Screen adaptations of novels seem to be all the rage. Last evening I attempted to watch 2012’s Anna Karenina with Keira Knightley, but had to turn it off within 20 minutes because it seemed like a parody instead of the serious, intense drama I know the book to be.
At least the mood and tone of the novel should be preserved. How can we accept the story otherwise? Maybe the studio was depending upon an audience who never read the book? I was distracted during that 20 minutes, finding that characters and scenes changed as if moving on a stage. Even a carriage ride seemed to have been filmed on a set, not on location. At first I thought the film was beginning with a play.
Still wishing to watch a good period piece I viewed the 2005 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, also with Keira Knightley; a different one from that seen and posted by my fellow blogger, jessicabookworm. Though it was enjoyable, again the studio depended upon an audience who had never read the novel. I thought that the storyline of the film did not follow that of the novel. For example, Bingley’s sister’s attempt to stop a relationship between Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy was never addressed in the film.
Why would anyone recommend a film dissimilar to the book it originates from? This brings to mind my post, Friday Reads Event: What Appeals to You, about recommending similar books dependent upon matching appeal factors. By this standard, I would not recommend the films I saw as a “read-alike.”Have any of you seen either of these films? If so, what did you think?
The idea for this post came from jessicabookworm who presented her top 10 adaptations for 2015.