As often before, and at four stages in this chapter, appropriate weather punctuates dramatic dialogue. On the opening page, gathering clouds, a wind from the swamp, leaden sky, approaching gloom, winking lightning and grumbling thunder are signs of an "...oncoming storm..." (p. 25) while the protagonists also have reason to grumble.
Next, thunder and wind override local smells, people thin out under the lightning and:
"A few raindrops blew past, scouts for storm." (p. 32)
"Scouts for storm" is good.
Next:
"Lightning seared, thunder bawled, rain blurred the glass and chill crept from it." (p. 35)
This accompanies Sidir's gloomy reflections.
Finally, Guildsman Ponsario en-Ostral not only suspects that the fugitive, Josserek Derrain, might be a Seniory spy but also suggests where he might be found:
"'At the headquarters of -' Thunder trampled the name underfoot." (p. 40)
Ponsario's interrupted dialogue concludes the chapter and that clap of thunder might have been written for the end of a scene in a film script.
13 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I wonder if it might be possible to film a version of THE WINTER OF THE WORLD? Or is the story too complex for that? I can too easily see the Rogaviki being uncritically praised as "noble savages" and the Barommians/Rahidians unfairly demonized.
And Ponsario en-Ostral has some resemblance to Nicholas van Rijn.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I think that any screen version of a novel should be a serial to get everything in.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
A good idea! A filmed version of WINTER might need to be a two parter, to get it right.
A big reason why I found Peter Jackson's LORD OF THE RINGS and HOBBIT movies so disappointing is because of how inaccurate they were. Jackson kept inserting scenes/material simply not found in the books. Also, he expanded/padded the films longer than they needed to be.
Yes, I'm a Tolkien pedant!
Ad astra! Sean
There are limits on how faithful to the book a movie version can be. The movie *can't* fit in everything, but there are important things that would not take much time to show.
One thing I disliked about the movie version of LOTR that could have been easily fixed is that in the movie Merry & Pippin are shown as initally much more naive, almost stupid, than in the book. They stumble into joinging Frodo on the trip to Rivendell, while in the book they were with Sam in a scheme to help Frodo from well before he left. This could have been fixed with a sentence by Merry or Pippen when they meet Frodo & Sam. "Hi, Sam told us you were leaving for an important task, we are going to join you and help." This would make them less naive than as portrayed in the movie and more like in the book, still naive but less so.
I heard too much bad about the movie version of The Hobbit to bother watching it.
Kaor, Jim!
I agree, no matter how careful a director strives to be, some parts of a long story like THE LORD OF THE RINGS has to omitted from a filmed version. Such as, regrettably, the Old Forest and Tom Bombadil chapters.
Ditto, what you said about Merry and Pippin. LOTR shows them as far more intelligent than we see them in the movie versions. While Pippin was somewhat naive, I don't think that could be said at all of Merry.
I did watch THE HOBBIT movies when they came out--if only to fume and glare at them!
Btw, King Theoden recently died. Oops, I meant the actor Bernard Hill. RIP
Ad astra! Sean
A sufficiently long screen serial would be able to include everything and would do the book(s) justice.
There are things that written media do that visual ones just -can't- do.
Interior stuff, for example. You can show a character thinking; you can't do that in a visual media except by voice-over, which is lame. You have to have dialogue, and there are limits to how much you can have two people discussing their thoughts.
Acting can convey some of it, but not all.
I agree with that. A prose novel, a graphic novel and a screen serial can tell three aspects of one story.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, there's only so much even a good filmed version of ENSIGN FLANDRY or THE LORD OF THE RINGS can show.
Ad astra! Sean
sean: there are things visual media can do that print can't, too, of course. But in general terms, it's less information-dense. A movie is usually equivalent to a novella, not a novel.
Which is why I think that any screen adaptation of a novel has to be a long serial.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Both: I agree, which is why people so often say "The book was better than the movie."
Paul: As long as the extended filmed version of something like ENSIGN FLANDRY is not padded with too much material not in the book.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The film should be an exact dramatization of every dramatic detail in Anderson's text.
Paul.
Post a Comment