I've never understood, for instance, why they made a movie called "Bram Stoker's: Dracula" and then added an entire cliche about a doppleganger (Wynona Ryder) that Dracula once loved. It's not in any way part of the original story. Of course Anne Rice betrayed her own novel by creating a non-existent past love interest in the movie version of "Interview with the Vampire". The most amazing thing I learned when I first read the novel Dracula was that the creature nearly wins in the end! It is my second-most favorite novel and I have read it at least six times. The science verges on predilection and the use of media at the time to help sell the fantasy as reality (and scare the readers) was sheer genius! In the story, as Dracula begins to deal with humans more and more, he slowly learns that the limitations placed on him by religion and superstition no longer have real merit which makes him stronger by leaps and bounds. If the crew didn't just happen to catch him at the right second, they would never have been able to stop him. I have never seen this part of the story illustrated appropriately in any movie, anywhere.
There's a strange occurrence in the book Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. The monster seems to travel easily and kill indiscriminately to the dismay of the good Doctor. For instance, in one scene the Doctor goes to visit his family only to find the monster has beaten him there without even knowing anything about where the Doctor lives or who the Doctor is related to. The monster dispatches with members of the Doctor's family, and of course the Doctor is beside himself with anguish. There are many instances which seems to allude to the concept that the monster may not really exist at all, that the good Doctor is responsible for the terrible deaths. He so much as claims responsibility in a number of passages.
Speaking of whether or not a monster exists, reread the Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson, and then tell me that the monstrous visage of the Doctor is actually transformed. Characters in the book describe Mr. Hyde, but always in ways that could really just describe an extremely deranged Dr. Jekyll (eyewitnesses are always a bit shady when it comes to accurate descriptions). The story unfolds in such a way that the blame and responsibility for the actions of Mr. Hyde lay squarely on the shoulders of the Doctor, in spite of the "concoction" he drinks, not because of it.
I have seen many productions and stories based on La Morte D'Arthur (and Tennyson's Idylls) but none of them have ever captured the real spirit of Merlin. According to Malory, Merlin the Magician was actually the son of Satan himself. Although in many parts of the story it seems as if Merlin is rooting for the young Arthur to be king of all Britain, little parts belie Merlin's real motives as selfish and evil. No matter what battle or quest the heroes engage in, Merlin is not only behind the original setup of events, he is always behind their eventual demise. Again, I have never seen this aspect of the sorcerer portrayed.
I will admit in some of these cases, it may just be my own personal ideas forming from the works, but in the case of Dracula and of Merlin, true-to-the-book on-screen portrayals are simply non-existent. It makes me wonder why writers think so little of the original authors' ability to captivate audiences that they have to change the stories. Anne Rice admits she changed her own story because it was just too difficult to go into the entire background of why Louis was so guilt-ridden he wanted to die (his ultra-religious brother commits suicide and Louis blames himself for the death), so instead she invented a love interest who died. By adding a female love object for Louis to mourn instead of a brother, she neutered the homoerotically charged story, and dumbed down the script. By the end of the experience Rice nearly disowned the film, claiming her chief gripe was the casting of Tom Cruise as Lestat, but later recanting by saying he was good in the role.
One of my favorite books was Robinson Crusoe. You know the tale: boy goes to sea, gets shipwrecked alone on an island and has to build a bunch of stuff; ends up befriending a native he calls "Friday". But the novel has so much more. First off, poor Crusoe, despite his father's wishes, ends up getting shipwrecked a number of times. One time he even manages to grow a crop of tobacco which makes him wealthy. One part of the book I especially liked was when the young man makes friends with a pirate captain. The pirate crew hates the attention the captain pays the young Crusoe; the captain even lets the lad share his own bed! He becomes so trusted by the captain that he's able to sneak out and steal the dinghy and make his escape. One wonders just what was going on in the captain's cabin? When Crusoe befriends Friday, racism is on the menu (but par for the course in the era it was written), but the friendship seems to get very friendly. For the time I'm sure Crusoe was thought to be a perfect gentleman, but using a modern-day filter, the character...well...I'll just say he seems to enjoy the company of other men and leave it at that.
Perhaps writers don't give audiences the credit they deserve, or perhaps they're spot-on. Sometimes it may just be that the story we've all come to know is not the accurate one from the original, but a muddled retelling, so writers simply jump on the bandwagon and feed us the same old story over and over without ever returning to the source. Is it any wonder no one ever seems to know how many of each animal Noah took on the ark? The common story we've all been told is that Noah took two of each animal, but the Bible actually tells two slightly different versions, or clarifies itself with a second description. Noah took two of each beast, male and female, but he took seven of other animals. Yet, I've never seen that in any kid's book I've ever come across.
No comments:
Post a Comment