Chronicles of Narnia

[kandrathe]

What is "lost" in a movie adapatation is that fact that nothing's missing when it's put to film...

...that is the problem. Nicholas Meyer put it this way: art is supposed to be incomplete— it should be missing some element. Paintings do not move. Music does not have scenery. Yet a painting conveys motion. Music suggests imagery. The "missing" element isn't absent: it's simply filled in by the viewer or listener. They supply the missing element, and involve themselves in the art piece as a result.

You're not supposed to have everything served to you. That quashes the audience involvement, robs them of the investment they must make in order to fully comprehend. Movies tend to commit this very crime: they display the director's scope of imagination at the expense of denying that of the audience's.
[right][snapback]96630[/snapback][/right]

Is film or photography artistic?

My response above aludes to this question. The confusion I see is that some are equating the story with the film, which is unfair. Many directors try and fail to make a novel into a film, because our imaginations do provide so much of the richness of the story. Rather, view film through the lens of an interpretation, such as a painting inspired by the story. A good film seeks to transport us into the story, to skim over the story, to reminisce about the story, or to celebrate the story. The good story still stands alone as its own artistic expression. What is added by other adaptations to me are synonomous with making a good song into a symphony.

What is the difference between Barry Gifford's book "Wild at Heart in New Orleans", and David Lynch's interpretation of that book as the film "Wild at Heart"?