I think I can understand why, when the decision was taken to adapt Sapphire’s novel Push for the big screen, they decided to change the title to Precious, the name of the central character. I presume it was at the insistence of the author that the original title still hung onto the movie by its fingertips, so that the full title of the movie is in fact Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire, a phrase as obese and inarticulate as the story’s heroine. But was it really necessary, when republishing the original book to tie in with the movie, to follow the same branding guidelines, so that the novel is now apparently called Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire as well? Could the author insist that the film should be retitled Precious: Based on the Novel Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire? Which would presumably also be the title of the next edition of the book, and then... it doesn’t bear thinking about.
4 comments:
Maybe they change the title away from 'Push' because the screenplay made no reference to the two pivotal moments in the novel where Precious is told to "push." Maybe they thought they were corny. I didn't think so, but wtf would I know?
Loved the book, loved what there was of the book in the movie.
Probably didn't want to clash with the highly prestigious and popular guide to universities from back in the days of yore. Apparently the former editor can be quite sensitive.
I had to type emonymm into the word verification box to leave this comment. Means nothing according to google and wikipedia. Must be too new. I presume it refers to two identical emo chicks. Can anyone clarify?
Possible, E@L. Although it's quite possible to ditch the part that explains the title, but keep the title (see A Clockwork Orange).
Yes, I did spot the correlation, BWT. Who could have guessed that picking an incredibly common and widely-used word as one's trademark would create such confusion?
So anyway - time's a fleeting - I'm waiting for your Malcolm McLaren obit reaction.
Post a Comment