The Point of Film

The novel version of The Bridges of Madison County carries the best description of the purpose of photography and cinematography that I've ever read. But ironically that very description led me to ponder a question I don't have an answer to.

I’ve never seen the film version of The Bridges of Madison County, but I’m reading the novel for Genre Fiction. This may seem off-topic, by the way, but bear with me...all will become clear.



There is one point in the novel when the protagonist, Kincaid, is talking about his profession, that of photo-journalism:

She’d noticed he’d said ‘making’ pictures. “You make pictures, not take them?”

“Yes. At least, that’s how I think of it. That’s the difference between Sunday snap shooters and someone who does it for a living. When I’m finished with that bridge we saw today, it won’t look quite like you expect. I’ll have made it into something of my own, by means of lens choice, or camera angle, or general composition, and most likely by some combination of all of those.”

That’s the best description of the purpose of being a cameraman that I’ve ever seen, be it a stills photographer or a film cameraman, or any other person who uses a lens.

Which brings me to my second point: I can’t see such a passage of dialogue ever making it into a film adaptation, unless it’s in some way core to the film’s purpose. It’s too ephemeral.

So what is the point of a film adaptation, except to provide a story? In which case, why not just write one’s own story? This is not a pointless musing – one possibility among my script ideas was an adaptation of a published short story.

Any suggestions? What does a film adaptation of a written work bring to the ‘table’ apart from obliterating any mental images the reader has? In which case, isn’t it a prop for the imaginatively deficient media consumer? Hardly a ringing endorsement for an art form, is it?