Movies and Their Sources

I posted my review of Troy earlier today -- earlier than usual, in fact, as I was watching the Superbowl when I normally would be posting a review. So far, it has gotten three comments, two of which disagreed with my assessment (extremely positive), while the final one agreed. I have no qualms about that. Everyone is, after all, entitled to their opinion. I actually don't even have any issues or disagreements about the reasoning behind the complaints about the film. Both comments have claimed that it wasn't a good film because of the differences to its source material, namely Homer's Iliad.

Like I said, I have no problem with that. If you're promised an adaptation of a book, and the film doesn't deliver on how "epic" the book is or whatever, then by all means, go ahead and hate it. Maybe you had certain expectations, and the film didn't match them. That's fine. I like judging the films based on its own merits, but that's very difficult to do and I know I fall into the trap of comparing them if I read the book beforehand. It happens.

However, what I don't understand is the idea that if something is explained in the book, then it automatically holds true for the film. For instance, in Troy, I made an offhand comment about Achilles' disdain for not wearing armor during the battle scenes. I didn't make a big issue of it, but his reasoning didn't make a lot of sense to me. In one of the comments, I had it all explained to me:

As for the not wearing armour thing - A major point in the Iliad was that Patroklos scared the Trojans shitless wearing Achilleus' armour, until he wound up dead - the reason Achilleus came back into the fight and had a grudge against Hektor.

I'll leave spelling mistakes there, because far be it for me to alter someone else's writing.

Now, and maybe I'm crazy for thinking this, but if this isn't explained in the film, then you can't use it in assuming that this is what's motivating the character. A great deal of other things were changed from The Iliad, so explain to me exactly why we're taking that book's explanation when a lot of it has otherwise been disregarded. If it's not in the film, it doesn't count.

When fans of a film try to use non-film material to try to defend it, it bothers me. The same thing happened, if I'm remembering correctly, with American Psycho. I was "wrong" in criticizing its non-existent point because, in the book, it's totally clear. How does that make any sense? If the film doesn't do a good enough of bringing something across, then that's the film's fault. (And the filmmakers', I suppose.) If it's in the book, then that's all good and dandy, but the book isn't what we're watching on-screen. It is a separate entity and if it's not translated properly, then it's not the audience's fault for not picking up on something they're not being exposed to.

Ciao,
Marter