Peer editing to Ernane -- EnglishtextsM

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:47:15 06/19/07 Tue
Author: Dina Costa
Subject: Peer editing to Ernane
In reply to: Ernane Oliveira 's message, "Task 4 - Ernane Oliveira - hi diana, I will edit yours tomorrow (20/06), ok?" on 19:46:42 06/18/07 Mon

>The poetry of written movies
>By Ernane Oliveira
>
> Many people believe that a literary work like a
>classical novel, for example, should not be translated
>into another media, like theater, movies, etc, because
>they loose a lot in the process. They argue that
>written pieces have some characteristics that cannot
>be reproduced in the audio-visual world. Another point
>against movies and visual media is that watching them,
>the spectator misses those gaps for imagination found
>in a book. Despite of these, there are some reasons
>why we definitely affirm that watching a movie can be
>much richer cognitive experience than reading a novel.
> To begin with, let�s analyze how a book
>adaptation for the cinema is usually done, and see if
>those two main statements against it are really
>pertinent. Firstly, movies are meant to be creative
>works of art, so no serious moviemaker will be
>satisfied to merely reproduce the book on the screen,
>nor he would be able to. Every director wants to
>imprint his trademark on the work he�s presently
>doing, so he will, at best, keep the essence of the
>story, and add his own personal and unique view on the
>movie. Thus, a book adaptation of a famous (book??) is likely
>to retain at least the plot, but don�t expect more
>than this. In fact, every time a work of art is
>�translated� into another media, it necessarily passes
>through modifications, adding or cutting scenes.
>Usually, the work of script writer follows two main
>directions: changing a very abstract -or poetic � text
>into a more dramatic-oriented one or, on the contrary,
>turning a more concrete and dramatic plot into a more
>subtle and metaphoric text. We can seldom find
>readymade prose to put on the screen.
> Secondly, no scriptwriter tries nor could ever
>be able to simulate the formal characteristics of the
>written piece on the screen. We could think of the use
>of metaphors, wordplays, ambiguities, intercalation of
>narrative voices, and so on. But none of those
>subjective qualities appears on (in??) the script. In fact,
>after the final version of the script is done, it is
>up to the director to give the movie qualities that
>equal artistically to the book. The main director, or
>the art director, is there one, can use several visual
>strategies to make the movie more poetic. They can,
>for example, use camera movements to induce the vision
>of the spectator; soundtrack to induce an infinite
>number of emotions on the viewers; association of
>sequences to create meaning, and a lot of other
>audio-visual resources. That is, a visual work has
>different and new possibilities other than the written
>work. In fact, a movie uses more senses than the (take the out)
>books, for the spectator can see and listening (listen??) the
>story, virtually experiencing realities that are
>different from the �real� world.
> Another point that supports our position
>is that, although a reader when reading a novel has to
>imagine every thing in the story � in filmmaking
>terms: to create the scenario, to characterize
>physically the characters, to produce his own
>soundtrack to the mood the scene �asks�, etc - or he
>has to make full use of his imagination, it is not
>true that our imagination is not (take not out) �turned off� when
>we�re watching a movie. Images are seemingly given
>ready to us. But recent research on psychology and
>cognitive sciences shows that in fact we construct the
>images, rather than receiving(receive) them passively. Our
>brain goes into a complex processing to �see� the
>image being shown. When we are looking at an image, we
>are doing two things: choosing the closer instance we
>have (in) our visual memory of similar scenes, and
>associating it unconsciously to other countless images
>and ideas. Oh! Hard work, isn�t it? But how doesn�t
>our brain melt with this intense work? It�s because we
>are only conscious of a minimal part of the process.
>In fact, the visual system does those two tasks in
>milliseconds, so that we recognize consciously only
>the result of this intricate process. Therefore, when
>we are watching a movie, instead of using our
>imagination, we are using our creative imaginary; in
>fact we �co-produce� the movie, in the sense that we
>are attributing meaning to the moving pictures. If
>this meaning doesn�t match the director�s intention,
>is not relevant. What is more important is the process.
> Thus, as we have seen, there are many reasons
>why we should consider a movie adaptation not better,
>but different and much as(take as out) �artistic� as the book
>itself, and definitely a richer cognitive experience
>than reading a book. Think of that (the) next time you see
>an adaptation of your favorite novel.
Well written and clear!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]