|
History maybe
Whether a film is true to the source or not I believe comes down to what is the purpose of the film? Is the purpose like Gods and Generals to be accurate and show as accurate as possible the events of a period of time or like Gettysburg which tried to show the events of one day (both based on historical fiction and both movies got many things right, but historians will tell you many things were wrong)? Or is the purpose of the movie to entertain with a good story, good script and good acting (and allow the studio to make good money)?
I think if you look at good movies they do differ from the source material that they are based on. No biggie as the purpose I feel is to entertain and for the movie to make money (more the better for all usually).
Gladiator is another movie you can look it. It is far from true to the source material, though elements and themes exit that are close to the source. Isn't The Godfather also sharing this? I believe and correct me if I am wrong, that Silence of the Lambs varied from the source material. Same with Saving Private Ryan (and the story it is was based around). etc. Do they lose their entertainment value because of that? Nope. I think that is the key. If a movie has a good script/writing, good directing and acting, and audiences relate or connect with the movie, and perhaps it touches an important theme or two, the movie is usually successful and considered highly successful (there are those movies that are just for entertainment and profit also).
In the end this comes down to personal preference. Some may only like a literary source while others may like both interpretations, while for others only the movie adaptation will suffice. Each their own. As for me I choose . . . . and that is what important to me, what I choose, while I respect what others choose even if I disagree.
|