I heard a while back that a movie adaption of Dandelion Wine was in the works. Does anyone know more information about this?
PhilNic has recently given information on this:
John King Tarpinian
You know what you are, Mr. Bradbury? ... You are a poet! -- Aldous Huxley
Do you know, I haven't even asked them! I'm friendly with the writers of the script so I'll ask next time we get together.
This idea both scares me and excites me.
I agree. Hope it comes out better than Something Wicked This Way Comes.
My understanding is that it begins production this year.
Autienne, in case you have not seen it, here is a link to a webpage by the gentleman who has written the script. The 'Dandelion Wine' seen in red print will take you to a short film he made in Russia.
That's really exciting.
Dandelion, I never saw that! I would love to, despite your seemlingly less than positive review...What did you not like about it?
Linnl, thanks for the link! I will absolutely check it out.
I haven't seen it in about thirty years, but off the top of my head--Jason Robards was good, but a little too old for the part, which was for a 54-year-old man...the kid who played Jim had perfect looks but I felt didn't really "get" the part...Mr. Dark was perfect. A number of things were not as I had pictured, left in stuff not in the book and left out good parts...to name a few.
No other author has, for me, been able to create such vivid imagery (not just visual, but smells, feelings, etc.) and yet would be so difficult to faithfully translate into film. I do hope they keep trying, and that those who do try will do so with heart-felt appreciation and the utmost respect for Mr. B. There hasn't been a perfect one yet, but I do still weep when watching the end of Fahrenheit 451...
Dandelion, I see what you're saying. I hope I will get to see it at some point. Im excited to hear that Mr Dark was perfect!
Braling, I totally agree, it will be hard to do, but there is an amount of respect to give. I think also what makes it hard is that part of what makes Bradbury so genius is that his stories always become enriched by the person who is reading them. They are personal in a way, they resonate in different ways for different people in a way that I think is different than normal. This might be why his work is so well regarded. It might also be why his work is so difficult to translate into film.
My pet theory about Bradbury and film is this: he ISN'T difficult to translate into film IF the film-maker is of sufficient genius. If you look at all the film-makers who have done Bradbury badly, you will see that they were all second- or third-raters:
THE ILLUSTRATED MAN - Jack Smight
THE MARTIAN CHRONICLES - Michael Anderson
The best we have had, FAHRENHEIT 451, was made by Francois Truffaut who WAS a genius film-maker, but he was hampered on that particular production by (a) making it in a language he did not speak (English!) (b) making it as his FIRST film in a language he did not speak, and (c) by casting a German actor who had never performed in English. And (d) filming it outside of his familiar production environment (shot in Pinewood Studios, England, instead of in real locations in France).
Ray may have seemed arrogant when he said it, but he was onto something when he insisted that he wanted to work with the likes of Carol Reed, David Lean and Akira Kurosawa.
Where are the Bradbury films made by these, or Orson Welles, or John Ford, or Spielberg, Kubrick or Coppola?
No, Bradbury is not difficult to do, unless you are a second- or third-rater!
Something in that, Phil.
SWTWC has many great "captures" of RB's purpose in telling the story. Wonderful Ice Cream Suit is also a charming work, even after may views. Numerous episodes from RB Theater come across as having some of the right stuff.
However, for the most part screenwriters who got their hands on RB classics missed the point: Martian Chronicles, Illustrated Man, Sound of Thunder, with a few glimmers of hope evident in F451 (back in 1966)...and yet, No Mechanical Hound and Millie and Clarisse one in the same?!
Following is an interesting passage from a recent F. Scott Fitzgerald article, as Gatsby is getting all new glitz and a full media blitz:
"Like many prose authors, Fitzgerald could not adapt to studio formulas and collaborative projects. His dialogue often was stylized speech that read well on the page but might ring false on screen, while he wrote long descriptive passages that were useless in a screenplay.
"Part of the answer is, he truly was an artist. He was in it at that point of time for the money, but he had visions of truly being a literary writer rather than grinding out a script that had this many lines," said Donelle Dadigan, president of the Hollywood Museum. "He couldn't turn his art into a craft."
Fitzgerald wrote about what he knew, so his hard partying and slacker ways were reflected in his fiction, including his Pat Hobby stories featuring a screenwriting alter ego, a scheming scribbler always angling for paying gigs that required no work."
Full Article: http://news.msn.com/pop-cultur...ind-the-great-gatsby
Mr. Bradbury seemed to have had similar artistic challenges when it came to interpretations of his works.
The major (obvious) difference between FSF and RDB? RB was was achieved, loved, recognized, and appreciated throughout his long and wonderful life. FS, as sadly outlined in his biographies and the (above) recent article, fought unsuccessfully against the bottle and had little critical literary acclaim in what was a shortened, completely ironic life. Recognition has come long after his days of walking amongst his readers!
The parallel lies in the "words on the page" from a time when the art of writing was not as influenced as they seem to be today. Watch an old movie from the 40-50's. The dialogue and acting were the keys to success. Maybe technologies have stolen the images from the papered pages and have made most recent movie makers less concerned with the author's true intentions.
There are a few out there who could still properly put golden Dandelion Wine in the bottle and send Montag running into the woods in his escape from that magnificent Mechanical Hound...
When I wrote about second-rate film-makers, I should have included second-rate (and third-rate, fourth rate... nth-rate)screenwriters. Ray always said that the script for ILLUSTRATED MAN was written by a real estate agent.
I think there is also something to be said about the timing or Ray's entry into Hollywood. He started there as the "old system" was coming to an end. The studio system wasn't greatly kind to screenwriters, but I believe there was greater respect for the written word when screenwriters were employees (rather than freelancers working from home). In the '60s, the rise of the "independents" coincided with the auteur movement, and the shift of emphasis away from producers and writers, and towards directors.
I don't know enough about Fitzgerald to comment on him. But what a coincidence that the previous GREAT GATSBY was directed by Jack Clayton, who also directed SWTWC!
How about Rob Reiner, who produced the masterpiece Stand By Me? As an adaptation it loses very little from the Stephen King novella on which it is based, and as a film there is not a weak link in it.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2|