CCBC-Net Archives
movies and books
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Cassie Wilson <cwilson2>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 01:40:35 -0400
I agree with Steven about the higher than usual quality of the television versions of the books he mentions, but I think the quality might be there because there was not such a time constraint since each was a series. All of the details, motivations, and reflections that can be packed into a book simply cannot be loaded into a two or three hour movie, even if a picture is worth a thousand words.
Another really good movie based on a book is "My Louisiana Sky." While not totally faithful to the book, it is close and really does a good job.
Answering other posts, the actress playing Hermione in the HP movies does not fit the written description: Hermione has extremely bushy hair, slightly buck teeth, and is generally at the awkward stage that some girls emerge from looking great (as apparently she did for the Yule ball in HP4. Why was there no mention of a Yule ball in HPV when the one in the previous book was so important and began relationships that lasted well into V?). But, then, Harry is supposed to have unruly black hair, too. The actor looks perfect always. I didn't like the movies because the actors looked and acted as if they knew they were in a children's movie and were performing just as they would have if the movie had been made in the 60's---another Mary Poppins or Chitty Chitty-?ng,Bang. With all due respect to the 60's movies--which were appropriate for their subject and their age--I expected more realistic make-up, dialog, and acting from a modern Harry Potter.
In conclusion (finally), I think that the reason that books will always be more special to us than movies was actually given by Henry James in a different context. Movies belong more to their makers and are all sketched out in black and white (or color, as it were). Books allow us, in fact require us, to take part in the creation of the art; and, therefore, they become a part of us and we of them.
Just my 10 cents worth; sorry it is so long.
Cassie Wilson
Steven Engelfried wrote:
version of "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" also top my list. Maybe there's something about the big screen that gets in the way of interpreting kids' books. They need to be spectacular, larger than life, and appeal to huge masses, where the produ ctions I mentioned seem to have a more personal, character driven focus. With the first Harry Potter movie, I could not find fault in any of the visual interpretations: the quidditch match, the troll, the two headed guy...they all looked just like they should. But I felt like I was watching the whole thing, not a part of it. Compare that to the low budget "Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe," with fake looking animals and simple sets...but it brought you right into the stor!
y. A ocolate Factory" will probably look great, but will it have the charm and subtlety of the Gene Wilder version (which I guess R. Dahl hated, but I thought was excellent)?
Received on Fri 18 Jul 2003 12:40:35 AM CDT
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 01:40:35 -0400
I agree with Steven about the higher than usual quality of the television versions of the books he mentions, but I think the quality might be there because there was not such a time constraint since each was a series. All of the details, motivations, and reflections that can be packed into a book simply cannot be loaded into a two or three hour movie, even if a picture is worth a thousand words.
Another really good movie based on a book is "My Louisiana Sky." While not totally faithful to the book, it is close and really does a good job.
Answering other posts, the actress playing Hermione in the HP movies does not fit the written description: Hermione has extremely bushy hair, slightly buck teeth, and is generally at the awkward stage that some girls emerge from looking great (as apparently she did for the Yule ball in HP4. Why was there no mention of a Yule ball in HPV when the one in the previous book was so important and began relationships that lasted well into V?). But, then, Harry is supposed to have unruly black hair, too. The actor looks perfect always. I didn't like the movies because the actors looked and acted as if they knew they were in a children's movie and were performing just as they would have if the movie had been made in the 60's---another Mary Poppins or Chitty Chitty-?ng,Bang. With all due respect to the 60's movies--which were appropriate for their subject and their age--I expected more realistic make-up, dialog, and acting from a modern Harry Potter.
In conclusion (finally), I think that the reason that books will always be more special to us than movies was actually given by Henry James in a different context. Movies belong more to their makers and are all sketched out in black and white (or color, as it were). Books allow us, in fact require us, to take part in the creation of the art; and, therefore, they become a part of us and we of them.
Just my 10 cents worth; sorry it is so long.
Cassie Wilson
Steven Engelfried wrote:
version of "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" also top my list. Maybe there's something about the big screen that gets in the way of interpreting kids' books. They need to be spectacular, larger than life, and appeal to huge masses, where the produ ctions I mentioned seem to have a more personal, character driven focus. With the first Harry Potter movie, I could not find fault in any of the visual interpretations: the quidditch match, the troll, the two headed guy...they all looked just like they should. But I felt like I was watching the whole thing, not a part of it. Compare that to the low budget "Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe," with fake looking animals and simple sets...but it brought you right into the stor!
y. A ocolate Factory" will probably look great, but will it have the charm and subtlety of the Gene Wilder version (which I guess R. Dahl hated, but I thought was excellent)?
Received on Fri 18 Jul 2003 12:40:35 AM CDT
