Johnny Depp the Gender Bender?

[laurainlimbo]

in my effort to avoid all of the important things in life (exercise, studying, writing), I've been reading too much stuff on the internet. for all you Johnny Depp fans out there, I found this video slideshow of his adventures in gender-bending through the years. I've always loved him, and seeing all these clips makes me realize what a talented actor he really is. I haven't seen the movie Before Night Falls (though it was on my Netflix queue for about a year before I left the country). The only one of these I didn't like was Willy Wonka - Johnny went way over the top on that one, and his performance gave me nightmares! and of course on this slideshow they didn't include some of my favorite of his performances, like Donnie Brasco, Dead Man, Gilbert Grape, and Benny and Joon... (but I guess those were not considered "gender-bending"?)

I've decided that I don't want to see the new Alice movie. I'm sure that the whole cast is good in it, and I'm sure that visually it's very stunning... but I read this review on Slate's website, and it sounds like Tim Burton is taking WAYYY too many liberties with the story. I'm a purist - I can't see why people can't make movie adaptations that even slightly resemble the story, especially when you're dealing with something as classic as Lewis Carroll! And why make the Mad Hatter a love interest for Alice? there wasn't the slightest hint of that in the book.

I'm not trying to sound like a snob, but I wrote a paper on Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass in college. I really loved everything about those stories! It's like seeing the Leonardo DiCaprio version of Romeo and Juliet - or any of these modern adaptations of Shakespeare. they don't work for me.

I know many people will disagree with me about this, but film adaptations work only when they stay true to the original author's vision. Why else do we want to see the film except to see a broader view of what we've read and loved?

anyway, that's enough of my soapbox. I'm back to staring at katakana and kanji and wondering if I'll ever learn Japanese well enough...

Comments

[serialbathera.livejournal.com]

that is sad that they deviated so much from the text. No one should blame you if you don't want to see it (or see it for that matter)

I think you are right for the most part movies should try to stay true to the source. (Though I am sure in some cases, the movie would make the source of the material a million times better, I thought of an example but I forgot it)

Good luck with your studying

[phantomsgyrl.livejournal.com]

I am not going to see 'Alice' either. I didn't like Willy Wonka (the original is my favorite childhood movie) and kinda gave up on Tim Burton Movies after that.

About 'Romeo and Juliet' with Leonardo, the first time I watched it; I turned it off after 15 minutes because I so didn't 'get it' and I thought it was a travesty to film my favorite playwright in that way. Fast forward a few years, I retried it after I saw 'Moulin Rouge' and saw it in a very different light. The setting may have changed but it so stays true to the original story.

Michelle

[dawnie1970.livejournal.com]

I felt sad when I read he deviated so much from the plot as well, it's a brilliant book series, and deserves a faithful, epic rendition of it on film. *hugs you close*

Of course you will hon, give yourself some time! *extra encouraging hugs*

[bitchygrrl.livejournal.com]

I love Before Night Falls and Javier Bardeem is also in it, so if you can get a copy try to see it.

I agree with you about Willie Wonka I like the attempt at a darker tone but it didn't work.

Now I have reservations about seeing Alice I am a stickler in some ways about not changing the author's intent. Some things you don't mess with, which is why I have yet to see a single movie version of Little Women because the slightest deviation would make me rage. Some things are best avoided. Oh while I was in Vegas I saw a rare edition of Alice it was $4500. I wish.

Oddly though I am fond of Baz Lurhman's R&J because it sticks to the original language, though one scene is missing. To me Shakesspeare was a showman and I think he would have changed settings, etc to grab his audience. I mean he was adapting himself. So for me I always enjoy seeing what new settings directors can come up with for his work. Now when they start playing with the language I have issues. I do have mixed emotions about things like Scotland, PA because it's not really a Shakespeare adaptation, but I'm still iffy on them. Have you seen that? Sorry to to be off on an a tangent but I love Shakesspeare.

[1-rhiannon-1.livejournal.com]

It's not actually a remake of the previous movies/cartoons/or novels though - it's an extension of the story, 13 years after the fact. Not that that matters but I just thought I'd throw that out there.

[toadflax234.livejournal.com]

I love Johnny Depp, but I don't always like the films he does.

Love Pirates, didn't like Sweeney Todd.

Love Chocolat, really not sure about Willy Wonka.

I'm still undecided whether to see Alice. Hannah loved it. But then she hasn't read the book...

[bayareajenn.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I read the same review. I feel the same way about the movie. I had been looking forward to it back when they put out the pictures. It's hard to imagine where it could go wrong with the cast they have, but it's looking like it's just going to be a merchandising opportunity with no real substance.

I hate that the movies are basically strip-mining our childhood favorites. I worry about when/if I have a kid...are they going to read the books, or are they going to just watch the movies and never really have a chance to exercise their own imaginations?

[wolfpurplemoon]

That's a fun article about Johnny Depp's roles, while I (obviously) knew that his roles were not of the norm (which is part of the appeal) I'd never seen it analysed quite that way before.

I couldn't watch Before Night Falls, I think I ended up skipping through it to find Johnny's scenes, the rest of it didn't interest me at all.

As for film adaptations of books (or Shakespeare), I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on that. Purism is commendable but artistic vision does not need to be restricted by source material, especially when the source has been adapted many times.

Off the top of my head, there is one film (Manhunter) I didn't like because it managed to throw out the best material of a book I'd enjoyed (and the title so I can forgive it somewhat and pretend it's not a Hannibal Lecter film) but I've come to realise that film is an entirely different artistic medium to books so there have to be differences.

In Charlie and the Chocolate factory Johnny's actual performance may not be exactly like the Wonka of the book, but the film itself is a far truer adaptation than the Gene Wilder version (which, incidentally, Roald Dahl himself hated and they rewrote his screenplay, although they left him with a writing credit), though that is not the main reason I prefer the newer adaptation.

I was probably just the right age when Baz Luhman's Romeo + Juliet came out and I really enjoyed it (and I agree with bitchygrrl on that, even our English teacher allowed us to watch the film when we were studying the play!).

But anyway, I've just come back from seeing Alice in Wonderland and I thoroughly enjoyed it, I can't disagree more with that review you've linked to (apart from the dig at 3D) Empire's is far more even handed here.

The only reason anyone could possibly think that the Mad Hatter is Alice's love interest is because all the people from her real life are represented by characters in Wonderland and the Mad Hatter appears to be the man everyone wants her to marry and I suppose he also represents her father (he definitely has multiple personalities) so it's more of a paternal love than a romantic one.

Well, this has turned into a long comment! I'm not sure if I've managed to properly explain my thoughts, I know my feelings but can't always express them coherently!

Good luck with your Japanese lessons! *hug*

[selvatica.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid I do disagree with you. I absolutely adore Pride and Prejudice and the BBC adaptation brought the book to life and was extremely true to the book. With this in mind, I was a bit reluctant to go and see the 2005 film with Kiera Knightley. I felt that a 2 hour film could not do the book justice. However, I went. It wasn't the same, by any means, but what stood out for me were the differences which gave the film it's own charm. And, I have it on DVD.
I'm also surprised about your comment about Burtons/Depp's Willy Wonka. At least that version was close to the book, where the previous rubbish is not!
As for Alice in Wonderland, I've never read the book, but the film was absolutely amazing and I'm sure it will stand out on it's own as a brilliant bit of filmmaking :)