« verily, I am a prophet | Main | moved out, moved on »
Thursday, September 13, 2007
book meme! book meme!
My friend Kiwiria posted a BOOK MEME. I'm supposed to be either packing (looks ominously like we might get a light rain shower later and there's stuff that needs to get under cover at storage before that happens) or doing my homework for English class, but how could I resist?
Okay . . . picture this (really) worst-case scenario: It’s cold and raining, your boyfriend/girlfriend has just dumped you, you’ve just been fired, the pile of unpaid bills is sky-high, your beloved pet has recently died, and you think you’re coming down with a cold. All you want to do (other than hiding under the covers) is to curl up with a good book, something warm and comforting that will make you feel better.
What do you read?
The first thing that pops into my head for this situation is a Mitford book. Also L.M. Montgomery would be helpful here.
So, this is my question to you – are you a Goldilocks kind of reader?
Do you need the light just right, the background noise just so loud but not too loud, the chair just right, the distractions at a minimum?
Or can you open a book at any time and dip right in, whether it’s for twenty seconds, while waiting for the kettle to boil, or indefinitely, like while waiting interminably at the hospital–as long as the book is open in front of your nose, you’re happy to read?
Oh my gosh, definitely the latter. I can lose myself in a book anywhere, under any circumstances I can think of, much to the chagrin of my husband who, after thirteen years of marriage, still forgets sometimes that there is an established and necessary protocol for speaking to me when I'm reading.
1) Ask yourself: Is this conversation really necessary?
2) Get Rachel's attention and establish eye contact. If it is super, extra important that she pay attention you might want to explicitly ask her to close her book.
3) Speak your piece as efficiently as possible*.
Otherwise, I'm perfectly capable of remaining lost in my book and making 'hmm' sounds at appropriate places without being fully aware that someone is talking to me; this has been getting me in trouble my entire life.
*speaking haltingly in such a moment may result in rolled eyes and/or the use of "move it along" hand gestures. COME ON SPIT IT OUT THE BOOK PEOPLE ARE WAITING.
One book at a time? Or more than one? If more, are they different types/genres? Or similar?
Sometimes I'll be actively engaged in five or six books. Sometimes I feel more like focusing on one at a time.
1. In your opinion, what is the best translation of a book to a movie?
2. The worst?
3. Had you read the book before seeing the movie, and did that make a difference?
1. The best, in my opinion, is A&E's/BBC's Pride and Prejudice, hands down. BBC does a very good job with adaptations; their Wives and Daughters is very well done as well, especially considering that the book is about four inches thick. (OK, not quite four.)
2. First, I must say that I am the pickiest person I know regarding adaptations of books. Every once in a while I can like one that flies off on total tangents and even changes the plot and the characters' motivations, but that is SO SO RARE (Mansfield Park, I am looking at you.) Other than that, I am happiest if the screenwriter essentially just turns the text of the book into a screenplay... and this doesn't happen often. There are SO MANY adaptations that I have disliked that I am going to focus on a special category: adaptations that other people think are great, that make me shudder.
First in line for this non-award are the LOTR movies. Yeah, the timeline of events is basically correct (although there are many details changed, e.g. the beacons of Gondor, and many alterations for the sake of added drama), but the characters are completely altered. Every time my kids are watching this trilogy and get to the part where Frodo (who, yes, was one conflicted hobbit, I'll grant you) tells Sam to GO HOME I very narrowly manage to not do lasting damage to my television. Likewise the completely opposite-to-his-book-self character of Faramir. And the complete fabrication of the whole Arwen thing just so the film would have a woman character on screen for more than thirty seconds. And a jillion other incidents/characters as well. Don't even get me started on Frodo's drugged emo gaze filling the screen until it makes me feel physically nauseated.
OK, Rachel, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.
Next (I could go on all day but I'll just do two), and I know I'm going to step on some toes here: the new Narnia movie. I know that even long-time Lewis fans really liked this movie. But not one single one of the four kids is anything like Lewis would have had them to be. Physically, the casting was flawless, and the actors were excellent, but let's go down a list from worst to not as bad: Susan, instead of being a mildly annoying older-sister type, is an absolute brat who wants to undermine the entire everything until practically the very last minute. Peter, who in the book is this very staunch, brave in spite of his fears, matter-of-fact doing-what-has-to-be-done boy hero, is a wishy-washy "eww, I don't want to STAB the wolf" whiner. Both Peter AND Susan constantly harp on their desire/need to go home and how they shouldn't be here and it's too dangerous waah. Lucy is not nearly as badly done as the first two, but even she has her moments (she, who "never once said 'I told you so'" as per Peter in the book, implies that concept virtually as soon as they step into the snow). Even Edmund, about whom I have the fewest complaints, instead of merely being a boy led astray who learns his lesson, continues betraying Aslan's people left and right for quite a while on his trip with the Witch. Just as annoying as the mischaracterization of the children was the way the entire movie had an entirely different tone from the one Lewis gave it. The books are these very subtle, subdued, British-feeling adventure stories; the film tries to be a kids' Indiana Jones, with daring escapes on a grand scale and snotty wisecracks from the animals and children (I have to physically leave the room when the scene with the river starts or risk committing mayhem; also, I would rather watch the humorously bad costumed-people-with-terrible-accents beavers in the 80's BBC movie than the cleverly animated smartass "The Honeymooners" beavers in this one).
My goodness. Um. Moving on. Question three.
3. Yes, I think it does. For a very long, detailed book, sometimes watching the movie first makes the book more readable for me (hello, Tom Clancy, I am looking at you). Also, I am more inclined to be fiercely loyal to a book if it's an old friend before I see it desecrated by filmmakers, but that doesn't mean that I have never learned to like a movie less once I realized how it veered away from its original source. However. I watched Forrest Gump and thought it was an OK movie; I tried to read Forrest Gump and couldn't make myself do it. The Black Stallion the film is wildly different from The Black Stallion the book, which I read as a child and really liked, but as an adult I infinitely prefer the film. And I watched The Princess Bride for the first time in junior high and have loved it ever since, in spite of the fact that when I read the book I found that the filmmakers had taken some pretty substantial liberties. In other words, I'm a fickle, inconsistent brat and don't listen to me.
Comments
Yay! Thanks for doing this :-)
Interesting how Narnia ended up on your 'worst' list and on my 'best' list! I absolutely loved it, but I do understand you reservations about it.
We'll see how they do with Prince Caspian :-)
Posted by: Maria at September 14, 2007 12:23 AM
I am so stealing this...
Posted by: Anonymous at September 15, 2007 09:55 PM
I'm glad you mentioned Forrest Gump...I saw the movie and loved it, so I ran out to buy the book. I read the first few pages in the parking lot of the bookstore, and immediately went back inside and returned it. I was so glad that they changed the character in the movie.
Posted by: Denise at September 16, 2007 07:26 PM
Have you seen A River Runs Through It? It's the most faithful movie adaptation I've ever seen. A lot of the reason is probably that the original is only novella-length, though.
Posted by: dichroic at September 17, 2007 12:17 AM
Just stole this. :)
Posted by: Kat with a K at September 18, 2007 06:22 AM
Hey, those questions all look familiar--they're part of my Booking Through Thursday meme, where I post questions about reading every Thursday. You should come and play!
Posted by: --Deb at September 18, 2007 03:10 PM
