The same goes for Hitchcock's "Vertigo". The ending is not difficult to guess, but we are attracted to the characters and the story, not the baggage of the ending. Regarding the influence of guessing the ending, I personally think it is not important. We watch the movie to enjoy its story and process. The ending is for the story. If a movie is only for the last burden from beginning to end, let the previous story Become plain, the protagonist is mediocre, then this movie is destined to be mediocre.
But it is hard to say that Lao Ma has made no mistakes. Maybe he may have overlooked the suspensefulness of the burden because of the weird character of Teddy. This is also possible.
The adaptation of novels to movies has always been a headache for all screenwriters. Let me make one point:
Literature (poetry) and film are two completely different art forms. The narrative and artistic treatment of literature can be rich and varied: from the inside to the outside. , Write from the outside to the inside; and there are not too many restrictions on the length. But movies are different: movies cannot have too much personalization, such as psychological descriptions, which can only be expressed through pictures and actions, and the way of expression is less than that of literature; at the same time, the movie must concentrate the story in at most two and a half. Within an hour, but also consider the issue of rhythm.
From my personal knowledge and experience, it is easy to have various problems when adapting a novel to a movie. The first thing that bears the brunt is that readers of novels have a preconceived notion of the movie, so they pay attention to the details presented in the movie and how many original works. The difference, because the lack of objective conditions and adaptations will inevitably make people feel awkward, but the question is, as a creative group, will you accept an adaptation that allows you to read it according to the book?
Film adaptation is more like a platform transplant. The process of transplanting from literature to the screen will inevitably have many defects and needs to be changed. Just like when I read a novel, I always read it from the perspective of adapting it. Regarding a large number of unnecessary dialogues and detailed descriptions, I always said to myself in my heart: This paragraph can be completely cut off, but for literature The angle is not necessarily the case. For example, Stephen King’s numerous detailed descriptions in his novels are intended to create the atmosphere of the story he wants.
All in all, after watching Lao Ma’s film, I think that film adaptation novels should follow this line of thinking: Since the novel is only the outline of the story, all the adaptor has to do is to extract the plot and plot useful for the movie on this outline. Details, and re-create them according to certain film rules, which can include character background, character, dialogue and even the entire event.
Audiences should not give bad reviews or dissatisfaction to film adaptations because they discard too many plots in the original work. This is not fair to the creators.
What if the order is reversed? "Midnight Ring 1" I watched the movie first, and then the novel. Although the background of the two protagonists and Sadako (in the novel Sadako is a bisexual person) is described a lot, I I feel that novels are inferior to movies. I believe this is also the opinion of most people, and preconceived concepts play the role of instigator in this process. Admonishing yourself to be as objective as possible is the only thing we can do, but there is no other way.
View more about Shutter Island reviews
