I've decided to emphasize the Movies a bit more in this blog, in addition to writing about my favorite secret agent/assassin (also known as "The nicest, deadliest Spy in the World"), Superagent John Apparite.
Why?
Because everyone loves the movies; loves to talk about the movies; loves to hear others talk about the movies. I also think that I know a lot about the movies--I've read dozens of books in the area; seen hundreds and hundreds of films (from Aguirre: Wrath of God to Zardoz), and know the difference between Katherine Hepburn and Audrey Hepburn, between Jose Ferrer and Mel Ferrer, between M and Z.
The movie posts will encompass reviews, lists (Seven Greatest Whatevers), and a series that I'll call "What's great (or wrong, or awful) about?" where I will give my opinion on past films of note. I hope people will enjoy it. I know I will--I love writing about film. I could do it all day.
So here's my movie thought for today: What's wrong with Memoirs of a Geisha?
I recently read the book by Arthur Golden--and it was pretty good. Glorious detail about a little known subject; great period depictions (Japan in 30's and 40's), and some memorable characters. And it was popular as hell--universal praise from the get-go.
But the film is a snooze! It's not for lack of talent: director Rob Marshall helmed Oscar-winner Chicago, and his technical back-up was superb: the art direction and costumes were wonderful; the music by John Williams some of his best work in years. They had great actresses involved, plus one truly great actor (Ken Watanabe), and an incredibly popular and beloved work to draw from.
Then why was I looking at my watch so much? Why was I glad when it ended?
1. Pacing. There seemed to be little dramatic tension--partly because you learn, early on, that Chiyo IS going to become a great Geisha, ruining (for the non book-reader) the drama of the story. There's little dramatic drive in the film; no great emotional journey for Chiyo to take. Her character, to me, seemed the same at the end of the film as at the beginning. The best character in the film is that of Hatsumomo--yet she disappears about 2/3 of the way through. And others, like the Chairman, Mameha, or Mother, seem to have no personality at all. The only characters of lasting note were Pumpkin and Nobu--neither of whom have enough to do.
2. The book. There are plot flaws in the book that become more noticeable in the film. In the book, you see, Golden uses his wonderful descriptions of Japan and Geisha life to interest the reader. In the film, that is lost--and all you have left is a very bare bones plot: Girl is sold to Geisha house; Girl makes Enemy; Girl meets nice Geisha; Girl becomes Geisha; Girl defeats Enemy; Girl survives war; Girl re-becomes Geisha; Girl gets the Chairman.
Again, the girl does not really change during the film, robbing her character of depth; things happen to her but she does not often cause things to happen. It's an unusually flat character--and a character that makes some dumb decisions in the book and film that don't ring true. Purposely sleeping with someone in hopes of getting caught--and still getting "her man" in the end? I barely bought it in the book, and didn't buy it in the film. And the way she treats Nobu is despicable--a better ending would have been for her to have truly fallen for Nobu and realized that, perhaps, the Chairman isn't all he's cracked up to be. Show the girl to be shallow in the begining of the film but more thoughtful and emotionally complex by the end. I'll just come right out and say it: Her getting the Chairman at the end is a cop-out. In the book it was an annoyance; in the film, it is fatal.
3. The Director. Rob Marshall is a theater director; Chicago was his first film. He did a great job--with an established theater piece. But with Geisha he had an adaptation challenge that even a truly great director--like Scorcese or Kubrick--would have struggled with. He was unable to create any real drama from the material, hoping, I believe, that the atmosphere of the piece would sustain the audience to the end. Unfortunately, I think he fell short. I recall a lot of people having been linked with this film before he was chosen to helm it--and I bet none of those that turned it down have any regrets. I kind of feel sorry for him--he chose a very tough book as his second project (dare I choose the fateful term, "unfilm-able"?)
Anyway, those are my theories. Some books lend themselves to film (GWTW), while others don't (Ulysses). I think the first Harry Potter film had the same problem--it seemed stilted, lifeless, married to the sourced material--but fortunately the last two in that series have been well-adapted. Geisha didn't work, but I do congratulate the film-makers for the effort. As an author, I welcome any film that tackles a mature book with intelligence. I'd rather have a failed Geisha than a failed Armageddon any day.
Why?
Because everyone loves the movies; loves to talk about the movies; loves to hear others talk about the movies. I also think that I know a lot about the movies--I've read dozens of books in the area; seen hundreds and hundreds of films (from Aguirre: Wrath of God to Zardoz), and know the difference between Katherine Hepburn and Audrey Hepburn, between Jose Ferrer and Mel Ferrer, between M and Z.
The movie posts will encompass reviews, lists (Seven Greatest Whatevers), and a series that I'll call "What's great (or wrong, or awful) about
So here's my movie thought for today: What's wrong with Memoirs of a Geisha?
I recently read the book by Arthur Golden--and it was pretty good. Glorious detail about a little known subject; great period depictions (Japan in 30's and 40's), and some memorable characters. And it was popular as hell--universal praise from the get-go.
But the film is a snooze! It's not for lack of talent: director Rob Marshall helmed Oscar-winner Chicago, and his technical back-up was superb: the art direction and costumes were wonderful; the music by John Williams some of his best work in years. They had great actresses involved, plus one truly great actor (Ken Watanabe), and an incredibly popular and beloved work to draw from.
Then why was I looking at my watch so much? Why was I glad when it ended?
1. Pacing. There seemed to be little dramatic tension--partly because you learn, early on, that Chiyo IS going to become a great Geisha, ruining (for the non book-reader) the drama of the story. There's little dramatic drive in the film; no great emotional journey for Chiyo to take. Her character, to me, seemed the same at the end of the film as at the beginning. The best character in the film is that of Hatsumomo--yet she disappears about 2/3 of the way through. And others, like the Chairman, Mameha, or Mother, seem to have no personality at all. The only characters of lasting note were Pumpkin and Nobu--neither of whom have enough to do.
2. The book. There are plot flaws in the book that become more noticeable in the film. In the book, you see, Golden uses his wonderful descriptions of Japan and Geisha life to interest the reader. In the film, that is lost--and all you have left is a very bare bones plot: Girl is sold to Geisha house; Girl makes Enemy; Girl meets nice Geisha; Girl becomes Geisha; Girl defeats Enemy; Girl survives war; Girl re-becomes Geisha; Girl gets the Chairman.
Again, the girl does not really change during the film, robbing her character of depth; things happen to her but she does not often cause things to happen. It's an unusually flat character--and a character that makes some dumb decisions in the book and film that don't ring true. Purposely sleeping with someone in hopes of getting caught--and still getting "her man" in the end? I barely bought it in the book, and didn't buy it in the film. And the way she treats Nobu is despicable--a better ending would have been for her to have truly fallen for Nobu and realized that, perhaps, the Chairman isn't all he's cracked up to be. Show the girl to be shallow in the begining of the film but more thoughtful and emotionally complex by the end. I'll just come right out and say it: Her getting the Chairman at the end is a cop-out. In the book it was an annoyance; in the film, it is fatal.
3. The Director. Rob Marshall is a theater director; Chicago was his first film. He did a great job--with an established theater piece. But with Geisha he had an adaptation challenge that even a truly great director--like Scorcese or Kubrick--would have struggled with. He was unable to create any real drama from the material, hoping, I believe, that the atmosphere of the piece would sustain the audience to the end. Unfortunately, I think he fell short. I recall a lot of people having been linked with this film before he was chosen to helm it--and I bet none of those that turned it down have any regrets. I kind of feel sorry for him--he chose a very tough book as his second project (dare I choose the fateful term, "unfilm-able"?)
Anyway, those are my theories. Some books lend themselves to film (GWTW), while others don't (Ulysses). I think the first Harry Potter film had the same problem--it seemed stilted, lifeless, married to the sourced material--but fortunately the last two in that series have been well-adapted. Geisha didn't work, but I do congratulate the film-makers for the effort. As an author, I welcome any film that tackles a mature book with intelligence. I'd rather have a failed Geisha than a failed Armageddon any day.
posted by I. Michael Koontz | 8:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home