictive scholars I allude to. In the context of this, where filmmaking and HP (in unrelated contexts) is invariably a part of every single one of my days (scary that), I would still be profoundly embarassed if I got caught out using the phrasing and tonality of some of this discussion.

If art were about facts or truth beyond the personal, science would be the subject of all great romances.

From:

An opinion can be "true" for lots of reasons. (I don't mean an opinion about a fact, like "I believe apples fall." I mean aesthetic opinions, like "I think Martin Scorsese is a better filmmaker than Gore Verbinski.") It relies on whether the person holding the opinion can support it with intelligible reasons. Is the reasoning sound? Does it match your own experience (and can you explain why it does or doesn't)? Can you think of a counter-example, or a realistic instance where the opinion doesn't work? Does it provide an insight that one didn't have before?

Also, an opinion can be "true" in a limited sense; true in certain cases, but not always. Like I said, one response to my comments would be to think of a _third_ good artistic reason for adapting a book into a movie.

BTW, I don't dismiss armchair scholarship, at least not in principle; people can be pretty insightful when they're interested in something. What matters isn't someone's credentials, but how well they do it. (And actually, science really is a great romantic subject sometimes.)

From:

I too have an affection, which should perhaps be obvious, for science as a romantic subject, but that is a post for another time.

An opinion can be popularly or widely held, making it seem true. Or, of course, it can be as true as true is for the holder of said opinion (see my "I stand with the Prince" icons -- until JKR tells us otherwise, that's just how it is around here. Chances are, even when she tells us otherwise, that'll still be how it is around here).

Look, I appreciate more than most people the bending of fact. Saying "My mother never loved me" is always more effective than "It seemed my mother never loved me." However, when having a discussion or debate with someone, as opposed to telling your own story, it can seem astoundingly bloody obnoxious.

One of the reasons I've not yet particularly entered into the meat of this discussion is that I spend an inordinate amount of time on movie sets, and seeing how movies are made, and the things that go into what finally winds up on the screen. And despite personal projects I am working on, I am not a moviemaker at this moment in time, being on the other side of the camera, so I don't want to pull out the "I know more about this than you do" card, because I try about what I do, more than most things, not to be an arse. But the fact most certainly is that I do know different about these things than the other parties involved in this discussion.

Of course you don't dimiss armchair scholarship. If you did, you'd hardly be able to participate with a straight face in this discussion.

From the moment this discussion started I was displeased by the tone, but I also loathe the idea of enforced niceness, so I decided to fight or ignore. But when I posted about Shyamalan's remarks about honouring story and fairytale, your response of "don't be swayed" etc., read like a dismissmal of my own critical thinking skills. Notions of truth and story and identity are what I do for a living. Asking me why I chose to believe him (and belief is always a choice) would have been reasonable, since I just posted about it in passing. Your seeming assumption that I don't think about these issues especially where my profession and my heart intersect -- well that's either just nasty or short sighted. I loathe debate through attempted bullying, despite my own skill and enjoyment with the small, sharp and pointy division of English vocabulary and sentence structure.

Ah, the Internet and the mystery of tonal quality.

From:

Okay, you've gone from presumptious and condescending to right off the deep end. Your assertations about films and motivations have some valid points but your argument isn't even really an actual argument. Saying there is a best way, a right way, or that only some ways are valid to create is an utterly pointless exercise.

From:

Well, all I can say is this. I offered an opinion, and I provided my reasons for believing it to be true. You could try addressing those reasons, or suggesting alternatives which may also be true that I haven't thought of.

Instead, you seem to have missed what I was saying entirely. I never said that there was a "best" way or a "right" way to adapt a book into a film. I said that there were only two good artistic _reasons_ for an adaptation. That's _reasons_, not _methods_.

But you went straight for insults, calling me "condescending" and "off the deep end." I can't see how I'm "condescending": I wrote my entries on the assumption that you _could_ follow my argument. As for the "off the deep end" comment, well, that's the sort of thing Bill O'Reilly says when he's confronted by opinions he doesn't like.

So I think I'm right to be offended here.

From:

But you missed the point there - opinions and facts are not the same thing. That is the crux of the matter. You may believe your opinion is true ad be able to make all sorts of arguments, but that doesn't make it a statement of fact. To pass off opions as facts is somewhat insulting. (And really the sort of thing Bill O'Reilly does if we want to get down to it.)

Condescending comes from statements such as the one above implying that I can't follow your argument. Frankly, I've seen it any number of comments you've made on RM's journal. Do you talk to all people this way, or just the ones you think you can get away with it? I'm unimpressed and I honestly don't care too much if I've insulted you by calling you on the absurdity of your argument.

From:

I was discussing the best artistic reasons why someone would adapt a book into a movie. That's been the "crux" of the matter.

You came back with a note about my smoking crack and why I _should_ think badly of _Lord of the Rings_-- which I don't. Right off the bat, you went into insults, and clearly did _not_ follow what I'd said.

So, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and explained my position in greater detail. You called this "condescending."

Given your last note, I think I understand your point of view here: you're offended that I _have_ an opinion in the first place. You're even _more_ offended that I can make a good case for them, so you start throwing around insults and childish complaints of "condescension" "That's just your opinion!"

From:

Your comprehension of my point of view is about 45 degrees off. I'm not offended by you actually having an opinion per se, so much as how you treat this opinion like gospel. It smacks of arrogance to posit that there are "best" reasons for art, and to make it sound like your opinion on the matter is a fact is even more so. Just because I disagree with you strongly doesn't mean I can't follow your argument, such as it is. Calling me childish and implying that I can't understand your words of wisdom doesn't make you look like a big man here or make your case any stronger.

As a side note: If you found the crack comment insulting, then really you're in the wrong corner of the world for any number of reasons. I don't have the time or inclination to explain the use of the word crack in fannish slang but really.

From:

Is this the third time in 24-hours that I have to explain that it might perhaps be unreasonable for people to expect fluffy bunny niceness in a journal with a high % of Snape content?

From:

Let me get this straight. I posted an opinion, and when challenged, defended that opinion. The _opinion_ itself wasn't offensive, but you and tsarina project this insult upon it; apparently, saying that one's opinion is true offends all civilized people and violates the spirit of social conversation.

But when tsarina uses _actual_ insults, the rules change: suddenly we're on the Wild and Wooly Internet, where insults are not only standard, but complaints are wholly irrational.

Now, if you're saying that I can let the intellectual stuff lie, and start in with calling tsarina rotten names, well, I can adjust. It'd be a lot easier. Just say the word, and tell tsarina not to complain.

From:

apparently, saying that one's opinion is true offends all civilized people and violates the spirit of social conversation.

No - saying your opinion is true makes you sound like somone who skipped school that day in third grade when we learned the difference between fact and opinion. You've already compared me to O'Reilly, so I'm ust quaking in my boots for fear of the awful insults you will fling at me now. I'm sure it will be an awful experience, being insulted by someone who acts like fannish lingo is a personal attack and has painted himself into a corner with a foolish argument.

Now there's a fandom event we need - all the armchair scholars can all sit down and insult each other right and left over opinions we hold as facts! They should really have that at Lumos, it would be a riot.

From:

Actually, no, you missed what I was attempting to say.

1. I have found your tone from the beginning of this discussion to be rude and condescending -- that includes your first comment to me (as I have already pointed out) in which not enough of this discussion had actually transpired for my objection to be about whether or not we agreed.

2. I've been addressing your statements as they bother me. I couldn't care less if you're fighting with

tsarina for anything other than the entertainment value. We've been friends for a long time, and as most who know the history of that friendship are aware, I'm disinclined to defend her, not just because she can take care of herself, but because enough B.S. has also gone on in our now amicable interaction that defending her honour is the least of my concerns. You probably won't grok this; others will be amused. So it goes.

3. I don't tell my friends to behave. That's not my job. I suspect you treat your friends differently.

4. For the record, my personal investment in the HP films as art is pretty low. While I vastly enjoy them, particularly as social events, they have a lot of significant flaws for me, both as regards HP and film. One of the weirdest things about Snape in the books is that he's quite young -- that age issue is lost in the films as regards him, Lupin and Sirius, and it hurts the films, as much as I've enjoyed the associated performances. Honestly, the films matter to me in occassional moments I'm dying to see -- so far, I've been disappointed, because the moment I was desperate for in Movie 4 never happened. 5 promises to be kinder to my fixations since my fixations actually finally become plot central. At any rate, not relevant at this juncture.

4. I do not understand how can you be so outraged by what is pretty minor stuff in the realm of Internet flamage directed at you, but be utterly unwilling to consider even the possibility that you might have been the asshole first -- not because you disagreed with someone, but because you assumed the other people involved in this discussion were somehow ignorant or intellectually inferior to reach conclusions not entirely identical with your own.

5. I find certitude without justification profoundly unappealing at any level of interaction. I can't figure out if you're blind to your own culpability in this utterly ridiculous drama or if you somehow think an unjustified yet aggresive stance is a mark of confidence, intellectual capacity and/or masculinity. It's not hot, it's not interesting, and it doesn't make you look like the bad boy with the motorcycle.

6. In case it's still not clear -- your tone, not just in this post, but in nearly every single comment you have ever made in my journal, has been odious and seemingly predicated on the assumption that whomever you were replying to (myself or other people commenting) was totally uninformed on the matter at hand, even when what you were responding to evidenced significant knowledge of the subject.

7. There are other people on my journal who argue as agressively as you and occassionally make me nuts for it. However, they generally possess the skill to make it worth my time, and the knowledge to make them look like something other than a complete and total git.

And now I bow out and leave you and Tsarina to it.

From:

baldanders.livejournal.com

You're right, I did enjoy that.

From:

hee!

From:

heron61.livejournal.com

Other than the aforementioned issues with women (which from my PoV is largely about their absence, and will hopefully be remedied in Lady in the Water), why don't you like his films? Specifically, what didn't you like about Sixth Sense and Unbreakable (two films that greatly impressed me)?

From: