Quote:
(Originally posted by Oscar Jubis)
I liked Siddhartha more than you, Chris. I watched it when I was very young and read the book a couple of years after the film came out. It had a formative influence on me. Content-wise, it's a simplification and its vision is generalized, as you state, but it does convey some of the basic concepts of Buddhism....Basically I don't care that Steppenwolf is "trippier" or that Arabian Nights is more "exotic", because I don't value those attributes for their own sake, and because I don't think they relate to Siddhartha's aim and purpose. I also don't think Rooks was attempting rural naturalism a la Pather Panchali.
Indeed you did like it more than me, and I don't want to spoil it for you by my, to you, off-the-wall comparisons that show I'm seeking something more that isn't there, but the few reviews I can find of the movie indicate those who weren't enchanted find it vapid and pretty rather than enlightening. Mind you, this review of mine is an earlier effort and I might have put my point accross better today. Of course Rooks may not have been seeking rural authenticity -- he probably couldn't -- but if he had achieved it, wouldn't that have made a better film? My feeling was and still is that the conditions under which Rooks worked in India had a neutralizing, standardizing effect on the very unique style and outlook he shows in his earier, rougher, but more unique film, Chappaqua. The Korean film (which I have seen) is another example, and certainly relevant. I'm glad that you enjoyed the filmed Siddhartha, which is worth watching for Nykvist's cinematography (I saw it in a theater by the way) and which faithfully evokes its literary source using authentic locations.