The Adaptation Swing
Well, well, well...I'm back again! Really sorry to anyone who might actually look forward to when I write a blog, but I've worked about 20 out of the last 23 days at my "regular" job...don't those suck? But I guess if it weren't for that job I couldn't have this computer, or a gym membership, or go to the movies...or eat and have shelter for that matter...so I guess it doesn't suck that bad afterall!
Anyhow, I'm back for another round of blogging and thought I would discuss a little bit about adaptations, since I just went and saw what is bound to be the year's biggest adaptation if not biggest film period: The DaVinci Code. But as a backdrop I think I'll use a movie that many of you may not even realize was an adaptation to highlight what I call, "the adaptation swing," and how it came strangely into play with TDC.
So let's start with my hypothesis: the adaptation swing is not simply a tool to make boring books into exciting movies...however that is a big part, but on a deeper level it is a filter that puts books fully in line with the politics of Hollywood or its intended audience (Which Hollywood is discovering is not always the same thing).
The book I'll be using as a counterwieght to TDC is a little Sci-fi flick you may have heard of called Starship Troopers, directed by Paul Veerhoven and starring Casper "where-did-my-promising-career-go" Van Dien, the hilarious Neil Patrick Harris (not hilarious in this movie but in Harold and Kumar and on TV), and Denise Richards (whom I would marry tomorrow...if you somehow read this Denise...you may take that as a proposal...there...I said it!) The reason I use this film is becasue it fits perfectly into the normal procedure for the Hollywood Adaption Swing. Way back in 1959, Robert Heinlein, a former Naval Officer wrote Starship Troopers as a reaction to anti-military sentiment, a view of future warfare, and a slap in the face to communism. The book was very controversial because it depicted a society where a person had to earn their "citezenship," the right to vote or hold office. The other members of the society still had rights and could have business and own property, etcetera, but they could not vote. This part is somewhat the same in the film, but what really changes is how Veerhoven as opposed to Heinlein portrays the military. Now I grew up in a military family (my grandfather went to VMI, my real dad and my step dad were both West Point Graduates) and I empthize deeply with Heinlein's point of view on the military, one which Veerhoven conveniently ignores, twists, and distorts. In Heinlein's Mobile Infantry, and in the real life Military, everyone from the top down cares deeply that soldiers survive, this is not to say that they are not put in danger...they are, but every measure is taken to make them as well protected and able to carry out their mission as possible. There are examples in real history: In WWI and even in some parts of WWII, the militaries of the world charged across fields, made trenches, and died by the thousands at a time causing generals and politicians alike to finally realize something...old strategies were not working against new weapons. So in the late 50's, early 60's a new tactic for the military was initiated by of all people, a Democrat, John F. Kennedy; this initiative was Special Forces, using technology and less man power to accomplish the same things that entire brigades did in previous centuries and to train insurgents to fight against their own oppressive regimes. In fact, there is a measurable difference in the number of men it now takes to control a square mile in 1918, to how many it takes now. It is predicted with the new Soldier of the future equipment now being created by the US Army, that soon, one infantry man will be able to conrol one Square mile, in Heinlein's future one soldier can patrol hundreds of miles. All this is an effort to waste less lives and make the military more effiecient, and despite what we see on the news and what we hear about Vietnam, this is working, the lives lost in Vietnam by American Soldiers were less compared to WWII, and the lives lost in Iraq now are less compared to Vietnam, this is not to mean that losing any lives is a good thing (nor does Heinlein make that seem to be) but as technology is advancing and we learn to harness it, war for Americans is overall becoming a more effiecient enterprise. Yet this is not what we see depicted in Veerhoven's future...here the soldiers walk around in unprotected groups with no air support and get chewed to pieces with sub satisfactory weapons, the army wears Nazi style uniforms and tricks people into signing up and doesn't care if they die or not. Why did he change it to be this way? Well, the overall view of the military in Hollywood's politics has been generally negative over the past 15 years and has also held a view of America as being overly imperialistic...in Heinlein's time though, there was a very real threat of spreading communism, and if you don't think that was that bad, you haven't read very much uncensored Soviet History, after you do you may wonder how valuable freedom really is and what cost its worth to keep it...Stalin and Zedong my be two of the most evil men in all of history but you rarely ever hear about it, Vietnam was an awful tragedy but it did accomplish one thing, it told the communists that there was someone who was not going to roll over for them and let them spread across the world. But for Veerhoven, the idea was to show that soldiers could be brave, but the military as a whole is foolhardy, wasteful and needlessly cruel for apparently no good reason.
But now I move on to the DaVinci Code where I saw an Adaptation that swung in a completely opposite direction. Dan Brown's novel pulled no punches in its attack on the Catholic Church and Christian belief in general, the movie however made several moves to soften its message for potentially Christian viewers, I think this shows incredible business sense on the part of Hollywood. Ever since the Omega Code, The Passion of the Christ, and the last two elections, the big heads in Hollywood have realized that the majority of Americans are not card carrying members of the ACLU, they're actually consevatives, agree with them or not. So anyway, I was very surprised that the Robert Langdon character was not so sure of himself and whether or not he actually believed in Jesus' divinity, there's even a part where Langdon explains that there was a time in his life that he prayed to Jesus and felt his presence (this was the creation of Langdon's claustrophobia, a characteristic also not found in the book). In fact, instead of being Leigh Teabing's lapdog as in the novel, Langdon and Teabing argue intensely about topics as opposed to always being in agreement. Additionally the film made the smart move to either downplay many of Brown's absolutely retarded "facts" or at least portray them as merely ideas. This probably not being so much of a filter or swing as being a necessity to not insult any members of the audience with half a clue about actual history.
But to get to the point, whenever a book comes to the screen it will not come through unmolested. Even The Lord of the Rings, one of the most faithful adaptations in spirit to come along in a long time had huge parts altered or removed entirely just to fit the films into a 7-9 hour (!) span.
Oh, and my thoughts on DaVinci Code as a film...not bad at all, Tom Hanks and Paul Bettany do a great job, it was a little long but not nearly as bad as those snobs over at Cannes would lead you to believe, check it out, just make sure and read some real history books afterwards so you don't play Jeopardy or Trivial pursuit with friends later and make a damn fool of yourself!
Anyhow, I'm back for another round of blogging and thought I would discuss a little bit about adaptations, since I just went and saw what is bound to be the year's biggest adaptation if not biggest film period: The DaVinci Code. But as a backdrop I think I'll use a movie that many of you may not even realize was an adaptation to highlight what I call, "the adaptation swing," and how it came strangely into play with TDC.
So let's start with my hypothesis: the adaptation swing is not simply a tool to make boring books into exciting movies...however that is a big part, but on a deeper level it is a filter that puts books fully in line with the politics of Hollywood or its intended audience (Which Hollywood is discovering is not always the same thing).
The book I'll be using as a counterwieght to TDC is a little Sci-fi flick you may have heard of called Starship Troopers, directed by Paul Veerhoven and starring Casper "where-did-my-promising-career-go" Van Dien, the hilarious Neil Patrick Harris (not hilarious in this movie but in Harold and Kumar and on TV), and Denise Richards (whom I would marry tomorrow...if you somehow read this Denise...you may take that as a proposal...there...I said it!) The reason I use this film is becasue it fits perfectly into the normal procedure for the Hollywood Adaption Swing. Way back in 1959, Robert Heinlein, a former Naval Officer wrote Starship Troopers as a reaction to anti-military sentiment, a view of future warfare, and a slap in the face to communism. The book was very controversial because it depicted a society where a person had to earn their "citezenship," the right to vote or hold office. The other members of the society still had rights and could have business and own property, etcetera, but they could not vote. This part is somewhat the same in the film, but what really changes is how Veerhoven as opposed to Heinlein portrays the military. Now I grew up in a military family (my grandfather went to VMI, my real dad and my step dad were both West Point Graduates) and I empthize deeply with Heinlein's point of view on the military, one which Veerhoven conveniently ignores, twists, and distorts. In Heinlein's Mobile Infantry, and in the real life Military, everyone from the top down cares deeply that soldiers survive, this is not to say that they are not put in danger...they are, but every measure is taken to make them as well protected and able to carry out their mission as possible. There are examples in real history: In WWI and even in some parts of WWII, the militaries of the world charged across fields, made trenches, and died by the thousands at a time causing generals and politicians alike to finally realize something...old strategies were not working against new weapons. So in the late 50's, early 60's a new tactic for the military was initiated by of all people, a Democrat, John F. Kennedy; this initiative was Special Forces, using technology and less man power to accomplish the same things that entire brigades did in previous centuries and to train insurgents to fight against their own oppressive regimes. In fact, there is a measurable difference in the number of men it now takes to control a square mile in 1918, to how many it takes now. It is predicted with the new Soldier of the future equipment now being created by the US Army, that soon, one infantry man will be able to conrol one Square mile, in Heinlein's future one soldier can patrol hundreds of miles. All this is an effort to waste less lives and make the military more effiecient, and despite what we see on the news and what we hear about Vietnam, this is working, the lives lost in Vietnam by American Soldiers were less compared to WWII, and the lives lost in Iraq now are less compared to Vietnam, this is not to mean that losing any lives is a good thing (nor does Heinlein make that seem to be) but as technology is advancing and we learn to harness it, war for Americans is overall becoming a more effiecient enterprise. Yet this is not what we see depicted in Veerhoven's future...here the soldiers walk around in unprotected groups with no air support and get chewed to pieces with sub satisfactory weapons, the army wears Nazi style uniforms and tricks people into signing up and doesn't care if they die or not. Why did he change it to be this way? Well, the overall view of the military in Hollywood's politics has been generally negative over the past 15 years and has also held a view of America as being overly imperialistic...in Heinlein's time though, there was a very real threat of spreading communism, and if you don't think that was that bad, you haven't read very much uncensored Soviet History, after you do you may wonder how valuable freedom really is and what cost its worth to keep it...Stalin and Zedong my be two of the most evil men in all of history but you rarely ever hear about it, Vietnam was an awful tragedy but it did accomplish one thing, it told the communists that there was someone who was not going to roll over for them and let them spread across the world. But for Veerhoven, the idea was to show that soldiers could be brave, but the military as a whole is foolhardy, wasteful and needlessly cruel for apparently no good reason.
But now I move on to the DaVinci Code where I saw an Adaptation that swung in a completely opposite direction. Dan Brown's novel pulled no punches in its attack on the Catholic Church and Christian belief in general, the movie however made several moves to soften its message for potentially Christian viewers, I think this shows incredible business sense on the part of Hollywood. Ever since the Omega Code, The Passion of the Christ, and the last two elections, the big heads in Hollywood have realized that the majority of Americans are not card carrying members of the ACLU, they're actually consevatives, agree with them or not. So anyway, I was very surprised that the Robert Langdon character was not so sure of himself and whether or not he actually believed in Jesus' divinity, there's even a part where Langdon explains that there was a time in his life that he prayed to Jesus and felt his presence (this was the creation of Langdon's claustrophobia, a characteristic also not found in the book). In fact, instead of being Leigh Teabing's lapdog as in the novel, Langdon and Teabing argue intensely about topics as opposed to always being in agreement. Additionally the film made the smart move to either downplay many of Brown's absolutely retarded "facts" or at least portray them as merely ideas. This probably not being so much of a filter or swing as being a necessity to not insult any members of the audience with half a clue about actual history.
But to get to the point, whenever a book comes to the screen it will not come through unmolested. Even The Lord of the Rings, one of the most faithful adaptations in spirit to come along in a long time had huge parts altered or removed entirely just to fit the films into a 7-9 hour (!) span.
Oh, and my thoughts on DaVinci Code as a film...not bad at all, Tom Hanks and Paul Bettany do a great job, it was a little long but not nearly as bad as those snobs over at Cannes would lead you to believe, check it out, just make sure and read some real history books afterwards so you don't play Jeopardy or Trivial pursuit with friends later and make a damn fool of yourself!
posted by Twenty One Productions at 3:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home