Bazin makes a claim that film is made in such away that the audience can attain something from it in a way that can’t be attained in another medium. I think that furthers the question of why does so much negativity towards film adaptations exist? If films function is to achieve a different type of method in order to receive a similar response form the audience emotionally, why is must it be so faithful that its almost slave to its source material?
Furthermore I find it interesting that Bazin makes a case for the validity of adaptations based on the caliber and ability of those whose hands its in. In Cinema as Digest, Bazin states”All it takes is for the filmmakers to have enough visual imagination to create the cinematic equivalent of the style of the original, and for the critic to have the eyes to see it.” So is this begs the question, is this the reason why “Visionary Filmmakers” make such great works of adaptation? Or make such great films in general? What determines if you have enough visual imagination to create the “cinematic equivalent?” This makes me wonder if the upcoming Baz Lerman adaptation of the Great Gatsby will be held in such regard? I almost have to believe that their will be a critic who has the “eyes to see it” the it being the artistic and visual imaginative spectacle. Bazin, I feel is really leaning towards the realm of perception, at least with this particular section in the beginning of the piece. The perception of both the filmmaker and the critic need to be in some sort of alignment in order to produce a work of film that is equal or in some cases (gasp if you must here) SUPERIOR to the original written medium.