Some characters have undergone significant transformations. Rather than the world-weary and reflective Gattopardo of the book, the new Don Fabrizio is a Hollywood bad boy with a despotic streak.
I now understand how Blofeld-is-Oberhauser dissenters feel. My apologies for having underestimated your sense of horror and despair.
Facing the “unforgiving” demands of spinning a multihour TV series, Warlow has tried to “climb inside” Tomasi’s world and “open it all out”.
Because the tighter, claustrophobic world of “The Leopard” had no aesthetic significance.
“If you have to adapt something that has already been adapted, you need to do something different and bold,” he says.
If what you are making is different from the source, why use the source? “The Leopard” is now a Dustinesque tool box that is ransacked for useable parts.
It might work, but “The Leopard,” both novel and film, are about how aristocracy maintains control by allowing change, with the Prince mourning what is lost, but understanding that it was the only path forward (as did Visconti. In his final film, L’INNOCENTE, he shows that this beautiful world must die, since its maintenance causes such harm. Visconti ravishes viewers with its beauty, but acknowledges that this world must end).
I wonder what political understanding this version will embrace.
Next up: “Citizen Kane” as a 10 hour-Amazon-show, updated with the guy who reinvented a traditional newspaper into something new and modern, embracing personal liberties within free markets.
It´s really bizarro world now.
Yes, one can adapt a novel in a myriad of ways. To choose one which has a legendary adaptation and turn it into a “Godfather”-like soap opera with visuals by the Netflix book is not only tone-deaf but also a sign of complete “who cares about those old farts who love their arthouse classic”-ignorance.
But the “success” will be everything. The Netflix audience will never have the patience to sit down for the Visconti film - and even if it were available through that streamer (it isn’t, of course, just like so many other classics) people would still say: nah, let’s watch the series - that old stuff is so boring.
There lies the huge difference. Visconti’s mise en scene is as voluptuous as mise en scene gets. But it was never about merely being eye candy.
The danger lies when mise en scene becomes visuals, where the desire is to dazzle, but not convey meaning (especially contradictory or ambiguous ones), since meanings may interfere with consumption. Is the work being “opened out” to new meanings, or just to allow for more pretty pictures?
A known property as you note, and one that offers many opportunities for the picturesque.
Maybe they will use depicting the Leopard as a “bad boy with a despotic streak” to make connections with the current moment. I just hope they have the rigor of Visconti–not just in terms of his visual sense, but also in terms of his intelligence.
There is a hunting scene at the center of the film where a rabbit is killed, followed by an intense conversation. Lampedusa writes: “While sympathetic fingers were still stroking that poor snout, the animal gave a last quiver and died; Don Fabrizio and Don Ciccio had had their bit of fun, the former not only the pleasure of killing but also the comfort of compassion.”
The pleasure of killing and the comfort of being compassionate. A perfect encapsulation of Visconti’s attitude to this class, the way they ruled the world, and to the class that followed. Though of nobility himself, watching a Visconti movie, one can sense the deep pleasure he takes in a) skewering this class, and b) presenting the beauty and knowledge it brought forth. Every moment of ravishment also gives rise to the thought: what price was paid to achieve this?
I have cued the video up to the moment in Visconti’s film. Not Lancaster’s voice, but what a supreme example of physical acting:
I always found her a little scary, ofcourse only based on how she looked in movies like LOTR and Elizabeth, but then I saw her several times on the Graham Norton show as herself and I thought she is a very nice, funny and sweet lady and I even felt a little attracted to her. She looks like a realy nice person.
Would likely not make a difference. These social media presences add something if you’ve already got a huge number of followers not already interested in the film anyway. She’s better off not having to put up a show there - and the film will not suffer for it if she doesn’t.
Knowing Scarlett Johansson, her social media accounts would be overly political or defending Woody Allen or the MCU. So, really no big loss. I rarely post on social media, unless it’s something truly big. Facebook depresses me in particular. Charlie Chaplin once said that a true person’s character comes out when they’re drunk. The same could be said about a person on social media.
I’ve never been on social media and it still causes me trouble.
I’ve had a few instances where I’ve heard through the grapevine that new colleagues, etc., were angry at me because they thought that because they had searched my name and couldn’t find me that I must have blocked them
Sure, because the first adaptation cannot be accessed anymore?
Ridiculous IP hunting. King has so many other interesting novels to turn into movies (if it has to be done).
I liked that first adaptation, although I preferred reading the book. Watching that poor dog suffering from rabies just made me sad. Too much of a dog person to feel afraid.
I’m afraid this is off topic, but could someone make a post one more time in the Casting the Continuation Novels thread so I can make my next post. Thank you. Much appreciated.
