Skip to main content

Adaptations

I recently re-read Watchmen by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons and it made me think about adaptations and how important it may or may not be to remain faithful to the source material. Along with V for Vendetta, the two comic book works written by Moore have been adapted into feature films which are poles apart on this issue. For myself, I think it a moot point because I mostly prefer innovation to re-creation.

Watchmen and V for Vendetta are great examples of different approaches to adaptation. In the case of the former, slavish devotion to re-creating the source material is the course and, while satisfying the urge to see the characters faithfully brought to life may be nice, the film as a whole feels curiously flat. I do think it’s the best adaptation they could have made, but of something that probably doesn’t translate well into film because it was so specifically designed for and about the subject matter of super-hero comic books. I happen to like the 2009 film adaptation, but I also realize it falls well short of the heights and depths reached by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons.

The 2006 film version of V for Vendetta, on the other hand, hardly resembles the comic book beyond the look of the character V in his Guy Fawkes disguise and the totalitarian-future setting. His behavior and motivations are modified to make him a more palatable hero for mainstream Hollywood audiences and very few of the events in the comic make it to the screen in the same shape. However, I feel that the movie V for Vendetta is a superior film to Watchmen because it has a voice and a soul all its own which I believe is a result of using the source material as an inspiration rather than a roadmap.

There is always the question of how far an adaptation has to stray before it no longer resembles its source material and can no longer claim identification with it. World War Z is a great example of a film adaptation that really only has its premise (zombie apocalypse) and title in common with the book on which it is based. In truth, adaptation is probably not the best word for taking a book or a comic or a tv show and translating it into another medium, such as film. Re-invention would probably be more accurate.


Adaptation in general is tricky, and you can never fully satisfy the demands and desires of fans. I think it’s better to invent something new because it frees you as an artist from having to obey the forms already established. I understand that George Lucas, in putting together the first Star Wars movie, initially tried to get the rights to adapt Flash Gordon, but, when faced with the costs and the creative restrictions, he decided to make something from scratch. I believe our culture has benefitted much more from that decision, as has Mr. Lucas himself. It’s riskier than catering to an established audience, but then the rewards are greater as well.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Retro Review - Paris, Texas (1984)

As a preteen I was obsessed with ALIEN and always took note of everyone involved, including the actors. Harry Dean Stanton’s most oft-mentioned film credits were always either ALIEN or Paris, Texas , so when he died last year I made a point of finally hunting down the latter which had been on my radar as long as my obsession with the former. I knew very little about the film, so when the opening credits said “written by Sam Shepard” I immediately became more interested. Then “directed by Wim Wenders” came up on screen and I was even more interested. I was pretty confident I was going to have a very good film experience. I was wrong only in that it exceeded my expectations. Paris, Texas is, in my opinion, beautiful, authentic, heart-felt, compassionate, moving and very mature: a great movie, in other words. The movie opens with Travis (Harry Dean Stanton) walking aimlessly through the deserts of Texas, apparently in some kind of mute daze. A local doctor finds him and a bus...
Post a Comment
Read more

Film Review - A Quiet Place

John Krasinski directs and stars with his wife Emily Blunt in this exceptional horror movie about a family trying to survive against predatory monsters who hunt by sound. The film is a terrific example of visual storytelling as the dialogue is suppressed to a minimum by the danger it represents to the survivors. It is also one of the most effective and high-tension suspense movies I’ve ever seen, with more intelligence and emotional power than are typical of the genre. The story begins several months after some sort of invasion by ill-defined, poorly understood but immensely superior predators which have effectively wiped out the human race. Those who have managed to survive have had to adapt to a virtually silent mode of living, walking barefoot everywhere, for example, or communicating by sign language. The eldest daughter, played by Millicent Simmonds, is indeed deaf herself, and the film uses its sound design very effectively to convey point of view of characters according to...
Post a Comment
Read more

Film Review - Tomb Raider

Alicia Vikander is the best and possibly only reason to see this movie. I’m not expecting Shakespeare from a film based on a video game, but I am expecting more action than dialogue. I liked the action sequences alright, but I don’t think there were enough of them, and the stuff between them I felt was kind of boring. Still, I did like seeing Alicia Vikander running and jumping and doing action-stuff, so the movie wasn’t a complete loss. I just wouldn’t recommend it. The film sets out to be an origin story for Lara Croft and a search for her lost father which is bound up in a lame Raiders of the Lost Ark –type race for a powerful magical maguffin. I really don’t mind the predictability of the plot, and there is an argument to be made that these kinds of movies are all about delivering what the audience expects, but I don’t want to put up with long, melodramatic scenes or boring expository speeches. I want to see Lara Croft raiding tombs. Alicia Vikander does a superb job wit...
Post a Comment
Read more