Chekhov’s Mistess

That Old Book-to-Film Problem

I’ve been reading a bit about the Russian television adaptation of Master and Margarita; an amazing book and one I’d probably call a favorite if I only thought that my reading of it was anything more than shallow despite two times through. I once read Laura Week’s critical companion to Master and Margarita and was left with the distinct impression that no two scholars wholly agree on many of the book’s elements. It’s a complex allusive work with fantastical elements that seem to me would be lost on the screen as would most of its satirical purpose, particularly, as some have pointed out, on a modern audience. Even if the movie were good, it certainly is now way to enter the book.

This piece from the Guardian (“Bulgakov classic to enthral Russia,” December 19, 2005) really convinced me:

Special effects appear in two hours of the series. Begemot, a kind of malicious Puss in Boots, was brought to life in three different forms that are grafted together in the final cut: a computer-generated creature; a real, trained cat; and the actor Vano Miranyan in costume.

I’m not skeptical that the effects can be pulled off (duh), but I imagine they won’t be any thing but special effects. Here’s a passage from the book:

Standing on his hind legs, the dust covered cat was meanwhile making his bows to Margarita. There was now a white bow-tie on the cat’s neck, and a pair of ladies’ mother-of-pearl opera glasses hung from a strap on his neck. What’s more, the cat’s whiskers were gilded.


‘Well, what’s all this now?’ exclaimed Woland. ‘Why have you gilded your whiskers? And what the devil do you need the bow-tie for, when you’re not even wearing trousers?’

And it goes on. Made explicit, this scene, which captures at the least the tone of the book, just can’t work.

I admit I’m not a big book-to-film fan. It’s usually an either-or for me. The only exception is when I want to see a visual conception of a book. Maybe this is backward, but I don’t have any problem imagining the more magical parts of books, but I’m never good at “seeing” historical settings.

With some of the old Russian stuff it’s neat to see the trappings the 19th century aristocracy kept themselves in, which are always more elaborate than I could ever imagine. So I’ve dipped into some of the movie adaptations, like Bernard Rose’s 1997 version of Anna Karenina, with the (let’s just leave it at) lovely Sophie Marceau as Anna and Alfred Molina as Levin. I got what I wanted; the opulence was astounding, but that’s pretty much it.

I’ve even seen the famous Russian movie of War and Peace, which at over 6 hours long is amazing, but I couldn’t keep watching because as great as the film is, it just doesn’t hold up to the book and I was afraid of having someone else’s images in my head trying to crowd out that masterpiece. Isn’t that the real problem anyway? The challenge of compressing a book into a few hour film is one thing, but its the way the movie infects you with its images that you have to be careful about.

The only movie adaptation that I’ve ever thought truly worthy of its book version is the Italian film (alas not released in the U.S.) of Mesa Selimovic’s Death and the Dervish, which is also one of my favorite books. It could be that the book’s relatively simple story line lent itself to being filmed, but the film, which I saw first and introduced me to the book, captured the characters beautifully in a saturated close-up that let the actors flourish. I think the key with this film is that the director and writer Alberto Rondalli had enough confidence in himself and the book not to do too much.

Bertolucci did too little, in my opinion, with his adaptation of The Sheltering Sky, which was so literal as to whitewash away much of the essence of the book and leave us with little more than story.

Some other candidates might be, say, Doctor Zhivago but as much as I loved the movie, I’ve never read the book, and If I had, I would probably not like the movie when held up to the book, based on what I’ve heard of the book. I did Howards End and sometime after saw the Merchant Ivory film, thinking that if anyone could make a great book into a great movie, but I was let down.

I suppose some might say Gone with the Wind is an example of great book-to-film films (and when I say that I mean “great” book-to-film films, narrowing the field somewhat), and I think Leslie Fiedler used that film as an example of how books transcend their medium. Seven Pillars of Wisdom has been held up as a great literary achievement, but I never got through it even after being a big fan of Lawrence of Arabia. My wife suggests Allende’s House of Spirits, as both a great book and film.

Any others? (I’m sure I’m missing a bunch) The Little Professor had this to say about the new film of Pride and Prejudice:

Taken as a stand-alone film, the new Pride and Prejudice is quite charming; taken as an adaptation of Jane Austen, this sex-drenched romance fails quite badly.

Sadly, so often the case.

comments

Laszlo Krasznahorkai wrote the script for Bela Tarr’s “The Werckmeister Harmonies” based on his book “The Melancholy of Resistance.” The book had large unfilmable chunks, and what resulted was drastically different than the source novel, but an effective transformation. They’ve worked together on other films, but none of his other books have been translated into English (Szirtes is about to translate another one), so I haven’t been able to compare.

A few Japanese adaptations come to mind as doing their source material justice: “Fires on the Plain,” “The Woman in the Dunes,” “Kwaidan,” “Rashomon,” and “The Key.”

I’d also mention Volker Schloendorf’s “The Tin Drum” as an example like Bertolucci’s “Sky”: the material is treated so literally it loses all resonance.

I’d like to hear someone comment on Fassbinder’s 15-hour “Berlin Alexanderplatz,” which I haven’t seen…

    – Mr. Waggish (12/21  at  04:09 AM)

Rashomon is a good example because Kurosawa’s film is better than the book - actually story, and it’s based on a story called “In a Grove;” the story Rashomon is a different story - but in a way it’s not a fair comparison because “In a Grove” is a spare, fable like, story, leaving a lot of room for creative interpretation. 

I’m also reminded indirectly, because I remembered your post on it, about Welles’ version of Kafka’s The Trial. I don’t think you liked it so much, David, but I thought it was a brilliant movie and didn’t lose any of the book. In fact, I don’t know why I didn’t remember that when writing this post.

    – Bud Parr (12/21  at  09:02 AM)

Alfred Hitchcock’s adaptation of “Rear Window”, I thought, was much better than the original short story by Cornell Woolrich.  Overall, the movie felt more complex and layered than the short story, although it did sublimate most of the homo-erotic tension present in the latter.

    – Michelle (12/21  at  10:10 AM)

This is going to sound like rank heresy, but I enjoyed the film adaptation of James’ Washington Square (w/ Jennifer Jason Leigh) better than the actual novel.  I found the film’s conclusion much more ambiguous and interesting.

    – amcorrea (12/23  at  01:31 AM)

Page 1 of 1 pages of comments

Next entry: Read This
Previous entry: Poetry is Good for Poetry

« Back to main

About this Post

• Posted by: Bud Parr
• Date: December 20, 2005
• Filed Under:
  Wise Men Fish Here: Literature

• Comments:4
• Links to this Post: Technorati

Recommended Links

- top -