![]() ![]() Something is always inevitably lost, but something is often gained. It is impossible to completely translate a book into a movie. A film is one kind of media with its particular demands while a book is another. The criticism that Director Carroll Ballard's film is not entirely true to the book is legitimate, but I would point out that movies are seldom if ever entirely true to their source material. ![]() People with sound-bite attention spans who need to mainline exploding cars and ripped flesh to keep them interested need not apply. ![]() (Maybe they should have clothed the wolves.) The latter complaint is the major reason for all the ranting by some "reviewers." To them a Disney film showing human nakedness seems a sacrilege and they want their bowdlerized world returned to them, and they want Disney censured and made to promise never to do anything like that again! The complaint that there wasn't enough tension in the film is also off base since this is a contemplative, even spiritual film, not a slick thriller. To which I say, so what? so what? and gee, how offensive. ![]() How sad is that? The reasons for the controversy would seem minor: first, the movie is not entirely true to Mowat's book two, it's lightly plotted and three, a man is seen running around naked in the tundra. This fictionalization of the Farley Mowat book about his Arctic adventures studying wolves is amazingly enough perhaps the most controversial film Disney studios ever made. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |