Generally speaking, there are three ways to adapt a film from a literary genre: one: faithful to the original, second: slight changes while keeping the basic ideas of the original, and third: substantial changes to the original. There is no doubt that the director of this film wanted to make it the first or the second, but in terms of the results, it is difficult to say that it is qualified. Márquez has clearly stated that his works are not suitable for filming, not only because of the natural gap between the language of novels and the audio-visual language of films, but also because Márquez's literary style itself is extremely difficult to convert into audio-visual of films. language. For an altered film that is faithful to the original, this Mike Newell movie is pretty mediocre. First: The narrative is mediocre. It is difficult to imagine the high-density, long-span narrative of the novel, which can be clearly expressed in only 139 minutes. The final result is that the narrative of the movie is like a running account, rushing through the plot and ending it. On the whole, Neville makes little difference in the film's plot focus, which results in the film's almost no narrative rhythm. At the beginning of the movie, the doctor catches the parrot and falls to his death, Florentina (hereafter referred to as Flo) hears the bell, the funeral takes place, and Flo's further confession is rejected, so the first part of the novel described in the film ends. The movie then goes back to when Flo and Fermina were young like the novel. In this part of the movie, it also uses a few scenes to understate the writing, transmission and reading of letters in the novel, so Flo and Fermina Na got engaged. In the whole film, this kind of average and pointless narrative processing method is used. The audience almost just watched it. Narratives are more like documentaries than films. As far as details are concerned, the director seems to be more casual, taking Flo's lovesickness and cholera symptoms in the film as an example after falling in love with Fermina. In the film, Flo was sweating and trembling all over. Under the simple and rude filming of the director, if the audience has not seen the original work, it is not so much lovesickness as it is a symptom of cholera. Márquez's Flo's symptoms make his love for Fermina fully felt, but are grossly and unbelievably distorted in the film. There are many such examples in the movie, and it even makes people wonder if the director is serious about shooting. Second: The lens language is mediocre. If the director really wants to express the emotion of the novel, he should study and study how to use the lens language skillfully to achieve his purpose. Taking the same film adaptation of The Godfather 1 as an example, Coppola used two shots and visual languages, long shots and close-ups, and Rembrandt-esque scenes in the two scenes of Corleone's discussion in the room and the wedding. The lighting expresses the atmosphere of the mafia, the quick switching of short shots and the use of a large number of relational shots express the joyous atmosphere of the wedding, making the two scenes form a sharp contrast. Neville's "Love in the Time of Cholera" is not particular about the use of lens language. Almost the entire film is shot with fixed shots. The use of these fixed shots makes me suspect that both the director and the photographer want to be lazy? ? ? The scheduling of the scene, the editing and transition between shots are also casual, such shots really have no emotion and tension at all. If you are still moved by the movie, it is probably because you have read the original book and were moved by the original book. , or self-motivated. Specifically, in the movie scene where Flo has sex with a woman who likes to suck on a pacifier, the director used two close-ups to show the cat scratching Flo, and even used a shot to show the woman looking for the bed with her hands The pacifiers, these are unnecessary, the director can pull the camera back and put these details in the sex scene with a relationship shot, and then tell the story of Flo's uncle at Flo's mother's funeral. The sentence "My only regret is not being able to sing at my own funeral" is an example, the director has to give him a few more shots in order to make him say this beautiful sentence, which is even more unnecessary. The director expresses the scenes in the novel in this way, which is like saying to the audience who have read the original book: "Look, I have read the novel carefully." Third: The soundtrack and scenes are mediocre . For a director who is good at adapting British novels, it is really too difficult to express the culture and life of Latin America. The soundtrack of the movie is really useless at all, and it feels similar to whether it is there or not. One scene in the movie shows cholera. of Dismal, a scene shows the fierceness of the civil war, but in the novel, cholera and civil war are very important. Although Marquez interspersed these descriptions in the story, it established the background and reality of the story. The movie has almost nothing to do with the story. Fourth: The characterization is mediocre. This is the point I want to complain about the most. The director feels quite casual about the choice of actors, and the actors' performances are also very rough. "He is ugly and pitiful, but he is full of love." Under the camera, it is simply a foolish criticism, and the characters are not full at all. In the more than half a century of waiting for love, Flo has filled up his thoughts for Fermina by constantly satisfying his physical needs. , It seems that it is indeed a sexual behavior addiction, and I have waited for half a century for my first love. Similarly, Fermina's portrayal was also a failure. Fermina is obviously an independent, intelligent, and self-respecting beauty, but in the performance of the actors, she looks timid and is always worried. The only accurate estimate for the character image is Fermina's father. Compared with novels, movies are really not satisfactory. There are still many places to complain, so I won't repeat them one by one. The whole film seems to be a directing college student in order to meet the teacher's request, and it feels that the director just took the novel and made it out of the box. As a loyal reader of Marquez, I may have a preference for novels, but I am not opposed to making it into a movie, but I still think it is not easy to try it. After all, Lao Ma’s novels have few dialogues, and the shaping of characters The description methods of the novel and the environment are also full of the characteristics of the novel's ontology language. It is only suitable for expression in words but not in pictures, sounds and lines that must be present in movies. Characters are mediocre. This is the point I want to complain about the most. The director feels quite casual about the choice of actors, and the actors' performances are also very rough. "He is ugly and pitiful, but he is full of love." Under the camera, it is simply a foolish criticism, and the characters are not full at all. In the more than half a century of waiting for love, Flo has filled up his thoughts for Fermina by constantly satisfying his physical needs. , It seems that it is indeed a sexual behavior addiction, and I have waited for half a century for my first love. Similarly, Fermina's portrayal was also a failure. Fermina is obviously an independent, intelligent, and self-respecting beauty, but in the performance of the actors, she looks timid and is always worried. The only accurate estimate for the character image is Fermina's father. Compared with novels, movies are really not satisfactory. There are still many places to complain, so I won't repeat them one by one. The whole film seems to be a directing college student in order to meet the teacher's request, and it feels that the director just took the novel and made it out of the box. As a loyal reader of Marquez, I may have a preference for novels, but I am not opposed to making it into a movie, but I still think it is not easy to try it. After all, Lao Ma’s novels have few dialogues, and the shaping of characters The description methods of the novel and the environment are also full of the characteristics of the novel's ontology language. It is only suitable for expression in words but not in pictures, sounds and lines that must be present in movies. Characters are mediocre. This is the point I want to complain about the most. The director feels quite casual about the choice of actors, and the actors' performances are also very rough. "He is ugly and pitiful, but he is full of love." Under the camera, it is simply a foolish criticism, and the characters are not full at all. In the more than half a century of waiting for love, Flo has filled up his thoughts for Fermina by constantly satisfying his physical needs. , It seems that it is indeed a sexual behavior addiction, and I have waited for half a century for my first love. Similarly, Fermina's portrayal was also a failure. Fermina is obviously an independent, intelligent, and self-respecting beauty, but in the performance of the actors, she looks timid and is always worried. The only accurate estimate for the character image is Fermina's father. Compared with novels, movies are really not satisfactory. There are still many places to complain, so I won't repeat them one by one. The whole film seems to be a directing college student in order to meet the teacher's request, and it feels that the director just took the novel and made it out of the box. As a loyal reader of Marquez, I may have a preference for novels, but I am not opposed to making it into a movie, but I still think it is not easy to try it. After all, Lao Ma’s novels have few dialogues, and the shaping of characters The description methods of the novel and the environment are also full of the characteristics of the novel's ontology language. It is only suitable for expression in words but not in pictures, sounds and lines that must be present in movies.
View more about Love in the Time of Cholera reviews
