 |
| Screenshot from 'Castle in the Sky' (1986) Dir. Hayao Miyazaki |
I came up with a few reasons.
1. Visual effects don't match our imaginations.
Our imaginations are the greatest blessings when it comes to reading fantasy. An author can write a few great lines and instantly entire worlds populate our minds. But having someone make it in a computer is not always the same. Even Lord of the Rings, which are films I love, do not match up to the descriptions that Tolkien wrote.
2. Source material is 'unfilmable'.
A big excuse as to why books cannot be turned into movies is that they are said to be unfilmable. I'm not saying that every book should be turned into a film, I just think that it is not the case with every fantasy novel that is described that way. Think of A Song of Ice and Fire, which was described as unfilmable. And now we have one of the biggest television shows of all time that are bringing new people to the genre in their masses. Why not take a chance and have a go at a Wheel of Time television show? Or maybe
3. Misunderstanding or abuse of the source material.
Now this one is particularly personal. I love Northern Lights and The Subtle Knife by Philip Pullman (The Amber Spyglass was very disappointing). As a kid, I lapped these two up. I laughed, I cried, I was genuinely moved. So when I heard they were making a film, I was buzzing. And then The Golden Compass happened.
In the book, information about the daemons is revealed to us slowly and mysteriously, hooking our interest and engaging us. In the film, we get narration in the opening minutes explaining everything. Surely we can get this through visuals and dialogue later in the film? It takes away the sense of wonder. The Magisterium, who are again mysterious in the books, are set up to be front and centre villains for the film. Finally, we have the ending. Or should I say, not ending. SPOILERS FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T READ NORTHERN LIGHTS. At the end of the book, it ends on a beautifully sad note. Lord Asriel, Lyra's father, who she has spent most of the book trying to save, kills her friend Roger by severing him from his daemon. It's shocking, it's powerful and it's a great piece of storytelling. In the film, they didn't even have the balls to show it.
I don't see why fantasy hasn't caught the imagination of filmmakers more. The chance to show people something amazing, like they've never seen before. It doesn't always work, but when it does, it's magical.
At the end of the day, we always have our books. And who needs them to be made into films. Maybe we should push for original fantasy stories to be made for film, without needing to be books first.
On a more positive note, here are some fantasy movies I love:
The Princess Bride (1987) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JGp7Meg42U
Willow (1988), I know it's cheesy, but I love it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-P03NGSP6Y
Lord of the Rings trilogy, but specifically The Two Towers (2002)
and most of the films by Hayao Miyazaki. My particular favourites are Castle in the Sky (1986) or Howl's Moving Castle (2004). I guess I just love castles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=229K5n_PRJA - theme from Castle in the Sky. A truly beautiful piece of music.
What are fantasy movies that you love? They don't have to be based on books, just great fantasy. Are they genuinely good? Or are they just guilty pleasures? Then again, is there such a thing as a guilty pleasure? If the film does a job of entertain, then surely it's done it's job.
I think I may go and watch The Princess Bride now.
Read David's book on fantasy films. I finished it last week. Might answer some of your questions especially about faithful adaptations of fantasy in film. It focuses particularly on the 70s but also reflects on why this might be today. In the case of The Golden Compass he suggests it was because of the studio. The Magisterium was changed from being a critique on Catholicism in order to prevent its audience from being marginalised.
ReplyDeleteAway from David's book though I don't think fantasy is a completely dead genre, it's fantasy adaptations that have the most trouble; stories that are 'unfilmable'. But if you look at original works, especially films by the likes of Guillermo Del Toro, it's easy to see how fantasy can flourish in the cinema. Film, whilst perhaps detracting from the written elements of a book, provide the depth of visual imagery; the complete immersion into a world such as in 'The Dark Crystal' which totally creates its own palpable universe which is key to fantasy. Whilst the world doesn't function as ours does, it must function in a way that we understand. Which is also a reason why nobody will ever make true fantasy as it has to be in a form that we can't really comprehend as having any sort of relationship to our own. Unfortunately, complete escapism is impossible. I totally agree with what you say about fantasy adaptation though and I'll lend you that book when we get back to uni.
Excellent. And I know there are original fantasy films, like Del Toro, but just not as much as there are books, which is confusing as it is obviously popular. Like when did the last Fantasy fantasy film come out? That Seventh Son one which was dire is what springs to mind...
DeleteThe Hobbit films? I agree that it's far from a popular genre at the moment which is sad and I think that has something to do with modern horror films and the overall desire for realism that modern audiences want in their fantasy. Luckily though, Crimson Peak is coming out soon and so is Victor Frankenstein which might set the balance back by bringing some well-needed Gothic horror which tends more towards fantasy filmmaking tendencies even though its not strictly within the genre of 'fantasy'.
Delete*relationship to our own world.
ReplyDelete