an old photo from my old blog in our old home,
but fills me with delight
but fills me with delight
How do you dress visual form unto words? As you read, how do you flesh a character?
Some of us enjoy picturing a very specific person. We imagine the hair colour and style, the height, the clothing. Other readers remain within the author's description. If the eye colour or the nose is mentioned, that is foremost in our mind's eye upon the character's entrance. Some readers hone in on emotion, 'seeing' pride, love, weakness.
I'm a presence person.
Whatever the author gives me, whether detailed or otherwise, I feel the character's physical and emotion presence. I sense a dominating bulk, an ethereal whisper, a frightened stooped form. And with that, subtle movement. In an uttered phrase, I see the way the character would hold their frame, move their hand, tilt their head.
How do you see?
It's one reason why some of us have such strong reactions to who and how our characters are depicted on film. I was re-watching Emma 2009, and it's not just that Miller looked younger than Mr Knightley was meant to be, but it was his presence, which was entirely opposed to my version of him - stately, upright, little superfluous movement. Mark Strong (Emma 1996) satisfies my mind's eye of a Knightley.
Do you have your own loves+hates of book-characters on screen?
My favourite ones are The name of the Rose(1986) and Sence & Sensibility(1995). I don't think I have a hate one, surely because I watch very few movies lately...
ReplyDeleteLove Love that photo!
ooh, i did enjoy the name of the rose. thought connery fitted that character well.
DeleteBooks gives me an escape from my reality. I usually see me, put myself in the story. I don't read like I'm viewing someone else's life, but like I'm living the story myself.
ReplyDeletei don't actually put myself in the story, but the best stories are ones where i somewhat feel myself there, like a minor character looking on. although if i identify a lot (or wish i could!) with a lead character, then i often find myself 'seeing' through her eyes.
DeleteI picture characters like I see people in my dreams. They don't have a face or body I can clearly make out, even when it's described as such in the book.
ReplyDeleteI can't recall any specific examples, but movies are always a bit of a disappointment when it comes to characters. Not only because they're almost never how you imagine them, but the characters are never fully developed as they are in the book. It doesn't nother me that much though - I know a movie can only show so much!
how we imagine them is so subjective, it would be impossible to please all of us ay? but i prefer when they're at least true to the written character.
DeleteFor me, it is a sense of place that is key to my reading enjoyment. I am a little like Jillian in that, when I read, 'my' characters rarely have defined faces or features, but the location is full and vivid, and it is into that landscape I love to escape.
ReplyDeleteI live a long way from a cinema so rarely see films, but it is the translation of landscape from book to film that is where I find the most difficulty. My first encounter with this disappointment was Chitty Chitty Bang Bang - I loved the book and inhabited the landscape (it comes back as real to me as ever as I type this), but none of it was translated into the film.
oh that's very interesting. for me character-emotion is so key places are free to be vague. i can't remember last time i went to the cinema! mothering halts that for a while, lol
Deletebut have a wide dvd collection, and now there's internet - youtube etc....
I'm terribly scared that I'm going to hate Cloud Atlas - the trailer isn't exactly promising and I don't want to ruin one of my favourite books
ReplyDeletethat's a tough one to translate on film.
DeleteI love the picture of your stacks of books! "Presence" is a good way to describe how I see characters in books. That may encompass specific physical characteristics if they are an important part of the character, but I rarely actually picture a character. I hate it when movies get it wrong.
ReplyDeletei would find a cushion and nestle in that book nook, sigh.... my books come to me soon. ;)
Deletethat picture is fabulous Monica. I am not sure i have a hate book character on screen… i’m thinking hard i can’t think of one. It’s not impossible that i might be back later if one comes to mind!!
ReplyDeletexo sandra
i am also more of a presence person i assume. and sometimes reading i imagine people i know. just because the descriptions remind me of them, and even though i sometimes try to 'fight' my association, it keeps popping back.
ReplyDeletehmmm...can't think of many now, except for the whole story of 'extremely close and incredibly loud', the film version does not relate at all to how i experienced the characters while reading.
generally, i try to avoid screen versions... :) perhaps cause i can't deal with my expectations, hihi!
that would really annoy me if i imagined someone i knew. how can they get out of your head once they're in!? lol
DeleteI see the same way you do, though sometimes my vision and the author's match. I always cringe when, in movies, the actors are not at all what I imagined in my head!
ReplyDeleteIn keeping on the Austen track, I found Colin Firth to be the perfect Darcy, and the actor in the version with Keira Knightley (sp?) was flat by comparison. Liam Neeson was perfect as Valjean in Les Mis.
xx
re-reading les mis and it's an all-time favourite, so that's good to hear!
ReplyDeletehaven't seen the version with Keira Knightley, but totally agree about Mr Firth as Darcy - perfect.
I think I have come to accept a novel and its movie will be 2 completely separate entities. As excited as I become that a book may become a movie, I've already settled into knowing that I will be disappointed in some way. The first stories that come to mind where this is less the case, are J.R.R Tolkein's Lord of the Rings trilogy, and JK Rowlings Harry Potter series. Complete disappointments have included Pillars of the Earth's mini series--blecht, and on a slightly different note Mamma Mia's movie adaptation of the play. I think casting Meryl Streep, as much as I have enjoyed her in other roles, was a disaster in the movie, which was also awful. Presence yes, I think it sets the whole tone of the book for me if I can connect with presence, and this is why casting is so important. Finding the right personalities and characters that can bring the presence out of the story onto the screen is such a skill...johnny depp, joaquin phoenix....I know you know what I mean :).
ReplyDeletexo
Great post and a topic that resonates very much - I still haven't been able to bring myself to watch Bright Star (much as I want to) because I studied Keats at university and couldn't see Ben Whishaw as him at all!
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree with your assessment of Jonny Lee Miller as not a great Knightley - I surprised myself by enjoying Jeremy Northam's portrayal of the role.
This was fun to think about and dabble in in my mind, and I'd say I'm a presence person too...I'm more attuned to a spirit, an air, if your will, than color of hair, or those kinds of usual physical, sensual details. In the Jane Austen movie theme, I love both the 1995 version of Pride & Prejudice (Colin Firth...*swoon*) and also the 2005 version too (Matthew Macfayden...*swoon*)--each offers such subtle difference in presence of character and over all atmosphere/environment. It's interesting how a book experience can be vastly difference from a film experience.
ReplyDeletegregory peck as atticus finch...that was probably the most wonderful job i've seen an actor do at capturing the essence of a character whom i dearly loved from a book.
ReplyDelete