iSphere

After watching War of the Worlds and also Godfather so many times, it dawns upon me whether sometimes the novels on which many films are based are actually out done by these films. Take War of the Worlds for example - the film is just as chilling as the novel, is appropriate for a modern audience, is exciting and the outcome just as vague. While Well's version attacked the British Empire and its effect on various countries throughout the world - Spielberg's version is very much a recreation of the Holocaust if one looks deeply. On top of that of course, the version has sprinklings of terrorism and parenting. If anything the 2005 film is more powerful, relentless and acceptable.

While I haven't seen it, Jaws is also derived from a book and judging by critical and popular response to the film, it is an extremely well made and more importantly effective thriller. Having Spielberg at the helm does help in taking a good book and transforming into a superlative film - and Spielberg did just that in the 1993 Motion Picture (which can now unanimously inducted into the annals of cinematic legacy) - Schindler's List. The film is an extraordinary piece of movie making and once again it seems to overpower the prexisting novel in every possible way.

Mario Puzo crafted a rather poignant tale of the machinations of a Mafia don's family - only to see his work transformed into a cinematic event that is perhaps another candidate for cinematic legacy. With its innovating camera work, powerhouse performances and a rather wonderful musical score; The Godfather is another example where a novel has been appropriate into a film which in most aspects outshines the original. In fact the film was so good that the sequels on the film were impressive as well.

Even films like Orson Welles' Macbeth and Akira Kurosawa's Throne of Blood as well as Ran seem to be even more powerful than their original written texts. This is no easy feat considering the originals were penned by the bard himself - Shakespeare. Is cinema then a greater medium? Critics will argue that many of the finer nuances of a character are not adequately depicted in films and much of the imaginative essence of a novel or novella is a lacking in a film adaptation, this may be true but who can question the visual poetry Kurosawa employs in Ran - it dwarfs the iambic pentameter of King Lear.

Peter Jackson's rendition of The Lord of the Rings are however a case for the opposite. The filming is visceral and wonderful - even epic - but the characters suffer. In search of visual splendour Jackson forgets the inner dealings of his protagonists - so much so that by the third film in the series - more importance is given to the CG effects than is given to the pedestal on which the story holds - the plethora of characters. Kurosawa is perhaps the only man to have mastered both worlds, in Ran he as stated pours out "visual poetry" but his characters are never one dimensional, the acting never artificial and the story never weak - something that can't be said about LOTR.

While some films are more appropriate, visceral and beautiful (case in point Ran) others are just lavish. The greatest dervied films are the ones which adhere to the novel or novella, carve out meaty characters and all the while enhance the audience's appreciation by employing innovative cinematic techniques - only a handful have done all of these. I have listed and analysed only some - there are plenty more to research. Ultimately its a matter of personal choice - but no one can deny the quality of such films or their contribution to society. They stand as masterpieces on their own.