RE: Jack Jr.'s section: I subscribe to the NYT, and will say as well that from my perspective, with all the caveats about ignoring large swaths of the content, as a whole the Sunday New York Times is one of the most cost-effective pleasures on the planet. RE: Jack III's - I wasn't aware of the subject of your thesis - I'm curious given that as to your assessment of Scorcese's movie Silence.
I actually haven't seen Silence, mostly because I know it would be emotionally draining to watch. I've read Endo's book twice, though, and it is one of the best works of fiction of the 20th century, though I think a lot of people misunderstand the ending! I think, favorite uncle, that I may need to steel myself and watch Silence because of this comment.
Also an NYT subscriber. I'll add David French to the list of columnists I don't always agree with but go out of my way to read.
For what it's worth, progressives have their share of complaints about the paper, too. In an increasingly fragmented media landscape where everyone can find someone saying (or more likely, shouting) what they wanted to hear anyway, I still generally think NYT deserves to be the newspaper of record.
I will also say that, by and large, their reporting is pretty good. But I think what really matters is, as you say, at least we all get to be angry together.
Thanks for the recommendations! I’ve seen the trailer and it looks compelling if not simply well-made.
My two-part question to you (with zero arrows pointed or inferred, as I’m legitimately curious): being a well-read person who more often than not has major issues with visual art (movies/shows) created from the original written works, what series or movie has done the best to stay true to the original text? Secondly, what would your process for creating a great series from a book be? How would you balance original text vs what makes sense or remains appealing on a screen? As an example, if you were creating a Silmarillion series, how would you do it better than those attempting it now?
I realize you're directing this comment at Jack III, but I have a couple of reactions. First, I don't know that there can be a standard approach for creating a film from a book. There are things you can't replicate, or at least that no one has learned how to replicate yet, so "being true to the book" has fundamental challenges. One example of what I mean - there have been many film versions of Dickens' Christmas Carol. I think the best one is A Muppet Christmas Carol. It's true to the book in some very specific senses, but obviously you would never treat it seriously as a "faithful rendition" of the book.
Another example in a different way - the John Wayne version of True Grit takes the book as a jumping off point. It is an excellent movie, but is in no way faithful to Portis's book. The Coen brothers, who loved the book and wanted to make a more faithful rendition of it, created the version with Jeff Bridges that came out some years ago. It succeeds, though it's not necessarily a better movie, largely because it does one thing well - zero in on Maddie (the young girl who, as an old woman, is narrating) and her relationship with Rooster Cogburn, the Jeff Bridges character. That relationship is the heart of the book and of the movie, and so they're well-aligned. Maybe the requirement for a successful film version of a great book is that the fundamental dynamic of the book is simple rather than complex.
That’s really great Jack (Jr), I appreciate your perspective on this. Yes, the question was directed more at Jack III but I stopped short of specifying in the hopes you might weigh in as well. I agree the more complex the book the more challenging it is to please readers in the theater. Jack III and I have discussed in the past and I’ve admitted to being easier to please as a reader/viewer because I am okay with separating the two approaches and doing my best to appreciate each in their own format. A great movie based off a book can still be great even if it requires some finagling to the details (A Muppet Christmas Carol was a great reference), as long as it stays true to the heart of the story. I do think proper care should be taken to protect the foundational intentions of the author in all cases as proper stewardship. This approach seems to be more challenging for Jack III, as he (you as you’re reading me having a conversation about you on your own platform) has seemingly more strictly held principles when it comes to this topic, thus continuing the conversation in the most appropriate of places; a Substack comment section (chuckles).
Ok, this is probably worth an entire post, but a few thoughts:
1. WHY is Muppet Christmas Carol such a good rendition? I think one reason is because there is a sense of whimsy and magic in the story itself. So, more "serious" portrayals just don't work as well. The Muppets with their sense of humor gets at something in the story itself.
2. So, I think a successful adaptation MUST realize at least ONE true element of the source material. In dad's example, the two True Grit movies are successful, even though they take very different approaches. Wayne's movie feels like a successful adaptation because he's such a good Cogburn. Fidelity to the book is clearly NOT the point, so we don't care about it.
3. If we think about portraying historical people, you can try to be true to the entire source material (essentially doing an impression of the person) or you can focus on an aspect of that person and base your performance around it. Gary Oldman's Churchill in The Darkest Hour is very good, but so is John Lithgow's Churchill in The Crown. Lithgow isn't in the same league as Oldman as an actor; Oldman's Churchill looks and sounds 1000 times more like Churchill. But Lithgow's Churchill is very good, because he very effectively portray's Churchill's stubbornness, pride, and flashes of (diminished) brilliance as he fought against the reality of his own decline.
4. So one difference between Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies and Amazon's Rings of Power, is that Jackson saw a story he loved and wanted to bring to life, and Amazon sees a franchise. Now, I haven't watched Rings of Power, but what I see online is people who like the show, but don't claim any sort of fidelity to the source material. Which can be FINE, as long as there is something IN the source material you are trying to stay true to. Jackson made significant sacrifices transitioning a book to a movie, because he knew he had to (axing Tom Bombadil was the right move!), but he always kept the heart of what he was attempting in front of him. And so, there are relatively few bad decisions, many good ones, and three films that even ardent fans of the books really like.
4. That being said, I don't think fans should be listened to when it comes to making movies based on beloved books or characters. I also think fans rarely make good movies of the things they love. Jackson made LOTR, but he also made three Hobbit movies which are, by and large, very bad. The new Star Wars trilogy obviously had a ton of studio meddling, but I don't think either JJ Abrams or Rian Johnson succeeded in making good movies.
SO, while I agree with dad that there isn't really a formula, I think anyone trying to adapt, say, a book into a movie needs to find something in the source material that they are committed to realizing the "truth" of. Clavell's Shogun is based on historical events, even if he takes huge liberties. What he stays true to are: 1) the basic framework of the historical events (this comment is already too long, but I can text you what they are, if you like) 2) the details about Japanese culture at the time that were shocking and notable (and very attractive!) to outsiders 3) the role Christianity played in the politics of the time.My first clue to whether the show runners took the book and history seriously is whether the Jesuits wear orange robes. If they do, that's a good sign.
My sense is that the tv adaptation of Shogun will be a failure both as an adaptation of the novel and a reflection of historical events, because it will be entirely focused on fighting, making Christians villains, and sex. But it will look very cool!
Finally (I promise) I do think I have a harder time just enjoying things that I know and care about. I'm not entirely sure why that is, but I do think it comes down to: Did the person/people who made this understand what they were working with, and care when they made it? My favorite thing I've seen recently (Maybe a good stuff post for next week) is season 5 of Fargo. It's incredibly good. OK! If that didn't answer your question I don't know what I'll do with myself. Any thoughts, dad or Garrett?
One quick addendum - one thing that has hampered a lot of movies and shows (adaptations or not) is the assumption that the IP itself is so strong that the story doesn't matter. For example, Disney clearly assumed that Star Wars was such a strong IP that they didn't really need to give much attention to it other than pumping money in. I think the same thing happened with Rings of Power. "These properties are so popular, as long as people get to see them the story itself doesn't matter." Except it really does!
I think your comment that someone adapted a book to film needs to find something that they're true to is exactly write. And I'd add, the thing they select must be well-chosen - something that is of the essence of the original.
Jack (Jr), when I read your post referencing the NYT, my initial knee jerk reaction was, "Jack, why in the HELL are you recommending ANYTHING from the NYT?!!!!!" Then, I stopped and took a deep breath for at least two reasons. First, in spite of my very strong belief that Progressives have ruined this country and are in the process of destroying it beyond recognition, I am aware of my own need to understand why I believe what I do and to not become hopelessly imprisoned in my own echo chamber. Second, you have previously made the good recommendation to broaden one's reading and understanding as a way of further disciplining one's thought processes by exploring subjects that you might not readily be attracted to. So, I decided (with no small amount of skepticism) to check out Ross Douthat. He looks like a very interesting person. I am going to try to get ahold of his book Bad Religion and see where that takes me. As an aside, I have added "brisk walking" to my bike riding exercise routine. It is helping! I have gradually built up to 36 minutes and have been increasing the time every day. It's good for the continuing rehab I have to do for my full knee replacement. It's also good for our upcoming trip in a few months to the British Isles.
Will be interested to hear what you think of Douthat as you read more. Glad to hear that adding walking to your routine has been positive. It really is a good practice at our age; it just takes time
RE: Jack Jr.'s section: I subscribe to the NYT, and will say as well that from my perspective, with all the caveats about ignoring large swaths of the content, as a whole the Sunday New York Times is one of the most cost-effective pleasures on the planet. RE: Jack III's - I wasn't aware of the subject of your thesis - I'm curious given that as to your assessment of Scorcese's movie Silence.
I actually haven't seen Silence, mostly because I know it would be emotionally draining to watch. I've read Endo's book twice, though, and it is one of the best works of fiction of the 20th century, though I think a lot of people misunderstand the ending! I think, favorite uncle, that I may need to steel myself and watch Silence because of this comment.
Also an NYT subscriber. I'll add David French to the list of columnists I don't always agree with but go out of my way to read.
For what it's worth, progressives have their share of complaints about the paper, too. In an increasingly fragmented media landscape where everyone can find someone saying (or more likely, shouting) what they wanted to hear anyway, I still generally think NYT deserves to be the newspaper of record.
Not familiar with David French - will look for his work. Thanks Stephen -
I will also say that, by and large, their reporting is pretty good. But I think what really matters is, as you say, at least we all get to be angry together.
Thanks for the recommendations! I’ve seen the trailer and it looks compelling if not simply well-made.
My two-part question to you (with zero arrows pointed or inferred, as I’m legitimately curious): being a well-read person who more often than not has major issues with visual art (movies/shows) created from the original written works, what series or movie has done the best to stay true to the original text? Secondly, what would your process for creating a great series from a book be? How would you balance original text vs what makes sense or remains appealing on a screen? As an example, if you were creating a Silmarillion series, how would you do it better than those attempting it now?
I realize you're directing this comment at Jack III, but I have a couple of reactions. First, I don't know that there can be a standard approach for creating a film from a book. There are things you can't replicate, or at least that no one has learned how to replicate yet, so "being true to the book" has fundamental challenges. One example of what I mean - there have been many film versions of Dickens' Christmas Carol. I think the best one is A Muppet Christmas Carol. It's true to the book in some very specific senses, but obviously you would never treat it seriously as a "faithful rendition" of the book.
Another example in a different way - the John Wayne version of True Grit takes the book as a jumping off point. It is an excellent movie, but is in no way faithful to Portis's book. The Coen brothers, who loved the book and wanted to make a more faithful rendition of it, created the version with Jeff Bridges that came out some years ago. It succeeds, though it's not necessarily a better movie, largely because it does one thing well - zero in on Maddie (the young girl who, as an old woman, is narrating) and her relationship with Rooster Cogburn, the Jeff Bridges character. That relationship is the heart of the book and of the movie, and so they're well-aligned. Maybe the requirement for a successful film version of a great book is that the fundamental dynamic of the book is simple rather than complex.
Jack, Hillsdale College offers a free online course about The Christmas Carol. It is excellent and worth checking out.
That’s really great Jack (Jr), I appreciate your perspective on this. Yes, the question was directed more at Jack III but I stopped short of specifying in the hopes you might weigh in as well. I agree the more complex the book the more challenging it is to please readers in the theater. Jack III and I have discussed in the past and I’ve admitted to being easier to please as a reader/viewer because I am okay with separating the two approaches and doing my best to appreciate each in their own format. A great movie based off a book can still be great even if it requires some finagling to the details (A Muppet Christmas Carol was a great reference), as long as it stays true to the heart of the story. I do think proper care should be taken to protect the foundational intentions of the author in all cases as proper stewardship. This approach seems to be more challenging for Jack III, as he (you as you’re reading me having a conversation about you on your own platform) has seemingly more strictly held principles when it comes to this topic, thus continuing the conversation in the most appropriate of places; a Substack comment section (chuckles).
Ok, this is probably worth an entire post, but a few thoughts:
1. WHY is Muppet Christmas Carol such a good rendition? I think one reason is because there is a sense of whimsy and magic in the story itself. So, more "serious" portrayals just don't work as well. The Muppets with their sense of humor gets at something in the story itself.
2. So, I think a successful adaptation MUST realize at least ONE true element of the source material. In dad's example, the two True Grit movies are successful, even though they take very different approaches. Wayne's movie feels like a successful adaptation because he's such a good Cogburn. Fidelity to the book is clearly NOT the point, so we don't care about it.
3. If we think about portraying historical people, you can try to be true to the entire source material (essentially doing an impression of the person) or you can focus on an aspect of that person and base your performance around it. Gary Oldman's Churchill in The Darkest Hour is very good, but so is John Lithgow's Churchill in The Crown. Lithgow isn't in the same league as Oldman as an actor; Oldman's Churchill looks and sounds 1000 times more like Churchill. But Lithgow's Churchill is very good, because he very effectively portray's Churchill's stubbornness, pride, and flashes of (diminished) brilliance as he fought against the reality of his own decline.
4. So one difference between Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies and Amazon's Rings of Power, is that Jackson saw a story he loved and wanted to bring to life, and Amazon sees a franchise. Now, I haven't watched Rings of Power, but what I see online is people who like the show, but don't claim any sort of fidelity to the source material. Which can be FINE, as long as there is something IN the source material you are trying to stay true to. Jackson made significant sacrifices transitioning a book to a movie, because he knew he had to (axing Tom Bombadil was the right move!), but he always kept the heart of what he was attempting in front of him. And so, there are relatively few bad decisions, many good ones, and three films that even ardent fans of the books really like.
4. That being said, I don't think fans should be listened to when it comes to making movies based on beloved books or characters. I also think fans rarely make good movies of the things they love. Jackson made LOTR, but he also made three Hobbit movies which are, by and large, very bad. The new Star Wars trilogy obviously had a ton of studio meddling, but I don't think either JJ Abrams or Rian Johnson succeeded in making good movies.
SO, while I agree with dad that there isn't really a formula, I think anyone trying to adapt, say, a book into a movie needs to find something in the source material that they are committed to realizing the "truth" of. Clavell's Shogun is based on historical events, even if he takes huge liberties. What he stays true to are: 1) the basic framework of the historical events (this comment is already too long, but I can text you what they are, if you like) 2) the details about Japanese culture at the time that were shocking and notable (and very attractive!) to outsiders 3) the role Christianity played in the politics of the time.My first clue to whether the show runners took the book and history seriously is whether the Jesuits wear orange robes. If they do, that's a good sign.
My sense is that the tv adaptation of Shogun will be a failure both as an adaptation of the novel and a reflection of historical events, because it will be entirely focused on fighting, making Christians villains, and sex. But it will look very cool!
Finally (I promise) I do think I have a harder time just enjoying things that I know and care about. I'm not entirely sure why that is, but I do think it comes down to: Did the person/people who made this understand what they were working with, and care when they made it? My favorite thing I've seen recently (Maybe a good stuff post for next week) is season 5 of Fargo. It's incredibly good. OK! If that didn't answer your question I don't know what I'll do with myself. Any thoughts, dad or Garrett?
One quick addendum - one thing that has hampered a lot of movies and shows (adaptations or not) is the assumption that the IP itself is so strong that the story doesn't matter. For example, Disney clearly assumed that Star Wars was such a strong IP that they didn't really need to give much attention to it other than pumping money in. I think the same thing happened with Rings of Power. "These properties are so popular, as long as people get to see them the story itself doesn't matter." Except it really does!
"this is probably worth and entire post"
[proceeds to write an entire post]
I think your comment that someone adapted a book to film needs to find something that they're true to is exactly write. And I'd add, the thing they select must be well-chosen - something that is of the essence of the original.
Jack (Jr), when I read your post referencing the NYT, my initial knee jerk reaction was, "Jack, why in the HELL are you recommending ANYTHING from the NYT?!!!!!" Then, I stopped and took a deep breath for at least two reasons. First, in spite of my very strong belief that Progressives have ruined this country and are in the process of destroying it beyond recognition, I am aware of my own need to understand why I believe what I do and to not become hopelessly imprisoned in my own echo chamber. Second, you have previously made the good recommendation to broaden one's reading and understanding as a way of further disciplining one's thought processes by exploring subjects that you might not readily be attracted to. So, I decided (with no small amount of skepticism) to check out Ross Douthat. He looks like a very interesting person. I am going to try to get ahold of his book Bad Religion and see where that takes me. As an aside, I have added "brisk walking" to my bike riding exercise routine. It is helping! I have gradually built up to 36 minutes and have been increasing the time every day. It's good for the continuing rehab I have to do for my full knee replacement. It's also good for our upcoming trip in a few months to the British Isles.
I like Douthat a lot. As dad says, he's always got a thoughtful take on whatever he's writing about, even if I don't agree with him.
Will be interested to hear what you think of Douthat as you read more. Glad to hear that adding walking to your routine has been positive. It really is a good practice at our age; it just takes time