By Charlee Vale
It seems to me that lately, there have been an influx of book based movies hitting the theatre. As both a writer and an actress, this makes me immensely happy! But I know that others aren't as happy, especially when they see their favorite books 'ruined' by it being made into a movie.
As an example, I'll tell you about my experience seeing The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones, this past week.
I went to a tiny theater near my house. It was a late showing, and there were only a few people waiting for the movie with me. Of these people, there was a group of teens, completely decked out in costume. They had every major character covered, we're talking dedication. I gathered from not-so-subtle eavesdropping and a little conversation, that they were overjoyed to be seeing the movie for the first time, some of them fans of the book since it first came out in 2007.
So we went in and watched the movie. (For the record, I really enjoyed it--and I recommend everyone see it) As soon as the credits rolled I looked over at the costumed group to gauge their reaction. They all seemed overwhelmingly confused and saddened. Not understanding 'what had just happened.' (This despite us talking about how books and movies have to be different before entering the theater)
While thinking about this, it occurred to me that in fact, many times I've known people who are 'okay with it being different from the book,' and then walk out of the movie furious for that same reason. This makes me sad, because hollywood is finally paying attention to books! Their making book movies! But if everyone keeps hating them, they'll stop.
As a person who crosses the book/movie world, I thought I'd talk about a couple of the reasons books and movies can't be the same, and why that's okay.
1. Length
The book you read was most likely in between 200-300 pages, maybe more. The standard rule of thumb in the movie industry for screenplays is 'a minute per page.' If movies literally took the book you read and put it on the screen, even the shortest books would be almost three hours long. (The City of Bones hardcover is 485 pages--an 8 hour movie!)
2. Investment vs. Payoff
Because the aforementioned problem with length, movie producers have to look at the story and what's going to be the best way to deliver the required information, and still keep the tone of the story. A good example of this is the Hunger Games movie.
For those of you who have both read the book and seen the movie, you know that the person who gives Katniss the Mockingjay pin is different. A lot of people were upset that in the movie 'Madge' was cut out as a character. However, the time the movie would have spent developing that character would have been wasted. Why? Because Madge does nothing else. In fact she has little presence through the entire series. So spending ten precious minutes of film time on a character that doesn't affect the audience, is silly. The payoff wasn't worth the investment.
3. Different Mediums
This should be fairly straight-forward, but I find it's always good to remind people that books and movies are different. And that's okay.
In books, we have the time to describe something, to let the mind piece together an image as it goes along. Movies, as a visual medium, have to give us things that our minds can both interpret immediately, keep us engaged, and keep the story moving.
This is why I find I enjoy book-to-movie adaptations much more the second time I watch them. The second time, I already know what's different from the book--there are no surprises. That way, I can relax and enjoy the movie for what it is. Unfortunately, I know a lot of people don't get that far because they're upset.
As a final note, I hope that you will go and support book movies. Even if the particular book isn't your thing. I would hate for Hollywood to think we're giving them a message to stop making these movies. There are so many wonderful book stories that can be told with film. Let's keep making it happen!
Charlee Vale is a Young Adult writer, photographer, and tea lover living in New York City. You can also find her at her website, and on Twitter, and at the movies, absorbing all the stories.
Showing posts with label Define Art. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Define Art. Show all posts
Monday, August 26, 2013
Monday, May 30, 2011
Art, Defined
by R.S. Mellette
When last we left our intrepid adventure into Artistic Cross Training, we were asked to define art. This was deemed necessary because we can't have a useful discussion about art if we don't have a common idea of what we're talking about.
I should say that I've done to you the same subtle slight of grammar that was done to me when I suffered through this exercise. Sorry about that, but the struggle is an important part of the training. For those still fighting for an answer, would it help if I worded it this way: Define The Arts?
ANSWER: Art is: Theatre, Dance, Music, Visual Arts, and Literature.
If you recall the college senior I overheard at a party boasting of adding one to the list, it was literature. Looking back on it, I'd say that any student who didn't include that should have been told "not quite." Architecture is sometimes listed, but that could be included as a part of the Visual Arts, just as Film and Television are a combination of Theatre and the Visual Art of Photography. That's what I said in 1980. Having worked on a few films since then, I'd say we have to figure out a way to get Sound included. I suppose it's an aspect of Theatre. No need to split hairs, as long as we give Sound the same respect Picture always gets.
So, when I talk of artists, I mean anyone who works in those five disciplines, or derivatives thereof. When I talk of art, I mean anything that fits within those categories or derivatives thereof.
So, is a stop sign art?
By this definition a stop sign in the street is not art, one hanging in a gallery is—but does that make it good?
That's the topic of my next blog.
When last we left our intrepid adventure into Artistic Cross Training, we were asked to define art. This was deemed necessary because we can't have a useful discussion about art if we don't have a common idea of what we're talking about.
I should say that I've done to you the same subtle slight of grammar that was done to me when I suffered through this exercise. Sorry about that, but the struggle is an important part of the training. For those still fighting for an answer, would it help if I worded it this way: Define The Arts?
ANSWER: Art is: Theatre, Dance, Music, Visual Arts, and Literature.
If you recall the college senior I overheard at a party boasting of adding one to the list, it was literature. Looking back on it, I'd say that any student who didn't include that should have been told "not quite." Architecture is sometimes listed, but that could be included as a part of the Visual Arts, just as Film and Television are a combination of Theatre and the Visual Art of Photography. That's what I said in 1980. Having worked on a few films since then, I'd say we have to figure out a way to get Sound included. I suppose it's an aspect of Theatre. No need to split hairs, as long as we give Sound the same respect Picture always gets.
So, when I talk of artists, I mean anyone who works in those five disciplines, or derivatives thereof. When I talk of art, I mean anything that fits within those categories or derivatives thereof.
So, is a stop sign art?
By this definition a stop sign in the street is not art, one hanging in a gallery is—but does that make it good?
That's the topic of my next blog.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Define Art
by R.S. Mellette
In the first of the three universities I wrestled with, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, we had a class that spent an entire semester doing nothing but solving puzzles and trying to define Art. Luckily, the class was taught by a music professor whose real talent was composing young people's minds. You've heard the phrase, "learn to think outside of the box"? That's based on the most famous of the puzzles we were challenged with.
For those who don't know, here's the deal:
This is the nine dots puzzle. Most of you probably said to yourselves when you saw this, "Oh, that. That's old. I've seen it." Goodie for you, but not everyone has, so sit tight.
The challenge is to connect all nine dots with four or less straight lines without picking up your pencil and without drawing over the same line twice. Go ahead, give it a shot.
I bet half of the people who said, "Oh, yeah, that's old," are hoping I give them the solution somewhere in this blog because they've forgotten.
Did you get it? Keep trying. Then read a little more.
Just about when the first of us 18-year-old freshmen pounded our desk in frustration the learned professor would say, "Think about how you're trying to solve the problem. How many different ways have you tried?"
How many different ways have you tried? Try some more.
"Look at your paper," he would say. "What do you see?"
Well? Starting to learn where the phrase came from? Do you see a box? Keep trying.
I did a quick check on Wikipedia to find the phrase is credited to at least two different people and that the puzzle possibly originated in 1915 or so. Normally, I'd give credit where credit is due, but here it seems there's a dispute, so we'll save that for another time.
How are you doing? Still inside the box? How many ways have you tried to solve it?
I can tell you there are millions of ways to solve this puzzle, so what's taking you so long?
We would spend an hour every morning of the first semester solving such puzzles and fulfilling our one assignment: DEFINE ART.
I didn't smoke pot back then – still don't, it makes me dizzy – but if I did, it would have been before this class.
"Art is a visual composition that relates a message to the viewer," someone would offer.
"Okay," said our teacher, "is a stop sign art?"
That conversation would take up 30 minutes, then he'd pass out another puzzle:
Six buckets in a row. The first three are full of water, the next three are not. Arrange the buckets so they alternate, full/empty/full/empty by moving only one of the buckets.
Wait! I'm still trying to figure out if a stop sign is art! My head can't handle moving buckets.
This went on for an entire semester.
Eventually, someone would get the magic "ah-ha!" moment, and come up with the one, true, definition of Art. We were instructed not to blurt it out, but write it on a piece of paper. The professor would read it and tell you if you got it right or not.
For those of you who wish to play this game, I will tell you there is one, true definition. It's important that we have one, true definition because, if we're going to discuss something we have to first all agree what it is we're discussing. If everyone in Hollywood had to suffer through this class as I did, they'd save themselves a lot of trouble when they hit the studio system.
How are you doing with the buckets? I have to say that's an easy one. I'm not giving you the answer, you'll know it when you get it, just like the definition of Art.
By the way, I never got the definition right on my own. I was at a party and overheard a senior talking about how much he enjoyed the class and how he'd added something to the definition that no one had before. At least, not in class.
Still working on it? Good.
Back at that party, I felt like I'd lost my virginity to a cheap prostitute. I'd learned the answer on the street. I didn't earn it. I felt dirty, but there was no taking back the knowledge once it was learned.
So what's your definition of Art? Is a stop sign art? What's the difference between an NBA player's drive to the basket and a modern dancer's leap across the stage?
Post your thoughts. If you know the definitive answer, don't blurt it out, but help me respond to your fellow readers' ideas. I'll follow up the next time it's my turn on this blog-go-round.
In the first of the three universities I wrestled with, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, we had a class that spent an entire semester doing nothing but solving puzzles and trying to define Art. Luckily, the class was taught by a music professor whose real talent was composing young people's minds. You've heard the phrase, "learn to think outside of the box"? That's based on the most famous of the puzzles we were challenged with.
For those who don't know, here's the deal:
This is the nine dots puzzle. Most of you probably said to yourselves when you saw this, "Oh, that. That's old. I've seen it." Goodie for you, but not everyone has, so sit tight.
The challenge is to connect all nine dots with four or less straight lines without picking up your pencil and without drawing over the same line twice. Go ahead, give it a shot.
I bet half of the people who said, "Oh, yeah, that's old," are hoping I give them the solution somewhere in this blog because they've forgotten.
Did you get it? Keep trying. Then read a little more.
Just about when the first of us 18-year-old freshmen pounded our desk in frustration the learned professor would say, "Think about how you're trying to solve the problem. How many different ways have you tried?"
How many different ways have you tried? Try some more.
"Look at your paper," he would say. "What do you see?"
Well? Starting to learn where the phrase came from? Do you see a box? Keep trying.
I did a quick check on Wikipedia to find the phrase is credited to at least two different people and that the puzzle possibly originated in 1915 or so. Normally, I'd give credit where credit is due, but here it seems there's a dispute, so we'll save that for another time.
How are you doing? Still inside the box? How many ways have you tried to solve it?
I can tell you there are millions of ways to solve this puzzle, so what's taking you so long?
We would spend an hour every morning of the first semester solving such puzzles and fulfilling our one assignment: DEFINE ART.
I didn't smoke pot back then – still don't, it makes me dizzy – but if I did, it would have been before this class.
"Art is a visual composition that relates a message to the viewer," someone would offer.
"Okay," said our teacher, "is a stop sign art?"
That conversation would take up 30 minutes, then he'd pass out another puzzle:
Six buckets in a row. The first three are full of water, the next three are not. Arrange the buckets so they alternate, full/empty/full/empty by moving only one of the buckets.
Wait! I'm still trying to figure out if a stop sign is art! My head can't handle moving buckets.
This went on for an entire semester.
Eventually, someone would get the magic "ah-ha!" moment, and come up with the one, true, definition of Art. We were instructed not to blurt it out, but write it on a piece of paper. The professor would read it and tell you if you got it right or not.
For those of you who wish to play this game, I will tell you there is one, true definition. It's important that we have one, true definition because, if we're going to discuss something we have to first all agree what it is we're discussing. If everyone in Hollywood had to suffer through this class as I did, they'd save themselves a lot of trouble when they hit the studio system.
How are you doing with the buckets? I have to say that's an easy one. I'm not giving you the answer, you'll know it when you get it, just like the definition of Art.
By the way, I never got the definition right on my own. I was at a party and overheard a senior talking about how much he enjoyed the class and how he'd added something to the definition that no one had before. At least, not in class.
Still working on it? Good.
Back at that party, I felt like I'd lost my virginity to a cheap prostitute. I'd learned the answer on the street. I didn't earn it. I felt dirty, but there was no taking back the knowledge once it was learned.
So what's your definition of Art? Is a stop sign art? What's the difference between an NBA player's drive to the basket and a modern dancer's leap across the stage?
Post your thoughts. If you know the definitive answer, don't blurt it out, but help me respond to your fellow readers' ideas. I'll follow up the next time it's my turn on this blog-go-round.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)