[Max Goodman]

Originally Posted by Michael Cantor

Ouch! I thought she was the director of Citizen Kane. Oh well. It's all a cuckoo clock.

Michael probably means that pronoun as a very dry joke at his own expense.

I haven't had time to keep up with this thread, but since I'm here:

I often wonder why a movie was made as a movie, instead of written as a novel, and I rarely find an answer that has to do with the possibilities of the form. Some people (probably because they watched a lot of movies as children) are directors rather than authors, and that, of course, is a valid reason for them to direct rather than write. And movies are made to make money or to bring stories to wider audiences. But movies have more limited possibilities than novels, and it seems to me that the movies are rare that exploit the things novels can't do.

I think every Peter Greenaway film I've seen does at least one thing that can't be done in writing. Showing us two scenes simultaneously is the example that leaps to mind.

The ending of The Piano (which has a beautifully constructed story) does something a novel would have trouble doing when we finally hear the adult heroine's voice and it is the voice of a child.

The switch from black-and-white to color in The Wizard of Oz probably qualifies. A novel could do something similar with word choice, but it likely wouldn't have as strong an effect.

What are others' favorite examples of movies doing things that can't be done in writing?

[Simon Hunt]

I agree very much with Max's post--and this is why I generally have no interest in seeing filmed versions of books. They almost always suck, and I'd much rather read say The Great Gatsby again than watch that Lurman crap. My students at the time asked if there was any part of it I liked. Yeah, the part where the words of the novel typed across the screen...

Hugo might be a better example. Pretty good movie, sure, but why would I want to watch it when the book is a work of sui generis genius?

Possible side-topic: We all know dozens of movies that are worse than their source-books, but are there any that are better? I can think of two, but neither is a work of timeless genius, necessarily:

The Silence of the Lambs (scarier, more focused)
and
The Bridges of Madison County (moving, not just schmaltzy; plus the mighty Streep!)

[Mark McDonnell]

Psycho. Does things with the cinematic mechanics of suspense and mise-en-scene that the pulpy source novel can't. Jaws too. (But not Jaws 2)

I suppose the lesson here is that cinematic trash can be genius but literary trash is just trash. Or something.

[James Brancheau]

I dunno Max. It's just another medium of expression. Would anyone say the same about painting? When photography became respected as an art form, I think some painters were asserting something similar. The last movie I watched was Indignation, based on the 2000 something Roth book. It's a good movie- not great, though, to be fair, I'd probably need to see it more than once. I suspect that what makes the film good is mainly what it's based on. However, the opening and close of the film is done, imo, more effectively precisely because it is a movie. Whatever you think or would think of the movie. (No I'm not going to be a spoiler and give details, but it is worth a watch.)

[Simon Hunt]

I'm a grumpy old man, and I thought of something else that bugs me in this general area: the way many contemporary novels read like film treatments because that's where the money (eventually) is.

I'm thinking, for example, of The Kite Runner, which I thought was wonderful for about 3/4 of its length and then turned into a silly action movie. Or The Hunger Games series (I work with young people and, anyway, enjoy "YA" lit...), which had lots to recommend it (especially in the first book) but sometimes sacrificed character development for set-piece action sequences.

[James Brancheau]

Simon, you're a poet. You're not old until you're 90. And yes, Julie, isn't he wonderful? Not exactly Disney.

[Rick Mullin]

Julie,


My daughters somehow got a copy of the movie "My Neighbor Totoro" around 2001 when we moved from Maplewood to Caldwell, NJ. It was an emotional uprooting (followed in a month by the Sept. 11), and they kind of lived in that movie for a few weeks until they were ready to enter their new world. I did too, therefore.


RM

[Julie Steiner]

The thing I love best about My Neighbor Totoro is that there are no villains in the film. There are some initially-frightening magical beings, and a neighbor kid whose passive-aggressive tendencies need to be understood and defused; and of course the hospitalized mother's absence places stress on the remaining family members. However, there are no Disney-esque psychopaths plotting to harm the protagonists. Just challenges to overcome in creative, co-operative ways, and delightful discoveries (and friends) to be made.

Which is the sort of mostly-safe-but-not-boringly-so world that my kids and I liked, and still like, to spend time in. (Especially when rendered so beautifully, in watercolor-inspired rural scenery.)

The Wizard of Oz has villains, but what enables Dorothy to overcome them is not her dependence on a prince or other male power figure (Oz's powers turn out to less than advertised), or her incredible skill with weapons (yes, she throws a bucket of water, but in ignorance of what it will do beyond buying more time for someone in danger), or her superpowers (yes, she has the ruby slippers, but again, she doesn't know what they do or how to use them). Instead, it is Dorothy's leadership and coalition-building skills that helps her team to unite their talents to achieve their goals (even if those goals turn out not to be exactly what they initially thought they were). So I consider Dorothy a far better role model than a Disney princess.

"Princess" is not a realistic or healthy career goal, anyway, and I don't understand why so many parents of girls are fine with it being so relentlessly and nauseatingly celebrated as such. Personally, I never wanted to be dependent on my parents or spouse for status, wealth, power, etc. I wanted to earn my achievements for myself, not inherit them or marry into them, as princesses (or their very rare equivalents in modern society) do. But I digress.

[Max Goodman]

Originally Posted by Mark McDonnell

cinematic trash can be genius but literary trash is just trash. Or something.

We (or movie critics) seem to value technique for its own sake more in movies than we (or literary critics) do in literature. Is that because film technique is easier to identify and talk about? Because fewer movies than books say anything significant? (I'm not certain either of those things is true, but they seem possible.)

Originally Posted by James Brancheau

I dunno Max. ... When photography became respected as an art form, I think some painters were asserting something similar.

That photography has more limited possibilities than painting? That seems reasonable. It doesn't necessarily mean that one is better than the other (and I haven't claimed that novels are better than movies) but in and of themselves, more possibilities are a good thing.

Originally Posted by Simon Hunt

are there any [movies] that are better [than their source books]?

I think you and Mark are onto something when you identify pop fiction as the source of better movies. There are probably a lot of examples. Among them, I'd include :

Gone with the Wind (I haven't read the book, so maybe I'm wrong.)

The Wizard of Oz (Maybe I'm failing to appreciate a book that's a children's classic?)

In a different vein: Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (There's a movie that does what no book could.)

And I'd give an honorable mention to The Tin Drum. It's not as good as the book, but the book is completely unfilmable, and the movie films it.

[Mark McDonnell]

Julie: an excellent Wizard of Oz digression! I love that film (who doesn't?) and now I have some socially progressive reasons to explain why along with my usual ones that it's utterly magical. Both my daughters thankfully bypassed the 'princess' thing in favour of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (which I still maintain is the greatest TV show ever).

Mark.