داش آکل و روایت سینمایی مسعود کیمیایی
مسعود کیمیایی یکی از کارگردان های مهمِ پیش از انقلاب و آغازگرِ دوره ای با نامِ «موجِ نوی سینمای ایران» است. کیمیایی چه پیش از انقلاب و چه پس از آن، با سبکِ منحصربه فردِ خود و در ژانرهای سیاسی و اجتماعی آثار متفاوتی را خلق کرده است. آثار درخشانی مانند؛ داش آکل ، خاک، قیصر، بلوچ، گوزن ها و… .
تعدادی از فیلم های مسعودِ کیمیایی برگرفته از داستان هایی هستند که نویسنده های صاحب نامِ ایرانی آن ها را خلق کرده اند. این یادداشت درباره فیلمِ «داش آکل» اوست که برگرفته از داستانی به همین نام از صادق هدایت است.
داش آکل ، لوطی شیراز
« داش آکل ، مردی سی وپنج ساله، تنومند ولی بدسیما بود. هر کس دفعه اول او را می دید، قیافه اش توی ذوقش می زد. اما اگر یک مجلس پای صحبت او می نشست یا حکایت هایی که از دوره زندگی اش ورد زبان ها بود می شنید، آدم را شیفته او می کرد. هرگاه زخم های چپ اندرراستِ قمه را که به صورتِ او خورده بود، ندیده می گرفتند، داش آکل قیافه نجیب و گیرنده ای داشت. چشم های میشی، ابروهای سیاهِ پرپشت، گونه های فراخ، بینی باریک با ریش و سبیل سیاه. ولی زخم ها کار او را خراب کرده بود. روی گونه ها و پیشانی او جای زخم قداره بود که بد جوش خورده بود و گوشتِ سرخ از لای شیارهای صورتش برق می زد و از همه بدتر یکی از آن ها کنارِ چشم چپش را پایین کشیده بود.»
داستانِ داش آکل، داستانِ لوطیِ شهر شیراز است که عاشقِ مرجان دخترِ چهارده ساله ی حاجی صمد می شود. حاجی صمد وصیت کرده بود که بعد از مرگش، وظیفه حساب وکتابِ اموالش را داش آکل بر عهده بگیرد؛ چراکه تنها داش آکل را امینِ خود می دانست.
داش آکل امینِ تمامِ مردم شیراز بود. همه او را با کارهای جوانمردانه اش و حمایت از قشرِ ضعیف و بی پناه می شناختند. داش آکل اظهارِ عشقش به مرجان را خلافِ جوانمردی می داند. بنابراین تصمیم می گیرد که راز را نزد خودش نگه دارد. در عوض یک طوطی می خرد و دردِ دلش را به طوطی می گوید. داش آکل لوطی گری هایش را رها می کند. وقتش را صرفِ رسیدگی به اموال حاجی صمد و خانواده اش می کند و از عشقِ مرجان دم نمی زند. هفت سال به همین منوال می گذرد و برای مرجان خواستگار پیدا می شود. داش آکل برگزاری مراسمِ عروسی مرجان را آخرین کارِ خود برای این خانواده می داند. مراسم را برگزار می کند و آنجا را ترک می کند.
داش آکل و سینما
داش آکل، اثرِ جاودانه صادق هدایت و یکی از داستان های کوتاهِ مجموعه «سه قطره خون» است. این کتاب در سال ۱۳۱۱ منتشر شد. مجموعه ای که صادق هدایت، ظرافت و دقتِ قلمِ خود را به خوبی در آن منعکس کرده است. داستان های این کتاب روایت تنهایی، درد، غم، خرافه و ریاکاریِ مردم جامعه ی آن زمان است.
فیلم داش آکل، سال ۱۳۵۰ با نقش آفرینی بهروز وثوقی و بهمن مفید ساخته شد. این فیلم، اولین اقتباس سینمایی از داستان های صادق هدایت است که هم شیفتگانِ ادبیات آن را دیده اند و هم شیفتگان سینما. مسعود کیمیایی فیلم نامه آن را نوشت. خودِ فیلم نیز به لحاظِ سینمایی شاهکاری در فیلم های پیش از انقلاب به شمار می آید. تعدادی از سکانس های فیلم، خارج از داستان و یا متفاوت با آن ساخته شده است. از نظرِ بسیاری از منتقدانِ سینما، این سکانس ها به فضاسازی داستان کمک کرده. فیلمِ داش آکل، از آن دسته از فیلم هایی است که شهرتش به شهرتِ داستان هم کمک کرده.
بسیاری از فیلم های کیمیایی اقتباس از آثار ادبی آن زمان بوده اند. فیلمِ «خاک» کیمیایی هم، اقتباسی از داستانِ «آو سنه باباجان» دولت آبادی بوده است.
فیلم بهتر است یا کتاب؟
سینما می تواند شخصیت ها و احساساتشان را به صورتِ زنده در مقابلِ دیدِ مخاطبان بیاورد، به آن ها شخصیت بدهد و آن ها را زنده کند. روایت های سینمایی، به واسطه ی ابزارهایِ متفاوتی که در اختیار دارند، روایتِ متفاوتی را از یک داستان ارائه می دهند. از طرفی کتاب می تواند هر قدر که نویسنده بخواهد، طولانی باشد. به همین دلیل جزئیاتِ بیشتری در آن وجود دارد که در زمانِ کوتاهِ فیلم نمی گنجد. زمانی که کتاب می خوانید، تمامِ زندگیِ یک شخصیت را می توانید زندگی کنید و احساساتِ او را تمام و کمال درک کنید. اما ماجرای فیلم کمی متفاوت تر است. هنگامِ فیلم دیدن، شما آزادترید که شخصیت را بکاوید و از رفتارهای او، زندگی و شخصیتش را درک کنید. مقاله ی کاملی در مورد اینکه «آیا کتاب ها بهتر از فیلم ها هستند» را می توانید در سایت گاردین بخوانید.
شما کدام یک را ترجیح می دهید، فیلم یا کتاب؟
منبع : طاقچه
مطالب مرتبط
Are books better than films?
'Films can bring whole worlds to life before our eyes, make characters into living, breathing flesh and blood, but books let you LIVE everything'
Iwent to see Percy Jackson and the Sea of Monsters with the Spinebreakers. We all needed to write something on the film and our views on it. I did my research first. I re-read the book, made numerous notes, wrote down everything I wanted to see in the film and brought a notebook into the cinema with me, ready to jot down my thoughts as the film played out before me.
The film was amazing – seriously, it blew me away. It was so, so much better than its prequel, Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief, and stuck so much closer to the book – something that obviously made me exceptionally happy.
The people who worked on the film... they got a lot of things right. They got the characters, the world, the creatures, the feel all right. They changed the plot, of course, and missed various things out, adding others in their place. But this didn't matter – Percy Jackson and the Sea of Monsters was absolutely stunning.
So why am I so obsessed with the things they changed? Why am I so much more in love with the book than with the film?
The same thing happened with The Hunger Games. They got almost everything exactly right, but it still... it didn't have the same feel to it. The suspense and emotion just didn't project from page to the screen.
Films... they can do a lot of things. They can bring whole worlds to life before our eyes, make characters into living, breathing flesh and blood. They can have us on the edge of our seats as vicious battle scenes are fought right before us, have us sobbing over a death, a heartbreak or smiling with joy. Films can make us see a lot of things – sometimes things that even books cannot do so well. They are a pure escape – there's nothing like sitting in the cinema, devoid of any other distraction, focused completely on the story playing on the screen.
And yet...
Films are great, but they just don't have the same...inclusion that books have. You're merely an observer: you aren't feeling everything the character feels, aren't reading every single one of their innermost thoughts, all of their doubts and fears and hopes. Films let you observe everything. Books? Books let you feel everything, know everything and LIVE everything. With a book, you can be the hero who kills the demon with one twirl of your blade. You can be the girl who battles cancer, along with all the pain and uncertainty that comes with it. You can be a demigod, you can be an alien, you can be an angel, a god, a villain, a hero. You can be in love, you can hate, you can triumph, you can lose. You can be anything and everything. There are no limits. No restrictions. Nothing is impossible, nothing is out of reach…
And that… that is why books are always better. When you read a book, nothing else exists and you can be a whole other person in this completely new and amazing world. You can live as someone else, free of your own troubles, even if only for two hundred pages.
Books are magic. Which is why I'm telling you all to forget about movie magic and get back to the pure magic that lives upon your bookshelves. Because while the movies are good… the books are ALWAYS better.
Your responses
ABitCrazy
The thing is... most days people prefer to have a day sitting in front of the television watching the latest films and TV shows; some people even just watch TV for the sake of watching TV and they're willing to watch any old junk. And it's more common to find people that prefer to sit in front of the television all day than it is to find someone that wants to sit at home reading all day. I love reading with a passion; I love letting my imagination run wild and imagining what all these characters look like and how they're feeling. Films don't do that for you but books do! Almost all books that become bestsellers get turned into films and sometimes the films really please you and sometimes it can be soul-destroying!
Two of my favourite series of books have both been turned into films - The Hunger Games and Twilight.
And after watching the first Hunger Games it totally ruined the book for me forever. I can't imagine the Hunger Games the way I used to when I re-read the book. The Hunger Games was somewhere to escape to on a good or bad day; it made you forget where you were and start being a different person, even if it only lasted the length of a book. It felt like it was my life and not Katniss's but now that I've seen the film I no longer imagine how the characters looked and reacted to everything. But watching and reading Twilight didn't feel quite like that, because when Twilight first came out in cinemas I was to young to watch it so I wasn't interested in it but as we all know Twilight is now one of the most popular teen books and movies ever! So once I got to the age of wanting to watch and read the books it was too late to think up my own imagination of the book because by then I had seen and read so many things about Twilight I already knew most of what happened. So films in some ways ruin books for children. And if the Hunger Games turns out like Twilight - all the people that are too young to watch it now but might when they are older will have already seen all the trailers and read all the articles in magazines - the experience of reading the book will be totally ruined for them.
And then you have people that just skip the book and go straight to the film. I understand that some people actually don't like reading so they probably won't read the book but they might watch the film, but to just skip the book completely because they're desperate to watch the film is disappointing. I like to read the books first to know where it all started and why they decided to make a film out of it. I didn't read all of The Host (Stephenie Meyer's other novel) before I saw the film but I did read some of it and it was a great book from what I read but also a great film. And of course sometimes films seem to be the same idea as the book had but are not actually based on the book. So it's a bit like Twilight for instance; Twilight's inspiration came mainly from the American TV show Buffy The Vampire Slayer but had its own little twist. And that's a bit like what films do to books. They make it seem like they've taken the idea from the book but switched it up so it's not actually anything to do with the book.
And for this reason that's why I prefer books to films. Films destroy really amazing books! And TV has changed books. Maybe some people only read books because they're the reason that the films exist and I think that reading a book because of TV and films is a bad way to read; I think people should read a book because they actually want to read the book and every book should be a new story. And of course there are films not related to books at all and books that films aren't based on, and sometimes that is exactly how it should be: sometimes it's best if the two things aren't connected.
As 2019 begins…
… we’re asking readers to make a new year contribution in support of The Guardian’s independent journalism. More people are reading our independent, investigative reporting than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our reporting as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help.
The Guardian is editorially independent, meaning we set our own agenda. Our journalism is free from commercial bias and not influenced by billionaire owners, politicians or shareholders. No one edits our editor. No one steers our opinion. This is important as it enables us to give a voice to those less heard, challenge the powerful and hold them to account. It’s what makes us different to so many others in the media, at a time when factual, honest reporting is critical.
Please make a new year contribution today to help us deliver the independent journalism the world needs for 2019 and beyond. Support The Guardian from as little as £1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you .
به نقل از سایت گاردین