Movies Adapted from Books...Always the Best?

Today, I'm going to talk about something that I think about when I talk movies: those movies that are based on best-selling books...is it always such a good idea? Overall, adapting a novel, short story or any form of literature to the silver screen is perfect and okay...the dilemma is who chooses to bring a story to the screen.

Let's start off with some good examples. New Zealand director Peter Jackson did a phenomenal job adapting J.R.R. Tolkein's beloved Lord of the Rings trilogy, a trilogy of novels that Tolkien himself considered, perhaps ironically, that these books were "unfilmable." But with hard work and strict adherence to the source material, they were able to create a trilogy of cinematic masterpieces.

Another good example would be director Ang Lee's surrealistically beautiful take on Yann Martel's 2001 novel Life of Pi. I had the good fortune to see the entire film recently, and I was blown away by it. I believe it really took the source material very well and managed to make it a living masterpiece along the way.

Another noteworthy example was 2003's Holes, based on the 1998 novel by Louis Sachar. Sachar himself was actually hired onto the team by writing the screenplay for the movie; plus, he has a little cameo part in the movie, see if you can spot him.

But alas, there are some projects that had great potential and then fell flat on their faces because the director and crew went about interpreting the story wrong.

For starters in this category, let's follow the career path of our old twist-obsessed pal M. Night Shyamalan. I'd consider 1999's The Sixth Sense to be the high point of his career. The Village was alright, as well; but after that things began to take a spiral down. But nothing was more tragic than seeing the beloved Nickelodeon cartoon series Avatar: The Last Airbender, which meant so much to a lot of kids my age, transformed from its anime awesomeness into a reprehensible disaster-trip that almost made me walk out the theater mid-showing. I stayed only to see if this film would redeem itself; I found no such redemption.

I realize that I'm talking about a television show now and not a book, but nonetheless, it needs to be noted on my list of horrible adaptations. This is the one exception.

Another example I'm going to cite is the screen adaptation of the first book in Rick Riordian's Percy Jackson and the Olympians series, The Lightning Thief. I'm very well fond of the book; it basically follows the story of the demigod, half-son of Zeus Percy Jackson as he tries to recover his "father's" all-powerful lightning bolt that's been stolen. I loved reading it; a lot of imagery stuck in my mind as I read. But the movie didn't cut it for me.

As an aspiring screenwriter myself, there are a ton of books that I love that I'd love to adapt to the screen. In adapting a book, I'd like to pattern myself after the legendary Stanley Kubrick; whose major body of films are based on books. Kubrick himself has stated various times that he found it better to adapt a book than to write an original screenplay. He very well adhered to the original source material while also added different surprises that divulged from the original story.

Now when it comes to me personally, adapting books are okay, but I'm a creator. I like to try and come up with original stories, with original characters that I can call my own. It's harder and it takes a lot longer than using an already-written book, but I find that it's much more special when you work with something that's your own. Don't get me wrong, adapting books are great and if I found one, I'd do it; but mostly I like to keep it original.

So overall, adapting a written story for the screen is great and it's turned out some great movies, but it depends on the vision of the director and how he or she interprets the material that makes the final product either good or bad.

What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Innocence?

My next topic to talk about is something that's been on my mind since it's happened. If any of you remember back in July of 2012, it was the major uproar in the Middle East due to the blasphemous nature of an obscure "film" titled Innocence of Muslims. The "film" in question was a simple 14-minute clip posted to YouTube that portrayed one of the holiest figurehead of the Islamic faith, the prophet Muhammad, as "a womanizer, child molester and killer." The widespread protests that exploded soon after resulted in the deaths of numerous people around the world.

Ever since viewing it on YouTube when the controversy first began, I was always trying to figure out how to say my feelings on it. I refrained from talking on Facebook or with anyone about it because of the huge sensitivity towards it at the time. But since it's been over a year and things have significantly died down, it entered into my mind again. I re-watched the clip (which has the YouTube "flagged content" warning before watching it), and still it continues to shock me. There is no overt violence or sexual content in the clip, but it is nonetheless heinous and censor-worthy.

As far as I'm concerned, this film has committed two major crimes: insulting the culture of an entire people and region, and insulting the fine art of film-making.

The fact that the "film-makers" had the gall to call this a "film" is beyond me; this was a defecating stain on the art of making a film, almost blasphemous itself, in that right. I could go into a lengthily list of every single little nit-pick I could find about the reprehensible editing, the feebly-constructed sets, the miscast actors and their horrible performances (although to their credit, we must forgive them for not knowing the true intentions behind what they were doing) and the atrociously-handled audio overdubs; I know the filmmakers were attempting to be subversive with the dialogue, but they didn't even bother to make it convincing? Go back to Propaganda 101, guys! (Complete sarcasm, don't actually do it...)

As far as my review goes in terms of the "film-making" and the story, this "film" is an absolute disaster in every sense of the word. But even that wasn't what shocked me. What shocked me was how the Islamic diaspora in the Middle East reacted to something, that I think, is so trivial it was unnecessary to arouse the reaction that it did. Is it really necessary to kill and vandalize just because they've been offended? However, I understand that in the Islamic religion and culture, blasphemy of the Prophet Muhammad or Allah is akin to the most serious treason imaginable and results in serious consequences (just take a look at the Rushdie Affair and that whole debacle). Also, any sort of depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, whether good or ill, is also strictly forbidden.

To most people on the earth, religion and culture are just as valuable as life itself, and some are willing to die in the name of religion. While such zeal can be admired, too much of it is ridiculous. And frankly, this is what I see amongst the extremist reactions in the Islamic diaspora to anything considered heinous. I believe that in today's modern times, it's important to show serious restraint. For example, I'm a Christian; I believe the Bible is 100% true, I believe God exists and has always existed with no beginning and no end, and that He is my Lord and Savior. It's granted that some people are not going to believe what I believe, or not even like me for what I believe. However, I'm not surprised, the Bible teaches that such reactions will occur. The Bible also instructs Christians to "live like Christ," that includes living out the instructions of Jesus, including peace and brotherhood. I can't tell you how many times I've seen and heard so many things I consider blasphemous to Christianity, Jesus and God the Father. And sure, I'm offended, I don't like it and I don't partake in it. But does that give me the right to smash stuff and take someone's life all because I've been offended? No, that's mob mentality and a ridiculous action; a complete, 180-degree opposite to what the Bible teaches. Yes, it's okay to be offended if someone or something takes a crack at your beliefs or morals, there's no crime against that...but if you (and I use "you" in the general sense) start committing irrational acts because of your offense, that's taking it too far.

Overall, this was a terrible "movie" and in no way, shape or form do I support it or its content. I hope you found my thoughts interesting; please comment if you wish. I only ask that you don't start attacking me or anyone who might say anything with vitriolic comments; if you want to have a discussion, do it in a civil and mature manner, please.

My Thoughts on Education Today

[Beginning note: My good friend Seth Byle gave me the kind permission to reference him by name; you can visit his Facebook page here or his YouTube channel here]

I had a rather interesting discussion with a friend of mine named Seth over Facebook. His original post stated about how he realized that the eighteen years he spent in school were much of a complete waste; most of the things he learned he'd never use in real life. He went on to say how ridiculous it was that people put so much emphasis on a high school diploma, a simple "slip of paper" that only holds importance because "idiots in society" imagine it to be so.

It was after a few comments that I decided to jump in; I have a very strong view of education and it was a subject I'm rather passionate of speaking about. A friend of Seth's made an interesting comment at the beginning of the discussion that caught my eye; it concerned the role of government in regulating an education curriculum. To quote him directly:

“...public schools are propaganda re-education camps. You graduate, then only to find yourself buried under student loans for college and then have a hard time finding a job. Welcome to 2013 my friend. What ever happened to plain, honest, hard work and getting a chance to prove yourself...paper is just that…paper...with dozens lined up right with you. I know how it all goes…times are rough...but keep your head up man...you have time to get where you want to be. Just remember…persistence alone is omnipotent.”

As far as the government's role in regulating education, I believe this should fall under the old "laissez-faire" interpretation; even though the term is generally associated with economics and describing how a capitalist society should function, the main principle of the "hands-off, let it be" government role should apply directly to educating future generations of Americans. I made my thoughts clear in my first post:

“I do agree that education should not in any way, shape or form be government-regulated. The government does not decide what society learns through institutions; it's the people who decide what should be taught and learned. That's the great thing about America; there's the freedom to learn whatever you like, to build your own philosophy and learn about what's important to the individual. That freedom is taken away only when the government decides to have its way with teaching generation of young people...”

That sums up my opposition directly. The responsibilities of educational institutions should fall not just on the individual States, but the people; the American people as a whole should have a say in what should be taught in the classrooms of pre-schools, kindergartens, elementary, middle, high schools and universities. We should push forth the freedom of choice, to decide individually what you want to learn for yourself.

Seth responded with a very interesting thought:

“It's not just public [school] vs. private [school], it's the whole form of education in general. The whole idea of kids spending hours a day locked in a prison, forced to do mind-numbing work is just a bad idea to me. I believe that the entire format/concept of school should be changed, and it shouldn't start so early in life, nor should it take up so much of your life. This is just inefficient. School should be just a spoke on the wheel, and not the whole bike.”

I agreed with his claims and clarified my thoughts on my view of how education should work in the post following the response:

"I believe the best school environment is this: it's very important to teach the core values of reading, writing and arithmetic; those come in handy throughout life, even if you don't realize it at the time. Once the children have that under control, then allow them to freely pursue any other interests they're passionate about. It makes learning more fun and hands-on. You're right; I think school is now reduced to a strict, by-the-book routine of 'sit in a classroom, take long notes, listen to a boring lecture, then go home and do five hours of homework.'"

I still hold truth to this belief. It's common knowledge to see that nobody wants to do what doesn't interest them. And from what I've seen, even in my private education upbringing, students are generally detached to learning because certain subjects don't interest them; yet, they still have to learn it. Many a time have I heard "Ugh, I hate this class!" or "Why is this important, I'm not gonna need to learn any of this!" This matter has two guilty parties: the instructors and the students. Yes, instructors can do a better job at making the material engaging and interesting, but it also takes motivation on the students' part to actually engage themselves. I addressed my sentiments at what I perceive as the lazy entitlement attitude amongst kids in the classroom:

“And I feel like there's no incentive to work in school anymore; teachers just keep giving out the answers, and it makes the students feel like they're entitled to get the answers easily and not have to work to find them. [Actually having students do the work themselves]; That instills the mindset to work to find and receive what you need, which is very important in everyday life. I think schools today are the breeding grounds for entitled kids.”

I've always worked hard for my grades in school. While I saw other kids copying and cheating off one another, I took the extra time to really look through and read the information and gain a comprehension of the information. Some kids thought I was crazy or stupid to do such a thing; to them, looking for the information was a waste of time when they could just get the answers from a friend or get the teacher to "tell" them. These very recent reports on student motivation from the Center on Education Policy really shed a light on how students are perceived as unmotivated.

Also as a great reference, another friend of mine (a very well-educated young man, might I say) posted a video on YouTube detailing problems he experiences in education and the inheriting and learning of information as it pertains to the current generation. In his own words, "my generation doesn't know a damn thing." Seeing those type of attitudes in action, I too feel a little bit entitled to bash the lazy attitudes persistent in the kids of my generation.

Now I refer back to my post about my views of education, just so I can clarify further. I believe in teaching the core principles of reading, writing and arithmetic; they're absolute necessities for having citizens in society function. All three core courses teach comprehension, logic, problem-solving and the training of motor skills. But once students have those core values instated, they should then be free to adapt their three R's of learning and pursue their interests and prepare for whatever career they desire. That freedom is part of the democratic republic that has made America what is has been since 1776.

This is why I am a big proponent of "hands-on" education; it efficiently trains you better for a career than a classroom environment does. The film school that I'm currently attending for college focuses their curriculum on this; there are hardly any classroom sessions where you sit and listen to a lesson for hours at a time. They teach you what you should know, but the rest of the learning is in your hands as the student, in this example, learning how to make a movie and setting out to make one. It's also teaching me about cooperating with other people of the same profession and working as a team in order to achieve a common end. This is where incentive, motivation and commitment come in on the students' part; teachers should not have to "baby" students and "hold their hands" (as one of my former high school teachers so eloquently put it). Students themselves should have the passion and the drive to take care of their own affairs and continue their education; they chose that path, now they have to walk it themselves. While the "hands-on" teaching/learning technique may differ by career or degree program, it is nonetheless vital to instilling important lessons into passionate students.

All in all, it was an interesting discussion and it's inspired me to share my thoughts on the education process in America, since it's still a current issue in debate around the nation. Please, leave any thoughtful comments; we can start a discussion in the comments section, if you'd like.

Have a blessed day.

The Wayne-gate Scandal

For my first post on my new blog, I'm going to address the furor going on amongst the youth community, especially the die-hard fanboys, about the casting choice of Ben Affleck in the role of Batman in the upcoming Batman-Superman movie. I've officially dubbed the "scandal" Wayne-gate.

Currently, my opinion is this: give ol' Ben a chance. I, personally, am quite shocked and, overall, tired at how this has somehow been made a big deal of. As far as Ben's acting track record goes, he hasn't disappointed yet. He's still riding high on the success of Argo; which, mind you, he wrote, directed and acted in the lead role. So, when it comes to diversity and multiple creativity in the entertainment industry, Ben can do what few have done (like Warren Beatty and Orson Welles, to name a couple.) I'm sure, as any committed actor would do, Ben will do his absolute best in bringing this Batman reincarnation to life on the screen.

I've seen The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises, I believe that role was one of Christian Bale's absolute finest, he brought a human side to Batman and, also, a darker side. This movie series (including Batman Begins) provided a much-needed revamp for the Batman franchise, due to all the sub-par adaptations previously made. But Christian Bale isn't Batman in this new movie; that's a reality we're all going to have to accept and move on from.

So whether Affleck rises or falls as the new Batman remains to be seen when the movie comes out, but I think this whole uproar on the Internet is ridiculous. I like Ben and greatly respect his achievements in Hollywood. The only way we can judge whether he fits the role is to see the movie. So hold your tongues until then.

These are my final words to the die-hard haters who are so against Affleck's casting choice: do you honestly think your comments are going to make Ben drop the role? This article and this article beg to differ, my overly-obsessed friends.