Photographer, Photography

Throughout his short story “The Devil’s Drool”, Julio Cortazar grapples with the often-conflicting concepts of reality versus perceived reality.  Here, reality is represented by the photograph taken from the protagonist’s observations in the park, while perceived reality is represented by the world as it is seen through the eye of the photographer.

In many ways, it is impossible for truth and interpreted truth to ever match up entirely. Similarly, when translating one art form into another, it is unrealistic to expect that the two will mirror each other perfectly, even if that is the driving force behind the translation.  Interestingly enough, the point Cortazar makes lends itself to the process of adaptation quite well.  Although I have yet to see the film inspired by “The Devil’s Drool,” from what we have discussed in class, I understand that it is noticeably different from the book.  For example, the original story depicts a sexual encounter between a young boy and an older woman, while the movie seems to describe the protagonist’s, who here is a fashion photographer, chance capture of a murder on film.

Now that I have read the short story, I look very forward to seeing the film inspired by it.  More accurately, I look forward to seeing how director Michelangelo Antonioni and the other people who spearheaded the film manipulated the text to create a marketable piece of cinema.

Premeditatively, I question whether those creating the felt any sense of loyalty towards Cortazar or his novel and whether they should have.  At what point does a film betray the book it is based upon, if ever? And what are the ramifications (personally- for the author and director, within society, etc) of an altered piece of art? I will have all of these thoughts in mind when we watch Blow-Up in class.