« Spaced | Main | My router has a big packet »
August 18, 2006
A scanner darkly
Whenever I love a book I do enthuse about it, of course. Often, enthusiasm cannot do justice to a book. In those cases I urge people to 'just read it, you will love it'
These books, to me, should be printed with blank covers, no attempt at analysis, no interpretation of the characters, their look, their image. No pre-conceptions.
'A Scanner Darkly' is one of those books.
I'm not being precious about it, its just that you can take so much away from reading this book that to frame your preconceptions with overly expresive cover art, effusive blurbs, out-of-context quotes etc. channels the intention of the book into paths travelled by others.
This may not be a bad thing, those 'others' might well set you on the path to enlightenment, but, they can also blunt your absorption of the book, limit your imagination, stifle your suspension of disbelief .
For this reason, I approach Richard Linklaters adaptation of 'A Scanner Darkly' with a mixed outlook.
On one hand I am so happy someone has made the film because I oved the book.
On the other, I am thinking that my perception of the book, its message, its themes, will be poisoned by the film. I mean, Keanu Reeves? I would never have pictured him in the lead role. If it was up to me I wuld have picked no 'A-list' actors. I think a very famous A-list actor with a definite ouevre is perfect for a cameo, a quick bit-part because they can infuse that role with the essence of every other role they have played that resembles that role - they are their own cultural shorthand, their own euphemism and in that case would be welcome in any film as they are the lemon in the tequila shot, the last kick into orbit.
I wil probably watch the film, but I am breaking out the book again. That beautiful edition with the cover art of a hand reaching for tiny blue flowers - suggestive, impressionist, acting as a platfrom for the imagination to launch itself from rather than providing a tether to stop us from hurting ourselves.
The great thing about the book was that it executed its premise. As I read the book I questioned my existence, I 'read' myself. When I watch the film will I just be witnessing a diversion?
UPDATE: I have watched the movie and wel, its a disapointment. In a way it is a success also as it may lead some people toward the book and from there to the rest of Philip K Dicks work and from there to other great science-fiction and from there, while their brain and expectations are peeled back they might stumble into philosophy, biographies, alternative music - it could be a wild ride. Or not.
The film draws out some situations too much, labours others, never addresses some parts of the book and destroys the characters in large or small ways. I felt like switching off the film when it started as it played the Chalres Freck character entirely for laughs. Yes, the character in the book was humourous but this was tempered by the fact that he felt bugs crawling on and under his skin - every. fuvking. day. The character in the book had depth and was more real for the fact that we could picture him free of torment of the bugs for one day only to have to save someone from a car falling off its jack to experience the return of the bugs with the stress, resulting in his breakdown and 'comic' suicide attempt, interspersed with the bul sessions throughout the book.
A film is a shadow cast on a wall by a light shone through a piece of celluloid darkened in places - this film was certainly a shadow of the book.
Watch it anyway, you might enjoy it - but read the book.
Posted by dottie at August 18, 2006 12:59 AM