In his discussion, Barber focusses mainly on the famous scene where Mr. Darcy, played by Colin Firth, plunges into a small lake on his estate before a surprise meeting with Miss Elizabeth Bennet. Barber tells us that this scene has become iconic and did much to spark a renewed interest in Austen's novel, although the TV adaptation had already become very popular: as I point out in my paragraph written on Monday, I think this is because the BBC sensibly stayed very close to Austen's perfectly told story, even copying and pasting much of the dialogue. And the famous lake scene where Colin Firth strips off? First, he doesn't strip off. Although not in Austen's novel (how could it be? She was a woman writing for genteel readers in the early 19th century, with Pride and Prejudice published in 1813), I like the BBC's lake scene and subsequent meeting. They work extremely well in the drama version to highlight. In her novel, the meeting is accidental, but the language and description of Lizzie's feelings do perfectly well what the BBC's dripping wet Darcy version does. I also agree with Davies, the producer, that the scene is funny and is not "a sexy scene in any way" (Barber, 2015). I love both versions.
Barber very usefully emphasizes differences between the novel and TV series, specifically the lake and meeting scenes, but also others. He also briefly mentions the film version of Pride and Prejudice starring Keira Knightley and others I forget. I have to agree with Barber that none of film versions come close to the high standard of engrossing drama that viewers get in the BBC production, which I was surprised to be reminded was made in 1995 - a full twenty years ago, as the article title boldly says. I keep thinking it was only yesterday, but two decades is a bit older than yesterday!
Now, should I reread Austen original or watch the BBC production again? (I'll pass on the DVD I have of the Keira Knighley version.)
_______________________________________
My question is:
Which do you think is generally better: the book version of a story or the dramatized version for film or TV?
___________
Reference
I used to wonder as your question, which one is better for a story between reading a novel or watching a movie. After I think a lot, I realize that it depends on your background and what do you want.
ReplyDeleteIn case that both of the literature and film versions are perfectly good (story, language, actor, scene), I would like to suggest a film to a person who want to relax and doesn't know much about a story but a novel version for a person who want more details which may not be added in the movie and have some information background.
For example, Suriyothai (I), a story of Thai woman who fight the enemy based on Thai history which is produced a film version from a Thai history book. The film will show the costume, accommodation and culture in that period; therefore, the audience will get ideas only from visual. In contrast, the book version should explain those things by language that the reader can imagine through. It will be better to the reader who used to see a picture, goods in a museum or study of that objects which are not general in the present time that they can memorize and imagine them easier.
I quite prefer reading books more than watching films because I think the book version is an original work and also have more details than the dramatized version. I understand that why the dramatized versions have to be cut some details, which are unnecessary, or changed some stories because I think they've got limited time when they are broadcast on TV or made a film, so it seems okay for me to cut or change some details. Nevertheless, I really disagree if
ReplyDeletethe main detail of a story has changed , or even the personality or expression of characters's not the same as the book version.
For example, last year my favorite book was made into Thai drama series. At first, I was really excited that I would watch my favorite story on TV, but I was really disappointed because the story was totally different from the book and the personality of a main character was also different.A heroine's personality should be brilliant and claim but she was just a naughty girl and looked dull for me in the TV drama, so it made me really mad!
By the way, it depends on what people prefer. I agree with Poy's idea that a film version is suitable for someone who doesn't know much about a story and they can find more detail in a novel, but anyway I think producers should try to understand what is the purpose of the writers why they've written in this way or maybe just consult with the writers before making a film.
Whilst I agree with Patt in most cases in practice, I don't think in principle that one is better or worse. I generally prefer literature to other art forms, so have a personal preference for reading. Like Patt, I look for and use facts to support my judgements about artistic value, which are therefore more like moral values and not purely personal or socially determined. How well are the characters developed? How believable is the story (I don't mean realistic)? How well does each element connect with and unify every other element? What does the art tell us?
ReplyDeleteI loved the Harry Potter books, but they are long books and the film versions, although OK, are nowhere near as good as the books, for many of the reasons that Patt gives. And, especially in the first films, the stars really can't act very well.
In contrast to Rowling's well told stories of wizardry, the book versions of Dan Brown's famously successful novels The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons are so badly written I almost threw them away before I finished them: poor language, no smooth or natural progress but implausible jumps, characters that veer between sounding emotionally retarded to silly, and continual injections of obvious preaching. The film versions of these stories are much, much better precisely because they cut a lot of the crap and work what they keep into a stronger, more unified story. The films are at also fun to watch.
I think Brown's novels, which were also extremely popular before fading from sight, also show that society is not a reliable judge of value - artistic any more than moral.
DeleteMost of my friends who have read the Harry Potter books also said like you, unfortunately I've never read them. I've just watched the film versions and I think they are not too bad, I can understand the story and their special effects are really fantastic. Well, I'm quite satisfied about the Harry Potter films. However,if I read the novels, I might not like the film versions anymore lol that the reason why I've never tried to read the book versions lol (or maybe I should try?) and Ive also never read the book version of Dan Brown and I think the films are made quite good as well.
DeleteI think the films are also good. But the books are better.
Delete