In our previous discussions of other literature and film of the Holocaust, we often explored how good is impeded by a desire for survival. I think in the book you see far more development of how the goodness of others saved Szpilman. We see him saved in countless situations by people who could have easily turned the other way, yet I didn't feel like this was as adequately conveyed through the movie. However, I was very interested in the film's adaptation of the relationship between Szpilman and Hosenfeld. I felt like this was a very strong element in the plot of the movie and was even portrayed more effectively through the medium of film.
While I understand the limitations of cinematography, I feel like I am usually underwhelmed when viewing a story that I have read. However, in this adaptation I felt that while certain aspects were missing or lacking, it was still a successful telling of the story. I think that what we see best reflected through the film is how the music changes the entire feeling of the story. As a non-musically inclined person, it is very hard for me as a reader to visually interpret words into music. With music provoking such extreme emotional responses, it is so much more meaningful to hear the music that fills Szpilman's life. I felt as if I could truly see the character, his pain, and his story through hearing the music. I also felt that while Szpilman is not exactly portrayed as a hero in the film we are exposed to how challenging his life was and the extreme misfortune that he was able to overcome by the goodness of those who chose not to sacrifice their souls to the Nazis. With such an emotionally raw story, I think it is difficult to impart this fully onto the big screen for mass consumption, as their are studio executives to be pleased and seats to fill. Overall, I was surprised to be pleased with the film version almost as much as I enjoyed the autobiography.
As with any transference between film and literature, yes we loose something in the transaction. However, we also gain something, a different viewpoint. One separate from Szpilman's and our own. I agree with you that in this particular case Polanski did do the autobiography justice. The movie is an accurate and compelling portrayal of Szpilman's accounts of the war. Yet, I also feel that he was successful in having and emotional impact upon his audience. He does this with powerful scenes, and as you say in your blog, the wonderful score that sets the tone during the entire film.
ReplyDeleteIn reference to the presentation of the Nazi officer Hosenfeld. I feel that Polanski made him out to look too much like some beast laid low by beautiful music. When, in accounts, we know of Hosenfeld providing help to many different Jews and others before meeting Szpilman.
Otto-Comment on Shaw Blog-Different Mediums
ReplyDeleteThere are definite differences between the memoir and the film and I think both portray the life of Szpeilman in truthful ways, however I feel that there is a deeper connection through the first person narrative. There is only so much that we can recognize from facial expressions and the background music that has been added to the film. Through first person narrative we can easily get into the head of the protagonist and begin to identify with them, placing ourselves in their position becomes easier, yet more difficult in this case due to the circumstances, while in film we are just a viewer with no immediate connection except through the compassion that we learn to feel for the protagonist of any film. I had seen the film previous to this assignment and I thoroughly enjoyed it, however I felt, emotionally, a deeper connection with the passion of the words as opposed to the film.