Motherless Brooklyn * * *
I don't know that much (as I have clearly demonstrated throughout this blog) but I do know that to properly adapt a book into a film, you kind of have to throw the book out. Just take the story.
In some ways Edward Norton (Director/Actor/Producer) has done that. He's even changed the period from the 1990's to the 1950's. But where he has unfortunately remained loyal to the book is in some of the scenes and dialogue. He has also kept characters which were rather cartoonish. Bobby Cannavale is an actor I greatly admire, he was a tour-de-force in Boardwalk Empire, but his acting in this is - well ... hamish. It's like he is struggling to keep a straight face. Another character pastiche is Michael K Williams who plays a jazz musician obviously based on Miles Davis.
Edward Norton struggles as the main character, Private Investigator Lionel Essrog, and he becomes increasingly irritating with his exaggerated Tourette outbursts. The ease with which other characters forgive him, and understand his outbursts is quite unrealistic. Especially as it is set in the 1950's, when people with a mental health problem were not so readily accepted.
We all know the feeling when you are reading a good novel and the images are so clear in your own mind, all you can think is "This would make such a good film!" Don't kid yourself! Often it won't.
I get it. I get why Norton wanted to wind back the clock 50 years to tell the story. The novel reads like that. But that was the magic of the novel. It was a gumshoe novel set in the modern day. That was the charm. Characters from that era working today. To turn things around and make the period fit the characters destroys the amusing incongruity. Not such a good idea.
It's not just Norton and Cannavale who are on board, you also have Bruce Wills, Willem Dafoe, Alec Baldwin and many others. Then you've got ThomYorke doing the music. This is no cheapie.
It might have been Norton's dream and I can see his commitment, but like many a film adapted from a novel it's hardly successful and probably not worth the considerable effort it took to provide such a convincing 1950s recreation - but on that score, at least it looks good.
In some ways Edward Norton (Director/Actor/Producer) has done that. He's even changed the period from the 1990's to the 1950's. But where he has unfortunately remained loyal to the book is in some of the scenes and dialogue. He has also kept characters which were rather cartoonish. Bobby Cannavale is an actor I greatly admire, he was a tour-de-force in Boardwalk Empire, but his acting in this is - well ... hamish. It's like he is struggling to keep a straight face. Another character pastiche is Michael K Williams who plays a jazz musician obviously based on Miles Davis.
 |
| A screenplay with Tourette's. Fark! |
We all know the feeling when you are reading a good novel and the images are so clear in your own mind, all you can think is "This would make such a good film!" Don't kid yourself! Often it won't.
I get it. I get why Norton wanted to wind back the clock 50 years to tell the story. The novel reads like that. But that was the magic of the novel. It was a gumshoe novel set in the modern day. That was the charm. Characters from that era working today. To turn things around and make the period fit the characters destroys the amusing incongruity. Not such a good idea.
It's not just Norton and Cannavale who are on board, you also have Bruce Wills, Willem Dafoe, Alec Baldwin and many others. Then you've got ThomYorke doing the music. This is no cheapie.
It might have been Norton's dream and I can see his commitment, but like many a film adapted from a novel it's hardly successful and probably not worth the considerable effort it took to provide such a convincing 1950s recreation - but on that score, at least it looks good.
Comments
Post a Comment