Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Something I Did Not Make Clear About TPOZ:


Palmerin
 Share

Recommended Posts

that book is very trim and compact, which means that it can be filmed in its entirety in a two and a half hours movie without any of the brutal mutilations of practically every one of its film adaptations, which were obviously made by people who copied each other and never bothered to read the book.

If you read it, you will discover that the king, though fond of the bottle, is nevertheless very respectful and considerate of colonel Sapt. Even more important, the protagonist is a much more complex and interesting character than the one dimensional cardboard cutout portrayed by Colman and Granger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that book is very trim and compact, which means that it can be filmed in its entirety in a two and a half hours movie without any of the brutal mutilations of practically every one of its film adaptations, which were obviously made by people who copied each other and never bothered to read the book.

If you read it, you will discover that the king, though fond of the bottle, is nevertheless very respectful and considerate of colonel Sapt. Even more important, the protagonist is a much more complex and interesting character than the one dimensional cardboard cutout portrayed by Colman and Granger.

 

You bring this up yet again?   Anyhow I assume the screenwriters read the book.  They just decided to make changes and drop and\or add things because they believed it made for a better movie.    They had the support of the producer and director;  how do I know that?   View the films.

 

Again,  films are for entertainment unless they are a documentary.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic/complaint always brings to my mind how I felt after watching Robert Aldrich's 1977 film version of ex-LAPD cop and novelist Joseph Wambaugh's, THE CHOIRBOYS.

 

Having read Wambaugh's book beforehand, I knew it did contain some bawdy humor, but the main thrust of the story was a much more serious subject...the pressures a bunch of cops face and how they blow off steam in a large city such as Los Angeles in this case. However and as I recall, Aldrich's movie version seemed to want to focus less of the more serious aspects to the story but more on that bawdy humor, and after seeing the movie, I remember feeling the director hadn't caught the essence of the book.

 

(...and evidently neither did Wambaugh...the story goes that the author was so upset with Aldrich after seeing the film that he wanted his name removed from the credits, and that afterward he made sure he had creative control over any subsequent films made from his books) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic/complaint always brings to my mind how I felt after watching Robert Aldrich's 1977 film version of ex-LAPD cop and novelist Joseph Wambaugh's, THE CHOIRBOYS.

 

Having read Wambaugh's book beforehand, I knew it did contain some bawdy humor, but the main thrust of the story was a much more serious subject...the pressures a bunch of cops face and how they blow off steam in a large city such as Los Angeles in this case. However and as I recall, Aldrich's movie version seemed to want to focus less of the more serious aspects to the story but more on that bawdy humor, and after seeing the movie, I remember feeling the director hadn't caught the essence of the book.

 

(...and evidently neither did Wambaugh...the story goes that the author was so upset with Aldrich after seeing the film that he wanted his name removed from the credits, and that afterward he made sure he had creative control over any subsequent films made from his books) 

 

Your story illustrates why it is best to make movies after the author is dead and buried.    (well from the producer \ director POV).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your story illustrates why it is best to make movies after the author is dead and buried.    (well from the producer \ director POV).

 

Yes James, and as exemplified by that time there was talk of a Jerry Lewis-starring version of Hamlet.

 

(...and until cooler heads prevailed)

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You bring this up yet again?   Anyhow I assume the screenwriters read the book.  They just decided to make changes and drop and\or add things because they believed it made for a better movie.    They had the support of the producer and director;  how do I know that?   View the films.

 

Again,  films are for entertainment unless they are a documentary.   

Some books, such as OLIVER TWIST, have such convoluted plots that rearranging the storyline and omitting some characters is absolutely necessary; that is not the case with ZENDA.

Read the book, and you will agree for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some books, such as OLIVER TWIST, have such convoluted plots that rearranging the storyline and omitting some characters is absolutely necessary; that is not the case with ZENDA.

Read the book, and you will agree for sure.

 

I have read the book but to me that is irreverent to the discussion here. 

 

Those making movies decide how faithful or NOT they wish to be to the book.  How long the film is.  What characters will be featured and what will  NOT and how much each is featured  (this is often more dependent on who is playing the character than one the content of the book).

 

In all cases I have NO opinion as it relates to comparing a book to a movie made from a book since these are two very different art forms  (forms of expression).      Therefore I judge each independently.    In the case of TPOZ I liked the book AND I liked both movie versions.

 

But I do find your POV folly in that you dislike a film NOT because of the quality of the actual film but instead by comparing it to the book.     Again,   if one views each independently, one judges each independently and how much they like each art form isn't linked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya know, I'm startin' to get the idea that Palmerin here ain't gonna be satisfied 'bout all this 'till there's a five-part television miniseries of this book.

 

(...and now the question is: Who in this day and age could believably swash their buckle like either Colman or Granger?...nobody today immediately comes to MY mine anyway)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya know, I'm startin' to get the idea that Palmerin here ain't gonna be satisfied 'bout all this 'till there's a five-part television miniseries of this book.

 

(...and now the question is: Who in this day and age could believably swash their buckle like either Colman or Granger...nobody today immediately comes to MY mine anyway)

 

I have always assumed he will never be satisfied because no film version can be as faithful to the book as he wants it to be.

 

This was my overall point:  any movie based on a book will be flawed when one has the POV that a movie must be faithful to the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait! I THINK I might have just thought of who might be excellent as the evil Black Michael, anyway!

 

(...nah, sorry, won't work...the dude I'm thinkin' of is gonna be real busy with other things these next four years)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always assumed he will never be satisfied because no film version can be as faithful to the book as he wants it to be.

 

This was my overall point:  any movie based on a book will be flawed when one has the POV that a movie must be faithful to the book.

 

Yeah James, I got your point (and agreed with it) the first time you attempted to rely this thought to Palmerin in his first thread about this whole thing. ;)

 

(...although as I recall, I think it was somebody else who posted the classic joke about Huston's THE BIBLE flick "also takin' a few liberties with its original source material" in his first thread...and as I ALSO recall, I was kind'a p.o-ed that they beat me to it...that's SUCH an easy one to use when this kind'a topic comes up, ya know...and the easier the better, I always say)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always assumed he will never be satisfied because no film version can be as faithful to the book as he wants it to be.

 

This was my overall point:  any movie based on a book will be flawed when one has the POV that a movie must be faithful to the book.

I don't believe that any book's film version is going to be satisfactory to readers of the book.  The reason is because each individual's mental recollection of the book will be different from another person's response to the book.  The version you build in your mind of a book is based on your own experiences, your particular emotional make-up, your socio-economic background as well as your ability to understand and comprehend the language used within the book and this is what makes up you response to the book (negative/positive).   This goes for the screenwriters as well as the directors and the actors influence on the film version.

 

If I have seen a book version of a movie I will seldom read the book as the movie version will usually overlay my response to the book.  The same goes for books to films, seldom will I see the movie.  I want to remember the book as I "saw" it.  It is impossible therefore for a wide variety of reasons for a film to be faithful to the book. 

 

These factors also play into what kind of music you prefer and your response to it.  For example I always tear up and have chills when Sydney Kubrick ends DR. STRANGELOVE with Vera Lynne's song "We'll Meet Again".  While the audience in 1963 heard and saw the irony in the song and juxtaposition of multiple atomic bombs today's generation is probably clueless.  Its the same for me with music from the 50's...this is my personal history, today's music doesn't even register.  

 

This is the same for classical music, for some reason I cannot stand any Aaron Copeland, cringe at Ralph Williams "Lark Ascending" and dance around the house to any Mozart and Boccherini.  However I confess I responded to Boccherini because it is the theme to the "Lady Killers" a laugh out loud Peter Sellers/Alec Guinness movie. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe that any book's film version is going to be satisfactory to readers of the book.  The reason is because each individuals mental recollection of the book will be different from an other person's response to the book.  The version you build in your mind of a book is based on your own experiences, your particular emotional make-up, your socio-economic background as well as your ability to understand and comprehend the language used within the book makes up your own interpretation.  This goes for the screenwriters as well as the director's as well as the actors. 

 

If I have seen a book version of a movie I will seldom read the book as the movie version will usually overlay my response to the book.  The same goes for books to films, seldom will I see the movie.  I want to remember the book as I "saw" it.  It is impossible for a wide variety of reasons for a film to be faithful to the book. 

 

Well said.   

 

That is why I try to view a movie as a completely separate work.     Hey, that doesn't always work especially if I had recently read the book before seeing the movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...