Ink to Images

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Monday, October 17, 2011

Movie Poster to Book Contest!

So, lately I've been feeling like this has been a one way street with very little resistance/comments from my readers. Earlier in my posting history, I did a blog post comparing two movie posters to their counterpart book covers and I really enjoyed the dynamic and responses from readers there!

So I'm going to do something similar once again. I've included side by side examples of book covers and movie posters below for you guys to check out and vote on. In the comments section vote on which you guys enjoyed more, the cover or the poster!

I'll post the results in next week's blog post!

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Hollywood Can't Touch This ... Part 2!

3 Reasons ~~Rye~~ WHY Hollywood Should Never Adapt Catcher In The Rye

1) Narrative Voice with Images? Um ...
Yup, this novel has one of the strongest narrative voices in literature ... to this day! Probably the reason as to why it's really personally affected so many readers. Holden captivates us. He connects with us through his commentary on the world. This is the sole aspect as to why this book is such a strong connective piece of literature. I'm not sure how you translate a protagonists narrative voice on to the screen. Unless of course, you use use narration, which would just be boring and unaffective throughout the ENTIRE film!

2) Who deserves it?
A tale with this much of a following, with this much of a reputation and with such a strong presence in the literary world needs to be handled delicately. Chances are, if this novel were ever to be turned in to a
Should be given to someone who really understands the text, who has a connection to it. Who wants to make this because they truly are the closest to J.D. Salinger and his themes as a person. Someone who has a personal vested interest in making it.

3) Stay True to The Book
Very few things in this world are cherished for what they are, and just that. We're never okay with leaving well enough alone for the sake of well, leaving it alone. When things are great, humans are naturally inclined to try and make them even greater. Isn't that what we're trying to do with Catcher In The Rye? I mean this book sells hundreds of thousands of copies, yearly. To this day! Imagine how much money it would make in theaters?! Literally everyone who has a high school education in the U.S. has heard about this novel. Imagine if only half of all those people went to see the movie? It would still be one of the highest grossing film in history!

So think about this - how about we keep this book ... a book that speaks about being true to yourself and who you are, just the way it is. Let's stick to what Holden would have wanted and keep a work of literature that preaches the importance of staying true to who you are, the way it is. Let's stay true to what Catcher in the Rye is. A telling, beautiful work of narrative fiction that should only ever exist in one form. The form of a book.

Be sure to comment below and list YOUR 3 reasons as to WHY or WHY NOT Catcher in the Rye should or should not be adapted!

Friday, September 23, 2011

Can't Touch This! ... Hollywood and Catcher In The Rye

We've all read it, but no one has ever seen it! Which has sparked quite a bit of curiosity among Catcher In the Rye fans concerning the famous coming of age novel by J.D. Salinger. The all too frequently asked question is, what if?!

So, what if the famous novel was adapted into a film?

THE HISTORY

Prior to penning his novel Catcher In The Rye, J.D. Salinger gave several film producers permission to adapt some of his stories for the big screen. Once Salinger saw what the adaptation process had done to his prescious stories he vowed never to let his work fall in the all too molding hands of Hollywood, ever again. And he meant it. After Catcher In The Rye blew up, he was approached several times throughout the course of his life. Producers wanted the rights to his 200 some odd page, paperback goldmine.

They offered millions on numerous ocassions but Salinger would not budge. Long story short, Salinger took the wishes of Hollywood producers across the country to the grave with him. Well, he actually left the rights to his novel with his family. But, long story short, following in the footsteps of all his all too self reflecting protagonist Holden, J.D. Salinger didn't want his treasured coming of age story morphed and misinterpeted by the movies. The business of phonies and fakes.

A young J.D. Salinger

Now that we got past all the boring backstory stuff, we want to hear from you - with such strong resistance from the J.D. Salinger and with such a reputation, following and controversial resistance/push from followers, do you believe this novel should be adapted in to a film?

Before you comment, remember, it's not a matter of will it. It's a matter of when. Salinger is deceased, which means after 70 some odd years, his work, Catcher In The Rye falls into the public domain. Yup, that means anyone can get their hands on it. Is it better that way? Should it be adapted now or should this tale be perserved for as long as possible?

Stay tuned for next week's post when I come back with the three major reasons why I believe Catcher In The Rye SHOULD NOT be adapted in to a film. But first tell me what you think, and I'll be sure to include your thoughts and comments in next week's post!

Friday, September 16, 2011

Water For Elephants: An Adaptation of Visuals

I've heard a lot of complaints concerning film adaptations of my friend's favorite novels. People have told me they didn't like what was placed in the film, what was left out of it, how the characters changed, blah, blah. However, one of the biggest complaints I often hear, is that the film wasn't how that person had imagined it in "their head." This is the one that interests me the most.

Now when I hear that, I tend to believe this: writers convey specific images to their readers via their style. Now, I'm not saying that everyone's thoughts are controlled by a specific writing style. Of course everyone imagines their favorite novels differently, but I'm a firm believer that if a writer's ability to paint an vivid picture for the reader is truly strong, the images imagined by readers are probably somewhat similar.

That's exactly what Sara Gruen does in her novel Water For Elephants. Without giving too much away, WFE follows the colorful circus life of veterinarian Jacob Jankowski as retold by his ninety three year old self. The tale is an in depth romantic look at Jacob's experience working in the glory days of the 1930's circus era in America. Gruen does a masterful job of painting a vivid and colorful image of 1930's circus life. So much so, that I shared the smell of animal dung, the sights of the glorious tent being pitched by hundreds of circus hands and just became fully engulfed in a magical world. Gruen does an incredible job of mastering the imagery of circus lifestyle and fully immersing her readers in Jacob's eyesight as a hopeful and enthralled young man.

With Gruen's imagery acting as such a predominant aspect of this novel, I was skeptical of the film adaptation when I first heard news of it. How could any director truly take Gruen's vivid depiction of circus life via her masterful imagery and really translate that beauty seamlessly to an actual image on screen, without disappointing readers? The same readers who were so captivated by such specific and detailed visuals.

Well, director Francis Lawrence did just that, and as a reader I truly appreciate that he took the time and consideration to pay attention to such a dominant theme in Gruen's writing style when adapting her film to screen. The cinematography in Water For Elephants is beautiful (as you can see samples of in the trailer posted above). The cinematographer, Rodrigo Pietro (the guy who's responsible for the look and feel of the film, acting as the director's partner in this task) does a masterful job painting a canvas that depicts Gruen's writing style.

She paints the circus as a magical world filled with mystery and fun (an obvious metaphor for Jacob's view of the circus as a savior in his dreary life), allowing it to come to life for the readers via written word. Francis Lawrence (a perfect fit for this specific directing job) and his cinematographer Rodrigo Pietro, lay out a canvas of beautiful color, shots, angles and composition that, in my opinion perfectly capture the magical and fairytale essence of Gruen's circus world, created with just words.

One would think that if a director adapts a novel with strong imagery he or she would have an easier time bringing that specific image to life on screen. But in my opinion that's not the case at all. With more to grasp, include and accurately capture, the director truly needs to match that style to the point where it really matches and possibly even adds to the theme of the imagery presented in the novel.

And by that, what I mean is, if you were asked to draw a straight line you'd be able to. Everyone would look at your straight line and have no problem with it, because there's not much a you'd be able to do that would stray from the general description of a straight line. But if someone asked you to draw something a lot more specific, to match a certain style or a mold, well you'd have to really focus on how to accurately bring that image to life. That's exactly what went on here. I have other strong opinions concerning the overall adaptation but when it came to this specific aspect, I was thrilled with how masterfully Lawrence and Pietro handled it. Lawrence has a specific visual niche that he's stamped on other films, that has to do with fairytale, magical images so I'm not at all surpised he was able to pull off and bring to life, the magical world Gruen painted for her readers.

Thanks Hollywood. There certainly is hope for a decent adaptation. At least when it comes to the visuals ...

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Introduction: Ink to Images ... and Everything In Between

Love movies? Love novels? Love novels that eventually become movies?! We do too! Well sometimes, but what we do love is everything in between. That's right, we're talking about all the juicy stuff that goes on when Hollywood rips up you're favorite books and churns out an on screen adaptation. And that's what we're going to be doing here on Ink to Images; tearing apart, critiquing, analyzing and saying all the things you wanted to shout at the movie screen (good and bad of course!) when you experienced your favorite novels in cinematic form!

We're here to provide both a strong voice on the transition from novel to film. We want to speak not for Hollywood and not for the publishers or the writers of your favorite novels. We're here to speak for you, and voice an opinion on changes that should have been made to the film versions of your favorite novels as well as what could have been handled differently, left out, or placed back in the films.

So we only thought it would be fitting to start the first post of a new blog with a little feature on the first artistic print of you're favorite book-turned movie. Yup, we're talking about movie posters/book covers!

Let's see how one cover from a popular book-turned movie stacked up against it's movie poster counterpart!

1. The Secret Life of Bees
Novel by Sue Monk Kidd
Film written and directed by Gina Prince-Bythewood
______________________________________________________________
Book Cover Movie Poster

The Cover vs. The Poster
Don't judge a movie by it's poster? Nope. That's exactly what Gina Prince-Bythewood wanted to do with this poster. She tells us exactly what we need to know about the movie. Which is that she essentially turned the novel into a generic romance film catered specifically to women.

The novel's cover contains so many key themes and motifs within the novel. Of course we wouldn't know that going into it, but that's not the point. After reading it, we understand the book cover's significance to the story; the bee jar, the Black Madonna and the bee are all key themes. In the poster, all we see is an an all star cast of women all starring back at us in generic poses that tell us nothing about the novel. Which is fitting because the movie really doesn't care to focus on any of them. Instead it masks them behind generic themes of romance and the bond's between woman. Which is exactly what the poster shows us, nothing deep or meaningful about the film, because, well there's nothing really deep or meaningful about the film when compared to the novel. In this case, even though we may not know it from start, the poster for the film and the cover of the book tell us all we need to know about the key difference between the novel and the book!

It's one thing to abandon key elements of a novel for the sake of an adaptation but to completely ignore deep and meaningful elements of a novel to market a movie, isn't the way to go in my opinion. Comment below, and tell us here at Ink to Images if you agree! Was The Secret Life of Bees cinematic adaptation bottomless and shallow when compared to it's deep and meaningful novel counterpart?

By Alex Lamburini