Catching Fire comes out on DVD in
t-minus 29 days. How do I know that? Because one of my Facebook friends has
been counting down since the movie left our small town theatre. Underneath that
post is another friend’s Hobbit-length
post debating the changes/additions to the second movie in that one book, film
trilogy. I think saying society has a slight obsession with film adaptations
would be fair. Twilight, Hunger Games,
Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, The Hobbit and countless superhero
adventures have dominated the box
office for years. These movies, however, are faced with an impossible
challenge. Meeting the expectations of those readers who are diehard fans of
the books. In the translation from book to film, certain messages might be
tweaked, characters can be added or dropped, or maybe a casting choice creates
enough of an uproar that the franchise is sent spiraling on the verge of
collapse.
Adaptation
looks at the difficulties in taking something from a story on the page to a
story on the screen. The first scene illustrates one of the biggest complaints
reader/viewers have, “the actor looks nothing like the fictional person I had
visualized while I was reading the books!”
In the first scene of Adaptation viewers are met with a black
screen and a few credits. A voice over of Nicholas Cage’s character, Charlie’s
thoughts, are the only real focus of the scene. This stream of consciousness
narration explains what Charlie thinks of himself and the viewer is left to
build their own mental picture of the character, just like they would if they
were listening to, or reading, a book. Unfortunately, Nicholas Cage is a
relatively well known actor, so we know what he will look like to a degree.
However, this movie is a little older and, with Hollywood’s ability to change
the appearance of people, the man’s appearance is a little bit of a mystery.
When the scene finally shows some sort of image, we are met with a slightly
surprising view of the character.
As we express our disappointment in
a filmmaker casting Woody Harrelson as Haymitch Abernathy rather than Johnny
Depp like we had mentally planned (So happy to be disappointed!), we should
probably step back and let the artistic vision of those who work and love the
art of filmmaking take control.
I think your quote “the actor looks nothing like the fictional person I had visualized while I was reading the books!” is spot on. A lot of Americans are visual learners and when they read a book a actress or actor will pop into mind on who that certain character is. Margaret Mitchell, author of Gone with the Wind, wrote the character of Rhett Butler while envisioning Clark Gable. America felt the same way, only he could play that part, even though he wanted nothing to do with the movie. The reader will often get disappointed when the fantasy they had in mind of that character does not get fulfilled. As a result of that unfulfilled, the movie of the book made will be seen as a disappointment to them. This idea of reality versus illusion is found in Hitchcock's Vertigo. I was disappointed in the Tim Burton version of Dark Shadows because I loved the early 90s revamp, play on words, of the series. Burton made it his own, but stuck true to some of the story lines. I was still disappointed because it failed to live up to the fantasy in my head.
ReplyDelete"[W]e should probably step back and let the artistic vision of those who work and love the art of filmmaking take control." This is actually one of the things that I think I've always believed to be true about adapting literature into film, but had never recognized until, really, this class. There are some rare cases that I am annoyed when a film does not get something that I had perceived as important about a novel "right." The main thing that I can think of is the adaptation of one of my favorite books, The Lord of the Rings, specifically The Two Towers: Faramir in the film is much less altruistic and helpful to Frodo and Sam than he is in the book, and WAY more tempted by The Ring. In fact, if I remember correctly, he actually was not tempted at ALL in the book. He definitely didn't take them back to Gondor/Osgiliath in hopes of gaining prestige with his father. But I have to recognize that, however much it irks me, it doesn't really change the story all that much, and it is Peter Jackson's artistic license to do so. So it still is something that I struggle with every once in a while :P
ReplyDeleteYour blog post reminded me of a discussion that happened in one of my classes, if no this one then maybe my photography class. We talked about how the movie is most often a disappointment for someone because of how a character/place looks or what the filmmakers changed. Our imagination will always be better than what someone else can give us, but we still go to the movies and complain about them all the same.
ReplyDeleteYou made a good point about the opening dialogue scene. As you said,
ReplyDelete"...the viewer is left to build their own mental picture of the character, just like they would if they were listening to, or reading, a book..." I never realized that this scene kind of relates to reading a book. We hear clearly what is being said but we are suppose to make up our own personally opinion. Good point.
I like thinking about who I would want to play a part, but I love seeing movies where actors I would never pick are cast. I don't remember if it was this class or one of my theatre classes that we talked about would you rather have the actor you thought of play the role, or the one who has the talent and is more capable of playing the role? I think I would go with the one who is more capable of acting the role. It is really amazing what hair and makeup artists can do, now, anyway! I just think that if the person looks like the character, but can't act at all can change the purpose of the film. But if an actor can embody who the character is (portraying them accurately) yet doesn't look like what we envisioned, then they should get the role. Sorry for the long comment!
ReplyDeleteI'm a bit confused by the focus of your post on Nicholas Cage as Charlie Kaufman rather than on Chris Cooper as Laroche. After all, Nicholas Cage is the writer for Hollywood who will have to cast someone to play Laroche, and since we read "Orchid Fever," that is the character that we imagine. Cage is not a person we imagine from reading Orlean's book, so how can we have any expectation for who plays *him*? Only unless we know what Charlie Kaufman really looks like, and even if we did, we are supposed to be focusing on who would play Orlean, Laroche, etc. While I'm confused on that aspect, however, I do agree that we set many, MANY expectations for the characters we imagine and the actors who portray them. Even what we assume would be good choices can backfire. However, at this point, I should say that I think Woody Harrelson is a perfect Haymitch. :)
ReplyDeleteI focused on the character played by Nicholas Cage because I thought the opening scene illustrates what we do/don't expect from books. The opening monologue gives us information about Cage's character but we can't see him. Overall, I found the scene symbolic of this struggle in adapting lit. to film.
ReplyDelete