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"?

[Occhidiangela]

Make it happen... Three simple little words, how can people screw it up?
[right][snapback]96838[/snapback][/right]

Easy, they are imperfect, and they are people. :D

Occhi

[kandrathe]

I qualified for both A and B.

However, you do need to read the book before you see the film. The stories are originally, and intentionally allegorical and aimed at young readers. But, you are in good company, J.R.R. Tolkein didn't like it either. As for the dialogue, you are exagerating a bit, however it does seem to be some what modernized to be more accesible to today's kids.

For example, if you read the book you find a typical exchange between the children,

Peter says, "'Did you see those mountains as we came along? And the woods? There might be eagles. There might be stags. There'll be hawks.'

'Badgers!' said Lucy.

'Foxes!' said Edmund.

'Rabbits!' said Susan."

At first glance, this is a rather unremarkable exchange. In the context of the entire novel, however, this exchange is a powerful prediction of each child's personalities.

[Doc]

Easy, they are imperfect, and they are people.  :D

Occhi
[right][snapback]96841[/snapback][/right]

Occhi, of all people, you being in the service and all, should know exactly what I mean.

In the Navy, when an order is given, you make it happen. Right?

There was no silly snow today. All that panic over the white stuff over nothing, nothing at all. It's silly.

And it cost me over a 100 bucks because I didn't cancel reservations for seating 48 hours in advance.

Humbug.

[jahcs]

Occhi, of all people, you being in the service and all, should know exactly what I mean.

In the Navy, when an order is given, you make it happen. Right?

There was no silly snow today. All that panic over the white stuff over nothing, nothing at all. It's silly.

And it cost me over a 100 bucks because I didn't cancel reservations for seating 48 hours in advance.

Humbug.
[right][snapback]96845[/snapback][/right]

Just remember every time it might snow it will be reported as "The Storm of the Century" by the media because that sells a lot better than "We could get a light dusting of snow this evening." Also, different parts of the country are better able to handle a layer of the white stuff. ;)

[Rhydderch Hael]

Is film or photography artistic?
[right][snapback]96840[/snapback][/right]

Not quite gotten my point. A movie can become an artistic endeavour. But, as I said in my above post, movies tend to commit a very grave crime in storytelling, a visual sort of information dump. Movies are very capable of doing this, more so than other expressions of storytelling.

Back in the days before CGI made SFX extravaganzas all-too-possible for every up-and-coming director, good filmmaking was accomplished through the serendipity of challenge: if it's not possible to flaunt it onscreen, then hint at it instead. The fact that you couldn't see much of the mechanical shark in Jaws proved to be an asset to Spielberg in more ways than one: the obvious reason is that he knew that the mechanical shark was too fake-looking to pass muster, but the very essence of fear comes from what you don't know about your antagonist. A theoretical 2006 remake of Jaws would not work not only because it would be a re-hash, but because the original's suspense-driven quality would not be the same if you now had fully-rendered underwater scenes of the shark swimming along.

It's like film noir: the shadows are as important as what gets lit because of what you don't get visually— but your imagination is working on to compensate.

Good movies that have compelled audiences with artistic storytelling onscreen tend not to show the audience everything all once and in the bright sunshine. Subtlety is a skill— hence the unskilled don't demonstrate it. The going trend—especially now that CGI has given directors to show the impossible in full color and scale—is to do the full reveal and give the audience all the answers in the end.

Some of the best filmmaking still leaves you with questions.

[whyBish]

Did you read the books?  As to the unbelievable, it is a fantasy story.  The unreal is commonplace in such stories.

Sorry to see the Captain of the All Blacks hang up the spikes.  :(

Occhi
[right][snapback]96655[/snapback][/right]

Not since I was six. Even a fantasy realm needs to be internally consistant. What's the point of even having snow if it isn't cold... oh wait, that's the whole problem...

[kandrathe]

I can see that point of view, however, I'm not sure this film is guilty of tearing the clothes from the story anymore than a photograph is stealing a subjects soul. This movie is an image of the Novel, but there is so much more in the Novel that could not be put into the film. The Novel remains in my mind as something altogether different, and better in many ways.

Which does not mean that I would not indulge in mere entertainment at times. I might prefer my favorite dishes, like a thick AAA aged black angus tri-tip, cooked to medium rare with garlic mashed potatoes, or fresh Maine lobster with sweet butter and lemon. But, I still can enjoy a hamburger, fries and a cold bottle of coke once in awhile.

Again though, I am thinking of a comparison between photography and painting. When photography emerged there were many who looked down on it as a non-art. A photograph was a direct image of the subject matter, and contrary to the skill of painting where the eye interprets a full image from the paints on a canvas. Anyway, it reminds me of your talk of nuance, subtlety and a full revealing of the subject matter. It is interesting to me since I dabble in photography, and also an impressionist style of painting. I like the contradiction between them.

Are there stories that deserve a full revealing? Is film the perfect medium for telling that tale which cries for sunshine? I can't believe that only the best films are ones that leave you with questions, and that there must be some tales that are best told completely in the sunshine. Nicholas Meyer might be wrong about art.

Here is an opinion of another film maker, Joseph Pisano;

Basically, anything that hones the process is a good thing. It's about the final product, not how you got there. Again, I mean technically. This bull#$%& about "smelling the film stock" is film snobbery and it's most obnoxious. A performance is a performance. A shot is a shot. If the only way Terence Malick can get THAT shot in a film like "Days of Heaven" is on 65 mm, then that's the only way to shoot it. If George Lucas wants to paint the whole thing in a computer and then project it digitally, that's fine too. It's the artist's vision and what they need to make it happen. The processes are not mutually exclusive.

Perhaps King Kong is a movie that needs to be told on film three times to get it just right. It was written as a screenplay, and directed by one of the writers(Merian C. Cooper) so I hope that version got it correct. I guess we need the 2005 version for the cool CGI effects possible now.

Unlike Kong however, the Novel has not been yanked from the bookshelf jungle, subdued and humiliated for your entertainment. It's merely a replica, a mechanical image, a facsimile. If you seek the Novel, it's still wild and on the shelf right where you left it.

[kandrathe]

Not since I was six.  Even a fantasy realm needs to be internally consistant.  What's the point of even having snow if it isn't cold... oh wait, that's the whole problem...
[right][snapback]96871[/snapback][/right]

The beavers talk too! What's with that?

:blink:

[Drasca]

The beavers talk too!  What's with that?

:blink:
[right][snapback]96880[/snapback][/right]

Exactly! Internal consistency means everything works within a system where the rules are set. That doesn't mean the world rules are the same. :whistling:
This is especially true of a science fiction or fantasy setting, where rules are mucked with deliberately as part of the story.

Sometimes we forget our suspension of disbelief, and that our earthly rules don't quite apply.

[Doc]

That was a very good movie.

[Occhidiangela]

Not since I was six.  Even a fantasy realm needs to be internally consistant.  What's the point of even having snow if it isn't cold... oh wait, that's the whole problem...
[right][snapback]96871[/snapback][/right]

If the snow wasn't cold, why did Peter bring them all coats when the four of them first arrived together?

I see what you were getting at, no obvious shivering and snot on the nose and blue faces, but I don't think it detracts from the story at all. On the other hand, my own BS flag on hypothermia would have gone up in the river scene had I been looking for fault, but since Lewis didn't put it in the book, I understand why the director left that detail out of the film.

Not everyone's cup of tea. Not every film requires the gritty realism of Braveheart or Breaker Morant

Occhi

[Icebird]

I've read the books several times (although not recently). I enjoyed the adaptation a lot. I think they captured the spirit of the book well.

Chris