MovieChat Forums > When Nietzsche Wept (2007) Discussion > Is this a joke?

Is this a joke?

posted 17 years ago by Jully_Brasil
17 replies | jump to latest

OK, first of all, let me say that I am by no means a "book adaptation" fan, mostly because way more often than not the movies end up being terrible or at last infinitely inferior to the books they're based on.

I felt I had to say that just so there's no misunderstandings, but really, my point has nothing to do with that, or the quality of the "When Nietzsche wept" book even - specially 'cos I haven't read it. It's just that...Armand Assante? Really? This cast and director is something hard to believe considering the book is a best-seller like "The Da Vinci code" (I mean they're alike in popularity, not the story). Or maybe it's just mega popular here in Brazil, I don't know. I saw someone saying that they actually saw Assante and he was well, but seriously, even if he is, which I have to say sincerely doubt, this type of movie shouldn't have him in the cast, let alone as the lead...but then again, as I said before, the whole casting for this movie is totally odd, as is the director chosen to make it. Huh.

[–] socialite_intraining 17 years ago

YOU WILL EAT THOSE WORDS!!!!
I so agree with you. The Da Vinci Code was such a bore and a waste of financing!!!!
The book-I could not put down.
But this movie is one of the best adaptations I've seen next to the Color Purple and the Devil Wears Prada.
He (director and writer) kept the story content as close as possible as to that of the book>
when you are watching the movie its like being on a roller coaster; you move close to the edge of your seat!!!!!
Its sexually provocative, funny and makes you think.
I found it a "smart" movie.
A term I can rarely use--lol

[–] Jully_Brasil 17 years ago

OK, I think you misunderstood what I said, I never said the movie was bad (how could I? I haven't seen it and haven't even read the book). I just questioned its chosen director and specially star. It may turn out to be the best movie ever made in the history of ever, but I still find it odd that it stars Assante because it's a best-seller, right, so it's supposed to be a high-profile movie and Assante? Not exactly star power if you know what I mean. In fact, many people might be turned off by this, even more than me, causing them not to watch the movie. Right now I have a kind of morbid curiosity...

[–] commcaj 16 years ago

Firstly, I didn't understand your first post. Please choose your words and write your sentences more concisely. Secondly, if you haven't seen the movie or read the book. Why bother writing a message on this message board? It seemed to me to be an independent film. In that spirit, take it for what it is and enjoy the story and the meaning. Armand Assante was so amazing in this movie, I didn't realize it was him until my husband told me. That is the mark of a great actor.

[–] grubertm 17 years ago

Okay this is off-topic, but I found the Da Vinci Code movie far more interesting than the dull writing of Dan Brown with his annoying cliffhangers every chapter.

[–] Euphrates93 17 years ago

Here a few replies to the comments posted so far and the statements that have been made.

1. Dan Brown cannot write. His books are essentially masses of plot holes and grammar mistakes.
2. The Da Vinci Code film was made by Ron Howard - A man whose only talent is creating 'seat-fillers'. His films are all traditional blockblusters that lack any meaning or style and are nihilistic in every way.
3. The aformentioned title was a very poor book.
4. The Casting of Nietzsche is very much wrong.

Goodnight.

They were gonna make me a major for this, and I wasn't even in their *beep* army anymore.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] delab 17 years ago

Just to clear up a few things: according to the information issued by IMDb itself, it looks like the film is a low budget project. Pinchas Perry apparently began writing a screenplay based on the novel, probably bought an option. Then Millennium Films took it from there, acquiring the rights and accepting producer- writer- and director credits for Perry. Therefore he is inseparable from the project; he was not "chosen" by Millennium or anyone else.

Perry has a certain track record as a producer, going back to 1987. But he has directed only one feature prior to this one. I would say he is in way over his head.

Filming this novel is difficult for a variety of reasons. Although successful "When Nietzsche Wept" comes nowhere near the mega-bestseller of Dan Brown from popularity and sales point of view. The book came out 15 years ago and was written by Irvin D. Yalom, Stanford professor of Psychiatry (Ret.). It is a novel for advanced readers with a high cultural profile, like D.M. Thomas' "The White Hotel". From Hollywood point of view that spells "television". This is HBO stuff. And for a director it would require an old fox like Andrey Konchalovsky. With Perry glued to the project that seems impossible.

Millennium Films is probably quite aware of this, which is why they opted for a no-star low budget solution. This is no joke, rather an attempt to resolve a situation that is the result of some poor initial choices.

One could say "Well, we can always hope". But with respect to a story that deals with The Analysis Of Hysteria vs. The Philosophy Of Despair that sounds kind of funny.

[–] gotmyorangecrush 16 years ago

Of course its a limited budget film, hell its a limited release film that will only wind up in the small handful of arthouse theatres across the US not even speaking of overseas type arthouse theatres. It seems that some people in here are in serious lack of understanding regarding the different levels of filmmaking and the different levels of budgetary constraints that are associated with those different levels. Do you really honestly expect the people making limited release films to go out and hire A List actors and actresses? Dont get me wrong there are certain A List actors and actresses who appear in a very small amount of limited release films but that is usually when the actors themselves find a story or script that they absolutly love and offer to perform in it for basically nothing and again its a very small number of limited release films overall where something like this happens.

So of course with that being said looking at the casting of any limited release film will look odd to people who are used to seeing A List actor type films because its very likely they know almost none of the actors and actresses who do limited type releases. There are also thousands of books that have been written that have been as popular as the Da Vinci Code yet have never had scripts written for them or had scripts written and susequently denied by all of the main Hollywood studios thus its not unlikely that some limited release films being based off of such books or scripts. If you had any idea how many scripts get written every year and denied it would boggle your mind especially in todays Hollywood system where studios are ar more likely to green light sequels that are guaranteed to make them money much more so than a script based on a book even if it is a popular book. With the cost of films escalating like mad in Hollywood its not hard to understand why things have become this way and it has really hurt the overall quality of hollywood films in general. Hollywood really has become one big sequel machine and one need only look at this last year to see that. Pirates of the Caribbean 3, Shrek 3, Bourne 3 ie Bourne Ultimatum, Spiderman 3, Oceans 13, Rush Hour 3, 28 Weeks Later, Die Hard 4, Fantastic Four 2, Halloween 8, Harry Potter 5, Hostel 2, Resident Evil 3, Etc........

I personally grow to love limited release films more and more every year and it has gotten to the point where I get excited about very little coming out of Hollywood at all these days. Limited Release films are still about filmaking more than anything else and Hollywood films are about making money more than they are about making quality films. Because of that you see Limited Releases taking more chances regarding not only stories but also regarding the actresses and actors they use in such films and ultimately When Nietzsche Wept is no different and some people will find the casting of Andre Assante strange. Its fits perfectly in the Limited Release mold and thats why I have grown to love then far more than the Hollywood crap we get fed on a weekly basis. If you love films and are as sick of sequels as I am then you should really turn your eye towards the limited release sector of the business. There are definitely some duds which is to be expected especially for this sector of filmmaking however there are also some gems that end up blowing you away.

By the way I did see this film and I thought it was a fantastic film and fantastic adaptation and I highly recommend it to people who appreciate these kind of limited release films. If your addicted to A List actors and actresses and love seeing sequal after sequel every month then skip it as this simply isnt the kind of film your looking for.

[–] pain_is_an_illusionn 16 years ago

This film is possibly one of the worst films I have ever seen. I was embarrassed sitting in my seat watching it alone. What a MESS.

There are plenty of great films out there with little to no budget that far surpass this one..

This film is an insult to the art form and to Friedrich Nietzche

This film is abominable

Sky

[–] bruce-129 16 years ago

Merely the effort to make, and the making of this film
was a great effort, and I quite like the movie, and I
think you must be a puffed up pompous missed point.
Or on the other hand ... maybe you are an English
Lit. teacher.

[–] pleistocene 16 years ago

Nobody's mentioned the moustache yet, LOL

"People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own soul" - C.G.Jung

[–] bruce-129 16 years ago

If you are saying Armand Assante looked absurd at Nietsche ... I agree.

[–] dagorastos 16 years ago

I totally agree! The book was great, actually one of the best books I've ever read, but this movie was disappointing. The actors were acting in a very odd way (except the Freud and Salome) and, additionally to that, they changed a couple of things, making the final scenario different than the original. Also, this movie was supposed to have a deep meaning, just like the book, but the final result was quite primitive.

One of the worst movies ever. I rarely give 4 or 5 stars to a movie and -even more rarely- I comment, but this film pissed me off. Sorry for saying this :-/

[–] adynomoose 16 years ago

"But this movie is one of the best adaptations I've seen next to the Color Purple and the Devil Wears Prada."
That 'praise' is enough to keep me from ever sitting through this film.

[–] deathbytalkshow 16 years ago

I won't lie, I'm interested in watching this film for 3 reasons: 1. Katheryn Winnick is in it2. It involves Nietzsche who I admire3. Katheryn Winnick is in it. :D :thumbsup:

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nitejrny282 11 years ago

>more often than not the movies end up being terrible or at last infinitely inferior to the books they're based on.

Not true. While some adapted films are based on very popular novels, the majority are from novels no one's ever heard of. The latter tend to make much better films for the following reason...

When a studio buys a best seller, they are very aware that the audience will be expecting to see the story they know and love up on the screen, even when that story doesn't translate as well to the visual medium. Which is why adaptations are often so stiff and inferior to the book.

But when a studio buys an unpopular, mediocre, or even bad book with little or no fan base, the writers don't have to stick to original story. They can alter and improve it for the better.

Here are just a few examples:
JAWS
FORREST GUMP
THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION
FIGHT CLUB
SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK
DIE HARD
THE GODFATHER
THE BOURNE IDENTITY
THE BOURNE SUPREMACY
THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM
ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST
BLADE RUNNER
PSYCHO
GONE WITH THE WIND
SILENCE OF THE LAMBS
THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR
DEXTER (TV series)