Etymology and Definition: Pretty self explanatory. This method is used by actual fans of the work who want to do it justice in the theatre by creating a truly good film adaptation, based on a respect of the original work and the knowledge of what makes a good film in its own right.
Chance of Making an Entertaining/Successful Film: 99%
Chance of Pleasing the Readers: 89% (There will always be die-hard fans who won't be pleased no matter what you do. They honestly should know better than to go the movies by now.)
Overall Chance of Success: 80%
When and How to Use This Method: This one is very simple. You use this method when you, as a director, have read and enjoyed the book, honestly thought it would make a good movie with little embellishment, and you want to get the story out to a wider audience. There is one catch to this method: there is a prerequisite requirement in order to use it. You have to be capable of making an entertaining film, and know when compromise is necessary. There is usually too much stuff in a novel to use, and not all of the elements in a book are cinematic. No matter how much you love the novel, you can't cram every element in. If there are excellent moments that do not contribute to the overall plot, know that you can take them out so as not to confuse the audience who have not read the book. However, do not let that stop you from making a tiny little reference to that scene...be it as simple as a prop seen in the background. The readers will notice and appreciate such gestures. Also, feel free to change minor elements if the explanation is too complex to convey through images and minimal dialogue. Never ever have a character monologue to explain something, especially if it can be shown. Do your best to make the film as you imagined the story in your head as you read it. Above all, make sure that the feel of the book does not suffer. This method SHOULD NOT be used if the "Tom Cruise" method is honestly more appropriate. Do not strain to make a non-cinematic book into a film without embellishment. It will be boring.
The Method Done Right: "The Shawshank Redemption" is a masterpiece of a film. Traditionally, Stephen King novels translate to film very well. Even the kind of bad movies have their own entertainment value. It is very hard to screw up Stephen King. This is because his works are largely cinematic. There is a good balance between action and explanation, and his works evoke emotions that can be replicated by a well-executed soundtrack. Some of his novels, like "The Shining", require the "Tom Cruise" method because the object of fear is too abstract to truly work on film. (The villain is a hotel.) The movie version reflected that. The mini-series did not and was a little silly as a result. However, "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" from the collection of novellas "Different Seasons" is a perfect candidate for this method. The only significant change made from book to movie was that a couple secondary characters were either removed or consolidated. In the case of the Warden, in particular, this was an excellent move on the Director's part. In the book, the prison goes through several wardens while there is only one in the film. The book's version is more realistic...it's unlikely for a single warden to remain there for the entirety of Dufresne's time in Shawshank, especially as Dufresne's character is quite young at the time of his incarceration and the warden is not. However, by turning several wardens into one, the film creates a focus for the audience's hatred. Rather than the villain being the corruption of the prison system, the villain is a single corrupt character. It holds the same essential point, but by having a representational figure for the abstract concept it is easier for a film audience to focus. In all honesty, as brilliant as the novella is, this is one instance in which I enjoyed the film more than the book. As well as creating a better focus for our hatred, this film did one other thing that pushed the movie into absolute brilliance. Deborah Aquila, the casting director, should have been given an award for her work. Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman made that film absolutely, 100% genius. The casting of Freeman alone was beyond perfect...especially considering he was cast as a man who is called Red "probably because [he's] Irish." However, the woman's genius seems to be a hit-or-miss thing, as she was also responsible for the casting in "Twilight" and "Time Traveller's Wife".
The Method Done Wrong: I honestly can't think of an example of this...since this method requires respect for the original story as well as an ability to create a good film. Screwing up during an attempt at this method will either result in you actually using the "Tom Cruise" method or tomorrow's method. I will simply state that the easiest mistake you can make using this method is to forget that your audience may not have read the book. Have someone who hasn't read it go over the script before moving on to actual filming.
Sometimes this method can result in a film that even surpasses the book. A few years back, our book club re-read and re-watched To Kill a Mockingbird. All of us could see why both book and movie are in the pantheon of all time great novels/films. But some of us argued that the movie was just a shade more effective than the book at making the points that both author and all of those involved with the movie sought to get across. This may be because the movie-maker was so respectful of the book and then added a little more, which was excellent in its own right.
ReplyDeleteOk, not fair. That was a better summary of the method than my rambling one. *pouts*
ReplyDelete