There are a number of science-fiction films with post-release novelizations. I myself remember reading through the Star Wars books, though I never dipped into the expanded universe outside of a few series that I barely remember (all I remember are the force-sensitive power crystals used in lightsabers). The point is, they exist. They’re a known quantity. So what’s different about this one?
It’s semi-well-known that Stanley Kubrick and Sir Arthur C. Clarke collaborated on the story, which means for the purposes of this post each of their respective creations is an adaptation of the other. While they both tell the same story (or, perhaps, the same, three stories), the way they go about them is significantly different.
Some of that is the medium. One wouldn’t expect a book to do a movie’s job in the same way one doesn’t expect a psychiatrist to do a brain surgeon’s job. The movie, for example, doesn’t use narration, instead relying largely on cinematography and audio cues to make the same points. But some would say that’s to the movie’s detriment. The first and third acts of the movie aren’t exactly viewer-friendly, often drawing out shots probably longer than necessary (especially the third act, I mean, have you seen that montage?). The book, of course, has to rely on it’s narration, which means that one can finally learn what that third-act acid trip actually meant, the alien intent behind the monoliths, and so on.
Some of this is simply a difference in style between the two creators. Clarke had a dry, technical style, obsessed with detail and trying to make everything fit after his sci-fi conceits were made. Rendezvous with Rama had an ambassador from Mercury, for example, but otherwise was able to fully explore an alien ship without a single thing in it seeming human. On the other hand, Stanley Kubrick was very visual (he started his career as a photographer, this should be expected), that’s part of the reason a bunch of these shots hold for so long. It also gives a sense of normalcy that Clarke’s adaptation couldn’t quite match. In the film, all the characters are used to the technology, so we believe this world is lived-in. The book, partly because of the writing style used, isn’t able to provide this, instead giving the reader a Rama-like experience.
But all this ignores the premise of this series. Why do I like this book and this movie? Well, some of it is because of those technical details, guiding the reader/viewer through a world that (at the time) was only forty years away. But I also enjoy it because of how the two compliment each other, each one adding (sometimes necessary) context that the other one would otherwise lack.
I’m reminded of how David Lynch reportedly passed out pamphlets describing the plot of Dune before his adaptation premiered. In that instance, there was a belief that the supplementary material was required for the piece to be comprehensible. These works defy that necessity. Even in the film’s more incomprehensible moments, even as the book runs dryly through unnecessary technical detail, they still present a complete vision of the world of tomorrow.
-F
Next time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTgFtxHhCQ0
No comments:
Post a Comment