I feel like it isn't wise to admit this (my inner snob is jabbing me hard to shut up right now) but there are so many different influences and experiences that an author can call upon that disregarding or denegrating the impact film can have on our writing can only be counter-productive. Sure, plenty of books feel like novelisations of films we've never seen, or maybe even a flat out pitch to Hollywood, but there are approaches that don't have to be cynical or insulting to our readers. They can add to our writing.
As a reader my biggest problem is with filler - if you look at decent films, because of the limited space, scenes are often used to develop multiple strands (that's good films, there are way too many bad) but a pitfall in books (more notably the when they're less than literary) can be that, once you finish and look back at it, you can identify sections, maybe whole chapters, that serve no purpose (a real concern for aspiring writers). Or a sense of "one thing at a time". Either way, I felt that the more I could develop a style that carried the density and precision of a short story to whatever I wrote, the more successful the results would be.
It is just possible that too many people think that this is just dumbing down for film audiences but, if it is done correctly, then all you're doing (like James Cameron did with the exposition scenes in The Terminator) is sweetening the pill of the required information... maybe masking it a little.
I remember an Eddie Izzard sketch where he discussed the reason why there weren't any car chases in novels (BBRRRRRMMM - going faster, he's still behind me! Turn left!) and it is true that there are areas that don't cross over but (as Tarantino refers to himself) be the magpie - you have to take techniques you like and you can use. Look to build the same energy and urgency, the same sense of momentum that the best films can have, and the reader will always follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment