Film Adaptation: from paper to screen.

Novels are often adapted for films. However, they don't have as much quality as the originals (the reader plays with the imagination while the audience plays, basically, with images). It is not a matter of being better or worst: you're not limited reading the book while watching movie you are.

For your consideration, you must have some things in mind: If you like to write snappy dialogue and you're good at coming up with funny scenes, you might have a good chance of writing for situation comedies. If you have a strong story, then you should write a novel (but it's hard work, particulary if you juggle a day job, social and familial oblitation ect).

The main difference between a work and an adaptation is that the adaptation is reformatting a work already done.


It doesn't matter which one you're better at, if you don't want to write a bad screenplay, you must be careful with some things: define scenes and make them indicate who is in it, where is it and what's happening. Your story has to have a point, a reason (in other words a topic or genre) and, finally, once you know what your story is about, you need to know the characters that are going to be on it.

Mainly, there have been theatre adaptations. You can practically watch every play of the tweenty century (there are even different versions).For example, Eugene O'Neill (Long day's journey into night) or Arthur Miller (Death of Salesman).

Concerning to books, these are some of the best movie adaptations of all time (my point of view, of course):

THE MOST FAITHFUL

"A Clockwork orange"
YEAR: 1971

DIRECTOR: STANLEY KUBRICK

NOVEL: ANTHONY BURGESS

A powerful work about the nature of humanity, society and other moral themes. None of this is lost in translation to screen in Stanley Kubrick's film.

BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL

"Fight club"

YEAR: 1999

DIRECTOR: DAVID FINCHER

NOVEL: CHUCK PALAHNIUK

This movie had a huge impact on me: the way it looked, the performances and the Music. I liked the book, but I'd say I prefer the movie.

A MOST RECENT ONE

"Where the Wild things are"

YEAR: 2009

DIRECTOR: SPIKE JONZE

NOVEL: MAURICE SENDAK

This children's book is world wide known and it is really popular among kids because of its characters, the color and texture of the story. The film adaptation is, at least, as good as the book. [Arcade fire did an amazing job with the trailer--->]

And here are some of the worst adaptations (again, my point of view):


NOT SO BAD

"Stardust"

YEAR: 2007
DIRECTOR: MATHEW VAUGHN

NOVEL: NEIL GAIMAN
It is not a bad movie. It is an entertaning film that grows apart from it's soul; forgets what makes the book and original and crystalline fairytale.

A DIFFERENT STORY

"Stuart Little"
YEAR: 1999

DIRECTOR: ROB MINKOFF

NOVEL: E.B. WHITE
1945 classic about the little child who happens to be three inches tall and look like a mouse changes the message in the film adaptations, making it less deep and more familiar.




A FAILURE

"The Hours"
YEAR: 2002

DIRECTOR: STEPHEN DALDRY

NOVEL: MICHAEL CUNNINGHAM

Yeah, We get it: Nicole Kidman won an oscar (and so did Charlize Theron once they became "ugly"). However, while Themes repeat, echo, and get reversed, and the subtlety of his prose only strengthens the book's emotional impact in the novel, they lack of deepth in the film.

The evolution of Literature: Comics.

[Actually, the title should be the REvolution of Literature: comics offer a more dynamic way to tell a story]

By definition, comics is is an art form that features a series of static images in fixed sequence, usually to tell a story. Although the term implies otherwise, the subject matter in comic books is not necessarily humorous. In fact, it varies widely.

There are different genres such as Crime comics, Romance comics or Alternative comics but we are more familiar with the American comic books, closely associated with the superhero genre, and Manga, that usually refers to Japanese comics.

It is thought that comics had their origin back to the Egyptian period (hieroglyphics). However, it is also thought that comics originated from the first newspapers strips; Actually, collections of strips in the 1930's led to the name comic book. Still, its origins remains unknown.



To create a comic is, after all, to tell a story that comes from a subject which is developed in that story. In order to draw the pictures, the story must become a script where everything is detailed.

Any important comic writer knows that everyday things are importante to make a succesful comic: the readers must enpathize with the characters; they must understand them and even humanize them. But, at the end, comics usually have the unexpected factor: the main characters have something (or go through something) that makes them special, something that the reader would not have in real life but he or she would like to have (i.e: a superpower, so they could do things easily).

Sumarizing, you have to "give birth" to reliable characters but, at the same time, characters you would admire (or that have something you would admire).

A web page made a list with the Top 20 comic writers of all time: Alan Moore in the first place ( creator of "The Watchmen"), Stan Lee ("Spiderman" or "The x-men") and, closing the list, Mark Millar and Jim Starlin ("The Fantastic Four" or "Wolverine").



Comic books have had a great impact on society and, mainly, in minorities. This is really obvious with The X-men series: gay people, for example, in the 70's felt the same way the mutants did: none of them fit in Society. The X-men are a superhero team (created, as we've seen above, by Stan Lee). Their name comes from their special powers due to their possesion to "X-gene" that gives mutants their abilities. They're just a few (not a few, more like hundreds), so they are outcasts. Every power is different and not all of them have the same impact in the people that have them. Angel is a mutant that can fly but with the help of wings; Rogue can involuntarily absorbs and sometimes also removes the memories, physical strength, and (in the case of superpowered persons) the abilities of anyone she touches. She considers her powers a curse because prevented her from making any physical contact with others.



X-men can definitely be interpreted as an allegory for the LGBT community: Teenagers are afraid to tell their parents that they have power (are gay). Some parents accept them for who they are some disown their kids for who they are. In fact, one of the most acclaimed series of the X-men was Astonishing X-men (written by Joss Whedon, who I deeply admire). The story, (which serves as plot for the third statement of the X-men franchise), starts with the creation of a cure; a cure that would enable the murants to lost their abilities and become normal people (There's the whole talk of people [not only talking about the Church] trying to find/ talk abouting "curing" the gays). We could ask ourselves: What is it normal? Do we even know it? Does becoming normal involves losing your "power", the thing that makes you special (weather you wanted it or not)?


There are really few (actually) "gay" characters in comics, but in late years we can find some in the new series of X-men (like "Young x-men") and Apollo and Midnighter in "the Authority" (a must-read comic book; at least, Volume I).


Also, a classic, Superman, deals with Loneliness: the fact that Clark Kent is a misfit, the only one left from his planet and the only one in ours. "Earth one" is a new approach to Superman, a new series that redefine the superhero to introduce him to new generations (and in this new start, that you should totally read if you didn't!, we can see a much darker Clark in his teenage years*).

*Well, yes, maybe even we are late but new generations, younger (than us ;) ones, would totally enjoy these issues.

1 Entrada sobre películas y autores modernistas (Una visión general, más que particular y crítica).

2 La evolución de la literatura: el formato cómic---> Desde Superman, a los x-men y pasando por pequeñas joyas modernas.

3 Adaptaciones literarias: del papel a la pantalla.

4 La evolución de la literatura: Las series---> El avance del guión. Un estudio detallado sobre algunos genios del guión y sobre el cómo una serie permite el enriquecimiento de los personajes y permite su evolución, convirtiéndolos más en personas que en personajes.

5 La evolución de la literatura: El mundo cibernético---> Un pequeño análisis de la literatura cibernéticas: blogs, chats, foros y páginas web, así como la interactividad que presentan frente a otros formatos más tradicionales (Post posiblemente opuesto a alguno que haga Esther defendiendo la lectura más tradicional)

6 Posible post analizando el femenismo a través de "Buffy cazavampiros".

Yay!

Hace mucho tiempo solía ser un habitual de la blogsfera pero la vida y mis 70 años hacen que a uno le cueste seguir haciendo lo que, antes, hacía con tanta facilidad.

Seriously! I'm back! xDDD