logo
Kazuo Ishiguro: ‘When you go from book to film, that's a fireside moment'

Kazuo Ishiguro: ‘When you go from book to film, that's a fireside moment'

Arab News17-05-2025

CANNES, France: Kazuo Ishiguro 's mother was in Nagasaki when the atomic bomb was dropped.
When Ishiguro, the Nobel laureate and author of 'Remains of the Day' and 'Never Let Me Go,' first undertook fiction writing in his 20s, his first novel, 1982's 'A Pale View of Hills' was inspired by his mother's stories, and his own distance from them. Ishiguro was born in Nagasaki but, when he was 5, moved to England with his family.
'A Pale View of Hills' marked the start to what's become one of the most lauded writing careers in contemporary literature. And, now, like most of Ishiguro's other novels, it's a movie, too.
Kei Ishikawa's film by the same name premiered Thursday at the Cannes Film Festival in its Un Certain Regard section. The 70-year-old author has been here before; he was a member of the jury in 1994 that gave 'Pulp Fiction' the Palme d'Or. 'At the time it was a surprise decision,' he says. 'A lot of people booed.'
Ishiguro is a movie watcher and sometimes maker, too. He penned the 2022 Akira Kurosawa adaptation 'Living.' Movies are a regular presence in his life, in part because filmmakers keep wanting to turn his books into them. Taika Waititi is currently finishing a film of Ishiguro's most recent novel, 'Klara and the Sun' .
Ishiguro likes to participate in early development of an adaptation, and then disappear, letting the filmmaker take over. Seeing 'A Pale View of Hills' turned into an elegant, thoughtful drama is especially meaningful to him because the book, itself, deals with inheritance, and because it represents his beginning as a writer.
'There was no sense that anyone else was going to reread this thing,' he says. 'So in that sense, it's different to, say, the movie of 'Remains of the Day' or the movie of 'Never Let Me Go.''
Remarks have been lightly edited.
AP: Few writers alive have been more adapted than you. Does it help keep a story alive?
ISHIGURO: Often people think I'm being unduly modest when I say I want the film to be different to the book. I don't want it to be wildly different. But in order for the film to live, there has to be a reason why it's being made then, for the audience at that moment. Not 25 years ago, or 45 years ago, as in the case of this book. It has to be a personal artistic expression of something, not just a reproduction. Otherwise, it can end up like a tribute or an Elvis impersonation.
Whenever I see adaptations of books not work, it's always because it's been too reverential. Sometimes it's laziness. People think: Everything is there in the book. The imagination isn't pushed to work. For every one of these things that's made it to the screen, there's been 10, 15 developments that I've been personally involved with that fell by the wayside. I always try to get people to just move it on.
AP: You've said, maybe a little tongue in cheek, that you'd like to be like Homer.
ISHIGURO: You can take two kind of approaches. You write a novel and that's the discrete, perfect thing. Other people can pay homage to it but basically that's it. Or you can take another view that stories are things that just get passed around, down generations. Even though you think you wrote an original story, you've put it together out of other stuff that's come before you. So it's part of that tradition.
I said Homer but it could be folktales. The great stories are the ones that last and last and last. They turn up in different forms. It's because people can change and adapt them to their times and their culture that these stories are valuable. There was a time when people would sit around a fire and just tell each other these stories. You sit down with some anticipation: This guy is going to tell it in a slightly different way. What's he going to do? It's like if Keith Jarrett sits down and says he's going to play 'Night and Day.' So when you go from book to film, that's a fireside moment. That way it has a chance of lasting, and I have a chance of turning into Homer.
AP: I think you're well on your way.
ISHIGURO: I've got a few centuries to go.
AP: Do you remember writing 'A Pale View of Hills?' You were in your 20s.
ISHIGURO: I was between the age of 24 and 26. It was published when I was 27. I remember the circumstances very vividly. I can even remember writing a lot of those scenes. My wife, Lorna, was my girlfriend back then. We were both postgraduate students. I wrote it on a table about this size, which was also where we would have our meals. When she came in at the end of the day, I had to pack up even if I was at the crucial point of some scene. It was no big deal. I was just doing something indulgent. There was no real sense I had a career or it would get published. So it's strange all these years later that she and I are here and attended this premiere in Cannes.
AP: To me, much of what the book and movie capture is what can be a unbridgeable distance between generations.
ISHIGURO: I think that's really insightful what you just said. There is a limit to how much understanding there can be between generations. What's needed is a certain amount of generosity on both sides, to respect each other's generations and the difference in values. I think an understanding that the world was a really complicated place, and that often individuals can't hope to have perspective on the forces that are playing on them at the time. To actually understand that needs a generosity.
AP: You've always been meticulous at meting out information, of uncovering mysteries of the past and present. Your characters try to grasp the world they've been born into. Did that start with your own family investigation?
ISHIGURO: I wasn't like a journalist trying to get stuff out of my mother. There's part of me that was quite reluctant to hear this stuff. On some level it was kind of embarrassing to think of my mother in such extreme circumstances. A lot of the things she told me weren't to do with the atomic bomb. Those weren't her most traumatic memories.
My mother was a great oral storyteller. She would sometimes have a lunch date and do a whole version of a Shakespeare play by herself. That was my introduction to 'Hamlet' or things like that. She was keen to tell me but also wary of telling me. It was always a fraught thing. Having something formal — 'Oh, I'm becoming a writer, I'm going to write up something so these memories can be preserved' — that made it easier.
AP: How has your relationship with the book changed with time?
ISHIGURO: Someone said to me the other day, 'We live in a time now where a lot of people would sympathize with the older, what you might call fascist views.' It's not expressed overtly; the older teacher is saying it's tradition and patriotism.
Now, maybe we live in a world where that's a good point, and that hadn't occurred to me. It's an example of: Yes, we write in a bubble and make movies in a kind of a bubble. But the power of stories is they have to go into different values.
This question of how you pass stories on, this is one of the big challenges. You have to reexamine every scene. Some things that might have been a very safe assumption only a few years ago would not be because the value systems are changing around our books and films just as much as they're changing around us.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Man City's Third-placed Finish May be Better Achievement than Title Win, Guardiola Says
Man City's Third-placed Finish May be Better Achievement than Title Win, Guardiola Says

Asharq Al-Awsat

time3 hours ago

  • Asharq Al-Awsat

Man City's Third-placed Finish May be Better Achievement than Title Win, Guardiola Says

Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola described his team's first trophyless campaign since 2017 as a season of growth and reflection, dismissing notions of failure and suggesting it may have been a greater achievement than a previous title win. "I want to suffer when I'm not winning games," Guardiola told Reuters in an exclusive interview. "I want to feel bad. I want to sleep badly. I want that when the situation goes bad, it affects me... I want that! 'I'm angry... my food, it tastes worse... I don't need to eat much because I need to feel that (anger). Because if it doesn't, what sense would it have? Winning or losing... We're here in this world to feel different experiences, different moods.' The 54-year-old, who has won 12 domestic top-flight league titles across Spain, Germany and England, spoke about last season's challenges, which saw City finish third in the Premier League and fail to secure silverware in domestic or European competitions. It marked only the second trophyless season of his managerial career. Guardiola rejected the idea that the season was disastrous, instead arguing that it may have been the most valuable of his tenure at City. "You judge happiness if you win. You judge success if you win and win. And that is a problem," he said. 'I will not judge myself or my team because of bad seasons or good seasons... Maybe finishing third in a season and never giving up otherwise you finish 10th or 12th, maybe that's a better season than when we won the fourth Premier League in a row. 'We faced so many difficulties that were higher due to injuries, relaxation, I was not good enough... for many reasons. Maybe the analysis about my period is that the last season was better. Qualifying for the Champions League when we were on the verge of not getting it. 'WINNERS ARE BORING' Reflecting on setbacks, Guardiola quoted former Uruguayan President Jose Mujica: "Success is how many times you stand up when you fall down." He added: "Fall down, stand up. Fall down, stand up... That is the biggest success." "Winners are boring," he said, adding that he always looked forward to post-match interviews with players and coaches from losing sides. "It's nice to see the losers. That is when you really learn." Despite his remarkable record, Guardiola dismissed any notion of exceptionalism. "Do you think I feel special because I won a lot of titles? No! Forget about it!" he said. "I feel that special is the doctor that saves lives. The people who invented penicillin. That is a genius. Me? Genius? Come on." 'I don't want to pretend to be humble: of course I'm good! I'm proving that over many years I'm good... But the success I had, I was chosen. In certain moments, to lead Lionel Messi and the other ones, to be in those type of places I made incredible teams... But other managers, in the right moment, in that position, maybe they could have done the same.' Looking ahead to the upcoming season and the Club World Cup, Guardiola emphasised the importance of team spirit. "Play good. Create a good vibe, good team spirit... Try to make the new players bring us an energy that we need to lift the team again. And at the end, we can lift trophies," he said. Guardiola also reflected on the pressures of public-facing jobs with constant scrutiny. 'The stress is always there because you are being judged every single day, but it is what it is," he said. 'Nobody put a gun to my head forcing me to choose this job. I have chosen that... There is no professional in football that wins all the time, because it's simply impossible. So, it happened last season... you accept it, improve, learn and there will be good learnings for the future."

UAE's ‘giant-killing' of Bangladesh not as unlikely as some might think
UAE's ‘giant-killing' of Bangladesh not as unlikely as some might think

Arab News

time9 hours ago

  • Arab News

UAE's ‘giant-killing' of Bangladesh not as unlikely as some might think

'Giant-killing' in sport is often associated with cup competitions in soccer, when a team from a lower division beats one placed in a higher division. A recent example was when Plymouth Argyle, near the foot of the Championship — effectively, the second tier of English football — beat the leaders of the Premier League, Liverpool, in the fourth round of the FA Cup on Feb. 9, 2025. There have been many other legendary examples of giant-killing in soccer. Use of the term to describe similar feats in other sports does not appear to be commonplace. Perhaps it reflects the different structure of other sports. At its apex, cricket is not structured by divisions. Only 12 teams play Test cricket against each other. In one-day international cricket (ODIs) and T20 international cricket, the International Cricket Council rates teams according to performance. The Test-playing teams occupy the highest-rated positions in the shorter formats by virtue of their greater strength. Outside of World Cup tournaments they rarely play teams rated in the 20 places below them. Therefore, the opportunities for giant-killing would appear to be restricted. This is not to say that upsets and surprises do not happen. They are part of the natural rhythm of sport. Identifying when they may happen is a challenging task. In Liverpool's case, the manager selected a team consisting of a number of players who were not normally first choice for league matches. Last week I referred to Zimbabwe's defeat of Australia in the group stage of the 1983 World Cup at Nottingham. Two members of the Zimbabwean team met several of the Australian team the evening before the match at the hotel where both teams were staying. The Zimbabweans were surprised to learn of the level of disharmony within the Australian camp and the openness with which it was revealed. This revelation gave them hope and confidence, but it was not until the closing stages of the match that they realised a shock win was possible against an aging Australian team. The part-time players of Zimbabwe triumphed by 13 runs. Afterwards, the Australian captain admitted that 'We knew nothing about them at all. There was no video analysis. We said, 'We'll find out what they're like when we get out there on the park'.' A vastly different environment exists today in which technical analysis of players' performances in different circumstances are forensically assessed, with plans drawn up to promote, expose and counter them. It is not clear if these have led to upsets of smaller nations beating more powerful ones. At first sight, the UAE men's team beating Bangladesh in a three-match T20 series between May 17 and 21 might appear to be an upset. On closer examination, this would be a disservice to the UAE in this format. Prior to the series, Bangladesh were rated ninth in the ICC T20 rankings, compared with 15th for the UAE. The ratings are the result of dividing the total number of points earned by the number of games played. Bangladesh had a rating of 225 prior to the series compared with 181 for the UAE. Although there were only six places separating Bangladesh and the UAE, the reality is that, given the points system of two points for a win and minus two points for a loss, it would take a significant time for the UAE and teams with similar ratings to bridge the gap. This puts the UAE's series win into greater perspective. Bangladesh won the first match by 27 runs, the UAE losing its last seven wickets for 33 runs. In the second match, Bangladesh posted 205 for 5 wickets which the UAE chased down with only one delivery remaining for the loss of eight wickets. Muhammad Waseem top scored with 82. The crucial difference in that match was that the UAE's lower order did not collapse. In the third match, the UAE chased down 163 for the loss of only three wickets, with five deliveries remaining. Alishan Sharafu scored an undefeated 68, assisted by 41 not out from Asif Khan. Earlier, Haider Ali had claimed three wickets for only seven runs. After the series, Litton Das, Bangladesh's captain, noted that his team bowled and fielded in the second half of all three matches, the UAE having won the toss and elected to field. He said that dew was a factor in making the ball more difficult to grip and field cleanly, adding that his team's batting, including his own, had not been consistent enough. This pattern continued in Bangladesh's next series against Pakistan, which the latter won 3-0. As a result, Bangladesh have dropped one rating place to 10th. Although the UAE's rating remained unchanged, the UAE team and their management were understandably delighted with the outcome. Emirates Cricket Board Chairman Nahayan Mabarak Al-Nahayan congratulated the team on their historic series win, saying that 'the team had played brilliantly in the whole series, while the support staff put in the hard yards to make the victory possible, another glorious chapter in our cricketing history.' He added that the board will 'continue to provide the best possible facilities and exposure to our immensely talented players.' The UAE have previously beaten Test-playing countries Ireland, New Zealand and Afghanistan, the last two in 2023. Victory over Bangladesh should, as the chairman remarked, 'give immense confidence and self-belief to our players and make them take on bigger and more established opponents.' It is in this context that giant-killing acts in cricket may be judged — the defeat of a Test-playing, ICC full member being defeated by an associate nation. It was certainly a shock when the Netherlands beat South Africa in the group stages of the 2023 World Cup at Dharamsala by 38 runs. In the same competition, Afghanistan beat England by 69 runs. A year later, the US, as joint host nation of the 2024 T20 World Cup, beat Pakistan in a super over, bowled because the match scores were tied. One of the greatest upsets was achieved by Ireland in the 2011 ODI World Cup in Bengaluru. England scored 327 and, in reply, Ireland slumped to 111 for five. Kevin O'Brien then hammered 100 off 50 deliveries to propel Ireland to a sensational three-wicket victory. Finding a common denominator to explain or forecast upsets remains elusive. In three of the above examples, the defeated full members either looked out of sorts on the day or had broader issues, which affected their performances. In the case of Ireland, O'Brien produced an innings of brilliance, which occasionally and unexpectedly occurs. In more normal patterns it is possible that, as associate nations improve over time with appropriate developmental support from their national boards, the propensity for giant-killing may increase. This is a possibility for the UAE in T20 cricket rather than ODIs, in which their recent performances have put the team in jeopardy of losing its ODI status.

Sancho to Return to Man United After Chelsea Decides Not to Make Loan Deal Permanent
Sancho to Return to Man United After Chelsea Decides Not to Make Loan Deal Permanent

Asharq Al-Awsat

timea day ago

  • Asharq Al-Awsat

Sancho to Return to Man United After Chelsea Decides Not to Make Loan Deal Permanent

Jadon Sancho is set to return to Manchester United after confirming his exit from Chelsea after a season-long loan spell. The 25-year-old England winger sent a post on social media late Tuesday, saying he was "grateful for the experience" at Chelsea. "Big love to everyone at Chelsea who made me feel at home — teammates, staff and the fans," Sancho wrote. "Wishing the club all the best moving forward. Truly grateful, thank you Blues." Chelsea will have to pay a fee of five million pounds ($6.75 million) to opt out of its obligation to buy Sancho outright for 25 million pounds ($34 million) as part of the terms of his loan deal announced in August last year. Sancho left United after falling out with then-manager Erik ten Hag and had not been expected to return. Ten Hag left the club in October. Sancho joined United from Borussia Dortmund for 85 million euros ($100 million) in 2021. He scored one of Chelsea's goals in its 4-1 win over Real Betis in the Conference League final last week.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store