Right. So, the American version is not a translation of the French dialogue? In which case, the American version's narration is the sole responsibility of the American producers, and it is right to criticise the American producers for that. If the reviews are saying "...ruining the excellent and unsentimental original French film" then they are wrong. But they are not saying that. They are not reviewing the French version at all, for the not unreasonable reason that the French version has not been presented for review, and is not on general release in this country.
The British may be a down-on-its-luck ex-imperial nation, but we are still Gods of the Wildlife Documentary, and we will brook no foolishness in this, our last bastion of world supremacy!
Yes, it's the Americans' responsibility. But the assumption was that "Oh, sentimental, must've been tacked on by the Yanks", never thinking that it had been sentimental in the first place! It's just typical of the way British reviewers think about Americans.
Eg this quote from Saturday's Guardian: "The March Of The Penguins is a re-edited, rescripted, rescored, re-imagined Americanisation of a film shot in Antarctica by Frenchmen who might not have stayed at the south pole for 13 brutal months if they knew what lay in store for their footage once Hollywood got its hands onto it."
So, your objection is that someone has accused a cloyingly sentimental American film of being cloyingly sentimental? On the grounds that they have apparently assumed that an earlier work that the American one was derived from was not sentimental, when it was?
Have you considered that the Guardian piece is in no way inaccurate about the American version, and if there's an assumption that the Guardian is making here, it is not that America ruins things, but that the French film industry can do no wrong, an assumption that the Guardian is often guilty of making.
In addition, your quote from the Guardian completely fails to support your argument. "Hollywood" is not "America"; the Guardian is consistently full of praise for American independant filmmaking, and you can't say that this is anti-American unless you are being so blindly patriotic that you believe any criticism of any American corporate institution is a criticism of the country.
I would also point out that if a collection of Frenchmen spend 13 months in Antarctica filming penguins, they are arguably within their rights to write a script that reflects that experience. If their experience was that they identified with the penguins, and ascribed them names, personalities and motivations, then that probably makes them poor naturalists, but that is the experience being committed to celluloid. Less convincing is the right of a Johnny-come-lately film producer (of whatever nationality) to "re-imagine" the thing on the basis of having simply watched the footage. The original team lived the experience, and have something to relate; not so the late-coming film producer.
Also, you have failed to show that the original was a failure due to being sentimental. Sentiment does not always destroy movies; the canon of Frank Capra, for instance, is rich with sentiment, and for my money contains a number of works of genius. Sentiment is a double edged sword; used right, it can make things very powerful indeed, used clumsily and it ruins a film. I don't know, obviously, but the original could have been a powerful and touching piece, for all its sentimentality, whereas the later version could have been clumsy and far less effective.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
The British may be a down-on-its-luck ex-imperial nation, but we are still Gods of the Wildlife Documentary, and we will brook no foolishness in this, our last bastion of world supremacy!
(no subject)
Eg this quote from Saturday's Guardian:
"The March Of The Penguins is a re-edited, rescripted, rescored, re-imagined Americanisation of a film shot in Antarctica by Frenchmen who might not have stayed at the south pole for 13 brutal months if they knew what lay in store for their footage once Hollywood got its hands onto it."
(no subject)
Have you considered that the Guardian piece is in no way inaccurate about the American version, and if there's an assumption that the Guardian is making here, it is not that America ruins things, but that the French film industry can do no wrong, an assumption that the Guardian is often guilty of making.
In addition, your quote from the Guardian completely fails to support your argument. "Hollywood" is not "America"; the Guardian is consistently full of praise for American independant filmmaking, and you can't say that this is anti-American unless you are being so blindly patriotic that you believe any criticism of any American corporate institution is a criticism of the country.
I would also point out that if a collection of Frenchmen spend 13 months in Antarctica filming penguins, they are arguably within their rights to write a script that reflects that experience. If their experience was that they identified with the penguins, and ascribed them names, personalities and motivations, then that probably makes them poor naturalists, but that is the experience being committed to celluloid. Less convincing is the right of a Johnny-come-lately film producer (of whatever nationality) to "re-imagine" the thing on the basis of having simply watched the footage. The original team lived the experience, and have something to relate; not so the late-coming film producer.
(no subject)