Rolling for SAN

I don't know if anyone follows this blog, but if you do, you've probably noticed it's been mostly inactive. Looking back, making a blog solely dedicated to adaptations was kinda dumb. It's just too limited a subject. So I started a new blog, Rolling for SAN, where I can write about whatever I please! I'll continue to post on Adaptation Analysis as inspiration strikes me, but for the most part, I'll be writing there.

Man of Steel

          Well, that was a longer hiatus than I intended. Man of Steel is directed by Zack Snyder and everyone knows who it's about; Superman, created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. To call Superman a character would be a gross understatement; he's a bona fide cultural icon. He was the first costumed superhero and as a direct result of his creation, superheroes have dominated American comics, not only as an industry, but as an art from (Watchmen has been hailed by many as the Citizen Kane of comics). Superman's name is synonymous with heroism; so does Man of Steel do such a legend justice? Not really. I certainly didn't hate this film and I can see why people like it, but Superman deserves better than "didn't hate it." 

          Starting with the bad, the cinematography is pretty obnoxious. I don't mind a little shaky cam for effect every now and then, but there's so much of it in this film that I can only assume Zack Snyder is the abused stepson of a tripod. I take back all my complaints of Snyder's egregious use of slow motion; at least with slow-mo I can see what's going on. Actually, this film doesn't feel like Snyder at all. Love him or hate him, he has a distinctive style that is nowhere to be found in Man of Steel.
          The biggest problem plaguing this movie, however, is the portrayal of Superman's character. A lot of people have complained that Supes is too mopey, but I don't think that's the real problem. No, the problem is that Superman just doesn't give a fuck. Without going into spoilers, the last fight scene leaves Metropolis in ruin. There are countless deaths and billions of dollars in damages. At no point did Superman try to take the fight out of the city. In fact, he doesn't even bat an eye at the death and destruction his fight caused and neither does anyone else for that matter! Metropolis is decimated and in the next scene it's all gumdrops and ice cream. No remorse. No consequences. You would think that there would be at least one person going "Hey, thanks for saving the day and everything, but was it really necessary to punch Zod through that 278th skyscraper? There were, like, hundreds of people in there." For a more modest example, there's a scene where Superman nearly gets into a fight with some asshole trucker. Superman, as befitting a man of his caliber, takes the moral high ground and walks away. Then we see the guy's truck impaled on a telephone pole. Really? He'll destroy a man's way of life and leave him stranded in the middle of nowhere, but he won't just deck him? If you're going to show Superman snap, then show him snap and show the consequences of him snapping. It's like the movie wants to be darker, but is unwilling to actually be dark. No remorse. No consequences.
          So what about the good? Well, this movie has one thing going for it: ZOD! The Kryptonians have this thing called the codex which is basically the Krypton eugenics program. ZOD! was bred to be a soldier, his sole purpose in life being the protection of Krypton. Then Krypton blows up. Fortunately for the inhabitants of the planet, the codex was sent with Superman. ZOD! learns of this and tracks Superman to Earth. There, he wishes to regain the codex and rebuild Krypton; all atop the bones of humanity of course. While nothing will replace Donner's version of the character, this is, admittedly, a much more interesting character motivation than "let's take over the world because KNEEL!" But interesting backstory and motivation or no, ZOD! is only as good as he is hammy, the real question to ask is does Michael Shannon deliver?

 Yes. The answer is yes.

          I sure hope a steady supply of dental floss was provided in his contract, because every time Shannon is on screen he's picking scenery out of his teeth. He turns dramatically. He yells nearly every line. He makes faces. It is glorious! I think this scene gets the point across.

See what I mean about the shaky cam?

          So would I recommend this movie? Well, I'm tempted to say it's worth seeing for ZOD!, but I would wait for it to hit the cheap theaters. If you really want to see a good Superman movie, I recommend Superman Vs The Elite. The animation is a bit lacking, but it's still a solid story about Superman's encounter with a group of anti-heroes who don't share his reluctance to kill.

Starship Troopers

          I hope the two people who regularly read this blog like science fiction; because we're talking about Verhoeven again. Starship Troopers directed by Paul Verhoeven and is kinda, sorta based on Robert A. Heinlein's novel of the same name. Starship Troopers is the most interesting example of an adaptation I can think of; not the best, but the most interesting. Rather than being a retelling of the book's story, this movie is meant to be a propaganda film within the universe Heinlein created. The book is as much (perhaps more) of a political essay as it is an actual story. In Starship Troopers, Heinlein expresses his opinions on the necessity of war and capital punishment, as well as the virtues of a selective democracy where only veterans of Federal Service are given full citizenship and allowed to vote.

“Citizenship is an attitude, a state of mind, an emotional conviction that the whole is greater than the part . . . and that the part should be humbly proud to sacrifice itself that the whole may live.” - Colonel Dubois

"Under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage." - Major Reid

"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.” - Colonel Dubois

          Verhoeven's film isn't much of an adaption, but more of a satire of the themes and virtues expressed in the book. The whole tone of this film is zany and comically jingoistic. The drama is soap-operatic and protagonists are all dumb, macho, borderline psychotic xenophobes who wear eerily familiar uniforms.

Godwin can suck it.

          Throughout the movie, there are short propaganda clips, such as this.

          That's pretty much Starship Troopers in a nutshell. The movie even ends with such a clip encouraging the viewer to enlist! Imagine if there was a film adaptation of Atlas Shrugged that ended with a tour of Rapture. That is what Starship Troopers would be like if it were any less subtle.

They could call it Atlas Drowned.

          Although I disagree with many of it's ideas, there is no denying that Starship Troopers is a very thought provoking book. It's also pretty quick read, especially when compared to some of the more iconic examples of political fiction (Tolstoy and Rand wrote books that could legally qualify as deadly weapons). Anyone who is interested in political and moral philosophy should give this book a shot. As for the movie, it's not the essential science fiction viewing that Verhoeven's RoboCop is, but it can still be fun as long as you're in on the joke.

Total Recall

          Total Recall was directed by Paul Verhoeven and was inspired by the short story We Can Remember It for You Wholesale by Philip K. Dick. Wholesale is existential tale of a clerk with a Mars fetish who goes to Rekal Incorporated to have memories of a fake trip to Mars implanted in his brain. Like much of Dick's work, Wholesale is mostly about questioning reality. It's also less than forty pages long and written by one of the greatest science fiction writers in human history. Total Recall is a two hour action film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. This has to be a disaster right? I mean, I love a good action movie as much as the next guy, but come on! Well, it's actually pretty good all things considered. It's not really a great film and it has all the goofiness you would expect from an Arnold movie, but underneath the guns, explosions, and cheesy one-liners, the heart of this film is very Dickian. Like Wholesale, Total Recall begins with an ordinary guy (an ordinary guy who happens to be Arnold Schwarzenegger) named Douglas Quaid who really, really wants to go to Mars and goes to Rekal since he can't afford a real trip. As you would expect it doesn't all go according to plan. It turns out that Quaid was a secret agent who had already been to Mars, but had his memories wiped. Rekal erases his memory of their company, but it's too little too late. His former employers learn that he's regaining his memories and begin hunting him down. Also, explosive decompression...

FYI: Mars isn't a vacuum.

 

          But here's the interesting part. As soon as Quaid goes under in Rekal, everything after could have been implanted in his mind. In other words, it is about questioning reality, just like Wholesale! The film is intentionally ambiguous as to whether Quiad really went to Mars; though, if we're being honest, believing any of this actually happened is as ridiculous as thinking Deckard is a replicant.

“Yes, he’s a replicant. He was always a replicant.” -Ridley Scott

          Yeah, well, what does he know? Anyway, Total Recall may not look like much at first glace, but it's more than just another Schwarzenegger shoot 'em up and it's sufficiently mind-screwy to be a Philip K. Dick adaptation.

Axis of Awesome is Appropriately Named

NSFW

Well, there's my three months of blogging summed up in three and a half minutes...

Constantine

          Constantine was directed by Francis Lawrence and is loosely based on the Dangerous Habits story arc, written by Garth Ennis, from the comic book series Hellblazer. I've said before that adaptations should have their own identity. That does not mean it should be completely unrecognizable. An adaptation still needs to stay true to the spirit of the source material, or, like Bladerunner, put its own spin on the ideas presented in the source material. Constantine is an adaptation in name only. In fact, when I first saw the trailer, I didn't even realize it had anything to do with Hellblazer. I won't go into much detail about the differences in plot between Dangerous Habbits and Constantine because Hellblazer has had 300 issues. When a character has been around that long, the individual stories aren't nearly as important as getting the character himself right.

          The most obvious difference is that Constantine (rhymes with teen) from the movie is an American exorcist, while Constantine (rhymes with line) from Hellblazer is an occult detective/working-class magician/con artist from Liverpool. However, there is more to it than that. What makes Constantine such an engaging character is that he is perhaps the antiest of all anti-heroes, while stile being likable. He is a snarky, cocky, manipulative, lustful, chain-smoking, spell-casting, deal-with-the-Devil-making adrenaline junkie who is at least partially responsible for the deaths of nearly everyone he meets, to the point where the closest thing he has to a friend is a humanoid plant creature that hates his guts. One of his friends' last words were "Constantine, you bastard" and that could be tagline for the whole series. Yet, in spite of all of this, he is still sympathetic and I always found myself rooting for him, as he genuinely does his best to protect humanity from the war between Heaven and Hell, even if he does so in very unpleasant ways. It's hard to explain, but there's just something endearing about a guy who wants to do good while also being an unapologetic asshole the whole time. He is also a rather tragic figure. A recurring theme in Hellblazer is that every one of Constantine's victories is small and temporary. With every villain defeated, more enemies are made and, in the end, the only possibility for him is failure.

          The movie just doesn't quite capture that same charm. Since the last film I reviewed also starred Keanu Reeves, it might seem like I'm picking on the guy, but that's not my intention. I'm not a fan of Reeves, but he's not my real problem with the film; he does just fine in the role. My problem is that this role isn't Constantine. The film's protagonist (who shall be referred to as Constanteen) isn't nearly as compelling as his namesake. Constateen is stoic. Constantine has an air of affability and a delightfully inappropriate sense of humor. Constanteen kills demons by the dozen with a big gun. Constantine relies on deceit and cunning to win his battles. Constanteen wants to work his way into Heaven because of a past suicide attempt, without realizing that none of his good deeds count if they are done for selfish reasons. Constantine continues to commit half of the Seven Deadly Sins every other day and stays out of Hell by literally cheating Satan out of his soul. One of these is a far more generic protagonist than the other. To be fair, the movie gives us a few Constantine moments, like John giving Satan the finger, or this classic moment of unwarranted spite.

          Sadly, however, these don't make up for everything else. But what if we separate the movie from the comic? Could it be good then? Well, my sister doesn't know anything about Hellblazer and she liked this movie enough to buy it on Blu-ray, so perhaps. Though, as I see it, if a film is going to claim to be an adaptation, it should be judged as an adaptation. By that standard, this film doesn't measure up.

The Maltese Falcon

          The Maltese Falcon was directed by Roy Del Ruth and is based on the novel by Raymond Chandler. I want to point something out real quick: not a single scene in this movie actually takes place in Malta. Does that not bother anyone else? Seriously, that's straight up false advertisement. I can't be the only one to notice that. Come to think of it, this whole movie is kinda shit. The whole movie is filmed in black and white, not to mention the sound quality is all grainy. Did they blow the whole budget not filming in Malta? Come on Roy, give it you're A-game. And don't even get me starting on Bogart's "acting."

American cultural icon my ass.

           The gorilla from Congo gave a better performance. Oh, and get this; he plays a private investigator. Yeah, Humphrey Bogart as a private investigator; never seen that before. That was sarcasm by the way. But don't take my word for how bad it is. Here's what the critics have to say:

"The Maltese Falcon? More like the Snoretese Falcon!" -Rodger Ebart

          Ha! You tell 'em, Rodge! Oh, and happy April Fool's or something, I guess.

Bram Stoker's Dracula

          Bram Stoker's Dracula was directed by Francis Ford Coppola and is adapted from, well, Bram Stoker's Dracula. Although adored by film critics and casual movie goers alike, I didn't really enjoy this movie all that much. I should enjoy this movie; every part of me that is rational says so. It has great performances from Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins. It is respectful to the source material, but is still its own story. The sets and costumes are designed wonderfully. Most of all, the insane level of melodrama somehow works (most of the time). For example, in one scene the Abraham who actually hunts vampires tosses the decapitated heads of three blood-suckers off a bridge and then cries out Dracula's name to the sky at the top of his lungs. In another, he dry humps Quincy Morris while describing the love of Quincy's life as "the concubine of Satan." Come to think of it, Van Helsing is out of his damn mind in this movie.

He's still one of the best things about it, though.

          By all rights, scenes like these should not be anything more than laughably ludicrous, but they are. The film's most noticeable failings are Keanu's faux British accent and the occasional moment where the melodrama fails (such as when vampire Lucy pukes blood on Van Helsing, Regan McNeil style), neither of which are so bad they ruin the movie. So why didn't I enjoy it? First of all, I want to point out that don't dislike this film, I just didn't particularly like it either. The reason for this, I'll admit, isn't entirely fair. To understand, one first needs to see this scene.

          This is my favorite scene of the film. It is one of my favorite scenes of any vampire film. It is also the prologue, so it colors the way I see the rest of the movie. A big part of this film is the romance between Dracula and Mina (who is the reincarnation of his deceased lover), but whenever the two are having a moment, all I can think about is how Dracula's hatred for God is so potent that he caused an entire cathedral and everything in it to bleed! Maybe it's just me, but when I've seen a man warp reality with his rage I have a hard time focusing on the other aspects of his character. 

          Like I said, every rational part of me says I should like this movie, but the reason I don't isn't rational. That's why I still give it a recommendation. My own prejudices aside, there are a lot of things to like about Bram Stoker's Dracula. Or maybe I just didn't like it because the left out Dracula's deadliest superpower: the Lugosi Stare!

Coraline

" 'I hope you weren't too old for it,' I told her, when she was done. 'I don't think you can be too old for Coraline,' she said, which made me very happy." - Neil Gaiman

          Coraline was directed by Henry Selick and is based on Neil Gaiman's novel of the same name. I wish I had read Coraline when it came out in 2002. I would have loved this as a kid. Alas, back then I mostly stuck to my mom's books and didn't read Coraline until quite recently. Obviously, I was well past the target age demographic by then; in fact, I only bought the book because it had Neil Gaiman's name on it. For those of you don't know, Gaiman is the most imaginative living writer I'm familiar with. His series Sandman is, along with Watchman, one of the most critically lauded comics of all time. After reading the first volume of Sandman and his written novel American Gods, I had already decided he was one of my favorite fantasy authors.

          I don't care that the back of the book says Coraline is for eight year-olds, this book is awesome! But don't take my word for it; here's what USA Today has to say about it.

"Not since Narnia has the simple act of opening a door unlocked such a fantastic journey. And not since Alice tumbled down the rabbit hole has that journey been so splendidly strange and frightening"

           Oh right, the movie. It's pretty good. It's stop motion, which is almost always a plus in my book. There's just something about how it looks that CGI can't capture. Selick also directed The Nightmare Before Christmas and I don't think I need to tell you that he knows what he's doing. The only thing about it that bugs me is the useless addition of a character named Wyborne. It might be nit-picky but I think he's really irritating. Why does Coraline need a sidekick that doesn't even do any sidekicking until the last five minutes? That brings me to the worst part, the film trades the book's original ending (where Coraline saves the day by being really clever for however old she is) for Deus Ex Wybie. Ugh. Also, Coraline is a bit, well, bitchier in the movie. She even calls Wyborne "Why-were-you-born" a couple of times. Look, it might be a legitimate question, but to ask him to his face is just cruel.

          In conclusion, buy the book, bask in the glory of Neil Gaiman, then, if you like it, see the movie. It is pretty.

"I wanted to write a story for my daughters that told them something I wished I'd known when I was a boy: that being brave didn't mean you weren't scared. Being brave meant you were scared, really scared, badly scared, and you did the right thing anyway. So now, ten years later, I've started running into women who tell me that Coraline got them through hard times in their lives. That when they were scared they thought of Coraline, and they did the right thing. And that, more than anything, makes it worthwhile." - Neil Gaiman

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

"In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit."

          The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was directed by Peter Jackson and is based on The Hobbit, or There and Back Again by J. R. R. Tolkien. I was very skeptical when I first heard Jackson was adapting The Hobbit into a trilogy. After all, The Hobbit is shorter than all three of the Lord of the Rings books and he only made one film for each of those. After having seen it, however, I'm still skeptical, but much less so.

          You see, The Hobbit isn't just about The Hobbit. Jackson takes things that were only briefly mentioned in the book and turned them into major plot points, particularly the War of the Dwarves and Orcs. For example, Azog the Goblin is a major villain in the film despite never even making an appearance in the book. Furthermore, it looks like the Necromancer (who, like Azog, is only mentioned in a single line of dialogue) will be important in the next two films. Also, Radagast the Brown. He was in Lord of the Rings, not The Hobbit, but Jackson took him out of Lord of the Rings and put him in The Hobbit. He has a sled pulled by Rhosgobel rabbits.

          As should be expected from Jackson at this point, The Hobbit is gorgeous. The effects (both practical and CG) are very impressive and the scenery is breathtaking.  Like Lord of the Rings, this movie will make you feel like it was really filmed in another world.

Shot in the mystical land of New Zealand

           It should be said that this film isn't as good as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, as it doesn't really do anything Lord of the Rings didn't. Still, The Hobbit is a fun movie and if you are a fan of Tolkien, Jackson's adaptations of Tolkien, or you just want to let sexy, sexy New Zealand make sweet love to your corneas, it's worth seeing.

Yojimbo

Note: Playing this will greatly improve your reading experience.

          Yojimbo was directed by Akira Kurosawa and was inspired by the writings of Dashiell Hammett. Kurosawa cited The Glass Key as a major influence (which shows, particularly when the protagonist is captured and beaten), but really it has more in common with another Hammett novel, Red Harvest. In Red Harvest an unnamed operative of the Continental Detective Agency goes to the city of Personville (lovingly nicknamed "Poisonville) to meet a man named Donald Willsson, but when he gets there, he finds that Willsson has been murdered. During his investigation, the Continental Op learns that Personville is run by crooks and decides to clean up.

"Poisonville is ripe for the harvest. It’s a job I like, and I’m going to do it.” - The Continental Op

          Yojimbo is about a ronin (a samurai without a lord or master) who wanders into a village ravaged by two rival gangs. He identifies himself only as Sanjuro (meaning thirty-year-old man) and plots to bring down both gangs by playing them against each other.

"I get paid for killing, and this town is full of people who deserve to die." - Sanjuro

        This is one of my favorite movies of all time and it has a strong legacy. In the English speaking world, it has been remade as Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars and as Walter Hill's Last Man Standing. Sanjuro is also the template for the Man With No Name character archetype made famous by Clint Eastwood's character in the Dollars Trilogy.

http://movieclips.com/f7UE-yojimbo-movie-get-two-coffins-ready/

          This lone, stoic, and nameless anti-hero is common in westerns, but can be found in other genres as well; for example, Ryan Gosling's character in Drive. Hell, Sanjuro was even the inspiration for SNL's Samurai Futaba skits with John Belushi. It certainly doesn't hurt that Sanjuro is played by Toshiro Mifune, one of the five best actors for portraying badassery; the other four being Clint Eastwood, Bruce Lee, Samuel L. "Motherfucking" Jackson, and Reb Brown.

Pictured Above: Badass

          The story of Red Harvest is a hard-boiled crime fiction turned Japanese period drama turned spaghetti western. If that isn't awesome, then I want to be the lamest guy this side of Crazy Quilt.

Alice (Neco z Alenky)

          Alice was directed by Jan Svankmajer in 1988 and is inspired by Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Svankmajer is a Czech surrealist known for his use of stop-motion animation. Alice combines stop-motion with live action to create a visually impressive retelling of the classic children's story. This film never strays far from the original in terms of plot, but it isn't really about telling a story. Above all, Alice is an art film. It uses Wonderland as an inspiration, but it's not actually about Wonderland, so much as about making a brilliant piece of surrealist animation.

          Unlike most adaptations of Wonderland, Alice never lets the audience get too comfortable in the setting. Take this scene for example.

          That probably seemed like a long seven minutes. This movie's pace borders on agonizing, which allows the bizarre nature of the film to really sink in. Also, take note of the sounds in this scene. There is no music and the sound effects are harsh and mechanical. The whole movie is like that. Furthermore, there is very little dialogue and every character is voiced by the same person. Altogether, this makes the movie sound just as unsettling as it looks.

          Another interesting touch is that nearly everything is made out of household objects. Where most versions of Wonderland have a setting and characters that are completely imaginary, Alice opts to take the familiar and make it strange. For example, the March Hare is a wind up toy, the King and Queen are cut out from playing cards...

... and the Caterpillar is a sock with googly eyes and dentures.
         The slow pace and dark tone makes Alice feel more like a weird dream than a fairy-tale. That concept may turn some people off, but I still recommend giving it a shot. We don't see a lot of stop-motion these days outside of Robot Chicken and this is as good an example of the technique as any. Even better, you can brag to your friends about how artsy you are afterward.

V for Vendetta and Watchmen

  

          V for Vendetta was directed by James McTeigue and is based on the graphic novel of the same name, written by Alan Moore and drawn by David Lloyd. Watchmen was directed by Zack Snyder and is based on the graphic novel Watchmen, also written by Alan Moore and drawn by Dave Gibbons. What makes an adaptation good? Should it stay as true to the source material as possible, risking awkward translation and redundancy? Or should it take the basic premise of the original, put its own spin on it, and risk losing the heart and soul of what it is supposed to be based on? These two films showcase the possibilities, as well as the limitations of both approaches. Also, it gives me a reason to talk about comics. V for Vendetta is an action/thriller that takes many, many liberties with the source material. Watchmen is essentially the abridged version of the graphic novel and only makes one major change (which is too much of a spoiler to discuss here). Rather than summarize the novels myself, I'll let Alan Moore take it from here.

          The film version of Vendetta is certainly less intelligent and challenging than the novel. I don't mean that as an attack, but it's true and even the film's strongest supporters would be hard pressed to deny it. The moral ambiguity is almost completely lost, with V (our Guy Fawkes mask wearing protagonist) being a heroic freedom fighter and the authorities V fights being irredeemable monsters, and most of the plot has been cut out. This doesn't automatically make it bad, though. The cinematography in this movie is excellent and it is beautifully shot and edited all the way through. Ironically, it is also one of the more intelligent comic book movies out there (I don't know if that says more about the movie or Hollywood) and who doesn't love the scene where V first introduces himself?

          It may not be fair to begrudge this movie for the how different it is from the source material. Alan Moore's novel is so brilliant and so complex that any attempt to recreate it in a two to three hour film would be laughably doomed from the start. Then again, we all thought the same thing about Watchmen (many still do).

Spoiler Warning: Moore talks about a character's death from 3:22-3:56

          When I first heard Zack Snyder, the same man who directed 300, would be directing the Watchmen movie, I was very, very skeptical. For those of you who haven't seen 300, its most notable achievement is that it somehow manages to be homophobic and homoerotic at the same time. It's the Jungian thing, I guess. As entertaining as this is, it doesn't exactly engender much confidence in Snyder's ability to do a subtle deconstruction of the superhero genre. Turns out I wasn't being entirely fair to the guy. Snyder, if nothing else, at least knows how to put a comic in motion and the film sticks strictly to the source material (with the one aforementioned exception). Nearly every line of dialogue is a direct quote from the novel. Such adherence to the novel, however, isn't without its problems.

"The graphic novel 'Watchmen' is such a dark, densely layered and yes, cinematic work of art that it feels like you're immersed in a movie as you experience it. But the advantage of the book is you can pause and go back a few pages, or take a moment to consider the ramifications of the flashbacks (and the flashbacks within the flashbacks). You can take your time perusing the frames for small touches.
With a movie, it just washes over you. If you don't know these characters from the novel, you're going to have a hell of time keeping up with their multi-decade soap opera." - Richard Roeper

          Of course, whatever flaws this movie has, it certainly has its moments of greatness as well. Take the title sequence for example. You might be thinking that I'm really reaching for something positive to say about it if I have to look to the opening credits; not so. This sequence is brilliant, as it establishes the history of the first generation of superheroes, the rise and fall of superheroes, and the film's tone, all in under six minutes.

 

          As to the question asked in the first paragraph, there is no real answer and both approaches to adaptation have flaws and merits. Ultimately, it comes down to the quality of the individual work, as these these two love-or-hate films demonstrate.

Dorian Gray

"A new Hedonism--that is what our century wants. You might be its visible symbol. With your personality there is nothing you could not do. The world belongs to you for a season...." - Lord Henry Wotton.

         Dorian Gray was made in 2009 and directed by Oliver Parker. It is based on Oscar Wilde's first and only novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray. It is the Faustian tale of a young man who, upon seeing a portrait of himself and becoming enamored with his own beauty, trades his soul for eternal youth. From that moment on, the painting ages in his place. It even grows hideous with Dorian's increasing decadence. As one might expect, the film plays up the novel's horror elements and even inserts some of it's own. For example, the movie adds an abusive grandfather subplot which never goes anywhere and has nothing to do with the overall story. The closest it gets to relevance is a scene where Dorian discovers the scars on his back (given to him by said grandfather) are gone, implying the picture gives him a mutant healing factor.

Pictured Above: Weapon X

          Okay, the novel never explicitly says the picture doesn't assume Dorian's physical wounds, but considering that little detail never comes up again either it's still rather pointless. Speaking of pointless, Basil Hallward, the guy who painted Dorian's picture, doesn't really seem to matter much in the film. In the book he's just about all that remains of Dorian's conscious, but in the movie he only exists to paint the portrait and, later, to show the audience how far Dorian has fallen. This brings us to Dorian's other influence, Harry.

"You would sacrifice anybody, Harry, for the sake of an epigram." - Dorian Gray.

          If Dorian Gray is Faust, then Lord Henry "Harry" Wotton is the Devil, though not a literal devil like Mephistopheles. That's what makes him interesting, though, as he seems oblivious to his status as Prince of Lies. He's not even all that evil; immoral perhaps, but not outright evil. As much as he promotes nihilistic hedonism, he never actually does anything all that bad. Oh sure, he's a bad influence on Dorian, but Basil considers Henry to be one of his best friends and he's still a nice guy. In fact, Dorian is the only person who responds to Henry's sayings with anything other than shock and/or contempt. The kid has no real opinions or convictions of his own and sucks up Henry's every casual remark like a sponge.

"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it. Resist it, and your soul grows sick with longing for the things it has forbidden to itself, with desire for what its monstrous laws have made monstrous and unlawful." - Lord Henry Wotton.

"I don't think I am likely to marry, Harry. I am too much in love. That is one of your aphorisms. I am putting it into practice, as I do everything that you say." - Dorian Gray.

          Henry sure doesn't seem to fully realize what he's done. When Dorian confesses to murder, Henry just laughs it off in disbelief and tells the kid to go play with his dolls. Really, his corruption of Dorian comes off as being less like this...



...and more like this.

 Only instead of a pole it's hookers and blow.



          In the film, Henry is much more sinister, at least at first, and much of his wit and charm is lost because of it. We frequently see him looking at Dorian in ways that could only be more villainous if he had a twirly mustache and a bi-plane. He also has this tendency to look on diabolically from the shadows when Dorian joins him in the Dark Side. Then this happens.

          Emily Wotton is original to the movie and serves to give Dorian one last chance at redemption, while at the same time turning Henry into a loving father trying to protect his only child from Dorian's wickedness. The movie suddenly starts portraying Beelzebub and the walking STD sympathetically, while pitting them against each other in a rather forced conflict. This is the film's biggest flaw; in the third act, it tries to be too many things. As soon as Emily is introduced, what began as a drama/horror about what happens when man is freed from consequence becomes the story of a lost soul finding his way with the power of love; a man who has to defend his family from a monster of his own creation a la Victor Frankenstein; an unfettered id confronting a hypocritical superego and, of course, what happens when man is freed from consequence. As interesting as all this could have been, the last half-hour of a two hour film just isn't enough time to properly introduce and develop these themes. Sadly, Dorian Gray took to long to realize what it wanted to be.

Blade Runner

          Blade Runner is a science fiction film directed by Ridley Scott and based on the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick, one of sci-fi's greatest authors. Like the book, Blade Runner is about Rick Deckard, a bounty hunter who is sent to track down and retire (i.e. execute) rogue androids. These androids look just like real humans and can only be detected by an empathy test called the Voigt-Kampff. Along the way, Deckard begins to question the nature of humans, as well as the morality of hunting androids.

         The answers to these questions are what truly separate the film from its source material. As I mentioned earlier, the only way to differentiate androids from humans is to test them for empathy and in the novel, it's as "simple" as that; androids lack empathy. They're sociopaths and are ultimately incapable of caring about anyone else, including other androids. Humans, however, are capable of empathy and that is what defines us. On the other hand, the film's androids (called replicants) aren't completely devoid of empathy, they just never get the chance to fully develop it. You see, replicants are built with a lifespan of only four years, so, despite their incredible strength and intelligence, they are basically toddlers; toddlers who spend their entire lives as slaves. 

 America's Most Wanted

          In a way, the film's Roy Batty, leader of the replicants Deckard is hunting, is more of a deuteragonist than a standard antagonist. He's an escaped slave on the verge of death, who just wants a chance at an actual life. He gets about as much screen time as Deckard and even delivers one of the most iconic monologues in sci-fi cinema. Spoiler Warning: This monologue takes place at the climax of the film. Below it is a less spoiler heavy scene which shows Roy mourning a fellow android.

          For comparison, here is how the novel describes Roy as he tells another android of their companions' deaths.

"He delivered the news as if, perversely, it pleased him to be telling this. As if he derived pleasure from Pris' shock... the worse the situation, the more he seemed to enjoy it."

           True, the novel's androids are trying to escape a life of servitude, but they are also manipulative and sadistic. They are tragic, yet irredeemable; sympathetic, yet deplorable. Whatever empathy we may feel for them is a verification of our own humanity, not theirs, as we can even feel sorry for ruthless killers.

          Given the movie's more positive take on mechanical life, you might assume that it doesn't portray killing them for money in the best light. You would be right. Likewise, you might also assume that the book, given its more negative view toward androids, would be in full support of Deckard's job. Well, not quite. The book has a Nietzschean "he who fight's with monsters" theme. Because the androids are so close to humans, Deckard is forced to sacrifice his sense of empathy to kill them. By doing this, Deckard risks his own humanity, which is a major conflict in the story. Below is a passage from the book showing how Deckard comes to see himself at one point.

"I'm a scourge, like famine or plague. Where I go the ancient curse follows... I am required to do wrong."

          Here are a couple of quotes from the author himself on the topic. These are from an interview with Paul M. Sammon that can be read in the 25th anniversary edition of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.

"In my mind, android is a metaphor for people who are physiologically human but behaving in a nonhuman way." "Now, I wrote Sheep right in the middle of the Vietnam War, and at the time I was revolutionary and existential enough to believe that these android personalities were so lethal, so dangerous to human beings, that it ultimately might become necessary to fight them. The problem with killing them would be, 'could we not become like the androids in our very effort to wipe them out?' "

          Blade Runner is far from a carbon copy of it's source material and is all the better for it. The movie builds from the book's basic premise, while forging it's own identity from it. I highly recommend both Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and Blade Runner, as they are each among the most intelligent science fiction pieces in their respective mediums.