So today I went and saw 'One Day', directed by Lone Scherfig (don't worry, I have no idea who that is either). 'One Day' is the film adaptation of David Nicholls' novel of the same name. I enjoyed it.
I've been thinking about book adaptations a lot lately, with so many coming out and my plans to find a book so good that I want to adapt it (Douglas Coupland's 'Girlfriend in a Coma' is at the top of my list at the moment). Lets take the big one first, 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pt. 2', based on the (now) franchise, originally written by J.K.Rowling. What a woman. Anyway, I guess the test I do with these films, to decide whether I like them or not, is whether they have the same effect on me as the book did. I still haven't decided whether I liked HP. It did make me cry, just as the book did. Well not just as, cause the book sort of threw me into a double misery, firstly as it's, well, sad, and secondly because it was the end of HP. The film made me weep quietly for a bit, and I thought it was because the film was sad, but to be honest afterwards I realised I was just crying because I was reliving the events in the book. The film wouldn't have made me cry if I'd never read the book.
Then there was 'Never Let Me Go', based on Kazuo Ishiguro's novel, earlier in the year. Now this time I hadn't read the book beforehand, and I despised the film. I didn't get it. I just didn't get it. For those of you who have seen it, why wouldn't main characters Kathy and Tommy just try to escape before all of Tommy's organs get harvested? Why do they act like complete pussies and go looking for Madame? Then I read the book. I adored the book. I understood why they went looking for Madame. I found myself confused- had the film really been that bad? I re-watched it. I despised it more than the first time. It's one of those where you have to have read the book to understand the film. This just means information was badly conveyed. The film was, quite frankly, a bad book adaptation. In my opinion anyway. A book adaptation needs to be good as a film. As in it needs to stand separate from the book. The book made me cry hysterically. The film just left me with questions. And irritation.
Then there was 'Norwegian Wood', based on now one of my favorite author's novel of the same name. Haruki Murakami. Now this was something else. Aside from an adaptation, it was a beautifully directed and shot Japanese arthouse film. Unlike the two aforementioned films, it stood on it's own. As a film. An absolutely beautiful film. I ended up with a beautiful novel, and a beautiful film. I tested it- the film had the same effect on me as the book did. I was very pleased indeed.
So then, 'One Day'. Just like 'Norwegian Wood', it had the same effect on me as the book did. When I read the book's final chapters, I was in a train. I solidly wept IN PUBLIC for at least 15 minutes. It was tragic, and, come to think of it, very embarrasing. Earlier on today in the cinema, I wept. I wept like I had done with the book. So that passed my test too. A great adaptation.
Having said all this, adaptations do leave me with a handful of questions without answers. When I feel an adaptation has the same effect on me as the original book, does the effect occur just because I'm reliving the book's events? Because I've been through it before? Would it have the same effect on me if I hadn't read the book? Can you enjoy an adaptation without having read the book? Is the adaptation good as a film?
Book adaptations are tricky.
What have I done today towards my film, to be shot in less than 6 days now? I went and got my zippo fixed at the tobacco shop. I love the old tobacco shop owner. Such an adorable old man. He fixed it for "20p for the charity box. I'm collecting for the blind". I gloriously lit up two cigarettes with it. As I went in for the third, the zippo was broken again. So, in one word, what have I done for my film today? Nada.
No comments:
Post a Comment