The "Cup of Sugar" Method

Etymology and Definition: This method is like asking your neighbor for a cup of sugar to bake a cake. You have all of the other ingredients ready, you just need that basic element to make it work. Similarly, this method involves taking only the barest essentials of the film from the book and making the rest up. Usually, this means using the characters and the basic premise and making up a plot.

Chance of Making an Entertaining/Successful Film: 65%
Chance of Pleasing the Readers: 10% (the remainder is 50% confusion, 40% anger)
Overall Chance of Success: 50%

When and How to Use This Method: This method is most successfully used with television programming and when adapting children's books. If the source material does not have enough plot to fill the allotted time, whether it is a novel that needs to span a 13 episode season or a 500 word picture book into a full length film, (For reference, Dr. Seuss's ABC Book is 441 words...including all of the letters being repeated - e.g. "a b c d e f g, goat girl googoo goggles g g g".) it is pretty much necessary to make up a plot that will fill the space. Sometimes, like with the "Tom Cruise" method, the story simply doesn't translate to the action of the big screen and needs to be spiced up in order to keep interest. In these cases though, it's because a huge amount of the book is non-cinematic, rather than just a portion. In these cases, one has to wonder why Hollywood even wants to make a film out of the book. Usually it is because there is a really cool concept they want to use, but the rest is unusable. This is fine, really...the only problem is that it's going to confuse the hell out of the people who read the book first, or who read it after. My only caveat as far as this use of the method is concerned is that the movie is at least entertaining. If you're going to butcher a book, at least make a phoenix of a film rise from its smoldering ashes.

The Method Done Right: This method, I'm warning you now, is going to have more examples than the others, simply because it is such a bizarre method. Therefore, I have two examples of this method done right, and two of the method done oddly in place of showing the method gone wrong. This is because the films are usually so far removed from the books that it's hard to say whether they are truly terrible or not. Just baffling. The first that did this method right is "Shrek". Yes, Shrek is based off of a children's book...a quirky little rhymed picture book by William Steig. It is about a green ogre named Shrek who is told by a witch that he will find a wife even uglier than himself. In his quest to find this wife (who is an ogress princess) he must get past a talking donkey and a short knight. These are the ONLY similarities between book and film. However, the book is adorable and the film is extremely fun and entertaining, so points must be awarded to Dreamworks for a creative, if loose, use of literature. (My theory as to why they even made it a movie is that somebody's daughter liked the book and asked Daddy or Mommy to make a movie for her.)

My second example of the method done right is the television show "Dexter", based off the novel "Darkly Dreaming Dexter" by Jeff Lindsay. The first season of the show loosely follows the first book, while adding some side elements, and is more of an example of the "Tom Cruise" method. Subsequent seasons, however, simply use the premise of a vigilante sociopathic killer, the basics of the characters, and the setting rather than use the plot of the sequel novels. The first season does, however, completely change the ending and all seasons completely ignore the supernatural element of the books. However, they made an extremely good show by taking the amazingly original tone of the books and using it to its full advantage. The key to doing this method right is focusing on making a good product while trying to keep the spirit, if not the word, of the literature intact.

The Method Done Oddly: The key to doing the story oddly, but not failing, is making a good movie but completely ignoring both word and spirit of the original source. This creates the movies that completely baffle readers and make them ask why they even bothered basing the film off the book when they simply could have renamed the characters, tweaked the plot, and taken full credit with none-the-wiser. Perfect examples of this are "Ella Enchanted" and "The Princess Diaries". The Gail Carson Levine novel "Ella Enchanted" is a fantastic book which would, admittedly, make for a boring film since there is very little external action: the main conflict is within the character. However, I'm not sure it was necessary to take a fairly serious children's story and turn it into a madcap, bizarre musical comedy and invent a villainous role for Cary Elwes. I can't object to Cary Elwes being added to a film though, so I can forgive that choice. Ella Enchanted, as a film, can be forgiven for good song choices and for being entertaining...but I still hope someone somewhere decides to make a film that is actually honest to the book.

I knew they were going to really butcher "The Princess Diaries" when they cast Julie Andrews as Grandmere. In the book, that character is a chain-smoking, sidecar drinking horror of a woman with tattooed eyebrows and the personality of a cantankerous poodle. Other bizarre changes include, but are not limited to: 1. Killing off the dad when in the books he was simply made sterile because of testicular cancer (probably because Disney won't touch the word testicles). 2. Giving Lily Mia's vegetarianism, activism etc. 3. Randomly changing the setting from New York to San Francisco 4. Removing Tina Hakim Baba and replacing violinist Boris with some random magician guy... The list really goes on and on. The only things that remain the same are most of the main characters' names and the fact that Mia finds out suddenly that she is the Princess of Genovia. That's it. The movie is cute enough, however, and it is redeemed by the fact that Meg Cabot wrote the movies into the books, having Mia comment on how the movies based on her life are completely non-factual and ridiculous...which makes them part of the book cannon and therefore legitimate.

Side note: Technically, this method also covers film parodies of books. However, parodies are another breed altogether. There is no rule for when it is appropriate or inappropriate to parody something. When making a parody, you simply use your judgment to decide if you're going to go too far and offend people and are responsible for making a good movie. When you enter the realm of parody, you lose the obligation to be true to the source material and are only required to make it recognizable enough that people get that it's a parody. It should be noted that a parody doesn't have to make fun of something in much the same way that a poem doesn't have to rhyme. Great examples of film book parodies are "Clueless" (a parody of "Emma" by Jane Austen) and "O Brother Where Art Thou?" (a parody of Homer's "The Odyssey")

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?