Silver & Glass
Nov. 9th, 2005 09:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
threemonkeysWell I should have gone to Phoenix tonight. I wanted to go to Phoenix tonight. What did I do, I fell asleep. Sigh - too much to eat and my body tells me that it needs digestion time. I should plan better.
However I'm awake now. It gives me some time to note that I read Mirrormask - the novelisation (novelletteisation, short storyisation) version of the film. The script for the film and the book are of course by Neil Gaiman - the film is directed and the book illustrated by Dave McKean. So, the film and the book should be hand in glove connected - or so I thought.
Mirrormask is a Neil Gaiman story, so it cannot be bad - pretty much by definition. It is good, but it does not have the "wow" factor. Usually when I read something by Neil it leaves me a bit wrung out - even his kids books generate that gasp of appreciation. But not so much this time.
I suspect that the reason is that it feels like it is one degree removed from the real story. Even as closely associated with the film as it is, it is still a reflection of it - not the primary work of art in its own right. Since I haven't seen the film, it isn't just that I have already got to know the story, it is something about the book. This seems to be both the writing and the artwork. Strange, but I can't think of any other reason for the lack of "wow".
When it comes down to it, I want to see the film. The book does not change that. I suspect however that I will have to wait for the DVD, unless it shows up in the next film festival.
However I'm awake now. It gives me some time to note that I read Mirrormask - the novelisation (novelletteisation, short storyisation) version of the film. The script for the film and the book are of course by Neil Gaiman - the film is directed and the book illustrated by Dave McKean. So, the film and the book should be hand in glove connected - or so I thought.
Mirrormask is a Neil Gaiman story, so it cannot be bad - pretty much by definition. It is good, but it does not have the "wow" factor. Usually when I read something by Neil it leaves me a bit wrung out - even his kids books generate that gasp of appreciation. But not so much this time.
I suspect that the reason is that it feels like it is one degree removed from the real story. Even as closely associated with the film as it is, it is still a reflection of it - not the primary work of art in its own right. Since I haven't seen the film, it isn't just that I have already got to know the story, it is something about the book. This seems to be both the writing and the artwork. Strange, but I can't think of any other reason for the lack of "wow".
When it comes down to it, I want to see the film. The book does not change that. I suspect however that I will have to wait for the DVD, unless it shows up in the next film festival.