Comments on: Between the Novel and the Script

By: Lee

Lee — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:24:59 +0000

I often find that short stories work better as film adaptations, witness Brokeback Mountain. There is something in their compression that lends themselves, potentially, to a screen version. And since my daughter has been filming one of my own short stories, I’ve had an eye-opening view into the process – the ways in which directors think differently to writers (sound design is something I never much noticed beforehand), but also the ways in which a writer can learn from film: POV, how and when to cut, types of dramaturgical tension etc.)

By: Andy Shelden

Andy Shelden — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:10:32 +0000

I agree about “Garp,” Waldo. Horrible casting.

The most obvious examples of good movies that deviate considerably from the books are when the filmmakers take the plot structure and apply it to a different time/space/setting. The two that immediately leap to my mind are “Apocalypse Now” (from “Heart of Darkness”) and the Coen brothers’ “O, Brother Where art thou?” (very loosely based on The Odyssey), both excellent.

I can also think of a few good film adaptations that are faithful to their source material but then swerve considerably at the end to arrive at that timeless Hollywood staple: the happy ending. “The Natural” (from Bernard Malamud) is a good example.

By: Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:43:55 +0000

I loved “The World According to Garp,” and blithely rented the movie just a few months after reading the book. What a train wreck that was.

What about movies that were excellent despite deviating considerably from the book? I’m not much of a film buff, so I can’t summon any instances of this, but surely there are cases of this.

By: Andy Shelden

Andy Shelden — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:20:46 +0000

“What’s the difference between adaptations that work and those that make us shudder [...]? The devil is in the details.”

I think this is exactly right. It’s why film adaptations always have the possibility of thrilling or disappointing. Sometimes the movies get those details just right (or enough of them right to overlook a few minor problems), and yet other times those details are translated poorly, inaccurately or omitted entirely.

Looking at my own bookshelf, I see a lot of positive examples: “To Kill a Mockingbird,” “High Fideltiy,” “The Maltese Falcon,” and most recently, “Atonement,” to name a few. Is there a unifying theme among them? I don’t think so. “The Maltese Falcon” owes a lot to the performances of Bogart, Lorre & Greenstreet, but just as much to John Huston’s noir filmmaking. “To Kill a Mockingbird” is such a good book for so many reasons, but I think Gregory Peck’s performance in the movie stands so far above everything else that the film is an equal success.

The lesser adaptations I think do have a unifying theme: they lack some crucial component of the original source material. Examples from my shelf include: “The Virgin Suicides,” “The Remains of the Day,” and “Catch-22,” and let’s never mention Robert Redford’s adaptation of “The Great Gatsby.”

But I don’t think you can ever hazard a guess as to what’s going to succeed and what’s going to fail in advance. I know I’m pretty terrified about what “The Road” is going to look like when it’s released later this month. But you never know, it might surprise us all.