It's hard to imagine a better example of an adaptation hijacking and replacing the source material. There are examples, of course, of the adaptation being more popular. I can't however, think of anything close to this phenomenon: of a movie adaptation not only altering the source material to such an extent as to make it unrecognizable, but then replacing it in the public consciousness. Society's idea of the monster is undeniably this version--hulking, incoherent, childish--and not the philosophical, erudite original with which it shares nothing more than a father. It is as if people lined up to see L.H.O.O.Q. instead of the Mona Lisa.
Which is not to say that the movie doesn't deserve its place in the cinematic canon. It is solid, filled with strong performances and directorial choices, and occasionally brilliant. My favorite touch is that Karloff is uncredited, his name replaced with question marks in the opening titles. And neither do I feel that one version is superior to the other; they are fully divergent works, and to compare them would be to compare Pando to Aspirin.
No comments:
Post a Comment