Etymology and Definition: If yesterday's method was the best possible method, today's is the worst. It has an overwhelming failure rate. Essentially, this method is what happens when the person in charge of the script is such a big fan of the original work that he or she is completely incapable of changing anything and therefore crams every scrap of plot from the books into the film. It is absolutely, 100% a bad idea.
Chance of Making an Entertaining/Successful Film: .5% (grudging admiration for special effects)
Chance of Pleasing the Readers: .5% (grudging admiration for being true to the book)
Overall Chance of Success: 0.001% (Virtually guaranteed tank)
When and How to Use This Method: Don't. It is the worst possible thing you can do when making a film adaptation. Why? Simply put, it saps the life out of the work. When you concentrate on making everything in the film exactly like in the book, you forget to add the stuff that makes a movie a good movie. Books and movies are different. What works to convey a message in literature does not necessarily work in a film. For one thing, when you have the benefit of the narrator telling you the background information, the action takes on a whole new meaning. Like the difference between the word "fan" and the word "fanatic"...the connotation is key. For another, sometimes what seems perfectly flowing in a story does not flow well in a film. I know it seems weird for an avid reader to hate a film adaptation method in which the writers are doggedly obsessed with recreating the book perfectly, but it's really just a bad idea. If the writer had meant for their work to be a film as is, they'd have written a screenplay and not a novel...Hell, they'd at least have written a play. Being 100% true to a book in film is the best way to make the book seem awful. This method honestly just calls to mind the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
The Method Done Right: As stated, there is pretty much no way to make a good film in this fashion. Instead, I will give you two examples of films that came close to screwing up, but made minor changes (thereby using the "mutual respect" model) that saved them and made them good, rather than terrible, films. First, the animated short film of "How the Grinch Stole Christmas". It's literally just a reading of the story, accompanied by animation that is based on the original illustrations. Why does it escape this death trap? The songs. They add the fun and whimsy that keeps the film from being a sad excuse not to read to your children. Second, "Sin City", which I am told is almost frame-by-frame perfect. Why does this escape this trap then? Because it's not the same thing. "Sin City" is a comic book series, (or a graphic novel, if you're reading a collected edition). I only put it here to make a point.I am emphatically not one of those people who think comics don't count as literature. They are an excellent literary media and anyone who says differently has obviously never actually read one. I will probably do a piece on it in a couple weeks. However, it does not apply in this discussion because comic books are already a visual media as well as a literary one. They work in film because they are roughly equivalent to a storyboard for a film.
The Method Done Wrong: So many options to choose from here. If "Avatar" had been a book instead of a tv show, I would say that "The Last Airbender" would have been a good candidate for this spot. However, the winner for absolute worst adaptation that was completely true to the book has to be "The Golden Compass". Now, the movie would never have been hugely successful, even if it had been great. The book is super-controversial...I have a theory that Philip Pullman likes to tick people off as much as possible. However, that's just the problem: the film really didn't feel controversial. It followed the plot so minutely that it was almost impossible to pick up the anti-Christianity subtext of the book. Essentially, it was so literal that it missed out on the figurative. It sapped out all of the character of the books. It's a perfect illustration of why this method can not work. The film took a brilliant book (for all of the controversy, you have to admire the book. It's brilliantly written and a great read on any level...even if you ignore the subtext and take it as a basic fantasy) and destroyed it. It had a rockstar cast - Nicole Kidman, Ian McKellen and Daniel Craig to name a few. It followed the book to the letter. The visual effects were top notch and kind of entrancing...after all, the book is set in a kind of mildly steampunk London...with airships and everything. Yet, in spite of fabulous acting, loyal writing with a great source, and stunning visuals...the movie was simply boring.
The Tolkien fans who complain about the Lord of the Rings films should keep this in mind next time they whine about the absence of Tom Bombadil.
No comments:
Post a Comment