Knowledge organization and systematizing has always been a challenge that I totally dismiss due to my laziness, it's refreshing and inspiring to hear your thoughts about it.
Speaking of reading, I just finished rereading Roadside Picnic after my first read from about half a year ago. How much better it feels this time despite how I immediately considered it my all time favorite from my first read is shocking.
This is contributing to my increasing disdain towards Tarkovsky in his films travesty of representing or introducing those masterpieces properly. Can you imagine that Stalker used to be one of my favorite films.
I never managed to finish the Solaris film and after finishing the book about 3 months ago I'm afraid that attempting to watch it will add to my critical opinion of him.
In both cases, the literary genius of the fictions make it seem that literature just can't be faithfully represented in any other form.
That is not to denigrate the power of cinema, especially not to condemn it as a lesser form of literary medium than literary fiction. Sometimes, films can show that certain effects are so exclusively viable only through cinema.
One such case that shocked me to the ground is Afire by Petzold. Although I'm sure there are plenty more. There's still something about Afire that feels so special and delicate. It's a film that doesn't portend to be of much sublimity at all. It felt casual, even trivial. What I initially felt it to be almost feel annoyingly obvious and silly. Ha, then, it just took up everything.
I haven’t read Roadside Picnic or Solaris (though I've watched the films—and much more prefer Stalker over Solaris 😄 )... but I don't really know how the literary pieces differ from the films, but I think I get what you mean.
My instinct with adaptations is usually to separate them from the original work as much as possible. I guess the connection may still matter, of course, but literature and cinema work on us through such different mechanisms. Even when they share a story, they’re not really giving the same experience. So, for me personally, I tend to think an adaptation doesn’t necessarily have to represent the book faithfully to be great. It just has to become a strong work in its own form. Of course, that’s easier to say than to feel, especially when the book is a favorite and the film tries to replace or in a way distorts what made it powerful.
Then there's the other side of if, like you say, where cinema proves its own language. Man, I loved Afire. I've watched a few others of Petzold, also really liked Undine.
I do in an ideological sense strongly agree that a film adaptation isn't obligated to represent or resemble the literary fiction. However, a feeling is a feeling. And for some reason, maybe with how prominent Tarkovsky is in the cinema world, I still have this totally subjective opinion that how much less the films have achieved is a shame😩😅😳😂😃
Knowledge organization and systematizing has always been a challenge that I totally dismiss due to my laziness, it's refreshing and inspiring to hear your thoughts about it.
Speaking of reading, I just finished rereading Roadside Picnic after my first read from about half a year ago. How much better it feels this time despite how I immediately considered it my all time favorite from my first read is shocking.
This is contributing to my increasing disdain towards Tarkovsky in his films travesty of representing or introducing those masterpieces properly. Can you imagine that Stalker used to be one of my favorite films.
I never managed to finish the Solaris film and after finishing the book about 3 months ago I'm afraid that attempting to watch it will add to my critical opinion of him.
In both cases, the literary genius of the fictions make it seem that literature just can't be faithfully represented in any other form.
That is not to denigrate the power of cinema, especially not to condemn it as a lesser form of literary medium than literary fiction. Sometimes, films can show that certain effects are so exclusively viable only through cinema.
One such case that shocked me to the ground is Afire by Petzold. Although I'm sure there are plenty more. There's still something about Afire that feels so special and delicate. It's a film that doesn't portend to be of much sublimity at all. It felt casual, even trivial. What I initially felt it to be almost feel annoyingly obvious and silly. Ha, then, it just took up everything.
I haven’t read Roadside Picnic or Solaris (though I've watched the films—and much more prefer Stalker over Solaris 😄 )... but I don't really know how the literary pieces differ from the films, but I think I get what you mean.
My instinct with adaptations is usually to separate them from the original work as much as possible. I guess the connection may still matter, of course, but literature and cinema work on us through such different mechanisms. Even when they share a story, they’re not really giving the same experience. So, for me personally, I tend to think an adaptation doesn’t necessarily have to represent the book faithfully to be great. It just has to become a strong work in its own form. Of course, that’s easier to say than to feel, especially when the book is a favorite and the film tries to replace or in a way distorts what made it powerful.
Then there's the other side of if, like you say, where cinema proves its own language. Man, I loved Afire. I've watched a few others of Petzold, also really liked Undine.
I do in an ideological sense strongly agree that a film adaptation isn't obligated to represent or resemble the literary fiction. However, a feeling is a feeling. And for some reason, maybe with how prominent Tarkovsky is in the cinema world, I still have this totally subjective opinion that how much less the films have achieved is a shame😩😅😳😂😃