Disappointing


This could have been one of the all time great films, and maybe the best adaptation ever, but for me it failed, and because the idea of the book would work so well in film its failure for me makes it even more disappointing.
For the book was not perfect, though great, the book suffered from using a technique which does not hold very well with the written word, the coarse editing and stop start endless descriptions of time and place disrupt any sense of poetry/flow and thus dull its overall purpose, making it very clinical in tone.
However, these techniques, which fail with words, are exactly what make films flow and turn them into poetry, and this film flowed beautifully and effortlessly between scenes, leaving the core of the story unblemished and indeed enhanced by the sudden changes.
Where as the book was heavy this film was light.
But unfortunately instead of continuing the string of stories into a deep maze (like the book) it merely took a handful of the best bits, reworked the narrative and completely changed the ending, leaving a very weak and simple film behind (completely unlike the book)
If this had the guts to be several hours longer take a lot more of the book and follow its narrative then it would of completely solved the flaws of the book and out done it in every respect.
So on the one hand you have a book which technically fails but in ambition succeeds and on the other hand a film which technically could of succeeded but fails in ambition.
This book, for me, was a film before film, but its film version lacked guts, jan potocki asked his readers to devote many evenings to reading his book, unfortunately the makers of this film didn’t have the confidence to demand more than a few hours from its viewers. Such a shame.

reply

For the book was not perfect, though great, the book suffered from using a technique which does not hold very well with the written word, the coarse editing and stop start endless descriptions of time and place disrupt any sense of poetry/flow and thus dull its overall purpose, making it very clinical in tone.


This hasn't damaged The Arabian Nights' popularity for the past ten centuries. And how can endless descriptions be unsuitable for novels, if description is one of the elements of any novel, and which cinema can only imitate with intrusive voice overs?

This book, for me, was a film before film.


I can only say you have a strange idea about the history of the novel.

This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel.

reply

Not only The Arabian Nights, but The Decameron and the Canterbury Tales. Movies are made not only with "guts" but with money. For being an almost 3 hours movie made in Poland during the '60 is not bad at all.

reply