In The Trial, Orson Welles has taken “the parable of the Law” theme found in Kafka’s novel and put it at the forefront of the movie. On the other hand, in the novel this theme is not mentioned until K.’s conversation with the priest in Chapter 9. Yet, Welles chose to open the movie with an explanation of “The Law.” It is presented as the central theme underlying this film. This is a huge change from the novel, in which the conversation concerning the parable has the back and forth banter characteristics of a disagreement. K. views it as a deceptive ploy by the doorkeeper, while the priest attempts to explain its true meaning. This explanation goes over K.’s head as the priest’s reasoning confuses him.
Welles’s K. was more aware of the parable and his own role within it. This is evident by Welles’ changing of the ending. In the film, K. resists somewhat and dies with dignified anger. This would suggest that the movie and K. understand the central theme of the parable. While in the novel, K. goes out “like a dog.” Welles’s film version makes changes to The Trial which allow it to better fit into the context of the parable. Symbolically, this is especially evident as K. enters and exits through numerous doors throughout the movie. The parable becomes the moral of the movie which K. has been subjected to. Comparatively, Kafka fits the parable within the context of his novel, not vice versa. The character, even in the end, does not fully realize the truth of the priest’s words or the full meaning of his own death.
The death of the movie by explosives from a distance versus an up close knife stabbing is another interesting change by Welles. Having his executioner’s further away in the film signifies the impersonal and distant nature of the law in relation to K. Even at the end, K.’s death only adds to the abstractness of K.’s world versus Kafka’s more personal plot. Furthermore, Welles wanted to maintain the disconnection between K. and his surroundings found in the rest of the play. Despite all the people with knowledge of K’s case, none could truly understand it or help him. And even so, the K. found in Welles’s film, at least put up a fight instead of merely accepting the parable ignorantly like Kafka’s K who basically laid down to die.
It is interesting that you think that choosing to have K killed by explosive is more impersonal and that the choice of having K killed by knife makes Kafka's world more personal. I disagree. I think that Kafka's vision of the law is by far more impersonal than Welles'. First of all, Welles himself plays the Advocate, who comes as close as the movie allows to personifying the law, whereas K keeps the law forever distant and clinical. Second, the fact that as you observe K in the film understands the parable better than the novel's K humanizes his connection with the law all the more. Lastly, his defiant laughter at the end allows him to become more than a victim in the face of the law; he actively mocks his oppressor, whereas the novel's K observes that he dies "like a dog," his final admission that this law of Kafka's has entirely obliterated his humanity. Welles' thematic obsession with personal power does not allow him to maintain the bleakness of Kafka's vision, as Naremore observes; he transforms Kafka's vision of despair into a question of morality and in doing so individualizes and humanizes both K and the law.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo me, K is more Vargas in 'Touch of Evil' than Kafka in that final moment. He is still questioning morality, while the novel seems to suggest something different. As Naremore suggests, it is taking off from the Welles-written dialogue in the Parable scene directly before it.
ReplyDeleteWhat do others think?
I definitely think that the Welles version of K at the end of the movie has a lot of angst left as opposed to the Kafka version. I think some of it might have to do with the fact that Welles, as a filmmaker, goes for the theatrics and more entertainment for the viewer. With Kafka, his writing is more frustrating with unanswered questions, to me, at least. Kafka's writing feels heavy and emotional, which Welles seemed to portray that in the end of the film, he didn't follow along with K being so worn and defeated that he made him helpless in the end. K almost seemed a little crazy at the end, like he'd lost hind mind, but it made his character much more animated in contrast to Kafka's version.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hannah. In the movie, K. seemed more hysterical and crazed. I had written in my post that Welles seemed to screw with the character in his settings. In the beginning of the movie, K. seems very paranoid and rushed when he wakes up to find that he has been arrested. In the book, K. seems to be confused but controlled. He is bothered by the interruption but other than that, it is as if he has a level head. Welles definitely turned up the theatrics in this movie to make K. look more and more like a lunatic as the movie goes on. In the end, as he is staring at the dynamite, it looks as if he reaches down to pick it up. I liked the idea of this. In the book, K. knows he will get murdered when he refuses to do it himself. To me, he comes to terms with that in a short period of time. In the movie, if K. is reaching down to grab the dynamite, he is doing the exact same thing.
ReplyDeleteYes, I definitely think that the movie makes K. seem a lot more crazy. I didn't get that feeling from the book. The fast pace of his changing personality in the movie also contributes to this. The K. we meet in the film at the onset slips into seemingly total lunacy by the end. The transformation occurred quickly.
ReplyDelete