[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

It is not my contention or position that you cannot make a movie that is more or less reasonably faithful to its source material. My point is that it is irrevelvant and means nothing to the success or quality of the film as both LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and WIZARD OF OZ show. And I would add the LOTR films to those. Further, it is irrelevant and silly to judge the quality of a film by some imiganary scale of "faithfulness" since the rest of the world cares little about it since it matters not to the final quality of the film.

If it is irrelevant, then why do directors and producers (and authors when they are still alive and working with the directors) discuss faithfulness and proclaim it as something they desired to acheive, even with, as The English Patient shows, many changes are essential? Why did Jackson and his writers loudly claim they were being respectful of and faithful to Jackson? Why bother if it is irrelevant?

Further more, there is no evidence that "the rest of the world cares little about it". While many viewers might not have read the original works and might not be aware of the changes, it is entirely possible that "the cinematic heart" is what beats in the two and what makes both so appealing to readers/viewers.

Originally Posted by StW

I am sorry but I cannot due your post justice because I have not read or seen THE ENGLISH PATIENT. I have seen brief snippets of it on cable and - no offense to you - I did not like what I saw very much, and was not inspired to invest any time in it. The infamous SEINFELD episode where Elaine Benis, bored to distraction, screams at the theater crowd watching the film "how can you people watch this stuff" comes to mind. But to each their own.

I haven't seen the film either. Seeing it is irrelevant to the point that in a context where major changes were deemed essential, both director and author strove to explain how those changes were made to accommodate the differences between book and film yet at the same time they sought to be "faithful" to an essential book experience.

Side note to Rune: Your example of Troy brings up the excellent point of translation. Whether from Greek to English or book to film, what is involved is the art and skill of interpreting or translating.

Originally Posted by StW

Jackson goes far beyond that and I think that is one reason why he was rewarded with the Oscar while Lucas has only the rewards of the bank account.

I suppose you have access to the thoughts of the Academy voters?

Originally Posted by StW

The problem with that is simple. How do you measure such things? Is there a objective scale of agreed upon measurement which pronounces the purity of such changes from one medium to another? Of course not. In the end, this reality will always permit complaining, carping and fault finding with any adaption in the minds of some viewers.

It is really a red herring to say that adaptation cannot be measured and so to claim that adaptation cannot be discussed or is not relevant. Art is not measurable on any absolute scale and the reason why people create and have and enjoy art is very different from the reasons why they explore science and philosophy and management accounting. Each book and each movie is unique and every experience of adaptation will have to be accommodated to that uniqueness. Might as well ask Minghella to explain what "cinematic heart" is.

What it comes down to it the right of any viewer/reader to have opinions and feelings about a movie or a book, whether those statements are unique and personal or whether they reflect some large commonality with other viewers. That's why people discuss art, for the sake of discussion, to carry on the initial experience, to understand the initial experience, to boldly take that experience where it has not gone before.