There are two purposes: First, try to eliminate the excessive attention to the plot, and do not impose personal emotions on it. For example: numb a little three shameless! There is no good thing for a man! ! ! ! of this kind. Second, have a general understanding of the metanarrative of the original work, and have some own thinking about it, that is, why does the author express it in this way?
I thought that, compared to books, it's too difficult to make a good film in a genre that is limited in time and space. This contrast is especially stark in remakes. Grab a certain range of attention within a certain range of time to express a limited concept, and also pay attention to whether the audience understands it! The film has done a pretty good job in balancing the above contradictions. If the director strictly follows the original work, it can only be made into a long-winded thing; if the director caters to the public, it will be sprayed and reduced to a second- or third-rate Hollywood movie, completely contrary to the author's original intention. Personally, I think that the director expressed the basic intention of john fowles in a relatively concise way, without major conflicts, and guiding the audience's thinking to be similar to the original, which is really commendable. The other one, The Hours, is said to be a remake of a classic, and I haven't seen it yet. How much pressure does this experimental modern/postmodern novel have to do well. Please compare the domestic remakes by yourself (there have been several recently) Guan X Chang, A Chinese Ghost Story, etc.
View more about The French Lieutenant's Woman reviews
