In the third Oscar-season piece, a look at the directors.
Just how mad is Oscar madness? I’m not talking about the ceremony that’s a few weeks away. That’s so… 2016. I’m talking about the fact that, on January 27, vulture.com, the pop-culture web site of New York magazine, published a feature titled “Which Sundance Films Could Score With Oscar Next Year?” Yup. Based on the just-concluded Sundance Film Festival, they’re trying to predict next year’s Oscars. One of their top contenders is director-star Nate Parker’s historical drama The Birth of a Nation, whose release date hasn’t even been decided on: “After two years dominated by #oscarssowhite headlines, expect Parker’s Nation to factor heavily into the next awards race; there’s no shortage of categories in which he could contend, though the film is so dominated by Parker’s powerful performance that I think he’s likely the only actor from it who’ll court Oscar attention.” That’s not a crystal ball. That’s a crystal planet. But that’s Oscar for you. We are all in its orbit.
Which is why I keep talking about it – first actors, then actresses, and now, directors. I wonder why Lenny Abrahamson is on the list of nominees, for Room. I agree it isn’t entirely illogical. If Emma Donoghue, who wrote the book on which the film is based, ended up on the list of finalists for the Man Booker prize, then why discount Lenny Abrahamson, who’s made a pretty fine movie? The difference is that the book finds a way to make its captive-woman-and-child story unique. The narrator is a five-year-old named Jack. “My two fingers zoom all around Room and nearly have a midair collision.” That’s how he thinks, and that’s how he speaks. Room isn’t just about the plot. It’s about Jack going, “In a minute the police are going to come weee-ahhh weee-ahhh weee-ahhh and lock those bad guys up in jail.” It’s about Jack’s viewpoint, which is as constricted, as contained as the room he’s imprisoned in.
Abrahamson doesn’t do away with this voice altogether, but it’s just not the same. Consider the bit about mother and son taking their vitamins. Here’s how Donaghue does it: “Ma takes her pill from the silver pack that has twenty-eight little spaceships and I take a vitamin from the bottle with the boy doing a handstand and she takes one from the big bottle with a picture of a woman doing Tennis. Vitamins are medicine for not getting sick and going back to Heaven yet.” Here’s how Abrahamson does it: Mother tells son, “Take your vitamin. It’s the last one.” This isn’t a plea for replication of the book’s USPs onto the screen, and movies do have their own language, one that’s more visual than verbal. But as the American playwright Thornton Wilder said, “Many plays – certainly mine – are like blank checks. The actors and directors put their own signatures on them.” Abrahamson doesn’t quite emboss his name on the dotted line, and when that doesn’t happen, the movie becomes things like “well-made” and “solid” as opposed to the things we called the book: “visionary” and “unique.”
Vision and voice, then, are something a Best Director candidate must bring to the table. These are the qualities that separate the people who merely made good movies from those whose movies are unimaginable without them. Take Alejandro G Iñárritu. He totally deserved his win last year for the astonishing Birdman. I’d have been equally happy if Wes Anderson had won for The Grand Budapest Hotel or Richard Linklater for Boyhood – but Birdman, undoubtedly, was the more thrilling feat, proof of the director as magician. Among this year’s nominees, George Miller, with Mad Max: Fury Road, did some conjuring of his own – the film, with one did-that-really-happen? set piece after another, was the equivalent of making an elephant vanish. Miller took a truckload of action-movie clichés and made you feel they were being birthed in front of your eyes. He did, as a filmmaker, what Emma Donoghue did as a writer – he told an old story in an entirely new way. He made an action movie that felt… artisanal.
I didn’t think anything would top this. Probably the only film that brought me as much joy was The Man from U.N.C.L.E., where Guy Ritchie reinvented the spy thriller with style and sass, his directorial signature practically watermarked on every delightful frame. I thought Ritchie had an outsider chance of making the Oscar list, but the movie flopped and… And then I saw The Big Short, and now I find myself rooting for Adam McKay, who is a nominee. To tell you why, I’d first have to tell you about the film, which is… I guess it’s easier paraphrasing the Wiki plot summary: “An eccentric hedge fund manager discovers that the U.S. housing market is extremely unstable, being based on subprime loans that are high risk and providing fewer returns. Predicting that the market will collapse sometime in 2007, he realizes that he can profit from this situation by creating a credit default swap market…” As someone who thinks a hedge fund is the household’s monthly gardening budget, I wouldn’t normally have watched this movie if you paid me.
But what mind-blowing things McKay does with it. I still can’t say I understood every reference to overdraft analysis or tranches, but I enjoyed the film thoroughly. Yes, I said “enjoy.” When was the last time you thought to use that word while leafing through the Business section of your newspaper? The usual trick while making such movies is to allow the audience to empathise with a few characters, so that our feelings for them tide us over the incomprehensibility of what they are doing. But there are just scraps of emotion here – one character mourns a dead brother, another has to be reminded that many people are going to lose their homes. Most other times, The Big Short plays like the financial crisis black comedy that Scorsese never directed. The scenes (even the email-checking scenes) practically dance on screen, pulsing with the kind of energy you’d associate with a rock-star biopic. If that’s not magic, I don’t know what is.
An edited version of this piece can be found here. Copyright ©2016 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
venkatesh
February 6, 2016
Finally.
There really doesn’t seem to be any hype about this movie despite it being populated by A** actors and a crackling script. It seems to be one of those slow burning movies (just like Million Dollar Baby) that picks up later.
I personally loved the film but then i work in Finance and understand the jargon. The other folks i went with kept complaining about the jargon and the breaking of the fourth wall. No one was sure if it was a documentary or a film.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Raj Balakrishnan
February 6, 2016
I loved The Big Short, rooting for the film. I thought that Steve Carell was brilliant, pity that he didn’t get a nomination. There was one thing that I noted, in the Las Vegas bit (American Securitization forum), which is set in 2006, I could see Ernst & Young’s current logo in the background (EY changed its logo sometime in 2008). There were several shots of the logo. A very small mistake, but… Anyway, loved the film.
LikeLike
prasunsblog
February 6, 2016
Yes, I said “enjoy.” When was the last time you thought to use that word while leafing through the Business section of your newspaper?
Maybe not the business section, but Michael Lewis (Moneyball, The Blind Side, The Big Short) has a knack for taking such topics and making them really fun reading – e.g Flash Boys, Liar’s Poker
LikeLike
tonks
February 6, 2016
Speaking of ‘Room’ : A movie blog is probably the wrong place to express such an opinion but, for me, a well written book (which allows access into the internal workings of the mind of the characters and the writer) can hardly ever be bettered by a movie. And reading the book before-hand nearly always lessens the movie.
Im right now re- reading ‘The Silence of the lambs’ which I had read a long time back, before it had been made into a movie : a random, fluke pick from a library, when I did not even know then that it was a best seller. It had floored me then, as it floors me now, as I read it again. What I liked best was reading about Clarice Starling’s thoughts (when she faced difficulties as an attractive woman in the FBI and she was discriminated against because of her working class origins), and her psychologically intense encounters with Dr Lecter. The movie based on the book, excellent as it was, couldn’t quite give me that experience. There is one major difference now though, at the second reading. The lead characters have taken over the image of the movie leads.
For me, when the director remains true to the book, the movie is often a lesser experience and when not, the omissions and divergences from the original (admittedly a necessity, because they are different media) are upsetting.
I cannot recall many movies which were better than the book. But perhaps its just me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gaja
February 6, 2016
BR –
Sir, Where did you watch The Big Short ? Torrents or DVD screener ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sutheesh Kumar. P. S.
February 6, 2016
The movie versions are for the folks who don’t have the patience for reading books, but are movie aficionados. The makers want to cash in on the popularity of a book, which makes it easier to pitch it to the general populace all the while assured of a captive market among the fans of the book.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Srinivas R
February 7, 2016
Tonks- one movie which I liked better than the book was Godfather (part1). The book was OK IMO, but the movies was mind blowing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Karthik
February 7, 2016
I’m yet to watch TBS. As someone who had read the book and failed to comprehend half the stuff in it, I wondered how it was going to be translated on to the screen. Surprised to see the movie has done well commercially and you have associated the word ‘enjoy’ with the film. Hope Mckay wins the oscar just for achieving this rare fete. Speaking of spy films, I also liked Kingsman very much. It was like watching one of those older Bond movies, devoid of neurotic characters and had some some kick ass action scenes.
LikeLike
chronophlogiston
February 7, 2016
Yeah, I too was noticing that Sundance has increasingly become a very good early bellweather for the awards season. Always had quality films, but now it seems to be attracting films that are also accessible.
LikeLike
iamworthatry
February 7, 2016
Reading really great reviews on ‘The big short’. I am waiting for it to release here in Trivandrum. Also want to watch ‘Spotlight’ which many thinks will win the award.
But got to watch ‘Steve Jobs’, a character sketch rather than a biopic, a few days back and it is a brilliant movie, although I think it is made for those who have read the book or know all the eventful things that happened in Jobs’s life. Even if many of the short conversations and incidents (extremely important as far as the movie is concerned) never happened in reality, the movie is superb. The unique genius of Aaron Sorkin is a pleasure to watch. I don’t have the first damn clue why he is not nominated. Also Michael Fassbender, a force of nature, gives one of the most powerful lead performances that you’ll get to watch in recent times. The fact that he looks nothing like Steve Jobs never occurred to me and that is the definition of the term ‘Acting’, I guess. Read a few of those ‘oscar predictions suggesting that Di Caprio (whom I think is a really good dedicated consistent actor, but not a great one), who waded through freezing waters and ate raw bison liver to make Hugh Glass’s troubles authentic, will win it even if Fassbender deserves it more than anyone else. I love leo. But if he wins, it would be sad.
LikeLike
Utkal
February 7, 2016
For me it has to be McKay for The Big Short or Miller for Fury Road. for the best director. My review of The Big Short: http://utkaleidoscope.com/the-big-short/
LikeLike
brangan
February 7, 2016
tonks: Agree with you about books not really making it to cinema, with the rare exceptions of films like The Godfather.
Wrote about it here:
And also in this Harry Potter review:
Perhaps this is the only way books should be adapted into films – not through scrupulous adherence to each plot point and every narrative thread, but by appropriating the basic outline and veering off in tangents that are surprising even to those who’ve read the books. The key to the new Harry Potter films isn’t fidelity but complementariness – they exist in a parallel dimension, at once familiar and yet not overly so.
Karthik: As someone who had read the book and failed to comprehend half the stuff in it…
Actually, it doesn’t matter at all. The key is not what’s in the movie or what the movie is about, but HOW it is about it. It’s the storytelling, not the story itself.
LikeLike
Chanakya
February 7, 2016
Baradwaj, I don’t think you have seen ‘Sicario’ yet. So I highly recommend it. I enjoyed it as much as I did watching ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’ although they are very different.
LikeLike
tonks
February 7, 2016
The interiority of the novel is fundamentally at odds with the exteriority of cinema. The images in our heads as we read prose are half-formed – we see the people, the places, and yet we don’t. A playful form of malleability is at work here, and it vanishes the minute we see an actor in the part, or we see the setting, so vulgar in its finality.
Thank you for sharing. What a lovely bit of writing. Beautifully written and expresses exactly what I had in mind. This piece is as good as anything I’ve ever read by anyone, period.
About the Harry Potter movies, the variations from the original (like Harry having blue eyes in the movies, but green in the books : surely they could have used contact lenses or something?) jarred the most. Omisions (like leaving out SPEW) were less jarring and more understandable. And the Gods of puberty were partly to blame, I guess, for the fact that Neville grew up to be tall, thin and rather handsome (he was supposed to be stout). And Hermione into such a stunner (she was not so in the books).
In my enthusiasm, I made the mistake of re- reading all three books The Crab with the Golden Claws, The Secret of the Unicorn and Red Rackham’s Treasure just before I watched Spielberg’s The adventures of Tintin. And the huge variations in the storyline from the original plot kept me from enjoying fully what might have been otherwise (if I had only forgotten the original story a little) a delightful movie experience.
LikeLike
asmamasood
February 7, 2016
Speaking of Madness, here is my take on Mental Health in Movies:
LikeLike
apex
February 7, 2016
“The interiority of the novel is fundamentally at odds with the exteriority of cinema. The images in our heads as we read prose are half-formed – we see the people, the places, and yet we don’t. A playful form of malleability is at work here, and it vanishes the minute we see an actor in the part, or we see the setting, so vulgar in its finality.”
U said it brilliantly Tonks. There’s nothing more profound and expansive than the human imagination and it’s the incompleteness of the mental picture that provides the potential for further cerebral or intellectual or emotional manipulation of the raw data ..
Imo this “book to movie” comparison has been goin on 4 ages for eons, making comparison charts and even VENN diagrams does open up new perspective & paradigms. and either ways, it only adds to the critical appraisal and appreciation of these forms –though the ‘novel’ or the “painting” is a purer art form than a “movie”…
Ps: I don’t have the patience to go ‘cover to cover’ in a book so prefer “images” unfold themselves b4 my lazy eyes …lol
LikeLiked by 3 people
Sri
February 7, 2016
I would risk it and say that this post is incomplete as you haven’t even mentioned ( probably cos it hasn’t released in India) SPOTLIGHT. Watch that and we are talking. Surprisingly we have quite a few interesting movies this time , shame it is now getting a race touch to it.
LikeLike
travellingslacker
February 7, 2016
Wondering why have you not mentioned the fifth nomination… That of McCarthy for Spotlight… Also would love ro know what you thought of his earlier works such as Station Agent and The Visitor, in case you have seen them… I have loved most of his work so far…
LikeLike
travellingslacker
February 7, 2016
On the other hand I had a similar underwhelming feeling about Room and I have not even read the book… Performances were great but the basic premise reminded me too much of Old Boy, minus all the R rated thrills it had… May be it is the wrong way to look at it…
LikeLike
brangan
February 7, 2016
travellingslacker: I found Spotlight quite good, but I also got the feeling I’ve seen many films like this. It wasn’t distinctive enough. The cast was fantastic, though.
And yes, I do like the films of this director. Visitor, especially, was really good.
LikeLike
tonks
February 7, 2016
U said it brilliantly Tonks
Clarification : Brilliant is absolutely right but the brilliance is BR’s, apex. The lines I’ve quoted in italics are from his review in the link he has shared (in the comment just above mine.)
LikeLike
Punee
February 7, 2016
@Sutheesh Kumar PS: More proof that apex is not Ranveer- the latter is a voracious reader 🙂 😛
LikeLiked by 1 person
apex
February 7, 2016
@ Tonks: My Bad! So I will “transfer” my compliment to B.Ran,.. Could sense this has been written by someone with v special writing skills ..wow BR
Will add something here–imo ‘interiority’ can also happen on film just like in a ‘novel’. Though film has to be really effective to bypass the visual and auditory stimulation (distraction).
There’s then this need to “UNLOCK” the viewers mind, render him/her “PASSIVE” and then POUND them relentlessly creating MENTAL TRANSACTIONS therein thus altering the mental LANDSCAPE as such.
Mind you, I personally believe the “INTERIORISATION” may not necessarily equate to “INTROSPECTION”. This process does DESERVE depiction on screen because usually the outwardly actions (or inaction) of a character are due to the INTERIORISATION (or introspection in some cases) process in a novel or on celluloid …
LikeLiked by 1 person
apex
February 7, 2016
@ asmamasood: in my humble view: found this writeup of yours MUCH better than your piece on the bajirao thread ( hope I’m not getting confused –think it was u lol!?) think the reason is that u have a better ‘grip’ or ‘feel’ of this subject since u have got down from your high horse & descended to the level of the film –unlike in bajirao mastani wherein there was a lack of experience & empathy (or both) …
@ Punee:
Koyale Ki Khano Se Hum
Nikle Deewaanon Se Hum
Ke Rab Apna Hai
Hum Hain Rab Ke Bande….
&
@ Punee: Woh Bheeg Rahi Hai Baarish Mein
Aur Aag Lagi Hai Paani Mein…
🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Punee
February 7, 2016
@apex: Gunday and Kill Dill! 🙂 🙂 Zindagi yun gale ya lagi hai koi khoya hua barson ke baad aa gaya…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nakul Sangolli
February 8, 2016
Baradwaj Sir, please allow readers to read your posts on RSS feeds without having to visit the website. It defeats the purpose of having readers no?
So no blurb, full text please?
LikeLike
Prasad
February 8, 2016
“Most other times, The Big Short plays like the financial crisis black comedy that Scorsese never directed. “
Can’t agree more. The way Mckay uses the “Breaking the fourth wall” technique and keep interacting with the audience through cameos from Anthony Bourdein, Selina Gomez and others is so effective and inventive. He certainly deserves an oscar for the energy he infuses in the screen.
Was wondering Woody Allen successfully used this in “Annie Hall” and seems a pioneer but was wondering who else has done this before Woody successfuly?
LikeLike
MANK
February 9, 2016
Prasad, Mel Brooks used this techniques quite superbly in his comedies. the ending of blazing saddles is pretty iconic, where he literally breaks the fourth wall and come out of the film and in to the studio where the film is shot. other earlier instances i can remember is Olivier in film version of Richard III and michael Caine in Alfie Another instance would be the ending of Hitchcok\s psycho with Norman Bates staring and smiling at the audience.
Even though Fellini, Traffaut and Godard made many iconic films – 81\2,day for night ,….- that winks at the audience, i can’t remember a specific instance where the character talks to the audience
LikeLike
RT
February 9, 2016
I haven’t read the book on which “Room” is based but looking at the extracts I can understand why it doesn’t translate well. The difficulty in adapting some books is if they are great not just because of the ideas in the book but how those are executed – the writing. Take The Great Gatsby for example. We’ve had 2 adaptations so far but neither of them can compare with the book. You can try using voiceovers like in Shawshank Redemption but it doesn’t always work.
The book adaptations that work are those which have a good plot but not necessarily good writing, the obvious example being The Godfather. Or where the books have a great idea behind it but again not so much great writing like Bladerunner or Minority Report based on PKD’s work. Comic book adaptations also tend to work because comic books are a very visual medium anyway.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anon
February 9, 2016
I notice that every Apex comment is liked by a minimum of 3 people while the rest of the comments have close to 0 likes dislikes. Not just in this thread, but every thread. Anyone care to venture an educated guess as to how? Or are his comments just THAT likable?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Iswarya
February 9, 2016
Anon: There are a lot of mysteries that are connected with these likes and dislikes. Ram Murali, for one, would definitely like to know how this operates. I suspect that some 2 or 3 people would downvote his comment even if were to simply put down what he had for dinner!
I find this whole voting business pretty entertaining!
LikeLike
sid
February 9, 2016
After watching “The Revenant”, I finally understood why I had problems with “Birdman” and “Babel” as well – I find Inarittu’s films technically brilliant but ultimately vacuous. There is some attempt at philosophizing, which always seems to be thrown in without any exploration (the dream sequences in “The Revenant”, for example). Even on a technical level this time, whatever he was doing with natural lighting/imagery was done probably a hundred times more meaningfully by Terrence Malick 10 years ago (with the same DP to boot).
I’m guessing you could say the same about my favorite this year (George Miller) – but at least that film doesn’t think it already is the most important film ever made (a problem with every AGI film). I say the subtle feminism of Mad Max is far superior compared to the self serious machoism of “The Revenant”.
As for “The Big Short”, I enjoyed it. As someone who works in one of the big banks featured prominently in the film, and who hears the terms thrown around in the film almost every day, I can’t say whether the film did a great job of actually explaining the crisis to a layman (someone removed from the everyday happenings of the film would be in a better place to comment), but I agree that it was entertaining (that Margot Robbie scene, for example, was genius). Do I think it merits “Best Picture” or “Best Director” kind of attention? Not in my opinion.
LikeLike
tonks
February 9, 2016
Iswarya : I suspect that some 2 or 3 people would downvote his comment even if were to simply put down what he had for dinner!
Even if *it were
( Sawry 😉 couldn’t resist 😉 )
But yes, seriously, Ram Murali’s downvotes are quite a mystery. So many downvotes to thoughtful comments from someone who comes across as one of the nicest people here.
LikeLike
tonks
February 9, 2016
Or should that be : if *he were to?😒
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 9, 2016
BR, agree with tonks – that was a wonderful piece of writing and pretty much describes the way I feel about books/films.
Tonks, I’m the same way – I almost always find my books better than film. The one exception that I can think of is The Bridges of Madison County – liked the film, mainly for the acting of the leads, and could cheerfully have thrown the book across the room.
In the realm of television, however, I’m finding that many of the series I like, the books pale before the way the series are made. Inspector Morse, The Grantchester Mysteries, etc.
I’m bemused by the like/dislike debate. For some reason, since I do not have a wordpress account, I can neither ‘like’ someone’s comment, nor can I see the vote ‘up/down’ buttons. Perhaps I should thank my stars? 🙂
LikeLike
Iswarya
February 9, 2016
tonks: Meant it to be “if he were to” and it’s actually nice – that this site has a back-up proofing expert! We’ll probably end up with a big gang of editors here and form something like the stackexchange forums when BR’s reader interaction-contribution thing works out! 🙂
BR: Is that new project what this mysterious Reel Two is all about?
LikeLiked by 1 person
tonks
February 9, 2016
Bridges of Madison county, I agree I found the book cheesy beyond tolerance but I’m afraid I did not like the movie much better. Two movies I thought were better than the books were, off the top of my head, The sound of music (a dragging autobiography I read in school) and PS I love you (again unbearably cheesy book, but a more tolerable movie). Atonement, the book, I loved and its probably on my top five list. The movie is wonderful too : quite almost as good as the book. Ive read Lolita twice, once when in school but for the second time, more recently : its only at the second reading that I paused and savoured the beauty of the prose. Now after reading BR’s review that is mentioned above, I think I definitely have to watch the movie and see if it matches up.
LikeLike
Shalini
February 10, 2016
Hmm, I guess I’m alone in wishing more books were made into movies. I agree with all the arguments made regarding the superiority of books, but that’s precisely why I wish more films used them as source material. Given a choice between watching yet another superhero film or a problematic adaptation of a beloved novel, I rather take my chances with the latter. There is also the fact that I get bored with my own thoughts. While robust, there are limits to my imagination and I enjoy partaking of someone else’s imaginings. So I for one will keep hoping that a Georgette Heyer romance or a Mary Stewart thriller comes soon to a theater near me. 🙂
@Anu – Ah, a fellow Morse fan! Caught the Endeavour prequel? Worth watching just for the prettiness of 60s Oxford City.
LikeLike
tonks
February 10, 2016
While I used to consume romances like theres no tomorrow in my teens, these days I find I’m often rather impatient with them. I possess the entire Georgette Heyer collection as e books. I used to love her books but the last couple of books of her’s I attempted to read, I had to discontinue because I was a little bored. Perhaps it was an unlucky selection of a rare tedious book of an author who has written many. Or is that maturity catching up on me? (Tragedy 😢 )
LikeLike
Shalini
February 10, 2016
@tonks – I confess I haven’t read Heyer in decades and feel no inclination to do so now. Barring a brief period in college when they served as a pleasant diversion from courses like “Mechanics of Deformable Bodes” and “Stochastic Processes” I’ve never been one for romance novels. Which makes me think Heyer’s work may be better seen than read. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
February 10, 2016
Shalini, I do wish books were used as source materials for films. The problem is adapting them well. Many Malayalam films were adapted from literature – and adapted very well indeed. So were a lot of early Hindi films.
Of course, a Morse fan! How could I not be? 🙂 No, I haven’t caught the prequel. I’ll look for it. Here’s an interesting interview with Colin Dexter – he was so refreshing.
http://tinyurl.com/Colin-Dexter
Did you catch Miss Fisher by the way? What did you think?
Not like Heyer?! Blasphemy! 🙂
@tonks – not a great romance fan either, except when I was in my teens. But I can still read Heyer and enjoy her. It’s funny you should talk about reading her now, but I recently revisited Frederica and thoroughly enjoyed it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anand Narayanan
February 17, 2016
BR: I have not commented here before, but I couldn’t resist myself when this book movie argument had surfaced. Agree with you about books not really making it to cinema, with the rare exceptions of films like The Godfather. I am not quite sure if I agree here. After reading a great book, we do have a tendency to compare with it’s film adaptation. But great directors tend to bring their own style, their own version of the book which is not the same thing we interpreted. Luchino Visconti’s The Leopard was a fantastic adaptation, and so beautifully directed with Burt Lancaster’s wonderful performance that the mere existence of this great book scarcely crossed my mind. Even in the film adaptation of The Silence of the Lambs, Jonathan Demme brought his own element into it. I understand your criticism for Room here (which I haven’t seen), where you said that the movie was a faithful reproduction of the book. I would rather just read the book in that case. But how is it possible to compare a great book and it’s great film adaptation? Aren’t they different because the film has the director element in it? I would just like to look at them as a great book or a great film, without comparing them. There are many instances with books being translated to the big screen, along with the director’s vision. A Clockwork Orange, Grapes of Wrath, The Dead, Barry Lyndon, The Leopard,The Age of Innocence, Inherent Vice etc. are a few examples. I enjoyed reading the books as well, but I am unable to say which is better because they both did justice to their medium. I think a great book and it’s great film adaptation doesn’t warrant a comparison. To paraphrase Pauline Kael, “Cinema is one of the bastard arts, along with the opera.” But that doesn’t mean that the source is always better than the film. Being a movie critic, I think you might agree.
LikeLike
Anand Narayanan
February 17, 2016
Shucks, I forgot to put italics. Hope you understood what I had meant.
LikeLike
tonks
February 18, 2016
I felt regarding Life of Pi that both the book and the movie were good. Spoiler alert : But in the book, the ending is ambiguous and open ended allowing the reader the option of equally choosing between the two alternate possibilities. The ending in the movie is not ambiguous, it seems to quite definitely choose the “unreliable narrator’s inability-to-cope-with-reality hence confabulation” explanation.
LikeLike
apex
February 18, 2016
Thanks for that interesting comment on Life of PI.
Will agree that Life of PI forces the viewer to choose what to take away from it –depending on his/her own sensibilities/belief pattern/ attitude to life & above all personal biases.
Found it sumptuous, not only as a ‘visual spectacle’ of sorts but the multidimensional metaphorical connotations & the disparate entities assembled by Ang Lee!
Religion, theology, spirituality, magical realism all draped in state of the art 3D spleandour. Just like the religions that the central character has to choose from, the survivors on the boat, the alpha male that has to emerge from the tiger and the boy on the boat– the prospective viewer can choose beforehand what he wants to take away from it.
” both the book and the movie were good.”
–which was better? And One wonders if Martels work helped or impeded Ang Lees cinematic vision here?
LikeLiked by 1 person
tonks
February 20, 2016
Books that we read in our formative years leave a lasting impression. “To kill a mockingbird” by Harper Lee was such a book for me with its powerful story of a white lawyer defending a black man (wrongly accused of the rape of a young white woman), and narrated through the eyes of the former’s eleven year old daughter. I read it first when I was about the age of the narrator and its attitudes about race and inequalities in society, helped shape my own. I have re-visited the book several times afterwards and there was always something extra to learn from the book, about being fair and about trying to always see things from another’s perspective, because” You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view ”
(Hard feat for a movie to live up to such a good book, but I liked the movie almost quite as much).
But we never knew in the first book, what went through Atticus’s mind when he took his case, what his primary motivation was. We however do, at the end of the sequel, “Go set a watchman”. And this dethroning of Atticus from his pedestal was as much a revelation and shock to me as it was to his daughter. RIP Harper Lee.
LikeLiked by 2 people
tonks
February 20, 2016
Harper Lee was a most unusual author in many ways. Not many people are capable of writing a first novel that is good enough to win the Pulitzer Prize and become a beloved classic. Fewer still are so publicity shy, so possessive of their privacy and so horrified by their success that they choose to spend the rest of their life as a recluse. ” Shoot all the blue jays you want, if you can hit ’em, but remember it’s a sin to kill a Mockingbird.” says Atticus, because “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing except make music for us to enjoy.”
Harper Lee was one such Mockingbird and the music she made will continue to sweeten lives long after she has gone.
LikeLiked by 1 person