Today I finished reading "Breakfast at Tiffany's" by Truman Capote, a short and sweet little novella. I haven't seen the film adaptation yet, but I know there's an OPI nail polish out called "For Audrey" and it's a lovely Tiffany blue. In general, I think I prefer reading books before seeing them on screen; that's not to say that movies ruin books because movies are my jam - but the original version is faithful to the original version, independent of the adaptations, which are completely separate entities. In other words, take the book "Breakfast at Tiffany's" by Truman Capote and the movie "Breakfast at Tiffany's" by Blake Edwards and even though I haven't seen the latter, I know darn well they are not the same two stories. The latter might be based on the former, yes, but we now have two slightly different tales. Some of the changes that arise when adapting a story between mediums can be failures, but I think it's important to acknowledge that you're definitely not going to please everyone and the adapters have to cure a story in whatever way is necessary such that it exploits the new medium to the greatest extent possible, even if it means taking liberties.
Anyhow, it all makes me think about Stieg Larsson's Millenium Trilogy. I absolutely loved the books - the first two, that is - haven't read the third for fear of the series ending!, but did not enjoy the film adaptation of the first book. I guess my reading of Salander's character was completely different, didn't see her as quite the stoic cyberpunk she was portrayed as. Socially awkward, yes, but not so stiff. Yes, there is the beauty of different interpretations bla blah blah, but for god's sake, no one's tellin you to like each one and you're certainly not obliged to.
So back to "Breakfast at Tiffany's" - I'm not sure I want to see the film version, though I know people love it. I'm happy with the "Breakfast at Tiffany's" story that I know now; I don't know if I need much else.
No comments:
Post a Comment