In novels, we get more of the inner thoughts (psychology) of the characters. In film, we get the voice-over. I've been told (when writing screenplays) to stay away from the voice-over narration. It can work. It works in Election. Goodfellas. Double Indemnity.
I can't help but think of the film Adaptation. The scene where Charlie goes to a lecture on screenwriting where Robert McKee (played by actor Brian Cox) has this to say about voice-over narration:
"And God help you if you use voice-over in your work, my friends. God help you. That’s flaccid, sloppy writing. Any idiot can write a voice-over narration to explain the thoughts of a character."
I think Alexander Payne did a fine job. He didn't abuse the voice-over. We didn't get every thought. I don't consider the writing sloppy, nor flaccid (that's insulting). What do you guys think?
Does Mr. M regret what he did with the ballots in the film? He doesn't seem to have too much remorse in tossing out the ballots in the book: 'I wish I hadn't done what I'd done, and I also wished I'd thought of a less obvious place to dispose of the ballots' (132). If he had pocketed the ballots, no one would have found out.
There are other moments in the novel where we get the thinkings and plottings of characters that don't make it into the film. Can you find them?
We talked about moments that work and moments that didn't work in the novel Election. Could you find a passage in the novel that had potential for comedy (particularly dark comedy) but fell flat? Could you find a passage that was made funny in the film?
Again, talking about what is lost in translation--or in the adaptation of a novel (or play) to a film. A film that is better than the book is rare. I read an interview with Alexander Payne (director/screenwriter or Election) where he said he likes to get unpublished works. He was nice and said he likes unpublished or ignored works because no one knows what to do with it--because they are under-appreciated for humor, character stories, etc). Another film he made that came from an unpublished novel is Sideways. I think the books aren't published because the books aren't any good. But that's me. What do you think?
Bibliography
Perrotta, Tom. Election. New York: The Berkley Publishing Group, 1998.
5 comments:
I agree that the voice over works fairly well in the film. It is not overdone or overused...and at the end it works especially well when Mr M is in DC and sees tracy and all these thoughts flood his head and then he gets a moment of clarity and his true feelings come out when he throws the pepsi at the limo. Many times you get voice overs to show the real story behind the characters feelings, which is a bonus because many characters have falae personas displayed in movies, and the voice over lets people in to their true thoughts and feelings. I like the way that Paul especially is portrayed in the movie and how it shows that his sincerity and genuinely nice personality ends up being his downfall in the election. The way that the film is done with the voice overs and the camera work along with the actual plot and dialogue makes it very fluent and coherent.
I've actually always wondered about that scene in Adaptation. Whether it was just the writer of the script poking fun at himself, or if this is some actual rule to writing effectively. If it's the latter then I think it plays a larger role in the film because we see Charlie struggling to write a coherent script - perhaps because he's following all the guidelines and archaic principles of "good writing" - while his twin brother, who has no writing experience, bangs out Hollywood winners like "The Three" in a couple of weeks. Voice-over is probably one of the easiest ways to let a reader in on what a character is thinking, but one has to stop and wonder whether or not it's too easy. One of the reasons the character Joey, Nick Naylor's son, in the film version of Thank You For Smoking was trumped up was because the director didn't want to go with two hours of straight voice over. He used the character of the son as a device to let the audience in on what Nick Naylor was really thinking about his situation. Simple alterations like this can be an effective alternative to voice-over. I'm not a writer and I personally have no opinion on the use of voice-over, but it seems that there are more creative ways to present a character other than "I was thinking this..."
"The Shawshank Redemption" is another example of an excellent voice over. It works so well, as good as in "Election" because it isn't too revealing and also because Morgan Freeman has a magical, soothing voice. Mr. M doesn't tell the truth in his voice overs through. It's as if he's trying to convince himself that he's a good guy, that he doesn't really hate Tracy Flick. I definitely agree with Tim about how well the voice over works in the end of the movie, when Mr. M finally reveals his true feelings via voice over. It's impossible for him to pretend that Tracy isn't going places when she's passing him by in a limo.
Everyone seems to agree that the movie is better, and there is one scene in particular that is done much better in the movie. The scene where Tracy and Jack have sex. In the movie Tracy shyly sips a root beer while "three times a lady" plays in the background. The best part is when she stands in the hall and Jack reaches for her, placing a large, manly hand on her shoulder. The idea that Tracy is still a child comes through but humorously so, whereas in the book, it's disturbing. It's apparent that Tracy doesn't want to have sex, noticing the large zit on Jack's behind. The humor doesn't shine through here like it does in the movie, and it left me feeling uncomfortable. I wouldn't change anything about the movie, so I can't think of where the book did a better job. If I were Tom Perrotta I'd be pretty embarrassed.
I think that voice overs can only work in certain cinematic atmospheres. I think that Brian Cox in Adaptation was wrong about voice overs (can we really trust him? He was in the film version of Running With Scissors)
I believe that voice overs work best in films that are surrealistic fiction. These are films that seem to reflect a fable-like world to its viewers. This film is a perfect example of this notion. Election captures the high school experience, yet something about it seems sugarcoated and foreign to me. But that was the directors intention all along. With the cinematography and overall feel of the film, I couldnt help but feel as though I am reading a novel as the diagesis seemed nothing like the world we live in. The film felt as though it were a conceptual play production.
Voice overs seem to turn most films into books as thoughts and emotions are no longer conveyed by the actor, but by this omniscient voice. Voice overs are to film, what Illustrations are to books. They leave less for our minds to create by themselves. Yet they work in films such as Election and Fight Club because the stories should be told as if we are reading a fictional story. We do not live in the world that they dwell in, so we are left to connect only on an emotional level with characters. As we "fall down the rabbithole" of these stories, we need a guide as we can become lost without a voice of reason to convey why the world is the way it is. I dont know. I guess I could go either way on Voice overs.
I dont think Mr. M regrets what he did in the film. It seems that the election was clearly not his issue, but was just the catalyst he needed in his life. He was suffocating in his suburbia lifestyle, so much so that he began to dismantle his happy life by banging that ugly woman and ruining his marriage. Maybe he threw the ballots in the trash because part of him wanted to get caught. He was subconciously envious that Jack/Dave was free from his Omaha prison, which could explain why Mr. M fantasizes about Tracy. I dont know.... Ask Freud or something.
The whole Jack/Dave situation was much more comical in the film. Still Pathetic but very comical.
Did you know that someone actually made a film based off the ridiculous premise that Charlie Kaufman's twin "brother" created in Adaptation. you know the one about the scitzophrenic killer/police officer/victim. It is entitled...... wait for it.... Thr3e. ........ Why God? Are we running out of ideas?
I also wanted to comment on the transfer from novel to film. While i think there are some instances where the film is better than the book, the overwhelming majority of adaptations dont measure up to the novels. Harry Potters, The Bourne Ultimatum, even fight club are movies that just dont quite have the same feel as is developed in the novel forms. I think that a well written novel will always have a much better and more lasting effect on the reader than any movie. The development of the characters can go any way the author wants, where as in a movie if you cast the wrong person in a role it can ruin the entire film. Also, you have to think about cutting things from novels to fit in screenplays. Editing choices can and often do effect the outcome of films in the way characters and plots are developed.
Post a Comment