Books and Movies. Movie and Books

Books and Movies. Movies and Books

     Recently the movie Brooklyn came out, based on the book by author Colm Tóibín. You may remember the book as that thing you got over the summer before freshmen year and never read....well I read it. I read it because I like to read, and you know what? It wasn't that bad! Until you got to the ending and then it was just plain terrible. It tricked me into thinking it wasn't a shitty book, but oh...it was a shitty book. On the popular website A.V. Club they gave Brooklyn (the movie) an A-! An A- is a pretty good grade for a movie on A.V. Club, and the author just spoons it loads of praise, it's actually sickening to read. Will I see the movie now? Probably not. Is it really as good as they say? Could vert well be. The reason I bring this all up is because I wanted talk briefly about the sin in Hollywood of turing books into movies. And that may not apply to Brooklyn, but just seeing it brings this idea to mind. 

     Today (and yesterday) in a world of 100% unoriginal ideas it has come to the attention of Hollywood scriptwriters everywhere that the easiest way to make a quick buck is to make an "adaptation" of a movie. The stories already written, tried and tested, so why the hell not? 

     

     You've heard the term "Oh well the movie wasn't as good as the book" in every way possible and at this point it comes across as arrogant to the process of filmmaking and storytelling. That's because it's unfair to do so; movies and books are different and shouldn't be compared to one another. My quarrel isn't with the fact that the books are usually better than the movies, which they are, my quarrel is in the fact that today adaptations have become the staple of Hollywood cinema to the point where I just have to say "Hollywood, take a break." 

     I think there's a lot of good adaptation that will (and have) come out this year, The Reverant, Me, Earl, and the Dying Girl, but there;'s also been a lot of bad. And my biggest pete peeve is when they take a short book and make it into three movie to take the poor suckers money who goes to see them. I would love to go into a case study about this but I'm honestly just exhausted of thinking sbout the state of Hollywood Cinema today so I'll quit while I still have some form of judgement about me. Not my finest blog post, but not my worst. 

     

     

To be continued

Hey guys. Very excited for tonights screenings. If you get a chance, come a little bit early. I was fortunate enough to DP a thesis film being screened before ours titled "The Call", directed by Sarah Furie.


My final post is gonna be about a film I watched for one of my missed blog posts (ironic, eh?). Last night I watched Fahrenheit 451, a movie that was trippy as hell, to be quite frank. The movie catches your attention right off the bat with the intro credits done as voice over, something I've never heard of before, over flashing neon images. This immediately drew me in. I thought that something like that was extremely innovative and creative especially for a movie done in the 60's.

On that note, I also thought the movie was very before its time. The twisted, dark sense that you get in the first few minutes gave me a very Clockwork Orange kind of vibe; one that seems extremely risque for its time. The cinematography and set design was also very stunning for such an old movie.

Overall I felt that Fahrenheit 451 was a very good movie. It starts off in a way that really throws you off and, at times, turns you off from the movie. But if you stick with how strange it seems at first you realize it is in fact a great film. 4 stars.

Have a good finals/break everyone! Good luck to all you who are off to LA.

-Nick

The Hunger Games, and Kevin

First off, condolences to Kevin Michael's family. Kevin was a real asset to the Park School, and the fact that he's gone leaves a gaping hole in the Ithaca College community as a whole. He will be missed.

Of course, we've got to move on from tragedy. So let's talk Hunger Games; which, I suppose, isn't really any better. That's not a stab against the movie -- from the trailer, it looks great -- but the story, if you don't know, isn't the happiest-go-luckiest of the bunch.

Quick summary: Post-apocalyptic world. In the nation of Panem -- which was once the US -- a government punishes their people for past protests in a televised annual event called The Hunger Games, where one boy and one girl from each "district" is called to fight to the death. The winner will bring their district prizes and live in luxury. Katniss Everdeen, a sixteen year old girl from the impoverished District 12, is called to play in the games; but she has other ideas for the Games and the government of Panem.

It's not often that I rave about how good a film adaptation of a book looks; but watching the trailer, I was drooling. When I read the books this summer, I had a vivid idea of how the sets would look, how the characters acted, how they fought, the music, etc. Everything in this trailer is exactly how I expected it, except for the actors. They look a little too clean and pretty for poor and oppressed citizens living in the slums and woods. But that's Hollywood; and to be honest, everything else about this movie so far has overshadowed that one little thing.

What's most impressive about this movie is how natural everything looks for a movie that's so unnatural. Maybe it's the rapid fire nature of the trailer, but nothing looked artificial or choppy; the makers of this film really devoted their time and energy into making every detail exactly right, and it shows. Watching the trailer immersed me in this universe. It's something amazing when a trailer can do that.

The movie comes out on my 21st birthday, so I might have to miss opening night for "celebration" and "good decisions." But I predict that The Hunger Games will be the movie event of 2012. What? Twilight? Get that weak mess out of here. Katniss Everdeen will kick Bella's pregnant ass around the block this way and that way. Like, you don't even know.