I recently put up a piece over at Aleteia on some books that are going to become movies soon. I’m particularly intrigued by the effort to put Dante to the screen. It might be amazing or it might be a huge, glorious disaster. Either way, it’ll be fun to find out. I’m most excited, though, for that Catch-22 mini-series. Catch-22, in my opinion, is somehow an underrated novel. I know we’re all familiar with it and it does tend to be in the canon of high school lit, so in that sense, sure, it’s rated pretty highly, but as far as high school lit goes, it rises above many of the other options. For instance, it ages far better than Catcher in the Rye. Catch-22 manages to be both laugh-out-loud hilarious and intensely, seriously dark. If a film can capture both the hilarity and the pathos of Heller’s genius, it’ll be a show well worth watching.
There’s always some trepidation when a book is turned into a movie because there’s a good chance the movie will ruin it. That puts all us readers in an awkward position because we have to be the truth-speaking snobs and speak truth to power, like, “It wasn’t as good as the book.” and, “For the love of God can we stop with all the Little Women adaptations already because Winona Ryder already embodied the perfect Jo and at this point it’s overkill.” And then there is the inevitable Anne With An E situation in which the resulting interpretation of the novel is so messed up you seriously consider canceling your Netflix account as a protest and the only reason you don’t is because they just debuted Orson Welles’ final, insane movie that you want to see really bad.
Sometimes, book-to-film works very well:
Doctor Zhivago – glorious pacing and cinematography
The Leopard – everything about this film is perfection
The 39 Steps – Hitchcock can do no wrong
Apocalypse Now – A good example of breathing new life into a classic
Clueless – I’m not ashamed to admit that this adaptation of Emma is flawless
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory – Gene Wilder version, obviously
Sometimes it doesn’t:
The Remains of the Day – It tries so hard but really struggles with the subtlety and control of the novel. The ending in particular is not quite right.
Lord of the Rings – all the CG and attempts at expressing the huge imagination of Tolkien fall short. The length of the battle scenes is really tedious.
Dune – Multiple attempts are all bad but fascinating, especially David Lynch’s
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory – Johnny Depp version
What do you think? Should film-makers leave well enough alone, or is there a legitimate contribution that film can make in bringing the written word to life?
I would love to see more novels done not as 2-3 hour films but as multi-season, high quality TV shows. The Man in the High Castle is a good current example (thought it greatly departs from the book). I think the immersive nature of most novels is better represented by the format. Few people read a novel in one sitting, just like a long-form TV show.
I’m more of an optimist about Jackson’s LOTR, but it’s certainly flawed, and comes up short in a many ways. Personally, I’d love to see an eventual animated TV adaptation spanning a few seasons and including Tom Bombadil, Scouring of the Shire, and a interpretation that is more faithful to the underlying philosophy of that was so peculiar to Tolkien.
To your question: I had forgotten that The Godfather was originally a book (which I have not read). Seems like that alone makes the case that books can be adapted into great films. But I believe it’s crucial that the production team work to respect the source material and the intent of the author. Though maybe even that’s not always necessary? After all, Kubrick’s The Shining is revered by everyone…except Stephen King.
Or The Princess Bride! The film is so different from Goldman’s book, but I’ll take the film over the book any day.
Yes, agreed on Godfather and Princess Bride. Both are better than the source material
Films that far surpass the novels they were based on: The Wizard of Oz and Forrest Gump.
Agree on Gump, but not on Oz. An adult reader wouldn’t understand, maybe, but nothing is like the experience of a nine-year-old encountering that book.
I read it at about that age. I don’t know why, but I didn’t care for it at all.
Different circumstances probably the reason. It was the fifties, we were extremely poor (read hungry), and every day after lunch (subsidized), fourth grade teacher Mrs. Mullins read that aloud to us.
The list of great book to film adaptations should have also included Alfred Hitchcock’s Rebecca. Buy you already mentioned Hitchcock can do no wrong so maybe that would have been redundant.
Oops. Should say “but,” not “buy.”
I so agree with you, Michael. But, frankly, the idea of Dante in film makes me shudder. Not even intense curiosity can console. Also agree with all your judgments–particularly LOTR. The one thing about the films I believe Tolkien would have been happy about is the score. Howard Shore got it, though Peter Jackson remained clueless. LOTR is really grand mythology, not a comic book.
What interests me is the whole re-make phenomenon. Why? Can’t a good thing be left alone to be a good thing? Or is originality a casualty of our age? The same is true in fiction–seems every new writer now is a “re-make”. Just how many Flannery O’Conner’s can we handle? Or–equally ubiquitous, Marquez–just everywhere. That is likely the fault of publishers, though. Most new writers just want to get published and are perhaps willing to don an O’Conner wig or a Marquez mustache if it gets them in print.
I say yes in all ways, Lots of bad books have been turned into good movies, legendarily The Lady From Shanghai. directed by Orson Welles. My own favorite example being Straw Dogs directed by Sam Peckinpah, who called the book it came from (The Siege of Trenchers Farm by ?) something like “Trash with one good action scene.” He turned it into a searing look at a mismatched marriage breaking up while turning a good action scene into a great one.
As for great books, made into good movies, fewer by far. My favorite being The Name of the Rose, a medieval murder mystery starring Sean Connery. Fine film which sent me to the book which is so much better. In fact the film itself, in the titles, says straight out that it can’t begin to reach any more than a few of the novel’s thematic delights. That sent me to a dictionary for the word palempsest and thence to Umberto Eco and his wonderful book.
My opinion is that the Harry Potter movies are able to stay faithful to the essence of the books despite the exclusion of scenes for the sake of the Unity of Time. I think that a movie that sticks to the essence of the book but, yet, may have changes of its own invention is a good ideal to strive for in movie-making. The LOTR’s are a failure in this sense because they sacrifice large parts of the essence of the books for the sake of action and appealing to a primary American audience.
It might take a whole ‘nother article to explain how “Clueless” is a “flawless” adaptation of “Emma.” You actually do need to be ashamed to hold that opinion. You can’t genuinely love the character of Emma and consider the vulgar-mouthed, materialistic Cher any kind of adaptation, or even an accurate parody, of her.
What makes you think that Miss Austen wants you to “genuinely love” Emma, rather than just genuinely enjoy her as a character while also thinking about what she is doing and the damage she wreaks?
Emma and I happen to be dating, that’s why. We’re in a transfictional relationship and I do genuinely love her, without the quotation marks. That libelous burlesque by Alicia Silverstone is a continuing source of pain for both of us. For one thing, Emma would never say “pubes.” She has far loftier putdowns. She wouldn’t smoke pot, wear revealing outfits, or answers phones at the table. Your love for Emma, or lack of, is immaterial. Reverend Rennier’s mistake in Emma’s regard is the regretful misfortune.
I remain unashamed and unchastened. Perhaps I need to take this up with my spiritual director.
Rumor has it that a Clueless remake is in the works. I’m sure we can unite in hating it.