Scores And Ritz Recipe

Which 'version' do you prefer? The eternal debate between cinema and literature

finally arrives in the room Barney's version, the cinephile awaited implementation of the cult novel Mordecai Richler : ne I had already spoken at the time of the preview 'Venice' of the film (see here ), but it was inevitable that I would be back on the subject. Not so much because the film directed by Richard J. Lewis is particularly memorable (anzi. ..) but because once again, as always happens when it is brought to the screen a story of great success, you turn on the age-old question about what is right (or should) remain more or less faithful to literary text. And of course the more famous book, the greater the controversy ... especially if the writer can not or will not cooperate with the screenplay, so that it becomes 'free' based on the novel. In this case it was not really possible (Richler died in 2001), but there have been countless cases in which the authors of the books in question are more or less explicitly disowned the film version, not to mention the fans 'irreducible' Taliban and the written press who often refuse 'whatever' the film considering it almost a sacrilege (think the saga of The Lord of the Rings ).

start by saying one thing: I have not read the novel by Richler and therefore can not make comparisons with the film: I can only say that the film is a convenzionalissima Lewis and predictable romantic comedy-style American, but it certainly is not unwatchable all except irreverent, 'incorrect', caustic, non-conformist as it seems to be the text from which it comes.
But this is not the point.
The question is: How far you can push the 'loyalty' to the novel? And to what extent the director (or writer) can get 'putting their'?

I believe, first, that making comparisons is eternally wrong cinema and literature are two arts that can not be compared in any way. Are simply DIFFERENT. The novel is the highest expression of thought, without limitations or restrictions, and the film must necessarily be a summary. But this should not be (at least not always) at the expense of film, because the cinema is the 'summa' of all intellectual arts (literature, image, music) as saying someone smarter than me ... Any other form of representation can not have the same direct and immediate ability to represent reality. The feelings that can give us some images of the film could not be caused by any form of artistic expression. Take 2001: A Space Odyssey : Arthur Clarke takes dozens of pages to go from 'Dawn of Man' today, and are often considerable. But Kubrick single frame (the mythical scene of the bone thrown into the sky becomes a spaceship that) all the sums in an extraordinary way.

said this, it is obvious that there can be great books and bad movies, or the opposite. But I find that the comparison is impossible, and I think that the director has the sacred right (and I think even the duty) to translate the novel according to his vision, putting his words and not merely a slavish pursuit of philology. I'll be back again The Lord of the Rings : in my opinion is a wondrous film saga, I do not think it would be possible to achieve better than Peter Jackson did : yet most of those who read and loved the book claim that the film is 'reductive' with respect to the novel (despite the twelve total hours of film!). But it was inevitable that it was considering the bulk of the story, and Jackson has had the merit of not 'copy' purely literary text, but to stage a film 'personal', as amended, different yet excellent, which I believe has nothing to inferior compared to Tolkien's tome.

The same thing can not seem instead to be called Barney's version, but even here the choice should be respected directors and producers that he wanted to give their cut of the film, which each case must be neither to glorify nor to belittle the work of Richler: directing a film very often those who use the literary text as a canvas or as a cue, then giving birth to film adaptations absolutely 'free', with very different concepts and styles.
And I find that this is absolutely right. Understanding that everyone is master of giving their opinion.