Book-to-Film Adaptations

by Joe

When you're making a book-to-movie adaptation there is a blessing and a curse. First, you'll get a fan base without really doing a whole lot. These are people who loved the book so much that they'll be chomping hard at the bit just to get a peek. But on the other hand, you've got this mass group of lit fans ready to tear your movie apart because you changed the main character's hat from red to blue. They will pick the entire flick apart detail by detail until there is just a shitty stump of a corpse left.

The most important thing to keep in mind when making a book-to-film adaptation is that they are two different mediums. Certain tricks and subplots that work wonderfully in the printed word will not translate to the screen. This sounds overly simple, but it seems like filmmakers ruin plenty of potentially good movies by trying to please everyone.

Secondly—and there are exceptions to every rule (Steve Martin, in this case)—but the author of the novel should not be the one to pen the screenplay. They are generally too close to the story, character, plot, etc. to kill their darlings. A side note: there is a reason the best adaptations come from short stories. Novels have way too much material to turn into a concise two hour movie. When the author and screenwriter are the same person you'll get a movie like Freedomland. Or, as I like to call it, Scrotumy-shit-pile-of-jizz. It isn't often that I hate a movie as much as I hated that one. Imagine James Franco embodied a movie, and then maybe you can see my level of distaste. The movie meanders scene to scene, not fully developing or understanding any of the plots it has built. So by the end of the flick we're left with a big stringy mess. So yeah, thanks Faulkner for the advice, kill your darlings.

Breaking it all down to the simplest advice: do what works for the movie.

I have a list down at the bottom, but first I wanted to throw a few titles out that are not on the list and why. The reason you won't be seeing a lot of good movies on my list is likely because I haven't read the book. That is why I left Lord of the Rings, Jaws, The Help, Jurassic Park and The Hunger Games off the list. The titles could go on and on, but I'm a pretty slow reader and I don't see much point in reading the book after I saw the movie. This has worked out for me in the past. The Beach is one of my favorite books and it is vastly different than the movie, and I wouldn't have known that if I had stuck to my rule. But again, there is an exception to every rule.

There won't be any comic book movies on here. I didn't even consider The Avengers, The Dark Knight trilogy, any of the Marvel movies. These aren't true book-to-film adaptations. They're taking characters and themes and creating new stories. It's the same way that sequels are adaptations. Nolan did pull from different specific graphic novels for his Batman movies, but that's still not good enough. The one that I almost added to my list was Watchmen. Since the novel is a stand alone story they weren't able to take the characters and just put them in a new situation. The reason I didn't put it on here is because it was almost too easy to make a good adaptation. I mean, you've got the entire thing storyboarded already.

Now for the list, in no order:

-1408 (2007, Mikael Hafstrom)

If you've ever read the Stephen story you'll know that it is bland compared to the movie. They took the idea of a man with little faith in the afterlife, then added on the death of a daughter. The filmmakers gave Mike Enslin (John Cusack) a reason to continue his search for the unknown. Building on the skeleton of a story that King provided we are delivered with a touching movie fueled by the love and loss of a father.

-In the Bedroom (2001, Todd Field)

For those that have read Andre Dubas' “Killings,” you know that it isn't really the money-making narrative that studios seem to be known for. It is filled with uncomfortable interactions between a young man's parents and his older girlfriend. She has kids and they don't think that their son should be allowing himself to be tied down with the relationship. But then her violent ex comes back into the picture and the story spirals down into despair and death. The thing about the movie is they didn't change anything substantial. What I just described was exactly how it goes down in the movie. Tom Wilkinson owns this movie (along with getting an Oscar nomination) as the father. Todd Field took the tone and voice of the short story and translated the equivalent to film.

-Fight Club (1999, David Fincher)

This is one of the movies that I watched before I read the book. When I first watched it I was too young to understand what was happening. I was one of the people who bought into the “fast-paced action movie” promotion. Thankfully I went back to it when I was older and was able to enjoy the movie for what it was. The movie was so good that I never felt the need to read the book. Instead, I read all of Chuck Palahniuk's books first, never thinking of buying Fight Club. Then finally someone shoved the novel in my hands and told me to give it back when I was done. I read the book in three days. And I skimmed it. This was a moment when I enjoyed what I was reading, but I had a hard time making my way through it because all I could envision was the world David Fincher had already given. My imagination couldn't create a more suitable image for me to watch while I read. So in the end, I felt like I could have just gone and watched the movie again. I wish I could go back in time and read that book before I watched the movie because it's not often you get to watch a movie from one of your favorite books and think, “Shit yeah. They nailed it.”

-Harry Potter (2001-2011, Christoper Columbus, Alfonso Cuaron, Mike Newell, David Yates)

This is a sprawling epic story. The characters grow with the audience and get darker as they go. Say what you will about Chris Columbus' first two, but they did what they needed to. They got the world excited about a series of children books. And they showed everyone that these were possible to translate to another medium. Cuaron brought the series into a more serious filmmaker forum with the third movie, showing the darker themes and characteristics present. Newell did a similar trick as Cuaron with a larger story. Then the no-name Yates came in and made the last four movies. He was able to combine everything that was great about the first four movies and show us his talent with the darkest and most emotionally draining entries. Getting all the movies completed and in sync was a joy to watch and will forever be deemed as one of the best adaptations to ever take place.

-The Graduate (1967, Mike Nichols)

I'm going to say it: this book kind of sucks. Charles Webb wrote a smutty book about a recent graduate who fucks his soon-to-be girlfriend's mom. There isn't anything really interesting in the book that would set it apart from any other piece of fiction. I'd be confident in saying that no one would remember this thing if Mike Nichols didn't cement the story in the history of cinema. He took a lackluster storyline and made a game-changer of a movie. Dustin Hoffman appears in one of his first movies and soars as Ben Braddock. He doesn't really know what he wants to do in life, finding something that will pass the time before learning his lesson. You see a complete transformation of character while he starts out static and moves to be passionate about something. A reason to life, so to say. They didn't change anything from the book, merely made it worthwhile and better.