DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
Members' Mausoleum => Calendar Events / Announcements Archive => Calendar Events / Announcements '24 I => Calendar Events / Announcements '02 II => Topic started by: kuanyin on August 31, 2002, 01:55:18 AM
-
Sorry to digress, but some of us HAD gotten to talking about the movie not long ago. And, hey, no DS fix today or Monday anyway, so why not?
Saw it. IF I had been seeing it simply as a movie, I probably would have loved it. Since it was a movie from my favorite book of all time, I merely liked it. They did a LOT right. But the wrong part, was just painful.
Now, I admit it has been years and I don't remember all the details of the book. What I thought was melodramatic and made up at the end actually was toned down a little from the quick check I just made of the book. (Ok, they threw in a nose punch, but took out the tree falling on the car, which I don't think would have been very believable in a movie . And at least there were no car chases or guns involved!)
I pictured Ash as being older and LaMotte as being younger, but that is quibbling. That part of the movie was superb. What stuck in my craw was Aaron Eckhart as Roland. As if ANYONE could believe this guy as a subserviant academic! And how in the world could he ALWAYS have a 3 day beard growth? Too hunky, too macho, too stupidly adamant about avoiding relationships because he "hurt" someone deeply once. Accckkk, give me a break. I thought the lovely Gwyneth was perfect in the role, I may be prejudiced there, I ALWAYS like her.
Anyway, overall, can't help but have mixed feelings. There is no way a movie can capture the depth of the book, but they did do a good job of getting the essence of it. I just wish the part they screwed up hadn't been so integral to the credibility.
-
Thank you, Kuanyin, for letting us know what you thought of "Possession".
I REALLY don't think I'm going to see it. Like you, I LOVED the book and it kills me when they screw up perfectly wonderful novels into pathetic movies. Unlike you, I don't like Paltrow at all, so I have even less reason to see it. I think perhaps I'll just re-read the book and spare myself the grief! ;)
Raineypark
-
it kills me when they screw up perfectly wonderful novels into pathetic movies.
Yes, like "The Shining" (1980). I wouldn't call it pathetic, but they did leave out some key things from the Stephen King novel.
-
I haven't seen it yet. I'm not sure if I want to. Possession is possibly one of my favorite books ever and I'm not certain I can bear to see it messed with. If the reviews were good, but the ones I've read suggest this is one of those things they should never have attempted.
Okay, it's not DS, but this is one amazing book.
Luciaphil
-
Yes, like "The Shining" (1980). I wouldn't call it pathetic, but they did leave out some key things from the Stephen King novel.
Gosh, I would rate "The Shining" as an all-time GREAT movie! I know Stephen King didn't like it, but I don't understand. [wink2] It certainly scared the crap out of me and images from it have NEVER left me. I never remember a lengthy book as well. I admit I haven't read the book, but I did see the longer miniseries that King was so thrilled with and I didn't think much of it.
The safest literature to use as a movie is the novella, or a long short story. Then, all the elements CAN be included and everyone might end up happy if it is done well.
-
Yes, like "The Shining" (1980). I wouldn't call it pathetic
I'd call 1980's The Shining worse than pathetic. I thought it was just a dreadful version of the book!! Jack Nicholson was way too over the top. And Shelley Duvall (who's normally quite good) was horribly miscast. If I'd been Steven King, I would have sued Diane Johnson, Stanley Kubrick and Warner Bros. on every conceivable charge that my lawyers could have come up with!
The 1997 miniseries with Steven Weber and Rebecca De Mornay was a much more faithful adaptation - and an infinitely better version to boot!
-
I stand by a comment I made when this topic came up the first time: I would applaud a law that forbade a novel from EVER being made into a movie. Movies should have to be made from original ideas.
Readers of novels bring their own imaginations to the process....no matter how minutely detailed the descriptions, we all envision those details differently.
My absolute, bar none, all-time favorite film is "To Kill A Mockingbird".....and the book is STILL better than the film!
Raineypark
-
I'd call 1980's The Shining worse than pathetic. I thought it was just a dreadful version of the book!! Jack Nicholson was way too over the top. And Shelley Duvall (who's normally quite good) was horribly miscast. If I'd been Steven King, I would have sued Diane Johnson, Stanley Kubrick and Warner Bros. on every conceivable charge that my lawyers could have come up with!
I dunno. I preferred the Kubrick version. The emphasis shifted from the little boy to the father, but it seemed to capture the essence of the novel.
As for King, he hates the Kubrick film, but I thought of all the adaptations except for Carrie, it was the one closest to the spirit of his books.
It is possible to do a good adaptation on a book. The Princess Bride, LOTR, the A&E version of Pride and Prejudice were all faithful and well done. But it's tricky. I adore Harry Potter, but the film felt forced to me. They filmed the book, but lost the thing that made the book special; the Scorcese version of The Age of Innocence was another case like that. Or you can take a film like Patricia Rozema's Mansfield Park, which ignored the book and what made the book special and was just a lousy movie.
Luciaphil
-
Its so gratifying to see so many Possession fans here. It is also one of my most favorite books of all time (topping it is Wicked by Gregory Maguire or Vindication by Frances Sherwood ..anyone read them?) I felt that the film was fine, Aaron was completely wrong to play Roland and that final kiss with Gwyneth lacked passion, IMO. I am now in love with Jeremy Northam who played Ash. I found the LaMotte actress terribly annoying, that strange smile she had on all the time made me wince. . also, i thought she was too young (contrary to K thinking she was too old) and too pretty. I pictured Christabel a bit plainer. Overall i did enjoy it for what it was worth but the novel is infinitely better. I still teared up about the little girl .. . so sad neither one of them knew that the truth was OUT THERE. . .
-
the Scorcese version of The Age of Innocence was another case like that.
I can't fathom why Martin Scorcese didn't choose to film "House of Mirth" instead of "The Age of Innocence"? It's her finest story, in my opinion, and I'm pretty certain I've read every word of fiction Edith Wharton ever wrote. Twice.
Raineypark
-
(topping it is Wicked by Gregory Maguire or Vindication by Frances Sherwood ..anyone read them?)
Never read "Wicked", but I have managed to hang onto my copy of "Vindication" through many a bookshelf purge.
These days, I consider whether a book is something I'd like my daughter to read someday, and either keep or donate it to the library accordingly.
"Vindication" is high up on that list of "must reads".
Raineypark
-
Never read "Wicked", but
I, unfortunately, did read "Wicked." Being an active devotee of the original Oz books by L. Frank Baum, I detested that book from start to finish, for what it did to the characters, for its "moral" outlook, and for the writing, which I thought was crap. Sorry to offend fans of "Wicked"; I did have a sci-fi fanatic friend who thought it was great.
-
I can't fathom why Martin Scorcese didn't choose to film "House of Mirth" instead of "The Age of Innocence"? It's her finest story, in my opinion, and I'm pretty certain I've read every word of fiction Edith Wharton ever wrote. Twice.
Did you see The House of Mirth with Gillian Anderson (of Xfiles) in it? Not having read the book, I can't compare. She was good in it, and it was VERY sad and rather depressing.
Which is kind of refreshing in today's can't have an unhappy ending, they don't test well movie world.
-
"Vindication" is high up on that list of "must reads".
I'm reading her new book, The Book of Splendor, set in 1601 Prague .. highly recommend it.
-
I'd call 1980's The Shining worse than pathetic. I thought it was just a dreadful version of the book!! Jack Nicholson was way too over the top. And Shelley Duvall (who's normally quite good) was horribly miscast. If I'd been Steven King, I would have sued Diane Johnson, Stanley Kubrick and Warner Bros. on every conceivable charge that my lawyers could have come up with!
The 1997 miniseries with Steven Weber and Rebecca De Mornay was a much more faithful adaptation - and an infinitely better version to boot!
MB...lol...I think the Jack Nicholas version is the scariest movie ever!!!
I cannot watch it if my husband (or other grown-up) is not at home.
I [size=10]loathe[/size] Shelly Duval[puke]!!!
She is nails on the chalk board!!!
I saw no reason to re-do the book!!
Patti
who loves Midnite for the turtle...thanks honey
-
I'm reading her new book, The Book of Splendor, set in 1601 Prague .. highly recommend it.
Thank you , Julia99. I hadn't heard about it! Will now go in search of.....![winkb]
raineypark
-
Rainey -
You mentioned your appreciation of Edith Wharton -- we have something in common, though I haven't read as much as you have. "Ethan Frome" was one of my favorite novels in high school, along with the earlier-read "To Kill A Mockingbird" -- both of which I continue to hold in high esteem.
Did you know that Wharton also wrote ghost stories? A ppbk. volume was published last year I believe -- they are supposed to be excellent! A little something to add to your reading after E.F. Benson, whom Luciaphil informed us about ...
Also, as to your curious theory about not making movies from books. :) (What happened to the smilies?!!?) I've thought about my own "10 Favorite Movies" list, and it's about evenly divided as to those that are based on existing literature and those that are original as movies.
"Sense and Sensibility" ... J. Austen; "Tom Jones" ... H. Fielding; "Joseph Andrews" ... H. Fielding again; "Rebecca" ... D. du Maurier ...; "Emma" ... J. Austen again ...
But the more I think of it, even those I didn't think about at first as having literary antecedents actually do have literary antecedents ... "Vertigo" was based on a French novel; "Cabaret" was based on stories by C. Isherwood, etc.
In most cases, I agree, the book is better than the movie. But film is a different medium and has to "translate" one medim to another. Sometimes the result is alchemy!
-Vlad
-
(What happened to the smilies?!!?)
Hi Vlad, :D
Cuz MB explains it best, I'll refer you to the "Bandwidth Saving Measures" topic that's stuck to the top of the board.
-
It's interesting to read these posts about Possession. I'm hoping to find time to see the film this week. I did enjoy the book but it was so long ago that all I have left from it is a glimmering memory of brilliance. I personally love Jennifer Ehle who plays Lamotte--I fell in love with her in Pride and Prejudice, and she was wonderful in Bedrooms and Hallways, which I recommend if you enjoy gay British sex farces. I've seen Northam in a couple of films and he seems very solid. Gwyneth Paltrow makes me cringe and the American chap sounds like strictly eye candy so will help to make her scenes bearable, I suppose.
As for books adapted as films, I agree with RP that it is seldom a good idea. However, there are some books out there that have become BRILLIANT movies--The Haunting (original version, PLEASE) is one that comes to mind.
Although not entirely successful, I highly enjoyed Angels and Insects, which was adapted from another novella by Antonia Byatt, author of Possession. It has been released in brilliant color and accurate screen ratio in the seemingly inescapable DVD medium that tickles all of you so much. I watched a few moments of it at a friend's home recently. I believe the print released to disc looked better than the film in the theatre did!
Gothick
-
Vlad, the edition of "The Ghost Stories of Edith Wharton" that I have is copyrighted 1973. It has illustrations by Laszlo Kubinyi. I probably purchased it in the mid-90's. "Afterward" is my favorite.
I wouldn't say that ALL adaptations of novels are horrible. It's just that movies that even do the original novel JUSTICE are hard to come by....much less those (like The Haunting) that are actually excellent in their own right.
Novels and films are two different mediums. Turning one into the other means attempting to create again something that already exsists. Could DaVinci paint the music of Mozart? There's a quote that goes something like "Writing about Music is like Dancing about Architecture." (my apologies to the original)....and that's how I feel about filming a novel.
Steve.....I'm afraid I didn't think as highly of "Angels and Insects" as you did. THAT one pretty much made my decision not to look forward to "Possession".
Please heaven, no one is thinking about filming "Babel Tower"!!!!
Raineypark
-
Although not entirely successful, I highly enjoyed Angels and Insects, which was adapted from another novella by Antonia Byatt, author of Possession.
I am in agreement with you abut Angels and Insects, I thought it an excellent adaptation. A novella is much easier to make into a movie though, no condensation is needed. That was such a strange story that I was surprised it was made into a movie at all.
Another EXCELLENT movie from a book was Persuasion by Jane Austen. The absolute best of the Austen movies and there are several good ones. (Mansfield Park, however, is disgusting.)