Comments on: The age old debate on adaptation

By: Wanda B. Ontheshelves

Wanda B. Ontheshelves — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:28:03 +0000

Re: "I would have to say that if a writer is 'literary' then a book translated to the screen will be poorer for the inability to adequately convey the language and style to the screen."

But it could also be true, depending on the filmmaker, that the "unadaptable" literary work will spark something inside them, some inner obsession perhaps they've had since childhood, some "vibe" they've never been able to capture with a camera, and they'll end up creating an emotionally engaging film based on (however loosely) that novel. An alchemical process between novelist and filmmaker.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:40:56 +0000

Cormac McCarthy's All The Pretty Horses, as an example,is not all that great a story. It is the writing that elevates it to art. The movie, stripped necessarily to just the story, not so much. I would have to say that if a writer is 'literary' then a book translated to the screen will be poorer for the inability to adequately convey the language and style to the screen. If it is good story, then chances are much better that it can make a good transition to the screen. An example of a book written by a journeyman writer that had a good story been when brought to the screen became art is The Godfather. The book is fine as a crime story. But Coppola took it and made it something special.

By: JasonF

JasonF — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:43:01 +0000

A perfect example of what The Daring Novelist said: The Princess Bride. Both the book and the film are excellent, though the movie is significantly different from the movie in parts. That doesn't lessen the effect of the movie at all, but the adaptation absolutely works. Of course, Goldman did the screenplay for his own book, so maybe that had some influence…

By: The Daring Novelist

The Daring Novelist — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 05:55:42 +0000

A movie is a blend of structure and visceral moment. Some books will adapt better than others - they'll already have the right structure, and lend themselves to those moments of drama that don't need words other than dialog.

But in the end, a movie is never really a version of a book. It's a whole new thing inspired by a book. Sometimes the best "adaptations" are almost nothing like the book.

By: Redleg

Redleg — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 04:40:42 +0000

It's a spectrum. The Shawshank Redemption was infinitely better as a film than a novella. Apt Pupil (from the very same Stephen King collection) was a terrible film. There's nothing inherently good or bad about adaptation, but just like original screenplays, some movies are good and some movies suck.