The Trial

Beautiful film, subtle exploration of Kafka's masterpiece nuances, slices of novel's atmosphere but only an ordinary adaptation.

In fact, a film about one of Franz Kafka's texts are an Utopian gesture. The sense of pages, the shadows of characters, the angst, fear or illusions, the magnificent style of one of best writers are crushed by vision of any director or art of actor. And the images are pieces of cold beauty without soul or honesty.

For "The Trial" adaptation is always present a trap: the image of Joseph K. as avatar of Kafka. Franz Kafka is only a Kakania's citizen, civil servant in a large empire, with small ambitions and desires, toy of his doubts and hesitations, dreads and lures.

Kyle MacLachlan is a correct interpret of character but, the fundamental error is the ambition to be a perfect Joseph K.. So, his acting is barren and empty.

Alfred Molina as Titorelli is charming but the interpretation of character is exercise of one type incarnation, the same in many nuances. Same situation for great Jason Robards.

The important virtue of film is the presence of Anthony Hopkins and the colors, shadows, illusions and accents gives to parable. It is not example of brilliant art but the science of words sense description. The words- medusa, words- ash, words- sand, words- velvet. In this small text is the crux of novel and film.

A splendid film, a acceptable adaptation.

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.

This film was OK. The plot went along happily enough, but I thought things were a bit vague as to K's state of mind during the film and the ending seemed anticlimatical. I have not read the book and perhaps this is how it was supposed to be. The silliest thing I noticed about this film is that Anthony Hopkins took up the whole of my DVD cover and then only appeared for around 10 minutes of the about 2 hour film. I find this rather odd and amusing. Otherwise, I thought the film was well acted and had a lovely setting. 6/10

The Welles interpretation is not as faithful to the novel but it is like his interpretations of Shakespeare, they take on a life of their own and stand apart from the source material. Welles' The Trial blended, humor, and absurdity with the mundane yet surrealistic bureaucracy and terror of the plot. Small little additions to his scenes make his movie more disturbing than the novel and I havent gotten to how striking the visuals are. This 1993 movie does not have any of that.

Kafka simply does not translate well into film. The closer to the novels, the less the movie feels to me. This movie has the unusual charcters, events and encounters faithfully represented and presented in the context of the time Kafka wrote the novel. It is well acted, well directed, well scripted. The cast is impeccable. No other word fits.

Perhaps the film being so faithful to the novel undermines it causing it to lack personality and character. It just stands out there representing the scenes in the book. In a way, it hurts the novel because I didn't remember Josef K spending so little time wondering what he was charged with.