|
Author
|
Comment
|
Veronica Schanoes
Registered User
(7/18/05 3:14 pm)
|
Re: Howl's Moving Castle
Well, I don't have a problem with the concept of changing a story--I couldn't work on what I work on (revisions of tales and myths) if I did--but to my mind the particular changes that the movie made to Peter Pan were changes that made the story less resonant rather than more, and lessened its capacity for truth-telling. I agree that the splitting of a parent into good parent/parent is a recurrent motif in fairy tales--what I admire about the novel of Peter Pan is the acknowledgment that parents can be jerks because parents are human beings. It contributes a lot in my opinion to the allure of flying away, and makes the decision to return more poignant--Wendy and boys are losing something by returning to their parents, and they decide to do so anyway. Thus Captain Hook can be such a threatening figure in the Neverlands because he represents both the destructiveness of adults, in trying to kill Peter, and the allure of the adult world, in tempting the kids to become pirates themselves. By making Mr. Darling a loving, insecure, simp, I think the Darling children's decision to return to their parents is less complex, and the threat of Captain Hook is less powerful.
There are movies that I think change books radically and for the better. For my money, the movie of the Wizard of Oz rocks all over the book, and the movie of Jaws is better than the book by light years. It's just that for my money, the changes this particular movie made to this particular book lost much of the most important aspects of its meaning for me.
I did like the more aggressive Wendy, though. I never had much time for Wendy in the book when I was a little girl. She was such a prissy, boring little girl. Loved me my bloodthirsty, proud Tiger Lily and my murderous, impulsive Tinkerbell, though.
|
DividedSelf
Registered User
(7/18/05 3:35 pm)
|
Re: Returning to PP
DerekJ - I guess in the end it's a matter of personal opinion. I think it's extremely rare that a book can be translated direct to screen as is. They're different narrative forms. Consequently, a degree of interpretation, ellipsis and inconsistency with the book is often inevitable. Second, if you're interpreting another artist's work in a different medium, I think you have an absolute right to interpret it whichever way you want, just as you have an absolute right to disagree with another's interpretation. I suppose your ultimate sanction is to make a better film yourself.
In general, I think stories are more important (to the world at large) than their creators. Stories are elastic and can evolve. Nobody is robbing a favourite book from the world. (Is it still on the shelf?) Interpreters add to it new and optional visions, and thank god for them for doing it. There are enough people trying to make the world narrow and take new visions away.
Edited by: DividedSelf at: 7/18/05 3:38 pm
|
DividedSelf
Registered User
(7/18/05 3:47 pm)
|
Re: Howl's Moving Castle
Veronica - Yes, I don't disagree with you. Especially tricky when it's a dearly loved story from childhood, and different things resonate with different lives (obviously). It was Hook and the crocodile that did it for me.
|
Kayt
Anthony
Registered User
(7/26/05 10:46 pm)
|
Re: Returning to PP
Look, I haven't read any of the other posts, but I have my penny to share and I will. Because that's just how I am.
I first read HMC in sixth or seventh grade, and I loved it immediatly. I've read it many times more after that, purely for the fact that I loved searching for Calcifer's "hints" or just giggling at Howl's vain personality. The book has struck a cord in my heart that has kept striking over the years as I've read it.
When Miyazaki's interpretation of the book was released, I of course had to see it. I went with two of my friends who had also read the book at around the same time and also loved it. We are also big Miyazaki fans, my personal favorite being Mononoke-Hime, so we were really looking forward to it.
It was a let-down.
Don't get me wrong. Visually and musically, it was stunning. Miyazaki's artistic eye has once again conquered the theatres. However, there were many things that just weren't right.
Continuity in it was terrible. At the beginning, Howl seemed aloof, which, though not right (seeing as how in the book he was the drunk man with long sleeves who called Sophie a mouse, not two leering guards), worked in it's own way. Then, suddenly, he was so scared about his hair, running around the room screaming in the way that Howl should, being as self-centered as he is.
Secondly, there were so many things different from the book it made my head hurt. One, the town was supposed to be like a little town in a more medieval-ish type setting, not some psuedo-modern city thing, with cars, trains, flying vehicles, etc. Second, Howl didn't dye is hair until Mrs. Penstemmon was murdered. Then, of course, Mrs. P was merged with Wizard Soloman, as MALE, mind you, who was "killed" by the Witch of the Waste, who never did turn good in the book, and was supposed to be very pretty, not large and old.
That's just a bit as to what bothered me about it. I could nitpick all I wanted, but it wouldn't do anything. Miyazaki was forcing his own things on what could have been a beautiful story if done exactly like the book. Did anyone else notice that he went with his "no clear-cut bad guy", once again, where as in the book, the Witch of the Waste is obviously the typical villain?
Urg... And no Miss Angorian... and Michael was some five-year-old kid...
Well, that's as much as I'll say before my brain explodes from frustration. I doubt I did much for this topic, but I thought I'd get my piece out there.
-Kayt
P.S. I enjoyed the movie anyway, despite what it might sound like. Heh.
|
wrightales
Registered User
(8/1/05 3:55 pm)
|
Re: Returning to PP
Am I crazy or didn't Peter Pan begin as a stage play? I believe the book came after, at least PETER AND WENDY, the version that most people think of as PETER PAN did.
My point is that books and films (or stage productions) are entirely different mediums. The only stories that can be transfered directly, word-for-word to film are short stories. I read HMC years ago. I loved the book, saw the movie and loved it, went back and reread the book and I STILL love them both. The film may not have been true to the plotline of the book, but I thought it captured the characters and the spirit rather well. I think the Harry Potter movies show what a negative effect following the book slavishly can have. Books and films are two different art forms like painting and photography. neither is inherently better than the other.
|
|
