The American Splendor Film by Pucini and Berman as Being Adapted from Harvey Pekars Comic Book - Essay Example

? The 'American Splendor' Film By Pucini and Berman as Being Successfully Adapted from Harvey Pekar's Comic Book Table of Contents On 'American Splendor' by Pucini and Berman as a Successful Adaptation of Harvey Pekar's Comic 'Pekar' 3 References 7 On 'American Splendor' by Pucini and Berman as a Successful Adaptation of Harvey Pekar's Comic 'Pekar' This paper is an analysis of the argument of Hight that the Berman and Pucini film 'American Splendor' is successfully adapted from the comic book by Harvey Pekar. The criteria for evaluation include the consideration of the problems inherent in adaptations of the kind done with the movie as described by Harvey and Lefevre. The analysis also benefits from the use of ideas drawn from the articles by Lefevre, Harvey, as they are brought to bear on the arguments presented in Hight's article. In essence, the question is whether the or not the film makers were successful in overcoming the hurdles identified by Lefevre and Harvey with regard to the successful staging of such movie adaptations (Hight, 2007, pp. 180-198; Lefevre, 2007, pp. 1-12; Harvey, 1996, pp. 173-191). To the question of whether the movie is a successful adaptation of Pekar, the answer is yes. The rest of the paper supports the argument and weighs in on the counterarguments and objections of Lefevre and Harvey. Harvey points out for instance, relating to photography versus hand-drawn images, that the difference is fundamental between the two. The latter are manual creations, while the latter are machine creations, being photographs. Now Harvey says that in essence machines have limitations in terms of not being able to render what hands can image wise. Machines are constrained to render nature, and not the creations of hands (Harvey, 1996, p. 175). Lefevre on the other hand says the same thing, and adds that the photography in film implies movement, whereas in drawn images the default is that of static frames. This presents fundamental problems in rendering drawn images as photographed moving images (Lefevre, 2007). Hight essentially deflects those objections via a discussion on genres and treatment. classifies 'American Splendor' as a drama-documentary, and the work itself has its focus both the art of Harvey Pekar, as reflected in the comic which has an eponymous title, or has the same name as the author, as well as the comic itself. Drama-documentary implies realism and the use of the personal subjective perspective of the key character and of Pekar himself to render the comic series on film. In essence, with the use of the genre, the film is able to effectively render the static hand-drawn image unto film overcoming the objections of Lefevre and Harvey. The answer to the objections raised by Lefevre and Harvey, in other words, is the choice of the drama documentary and all that the genre implies in terms of filming technique and overall approach to film making, and Pekar's own vision of his art work as the rendering of images the same way that photographers take pictures realistically (Hight, 2007; Lefevre, 2007; Harvey, 1996). With regard to page layout for the comic and the image on one screen, Lefevre says that this is a problem because in comic books the reader dictates the pace and the images are at closer proximity to them. In film, the watcher has to move along in the pace dictated by the movie. The watcher is unable to leaf through pages like in comic books, linger on a page. The experience is not the same (Lefevre, 2007). Harvey says the same thing, that one page on a comic does not equate to several sequences in a film, or that there are difficulties in rendering unto the movie image, moving, a single comic page that can capture a series of movements or a meaningful snapshot of events (Harvey, 1996, p. 176). To this objection Hight basically says that the unique rendering of the film essentially means that the film is able to bridge the gap between the page layout of the film and the single image of the screen. To this he presents the case for the way the film makes use of a hybrid set of techniques and approaches so that the distance between the page and the single screen is bridged. The choice of the realistic modes of shooting the film, for instance, is made to make sure that the page layout in Pekar is rendered in good faith to the moving image. The aesthetic sensibility stands out as the overriding concern. The proof is that Pekar himself approves of the film as being a faithful reproduction of the artistic intent and impact of the comic as it is read. One can say meanwhile that the objections above are substantially counter-argued in Hight in the sense that Hight essentially paints a picture of the movie making aesthetic for the film as something that captures unto the moving image the primary intents and the core sensibilities rendered by Pekar unto the printed page, via his drawn images. In essence Hight argues that Pucini and Berman render unto film, with the advice and blessing of Pekar, what Pekar the comic book would have looked like if the author were working with film, and infusing that work with the same sensibilities and overall artistic aesthetic (Hight, 2007, pp. 180-198). With regard to the arguments relating to sound in cinema versus silence in the comic book page, Lefevre notes that in modern cinema sound is an intrinsic aspect, but in comics sound is absent, and in this sense the two are very different mediums that cannot coexist. Lefevre notes that while comic pages can evoke sound, it is not the same when rendered unto film sounds. It is such that the comic book reader becomes disoriented when the voice that he imagines is not the same as the voice in the film (Lefevre, 2007). Harvey concurs by saying that for film the audio component is available and used to convey meaning and messages, whereas in the comic book form there is only the visual element and no sound (Harvey, 1996). Hight again resorts to making an equivalence between the voice of Pekar annotating certain parts of the movie with a kind of authentic rendering of the “silence” that makes up the thought processes behind the comic book images in Pekar. The idea behind the arguments in Hight is that the film making techniques employed in the movie equates to the creation of a correspondence between the original silent elements of the comic book page with the voices and sounds that were incorporated into the movie. That the voice over was from Pekar himself is argued to fit in nicely with the documentary nature of the movie itself, reinforcing an overall aesthetic that is consistent with the intent and vision of Pekar. In conclusion, while Lefevre and Harvey makes valid technical points with regard to fundamental differences between the comic book page and film, Hight makes a good case for viewing the movie as being faithful to the artistic vision of Pekar, overcoming the hurdles and making it a successful adaptation, everything considered (Hight, 2007, pp. 180-198; Lefevre, 2007, pp. 1-12; Harvey, 1996, pp. 173-191). References Harvey, R. (1996). Only in the Comics: Why Cartooning is Not the Same as Filmmaking. The Art of the Comic Book: An Aesthetic History. University Press of Mississippi. Google Books. Retrieved from http://books.google.com Hight, C. in Gordon, I. and Jancovich, M. (ed) (2007). American Splendor: Translating Comic Autobiography Into Drama-Documentary. Film and Comic Books. University Press of Mississippi. Google Books. http://books.google.com Lefevre, P. in Gordon, I. and Jancovich, M. (ed) (2007). Incompatible Visual Ontologies? The Problematic Adaptation of Drawn Images. Film and Comic Books. University Press of Mississippi. Google Books. http://books.google.com Read More