The line between the two maybe somewhat blurred. All adaptations are subject to the filmmaker's interpretation. I think the difference is the filmmaker's attempt to visualize the author's original intent, as opposed to expressing what the novel meant to him. I think Welles did the later in this movie. Kafka's brilliant novel is extremely surrealistic and subjective. It is a parable, and the meaning of the novel will depend on the perspective the reader. That is what makes it so great. You castrate the story when you universalize your interpretation. That is the mistake Welles makes in the film. I have only watched the film once. As I plan to watch it again my opinion may change. I feel he took away much of the ambiguity of the novel. Much of the broad symbolism Kafka placed in his novel was missing from the film. It was too much of a definite vision. Much of the religious symbolism was absent in the film. For instance, in the book, Joseph K. is "sacrificed" by way of a knife. This has profound religious implications. In the film, Welles decides to end Joseph's life with a quite literal bang. I didn't like this alteration. It greatly sterilized the ending. I did enjoy the look of the film. The set pieces are amazing. I cannot remember a straight line in the whole film. Everything is disjointed and disorienting. None of the locations make sense. I could never determine where anyone was, where they were going, or how they got to where they were. This was very effective in conveying the hopelessness of Joseph's situation. The acting was decent. Perkins had the difficult task of putting what Joseph thinks in the novel into words. At times I felt him annoying, but overall he was effective. I really enjoyed Akim Tamiroff's performance. He was much better in "Touch of Evil", but he was very good in this. I hope that a couple more viewings will clarify my opinion on the film, or not.
