We’re talking film adaptations of books this week and yesterday I asked whether a film must always be faithful to the book it’s adapting. My take on the question is “no”–in most cases a director’s first priority is to make the best film possible. Over on redbox’s Facebook page the response was the opposite: a resounding “yes! films must be as faithful as possible to the book!”
So today let’s continue the discussion:
Are books always better than their film versions? Or are there ever cases where a film is better than the book it was based on?
Let’s hear your thought in the comments below, and in the meantime I’ll give you my 2 cents worth. Or 600 words worth…
To be fair, there’s plenty of reason to lack faith in Hollywood when it comes to book adaptations—we all know the bigger, more popular the book, the more money will be poured into the film version. And more money spent often means making changes simply to broaden the film’s appeal to the widest audience–often at the expense of the unique things that made the book so loved in the first place. Plus, if you’re talking about a fantasy or science-fiction book, it also means much more money spent on special effects–more money spent, the more studios get nervous, the more they want the film to be as bland and accessible as possible, and to shoehorn big stars into roles they may not be a good fit for.
But despite that sad reality, sometimes a film slips through the system that takes the original book and improves on it. Many who loved Maurice Sendak’s children’s book Where the Wild Things Are had big problems with Spike Jonze’s melancholy, introspective cinematic take on it, but I wasn’t one of them. I think the film version is a marvelous, personal statement by Jonze that both maintains Sendak’s spirit and takes it further, deeper. It may not be the adaptation of the book some readers wanted, and I’m not saying it’s better than the book or the book isn’t wonderful, but it’s a very good film.
And regular redblog readers knew I’d get around to Spielberg’s Jaws sooner or later when talking film adaptations. Jaws is a perfect example of someone making a great film out of an average potboiler book—most of what works so well in the film is because young Spielberg (working with screenwriter Carl Gottlieb) had an uncanny sense of what made good cinema. Cutting out an affair between Hooper and Ellen Brody, sparing Hooper’s life, blowing up the shark at the end—those changes all make a much stronger screen story. And you won’t find Quint’s Indianapolis speech–a hallmark of both the film and action films in general–anywhere in Peter Benchley’s novel. It was written the night before that scene was filmed.
Silk Movie Purses From Hog-Eared Books
In fact, often cliche, formulaic, and melodramatic genre novels (beach reads) make for very decent, even brilliant films. Coppola’s Godfather is a stunning cinematic masterpiece based on a so-so chunk of pulpy stew from Mario Puzo. Nick Cassavette’s The Notebook is a very engaging, solid film from a pretty cliche and dopey novel–thanks in large part to the performances of Ryan Gosling, Rachel McAdams, James Garner, and Gena Rowlands. More recently, the Swedish film version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo turned out much better than the book–again because of Noomi Rapace’s performance as Lisbeth Salander, but also because it streamlined the story, removing several unnecessary and detrimental subplots. And as the best example—the highest achievement in film from the lowest goopy depths of “literature”—I’ll nominate Clint Eastwood’s 1995 The Bridges of Madison County with Meryl Streep—a truly moving, beautiful and well-crafted film from possibly one of the worst, most poorly written bestsellers of our time.
Tomorrow’s topic: All this talk about performances (and Meryl Streep) has me thinking maybe tomorrow we’ll talk about casting and how the right star can make an adaptation work (or totally sink it).
Posted on July 28, 2010 at 2:12 pm
what? no Jurassic Park?? Granted the book was a lot better, but it’s still one of the most successful scifi adaptations ever. I haven’t seen most of the attempts, but I’m assuming that it’s also the best Crichton adaptation to date, sadly enough. Timeline probably represents the most immense gap in enjoyment between film and book for me, though I have a feeling that it might be topped if I ever check out any of the older Crichton-book movies. Sometimes I think directors get their hands on bestseller material and think the movie will just direct itself, or maybe they merely assume that basing a movie on a book makes their job easier somehow, or perhaps some studios just grab whatever established IP they can find and spit it back out as cheaply as possible to make a few bucks from the fanbase. Nah, that wouldn’t happen in this country.
Anyway his legacy deserves another good movie at least.
Posted on July 28, 2010 at 2:16 pm
I think that a book CAN be better than a movie, but the only instances I’ve ever thought that is when I fell in love with the movie FIRST, so I don’t know if I could like a book and then like the movie better. I’d have to think about that.
So for example — loved Beaches. Saw the movie, then read the book, which was quite different in tone and didn’t like it.
Saw Wicked on stage, loved it. Read Gregory Maguire’s book which is one of those “based on” that makes you wonder “Based on what? her name Elphaba?” Liked the stage version much much better.
Actually, maybe Diary of Bridget Jones. I did like the book, and then I liked the movie, but it’s the movie that I love, and I’ve sort of forgotten the book.
Posted on July 28, 2010 at 3:06 pm
I have so many things to say in answer to your questions but for now i’ll throw in my 2cents and say that hands down The Shawshank Redemption movie is by far better than the novella written by Stephen King. And i’m a huge King fan.
oh yeah, I kinda take offense of you saying The Notebook (written version) is cliche and dopey. does your dislike of the rom-com bleed over into romantic novels as well? you are entitled to your position but if it was doomed from the start, well….. :)
Posted on July 28, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Ok, my 2 cents,LOL
I do think that The Notebook was a better movie than the book. Not saying I disliked the book, but the movie was better.
I do prefer movies that pretty much stick to the book, especially childrens movies (Because of Winn-Dixie and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Pride and Predjudice)
Then there are the movies that totally shred the book, and you wonder WTH the director and producers were thinking? (i.e. My Sisters Keeper)
I do however enjoy the updated versions of Shakespear, like She’s the Man, 10 Things I Hate About You. They take the general idea and fit it to the generation.
Posted on July 28, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Jennifer, I’m with you on Wicked – book was NOTHING like the musical. Wouldn’t it be cool if they turned the musical into a movie? Oh wait, they did; and that movie was based on a book!
Posted on July 28, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Millar knows me too well by now. It’s true, I’m biased against “romantic goop” be it on the page or the screen. Unless there are sharks, dinosaurs, or zombies trying to eat the lovers…
Michelle, as a film goer I do like the “modernized” Shakespeare tales you mentioned, but of course as a lit major I still love the Bard’s actual WORDS, so while I don’t mind modernizing the plays at all (I think Lurhman’s R&J is terrific), I do still like to hear the language.
And yeah, I’ve steered away from play adaptations this week just because it opens up even MORE topics of discussion — other than Jaws, my favorite film of all time is The Lion in Winter. Maybe we’ll do a Plays Week in the future!
Matphoto, I’d say Jurassic Park is a push when it comes to book vs. film, but yes clearly SEEING those dinosaurs come alive is a thrill. As for Crichton’s other works on screen, Andromeda Strain and Westworld were beloved film freak-you-outs from my childhood (as was Coma), and in my opinion, Disclosure was okay, while Congo, Sphere, and Timeline were varying degrees of film disasters. The best by FAR was 13th Warrior from Eaters of the Dead–a truly FANTASTIC Crichton film that never got its due in the theaters.
Posted on July 29, 2010 at 10:43 am
Fight Club.
Posted on July 29, 2010 at 4:02 pm
In Film and Theatre (1936), Renaissance scholar and theatre historian Allardyce Nicoll1 reflects on how film fails to achieve its full potential when it simply copies from literature. Nicolls believed that, in regards to adaptation, in order for film to reach its potential, it should “adapt” literature into a new medium, which given its
definition means “to make suitable for a new use or purpose.”
Given the decades of discourse on the subject, I would hope that people would stop comparing adaptations to their source material, but rather look at it as a different version of the story. Bummer!
I also thought “Where The Wild Things Are” was AMAZING!
Posted on July 29, 2010 at 5:50 pm
The Michael Crichton “movie adaptation” theme is one I particularly enjoy, having read all of his books. And while I liked the Jurassic Park movie (the book I just love!!!), what comes to mind the most was the huge disappointment of watching Congo in theaters! That was so disastrous that I refrained from watching the adaptations at all. I might have to check now the one for Eaters of the Dead.
And a shout out for The Bridges of Madison County! That’s one of my favorite movies of all time, thank God I read the book after watching the film.
Posted on July 30, 2010 at 12:57 pm
I remember seeing parts of 13th Warrior and being unimpressed, but I may have to check it out again and watch it from start to finish.
As for Jurassic Park, lets just say that was like my Jaws.
Posted on August 3, 2010 at 10:44 am
You talked about the changes made to turn JAWS from a good book into a great movie — that sense of what works in film vs. literature.
Some writers and directors never get it: as a Steven King fan I’ve often been struck by the differences between the great adaptations like Frank Darabont’s (Shawshank Redemption) and Rob Reiner’s (Stand By Me) vs. Mick Garris’ TV and film adaptations — Garris seems to be King’s preferred collaborator and is *slavish* in his adaptations, but I find them unwatchable – basically acted-out versions of a book-on-tape.
In other cases the film and the book are so far removed that comparison doesn’t make much sense. I’d put Apocalypse Now (Heart of Darkness) in this category.
The ones in the middle are also interesting. Both Forrest Gump and The Natural come to mind. In each case the films are much more sentimental and fantastical than the sources, making heroes out of anti-heroes. On one hand a closer reading of the plot and tone of the books might have made *interesting* films, but it’s hard to imagine them being *better* than what got made.
Posted on August 3, 2010 at 11:46 am
Aww JGM, I’ve always kinda had a soft spot for Garris–not so much because he’s a great director (he ain’t), but just because he seems like one of those good horror-geek guys who just loves the genre and keeps plugging away at it. But yes, King loves directors who try to put every one of his precious words on the screen, rather than make a FILM that works. All us writers are like that — we love anyone who loves our words, lol.
(In a related subject a college friend of mine’s vampire book got a huge bump this year because King loved it and has praised it repeatedly in print. I’m reading it now and it’s EASY to see why King loved it–my pal, Justin Cronin, clearly loves King’s horror style and “pays homage” to many of King’s stylistic tricks and tone in The Passage–it’s flattering to King to see his stuff echoed back at him, so of course he loved The Passage and praised it. If I were a cynical man I’d suggest Justin might have KNOWN that and somewhat tailored his writing accordingly… But regardless, The Passage is a lot of fun and very well written… and being made into a movie by Ridley Scott’s production company)
What I love about Apocalypse Now as an “adaptation” is that it really is VERY faithful to Conrad — a LOT of the stuff in Apocalypse IS directly from Heart of Darkness (right down to having the boat captain killed by a spear). And of course Coppola is using Conrad’s novella to get at some of the same larger issues about colonialism (in Southeast Asia) as Conrad was making about colonialism (in the Belgium Congo).
Posted on August 3, 2010 at 2:50 pm
I may owe Mick Garris a bit of an apology, as I recently came across The Langoliers on cable and was sure it was one of his. Now *there* is a rotten adaptation. But, checking IMDB, it turns out to have been directed by one Tom Holland (himself a bit player in several Garris adaptations; this seems to be a pretty closed fraternity).
I’m sure I’m still bitter about how boring Garris’ The Stand was. Several name directors, including George Romero, were supposed to have approached King on this, so how it wound up being done by a guy whose biggest credit prior to that was an episode of “Amazing Stories” is beyond me.
This has happened enough with King adaptations for me to surmise that it is as much King’s fault as anything else. Perhaps after Kubrick he didn’t want any director with a personal style to touch one of his books.
Posted on August 3, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Didn’t Holland do Child’s Play and the original Fright Night? Those are both pretty great, fun little horror flicks! (Not to be confused with the great British ACTOR Tom Holland, who’s the British Naval villain in POTC and is terrific in so many other recent films, including the brilliant In the Loop)
So now you owe Holland an apology, too, JGM! lol
But that’s the thing especially with horror directors — they often make a couple of fun, cool flicks early on, and then they seem to get put out to pasture into TV movies and shows. Even the GREAT Peter Medak who directed some really good films (The Changeling, The Ruling Class, The Krays, Let Him Have It) ended up on Species II and from there into the bowels of made-for-TV directing.
I honestly wonder if it’s because too often Hollywood sees horror as a “teen genre” and feels they have to keep bringing in young blood directors to keep it “fresh and cool for the kids”, so the old pros get put out to pasture…
Posted on August 11, 2010 at 6:53 am
Just saw Jaws again. Have not seen it in 30 years. Did not think I would enjoy it. I did. Go figure.