Books to movies and back again
I read with much amusement Wannabe Lawyer's post on V for Vendetta and criticism of the way the material was handled by the Wachowski brothers.
I have this policy about book to movie transitions and that is to treat the book and the movie as completely separate entities that have nothing but the title and maybe a germ of an idea in common(sometimes not even that).
The reason is simple. What makes a good book does not always make a good movie and what makes a good movie probably won't make a good book either. And when one enters the realm of the graphic novel, the issue is complicated by the movie makers having to translate the comic artist's aesthetic into film as well.
Sometimes, it works well (X-Men 2 is a good example) and sometimes it just doesn't(The Incredible Hulk comes to mind). But for myself, I have always found that watching the movie without having ever read the book/comic ensures that I go in without preconceptions and that I'm therefore less likely to be bitterly disappointed by the show.
All this is, unfortunately, an onerously long winded way of politely disagreeing with Wannabe Lawyer's assessment of V for Vendetta.
I quite liked it. I haven't read the graphic novel though so I suppose my theory on preconceptions leading one to harbour unrealistic expectations probably stood up to this test(not that it proves much).
It wasn't fantastic in the oh my god that was the best movie I've seen all year kind of way but it was an interesting watch. I liked Hugo Weaving's acting and the way he fleshed out a character whose face could not be seen with just his voice and body language. To make a man seem graceful(when fighting) and gauche (when trying to talk to Evey) at the same time, to bring out the pathos and the strength of V with his body and his voice; I thought that very few actors could have brought it off as well as he did.
Natalie Portman turned in a performance that was far less nuanced than what she is really capable of(try watching Closer) but she seems generally incapable of doing a really bad job and I thought she brought off the change in the pre imprisonment Evey and post imprisonment Evey fairly well.
Perhaps the Wachowski brothers overdid the drama more than a little, particularly at the end, but in all, the way the story was told, the scenes with the ordinary Londoners in front of their TV sets, the way that they attempted to tie them all together wasn't that badly done.
But yes, I'll agree that the politics behind the movie were awfully simplistic and more than a little Americanized. But for a Sunday night movie where I wanted just a little entertainment and not too much thinking, it was okay.
Which is of course, the most powerful critique one can make of a purportedly political movie.
I have this policy about book to movie transitions and that is to treat the book and the movie as completely separate entities that have nothing but the title and maybe a germ of an idea in common(sometimes not even that).
The reason is simple. What makes a good book does not always make a good movie and what makes a good movie probably won't make a good book either. And when one enters the realm of the graphic novel, the issue is complicated by the movie makers having to translate the comic artist's aesthetic into film as well.
Sometimes, it works well (X-Men 2 is a good example) and sometimes it just doesn't(The Incredible Hulk comes to mind). But for myself, I have always found that watching the movie without having ever read the book/comic ensures that I go in without preconceptions and that I'm therefore less likely to be bitterly disappointed by the show.
All this is, unfortunately, an onerously long winded way of politely disagreeing with Wannabe Lawyer's assessment of V for Vendetta.
I quite liked it. I haven't read the graphic novel though so I suppose my theory on preconceptions leading one to harbour unrealistic expectations probably stood up to this test(not that it proves much).
It wasn't fantastic in the oh my god that was the best movie I've seen all year kind of way but it was an interesting watch. I liked Hugo Weaving's acting and the way he fleshed out a character whose face could not be seen with just his voice and body language. To make a man seem graceful(when fighting) and gauche (when trying to talk to Evey) at the same time, to bring out the pathos and the strength of V with his body and his voice; I thought that very few actors could have brought it off as well as he did.
Natalie Portman turned in a performance that was far less nuanced than what she is really capable of(try watching Closer) but she seems generally incapable of doing a really bad job and I thought she brought off the change in the pre imprisonment Evey and post imprisonment Evey fairly well.
Perhaps the Wachowski brothers overdid the drama more than a little, particularly at the end, but in all, the way the story was told, the scenes with the ordinary Londoners in front of their TV sets, the way that they attempted to tie them all together wasn't that badly done.
But yes, I'll agree that the politics behind the movie were awfully simplistic and more than a little Americanized. But for a Sunday night movie where I wanted just a little entertainment and not too much thinking, it was okay.
Which is of course, the most powerful critique one can make of a purportedly political movie.
posted by adinahaes at 3:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home