There is an inherent issue and falsity when transferring literary works to the film medium. Of course, we have the greatest novels and such planted in front of a pliable audience. This is a visual medium for those that haven't the patience to sit down and read a book, or feel that reading is "boring".
There is a gap, an unavoidable error in storytelling between these two. While a film allows for stunning visual interpretation, it is forever hit by the crunch of time and manner of portrayal. While the Lord of the Rings films were amazing in their interpretation of setting and mood for the original novels, it was impossible for them to cover the material that made Middle-Earth so beautiful and complex. That and the necessary dumbing down of quite a few aspects.
This is expressed heavily in the film, and the issued prompt suggests that these fundamental differences in medium will change the story. And of course, it does. Not only does the film, starring and directed by Kenneth Branagh (to whom Ewan MacGregor bears a strong resemblance), show homage to the elements of the novel; it serves as an homage to the older films. The fire, the bride, all of these things strike as elements provided by older films, giving the Gothic horror a much more modern and relative interpretation to the audience. Considering, though the creation of the monster seemed such a small section of the story in the novel, the interpretation is required for a visual interpretation of the novel.
The liberties taken were required by the film to make logical sense to the modern reader. Considering that this film takes apparently only a few years to resolve, the novel stretches out to somewhere in the ballpark of eight or so years to reach the creation of the monster and the death of Victor, and even then that is a liberty I take with the estimation.
The mood is captured well, and the overall feeling of "what have I done" rests well in the film. The fundamental differences in visual and setting are easily dashed aside in the idea that the film takes the feelings of parentage so stressed in the novel and carries over that and the other details, including Victor's relationships with other characters. The differences mean nothing if the story is properly executed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
While I agree that this particular movie does stay with the main themes of the novel, I felt that Branagh changed some of the scenes from the novel purely for shock value, which I don't necessarily think is a bad thing for a horror movie at all. But, I think that Branagh underestimates his audience's ability to appreciate some of the more subtle aspects of the novel, and chooses to make his movie bolder and bloodier than is necessary in order to get his point across.
Ewen McGregor? Perhaps a similar bone structure due to being both born in the UK. But I digress. Brahagh did have to play on the attempts of mass marketing, so he had to underestimate his audience. The general populous generally dislikes subtle undertones in a movie.
I think you summarized the book in comparison too the movie very well. I agree that the plot and feel are the same, and the changes made were necassary for the audience of the film, which might not say to much for what he thinks his audience was going to be.
Yours is an interesting argument based on the differences in medium here. Movies, of course, can't capture all fo the magic of a wonderful novel. But they do, like you say, provide some semblance of the original for "those that haven't the patience to sit down and read a book, or feel that reading is 'boring.'"
Do you feel that some movie adaptations have surpassed the novels they are based on?
I agree that Branagh underestimates the audience's ability to appreciate some of the more subtle aspects of the novel, he definitly makes his movie bolder and bloodier. But that is to be expected in a horror movie. The movie was well done, but it should have been titled Kenneth Branagh version of Frankenstein.
I also think the changes made were made to capture the target audiance for the movie. But I think some of the magor changes made for instance the reanimation of Cathrine changed the way Shelly meant for us to view her character Vioctor. I don't think Victor would have hacked apart the body of his beloved, and then briught the horribly deformed version of her back to life!
Post a Comment