Literature is the father of movies. what do you think?

The stupidest thing I have ever heard is "literature is the father of movies"

This view was criticized by movie master, such as jean mitry and tarkovsky, for countless times as early as several decades ago. If the comprehensive theory only treats movies mechanically, then "literature is the father of movies" is completely the boasting of literary workers' self-expansion. This foolish view has not only been criticized many times by Dai Jinhua and Zhou Chuanji in China, but also by many literary scholars. However, there are also some ignorant and shameless writers who are willing to be other people's fathers. When they saw that others had adapted several of their own works, they ran to be other people's fathers. Excuse me, if you ever borrowed a few hundred dollars from a person, that person claimed to be your father. Do you think you will hit him? Due to the limited time, I will briefly talk about the mistakes of literature as the father of movies. Part of the content is pasted with self-criticism, and plagiarism is strictly prohibited.

First of all, it is clear that I am a literature lover personally. I like literature better than movies, and I am also a liberal arts student. But I never agree that literature is the father of movies. I emphasize that I have neither attacked literature nor raised movies. I just scolded those stupid writers who are willing to stir shit. Although they are good at literature, I advise them to do their job well. Don't stand in your own world and tell another art what to do. Considering your position, you often play the role of "opinion leader" and "opinion leader" in society, so when this fallacy blurts out from your mouth, you can imagine how terrible the consequences of its tireless destruction are. As Josie Billings said: Truth is scarce, but it always exceeds demand. What is even more pitiful is that some people tirelessly cover up the truth and create fallacies. Their spirit really deserves our applause-on their faces.

————————————————————————————————————————————————

Back to the topic

"Literature and movies should make a clean break, or it will be too late"-Tarkovsky.

Movies and literature can learn from each other, and tarkovsky also said in Carving Time that benign interaction can be achieved. We don't deny that they are based on the basic principles of aesthetics, but any art that can become an independent art has its irreplaceable uniqueness and unique way of thinking. If you don't understand the positioning of movies and think that movies are literature, photography and art, then you can ask yourself: What's the difference? The particularity of contradiction is the essence that distinguishes one thing from other things. High school students understand this truth. Don't you literary masters and film experts understand? Then how did you become an expert?

Film thinking is essentially scheduling and montage, while literature is an artistic creation that expresses artistic philosophy through rhetoric and language organization. Although they are both telling stories, they are very different in essence and way of thinking. Anyone who has seen enough movies will feel that in many cases, the poetic effect of montage between movie pictures is far more shocking than words. For example, the bloody scene in Saving Private Ryan can be described in your language, but I don't believe it can be described in a fantastic way. Another example is "Once upon a time in America". When the young noodles walked into the train station, the simple fragment spanned 35 years, expressing the artistic conception of much transformed things and the vicissitudes and helplessness of growing old overnight. Another example is the massacre scene in Schindler's List. Under the panoramic lens, the shock and power of the bright windows and dark windows of the town can be achieved by literature. On the other hand, the sound art of movies can never be compared with literature. There are many descriptions of voices after the Japanese occupation of North China in The Clouds of Beiping. In order to highlight the tense atmosphere, it always gives people a sense of distance. But if the director turns him into an audio-visual language, the effect will be much better. For example, the gunfight scene at night in No Country for Old Men is enough to make the greatest poet feel ashamed. Another example is the pedicure business in Hanging the Red Lantern, which resounded throughout the Chen family courtyard. The suggestion of sex, status, power and strict suppression of feudal marriage system are all expressed through sound metaphor, but the original work does not have this feeling. Here, it's not that the original is not good. Both of them are excellent works, but when the novel is adapted into a movie, everyone can feel that although it tells the same story, it is only the tip of the iceberg of film sound art. If we want to talk about the special montage function of movie sound, then literature is even less worth mentioning in this respect.

Since the birth of written language, its defects have been pointed out countless times by every philosopher who has reflected on it. One advantage of the birth of film is that it greatly enriches human expression and makes up for many shortcomings of written language, while human thinking is essentially a picture, and people's literature often depicts the picture. I believe many people have felt that the poetic images in their minds are always limited by rhetoric and vocabulary. I feel that many pictures and ideas are difficult to express at the end of human grammar. At this time, movies are a good way to make up for it. Of course, movies can't completely solve these defects, so human beings should constantly innovate and enrich our language forms. Maybe there will be more advanced language forms than literature and movies in the future.

Of course, there are countless places in the film that literature can't do, which is enough to write a million-word academic book "Film Ontology". Obviously, I don't have that level and energy, but if you want to know more, you can start by understanding movies, and then watch four or five hundred excellent movies. If you don't know what is excellent, look at the classics, because time is the best evaluation standard. After the accumulation of time, what remains is absolutely excellent quality), and then you can watch a higher level of Film Aesthetics and Psychology after you have a certain professional quality. This book is difficult to understand. Readers should have some basic knowledge of communication, semiotics, literature, philosophy, aesthetics and other disciplines, and must have good film professionalism, otherwise it will be as hard as eating bricks. Let's answer another question, mainly from the perspective of media environment, to further refute the shameless statement that literature is the father of movies and always wants to be a father.

Many people will come up with literary adaptation movies to greet me. It doesn't matter. Let's row slowly and see who gets hit in the face at last.

Just now I mentioned "Hanging the Red Lantern High", which was adapted from Su Tong's "Wives and Concubines in Groups". The sound and picture scheduling of the film have better viewing effect than the original. Movies can adapt some literary works (I mean some, because not all literature is suitable for adaptation), but once adapted, they can and can only be created in the language and thinking of movies. Do you still have to think about rhetoric and grammar when making a movie? Do you still have to rely on the original description to create conflicts? It's weird to be able to adapt it. Literature has the language of literature, and movies have the language of movies (the following text comes from my film review of Farewell My Concubine, and the theory comes from jean mitry, so plagiarism is strictly prohibited):

Literature restores real or abstract or concrete things through abstract concepts, while movies are different. All the elements in the film are concrete, and the film cannot directly express the abstract motives behind things and behaviors. They can only show the results and the real things, so this makes movies and literature the most different. Movies can directly express what the author wants to say, but movies are different. Movies can only show superficial phenomena. Moreover, the audience must be able to see what comes from the deep level through the appearances given by these directors. In a word, literature describes concrete with abstraction, while movies express abstraction with concrete. The profound and abstract things in movies are all expressed through superficial and concrete things, which is also the most difficult part of movies (which is why scripts in the industry are more difficult to write than novels: there are too many restrictions).

Therefore, even if a story comes from a novel, if it wants to be adapted into a movie, it must use the language of the movie, in other words, it must follow our rules.

On the other hand, can all literature be adapted? Can the effect achieved after adaptation be the same? Even if every line is copied down, I'm afraid it may not fully reach the original feeling. Many failed literary adaptations (such as films adapted from Gu Long's novels), of course, even the most successful adaptations can't give us the same feelings as when reading the original works, such as Alive and Gone with the Wind. What is the reason?

The essence of McLuhan's life theory is one sentence: media is information, which is also the most misunderstood and misread sentence of McLuhan, so that even McLuhan's daughter has to defend it and explain the true meaning of "media is information" in her father's time.

Mcluhan's point of view later gave birth to a school called "media environmentology" I explained this sentence first, and then I explained media environmentology. After the explanation, today's demonstration work is completed. I believe that as long as I explain, everyone's hearts don't need me to summarize.

Mcluhan has a famous saying: the media itself is a kind of communication, which has been quoted by many film scholars to prove his theory, the most famous of which is that the method of telling a story is itself a story. "So what does old Mai mean?"

The original text of this sentence is: the media is the message. And Maxwell also specially emphasized that I said "news" instead of "information". To give a concrete example, I am talking about an apple, which is a kind of information dissemination. You will have an image of an apple in your mind. The communication process is complete. This is oral communication, and the information content is "Apple". But I believe that the apple in everyone's mind is not. Now I'll show you an apple. When you see the apple, the information dissemination is completed. This is visual communication. The essence of information is an apple, and there is an apple in your mind. Is this different from the last one? Still this apple. I didn't show it to you, but I showed you the photos. This time, you got an image. Is it different? More importantly, when you get this information, although the content of the information is all Apple, when you spread it in different media, the information is encoded in different ways, and the way you decode it when you get it is also different. The decoding process is actually your brain decoding this information. Therefore, hearing a woman's "big breasts" is different from seeing a woman's "big breasts", and the pleasure of seeing and touching is also different.

Therefore, it is self-evident to switch to literature and film. Does it feel the same to read a written story and an audio-visual story? No, since it looks different, we should think of the different methods used by directors and writers in their creation. Sometimes it is not disrespectful to create in different ways, but it is precisely to express the spirit of the original that you have to do so, because both art forms have their own language rules, and common sense tells us that violations of rules and behaviors are all tricks. The simplest example is translation. In a word, it is spoken in English.

Let's talk about another question. Can all literature be adapted? I believe this question needs no explanation at all, and the answer is no. Just as there are many places that literature can't do in movies, there are also many places that literature can't do. Many artistic pleasures of literature come from the characteristics of its own grammar. Take the simplest example: the wind is floating and the rain is falling. This poem, full of rhythmic beauty and endless vicissitudes, can of course be expressed by images, but it must be turned into a long story, telling how the author walked all the way, was teased by life, went through countless storms, and finally gave the audience a kind of "When did the wind and rain wash the guest robe?" The silver word is the tone, and the heart word is the fragrance. The streamer is easy to throw, and the red cherry and green banana. "It does express the original intention, but my question is, is it interesting to do so? Even if your adaptation is successful and touches the audience, it is still very different from the original. " The wind is floating and the rain is falling. "Such jade beads make people feel like drinking a cup of melancholy spirits and the unique enjoyment of movies brought by the beauty of rhythm. How? Another example is "I am afraid to see flying flowers and listen to cuckoos without opening the curtain", which condenses the author's despair after the collapse of many countries; Do you want to adapt it like me? Even if it is adapted, it will not feel the same way. So many times adaptation is the destruction of the original and even a crime. If someone really adapted and "raped" some of our unique literary works as I said, it is estimated that countless people will hit a wall. Moreover, this is just taking poetry as an example. There are countless literary works, and countless works go down in history because of the unique quality of literature, which is irreplaceable by any art, just as the unique advantages of movies are beyond the reach of other arts. Finally, let me give you an example: One Hundred Years of Solitude, which is the most beautiful novel I have ever read. It brings me unique artistic enjoyment, which other arts can't do. Yeah, I'm almost so good that I can't help closing it as soon as I open it. When those characters enter my brain through visual communication, and then read them to myself in the form of sound, the visual sense of words and the "auditory" pleasure simulated by the poetic content of words, as well as the breathtaking aesthetic feeling of the whole book, are almost the ultimate artistic enjoyment that literature can achieve, which is also one of the works that I think is the most unsuitable for adaptation, because movies (impossible unless dozens of movies are shot) can only adapt stories and general atmosphere and spirit at most, of course. Then, every movie has enough quality to completely burst into the Oscar Palme d 'Or, and every movie is a palace-level movie, which brings endless emotion to the audience. Then it didn't bring the original emotion. Of course, I don't deny that the adapted works may also move us, but I believe everyone can feel that this is another kind of beauty completely different from the original.

Finally, I said that literature is not the father of movies, and the adapted works can't reach the original feeling, and I don't object to adaptation. Creating on successful works can often add a perfect quality guarantee to the quality of movies. Many directors often adapt literary works because they like the original and want to express the original content through another art form on this basis. This is sometimes a challenge to oneself, even an experiment. Of course, some directors are not so ambitious, they just want to adapt because they like it. This is understandable and sometimes encouraging, but don't apply them indiscriminately. Everything wants to be easy. Others have ready-made stories and influence, so I want to. What's even more shameless is that when you see others adapting their own works, you will say that you are someone's father. Of course, some people will be sons when they become fathers. Many people are willing to be children and grandchildren in order to make money.

——————————————————————————————

The above is what I spent an hour scribbling. Without a draft, the writing environment is chaotic, the logic may be chaotic, and there may be many sick sentences, but everyone can understand what I mean. And I know that this article will definitely attract a lot of controversy after it is sent out. Whether you agree with me or not, I invite you to read more books and learn more about movies before the debate. I don't care what kind of doctor you are, even if you are a Nobel Prize winner, you should understand a basic truth: you have a specialization in art, but knowing literature doesn't mean knowing movies, so don't pretend to know. People who don't pretend to know are the most shameless. It's interesting to argue with experts, but it's nonsense. He thinks he's the most tired, because he doesn't understand what you're saying at all. He's always immersed in his own world and thinks others don't understand him. Ha ha da.

Finally, post a film review of Kurosawa. There is a similar rebuttal in it. I think it is shameful to copy and reprint without permission. Even if it is reproduced, it is best to explain the source. Thank you. My post ID: I won the Oscar, and now I don't play post, Weibo, Zhihu. Today is just a whim, don't take it to heart.

————————————————————————————

Excerpt from my movie Chaos Review;

What Is Cinema? Who is the author of the film? These two questions are two sides of the same coin. First of all, we all know that movies are audio-visual art, but this only answers the spatial attribute of movies, and movies are not just space. There's still time for movies. Without space, it is impossible to produce movies, and without time, it is impossible to produce movies. Time is the structure of the story in the film, and space is the structure of the picture. In other words, time is montage and space is scheduling. Therefore, the process of making movies is the process of creating time and space, and the essence of movies is time and space. Film is the art of creating a four-dimensional space on a two-dimensional screen. So the essence of film works is scheduling and montage. As long as you understand these two points, you can understand the film.

Montage is an organic combination of focal planes, its essence is editing and its basis is script. What kind of script is editing. Although the editing style is determined by the editor and the director, the director and the editor are also in the hands of the screenwriter. The script does not necessarily determine the specific details, but it stipulates the overall structure of a film. At the same time, the director decides to schedule, and its leading role in montage is also great. There is both space and time for the director to participate, so many times the director is considered as the author of a film, but sometimes it is necessary to analyze the specific problems.

The script is the basis of the picture. Note that I'm talking about the script, not the words and lines. Scripts can be pure pictures, independent of lines. When I say that the script is the foundation, I don't mean that the script is necessarily more important than the picture, and the foundation is not necessarily more important than the superstructure. Sometimes the script is created to serve the picture, and the story is only the material in the director's hand, which depends on the tendency of a film itself. Domestic filmmakers can't understand this, which leads to most domestic directors shooting PPT, including short films, MVs and advertisements. Why PPT? Because their pictures are almost useless, all the information is in the copy, even if they remove the pictures, it will not affect their understanding. Although their pictures look bluffing, they have no initiative, and pictures are just vassals of words. Then why are you still making videos? This is a waste of resources. The only function of their pictures is to let the audience not feel lonely and have something to do when listening to the movie. In China, pictures always serve copywriting, which is why China writers put forward the brain-dead remark that "literature is the father of movies", and even more bluntly said that movies are variants of novels. This is a brain-dead remark with China characteristics, which foreign scholars can never put forward.

But I want to break these brain-dead hearts and tell them how cruel the truth is. "Oh, the truth, the cruel truth" (Stendhal's Red and Black). Human thinking is essentially a picture, and human thinking is a kind of time-space thinking. Literature is nothing more than encoding the pictures in the author's mind with words and translating what is written, so it is essentially second-hand. On the other hand, movies are the first night of these imaginations. In essence, movies are the closest to human imagination, but in the past, technology was underdeveloped, there was no camera or film, and people could only use writing. But now with movies, it's different. We can express it directly. However, your literature only expresses the "movie" in your mind in words, so the conclusion is:

Film is the father of literature!

Literature essentially describes short films, MVs, micro-movies, movies and TV plays in the minds of writers. Therefore, I advise those unfilial "sons" not to learn from King Lear's children, to study hard and behave well, and to learn to respect filmmakers. Don't make a mistake. It's ridiculous and shameful to think that you have mastered some truth!

Ahem, the above three paragraphs are purely idiotic and are a brain-dead counterattack against brain-dead remarks. The tortoise scolded the tortoise for each other. Don't take it as truth. No one will take swearing as truth. Of course, I'm not trying to save these idiots. I just feel that when some scholars talk nonsense, I have an obligation to keep everyone awake in humor. But then again, as long as you can understand how stupid the above three paragraphs are, you can understand how stupid it is to say that literature is the father of movies.

……………………

Author: Win the Oscar (Shell, fans, fans, used to hang out in Bella Bar, movie bars, fitness bars, Christopher Nolan bars, but now they basically don't play).

Time: 20 16, 165438+ 10/0/. 2 1 point 4 1 End