The Trial

Terrific version of this story - moves more smoothly and lacks some of the dream like Brectian look of Welles version. Still, McLaughlin is excellent as a confident, terrified and confused man who's life is inexplicably changed when he his charged in an unknown place, for an unknown crime. Hopkins and Robards as the Priest and legal counsel are in excellent form. Set during the time period when Kafka was alive to give the film a sense of place, I strongly recommend this version of the story for someone who wants a little more scenery and a sense that Josef lives somewhere instead of just in some strange version of a modern town.

Very dull.

To anyone that has taken time to read it or any small part of it, Kafka's body of work does not readily lend itself to film adaptation. His fiction is savagely personal, and so the vast majority plays out in the minds of the central characters rather than through action or dialogue. And when there is dialogue, it is subtly understated, absurdly simplistic, powerful and surreal. His novels were his nightmares, and in writing they became our nightmares, imagining his quiet and steady suffocation and contemplating our own. Committing true horror to film is difficult by any standards, and this film fails outright.

It lacks the brutal eeriness that Kafka relates. It lacks the finesse of Kafka's words. It lacks the expressive thought that is instrumental in deciphering his protagonist. It lacks all but Kafka's story (and his name), and this story is really too simple. The nuances of the language never emerge and any lingering boldness is soon lost in boredom. To translate Kafka into English requires passion and true understanding; to translate Kafka to another medium requires nothing less than inspiration, and this director and his cast lack it entirely.

If you want a well-realized, true-to-Kafka film, find American animator Caroline Leaf's "The Metamorphosis of Mr. Samsa" or Orson Welles' adaptation of this same novel, or even Rudolph Noelte's 1971 version of "The Castle."

When a novel is to be translated to the silver screen, the director will immediately face a dilemma. How will he approach the translation? Will he try to be as faithful to the original piece of work as possible, avoid to give his own interpretation of the novel, not risking the wrath of devoted readers?

Or will he try to see to what he believes to be the true spirit of the work, and express it in a new way? After all, books and films are different medias and thinking of how much is lost without the author's special language and distinct style - for an example -, shouldn't a director try to make up for that loss by adding something unique for film?

I would go for the latter. Otherwise your filmversion of an essential piece of literary work will be just that: a version of an essential book, not an essential film in itself.

Of course this can cause a lot of controversy, and there's no doubt that some directors have managed to completely ruin an excellent book when trying to make 'their own' version of it. BUT, look for an example at 'A Clockwork Orange'. Burgess intricate play with language and manipulation of the reader - slowly taking him into Alex's world and way of thinking - simply will not be translated into film. So instead Kubrick used the unique opportunities of film and managed to combine the use of audio and vision to stunning effects. Kubrick managed to make something own out of it, no question about it.

And that's what I feel is missing in 'The Trial'. Yes, it is a perfectly well-done job. I couldn't think of a more suitable actor for Josef K than Kyle 'Agent Dale Cooper' MacLachlan: that's EXACTLY the way I envisioned him when reading the novel! Also the settings in Prague provides the movie with beautiful and suitable backgrounds. Though some scenes, for lengths sake, has been cut short it also stays true to the events in the novel and manages to catch some of the atmosphere in the novel.

The movie is carried through very competent, the actors are talented and there's a a nice 'Godfather'-esque grainish color on top of it all. No, this isn't a bad movie. On the contrary!

But why shouldn't I rather read on the novel myself? Because what is really comes down to is this: if a translation from one media to another is to be successful, it can never be just a translation. It has to stand on it's own legs.

And that's where this film fails. We aren't offered any new perspectives or different ideas on Josef K and his torments. Quite simply, it's an enjoyable watch but probably holds appeal mostly to those who don't have the time or interest to read the novel instead.

6/10

Filmed in Prague, this film has some of the best Old World urban scenery ever put on film. "Amadeus" came to mind.

The screenplay follows Kafka's novel well in text and feel. Well enough, if fact, that reading the novel will offer little more than this film's relating of the story of Joseph K. and his trial. And that is the best that a film version of a novel can possibly hope for.

The Trial, of course, can be interpreted in many different ways, as a personal statement against the struggle of man to hold his own against the forces of the universe, or perhaps as an attack on the inhumane bureaucracy inherent in authoritarian government. `Kafka's novels,' says genre critic Franz Rottensteiner, `move in a circle, and their helpless heroes are caught in the fabric of a world that is ever elusive to them. They are mere cogs in a senseless social machine.' However you interpret it, The Trial is not easy to forget and seems more relevant today than ever. Translating it to film is another story.

This version has all the stuff that the Welles version lacks -- superior performances, an expensive production beautifully photographed in Prague, an outstanding screenplay by Harold Pinter, and a faithful, almost literal, adherence to Kafka's novel. The only thing missing is wit, style, a spark of life, and creative energy. With Welles version, the film ends with a powerful impact; this one ends with a resounding thud.

Kyle MacLachan, who plays Joseph K. in this version, is best known for his performances as agent Cooper in the TV and movie versions of Twin Peaks. I believe he is a better actor than Anthony Perkins; however, I found his performance to be so emotionally distant that I did not care a whit about happened to him. Supporting performances are outstanding, especially Jason Robards as the Advocate and Anthony Hopkins as the prison chaplain. In spite of my considerable esteem for Mr. Pinter, this film is flat and lifeless and the experience is little different than listening to an audiotape of the novel.