Cinema can also be interpreted as a medium which brings to vivid life, words. A particular vision is what is required to bring out that effusive qualities of words into tangible images. And suffuse within this collage of images a stable story and other such accoutrements that the craft demands. So a movie can be nothing more than a string of images juxtaposed in the right order and conveyed with that right elusive balance between reality and surrealism.
Most movies work their way from a script unless it is Bollywood. And the script could be as verbose as a book or mere fragments of thoughts jotted down. So it does largely depend on the genius of the movie makes to produce a vision of those words. And as anything that can be accomplished, this can be done too in a thousand ways. This aspect fo the craft has evolved albeit non linearly. words that weren’t intended for mass consumption through images found themselves projected on the silver screen and then Aragorn had a presence. Tolkien’s Aragorn might have well been a weary tall rider, the screen gave us a rugged Scandinavian walking, quite literally out of the mists. Maybe it was Tolkien’s detailed description of the fictional universe ( excruciatingly detailed enough to make it slide into reality) or Peter Jackson’s vision that strayed only enough to almost appease the reader of the epics.
J.K Rowling apparently drew inspiration from Tolkien and yet her books flow lightly on the reader. The ‘light’ is not on the content, (which progressively darkens with each book) nor with the characterization but with the simple fact that she based her books in our universe, in our time. This leads a certain presupposition of the nitty-gritties leaving her free to proceed with the story telling. Consequently this also led various directors to interpret those very details differently (also taking vast liberties with the books, but we are not going there for now). Her characteristic wittiness hence has sometimes come out as peevishness, sometimes as cheesiness and only sometimes as intended. Her profoundness through Dumbledore remains constant in the books, with the movies they vary as the actor varies. Again as stated it may well be the free assumption of details in the Harry Potter universe that has led to this gripe.
What interests me more is the subtle interplay of words with images and whether one feeds the other only to exists as a cause-effect paradigm, or if they feed off each other voraciously? I know the latter to be true to some extent for it is movies that inspire me to write here expressing an opinion of what I see when I watch them. Whatever be the case ideas must transcend into the physical plane as words and then move to the ethereal and be expressed as light and sound.