Quote:
|
Did you ever actually READ "A Clockwork Orange"?
|
Yes. I study English Lit and I wrote a 15 page term paper on it. Maybe I had to read too many times...
(I'm also a bit offended by your question, I must admit, cause if I hadn't read the novel I wouldn't have taken it as an example...)
Quote:
|
Then I wonder how you came to your conclusion.
|
Personal taste. Leaving out the final chapter was a very significant change to the plot which, at least, didn't make the movie crap.
Damn it. I DID have an odd feeling when I wrote Clockwork Orange, as it did occur to me that's not the best example, because the book is also pretty good. But I didn't think someone would read that part that closely. :whistle:
Quote:
|
Did you read Arthur Schnitzlers' "Traumnovelle" (which was turned into "Eyes wide shut")?
|
Yes, that was the example I thought about giving instead but I thought it was less known to people. The "Traumnovelle" is, as Schnitzler's complete work, horribly bad.
"Eyes Wide Shut" is pretty goog though.
Actually I think Kubrick was VERY good at turning novels into movies, or let's say: making movies based on or inspired by novels. And actually I think you can say this even if you haven't read a single novel. Because the movies are, in general, all excellent movies. They speak for themselves. It doesn't matter in the end how they relate to the books. And THAT is what makes them good novel adaptations.
Based on what criteria do you think he was lousy at it?