Posted by Amy on July 10, 1997 at 10:40:57:
In reply to Discussing film adaptations posted by Beth on July 10, 1997 at 00:46:02
what you think film adaptations should and should not be. ________
Beth, I don't know about anybody else, but I never tire of talking about this. I realized a few weeks after I'd started the first P&P board that I'd been facsinated with adaptations for a long time. I took my dad's copy of Pygmalion to the movie theatre with me when I first saw My Fair Lady when I was 10!
I guess my main criterion for an adaptation is, "Does it capture the spirit of the original work?" since especially a two-hour film adaptation can't even try to stuff in all the content.
Most people around here agree that Andrew Davies was practically channeling Jane Austen on P&P. Emma is tougher, because it becomes an opinion of whether or not the adapter captured your personal take on the spirit of the book.
Kali and I went round and round on this back a few months ago because her general impression of Emma, the book, was that it is a frothier piece of work than my impression of it. Therefore, the McGrath take matches her take. Actually, now I think Kal and I agree more than we disagree, with my movement toward center covering the greater distance.
I think I first read Emma at a time in my life when everything for me was dead serious and I culled from it only the darkest lessons.
So, in my rambling way, what I guess I am saying is: my main adaptations yardstick is: is the spirit preserved; the caveat is: which spirit, through whose eyes?