tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9721761.post8697332562265457622..comments2024-03-19T07:27:06.216-04:00Comments on VOTARIES OF HORROR: The Hopelessness of Comparing Books to Movies, Part IKatherine Woodburyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14364517253667798449noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9721761.post-50534070712711553972015-04-28T20:14:50.646-04:002015-04-28T20:14:50.646-04:00I agree! In fact, I find that I enjoy biographies ...I agree! In fact, I find that I enjoy biographies that focus on the writer, artist, or actor's process much more than biographies that deliver "he lived here" information or (in the case of actors) gossip derived from celebrity magazines.<br /><br />T.A. Shippey's <i>Tolkien: Author of the Century</i> is a good example of a book that concentrates on the man <b>and</b> his creation. So is <i>The Narnian</i> by Alan Jacobs about C.S. Lewis.Katherine Woodburyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14364517253667798449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9721761.post-79271487740602095722015-04-28T10:11:03.607-04:002015-04-28T10:11:03.607-04:00Yes - the artist helps to make the object memorabl...Yes - the artist helps to make the object memorable, and worth remembering. And it is in doing so that the artist/subject may become memorable and worth remembering. I don't think nearly as many people would care about Tolkien if he wrote about Tolkien, nor would Ben Franklin's autobiography be of interest if his prior artistry had not sparked that interest. The self-portrait is only worthwhile if the other portraits are good first.a calvinist preachernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9721761.post-21440358740533004022015-04-27T16:05:30.263-04:002015-04-27T16:05:30.263-04:00I do think that art should carry viewers/readers b...I do think that art should carry viewers/readers beyond themselves rather than focus on the fact that it is art. However, I think there are two other factors: (1) we viewers/readers must allow ourselves to be swept up without expectations or comparisons (easier said than done) and (2) the art should have something to give, whether that something is pleasure or profundity or amusement or insight into the human condition. The author hides but that author's viewpoint is absolutely necessary to the thing being art (at all). Without Monet, the lilies would not be memorable. <br /><br />I address <a href="http://katewoodbury.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-classic-approach-of-books-to-movies.html" rel="nofollow"> faithful interpretations</a> in my latest post!Katherine Woodburyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14364517253667798449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9721761.post-42109335429941009452015-04-25T22:27:11.098-04:002015-04-25T22:27:11.098-04:00Different media require different renderings, I wi...Different media require different renderings, I will grant. A strict rendering is often little more than adding pictures - moving pictures, but pictures - to a reading of the book. Some of the earlier approaches to the Narnia Chronicles took this approach and they were so tied to the text there was little point to the pictures.<br /><br />But I do much prefer a faithful rendering and I do not consider the Peter Jackson rendering of The Hobbit to be so. He did more than just borrow the title, but neither did he tell Tolkien's story.<br /><br />I suppose this is in part a matter of taste. When it comes to visual arts of all sorts - paintings, photography, movies, sculpture - the art I prefer is the art in which the object is more important than the subject. Picasso never floated my boat because his art is so thoroughly him. Rembrandt, Monet, even Van Gogh - the artist/subject is definitely evident in their art, but as background and support to the art/object created. Picasso drew attention to Picasso. Monet drew attention to the lilies.a calvinist preachernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9721761.post-43544824460172129892015-04-25T18:19:38.004-04:002015-04-25T18:19:38.004-04:00And theme! But I should wait for my next post . . ...And theme! But I should wait for my next post . . . :)Katherine Woodburyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14364517253667798449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9721761.post-57977993380299224532015-04-25T18:10:39.274-04:002015-04-25T18:10:39.274-04:00I define "strict rendering" as separate ...I define "strict rendering" as separate from "interpretation," even a faithful interpretation. I'll go into more detail when I address the second category, but I totally agree that 1995 <i>Pride & Prejudice</i> is a <i>faithful interpretation</i>. <br /><br />A strict rendering, in my mind, is when the scriptwriters and directors try to translate the book page by page to the screen. Some things just don't bridge that gap: inner dialog, for example, has to be translated into conversation or into a visual or provided through voice-over, which has its own problems. Austen's objective voice is almost impossible to recreate although the ending to <i>Emma</i> (1996) with Juliet Stevenson's marvelous wink at the camera comes close. In fact, <i>Emma</i> is a great example. I've seen three versions that all kept pretty close to the text, and all three were totally different in tone! Katherine Woodburyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14364517253667798449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9721761.post-82906410452246597222015-04-25T16:08:41.561-04:002015-04-25T16:08:41.561-04:00Perhaps it is my profession in which fidelity to t...Perhaps it is my profession in which fidelity to the text is critical, but I disagree. In the first place, it is possible to be faithful to a given text and yet still provide a specific viewpoint. I go back to the Firth/Ehle Pride & Prejudice, which is not in my opinion as boring as a slide show, is incredibly faithful to the text, and yet presents a specific video interpretation of that text.<br /><br />When a movie tries to be a book, yes, it fails. It isn't a book. But neither should the movie rewrite the book. I went to see a video interpretation of Tolkien's book. Instead, I got Peter Jackson's book with Tolkien's characters. It may have been a decent movie, but it wasn't the same story. He told the same story Tolkien told in Fellowship of the Rings, mostly the same story in Two Towers, and his own story in Return of the King. By the middle of the first Hobbit movie, Jackson was on to his own story again.<br /><br />I preferred Tolkien's.a calvinist preachernoreply@blogger.com