MacMoney wrote:
I guess what I'm saying is I would like to see shows and movies that focus more on themes and atmosphere rather than a very intricate plot.
So, like, say, Kubrick films? As just one of probably numerous examples to pull from a pool, but he's first to come to mind when it comes to how he handles adaptations. The vast majority of his films were adapted from books (2001 was interesting in that both the book and film were made at pretty much the same time, as a result of both Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick collaborating with each other), but rather than being a slave to the page he made the films his own that could stand well by themselves independent of their source material, throwing many defining elements of the books under the bus if he had to if it met the film's needs (which is fine as Kubrick was a
film-maker, one with his own views and conceptions of human nature, societal conditioning, the veil hiding the recesses of the psyche...). Dr. Strangelove was adapted from a book that was highly serious in tone. It was decided to make it a pitch-black comedy/satire instead. 2001 has very little dialogue (HAL, the computer probably has the most lines out of anyone in the movie) and gives us mainly an unusual audio-visual experience to extrapolate a narrative, meaning and purpose from as opposed to the book's more explicit explanations of what's happening. The Shining...well, I'll just say that most of Stephen King's grievances with the movie's handling of his work are what I think make the film as good as it is, heh.
But yes, you get to the heart of what I think film adaptations ought to strive for, to work with the strengths of their medium, as
cinema, and not be so much a visualized Cliff's Notes (or, wait, is it Spark Notes now?) of the book with slight changes made for time or concession to studio pressure or whatever. Something that gets the plot, characters and dialogue on the screen and not much else. Not that these are always bad films, sometimes depending on the material or the people working on it you can get something great, but certainly it's usually less interesting and less successful as a film as a result, for a film to be so literal. Off the top of my head, I think Rosemary's Baby was made as a super-faithful, page-for-page adaptation of Ira Levin's book (someone correct me if I'm mistaken) but that managed to turn out a superb film that somehow doesn't
feel overly novelistic in execution despite its supposed attempts to be as close to 100% faithful to the source. I guess it can be argued they wanted to be faithful not just to the book's settings, dialogue and plot layout but to the underlying tone of creeping dread, paranoia and an "off"-ness to the supposedly normal, friendly surroundings.
As for what I'd like to see made, without an original script or very specific pitch in mind I guess I'll have to resort to existing material or vague conceptions. I'd like to see more of...how does one put it, slow-burn, "arty" genre pics? As in, much of canonized American cinema of the late-60s-70s that began to die off by the time the 80s rolled about. Even this is pretty vague and broad considering the number of disparate films that could fall in this category. And not even necessarily "genre" films, though I do enjoy seeing what a talented film-maker can weld together within an established template, but I guess, "mainstream" films in general. A number of movies pop into mind, whether Once Upon a Time in the West, The Parallax View, The Conversation, The Deer Hunter, Barry Lyndon (hey speaking of Kubrick), my mind is failing me right now. A number of movies I've seen made in recent years have made strong attempts. I started to become a fan of PT Anderson with There Will Be Blood and The Master (I still haven't seen what he did with Inherent Vice nor Daniel Day-Lewis' farewell tour in Phantom Thread), though as much as I do really like those films they are just a
tad on the affected side, just a tad. People who see an imitation of a certain style for its own sake in those two movies in particular, a pastiche, I wouldn't blame them. All the same they are beautiful-looking movies with outstanding performances and moments of brilliance.
No Country for Old Men I think set the modern standard for me (even though the movie is already 11 years old now, holy hot damn) because, among a number of things I could think about and laud over, it feels natural (also an instance where I think the movie outclasses the book - as much I do love the book and Cormac McCarthy generally - the book's pacing goes from rapid-fire then slows down during Sheriff Bell's rambling interludes that start off each chapter - neither bit of writing is bad, but it's like speeding down then coming to abrupt stops for a couple or so minutes, then smashing the pedal again - but for the most part, the way it reads, made it perfect for the screen, and when I found out a few years ago when some of McCarthy's unreleased work was unraveled and archived, one of them was what was a screenplay for No Country for Old Men, written way back during the time it's set, 1980, but couldn't find anyone willing to produce so he put it off until years later when he made it into a book instead). I don't know about other movies off the top of my head, I suppose some could argue (both Ryan Gosling flicks) Drive and Blade Runner 2049. Not dialogue-or-plot-heavy, driven by mood and atmosphere, takes their time getting places...I love Drive, but I think it owes more to Michael Mann than what I'm talking about and look for, and BR2049 I'm very conflicted on. I won't go too deep into that, but suffice to say it has its strong moments, its visuals mainly, and its sense of a kind of wandering dreaminess on a planet that's degraded even more than before but still keeps advancing in the corners that can be inhabited, some glaring weaknesses, like, a lot of the acting (Leto it awful - Gosling is fine when he doesn't have to emote - then there's that scene where he finds that wood sculpture from his memories...), overall a movie I liked watching but felt it was a completely unnecessary sequel. Of Villeneuve's sci-fi features, BR2049 is the best one to look at, but Arrival is the better overall movie in every other aspect.
So, short version, more of what could vaguely be considered "New Hollywood" movies of the late 60s-70s mainly, but done right. Some come close, some take a swing at it and miss badly, on rare occasions I see it done right, but it's an era of cinema that really can't be replicated, it was a gradual unshackling of the studio system to give free reign to film-makers in Hollywood which produced a number of gems, some curious oddities, some things in between, and all the better for it. Without a specific concept for an (original) film though of a decent-tier budget I couldn't say what kind of movie exactly I would want to see that could've only been made in that era and only rarely today.
While writing this all up, I've thought of another thing to bring up: movies or shows that were either never made but have existing screenplays, or ones that were butchered by the studios with the cut footage lost or vaulted away. I'm sure if anyone somehow came across in their attic the missing reels that the studios cut from The Magnificent Ambersons they'd be hailed as a hero of cinema. London After Midnight is another famous lost film. Murnau's 4 Devils I hope is found one day. Apparently an actress borrowed one of the only reels of the film available at the time and lost it. But those who saw it at the time of its release proclaimed it one of his very best. A shame. And, it'll probably never be made, but David Lynch's Ronnie Rocket. He couldn't find funding for the movie, which he wrote sometime after Eraserhead, but The Elephant Man was proposed to him to which he latched onto immediately. I guess there were attempts to get Ronnie Rocket from screenplay to screen, all unsuccessful. Some ideas from that script seem to have been incorporated into the Twin Peaks revival, namely how central electricity plays a role in each.
FAQ
Register
Login
