User reviews

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

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.

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.

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."

I am a major fan of any of Franz Kafka's literature. In fact I read everything ever written by Kafka who is the most unique writer in any language.

So I was very eager to see The Trial brought to the screen.

And I can tell you from this film fan's perspective, this movie was the real deal. Filmed in Kafka's home city of Prague, it shows the world that Kafka knew.

Exploring the life and spiraling downfall of Josef K., a young bank executive, it shows a nightmarish world in which a man is destroyed slowly and gradually.

It is a timeless story about being entrapped in a horrible bureaucracy in which there is no escape.

Josef K is visited by two roguish officers of the court and summoned to a bizarre court. The court comes to regular meetings and he is summoned throughout the story. He goes through the entire proceedings not knowing even what crimes he is being charge with.

The bizarre "court" is a cavernous building where families, children, adulterous spouses and bullying thugs inhabit. Everyone inside seems to have a function yet we never see the judges or those who are responsible for the fate of the story's protagonist.

In the meantime he continues to live is normal, dull life.

But the court continues to rule his life. And the harder he fights the court the more deeply entrenched he becomes.

Students of Kafka's literature will recognize the familiar themes: man against an inhumane bureaucracy, the eminant demise of man, the demise of freedom at the expense of rules and regulations, the literal use of metaphores and the ultimate doom of all humanity.

Its not your average story but for those who are seeking something different I would heartily recommend it.

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 original Orson Welles film "The Trial" is a brilliant dark and brooding masterpiece with some of the greatest cinematography of all time.

This film is the exact opposite.

Joseph K. awakes one morning, to find two strange men in his room, telling him he has been arrested. Joseph is not told what he is charged with, and despite being "arrested," is allowed to remain free and go to work. But despite the strange nature of his arrest, Joseph soon learns that his trial, however odd, is very real, and tries desperately to spare himself from the court's judgement.

Shot by a director whose total experience was in TV, this remake comes across as lame made-for-TV rip off of the Welles original.

Give this a miss and check out the 1962 classic instead.

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.

The book is marvellous and the 1963 Orson Welles film is every bit as good, even if less faithful than this version from 1993. 'The Trial' does follow the book closely in detail, but what makes the book and the previous film so powerful is lost in translation in an adaptation that is perhaps somewhat too faithful.

By all means, 'The Trial' is not irredeemable. It looks great, being very beautifully photographed and with settings that are both attractive and atmospheric. It's sensitively scored too, without being too intrusive or low-key. There are also a few good performances, Anthony Hopkins steals the film (even if his screen time is rather brief), Juliet Stevenson is wonderfully authoritative and Jason Robards gives energy.

However, Kyle MacLachlan is very bland, the character is not very interesting here but MacLachlan is lacking in screen presence and charisma. The rest of the cast don't stand out.

Other big problems are some really leaden pacing that fails to give the film much life and a story that never ignites fire, lacking the crucial darkness, emotional power (emotionally 'The Trial' is incredibly distant) and is too academic, disjointed and not always having cohesion. The script is also dull, awkward and heavy handed. The direction is too staid.

In conclusion while following the book closely it's a case that's not really a good thing and it just feels bland. 3/10 Bethany Cox

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.

I only wish I had seen this one before the great, claustrophobic masterpiece by Orson Welles. A very good adaptation, and very true to Kafka's story. Some of the issues of human rights seem very fresh in the wake of heightened security stemming from 9/11. Good movie for a dark, lonely night.