So is To Kill a Mockingbird a mediocre book or a mediocre film?
Mal: Can I come in? Inara: No. Mal: See? That's why I usually don't ask.
'Our Mrs. Reynolds'
Literary Buffistas 3: Don't Parse the Blurb, Dear.
There's more to life than watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer! No. Really, there is! Honestly! Here's a place for Buffistas to come and discuss what it is they're reading, their favorite authors and poets. "Geez. Crack a book sometime."
Tom Scola - Mar 13, 2008 9:41:18 am PDT #5208 of 28344
Remember that the frontier of the Rebellion is everywhere. And even the smallest act of insurrection pushes our lines forward.
amych - Mar 13, 2008 9:42:08 am PDT #5209 of 28344
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
Discuss!
Hmm... how 'bout, prof is an overgeneralizing tool who's way too easily impressed by his own rhetorical tricks?
a.k.a. "the plural of chiasmus is not data"
lisah - Mar 13, 2008 10:01:53 am PDT #5210 of 28344
Punishingly Intricate
I think some of the Jane Austen books and movies would disprove that right out.
Were there any good film adaptations of Austen books before 1990?
Even so:
So is To Kill a Mockingbird a mediocre book or a mediocre film?
Kind of proves professor was a generalizing ass.
Nutty - Mar 13, 2008 10:11:04 am PDT #5211 of 28344
"Mister Spock is on his fanny, sir. Reports heavy damage."
I read a whole book on the topic, several years ago, and the classic example disproving that thesis is The French Lieutenant's Woman, which is a film arty enough that it can't even be shot down on snooty anti-populist grounds. (The book also brought up whether Apocalypse Now is really an adaptation of Heart of Darkness, and if it is, whether it's a successful one, and in the process what "successful adaptation" means.)
meara - Mar 13, 2008 10:50:32 am PDT #5212 of 28344
Ooh, let me know if the nuns book is good, Susan--that sounds interesting.
Gris - Mar 13, 2008 11:03:17 am PDT #5213 of 28344
Hey. New board.
And Breakfast at Tiffany's - mediocre book, mediocre movie, or mediocre both? (Personally, I think it is a very good book and a very good movie. "Great" may be a word reserved for things that are less fun. At least that's how I've always seen it interpreted.)
Dana - Mar 13, 2008 11:04:09 am PDT #5214 of 28344
I'm terrifically busy with my ennui.
If nothing else, Breakfast at Tiffany's is prevented from being great by the horrible racial caricature. But I do love the rest of the movie.
Susan W. - Mar 13, 2008 11:17:12 am PDT #5215 of 28344
Good Trouble and Righteous Fights
Ooh, let me know if the nuns book is good, Susan--that sounds interesting.
I will. I can't even remember where I heard about it, a review, a blog comment, or what, but the title pinged my inner historian.
Fred Pete - Mar 13, 2008 11:17:25 am PDT #5216 of 28344
Ann, that's a ferret.
Were there any good film adaptations of Austen books before 1990?
Laurence Olivier played Mr. Darcy in a 1940 version of Pride and Prejudice. Which won an Oscar for Art Direction. So even though I haven't seen it, I can't dismiss it out of hand.
I'll go so far as to say that different qualities make a good book as opposed to a good movie. For example, a book can take a dozen pages to perform blatant exposition without it necessarily being a fault. A movie taking 10 minutes, less so.
Susan W. - Mar 13, 2008 11:22:35 am PDT #5217 of 28344
Good Trouble and Righteous Fights
Laurence Olivier played Mr. Darcy in a 1940 version of Pride and Prejudice. Which won an Oscar for Art Direction. So even though I haven't seen it, I can't dismiss it out of hand.
It gets mixed reviews. It tends to appall Austen purists because the costumes are Victorian and Lady Catherine de Burgh is defanged, but there are those who love it, too. I fall on the purist side of the fence, but that may be at least partly because I saw the Firth/Ehle version first and just can't imagine P&P being done better.
The Risky Regencies blog discussed the Oliver adaptation here: [link]