The Inadaptability of Murakami

Attack on a Bakery (1982), is a perfect yet entirely unenjoyable adaptation of Murakami. This short film, based on Murakami’s short story, serves as the perfect example of why Murakami’s writing is not suited for adaptation. The plot is fairly simple: two young, hungry college students attempt to rob a bakery, and the baker allows them to take whatever they want as long as they listen to Wagner with him. The director does an amazing job of capturing the existential absurdity of the situation. The philosophy of a girl trying to decide between a croissant and a donut, the communist baker who listens to Wagner, and the revolutionary undertones of the narration. The camera work and strange narration do well to portray the mood that Murakami cultivates. 

However, all of that being said, the short film frankly sucks. It is not a very fun watch. I think this speaks to the inadaptable nature of Murakami. In class, we also watched the American adaptation of the Second Bakery Attack. That short film was horrendous on every level: bad acting, generic setting, literally nothing compelling about it. That film was trying too hard to make something palatable out of Murakami’s absurd yet blasé story. It failed. It lost every semblance of Murakami. While the Attack on a Bakery short film does capture Murakami’s essence quite well, that doesn’t make it a good film. Murakami creates a mood in his work, and the internal monologues of his characters are essential in creating the vibe he creates. These internal monologues are nowhere near as effective or interesting when transformed onto the screen, even in the form of narration. 

I have yet to watch any other adaptations, but I really don’t view Murakami’s work as something that can be successfully adapted into film. The first step in creating a good adaptation is choosing the right work, and Murakami’s prose and absurdism make it difficult to find a work suitable for adaptation. Isaac Robillard

Norweigan Wood: What Were the Directors Even Doing?

        The Norwegian Wood movie was extremely disappointing. I really only understood what was going on during the movie because I had read the novel, and I’m sure that many of the film’s viewers had already read the novel. But the lack of both strong scenes and character building most likely left viewers who have not read the novel extremely confused. I mean, the point of adapting a book to film is to successfully translate the source material into something digestible. And while the film generally doesn’t have to follow the book completely, it felt as though Norwegian Wood tried to and failed horrifically. Or at least when it didn’t follow the book (i.e., the opening scene of the novel, or the emphasis on food, or even Midori's father’s final words), it ended up making the characters much less complex and harder to follow.

        In fact, the removal of most scenes or the shortening of others really led me not to care about any of the characters, including the relationships between them. When Naoko died, I simply didn’t care. Whereas in the novel, I felt as though I had lost someone important to myself. The translation from the novel to the film is just extremely poor. I struggle to understand how the movie could possibly be as long as it was, without having some of the most important scenes or even developing character relationships. Storm trooper’s and Nagasawa’s characters were cut down to a few scenes, none of which were significant.

        The movie focused so much on sex that it felt like pornography. The scenes where Toru has sex seem to be the only ones that were genuinely “fleshed out”. This again leads me to not care about the characters. I didn’t have the same feeling watching Reiko and Toru have sex as I did reading it. It felt wrong, but there was no substantial reasoning for it (except for the fact that I had already read the novel). I think that if I had not read the novel, I would be extremely confused when certain characters were introduced and would not remember them when they were reintroduced. 

        I am not alone in this opinion. Many online reviewers and my classmates have voiced this same discontent with the film. Overall, I think it was very poorly executed. I may be missing some sort of symbolism or expert design choice in the making of this film, but I honestly don’t care if I am. It was a hard watch. 

- Kyla Pascoe

Japanese Loneliness in Norwegian Wood and Other Films

I think the film Norwegian Wood is beautiful in the images it captures, specifically of the landscapes at the sanatorium and the decor of the houses. The hue gives it a uniquely Murakami vibe, making it feel hazy, like a memory, which is fitting as the story is told through Toru’s memory in the book. While looking at the settings and feel of the movie, I wonder if this story would work, or have the same effect, in an American context. I think the fact that the story, characters, and setting is Japanese creates this unique lonely, detached Murakami vibe. 

For example, when we watched the short film for “The Second Bakery Attack”, the class pretty unanimously felt that the story seemed awkward and diverged too much from the source material. Whereas, the Japanese short film adaptation accomplished the hunger and confusing, empty feeling that is so imperative for Murakami. In Norwegian Wood, I think the beauty of the rural sanatorium, and the culture of Japan that comes through on screen, makes the film. A scene of an American eating alone in New York City has a different feeling than the image of Toru eating alone at a Jazz café in Tokyo. The loneliness comes through more, and it doesn’t seem as out of place as it would be for someone to do this in a place like New York. I notice a similar feeling of Japanese loneliness in Lost in Translation by Sofia Coppola. There is something about the aesthetics and culture of Tokyo that evokes this feeling alienation and existentialism. 

Ultimately, I thought the setting and narrative came alive on screen when I could actually see the shops, apartments, and landscapes more accurately than in my mind. I also think the setting is crucial for accomplishing this memory-like, lonely, detached feeling, which we see in other films that take place in Japan. I wonder if anyone else has thoughts about this, or maybe disagrees?

-Ayjia

The Tone of Tony Takitani(2004)

To be honest, when I heard there was a film adaptation of Murakami’s short novel, Tony Takitani, I didn’t have high expectations. However, the film was a pleasant surprise in many ways. First, I really liked how the plot remained faithful to the original story, without changing major plot points to increase movie revenue or add director’s taste. The consistency of the plot aligned beautifully with Murakami’s calm and concise tone, as did the lighting and the camerawork of the film.

Throughout the film, there is extensive horizontal camera movement, especially used to transition between scenes, in chronological order. In a way it felt like old film reels, where each static scene is contained within a box. It effectively depicted the feeling of the mundane passing of time in Tony’s life. 

Additionally, the lack of variety in camera angles make it seem static, but also emotionally ambiguous. In most scenes, we don’t see much of Tony’s facial expression(nor does he have much). This choice not only comments on the nature of the protagonist, but also through this emotional distance, it conveys the emptiness that characterizes Murakami’s work. Especially since the horizontal transitions slowly stop as Tony feels more deeply about his wife, it really sets the tone of the film clear according to how Tony feels.

Lastly, the lighting of the film truly brought it all together. The lighting is usually very warm and it shines through the characters. This creates nostalgia, the central element in Murakami’s novels. The warm, illuminating lighting combined with the camerawork brings the film closer to Murakami’s tone.

Yewon Yun

Norwegian Wood - Mark

     After watching the Norwegian Wood Movie, I have some mixed feelings regarding the movie compared to the book. I did enjoy Norwegian Wood to an extent but it's definitely not my favorite bit of Murakami's writing. I felt that while the book did well with dealing with serious topics like suicide, loneliness and love, it did fall short in some ways. The female characters seemed poorly written and  oversexualized in some ways and they were just there for Toru, and the ending was a bit unclear as well as it was open ended, and it felt a little depressing and had a slow pace to it. The descriptions were very in depth though, and once again the serious topics in this novel were written very well. After watching the movie, I think a lot of important scenes were missed from the book such as getting rid a lot of the parts with Stormtrooper as well as the hospital scene with Midori's father. I did really enjoy some of the backdrops, especially the forests and grasslands of the sanatorium. I felt like seeing that brought a lot of meaning to the movie since it helped bring the characters to reality instead of just reading about them on pages. I think the character selection was pretty good, but some of the character interactions as well seemed a little weird to me but some scenes were good as well. Overall, I think the movie was a decent addition to the novel but I think I'd only recommend it for someone who has already read Norwegian Wood who wants to literally see what the worlds and characters are like instead of just reading about them from the novel.

Norwegian Wood (2010) Review

What stood out to me the most was how Norwegian Wood (2010) moves through Toru's life in a much more shallow way, which is common for movie adaptations of books. The plot does match the book on a basic level, especially Toru's relationships with Naoko and Midori after Kizuki's death. Though the way the movie handles these events feels very different. 

The biggest difference I noticed was the lack of Toru's older-narrative perspective. The film removes the older Toru looking back on his past and focuses on the present-day without any of the commentary we see in the book. Watching it, I noticed early in the movie that the characters appear quickly and we aren't told much about anyone beyond what they say out loud. Reiko is the easiest example, because she appears and while we're told she's important, the film barely explains who she is. 

Naoko's time at the clinic also feels different without Toru's internal thoughts being narrated. The movie shows the conversations and setting clearly, but without his point of view, I felt like some interactions came across as quite abrupt. Also, Midori's storyline is still there, but certain moments from the book, like scenes involving her family, felt shortened or insignificant. While I can understand why the director chose to make it that way, I felt that this was essential to her character. 

Overall, the film tells the story accurately, but I think the lack of internal narration removes a lot of what makes the book an emotional masterpiece. All in all, Norwegian Wood is definitely not a novel you can effectively depict in under 3 or so hours. 

- Anika

Norwegian Wood Movie

I found the Norwegian Wood movie online, and my thoughts lean towards the negative. Starting with my positive notes, I found the imagery and the general lighting/composition/staging beautiful, and I think they did a great job with that (especially the scenes in nature). Some scenes I thought were well done were the scene with Midori and Toru in the snow towards the end (to agree with Pilar's point) and the scene with Hatsumi and Toru in the car (though I think it could've been longer and drawn from the novel more). So for me, these raw moments truly made the movie worthwhile for me. 

Despite these scenes, I really couldn't get past the music present throughout the movie. I am not a huge fan of classical music in general (sorry Rysen) but I am not ignorant to the effect that music can have in framing a scene. Despite this, the harsh/ dramatic violin throughout the entire movie really drowned out some of the scenes. I think they definitely missed the mark on this. After the scene where it's revealed that Naoko died, the movie moves into this surreal interlude where Toru is hopeless, sleeping outside by the beach. I think this scene in particular could've been done better. Why are we hearing this dramatic music as Toru is breaking down? What happened to men having emotions? In that sense the producers are literally taking a page from Murakami's book since his protagonists are cynical and tend to lack drive and emotion... and are maybe even toxically masculine? Regardless, this weird music ruined the movie for me. I even had to turn off volume during some of the scenes and rely solely on subtitles. 

Max 

Burning: A Delightfully Dreadful Adaptation (and my thoughts on the novel vs film adaptation debate)

 Alex G

12/2/25

The film Burning got me thinking. The debate over the film adaptation versus the novel
 has existed for over a century and has been discussed to death. Most people come to the
consensus that the original novel material is usually superior to its film counterpart. I
first encountered this debate when reading Harry Potter. I have fond memories of reading
The Sorcerer's Stone in elementary school. I had trouble learning to read, and it was the
first advanced novel that I picked up. It sparked a love of reading in me. However, if
someone asked me what I thought of the movie, I could not recall anything memorable
from watching it. Sure, I recall certain clips, but nothing too memorable. Just as I, many
readers are filled with a nostalgia for classic novels that get adapted to film, creating near-
impossible standards for these films to meet. Some films do meet these expectations, but
require a thorough understanding and appreciation of the source material, and a screenwriter
who understands the differences between film and literature. For no matter how faithful to
the original novel, the film becomes something different, a new piece of art. Burning
understands this very well, creating an effective film. Despite facing the challenge of
adapting a very short story shrouded in subtlety, the film manages to expand on the feeling
of dread and thriller elements. The film also builds on the “barn burning” detail, pushing
the suspicion of Ben as far as it can, while never revealing whether or not he is actually a
killer. It would be criminal to (fully) spoil the ending, so I’ll just say this. What makes the
original short story so great is the buildup of dread that creeps into the reader's mind. The
film adaptation takes this literary element and creates a new narrative out of it. One that
makes the viewer question whether or not the protagonist is a reliable narrator. In that way,
Burning not only succeeds as its own piece of art but also improves Murakami’s original idea.
Now that is rare air. 

Naoko’s choice: Life is Toru, Death is Kizuki - Sarah

 A major theme in Norwegian Wood is the love triangle between Naoko, Toru, and Kizuki. In my opinion, this also symbolizes a battle between life and death. This ambivalence becomes even more prominent in the movie, because both the visuals and the sound leave a stronger impression than imagination alone. Naoko’s thoughts and fragile personality were clearer to me through the film, and the symbolism of Toru as life and Kizuki as death felt especially striking.

One scene that spoke loudly to me was when Naoko and Toru were walking quickly across the open grasslands outside the mountain sanatorium. Naoko kept pacing ahead, while Toru stayed slightly behind her as a quiet companion. It was early dawn, and although the sun was rising, the basin of the grassland was still shaded and cold. During this walk, Naoko confessed her deep emotions toward Kizuki to Toru. She and Kizuki had known each other since the age of three, and he was the person she first ran to when she got her first period. For her, Kizuki became her anchor from the very beginning. Because Kizuki defined her emotional world, losing him meant losing the foundation of her sense of self.

As she made this confession, Naoko walked faster and faster, eventually sobbing so intensely that she seemed on the verge of losing her breath. When she talked about Kizuki, discomfort and grief overtook her, and her body reacted as if she were being pulled toward death itself, that she fell on the ground. 

She also expressed frustration about how her body would respond to Toru. When Toru asked, “You mean, but (the person you love) isn’t me?” she apologized saying, “i’m sorry”. Toru is the one she feels physical closeness with, her body she recognizes him even when her heart remains frozen. Ever since her birthday, she said she became wet when she saw him, revealing an undeniable sexual tension between them.

Although we discussed in class that sex can symbolize death in Freud’s theory, I think in this case, sex leans more toward life. Sex is an act of creation, something life-giving, and Toru represents a possible pathway back to the living world for Naoko. In the end, Naoko commits suicide, choosing Kizuki over Toru. Even though Toru offered safety and presence, Kizuki was the foundation of her early life, and that bond felt irreplaceable to her.

Norwegian Wood --- Pilar Diaz

 When it came to watching Norwegian Wood my feelings were a pretty mixed bag. Starting with what I did like about the film, I thought the casting was pretty great, they looked more or less like I imagined them when I read the book. This is specifically in reference to Naoko’s and Midori’s casting, the two actresses that were picked to fit the descriptions Murakami had in his novel. My favorite in the film was probably when Watanabe was talking to Midori in the snow. What had made mise en scène particularly striking for me was that there was this almost blurry blue filter back drop. While the two characters speak the rest of their world is quieted, I think this staging works particularly well with the magical realism elements that are so fundamentally Murakami-esque that was otherwise lacking for most of the film. The music in this scene worked so well, the melody fit Midori’s confession and plea for Watanabe that he could do whatever he wants with her but to just not hurt her. Though that being said there was a lot about the film that I didn’t particularly care for. One of my biggest gripes with the film is how Midori’s character was kind of gutted. I know she wasn’t a class favorite, but her characterisation no matter how tropey or bad it came off, was important for Watanabe's progression and why he ended up falling in love with her despite how he felt compromised with Naoko. Another issue I had was I didn’t feel like the film was long enough. Given that the novel had so much material to work with and all the minor details added to the narrative the film would have benefited if it was three hours long instead of two hours. Short stories like Barn Burning getting movie adaptations work well with Murakami as then all details can be included in the film, but the same just simply can’t apply to such a dense read like Norwegian Wood. At minimum it felt like the film should have been three hours, but the novel would have benefited far more from a TV show adaptation. The last issue I had was what part of what made Norwegian Wood such a good novel was Watanabe’s narration, and not having it in the film was a huge bummer.

A Rewatch of "Drive My Car" - Oscar

I decided to do a rewatch for this, mostly because I wondered how different my experience and understanding of the film would be the 2nd time around having read through so much of Murakami's works already. I can definitely say that the 2nd watch was so much more fulfilling and exactly as emotional as I remembered it (or maybe I just cry too easily). As for Murakami in relation to film adaptations: while the film does change quite a bit from the original story (especially the bit about Uncle Vanya being performed multilingually), I feel like the director (Ryusuke Hamaguchi) did a fantastic job of capturing the quintessential "Murakami journey".  

Something I noticed was that the film direction was pretty much exactly in the style of Murakami that I'm used to by now. The general scene is mundane, boring, slow, and there is no suspense or build up to any major plot points: Oto's death, Kafuku's car crash, Takatsuki's arrest, and more. Everything just happens, and most of the "action" or progression in the film comes through in the subtle interactions between characters and the context constantly running beneath dialogue, forcing the viewer to become more intimate with the characters and to realize along with them. I also think I prefer the visual medium - while Murakami's writing usually takes us along Boku's point of view, it feels refreshing to be able to fully account for the experiences of other supporting characters such as Misaki, and to understand them in their own contexts, as opposed to brushing them off as pillar supports to the main character.

And although it's an adaptation of just one short story, the film encompasses plenty of Murakami themes: the first one we discussed in this class was the recurring idea of mirrors and their reflections being a sort of view into the alter ego, and I think the film portrayed this amazingly through the actors' performances. The juxtaposition between Takatsuki and Kafuku as Kafuku's inner struggle between emotional control versus expression in relation to his grief and regret over Oto's death was able to be illustrated not just through dialogue/interactions (the way we'd read it in a short story), but also in the cinematography and direction (blocking, focus, etc.), and I found it a joy to be able to piece out this relationship not just with words on a page, but with an actual picture before me.

Another huge one is the idea of the "other world" and the journey required to get there. It seems obvious to me now that Kafuku's car acts as a sort of "in-between", where characters inside it sit between reality and that "other world", where they're closer to their inner thoughts or "true selves" to assist in the reconciliation of their struggles. Takatsuki's conversation about the Yamaga story with Kafuku in the backseat, and Kafuku's subsequent move to the passenger seat is a perfect example of this. Eventually, both Kafuku and Misaki also make the full journey to the "other world": a long drive, ferry ride, more driving, and a climb through snow to a deserted and isolated location allowing them both to reach their conflict's resolutions, and I just kept thinking about how similar it was to Boku's journey up to the farmhouse in A Wild Sheep Chase. There's so much more, and I think this Reddit post is a fantastic analysis of the film and its themes: https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/tkcqq2/drive_my_car_thoughts_and_theories/

I'm just glad I found an excuse to watch it again, and it helps me appreciate Murakami more when I've kind of started looking at him and his writing in a more cynical fashion. I think it also helps that the actors involved were so good in their roles ESPECIALLY Park Yu-rim (who played Yoon-a - how can someone who hasn't spoken a single word out loud turn my eyes into wells?).

Thoughts on the Norwegian Wood Film

I watched the Norwegian Wood film, and going into it I was very curious about how the novel would translate into cinema. I think it's always interesting to see how a piece of work gets adapted from one type of media into another, seeing where the stories compliment or hinder a specific type of media. I am often cautious with book to movie adaptations, and with Murakami's writing in particular, I felt like it might be harder to capture his essence on the big screen. I feel like so much of Murakami's writing has to do with building a particular atmosphere and following the inner monologue of the protagonists that it would be really difficult to translate this well into cinema.

I did think that the movie did a good job at capturing the atmosphere and mood of Murakami. The cinematography and soundtrack evoked a feeling reminiscent of Murakami's prose for me. Despite being filtered through a different medium and through the inputs of several other people, there was something Murakami-esque about the choices made in the film.

That being said, with the nature of it being a movie instead of a novel, the film lacked the experience of being able to follow Toru's inner monologue. Toru generally perceives things from somewhat of a distance, as is typical of Murakami's protagonists, but without being directly exposed to his mindset in the movie, scenes and actions felt perhaps more intense as we observe them from a more objective perspective.

Overall, I didn't love the movie and wouldn't watch it again, but it was interesting to see someone's attempt at translating Murakami onto the big screen. In general, I feel like his writing is quite hard to adequately adapt into cinema due to the nature of his works, but perhaps there is a particular adaptation out there that manages to do so successfully.

- Ananya

My Opinion On The Norwegian Wood Film

I thought the Norwegian Wood film adaptation was ultimately pretty bad. The pacing felt sluggish, and so many key plot points were either barely addressed or completely omitted. A good example is Toru’s interaction with Midori’s father, which lasts maybe five seconds. Because the father never mentions Ueno Station, the film relocates Toru and Reiko’s emotional final conversation to a random mailroom which is a change that directly undermines the weight of that scene. Furthermore, the weight of the father's death loses almost all of its meaning. This is just one example of many.

To the film’s credit, it does capture Murakami’s atmosphere surprisingly well. If there’s one domain where cinema is the ideal vehicle for his work, it’s mood. On this front, the movie genuinely succeeds. The Ami Hostel sequences were exactly how I imagined them: tucked deep in the woods, slightly foggy, moonlit, and surrounded by green fields. The film actually nails the soft, melancholic isolation Murakami is characteristic of evoking.

But beyond that, the movie feels like a collection of disconnected scenes stitched together with no sense of flow. Some people may argue that if you haven’t read the book, you can still appreciate the film on its own terms. I actually think the opposite: if you went in blind, you’d have no idea what was happening. The narrative is so fragmented that entire character arcs and motivations become unintelligible. For reasons I can't understand, the director dedicates several minutes at a time to extended sex scenes, long enough that it feels like they drag on forever, stealing screen time from far more important emotional scenes that the story relies on.

This touches on a larger issue: the novel’s reliance on Toru’s inner monologue. In a book about mental health, nuance is everything. The micro-interactions, quiet thought spirals and the subtle shifts in Toru’s perception are the backbone of the narrative. The film medium struggles with this by nature, but here, the problem is amplified by rushed scenes, missing context, and a lack of internal perspective to glue the story together.

I also found Naoko’s portrayal frustrating. Rather than conveying her fragility with subtlety, it often felt like the actor was overperforming the act of “being broken,” making the character seem more exaggerated than vulnerable.

In the end, the movie felt lackluster because it overlooked the very things that make Norwegian Wood special. When adapting a novel so deeply rooted in mental health and emotional interiority, the details matter to an even greater degree. Without the small moments, quiet signals and internal currents, the story loses its soul.

-Josh K.

The Norwegian Wood Movie - Eh - RYSEN

The movie overall was good, but I feel that it ends up having the same issue that so many people have when books get turned into movies -- it doesn't feel like the same piece of media. 

I did like that it put faces to names and descriptions to places, but I feel like there was so much that ended up being either overemphasized or completely cut. For instance, the beginning of the book doesn't match the beginning of the novel at all -- there is no reminiscence from an airplane or recalling of the past. Instead, everything is happening in the moment as far as we know, and for some reason, it starts in 1967 instead of 1969. It seems, though, that much of the first chapter got moved to the very end, which I thought was interesting, but I also felt that it completely changed how I saw the story. I felt that much of the book's sorrow came from Toru looking at his past and what he could've changed or done. Instead, much of this longing came from in-the-moment decisions, which I didn't feel hit as hard.

Again, I think much of my hesitancy is due to drawing comparisons to the book, but overall, the movie is an enjoyable watch. Would I watch it again? Probably not. Would I recommend it to someone over reading the book? Also, probably not. I think it misses much of Murakami's writing style, specifically how he makes a lot of side comments and opinion-based descriptions of people or events. Again, I can't make too much of a fuss as it's trying to fit hundreds of pages into two hours, but I just wish there were more. I didn't feel as connected to or as sad for many of the characters as I did when I read about them, and the sex scenes felt like extremely awkward roadbumps that I had to sit through rather than being an extremely important event that acted as a representation of vulnerability or weakness or desire.

Overall, I thought it was eh. I don't know if I would watch it had I not read the book, and even then, I think the film was for people who had already read the book. I was able to comprehend the movie, but it just didn't feel like Norwegian Wood. 

My Honest Opinions on Tony Takitani

I was really surprised by how much the movie captured the Murakami essence. Within the first twenty minutes, I became obsessed with the cinematography, the soundtrack, and the actor's portrayal of Tony's loneliness. The movie was very stylistically interesting, with each shot framed deliberately to highlight the minimalist and somber vibe (plus the soundtrack, which also perfectly set the tone). I also really liked how the actors would finish the narrator's dialogues, which is something you don't typically see in other movies. 

However, it felt like the story was intentionally dragged out to meet the one hour mark. It was like I was watching a student production trying to check off rubric requirements. There were scenes that could have been trimmed without losing impact, like the woman shopping for clothes. While I understand the filmmakers wanted to emphasize key moments, the drawn-out pacing felt a bit condescending as if they didn't trust us (the audience) to grasp the significance of those moments.

Also, I felt like the characters weren't fleshed out enough to make the story itself interesting. The film didn't really explore them beyond the surface level. That's why I sometimes don't like film adaptations because they don't commit to the integrity of the source material. With Tony Takitani, the filmmakers nailed the melancholic atmosphere but neglected the emotional complexity of the characters.

Overall, this movie is an okay film adaptation. It's a good one for those who have read the story before, but for those who haven't, they may struggle to understand the plot. 

-Joline