Movie #12: A Scanner Darkly

[asterroc]

I read the Philip K Dick novel of A Scanner Darkly a while ago (Wikipedia), a little before the movie (Wikipedia, IMDB) first came out. I remember finding the novel difficult to follow due to the split nature of Fred/Arctor's personality, but with time it becomes clear that they are evolving into separate personalities. In the movie it is more difficult to follow, primarily due to time constraints, the separate identities do not become as fully developed, but it does make some sense. The roles of the other characters is more fuzzy, other than Donna at least, as that one is blindingly clear at the end. I forget if in the novel we ever find the original idenity of Fred/Arctor, since it turns out his story of his wife and girls is a hallucination as well.

Keanu did his normal high quality of body acting - and I'm serious about that still. Keanu is not a good actor when you think of his speech or his words, but if you look at how his body moves and behaves, he's amazing. The style of the movie, the animation, worked well, giving it a surreal feeling. I didn't realize it was all drawn over the original, I thought there was an automated process. Wow. I was impressed with the appearance of the exterior of Arctor's house - it's *exactly* what was in my head before I saw anything about the movie.

I would recommend reading the book first and then seeing the movie so you can better follow what's going on. I am not clear how close to the truth it was, so I'm going to go back and read both Wikipedia articles and see how they compare. But it's good overall.

Comments

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

Oh heh, that was entirely unintentional. Glad it amused you though.

[seekingferret.livejournal.com]

I could tell it was unintentional, but it's the kind of unintentional that warrants a second glance. So here's a third glance:

I am almost as tickled by the idea that a book has the 'truth' that a movie adaptation is just trying to reproduce. Adaptation attempts to explode that idea. Adaptation is a very phildickian film. But I don't know if it's an idea that requires exploding. When a movie adapts a book, it is trying to capture the truth of the original, which may require transpositions in facts to translate it to a different medium. That's the goal of any adaptation. But then there's auteur theory and the notion that a director wants to try to say something original. These two things are inherently in conflict.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

Reminds me of Hitchhikers in its many media. I have yet to see the TV miniseries. I was disappointed that so many people were bitching about the movie not being "true" to the book. Of course not! Each different version is its own truth.

[seekingferret.livejournal.com]

Well... I'm not entirely in agreement. There is something to that perspective- every version is its own truth, and the only thing that matters is whether it's entertaining. But I resist that to a degree, because I'm interested in the idea of adaptation.

There is a central question you have to ask about any adaptation: Why are you adapting this story instead of starting from scratch? The answer HAS to be "there is something of value in this story that I want to use". Otherwise, there's no point in adaptation.

A good film just has to be entertaining. A good adaptation has to be entertaining in a way that speaks to its original source.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

Have you read the original version of "I Am Legend"? I recently saw the alternate ending for the movie, and even though I haven't read the original print version, I understand this the alternate ending is "truer" to the original concept. I like that original message much better than the mere vampire/zombie flick it turned into in the film adaptation. I wonder what made them go with the ending they did choose.