Than screen versions of good books are harmful or When to thrash children a broom?
First of all - at once we sweep aside teleplays and records of statements of plays from consideration. The play is specially written that it was played. And the author when writes, knows that different actors will play it and that he has to enclose all information on characters in remarks (well, apart from the few notes of the " type; Anna, on her black truakar and a hat with feathers, in hands a balalaika " enters; - and notes such are optional because Valentin can ask: Anna, why to you balalaika?) . So to put plays - lovely business, theater - fine art, but we not about it. We speak about prose.
The prose always consists of the text " more; from the author “ than from dialogues. And it is not reduced to the list of the taking place events in any way - if it is good prose. The good text contains much more, than the incidents described in it. Here both the author`s attitude towards them, and a style originality - if is, of course, the good author! - and thoughts. Because the author - as a rule - not the fool was and if he wanted the play, then would write the play, and time wrote prose - means so it was necessary. And everything was necessary: both sluggish landscapes, and descriptions, and lyrical digressions.
All this simply vanishes in the screen version. There is a naked frame: came, found, killed. Or: ran, fell, in paint walked smack. The most important - communication of the Reader with the Author - was gone. However, sometimes try to improve these things reading the text off-screen, but in - the first, it is all the same not because to read the whole novel just on time does not fit in - the text should be reduced strongly. And in - the second, Zinoviy Gerdt is not present with us any more, and more nobody can read the text off-screen (at least so to read that the author did not turn over in the grave).
And art means of cinema, and director`s finds? - you will tell. And it is any more not the Author of the text, but the director thought up, so - other person. Yes besides, there are things which in principle are not reproduced in a look “ action “. Well as you represent, for example, ingenious “ cut down march “? Here as represent, and the rubbish, a clownery of different degree of malignancy and different level of an elitism will turn out. A lot of things it can turn out, except one: what the author wrote, and we - read. Link of times tore and the dialectic unity " broke up; the author - the reader “...
Second business: images which arise at us when reading - they at everyone the. It is intimate process of pro-boundaries of the author with the reader - to create images, characters and world around. And the one who at first watched the screen version, and read then the book - alas, forever has an imprinting “ character H = actor of N “. Unfortunate children for whom D`Artagnan - now forever the mewing Seigniorial, and magnificent medal Ostap Bender - always it is only fussy - antsy Mironov... Here then though read the book - though do not read, to make nothing, all the same you will see an intellectual look of the actor N.
I then, the actor - if is not the debutant - pulls along all roles played earlier, we want it or not and whether the director wanted it. If the Prince of Darkness, the romantic villain are played by the actor who played two tens kind secretaries of Communist Party committee - all these secretaries will be involved in the villain and there will be what the hell, some soap with sugar. And if the thin undine is sounded by the actress whom we heard in a postscoring of the fat comic nurse yesterday - the end to a trembling image...
I do not speak any more, notice, about those cases when the screen version simply - naprosto distorts and spoils the author`s plan. Not only that faultless Mary Poppins in the book induces children to do THAT it is NECESSARY and AS it is NECESSARY, and at the same time it is pleasant to them ( and the main essence of the book - education without morals ), and in the movie and it and children just misbehave, disfigure and behave boorishly - indecently and vulgarly... But and Andreychenko, though howls languidly “ le - e - food of Me - e - Erie “ - never she is a lady, here not the lady and all here. And instead of the lovely book the silly and vulgar semi-comedy - a semi-operetta turns out. So I already also do not speak about it! Because and in a case “ correct “ understanding of idea - it is all the same bad.
But it not the main thing. More precisely, not this main thing. Not this main evil, if absolutely precisely.
A that? Psychologists do to
experiences long ago: strengthen some cunning microdevice so it allows to write down the movements of an eye in an eye. Also wrote down as an eye when examining moves, for example, of pictures. It is, of course, quite chaotic broken line, but here that interestingly: on it it is POSSIBLE to UNDERSTAND what picture was considered. That is the artist so builds composition, so has in a picture objects and persons that the look is late in key points more often, and minor - fluently surveys. Thus, examining of a picture is a work. Work of an eye and brain, work of soul. Work of the imagination. Training of imagination . We do not look, and we consider , we develop the relation, we come back to interesting or struck more and more time.
When viewing cinema - or a TV screen of such work DOES NOT OCCUR. In principle it is possible not to move an eye at all - a chamber (i.e. the director) obligingly palms off on us: here look, here do not look, important here, and here - no. It is necessary to think, work nothing, everything is chewed and it is necessary. You love crumpled?
By the way, old masters of filming, operators of the old movie, they knew this secret. Pay attention when you watch old movies: practically each shot of old movies (even primitive on a plot!) it is built AS the PICTURE. With the semantic center, with balanced composition. In series of it and in mention is not present - there is no time to build, it is necessary to drive metric area. Only also remains to the viewer what to watch in the center of the screen. Works any, neither sincere, nor intellectual. Even it is not necessary to remember whether there went to 105 series Katya or arrived - you in 106 will be told at once: and in last - that series Katya arrived!
The same in deeper meaning - can be told also about the book. Reading is a Work of imagination even more, than painting. Something special, personal. The book it is possible to postpone, reflect, to distract, worry, - and then to continue to read. With the movie of it it is impossible: it goes, and you look. Instead of fancies which that are brighter than the writer is better, - real persons and figures, gait, gestures, a voice, clothes, a hairdress, than a wart. And equally real at the good author and at mediocre. And always identical.
Eventually the book can be re-read - and it will be ANOTHER because we become others. We also read it in a different way. Practically does not happen to the movie of it. In case of the screen version And THIS work of soul at us is not present too. What movie was, and remained such if only not “ became rotten “ ideologically, as a touching story about Pavlik some...
The screen version will add nothing to the book, can only lower. Schematizes, will turn in anekdotets, in the melodrama or on the contrary - will wind foolish philosophizings from which the author would only long be spat or laughed loudly and twirled by a finger at a forehead. The difficult novel about an unfortunate family and its disintegration - in the boulevard history “ changes to the husband “. The epic and the saga - in the hasty comic book...
So, dear TV viewers, do not feel sorry for children because it is told: who feels sorry for the child, that ruins it. If threatens us next noisy and bazarno - the advertized screen version - flog the child though a bath broom, and force to read the book at first. I do not speak about the last extent of moral degradation when the screen version is watched INSTEAD OF reading the book. Kill them better at once, or tell a joke about contraceptive which is accepted “ instead of “ - can though so will understand?
Though as on me - it is so best of all (not to confuse, not to confuse screen versions of ingenious PROSE, besides, to statement of plays!) - never to look at all.
That I also do.