Films From Books
We've all said it, and we've all heard it: "The book was better than the movie." "Oh, you'll like the book much better."
Part of this attitude, I think, stems from the frustration of the imaginative mind: we read and see the characters, the action, the denouement within the confines of our heads. It never quite translates (it never quite translates even when we are the ones in charge, as artists often discover. What you see in your imagination doesn't always make it onto the page). We will never be completely satisfied.
Part of this, too, is that prose and film are two different mediums and it is simply impossible to keep everything in the book or, even, to end the film the same as the book. Agatha Christie is a very good example of this. When she turned her books into plays (or vice versa), they ended up, more or less, as completely different pieces of work. And Then There Were None has a different ending even! Agatha Christie understood that a play is not the same as a novel and requires a different approach.
In fact, I feel strongly that the two things shouldn't even be compared. The first Harry Potter film suffered from being too much like the book, giving the movie a slideshow feel.
However (now we get to the "however"), What's the deal with buying rights to a book, claiming that the movie is based on a book, and then not using the book?
My brother Joe talks about this in terms of the Unfortunate Events movie. He says, "Casting aside, and ignoring some of the all-too-obvious computer generated effects, the real problem with the movie was the script. It stunk. There's literary license and then there are literary muggings. This was the latter. My first impression was that the writer had only read a synopsis of the books. I then realized the problem is he didn't like the books. No, I'm not a mind reader, but how else do you explain his near complete contempt for the basic story. Why invent scenes out of thin air for absolutely no reason? Why eliminate some really great scenes, also for no reason? There's only one reason; the screenwriter liked the basic idea of the books, but hated the telling... Therein lies one of my big grievances in turning books into movies. I generally have no problem with the screenwriter taking the essence of the book and going with that. However, it must be done with respect to the original material and the writer must know what that essence is."
There is nothing more mysterious than watching a movie based on a book and getting to the part where the book has an absolutely amazing scene of true coolness and . . . the movie leaves it out. We're talking a scene that is movie-ready, a scene that is exciting and triumphant and just asking for special effects . . . and the scriptwriters toss it out. Huh? Huh?
This happened when I watched The Robe. It was a long time ago, and I don't remember either the book or the movie very well, but I do remember being astonished that a Hollywood-cast-of-thousands type movie had replaced the action sequences of the book with some rather boring talky scenes and people running around in vineyards. I can see replacing talky scenes with things blowing up but vice versa? What scriptwriter thinks, "Boy, this is an exciting/visually stunning and thematic scene. Let's get rid of it."
Now, there are cases where the movie improves upon the book. There's a couple of Miss Marples where I prefer the BBC movies to the books because the characters seem more sympathetic in the films. I think that Seabiscuit is one of the best books every written, but I call a draw on the movie v. book since it’s a case of translating impossibilities to film (and besides, I like Toby McGuire). Black Stallion was such an entirely different film than it was a book that a contrast is rather pointless. The David Suchet Poirots are incredibly accurate, almost too much so. I wouldn't mind an occasional step off the beaten path. I much, much, much prefer Walt Disney's Mary Poppins to the books (but then the Mary Poppins of the books always annoyed me—I'm such an American).
Which takes us to the low expectation factor: expect nothing, and you might get something. Hey, it worked when I watched I, Robot.
Part of this attitude, I think, stems from the frustration of the imaginative mind: we read and see the characters, the action, the denouement within the confines of our heads. It never quite translates (it never quite translates even when we are the ones in charge, as artists often discover. What you see in your imagination doesn't always make it onto the page). We will never be completely satisfied.
Part of this, too, is that prose and film are two different mediums and it is simply impossible to keep everything in the book or, even, to end the film the same as the book. Agatha Christie is a very good example of this. When she turned her books into plays (or vice versa), they ended up, more or less, as completely different pieces of work. And Then There Were None has a different ending even! Agatha Christie understood that a play is not the same as a novel and requires a different approach.
In fact, I feel strongly that the two things shouldn't even be compared. The first Harry Potter film suffered from being too much like the book, giving the movie a slideshow feel.
However (now we get to the "however"), What's the deal with buying rights to a book, claiming that the movie is based on a book, and then not using the book?
My brother Joe talks about this in terms of the Unfortunate Events movie. He says, "Casting aside, and ignoring some of the all-too-obvious computer generated effects, the real problem with the movie was the script. It stunk. There's literary license and then there are literary muggings. This was the latter. My first impression was that the writer had only read a synopsis of the books. I then realized the problem is he didn't like the books. No, I'm not a mind reader, but how else do you explain his near complete contempt for the basic story. Why invent scenes out of thin air for absolutely no reason? Why eliminate some really great scenes, also for no reason? There's only one reason; the screenwriter liked the basic idea of the books, but hated the telling... Therein lies one of my big grievances in turning books into movies. I generally have no problem with the screenwriter taking the essence of the book and going with that. However, it must be done with respect to the original material and the writer must know what that essence is."
There is nothing more mysterious than watching a movie based on a book and getting to the part where the book has an absolutely amazing scene of true coolness and . . . the movie leaves it out. We're talking a scene that is movie-ready, a scene that is exciting and triumphant and just asking for special effects . . . and the scriptwriters toss it out. Huh? Huh?
This happened when I watched The Robe. It was a long time ago, and I don't remember either the book or the movie very well, but I do remember being astonished that a Hollywood-cast-of-thousands type movie had replaced the action sequences of the book with some rather boring talky scenes and people running around in vineyards. I can see replacing talky scenes with things blowing up but vice versa? What scriptwriter thinks, "Boy, this is an exciting/visually stunning and thematic scene. Let's get rid of it."
Now, there are cases where the movie improves upon the book. There's a couple of Miss Marples where I prefer the BBC movies to the books because the characters seem more sympathetic in the films. I think that Seabiscuit is one of the best books every written, but I call a draw on the movie v. book since it’s a case of translating impossibilities to film (and besides, I like Toby McGuire). Black Stallion was such an entirely different film than it was a book that a contrast is rather pointless. The David Suchet Poirots are incredibly accurate, almost too much so. I wouldn't mind an occasional step off the beaten path. I much, much, much prefer Walt Disney's Mary Poppins to the books (but then the Mary Poppins of the books always annoyed me—I'm such an American).
Which takes us to the low expectation factor: expect nothing, and you might get something. Hey, it worked when I watched I, Robot.
posted by Kate Woodbury at 14:30
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home