I personally felt the movie only works in companionship with the novel. I cannot imagine having viewed that film without having read the novel beforehand. Someone in class mentioned that the movie's narrative does not stand on its own well and needs the guiding hand of the novel. I wholeheartedly agree. Murakami's novel is steeped in internal reflection and observation. Toru does not necessarily narrate to himself but there is an expansive internal world to his narration. The novel is also dominated by observation. Taking in every detail of an environment and utilizing metaphor to truly capture physical moments. This can be incredibly hard to translate to film.
Toru is not a captivating protagonist. The book saves him by giving the reader a glimpse into his mind but the movie is unable to do that. I found myself consistently wondering why any of the film's characters found Toru interesting at all. I imagine if you haven't read the novel that wonder would turn towards harsh criticism. The movie does not showcase the beautiful way Toru navigates the physical world and what he notices in people the way the book does. He's not the kind of protagonist a filmmaker could mold into something eccentric or captivating. It would be a disservice to the source material to make Toru into anything but the quasi-Holden Caufield he is.
I start to wonder if the book is really built for film adaptation or if what you gain from the novel can only be achieved through the written word. You're limited by both time and scope with a film and while a good critique I cannot imagine a version of the screenplay that does not omit the very beginning in Germany or much of the expanded stories of the side characters. I'm excited to read what people would have changed and done differently.
Jade Rona
No comments:
Post a Comment