![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: I am the bishop of East Anglia
May. 3rd, 2005 06:40 pmJosh,
> So what's the deal with this new Hitchhiker's Guide
> flick? Have you heard anything pro or con?
I saw it last weekend.
I sort of felt like I could reconstruct the board meetings that led to the most egregious violations of the book's integrity - a smartly suited, clueless fuck with a Brooks Bros. tie yammering, yammering: "There should be a love story!" Or, "We really need something in the middle of the film to flesh out the plot and tie up the loose ends!" Or, worse: "Zaphod should be politically relevant! Play him like G.W. Bush!"
So, yes, like any other self-respecting nerd, I left the movie (taking great joy in) noting the flaws of the film. My snide ray was set to kill! How dare they debase this work, this most important monument of my geeky youth? How dare they.
Then I thought about it for a while and calmed down some. How much could I realistically expect? Is there any book that lends itself less readily to the movie format? HHGTTG is really only about 50% narrative by volume, and that narrative isn't exactly MGM material: earth gets destroyed, guy in a bathrobe goes to weird planet, uh, the end. The movie attempts to make a proper "plot" out of this by playing up the role of the Vogons, conventionalizing the Arthur/Trillian love story, sending Zaphod to meet Deep Thought, etc. The whole enterprise is an embarrasing failure, of course, but I can appreciate the fact that it was an effort that had to be made.
On the plus side, a number of the remaining 50% - the Guide entries, what I consider to be the real "meat" of the book - made it into the movie as high class, amusing animation sequences. (Unfortunately these trail off in number as the film progresses.) The filmmakers also brilliantly executed a number of creative and often hilarious visuals: Ford and Arthur as sofas, the Heart of Yarn, and the vertigo-inducing Magrathea (among others). Jim Henson's Creature Shop created the Vogons, so they're spot on, of course.
But the movie felt like a collection of ideas about how to make a movie of HHGTTG, rather than a completely realized film. It was strange: all of the actors' performances, considered on an individual basis, were great - especially Bill Nighy as Slartibartfast (I kind of wish the movie was just Slartibartfast and Arthur talking about Earth for two hours). But the performances didn't cohere. None of it stuck together. Does Bill Nighy even know who Mos Def is?
So I'd say this: go for the pieces, not for the whole. Allow the infidelities to Adams' work to enrage you, and revel in that rage! It's your birthright. But don't forget to enjoy the stuff they got right.
Adam
> So what's the deal with this new Hitchhiker's Guide
> flick? Have you heard anything pro or con?
I saw it last weekend.
I sort of felt like I could reconstruct the board meetings that led to the most egregious violations of the book's integrity - a smartly suited, clueless fuck with a Brooks Bros. tie yammering, yammering: "There should be a love story!" Or, "We really need something in the middle of the film to flesh out the plot and tie up the loose ends!" Or, worse: "Zaphod should be politically relevant! Play him like G.W. Bush!"
So, yes, like any other self-respecting nerd, I left the movie (taking great joy in) noting the flaws of the film. My snide ray was set to kill! How dare they debase this work, this most important monument of my geeky youth? How dare they.
Then I thought about it for a while and calmed down some. How much could I realistically expect? Is there any book that lends itself less readily to the movie format? HHGTTG is really only about 50% narrative by volume, and that narrative isn't exactly MGM material: earth gets destroyed, guy in a bathrobe goes to weird planet, uh, the end. The movie attempts to make a proper "plot" out of this by playing up the role of the Vogons, conventionalizing the Arthur/Trillian love story, sending Zaphod to meet Deep Thought, etc. The whole enterprise is an embarrasing failure, of course, but I can appreciate the fact that it was an effort that had to be made.
On the plus side, a number of the remaining 50% - the Guide entries, what I consider to be the real "meat" of the book - made it into the movie as high class, amusing animation sequences. (Unfortunately these trail off in number as the film progresses.) The filmmakers also brilliantly executed a number of creative and often hilarious visuals: Ford and Arthur as sofas, the Heart of Yarn, and the vertigo-inducing Magrathea (among others). Jim Henson's Creature Shop created the Vogons, so they're spot on, of course.
But the movie felt like a collection of ideas about how to make a movie of HHGTTG, rather than a completely realized film. It was strange: all of the actors' performances, considered on an individual basis, were great - especially Bill Nighy as Slartibartfast (I kind of wish the movie was just Slartibartfast and Arthur talking about Earth for two hours). But the performances didn't cohere. None of it stuck together. Does Bill Nighy even know who Mos Def is?
So I'd say this: go for the pieces, not for the whole. Allow the infidelities to Adams' work to enrage you, and revel in that rage! It's your birthright. But don't forget to enjoy the stuff they got right.
Adam
