Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Dir: Alfonso Cuaron
2004
Synopsis: Harry Potter is in his third year at Hogwarts and is faced with not only the typical trials of the school year but also a new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher and the fact that Sirius has escaped from Azkaban prison. Feeling torn, Harry half wants to chase down Sirius and kill him and half fears the result of a confrontation between them.
Until this film, the previous Harry Potter adaptations were cut-and-paste at best. They were exact replications of the books on film, simply removing the character scenes that did not drive plot in order to compress plot. They dumbed down the stories and simplified them, making them not much more than something a little pretty to look at because of the magical elements.
Cuaron changed that in the third film. He shifted them to a dramatically darker level. He kept true to the original story, as far as the plot was concerned, but added his own touches and character moments that were not found in the books in order to let you deeper into the minds of the characters and make them more relatable.
Visually, he also darkened the story with each scene almost completely black with heavy shadows. The creepy stylization of the Death Eaters took the film from a young children’s story to more substantial. He applied some artistic shots such as Harry on the train, seeing him through the wet glass gives an eerie look to his face.
These artistic changes gave the film a type of personality that the book did not possess – could not possess. It allowed the film to remain true to the story but give the film meaning to exist and merit as something more than just the repositioning of the same story with nothing new to add.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Final Paper Assignment
Dear Class,
Your assignment for the final paper is as follows:
5-7 pages (double spaced, 12 pt font, etc) analysis of a film that you've already written about for this class in which you form a thesis (an overarching interpretive claim) and support it based on the formal and structural elements of the film. That is, if you stick to plot and dialog within the film, you are missing the bigger picture.
I want you to stay away from evaluative claims and our list of "dirty words" from the beginning of the semester. The idea is to demonstrate your understanding of how all of the formal elements of a film come to together to describe a specific theme or concept that is relevent to a deeper understanding of its content. The key to a good paper is a strong thesis, which doesn't include "I like it" or "it was really good." A thesis statement essentially asks a question that is going to be answered in the course of the paper using examples from the film.
If you need an example of a this sort of analysis, look to pg 39 of your textbook. The article assigned to you on "Primary" also provides a very analysis of that documentary in the broader context of "direct cinema".
Your assignment for the final paper is as follows:
5-7 pages (double spaced, 12 pt font, etc) analysis of a film that you've already written about for this class in which you form a thesis (an overarching interpretive claim) and support it based on the formal and structural elements of the film. That is, if you stick to plot and dialog within the film, you are missing the bigger picture.
I want you to stay away from evaluative claims and our list of "dirty words" from the beginning of the semester. The idea is to demonstrate your understanding of how all of the formal elements of a film come to together to describe a specific theme or concept that is relevent to a deeper understanding of its content. The key to a good paper is a strong thesis, which doesn't include "I like it" or "it was really good." A thesis statement essentially asks a question that is going to be answered in the course of the paper using examples from the film.
If you need an example of a this sort of analysis, look to pg 39 of your textbook. The article assigned to you on "Primary" also provides a very analysis of that documentary in the broader context of "direct cinema".
Chris Bergeris-The Stand
Released: 1994
Written by: Stephen King
Directed by: Mick Garris
Stephen King released his 4th book (out of over 40) in 1978, entitled "The Stand". The concept of the long novel is an American military base has accidentally released a pleague that kills 99.99% of the population. The novel focuses on the survivors of the pleague as they split into two groups. One, is led by an elderly black woman named Mother Abagail and the other is led by a mysterious mystical man who goes by many names, but mostly goes by the name of Randall Flagg. The two leaders represent not onyl good and evil, but God and the devil. As one group is creating a new society, the other group is destroying society. It all leads to a big battle of good and evil and who will make their last stand.
The Stand is acutally published in two different volumes. The original, which was released in 1978 and the second volume (which is really the only one you can find in bookstores) was re-released in 1989 with all the pages that were cut out from the original which all adds up to 1141 pages, making it the longest book of King's carerr (and for those keeping score The Stand is longer then all 3 books of Lord of the Rings) and the second volume also adds a new ending to the book. For years, fans asked King if The Stand would ever be adapted into a film (as if even a 3 hour movie could cover all 1141 pages of the book) and finally, in 1994, it happened.
In 1994, ABC bought King's adaptaion of the Stand (which took him a whole year to adapt) and turn it into a 4 hour mini-series. While the mini-series casted a then nobody Gary Sinease as the main character role (Sinease now stars on CSI New York) it also casted Rob Lowe and Molly Ringwald. The mini-series had many actors and many characters to cover in King's long epic. However, because the series was limited to four hours, several things had to be changed. For one, the script that King had written was based off of the 1978 version of The Stand, not the 1989 reissue which meant certain things like the new ending, were not included. Several characters were also either cut or formed into one. For example, the character of the woman who follows Larry Underwood out of New York City was formed into one with the woman he falls in love with, Nadine Cross. The other problem with the mini-series was the fact that it was brodcasted on network televison, which meant there were certain censorship issues. Nevermind the fact that plot of the book consits of almost the entire population of America dying (Mind you that in a post 911 network televison may have servere problems with it) but the violence was played down. This became a big problem for King later on when his other famous novel, "It" was adapted for televison and many of the iconic scenes in the book had to be cut out because of violence.
Other problems with the mini-series was that while some events like the society getting electricity back was exciting the novel, it didn't translate well on televison. And we also must remember that this was in 1994 TV, which meant while there was some good acting (Sinease and Rob Lowe's portrayal of a deaf and mute were good) most of it was cringe worthy. Other problems included the very low budget special effects that the show got and it really doesn't go well with the end of the novel when the hand of God comes down and destorys a bomb. While it made for a good scene in the novel, it came off cheesy and unfullfilling in the show.
Overall, it was a good attempt to adapt King's most famous novel, but in the end it failed. It would be interesting to see if it could be done again (like how the Sci-Fi channel is preparing to re-do "It") but with better acting and better special effects and maybe a more concise script could make this into a very decent adaptation.
Written by: Stephen King
Directed by: Mick Garris
Stephen King released his 4th book (out of over 40) in 1978, entitled "The Stand". The concept of the long novel is an American military base has accidentally released a pleague that kills 99.99% of the population. The novel focuses on the survivors of the pleague as they split into two groups. One, is led by an elderly black woman named Mother Abagail and the other is led by a mysterious mystical man who goes by many names, but mostly goes by the name of Randall Flagg. The two leaders represent not onyl good and evil, but God and the devil. As one group is creating a new society, the other group is destroying society. It all leads to a big battle of good and evil and who will make their last stand.
The Stand is acutally published in two different volumes. The original, which was released in 1978 and the second volume (which is really the only one you can find in bookstores) was re-released in 1989 with all the pages that were cut out from the original which all adds up to 1141 pages, making it the longest book of King's carerr (and for those keeping score The Stand is longer then all 3 books of Lord of the Rings) and the second volume also adds a new ending to the book. For years, fans asked King if The Stand would ever be adapted into a film (as if even a 3 hour movie could cover all 1141 pages of the book) and finally, in 1994, it happened.
In 1994, ABC bought King's adaptaion of the Stand (which took him a whole year to adapt) and turn it into a 4 hour mini-series. While the mini-series casted a then nobody Gary Sinease as the main character role (Sinease now stars on CSI New York) it also casted Rob Lowe and Molly Ringwald. The mini-series had many actors and many characters to cover in King's long epic. However, because the series was limited to four hours, several things had to be changed. For one, the script that King had written was based off of the 1978 version of The Stand, not the 1989 reissue which meant certain things like the new ending, were not included. Several characters were also either cut or formed into one. For example, the character of the woman who follows Larry Underwood out of New York City was formed into one with the woman he falls in love with, Nadine Cross. The other problem with the mini-series was the fact that it was brodcasted on network televison, which meant there were certain censorship issues. Nevermind the fact that plot of the book consits of almost the entire population of America dying (Mind you that in a post 911 network televison may have servere problems with it) but the violence was played down. This became a big problem for King later on when his other famous novel, "It" was adapted for televison and many of the iconic scenes in the book had to be cut out because of violence.
Other problems with the mini-series was that while some events like the society getting electricity back was exciting the novel, it didn't translate well on televison. And we also must remember that this was in 1994 TV, which meant while there was some good acting (Sinease and Rob Lowe's portrayal of a deaf and mute were good) most of it was cringe worthy. Other problems included the very low budget special effects that the show got and it really doesn't go well with the end of the novel when the hand of God comes down and destorys a bomb. While it made for a good scene in the novel, it came off cheesy and unfullfilling in the show.
Overall, it was a good attempt to adapt King's most famous novel, but in the end it failed. It would be interesting to see if it could be done again (like how the Sci-Fi channel is preparing to re-do "It") but with better acting and better special effects and maybe a more concise script could make this into a very decent adaptation.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Batman Series - Brian Herron
Brian Herron
Batman
The Batman series has been revisited many times in cinema history from the sixties version staring Adam West to Tim Burton’s version from the late eighties to early nineties to the newest edition staring Christian Bale. To me, all of these remakes portray Batman as a completely different person. I don’t think any version is wrong, but I find it to be fascinating that Batman has been done in so many different ways throughout the history of cinema that I can’t think of another character that this has happened to.
In Batman: The Movie, Adam West portrays Batman as a person who has good morals and is more of a role model than a crime fighter. Also, it had a lot of bright colors to setup a positive mood that told its audience visually that good always triumphs over evil. This movie also provided a score that was always in the major key, also providing an uplifting mood.
Tim Burton’s version was the first film to portray Batman as a darker character, even though he was still the protagonist of the film. Burton shows the troubling childhood of Batman, which turns his character from a role model to an individual seeking revenge and an answer to why bad things happen to good people. Visually Burton creates a lot of shadows and gothic architecture in his sets to create this dark and sinister mood.
Finally, the newest Batman series, starring Christian Bale, keeps a lot of the same dark concepts that Tim Burton used for his Batman character. However, the Christian Bale Batman is portrayed as fighting for the good and betterment of society instead of personal revenge, in my opinion. The way the film was shot is in many ways similar to the way Tim Burton shot his film; portraying Batman as a person who creates fear among the criminal of Gothom City.
Batman
The Batman series has been revisited many times in cinema history from the sixties version staring Adam West to Tim Burton’s version from the late eighties to early nineties to the newest edition staring Christian Bale. To me, all of these remakes portray Batman as a completely different person. I don’t think any version is wrong, but I find it to be fascinating that Batman has been done in so many different ways throughout the history of cinema that I can’t think of another character that this has happened to.
In Batman: The Movie, Adam West portrays Batman as a person who has good morals and is more of a role model than a crime fighter. Also, it had a lot of bright colors to setup a positive mood that told its audience visually that good always triumphs over evil. This movie also provided a score that was always in the major key, also providing an uplifting mood.
Tim Burton’s version was the first film to portray Batman as a darker character, even though he was still the protagonist of the film. Burton shows the troubling childhood of Batman, which turns his character from a role model to an individual seeking revenge and an answer to why bad things happen to good people. Visually Burton creates a lot of shadows and gothic architecture in his sets to create this dark and sinister mood.
Finally, the newest Batman series, starring Christian Bale, keeps a lot of the same dark concepts that Tim Burton used for his Batman character. However, the Christian Bale Batman is portrayed as fighting for the good and betterment of society instead of personal revenge, in my opinion. The way the film was shot is in many ways similar to the way Tim Burton shot his film; portraying Batman as a person who creates fear among the criminal of Gothom City.
Film Authorship - Julie Angelicola
I have to admit I'm not one of those students that follows the films of certain directors. But when it comes to movies there is one director I can say is an auteur in my mind. His movies are more than identifiable, they are a part of our pop culture and many of these films have played roles in our childhood. The director I am speaking of is the one and only Tim Burton. As a writer and director, Burton has tacked his name onto many movies in his lifetime, and he's not stopping anytime soon with a remake of Alice in Wonderland on the way. Some of the most well-known films are Edward Scissor Hands, Beetlejuice, Big Fish and The Nightmare Before Christmas. Burton does both live action and animated films, but his attention to morbid and imaginitive detail is what always pulls me toward his creations.
His style is undeniable with a whimsical take on gothic characters, scenes and storylines. His main characteres are incredibly flawed and have dark backstories that add to their charisma and charm in the films. Everything is over the top with Burton and our imaginations are enabled to bloom with his rich and darkly lavish settings and landscapes. He works with fantasy and adds it to black comedy, turning the touchiest subjects into laughs. The characters Burton creates are unforgettable, such as Beetlejuice, the ghost with the most, or Johhny Depp as Edward, the boy with the scissor hands that can shape a topiary like no one else. Burton's films are often dramtically lit and he uses architecture as a theme for creating the mindset of the film's townpeople. For example, the identical houses in Edward Scissor Hands inform the viewer that everything and everyone there is more or less the same, making it a perfect contrast for Edward to show up and cause instant conflict. He is strange, bizarre, and the complete opposite of the pastel panneling and perfect lawns of Winona Ryder's neighborhood. In Beetlejuice, the unusual sculptures and layout of the Deitz's home is representative of Delia's manipulative personality and her tricks used to exploit the ghosts haunting her.
Burton uses his imagination to create vividly ghoulish stories and frames his films using a sharp contrast between overly bright color and darkness. An example of this is in The Nightmare Before Christmas when the Oogie Boogie, a neon green monster, glows against a black background where Jack Skellington is defenselessly watching. Burton utilizes the natural contrasts that exist in the world, such as the angular and the organic, the beautiful and the hideous, the morbid and the joyful. Burton is less recognizeable for his framing techniques as other directors are, and more known for the incredibly exaggerated settings and characters that celebrate everything over the top, full of whimsey innovation and artistic notion. Tim Burton is an auteur of his craft using true creativity as his main tool in filmaking.
His style is undeniable with a whimsical take on gothic characters, scenes and storylines. His main characteres are incredibly flawed and have dark backstories that add to their charisma and charm in the films. Everything is over the top with Burton and our imaginations are enabled to bloom with his rich and darkly lavish settings and landscapes. He works with fantasy and adds it to black comedy, turning the touchiest subjects into laughs. The characters Burton creates are unforgettable, such as Beetlejuice, the ghost with the most, or Johhny Depp as Edward, the boy with the scissor hands that can shape a topiary like no one else. Burton's films are often dramtically lit and he uses architecture as a theme for creating the mindset of the film's townpeople. For example, the identical houses in Edward Scissor Hands inform the viewer that everything and everyone there is more or less the same, making it a perfect contrast for Edward to show up and cause instant conflict. He is strange, bizarre, and the complete opposite of the pastel panneling and perfect lawns of Winona Ryder's neighborhood. In Beetlejuice, the unusual sculptures and layout of the Deitz's home is representative of Delia's manipulative personality and her tricks used to exploit the ghosts haunting her.
Burton uses his imagination to create vividly ghoulish stories and frames his films using a sharp contrast between overly bright color and darkness. An example of this is in The Nightmare Before Christmas when the Oogie Boogie, a neon green monster, glows against a black background where Jack Skellington is defenselessly watching. Burton utilizes the natural contrasts that exist in the world, such as the angular and the organic, the beautiful and the hideous, the morbid and the joyful. Burton is less recognizeable for his framing techniques as other directors are, and more known for the incredibly exaggerated settings and characters that celebrate everything over the top, full of whimsey innovation and artistic notion. Tim Burton is an auteur of his craft using true creativity as his main tool in filmaking.
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind - Star Brown
Released (2002)
"Confessions of A Dangerous Mind" is a film directed by George Clooney adapted from Chuck Barris’ book of the same title by screen writer/director Charlie Kaufman. The film was Clooney's first directorial effort. Being a fan of book first and the film second I can see how taking a cult favorite such as "Confessions of A Dangerous Mind" and turning it into a film can be a tricky process. The first thing that came to mind while watching the film was how Kaufman and Clooney went for a more depressive tone to the film. I enjoyed this, but found it rather odd since the book itself is one of the greatest gags ever played. The book is a work of comedy, the entire story is told with such a sarcastic tone that it sucks the reader right in. It’s unreal to the point of questioning, "is he serious?" that keeps the drawn interest at its peak. The difference between the two is that while reading the book you just want Barris to say "i was joking.” While viewing the film you don't care about that, you believe it and you want Barris to make right with his life. Clooney and Kaufman did justice to Barris' work, even though fans of the book can find complaint. It's often hard to adapt a beloved book to film because fans of the book have already created a vision of the film in their minds and often what is presented to them on the screen is not as good as what was presented to them in their mind. "Confessions of A Dangerous Mind" as a film almost creates a willingness in the viewer to go out and find out more about Chuck Barris and to actually pick up the book. That in itself could be a good meter on how well the adaptation succeeded.
"Confessions of A Dangerous Mind" is a film directed by George Clooney adapted from Chuck Barris’ book of the same title by screen writer/director Charlie Kaufman. The film was Clooney's first directorial effort. Being a fan of book first and the film second I can see how taking a cult favorite such as "Confessions of A Dangerous Mind" and turning it into a film can be a tricky process. The first thing that came to mind while watching the film was how Kaufman and Clooney went for a more depressive tone to the film. I enjoyed this, but found it rather odd since the book itself is one of the greatest gags ever played. The book is a work of comedy, the entire story is told with such a sarcastic tone that it sucks the reader right in. It’s unreal to the point of questioning, "is he serious?" that keeps the drawn interest at its peak. The difference between the two is that while reading the book you just want Barris to say "i was joking.” While viewing the film you don't care about that, you believe it and you want Barris to make right with his life. Clooney and Kaufman did justice to Barris' work, even though fans of the book can find complaint. It's often hard to adapt a beloved book to film because fans of the book have already created a vision of the film in their minds and often what is presented to them on the screen is not as good as what was presented to them in their mind. "Confessions of A Dangerous Mind" as a film almost creates a willingness in the viewer to go out and find out more about Chuck Barris and to actually pick up the book. That in itself could be a good meter on how well the adaptation succeeded.
Justin Afifi - Fight Club
Directed by: David Fincher
Novel by: Chuck Palahniuk
Fight Club is the story of a nameless narrator that works for an unspecified car company as a recall specialist. Disenchanted with his job and his lifestyle the narrator becomes an insomniac. After seeking help from his doctor the doctor suggests that he visit a testicular cancer support group to see "what real pain is." After visiting the support group he becomes addicted to them and conquers his sleep deprivation. That is until he meets Marla Singer, a fellow support group "tourist." Unable to sleep yet again the narrator returns to his familiar ways until he meets Tyler Durden. Tyler is everything the narrator wishes he was. After his condo blows up the narrator calls Tyler and asks if he can stay with him. Tyler agrees but with one condition...he has to hit him as hard as he can. That one punch leads to an underground organization called Fight Club. The clubs become widespread and eventually lead to Project Mayhem, a full out guerrilla attack on the establishment. Not even the narrator can stand by and watch the destruction...or can he?
The novel written in 1996 and the film made in 1999 are incredibly similar. The film follows most of the novel. Even keeping the Edward Norton character nameless, which for film is unusual to have an unnamed protagonist. The themes of the novel are incredibly accurate throughout the film. Of course small details are altered to help fit the film world better (some characters are cut or combined to make one character in the film). The only major difference between the novel and the film would be the ending. In the film the narrator is being held prisoner by Tyler as they await the explosion of the credit buildings in the city. The narrator overcomes Tyler's hold on him and shoots himself in the mouth, destroying Tyler in the process. The goons of Project Mayhem and Marla come into the building and check on the narrator. He orders the goons to leave and stays, making peace with Marla watching the credit buildings explode. In the novel Tyler disappears when Marla and a support group come to see the narrator. He waits for the bomb in the building he's in to go off but it's a dud. He then shoots himself, intent on killing himself but instead wakes in the hospital. He's visited by Marla and then by more Project Mayhem goons ensuring that they have plans for the future.
Novel by: Chuck Palahniuk
Fight Club is the story of a nameless narrator that works for an unspecified car company as a recall specialist. Disenchanted with his job and his lifestyle the narrator becomes an insomniac. After seeking help from his doctor the doctor suggests that he visit a testicular cancer support group to see "what real pain is." After visiting the support group he becomes addicted to them and conquers his sleep deprivation. That is until he meets Marla Singer, a fellow support group "tourist." Unable to sleep yet again the narrator returns to his familiar ways until he meets Tyler Durden. Tyler is everything the narrator wishes he was. After his condo blows up the narrator calls Tyler and asks if he can stay with him. Tyler agrees but with one condition...he has to hit him as hard as he can. That one punch leads to an underground organization called Fight Club. The clubs become widespread and eventually lead to Project Mayhem, a full out guerrilla attack on the establishment. Not even the narrator can stand by and watch the destruction...or can he?
The novel written in 1996 and the film made in 1999 are incredibly similar. The film follows most of the novel. Even keeping the Edward Norton character nameless, which for film is unusual to have an unnamed protagonist. The themes of the novel are incredibly accurate throughout the film. Of course small details are altered to help fit the film world better (some characters are cut or combined to make one character in the film). The only major difference between the novel and the film would be the ending. In the film the narrator is being held prisoner by Tyler as they await the explosion of the credit buildings in the city. The narrator overcomes Tyler's hold on him and shoots himself in the mouth, destroying Tyler in the process. The goons of Project Mayhem and Marla come into the building and check on the narrator. He orders the goons to leave and stays, making peace with Marla watching the credit buildings explode. In the novel Tyler disappears when Marla and a support group come to see the narrator. He waits for the bomb in the building he's in to go off but it's a dud. He then shoots himself, intent on killing himself but instead wakes in the hospital. He's visited by Marla and then by more Project Mayhem goons ensuring that they have plans for the future.
Elyse Stefanowicz - Scarface (1983)
Scarface (1983)
Directed By: Brian DePalma
Starring - Al Pacino, Steven Bauer, Michelle Pfeiffer
The 1983 version of Scarface is based off of a 1932 version with the same title. Originally I had no idea that there was ever an original version as I had just seen the 1983 version many times, but after finding out there was a version before this, I had to check it out.
The 1932 version is a gangster film that is directed by one of the most influential directors of the time, Howard Hawks. It is a clever film that not only depicts the gangster scene of the time, but it focuses on them on a more personal level. The audience gets to see the personal life of Tony Camonte, an angle which isn't usually available to an everyday person. Gangsters are seen as bad people, and even though Tony does do bad things, the audience likes him, which in my opinion is a hard thing to accomplish. This film helped define not only the gangster genre of film but it also gave way to a totally new genre - film noir.
The 1983 version on the other hand, follows the same themes as the 1932 version. It follows a Cuban immigrant who takes the drug scene by storm when he becomes one of the drug lords. This version has several of the same aspects as the 1932 version but had a much updated, "hollywood" feel to it. There are still the same themes with Tony's sister and "The world is yours" but overall you can tell it was based off of another film. Also the final scene of each of the films are very similar. It shows both of the main characters at their weakest, and basically getting what they had coming with "The World is Yours" looming over them as they die. Another similarity is the fact that it had a powerhouse director directing it. Brian DePalma is a very influential current director who did such films as The Untouchables and Mission: Impossible. Oliver Stone was also the writer of the 1983 Scarface.
The 1983 version of the movie, however, seems to have lost its innocence. Now I am not saying it's a bad film at all, matter of fact its one of my favorites just because of it's power, but the movie is a total Hollywoodized version of the original. The violence is extremely prevalent and the use of obscene language is overwhelming (I read somewhere that this version had the word "fuck" in it more than any other film when it came out). The film capitolized on the drug business that was booming during that period of time. It also quotes on the impact of immigration and following the American dream, which is common ground with many Americans. Even though it is a bit over the top, it is most likely why it is as powerful as it is and why it stands the test of time. Both of the films are timeless, and can be seen during any period of time and still have the same impact.
Directed By: Brian DePalma
Starring - Al Pacino, Steven Bauer, Michelle Pfeiffer
The 1983 version of Scarface is based off of a 1932 version with the same title. Originally I had no idea that there was ever an original version as I had just seen the 1983 version many times, but after finding out there was a version before this, I had to check it out.
The 1932 version is a gangster film that is directed by one of the most influential directors of the time, Howard Hawks. It is a clever film that not only depicts the gangster scene of the time, but it focuses on them on a more personal level. The audience gets to see the personal life of Tony Camonte, an angle which isn't usually available to an everyday person. Gangsters are seen as bad people, and even though Tony does do bad things, the audience likes him, which in my opinion is a hard thing to accomplish. This film helped define not only the gangster genre of film but it also gave way to a totally new genre - film noir.
The 1983 version on the other hand, follows the same themes as the 1932 version. It follows a Cuban immigrant who takes the drug scene by storm when he becomes one of the drug lords. This version has several of the same aspects as the 1932 version but had a much updated, "hollywood" feel to it. There are still the same themes with Tony's sister and "The world is yours" but overall you can tell it was based off of another film. Also the final scene of each of the films are very similar. It shows both of the main characters at their weakest, and basically getting what they had coming with "The World is Yours" looming over them as they die. Another similarity is the fact that it had a powerhouse director directing it. Brian DePalma is a very influential current director who did such films as The Untouchables and Mission: Impossible. Oliver Stone was also the writer of the 1983 Scarface.
The 1983 version of the movie, however, seems to have lost its innocence. Now I am not saying it's a bad film at all, matter of fact its one of my favorites just because of it's power, but the movie is a total Hollywoodized version of the original. The violence is extremely prevalent and the use of obscene language is overwhelming (I read somewhere that this version had the word "fuck" in it more than any other film when it came out). The film capitolized on the drug business that was booming during that period of time. It also quotes on the impact of immigration and following the American dream, which is common ground with many Americans. Even though it is a bit over the top, it is most likely why it is as powerful as it is and why it stands the test of time. Both of the films are timeless, and can be seen during any period of time and still have the same impact.
American Psycho by Amber S. Palmer - 10th Post
American Psycho
Novel By: Bret Easton Ellis
Director: Mary Harron
Screenwriter: Mary Harron & Guinevere Turner
American Psycho, an adaptation of the novel, tells the brutally violent secret life of young, wealthy investment banker Patrick Bateman. This film was brought to life by Mary Harron, who also directed I Shot Andy Warhol (one of my favorites). The film sought critical acclaim after its dark humor and disturbing look at random acts of violence possessed by a young man. The adaptation was loosely translated through Bateman’s voiceovers in the film. Bateman’s account of his day to day activities whether it took place in his office or detailing one of his murders, each account was used verbatim from the novel. Surprisingly, the novel and the film didn’t go through many vast changes. The only changes were some of the characters name and an ambiguous plot point, not easily identified unless the novel is read. The two mediums do a tremendous job advertising Bateman’s violence into “simplicity” and emerging into outright evil madness. In the novel, Bateman engages into bold conversations with co-workers and friends about his murderous actions, yet they all react to him as if he’s joking or they seem to ignore him. This brings up the question of whether or not Bateman is truly indulging in murder or either it’s a figment of his imagination. After reviewing the film for the fourth time, the ambiguity lingers of Bateman’s questionable state of mind. Harron translated Bateman’s unanswered oddities of murder extremely precise because as the viewer it is pretty obvious Bateman’s insanity is full of delusions and homicidal fantasies. The novelist left the story with an open ending that could only be determined by whatever the reader would like to believe. The only mere difference between the novel and the film was the ending. The novel’s ending would have served a better purpose because it shows Bateman gazing at a Chemical Bank building, adoring the quote, “Abandon all hope ye who enter here”. This quote comes from the Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri, it was placed right above the gates of Hell in the novel. Bateman sits in a bar and sees a sign that says, “This is not an exit.” Bateman clearly has fallen in his own personal mental inescapable hell. An ending like this on film would’ve provided a metaphorical outlook and deeper perception of the perturbed mind of Patrick Bateman.
Ellis’ novel completely described in detail of what American Psycho would look on film. Every personal account and interaction was beautifully interpreted on screen. American Psycho became a subsequent cult classic after being dubbed as one of the most controversial novels to ever be written, the novel exceeded the boundaries of restriction. A novel that pushed the envelope to a level most writers would never choose to lead and the filmmaker taking the risk of adapting such an overzealous violent depiction of human lunacy. Ellis received many death threats and hate mail after the release of the novel, yet the novel was courageous and truly showed what Ellis believed was the “wrong” behavior. American Psycho accentuated the reaction of the outcry towards violence but in reality there were and will be Patrick Bateman’s like….Ted Bundy.
The Unbearable Lightness of Being: Reviewed by Davis Rivera
In his 1988 film “The Unbearable Lightness of Being,” writer/director Philip Kaufman has succeeded in taking Czech writer Milan Kundera’s terrific 1982 novel and transforming it into a three hour long ode to the source material that is, in almost every way, superior to the original work. There have been numerous attempts at adapting a complex work of philosophical fiction into something suitable for the cinema and the reasons for their successes and failures vary almost as greatly as the techniques used in desperate hope of making the medium change seem comprehensible. In order to understand just how well Kaufman has achieved this feat, one must first look at a few examples of directors, before, during, and after Kaufman’s time, who have tried their hand at improving or matching a book’s power and the eventual outcome. In many cases, the outcome is the most important part (as we will learn in paragraph three), but in order to get there, we must first take the time to learn and appreciate what an arduous task adaptation is.
To begin, perhaps the most unfortunate (and also the most frequent) case of film adaptation is that of a remarkable director of fine talent taking a novel of poor taste and for some unanswerable reason (maybe the translation they read was tampered with or they were getting their revenge on a studio executive) deciding that it’s the right time in their career to take on an unorthodox project. The film that immediately comes to mind in this case is François Truffaut’s adaptation of Ray Bradbury’s awful science fiction novel “Fahrenheit 451.” Many of the members of the French New Wave are famously known to have had a terrific sense of humor, but when seeing this film, it is obvious that Truffaut was completely serious in presenting the post-apocalyptic story of Guy Montag and, because he decided against making a send-up of the novel, it remains the one film in his career that is most often left out of retrospectives devoted to him and rightfully omitted when attaching his name to a posthumous release of something he was associated with. Regardless of this poor career move, the film still manages to be better than the novel and, if one has the patience, can be seen in a different light once the aftertaste of the choice is gone. If Cahiers du cinéma can choose “The Nutty Professor” over “8 ½”, the cinephiles of France cannot be regarded as experts in taste and can thus receive a pass.
One of the more unusual outcomes in the case of a film being better than the philosophical novel it was based upon is Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of Anthony Burgess’ decent novel “A Clockwork Orange.” Kubrick was a master when it came to adapting books to fit the screen and could easily have this entire essay devoted to him, but as Kaufman’s complete renovation of Kundera’s work remains the quintessential standard for divine mastery of novel adaptation, I will relegate him to two simple paragraphs. The more obvious choice for Kubrick greatly improving on a book is his adaptation of Arthur C. Clarke’s instruction manual-like science fiction novel, “2001: A Space Odyssey,” but, since this essay is on the adaptation of philosophical novels, “A Clockwork Orange” is perfectly adaptable. When he made “A Clockwork Orange,” Kubrick had only just recently finished his adaptation of “2001: A Space Odyssey,” yet the indubitable fatigue he must have felt after taking on such an enormously ambitious project is not at all apparent when seeing the film. It is, in fact, extraordinary that he was capable of creating such a film, bursting with life and innovation, amongst the commotion that was the cinematic world in 1971. If one looks back at the important critic’s reaction to the film at the time, to call it lukewarm would be to flatter it. And putting a flash-in-the-pan director like Peter Bogdanovich’s debut “The Last Picture Show,” above it in many of the year-end lists was adding insult to injury. This, to me, seems to be pure snobbery on the behalf of the critics, very similar to the way most auteurs are treated as greedy narcissists today.
A director improves upon two books in two films in a row, comes dangerously close to improving on three previous books he adapted (“Paths of Glory”, “The Killing”, “Dr. Strangelove”), and makes as good a film as can be made of a modern literary classic (“Lolita”), so he cannot be allowed the critical recognition he deserves? It is to the credit of our modern critics that this narrow-mindedness has greatly decreased in recent years, the treatment of Philip Kaufman being my main example, who wrote and directed the focus of this essay, “The Unbearable Lightness of Being,” and also, wrote and directed a first-rate, underappreciated adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s sprawling epic “The Right Stuff.” Kubrick has also finally been granted the title of cinematic master he deserves and “A Clockwork Orange” has become something of a worldwide phenomenon, even appearing on many “Greatest Films of All Time” lists. This kind of recognition, in my opinion, it does not deserve and would not have were it not for the film’s timeless ideological themes, the fact that it was banned in many countries, and its omniscient presence in modern popular culture, from album covers by The Ramones to episodes of “The Simpsons” to films by the Coen Brothers, who have also recently established themselves as competent in adapting novels.
To spare the reader an analysis of Orson Welles’ adaptation of Kafka’s “The Trial” or Charles Sturridge’s massacre of Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travels,” and because I believe that the previous cases are enough to give the reader an adequate amount of knowledge in understanding the plight of a director adapting a philosophical novel for the screen, I will end by explaining, in depth, why I believe Philip Kaufman’s adaptation of “The Unbearable Lightness of Being” carries Kundera’s carefully woven tale and transforms it completely. Kaufman doesn’t exploit the book the way Peter Weir did with Paul Theroux’s “The Mosquito Coast,” he understands that Kundera is bringing philosophy within grasp of a modern reader. He is trying to entertain, yes, but also instruct the reader in his ideas. With this in mind, Kaufman obviously understood the problems he faced in making a screen adaptation of a novel whose central character is really an invisible, garrulous “I,” representing the novelist crafting the story. This “I” of Kundera’s book doesn’t participate in the story of Tomas, Tereza, Sabina, and the others. He looks down on them from a literary “beyond” entering their minds when it is suitable to him and departs, a gentle thief in the night. With a novel like “A Clockwork Orange” or “No Country for Old Men,” the work is basically done for you. There is no pressure in adapting the text into something suitable for today’s public that will also contain a perfectly calculated amount of intellectualism to gratify the critics’ thirst. This is not available to Kaufman at all. In the 350 pages of his book, Kundera provokes responses constantly that give point to humdrum misadventures set in historic times. These are so indescribably sad that the comic method seems the only civilized alternative to what would otherwise turn into what is described as kitsch, something sentimental and false. Not necessarily the obstacles faced by the writers in charge of adapting “Tuesdays with Morrie.”
Kaufman, aside from having every actor in the film speak English with a Czech accent, has avoided every misstep he could have made in the process of bringing the atmosphere of 1968 during the thaw known as the “Prague Spring” to life. Not only does he do this, but he also successfully rids the film of the “I” found in the novel. Whenever possible, Kaufman has managed to save bits and pieces of the “voice” of the novel’s observations by reinserting them into the screenplay as dialogue spoken by the characters, frequently and without a hint of awkwardness. Kaufman’s combination of, on the surface, an attempt to summarize the superficial events of Milan Kundera’s introspective, philosophical novel with fidelity and an accumulating emotional heaviness, gradually building itself up to an immense length is notably ambitious and avoids kitsch completely. In three hours, it is possible to read the entire book, something Kaufman surely knew before embarking on this adventure in adaptation. This adds a certain amount of artistic rivalry to the already overloaded palette Kaufman had before beginning this film. That he was able to best Czechoslovakia’s greatest living writer by using his own material is enough to forgive “Rising Sun,” “Twisted,” and even “Quills.”
To begin, perhaps the most unfortunate (and also the most frequent) case of film adaptation is that of a remarkable director of fine talent taking a novel of poor taste and for some unanswerable reason (maybe the translation they read was tampered with or they were getting their revenge on a studio executive) deciding that it’s the right time in their career to take on an unorthodox project. The film that immediately comes to mind in this case is François Truffaut’s adaptation of Ray Bradbury’s awful science fiction novel “Fahrenheit 451.” Many of the members of the French New Wave are famously known to have had a terrific sense of humor, but when seeing this film, it is obvious that Truffaut was completely serious in presenting the post-apocalyptic story of Guy Montag and, because he decided against making a send-up of the novel, it remains the one film in his career that is most often left out of retrospectives devoted to him and rightfully omitted when attaching his name to a posthumous release of something he was associated with. Regardless of this poor career move, the film still manages to be better than the novel and, if one has the patience, can be seen in a different light once the aftertaste of the choice is gone. If Cahiers du cinéma can choose “The Nutty Professor” over “8 ½”, the cinephiles of France cannot be regarded as experts in taste and can thus receive a pass.
One of the more unusual outcomes in the case of a film being better than the philosophical novel it was based upon is Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of Anthony Burgess’ decent novel “A Clockwork Orange.” Kubrick was a master when it came to adapting books to fit the screen and could easily have this entire essay devoted to him, but as Kaufman’s complete renovation of Kundera’s work remains the quintessential standard for divine mastery of novel adaptation, I will relegate him to two simple paragraphs. The more obvious choice for Kubrick greatly improving on a book is his adaptation of Arthur C. Clarke’s instruction manual-like science fiction novel, “2001: A Space Odyssey,” but, since this essay is on the adaptation of philosophical novels, “A Clockwork Orange” is perfectly adaptable. When he made “A Clockwork Orange,” Kubrick had only just recently finished his adaptation of “2001: A Space Odyssey,” yet the indubitable fatigue he must have felt after taking on such an enormously ambitious project is not at all apparent when seeing the film. It is, in fact, extraordinary that he was capable of creating such a film, bursting with life and innovation, amongst the commotion that was the cinematic world in 1971. If one looks back at the important critic’s reaction to the film at the time, to call it lukewarm would be to flatter it. And putting a flash-in-the-pan director like Peter Bogdanovich’s debut “The Last Picture Show,” above it in many of the year-end lists was adding insult to injury. This, to me, seems to be pure snobbery on the behalf of the critics, very similar to the way most auteurs are treated as greedy narcissists today.
A director improves upon two books in two films in a row, comes dangerously close to improving on three previous books he adapted (“Paths of Glory”, “The Killing”, “Dr. Strangelove”), and makes as good a film as can be made of a modern literary classic (“Lolita”), so he cannot be allowed the critical recognition he deserves? It is to the credit of our modern critics that this narrow-mindedness has greatly decreased in recent years, the treatment of Philip Kaufman being my main example, who wrote and directed the focus of this essay, “The Unbearable Lightness of Being,” and also, wrote and directed a first-rate, underappreciated adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s sprawling epic “The Right Stuff.” Kubrick has also finally been granted the title of cinematic master he deserves and “A Clockwork Orange” has become something of a worldwide phenomenon, even appearing on many “Greatest Films of All Time” lists. This kind of recognition, in my opinion, it does not deserve and would not have were it not for the film’s timeless ideological themes, the fact that it was banned in many countries, and its omniscient presence in modern popular culture, from album covers by The Ramones to episodes of “The Simpsons” to films by the Coen Brothers, who have also recently established themselves as competent in adapting novels.
To spare the reader an analysis of Orson Welles’ adaptation of Kafka’s “The Trial” or Charles Sturridge’s massacre of Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travels,” and because I believe that the previous cases are enough to give the reader an adequate amount of knowledge in understanding the plight of a director adapting a philosophical novel for the screen, I will end by explaining, in depth, why I believe Philip Kaufman’s adaptation of “The Unbearable Lightness of Being” carries Kundera’s carefully woven tale and transforms it completely. Kaufman doesn’t exploit the book the way Peter Weir did with Paul Theroux’s “The Mosquito Coast,” he understands that Kundera is bringing philosophy within grasp of a modern reader. He is trying to entertain, yes, but also instruct the reader in his ideas. With this in mind, Kaufman obviously understood the problems he faced in making a screen adaptation of a novel whose central character is really an invisible, garrulous “I,” representing the novelist crafting the story. This “I” of Kundera’s book doesn’t participate in the story of Tomas, Tereza, Sabina, and the others. He looks down on them from a literary “beyond” entering their minds when it is suitable to him and departs, a gentle thief in the night. With a novel like “A Clockwork Orange” or “No Country for Old Men,” the work is basically done for you. There is no pressure in adapting the text into something suitable for today’s public that will also contain a perfectly calculated amount of intellectualism to gratify the critics’ thirst. This is not available to Kaufman at all. In the 350 pages of his book, Kundera provokes responses constantly that give point to humdrum misadventures set in historic times. These are so indescribably sad that the comic method seems the only civilized alternative to what would otherwise turn into what is described as kitsch, something sentimental and false. Not necessarily the obstacles faced by the writers in charge of adapting “Tuesdays with Morrie.”
Kaufman, aside from having every actor in the film speak English with a Czech accent, has avoided every misstep he could have made in the process of bringing the atmosphere of 1968 during the thaw known as the “Prague Spring” to life. Not only does he do this, but he also successfully rids the film of the “I” found in the novel. Whenever possible, Kaufman has managed to save bits and pieces of the “voice” of the novel’s observations by reinserting them into the screenplay as dialogue spoken by the characters, frequently and without a hint of awkwardness. Kaufman’s combination of, on the surface, an attempt to summarize the superficial events of Milan Kundera’s introspective, philosophical novel with fidelity and an accumulating emotional heaviness, gradually building itself up to an immense length is notably ambitious and avoids kitsch completely. In three hours, it is possible to read the entire book, something Kaufman surely knew before embarking on this adventure in adaptation. This adds a certain amount of artistic rivalry to the already overloaded palette Kaufman had before beginning this film. That he was able to best Czechoslovakia’s greatest living writer by using his own material is enough to forgive “Rising Sun,” “Twisted,” and even “Quills.”
Monday, November 24, 2008
About a Boy (based on a book by Nick Hornby)- Isaac Richter
In the summer of 2002, one of the films I was eagerly anticipating was the Hugh Grant comedy About a Boy. I remember I went to Canada for the summer and when I walked into a bookstore, I found the novel version to "About a Boy". I hadn't seen the film yet, and having just gone through the book/film experience of the first Harry Potter book, I wanted to try something else. I bought the book, and devoured it in two days (partly due to the fact that one of those days was a very long plane ride). I loved the book, and could not wait to see the movie, which was already playing at my home. It was the first film I saw by myself in the theaters (and saw it later with my mom, who read the book after I did).
The story has two protagonists. One is a 36-year-old man named Will who lives alone, out of the royalties of a song his father wrote, watching TV, sleeping with women and avoiding any kind of responsibility. The other is 12-year-old Marcus, a kid with the weight of the world on his shoulders. He gets beat up at school every day, and he has to come home to his mother crying. Even though the book is written with a third-person omniscient narrator, each chapter switches protagonist. Hornby's first chapter is on Marcus, and the second is on Will, and it alternates like that throughout. The film employs a similar technique, except that in the film, the characters narrate the story. In the first scene of the film, Will describes his life in his apartment in voice-over. He describes his life as an island, and how now it;s the time to be an island. In the next scene we meet Marcus, and hear his voice in voice-over. He describes himself as an unhappy kid who just didn't fit. These narrations continue throughout the film, taking us into each character's thoughts, and the conflicting narrations when the characters are together provides humor. For example, there's a scene where Will takes Marcus and his mom out to dinner. Marcus thinks he can set his mom and Will up on a date, and in his voice-over, he compliments what his mom is wearing. But then we hear Will saying that Marcus' mom is in a yeti costume.
The plot is set in motion by the fact that Will discovers single mothers as a great dating tool, so he joins a Single Parents support group and poses as a single father in order to meet women. He meets Marcus on a picnic with one of these single mothers. Marcus's mom, Fiona, was sick and unable to go, so Marcus was taken by Susie. Two very unfortunate things happen that day that regardless make Marcus chase after Will for a father figure. One, he accidentally kills a duck by throwing a heavy loaf of bread in the water, and the other is that his mother attempts suicide (unsuccessfully). Because of these things going on, Marcus goes after Will, even after he discovers that he's not actually a single father.
The first two acts of the film follow the book pretty faithfully. The way Will comes into Marcus's life, the Dead Duck Day, the Christmas Party, and Will meeting a woman named Rachel and actually wanting for the first time to have a serious relationship, but he pawns Marcus off as his son to get her interested in him. When Will admits to Rachel that Marcus is not actually his son, that's where the film starts to deviate from the book. In the book, Rachel is actually way more understanding than in the film, and she instead arranges to meet with him and Fiona. In the film, on the other hand, he walks away from Rachel admitting he's blank, and the third act turns into a school rock concert that is not in the book, but it works, because it completes the character archs of these characters into a very satisfying movie.
One hint that should've told me from the get-go that the ending was going to be radically different is that the film is set in 2002 (the year the film was released), while the book is set in 1993, and into 1994. In the book, Marcus's relationship with Ellie, the older girl that practically adopts him at school (and he has a major crush on). In the book, she's very into Nirvana. She accompanies Marcus to meet his dad one day, but they stop at an earlier station and Ellie takes Marcus to a music store where she smashes a poster of Kurt Cobain, because she feels they're profiting from his suicide. They get arrested and Will and Fiona have to pick them up. Kurt Cobain's suicide is not an event that can be moved up to 2002, so that ending to the book could not work in the movie.
On the other hand, there are plenty of hilarious details in the film that are taken directly from the book. Will swearing after Marcus tells him he is sometimes worried his mom will commit suicide again is in the book, Fiona repeating everything Marcus says and turning it into a question when Marcus tells her about visiting Will, Will breaking up a fight between Marcus and Fiona by telling her about the Dead Duck Day, and even Rachel's psycho son Ali and that line "She's not keen on him! She's only Keen on me!" That line is straight from the book. Other details are updated. In the book, Marcus thinks if he were like Macaulay Culkin, he could pay his mom to teach him at home. In the film they change it to Haley Joel Osment. In the book, Will gives Marcus a Nirvana CD for Christmas. In the movie it's Mystikal (a hip hop band). The units of time speech, the Will show speech, and the inclusion of Killing Me Softly are all by the Weitz brothers (who directed and co-wrote the screenplay for the movie).
When it comes to adaptations, the most annoying thing to find is die-hard fans of the source material who hate the adaptation just because it's not the source material. That's because it's not the source material, and the source material still exists, it can still be viewed or read, no one will stop people from getting the original novel or the original film. That doesn't mean the adaptation doesn't have its merits. Paul and Chris Weitz's version of About a Boy is not like the film. The exclusion of any mention of Nirvana might be a disappointment to many fans (because the title is a pun to the Nirvana song "About a Girl"), but it's a really good movie on its own. It's a coming-of-age story that examines the character archs of two characters who are either too young or too old for their ages, and how through each other, they learn how to take life more seriously, but not too seriously. The rock concert is a more humorous approach to the culmination of these archs, but it works. It works, because Marcus wants to make is mom happy all along, and even if he can't get someone else to help him, he helps her, and Will learns that Marcus means something to him, so he helps Marcus at the rock concert to give his own life meaning as well. Both the book and the movie work, even if they do defer, they have the same spirit and the characters are present and alive in both versions of the story.
The story has two protagonists. One is a 36-year-old man named Will who lives alone, out of the royalties of a song his father wrote, watching TV, sleeping with women and avoiding any kind of responsibility. The other is 12-year-old Marcus, a kid with the weight of the world on his shoulders. He gets beat up at school every day, and he has to come home to his mother crying. Even though the book is written with a third-person omniscient narrator, each chapter switches protagonist. Hornby's first chapter is on Marcus, and the second is on Will, and it alternates like that throughout. The film employs a similar technique, except that in the film, the characters narrate the story. In the first scene of the film, Will describes his life in his apartment in voice-over. He describes his life as an island, and how now it;s the time to be an island. In the next scene we meet Marcus, and hear his voice in voice-over. He describes himself as an unhappy kid who just didn't fit. These narrations continue throughout the film, taking us into each character's thoughts, and the conflicting narrations when the characters are together provides humor. For example, there's a scene where Will takes Marcus and his mom out to dinner. Marcus thinks he can set his mom and Will up on a date, and in his voice-over, he compliments what his mom is wearing. But then we hear Will saying that Marcus' mom is in a yeti costume.
The plot is set in motion by the fact that Will discovers single mothers as a great dating tool, so he joins a Single Parents support group and poses as a single father in order to meet women. He meets Marcus on a picnic with one of these single mothers. Marcus's mom, Fiona, was sick and unable to go, so Marcus was taken by Susie. Two very unfortunate things happen that day that regardless make Marcus chase after Will for a father figure. One, he accidentally kills a duck by throwing a heavy loaf of bread in the water, and the other is that his mother attempts suicide (unsuccessfully). Because of these things going on, Marcus goes after Will, even after he discovers that he's not actually a single father.
The first two acts of the film follow the book pretty faithfully. The way Will comes into Marcus's life, the Dead Duck Day, the Christmas Party, and Will meeting a woman named Rachel and actually wanting for the first time to have a serious relationship, but he pawns Marcus off as his son to get her interested in him. When Will admits to Rachel that Marcus is not actually his son, that's where the film starts to deviate from the book. In the book, Rachel is actually way more understanding than in the film, and she instead arranges to meet with him and Fiona. In the film, on the other hand, he walks away from Rachel admitting he's blank, and the third act turns into a school rock concert that is not in the book, but it works, because it completes the character archs of these characters into a very satisfying movie.
One hint that should've told me from the get-go that the ending was going to be radically different is that the film is set in 2002 (the year the film was released), while the book is set in 1993, and into 1994. In the book, Marcus's relationship with Ellie, the older girl that practically adopts him at school (and he has a major crush on). In the book, she's very into Nirvana. She accompanies Marcus to meet his dad one day, but they stop at an earlier station and Ellie takes Marcus to a music store where she smashes a poster of Kurt Cobain, because she feels they're profiting from his suicide. They get arrested and Will and Fiona have to pick them up. Kurt Cobain's suicide is not an event that can be moved up to 2002, so that ending to the book could not work in the movie.
On the other hand, there are plenty of hilarious details in the film that are taken directly from the book. Will swearing after Marcus tells him he is sometimes worried his mom will commit suicide again is in the book, Fiona repeating everything Marcus says and turning it into a question when Marcus tells her about visiting Will, Will breaking up a fight between Marcus and Fiona by telling her about the Dead Duck Day, and even Rachel's psycho son Ali and that line "She's not keen on him! She's only Keen on me!" That line is straight from the book. Other details are updated. In the book, Marcus thinks if he were like Macaulay Culkin, he could pay his mom to teach him at home. In the film they change it to Haley Joel Osment. In the book, Will gives Marcus a Nirvana CD for Christmas. In the movie it's Mystikal (a hip hop band). The units of time speech, the Will show speech, and the inclusion of Killing Me Softly are all by the Weitz brothers (who directed and co-wrote the screenplay for the movie).
When it comes to adaptations, the most annoying thing to find is die-hard fans of the source material who hate the adaptation just because it's not the source material. That's because it's not the source material, and the source material still exists, it can still be viewed or read, no one will stop people from getting the original novel or the original film. That doesn't mean the adaptation doesn't have its merits. Paul and Chris Weitz's version of About a Boy is not like the film. The exclusion of any mention of Nirvana might be a disappointment to many fans (because the title is a pun to the Nirvana song "About a Girl"), but it's a really good movie on its own. It's a coming-of-age story that examines the character archs of two characters who are either too young or too old for their ages, and how through each other, they learn how to take life more seriously, but not too seriously. The rock concert is a more humorous approach to the culmination of these archs, but it works. It works, because Marcus wants to make is mom happy all along, and even if he can't get someone else to help him, he helps her, and Will learns that Marcus means something to him, so he helps Marcus at the rock concert to give his own life meaning as well. Both the book and the movie work, even if they do defer, they have the same spirit and the characters are present and alive in both versions of the story.
Jose Saca – American Psycho (Tenth Post)
I decided to take a break from obscure films and analyze something more recognizable.
This post will be slightly personal than past entries. Both the book and film I will be discussing are personal favorites.
This post will analyze similarities and differences between the book and the film.
The film takes the abovementioned scene and makes it satirical rather than violent. In the film, Bateman kills Allen with an ax while dancing to Huey Lewis and the News’ “It’s Hip to be Square.” The violence is played down tremendously, with the only gruesome bit in the scene is a shot of blood hitting the Style section of the New York Times to form what looks like a Jackson Pollack-like painting.
In a DVD featurette on the film, Mary Harron said she wanted to rescue Ellis’ novel from its controversial reputation. The decision to have her take on this project is brave and effective. Her distance as a feminist director gave her the proper satirical and intellectual companion to Ellis’ vile yet misunderstood vision. The Bateman presented here, quite similar to the one in the novel, is much clearer for the audience to understand. The audience can get a full grasp of this vision from the start, by viewing Bale’s Bateman in his apartment, carefully made to fit the brightest executive, and the decision to utilize Bateman’s voice over narration with scenes of Bale leading his usual life. We see him tanning, getting manicured, schmoozing with his yuppie friends, among many other activities. We get a clearer glimpse of Bateman’s empty life because we are presented with a clear, confidant vision of this reality. Ellis’ vision was clouded by the violence and scandalous remarks made by Bateman (Ellis writes in the first person, so the audience is given a dirty glimpse of Bateman’s interior monologue as he openly blurts out homophobic and racist statements).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)