Getting the Vibe of the Source Material
I think capturing the vibe of the source material might be the most important part of successfully transferring a book to the screen, at least from the perspective of someone who read the book in question before seeing the movie. In other words, it's okay to cut out some of the book or even to change elements of the book, as long as you are faithful to the essence of the story and the characters, and the overall feeling of the book.
Before seeing the first "Harry Potter" movie, I remember thinking that there was simply no way they could capture the magic of the books on screen - and I'm using the term "magic" here both literally and figuratively. Yet somehow, they did! Of course they had to cut out certain scenes from the books, especially as the books got longer and longer, simply because there wasn't enough time to show everything. But they distilled the plot perfectly. In addition, the movies really just capture the wonderful fantastic setting of Hogwarts so beautifully.
On the other hand, look at "The Golden Compass," another movie adaptation of a children's fantasy novel. The movie not only cut things from the book which made the movie make less sense and have less emotional impact, but it just completely failed to translate the magical, fantastical elements in an appealing way. Not surprisingly, the movie was an expensive flop and they never adapted the next two books in the series into movies.
Then let's consider the movie version of "The Girl on the Train." It changed the setting of the book from Great Britain to Westchester, which certainly is a big change (and meant no more cans of gin and tonic for the main character to drink on the train, a product they apparently sell in the UK!) But they totally kept the essence of the book, and at least in my opinion, this was the rare adaptation that actually was better than the book. (Or maybe already knowing some of the more absurd plot twists in the book, I was able to sit back and relax and enjoy the movie without thinking too hard about it.)
Casting
Assembling the right cast for an adaptation is definitely important too, both in casting actors who effectively portray the characters on the book, and of course in terms of acting ability as well!
Again, the "Harry Potter" movies have to be considered a gold standard here, especially considering that the most important roles required casting unknown child actors who then had to grow up over the course of filming the seven book series. Somehow, the kids they cast not only turned out to be skilled actors, but rang true with the images I had for the characters as I read the books, in fact so much that you can't even separate the literary characters from the actors who portrayed them. (This is one reason I usually like to read the book before I see the movie, so I can picture the characters myself!)
The "Hunger Games" movies were more mixed in casting the roles, in my opinion. Jennifer Lawrence was very much NOT what I pictured for Katniss Everdeen, but is a good enough actress that she overcame my initial skepticism of her in the role. On the other hand, for me, Josh Hutcherson was a total miscasting, far too short and with too squeaky of a voice to form the other point of a credible love triangle with Liam Hemsworth.
Appeal to Both Readers and Non-Readers
Of course, many many people go see movies who have never read the source material. Some, like my husband, are likely to pick up the book afterwards if they liked the movie. Some just are not big readers. But you will also have people going to see any movie adaptation who are super-fans of the source material. So you have to make sure you are pleasing both groups. And since you rarely can fit every plot point or character development moment from a book into the movie version, you also have to make sure your movie makes sense to people who didn't read the book.
One of the worst movie adaptations I've seen in the last few years is "The Fifth Wave." I loved the book, a crazy young adult science fiction post-apocalyptic novel about a near future Earth where humanity has largely decimated by alien attacks, though I didn't include it in my roundup of dystopian fiction because even though the first book made my top ten list, the two sequels were kind of lackluster. But the movie was a total mess. It was so choppy and so condensed from the book that it made no sense to me, and I had read and loved the book. I can't imagine that a non-reader could have followed the plot in the slightest. Pretty much all that was left was a romance plot that was all the more unbelievable in the movie because it wasn't developed properly.
On the other hand, "The Martian" was a movie adaptation that was faithful to the book and comprehensible and satisfying to both readers and non-readers alike. Part of it was great source material - "The Martian" not only was on my top 10 list a few years ago, but is a book that I'm pretty sure everyone I have recommended it to, whether a science fiction fan or not, has really enjoyed. But part of it is the movie just did a great job of building both the character of Mark Watney (credit to casting of Matt Damon here), and also the suspense. I actually ended up seeing this twice in the movie theater, because Dan and I saw it on our own but my daughter had also read the book and wanted to see the movie, so I ended up going again with her and my son who was too young to have read it. (Luckily there is less cursing in the movie than the book, which opens with a string of F-bombs.) Even having read the book and having just seen the movie, even on the second viewing I still was on the edge of my seat.
This post was not meant to be an exhaustive list of good and bad movie adaptations; I just listed movies that sprang to mind to illustrate the qualities I discussed. A few other movie adaptations I've enjoyed over the past few years include "Gone Girl," "Me Before You," "The Fault in Our Stars," "Room," and "The Help," to name a few. I don't have a long list of bad adaptations beyond the two I discussed above, because generally if I hear that the movie version of a book I enjoyed sucked, I don't go see it, for example last year's release of "The Circle." What are some movie adaptations you thought were particularly good or bad, and why?
No comments:
Post a Comment