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
No comments:
Post a Comment