What are some film adaptations of books that are on par with the works they're adapted from? They don't have to be one-to-one adaptations. They can be fairly loosely related. They just have to be good.
>>8209814
Tin Drum was a shit of a movie.
I haven't read the book but wow that movie was awful.
>>8209878
Studied film and literature. Seen it. Disagree strongly.
Apocalypse Now
Dune
>>8209928
No amount of reading and watching can give you good tastes. As a film it had one good scene, one powerful image: the horse head as eel trap. Beyond that it was just derivative crap, Maria had potential though.
As for adaptions that live up to their source, or even exceed it:
Murnau's Faust
The Killers (1946)
The Saragossa Manuscript
Chimes at Midnight
Othello
Macbeth
遊戯王 the Movie
Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast
l'homme Vert Incroyable (2003)
>>8209928
I think most people with taste feel the same way. After all, it did receive the Palme d'Or alongside Apocalypse Now.
>>8210014
>No amount of reading and watching can give you good tastes
literally only people who haven't read or watched much say this
>>8210014
>遊戯王 the movie
did you think I wouldn't google that?
You have shitty hipster taste "遊戯王 the Movie" notwithstanding anyway
I'd recommend these
>Time Regained - Ruiz
>Ganashatru (An Enemy of the People) - Ray
>Satyricon - Fellini
>Solaris -Tarkovsky
>Romeo + Juliet - Luhrman
>River of Fundament (Ancient Evenings and others) - Barney (deeply flawed)
Mediocre or bad but fun for fans of the book
>Inherent Vice - Anderson
>The Luzhin Defence - Gorris
>Finnegan's Wake - Bute
>The Great Gatsby - Luhrman
>Soviet adaptations of Golden Age Russian novels in general
Awful
>Kubrick's adaptations
>James Franco's recent bullshit
>>8210070
>River of Fundament (Ancient Evenings and others) - Barney (deeply flawed)
too contemporary for you?
>>8210075
Barney isn't a good filmmaker. Cremaster had some exceptional visuals but was basically trash. River of Fundament was dramatically better but still very, very flawed.
>Watching movies and TV is for plebs; it rots your brain
>Reading novels is for patricians; it's gentlemanly and learned
Is there any truth to this meme? (And if so, then what of audiobooks?)
Is the distaste for "merely watching TV/Movies" simply a modern development; a reaction of the disgust reflex against the media addiction that goes hand-in-hand with (and arguably supports) our objectively measurable intellectual and social development? After all, given the choice of reading a novel and watching a film with the same content, most will opt for the film if only because it will take a fraction of the time and energy.
Aren't reading and "watching" both just passively absorbing narratives? On what grounds can we put one on a pedestal and the other in the gutter? Because reading is less efficient it's "better"?
And if we accept that reading is "mere consumption" as well, isn't the critical fault-line actually that between creating new ideas and passively absorbing existing ideas?
fight club
>>8210088
it was the documentation of one-off live acts so i think the visuals can be excused since they weren't really the point, neither is it the point of film to have them
>>8210070
>shitty hipster taste
I listed very well known movies, about as well known as The Tin Drum.
If you think any of the movies I've listed are less than their source material then good luck to you. You're just proving my point.
>>8210097
>Is there any truth to this meme?
no. the film/tv canon is way smaller than the literature one, but that's a function of how much time it has been available.
>On what grounds can we put one on a pedestal and the other in the gutter? Because reading is less efficient it's "better"?
yes, the fact that most people read very slowly and don't have a large vocabulary gives literature the feeling that it's for intellectuals.
don't worry too much about it.
>>8210014
hey, manuscript found in saragossa, have you read that book? how do they deal with the wandering jew in the film?
>>8210106
I think you misunderstand. What I'm saying is that Barney is outstanding as a visual artist, but not as a filmmaker. If the "visuals can be excused since they weren't really the point, neither is it the point of film to have them", then why make a film? River of Fundament was originally supposed to be an art series including an opera, and it should have stayed that way, because that's the kind of medium that MB is capable of doing well with. Not cinema.
>>8210125
Films that people who know film would have heard of, yes, but not that cinema-plebs would have heard of. That's the bedrock of hipster-dom: grazing the surface of obscurity (but not actually demonstrating any good taste at all)
no comment on the fact that you listed the yugioh movie in there? in case it wasn't clear, I'm calling you out on that.
>>8210169
You asked for movies that were as good as their source materials. The Yugioh Movie is about as good as the manga. Notice I also included Ang Lee's Incredible Hulk but you've glossed over that/ignored that because you probably just assumed it's something you haven't yet seen. That didn't stop you from making claims about my selections...without even fully knowing what they all were.
You added Romeo + Juliet and Barney as if it would show opposite ends of the spectrum; that you're considerate enough to never disregard a film because of its popularity but also that you're deeply knowledgeable about the depths of obscure cinema. I hate to break this to you but Barney is the surface of obscurity. It'd be like name dropping Anger or Brakhage at this point. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you actually saw Cremaster as it was meant to be presented and not just on youtube/vimeo, which is a start. Unless you're attending Ann Arbor, getting 'Illegal Art' series dvds, seeing Japanese undergrad/grad super 8mm color work and animations, finding all the russian necrorealism you can without enjoying any of it, and a whole slew of other shit that will take up all your time then you're still just on the surface of obscurity yourself. But a film being 'on the surface' doesn't make it bad. So I don't see how anything you've said is a statement about taste.
>>8210169
>then why make a film?
because it's not 'the point of film to have [good visuals]'. film has a documentary aspect to it as well other than cinematographic
>>8210227
I don't consider current avant-garde film to be surface obscurity. Surface obscurity is Murnau, other 'weird'-tier silent films, mainstream and generic Shakespeare adaptations, etc. I'll concede that Matthew Barney might be a pretentious choice (a point that you did not make), but he's not hipstery or surface-obscure, nor is he like Brakhage, who has developed mainstream reputation. Anyways, there's nothing inherently wrong with things that are on the surface obscurity, but there is something wrong with having the kind of taste of which those surface-obscure picks are symptoms. Based on the rest of what you said, it's clear to me that you're sincerely well-versed in film and are not a hipster, but I have to maintain that your list was absolute bullshit (and your point about Yugioh is totally pedantic).
>>8210234
you, like Barney, don't have a comprehensive understanding of film, and need to stop trying to talk about this.
>>8210070
>>Kubrick's adaptations
Wut?
>>8210451
His Lolita was brutal, a total bastardization and not even a decent movie. Everything else I've seen I found entertaining but totally hollow.
>>8209814
I've just read the wikipedia summary of Die Blechtrommel and wow that sounded really, really bad. Like 'uh, Nazis are so stupid and evil' and 'three year olds with magical powers having sex' bad
>>8210778
it's a great book and considered one of (if not )the most important pieces of German literature after WWII.
>>8210484
Gotta admit Sue Lyon was fine as hell though.
>>8210778
>nazis r so cool xd (im not like the other kids)!
Back to /b/ with you, child. Return in a few years when you're ready to sit at the grown-up table.
>>8210347
Barney is not an emerging artist so I am not sure how current we can consider him. In fact, I do not believe he even really recognized as avant-garde by 'that' community. Partly because he is too rich, well-known, and married to or was married to a celebrity. People who know a little bit about weird films, I'd say just a half step beyond knowing about Gaspar Noe or someone like that, would know Barney. They may not have seen Cremaster, but according to a buddy of mine who went to a presentation by Barney, the room was way packed. Even /tv/ has mentioned him quite a bit.
I'd hardly call Welles' adaptions generic. Have you seen any of them? They're insanity. Moreso than Cremaster.
>>8211210
Is that really true? I wasn't aware. Still, he's no hipster darling at least.
I assumed you were talking about Polanski's Macbeth for some reason. But honestly– and this may be a bit rash– I would say that any Shakespeare adaptation that adheres totally to the original ideas of the play is generic. It should introduce some kind of outside element or insight, at the very least maybe a change of setting a la Romeo + Juliet, or bare minimum it should introduce a popular counter-perspective to the conventional Elizabethan one like that Merchant of Venice adaptation with Al Pacino. Welles brought the play to the screen, and did a damn good job of it, but in my view didn't add much. Literally just put it on film with great production.
p.s.
Some of Kurosawa's films are adapted from lit and needless to say they're all also fantastic
>Rashomon
>Kagemusha
etc.
>>8210070
>Lurhman - Romeo and Juliet
That was such a horrible adaptation, I literally laughed at the death scene of r&j
>>8209814
The Woman In The Dunes is a pretty close adaptation and it's fantastic.
>>8210070
Solaris was the only Tarkovsky movie I didn't like
>>8210014
Roman Polanski's Macbeth is the best film adaptation of Shakespeare even if it isn't the most faithful to the source material.
Bloom is right though, nothing is better than reading the plays.
>>8211498
>adheres totally to the original ideas of the play is generic etc.
Really, really urge you to keep this opinion to yourself in the future. You'll give away the fact you're about as receptive to acting nuance as a tree.
>>8211637
Never cared about acting, and in fact I have a lot of disdain for actors that comes from years of studying drama as a literature student alongside theatre students.
The first and only time I ever saw acting in a film that impressed me was in Kagemusha, particularly in the scene(s) when the knave was learning how to convincingly pose as the king. Of course this is an example of a film where the process of acting is literally shown and dissected on the screen in front of you. Shortly afterwards it dawned on me that I am unbelievably dense in this area.
I'm just gonna come right out and say it. The Hunger Games. I enjoyed both the books and the movies, I think the latter of which did a great job bringing to life the feelings and story while also adding its own flair without changing too much.
>>8211786
Get out
Is the "The Name of the Rose" movie good when compared to the book?
I really enjoyed themovie
>>8211786
May I add, yes, I actually enjoyed such unholy mainstream garbage. I don't really give a shit. I never claimed either the book or film were profound works of art, but I believe the OP called for film adaptations on-par with their source. Maybe both forms of The Hunger Games were mediocre or even bad for you intellectually gifted gods of culture, but I think it's rare for a mediocre, mainstream YA book to inspire a movie that doesn't suck hilariously bigger balls than the book.
>>8210097
Stop reading for plot, you pitiful pleb.
>>8211196
That's neither what I said nor implied. Im just annoyed that everyone (especially the German writers) go out of their way to include at least one scene to show how purely evil and inhuman Nazis were (in the case of this book the nuns on the beach). That's just unnecessary laughable, comical evil.
You are a overtly sensitive retard on a crusade against a pol boogieman.
