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.
Showing posts with label methods. Show all posts
Showing posts with label methods. Show all posts
Friday, 28 January 2011
Tuesday, 25 January 2011
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.
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.
Monday, 24 January 2011
Rabid Lit Major - Now a Major Motion Picture!
This week at RLM, I thought I would indulge in something every book lover enjoys intensely...complaining about film adaptations of books.
Don't deny it: You have, at some point in your life, enjoyed the smug sensation of sneering at a movie because "the book was so much better.
As I have mentioned before, I love movies. Even terrible ones. Due to this love I have adapted my sensibilities until I am able to enjoy film adaptations even when they are obviously inferior. Recently, however, I have become enthralled with a television series that I simply can not claim is inferior to its source material. I have to, of course, give credit where it's due and praise the book as the original...and as a classic. However, the television series stands on its own as a highly satisfying and entertaining series that I can not claim is in any way "less" than the book's capacity for satisfaction and entertainment.
This inability to firmly assert the superiority of the books has led me to question: is there a right way and a wrong way to adapt literature into visual media?
After some soul searching...and wracking my brain for countless examples of "good" and "bad" adaptations...I have come to the conclusion that there are four methods one can employ when making a film or television adaptation. If used in the right circumstances, each can turn out a truly excellent adaptation which absorbs the audience without alienating the readers. However, of the four, one method has a much higher capacity for failure while another has a much higher chance of success.
Over the course of the next week, I intend to devote a day to each of my four methods. They will have the following layout.
"Quirky title naming the method."
Explanation of title with definition.
Estimated chance of successful film.
Best circumstances in which to use this method.
Review of "good" adaptation using this method, and why it works.
Review of "bad" adaptation using this method, and why it doesn't work.
Further examples of my twisted sense of humor, with a pithy end comment.
Hollywood, take note. I'm going to give you a fool-proof guide to making blockbuster hits.
As an attempt to make up for this sad introduction that stands in lieu of a proper, insightful post, I invite you all to leave a comment telling me what you consider the best and worst book-to-film adaptations.
I will likely bring these up again in my later posts, but will let you know that I consider "The Shawshank Redemption" to be the best adaptation. "The Time Traveller's Wife" and "The Golden Compass" are tied for worst.
What do you think?
Don't deny it: You have, at some point in your life, enjoyed the smug sensation of sneering at a movie because "the book was so much better.
As I have mentioned before, I love movies. Even terrible ones. Due to this love I have adapted my sensibilities until I am able to enjoy film adaptations even when they are obviously inferior. Recently, however, I have become enthralled with a television series that I simply can not claim is inferior to its source material. I have to, of course, give credit where it's due and praise the book as the original...and as a classic. However, the television series stands on its own as a highly satisfying and entertaining series that I can not claim is in any way "less" than the book's capacity for satisfaction and entertainment.
This inability to firmly assert the superiority of the books has led me to question: is there a right way and a wrong way to adapt literature into visual media?
After some soul searching...and wracking my brain for countless examples of "good" and "bad" adaptations...I have come to the conclusion that there are four methods one can employ when making a film or television adaptation. If used in the right circumstances, each can turn out a truly excellent adaptation which absorbs the audience without alienating the readers. However, of the four, one method has a much higher capacity for failure while another has a much higher chance of success.
Over the course of the next week, I intend to devote a day to each of my four methods. They will have the following layout.
"Quirky title naming the method."
Explanation of title with definition.
Estimated chance of successful film.
Best circumstances in which to use this method.
Review of "good" adaptation using this method, and why it works.
Review of "bad" adaptation using this method, and why it doesn't work.
Further examples of my twisted sense of humor, with a pithy end comment.
Hollywood, take note. I'm going to give you a fool-proof guide to making blockbuster hits.
As an attempt to make up for this sad introduction that stands in lieu of a proper, insightful post, I invite you all to leave a comment telling me what you consider the best and worst book-to-film adaptations.
I will likely bring these up again in my later posts, but will let you know that I consider "The Shawshank Redemption" to be the best adaptation. "The Time Traveller's Wife" and "The Golden Compass" are tied for worst.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)