The "Tom Cruise is Your Friend" Method

Etymology and Definition: By far the most common of the adaptation methods, the "Tom Cruise is Your Friend" Method gets its name from a summer school class I had. In seventh grade I took part in the Duke Talent Identification Program, which was essentially geek camp. I took a class on "Film Analysis and Critique" and one of the units was entitled "Tom Cruise is Your Friend". It was, essentially, a unit on how Hollywood likes to pander to the lowest common denominator. Our example films were the Spanish psychothriller "Abres Los Ojos" and its American remake, starring Tom Cruise, "Vanilla Sky". The remake was a dumbed down version of the original. It involved more obvious foreshadowing, heavy-handed attempts to make the unlikable main character likable, and more action...because that's what Hollywood thinks Americans want. Similarly, this method of book-to-film adaptation involves drastic changes to the source material in order to tailor it to a specific audience.

Chance of Making an Entertaining/Successful Film: 80%
Chance of Pleasing the Readers: 20%
Overall Chance of Success: 60%


When and How to Use This Method: This method is best used with a book that already has a potential to be cinematic, but relies heavily on internal dialogue to make the plot work. Internal dialogue very rarely fits seamlessly in a film, usually feeling forced or boring as the voice-overs extend beyond what is usually acceptable. Replacing internal motivations with external may irritate readers, but honestly it's better than making a boring film. Another instance in which this method is viable is when the book is too graphic (sex or violence) for the intended audience. If adding everything from the book is going to really make audiences upset, or earn you an NC-17 rating, you are left with two options: Make it an Indy film that's critically adored but is unlikely to make money, or tone it down to "acceptable standards" and actually get a return on your investment. Either path is acceptable really.

The wrong thing to do is take a perfectly good book, and try to adapt it for a completely different audience than the book was intended for. I can only liken this attempt, made far far too often, to trying to shove a round peg through a square hole. This is taking a dark satire and making it a lighthearted comedy. It's grating and stupid and is a disservice both to the readers, who will be aware of how cheated they are, and the viewers, who may be blissfully unaware.

The Method Done Right: "The Princess Bride", by William Goldman, is a very good book. It has a classic fairy-tale style to it, shot through with surprising humor that adds just the right amount of spice. The opening chapter, talking about the most beautiful women in the world and how they lost their beauty, is an absolute gem: tongue in cheek hilarity. The film is a classic. When comparing the two, the plot remains largely unchanged, the characters the same in their essentials, and most importantly the style intact. The elements cut from the book, while excellent in the literary context, would not have transitioned to screen well. Mostly, they consist of plays on words, or literary humor, or internal dialogue or backstory. These were largely replaced by the framework of the grandfather and grandson, which is in the book's intro but not throughout the story as in the film. It adds the same charm and humor, but in a much more cinematic way. More action was added as well, which keeps the movie visually flowing. All-in-all it is the perfect method to emulate. However, the movie does have a distinct advantage to other adaptations: the screenplay is written by the same man who wrote the book, who was an experienced screenplay writer as well as novelist. The lesson? If a novelist is in any way capable of writing a viable screenplay, and capable of accepting that his original work might need to be changed, then he should be allowed to do the writing.

The Method Done Wrong: "The Time Traveller's Wife" was a beautiful, compelling novel by Audrey Niffenegger. The characters were complex, never completely good or bad. Their relationship is not a perfect example of love. The implied fatalism in "we will get married because we already are married" (don't you love time travel?) creates an uncertainty in the relationship that makes Henry and Claire's love that much more poignant. The book made you think, and the complexity of both plot and narrative were highly fulfilling. When Hollywood got ahold of it, they made a movie for Nicholas Sparks fans. Which would be fine if it was a Nicholas Sparks novel. Moviegoers unaware of the book would be, I'm sure, perfectly satisfied by the cliched romantic drama with Male Romantic Lead With Crippling Disease (TM) and Female Romantic Lead Whose Enduring Love Can See Past These Problems (TM). However, the overall theme of the novel, the complete joy reading it causes, and the new perspectives one could gain from it were all stripped away. Essentially, they took a great novel and made a very mediocre movie, indistinguishable from its peers. It's almost heartbreaking. To add insult to injury, it wasn't even that good of a shallow romantic drama. The innovation of the Time Travel Disease concept was completely sapped of its creativity, making it seem pedestrian. How you can make such a bizarre idea pedestrian is completely beyond me. The real crime of it is that people seeing the movie who have not read the book will not know what they have missed. At least readers go to the movies expecting disappointment. If a movie-goer is disappointed, where is the motivation to read the book? They will be deprived of a truly great experience all because of a mediocre adaptation.