Belated Review: Eat Pray Love
A friend of mine told me that I shouldn't see the film, but read the book instead. I decided to watch it anyway, since it was on cable the other night. It's not a bad film, but I felt something was lacking.
I've noticed something interesting with films adapted from books. They either skim the surface, because they assume everyone has read the book, or they skim the surface because they have a deal with the author to entice people to go and read the book after they've finished the movie.
Of course, not all film adaptations fall into this trap. The Lord of the Rings and the very first Harry Potter film are a few of several who give the audience enough information to comprehend what's going on. Then there are films like Seabiscuit which told a great story, but glossed over the background, leaving me feeling like they were just playing out highlights from the book. The second Harry Potter film was much worse. I couldn't follow it at all and felt lost without reading the novel. I finally did read it along with two more, but I have yet to revisit the second film and found myself not needing the pre-read for the two follow-ups nor the ones since (I haven't seen the last two yet, but I don't plan on reading the books beforehand, since I haven't needed to since the second film).
I sometimes feel that films that skim the surface are treating audiences the way a teacher would in a classroom the day after the students were assigned a chapter to read in the textbook. The teacher would not recite, nor reenact the chapter, but they might give you the highlights or go over it in such a way that's geared to the students who wisely read that chapter the night before.
But a movie shouldn't be the teacher. Granted, best-sellers adapted for films are more likely to have a knowing audience than not, but to assume that every single audience member has read the book prior to screening is like assuming that everyone thinks alike. Sorry, but thankfully we don't.
That said, I have found a few recent films that are presented with the belief that everyone watching has read a synopsis about it, so they don't need to give a back-story in the film. It's as if the producers said, "It's already covered in the synopsis, so why rehash it? It saves film and devotes more time to the real story." I don't know if anyone else has noticed it, but I have in a few occasions. Frankly a movie should tell a story and not assume the audience's knowledge of the subject matter, whether it's adapted from a book or summarized on a poster or press release.
So films really should take this into account and be made to stand the test of time. Don't assume we all know the story before we buy the tickets.
When it comes to adaptations, I prefer to read a book after seeing a film, because I'm sometimes disappointed with the outcome or find myself comparing the book to the film while I'm watching it. So when I sit through a movie that feels like its missing something, I wonder if that's a marketing ploy to get me to read the book even more now.
With Eat Pray Love it worked, although I had planned to read it at some point anyway.
I like spiritual topics, so I wanted to be motivated and inspired by this film, but I wasn't. Not that it was horrible. I found it watchable and the characters entertaining, but it didn't have the spiritual depth I expected. The wisdom sounded more like platitudes or fortune cookie sayings, rather than anything unique or inspiring. Her return to Bali was a disappointment. I didn't see the change in her from India. There might have been in the book, but I didn't see it in her on screen.
I hope the book provides more enlightenment for me. Again, the film was entertaining, but seemed to lack the heart I was looking for.
I've noticed something interesting with films adapted from books. They either skim the surface, because they assume everyone has read the book, or they skim the surface because they have a deal with the author to entice people to go and read the book after they've finished the movie.
Of course, not all film adaptations fall into this trap. The Lord of the Rings and the very first Harry Potter film are a few of several who give the audience enough information to comprehend what's going on. Then there are films like Seabiscuit which told a great story, but glossed over the background, leaving me feeling like they were just playing out highlights from the book. The second Harry Potter film was much worse. I couldn't follow it at all and felt lost without reading the novel. I finally did read it along with two more, but I have yet to revisit the second film and found myself not needing the pre-read for the two follow-ups nor the ones since (I haven't seen the last two yet, but I don't plan on reading the books beforehand, since I haven't needed to since the second film).
I sometimes feel that films that skim the surface are treating audiences the way a teacher would in a classroom the day after the students were assigned a chapter to read in the textbook. The teacher would not recite, nor reenact the chapter, but they might give you the highlights or go over it in such a way that's geared to the students who wisely read that chapter the night before.
But a movie shouldn't be the teacher. Granted, best-sellers adapted for films are more likely to have a knowing audience than not, but to assume that every single audience member has read the book prior to screening is like assuming that everyone thinks alike. Sorry, but thankfully we don't.
That said, I have found a few recent films that are presented with the belief that everyone watching has read a synopsis about it, so they don't need to give a back-story in the film. It's as if the producers said, "It's already covered in the synopsis, so why rehash it? It saves film and devotes more time to the real story." I don't know if anyone else has noticed it, but I have in a few occasions. Frankly a movie should tell a story and not assume the audience's knowledge of the subject matter, whether it's adapted from a book or summarized on a poster or press release.
So films really should take this into account and be made to stand the test of time. Don't assume we all know the story before we buy the tickets.
When it comes to adaptations, I prefer to read a book after seeing a film, because I'm sometimes disappointed with the outcome or find myself comparing the book to the film while I'm watching it. So when I sit through a movie that feels like its missing something, I wonder if that's a marketing ploy to get me to read the book even more now.
With Eat Pray Love it worked, although I had planned to read it at some point anyway.
I like spiritual topics, so I wanted to be motivated and inspired by this film, but I wasn't. Not that it was horrible. I found it watchable and the characters entertaining, but it didn't have the spiritual depth I expected. The wisdom sounded more like platitudes or fortune cookie sayings, rather than anything unique or inspiring. Her return to Bali was a disappointment. I didn't see the change in her from India. There might have been in the book, but I didn't see it in her on screen.
I hope the book provides more enlightenment for me. Again, the film was entertaining, but seemed to lack the heart I was looking for.
Comments
Post a Comment