Listening to all the comments today in class, I realize that there is so much more going on in a film than I had ever realized.  I’m referring to the technical aspects of actually making the film, e.g. the juxtaposition of the Elvis archetype that we discussed with Sanjuro (sp?), the lighting effects in the temple and the huge amount of forethought that has to go into planning the ‘look’ of a scene.  Previously, I had always exalted the written word above the film because it always appeared to me as a more cerebral endeavor.  While I still prefer the written word over the production of a film, I now have a new respect for filmmakers.

ADAPTATION and POLLUTION

Going in a somewhat different direction, I am also intrigued by the concept of books/novels undergoing the metamorphisis from the written word to that of a film.  I’m talking about the term ‘adaptation’ that we have talked a little about in class.  The online version of the OED gives definition 2a of the word as “To alter or modify so as to fit for a new use. ”  As a class, we are now modifying films for our own educational use.  Another sense of ‘adaptation’ is to make suitable.  This also poses an interesting question.  Namely, can one alter or change or tweek a film enough to make it suitable to them?  Should it even be the film’s responsibility to ‘adapt’ to me, or to ‘suit’ my needs?  I feel that when I make the condition necessary in order to “get anything out of a film,” I am polluting it with my own requirements.  This reads as selfish to me.  I wonder how many authors, novelists, directors and filmmakers feel that their works have been a victim of pollution.