Karin Abromaitis on wed 4 jan 06
Ok, I feel I have to pitch in with my 2 cents. =20
My first career is in Theatre. Not film, but stage. There are some =
similarities, so I feel I can speak to some issues here that I feel are =
important to consider, but have not yet been addressed.
First, the book is literary art. It is a novel, not a work of =
historical documentation. The author made choices out of his =
imagination with a specific artistic goal in mind. Historical accuracy =
may or may not have been a top priority.
Second, the film is even further removed from historical reality. We =
now have a film director's artistic vision of a work of literary art. A =
fiction of a fiction if you will. The artistic intent is to tell a =
story in an artful and emotionally truthful way. If you want 'real' =
then watch some reality TV-there's no art happening there by any stretch =
of the imagination.
Film is a very collaborative art form. All the production aspects =
engage artists/designers each with their own vision of what the project =
is. Producers and directors coordinate and herd all those cats.
Taking artistic license does not detract from creating a piece of work =
that is true to the intent of the creating artist. As a white, American =
female I have played roles as diverse as three different Asian males in =
one show to witches, dwarves, and a 6 year old Russian boy, not to =
mention lesbians, hookers, lawyers, basketball players, etc. I am not =
any of those-does that make the work invalid? =20
If you make you own interpretation of Japanese wood fired work, is it =
invalid because you're not Japanese? We are all interpreters-that is =
what being an artist is about. =20
Ok, I feel better now. Back to cleaning out my studio, so that I can =
get my hands back into some clay!
Karin A in Maryland, US
| |
|
