how close was this to the book?
hey all, just wanted to know for those who read the book, how close an adaptation is this film of kafka's work?
for intsnace was that beginning parable part of the book?
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Le procès (1962) Discussion > how close was this to the book?
ah ok, I actually prefer that movies take a lot of liberties when they are based on a book but from what you say welles did show some initiative so I'll def give the movie a shot
shareProbably the closest adaption anyone has ever made? Only the ending is changed - what a film! what a book! Both of which are masterpieces, but even that Welles was loyal to Kafka the film isn't just a visualized version it does have an expressionistic life of its own.
"I never said all actors are cattle; what I said was all actors should be treated like cattle"
I saw the movie after seeing a comedy stage adaption and reading the book [spoilers ahead]:
Bürstner, deleted and additional characters:
The film emphasizes the character of Miss Bürstner. The policeman enters from Miss Bürstners door, not from Mrs Grubachs. In the book its Ks 30s birthday, Miss Bürstner’s birthday is not mentioned, thus K brings no cake. Miss Bürstner does not move to another place, the scene with the woman dragging a chest is not in the book. Instead, Fräulein Montag („Monday“) moves in to Fräulein Bürstner’s room on a Sunday, where K did not go to the „court“ and she prevents K from speaking to Fräulein Bürstner in person. In the book, K does not speak to any woman while his visitors are here, wich explain K to be „verhaftet“ (a term that also signifies being determined by/obsessed with something.) K leaves his flat has a long day at the bank and then can’t wait to talk to Grubach and Bürstner when coming home. Also the picture K shows to Leni of his girlfriend is not Fräulein Bürstner in the book, its Elsa, a deleted character, who also does not appear in person in the book. Part of Ks weekly routine is a visit at a waitress called Elsa, who works all night and during day receives visits only while staying in bed. So, in the book K really has somebody he could call girlfriend. Irmie, Ks cousin is not in the book. In the book Ks uncle only mentions a letter he received from Ks sister, whom K totally forgot and does not care to much about. The movie suggests a love relation between K and the minor Irmie. Its not said that something actually happened between them, but Orson Welles invents another reason K could feel guilty for, which is not in the book. (continued in the posts below)
The result of these changes: in the book everything centers around K, the movie manages to do this by its striking cinematography, but additionally constructed subplots detract from it. Grubachs husband background story, the logic of Grubach throwing Bürstner out, who then has to live in a poor neighborhood, because K entered her room and now has a reason to feel guilty. Orson Welles establishes a simple logic here a reason K feels guilt for, which is not in the original story and hardly makes sense in connection to the mysterious shadow court. In the book K also does not mention that he always felt guilty for everything. Opposite: K never cared about learning from experiences, he always lead a carefree simple life in society.
Role of Orson Welles and the ending:
The advocate is a very sick man in the book.This is meant both physically and symbolically. By no means, he would stand up and walk to guide K. The advocate is K’s uncle’s friend, and should take care that K keeps his respectable life intact and does not realize his desires. In the book, it would make no sense that the advocate reveals the parable of the gatekeeper to K. That the advocate closes the door on the other hand makes sense. In the book the parable is told in the church at a time K still could find a way to enter this door. A gentle priest tells K the parable. He first delivers a message to K speaking down to K from an ugly pulpit - which tortures the body of the person speaking from it. The priest says that his case does not look good, then he steps down and tells the parable to K guiding him to a place, K does not follow him to, but at one point turns around and escapes.
As a movie, it works well that several incidents are combined to one frenzy. This compensates the the movie’s lack of a logical storyline. In the book, an additional key element is waiting. The whole story plays within one full year, where nothing much is happening. K looses all interest in his work and former social life, he is consumed by his case without acting out his real desires. At the eve of his 31 birthday he already awaits the two men, which come and take him away. While the movie emphasizes Miss Bürstner so much at the beginning, it felt kind of strange, that she does not appear at the end. In the book, K shortly sees her after leaving the house and from then on he goes willingly to the place he dies. The covered statue raising his hands towards the sky is not in the book. Instead, K sees a window full of light opening with a figure reaching out towards K. You see the difference: in the book the whole case is something very personal, while in the movie its rather global injustice.
The cinematography, most actors and the production design is just amazing. How the camera moves around K delivers perfectly the way Kafka presents his K - writing a kind of inner monologue in the 3rd person. Especially making use of the contrast of modernist anonymity and scenes overloaded with stuff and old ornaments is ingenious. So is the way the movie deliver most parts of the inner monologue without having a narrator, or an inner voice. The main weakness: The movie cannot really decide, if the reason for Ks case is the love to women he can’t have or if there is a system, which arrests him for no legitimate reason and then executes him without that K knows why or can do something about it (the way it happened later to the jews in the 1940ies in the German Reich). The movie suggests both at the same time. This does not really make sense. The book leaves this completely open. If you read it carefully, at least in the original language, its rather neither of the two.
The book needs changes to make a movie out of it. Its great how many details are kept 1:1. But I think the changes to the storyline were not really successful. One key element in the book, which the movie immensely blurs and softens are sexual incidents, ironically even the ones towards women. K kisses Bürstner from top to bottom in the first chapter. Dressing and undressing, nakedness are important in nearly all parts. Instead we get a super-computer who would know all answers, which is definitely not in the book.