Adaptation difficulties: viewers compared the novel "Goldfinch" and its adaptation

John Crowley’s "Goldfinch" was released, a film adaptation of the novel of the same name by American writer Donna Tartt. In the tape, as in the book, it tells about a boy who became the keeper of the canvas of the artist Karel Fabricius. The premiere took place at the Toronto International Film Festival. Some viewers who read the Tartt novel believe that the picture came out too long and with incorrectly placed accents. Others consider the film adaptation to be successful, which, in their opinion, was facilitated by the impeccable cast, selected exactly in accordance with the text. Critics emphasize: the filmmakers respected the original source, but this is not enough.

On September 12, the film "Goldfinch", based on the eponymous bestselling book by Donna Tartt, was released in Russian distribution. For this book, the American writer received many awards, and in 2014 she was awarded the Pulitser Prize.

The novel tells the story of a boy named Theodore Dekker, whose mother died during a terrorist attack at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Miraculously, the surviving hero leaves the ruined building, taking away the invaluable heritage of 17th-century painting - the canvas "Goldfinch" by the Dutchman Karel Fabricius. No one knows that the canvas is in the hands of a boy. And in many ways, "Goldfinch" will determine the fate of the hero.

The production was directed by Brooklyn director John Crowley. The role of Theodore Dekker was played by Ansel Elgort (“Baby on Drive”). Along with him in the film were Nicole Kidman, Finn Wolfard, Sarah Paulson, Luke Wilson and Jeffrey Wright.

From reader to viewer

Comparison of the original source with the film adaptation often ends with an almost universally recognized truth: "The book is better." Readers compare everything: from the compositional structure of a literary work and its adaptation to the cast.

The readers of The Carduelis, as well as fans of The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, novels by Jane Austen, Harper Lee and others, were looking forward to the premiere of the film. And, as expected, those who managed to see the picture of Crowley were divided.

Some viewers are convinced that the film adaptation did not work out, since the accents of the book "Goldfinch" are incorrectly interpreted in it.

“A standard review of Goldfinches: a novel is a beautifully written story of sorrow, memories and trauma, but the film pays too much attention to trauma, sorrow and memories, so I don’t like it, one out of five star,” one of the ironies Twitter users.

Others believe that filmmakers could not cope with the difficulties that arose in the process of adapting the book to the script. Some viewers agreed that the screen action, in spite of the well-thought-out plot structure of the novel, turned out to be overly long.

"Goldfinch" - a weak film adaptation of a beloved novel by many. The film crashes on all fronts. Events are unbearably slow, and the plot is sometimes overly confusing. Even Ansel Elgort and Nicole Kidman are not saving - the only good thing in the picture, ”said another user.

However, some viewers recall: books on films rarely turn out to be worthwhile.

“I’m not a bit surprised that the adaptation of“ The Goldfinch ”did not succeed ... name at least one good adaptation of the same long piece?”, They are interested in Twitter.

However, someone among the fans of Tartt film adaptation liked it. These viewers believe that the film can be criticized only because of ignorance of the text of the book.

“Poor reviews about Goldfinch are written by people who have not read the book ... The moments they complain about are almost literally taken from the novel ...”, writes one of the spectators.

For many, casting became an important criterion when comparing the novel and the film adaptation. Readers had their own expectations regarding the selection of actors, which largely came true. Despite the fact that “some aspects of the novel were strangely ignored,” the cast was selected almost impeccably, readers say.

“Ardent fans of the novel, like me, just fall in love with Carduelis. He is awesome. Ansel Elgort has some great points, Anairin Barnard is supernaturally good in the role of Boris, but undoubtedly, Oax Frigli and Finn Wulfard (actors who played Theodore and Boris in childhood. - RT ) outshine everyone. It’s like two different films, ”they share their impressions of viewing on social networks.

With respect to the original source, but without details

Among the professional reviewers, there really are those who have not read the text of the novel and whom for that (and criticism of the film including) are scolded by those who have read it. However, not all professional synephiles criticize the picture.

So, according to Deadline author Pete Hammond (who immediately repented that he did not read the novel), “Goldfinch” by Crowley is a worthy movie, the production of which involved painstaking work on the adaptation of a multi-level novel. Crowley, albeit “somewhat awkwardly”, dealt with this, Hammond said.

“They (the director and screenwriter of the tape. - RT ) managed to make a beautiful exciting film that is as impossible to tear away from, as, apparently, from the novel itself,” the critic believes.

Definitely a positive description of the film, however, other critics are in no hurry to give. Many adhere to the views of the audience and point out the excessive length of the film, which, in general, is expected - the history of "Goldfinch" is located on nearly 800 pages.

For this reason, Todd McCarthy from The Hollywood Reporter believes that the novel deserves a larger incarnation - for example, a mini-series in which all important points could be included. A similar point of view was expressed by the performer of the role of Xandra in the film - actress Sarah Paulson. In an interview with Deadline, she noted that the book would have been more suitable for the project format of several series.

The film could not convey the fullness of the novel’s narrative, did not show the development of characters and secondary storylines, although Crowley did his best to try to combine pieces of history into one whole, writes Entertainment Weekly columnist Lea Greenblatt.

“The secondary storylines are inevitably squeezed, squeezed into any space that is freed up in the main canvas, or are completely discarded as unnecessary. Characters who are given hundreds of pages in a book are sometimes forced to be content with only a few scenes in order to open up and justify their existence. ”

But the Guardian journalist Benjamin Lee is more restrained in his judgments: he does not consider the film either successful or failed, but suggests that the film be considered a worthy attempt to film adaptation, emphasizing that the picture is not without snobbery and a share of the grotesque.

Critic David Erlich of IndieWire is convinced that the creators of Carduelis were highly respectful of the original source.

“Even after narrowing the 784-page book to the 144-minute film, the creators of Carduelis continue to relate to the original source with the same reverent reverence as some to the Holy Scriptures,” the reviewer writes.

However, Erlich notes, this is not enough for the successful adaptation of the novel - the filmmakers still missed the point.

“Alas, the story deprived of many details, pace and scope, which the Goldfinch tells, seems completely ridiculous. Strohan (the screenwriter of the film. - RT ) tears out the ridge from the novel and rearranges the vertebrae until the story is completely helpless, ”he concluded.

Adaptation difficulties: viewers compared the novel "Goldfinch" and its adaptation

From reader to viewer

With respect to the original source, but without details

You may like

Trends 24h

Latest