Here's a brief piece on what Peter Jackson changed when translating Tolkein's books to the big screen.
Not to take away from the accomplishment of the film. It's actually a very interesting question: what works on film, as opposed to on the printed page? What can you NOT convey? And why?
When I have seen movies made of books that I LOVED (Possession is one example) I hover covetously over the printed version, which is so dear to me. Do not mess with a book I love. Do not do it.
My feelings about some books are so strong that if movies WERE made of these books, I would not go to see them. (Catcher in the Rye. I also will never see Catch 22. Why bother? Just read the book.)
But then - sometimes - a filmmaker comes along - who GETS the book - who gets it in perhaps a deeper way than the readers ... who can illuminate the themes of the book in a cinematic, as opposed to a literary, way. Who can capture the SPIRIT of the book - which, after all, is the most precious thing.
The "Anne of Green Gables" series, with Colleen Dewhurst, is a great example. Those books are not just loved. Those books are CHERISHED. People LOVE those books. In the same fanatical way that others love Tolkein. (Right, Ann? Member you and me in the car? "I know his dog's name is Carlo.")
But that series was absolutely wonderful. Even huge LM Montgomery gans approved.
I admit, I didn't like the changes they made in the later episodes - They clearly took events from LM Montgomery's other books, and put them into the "Anne" story. Anne becoming a published novelist, for example. Anne Shirley never published a novel. That was Emily Starr's job, in the "Emily" series.
But anyway.
These are nitpicking points from a huge fan. I felt those filmmakers captured the SPIRIT of those magical books. They did not betray the spirit, the intent, the characters. (Although Marilla Cuthbert is repeatedly referred to as "thin", and Colleen Dewhurst, bless her soul, was anything but "thin"!) However: Dewhurst inhabited the SPIRIT of the Marilla in the book - and for that, I loved her performance.
And one final thought: there are some movies made of novels which far surpass the emotional impact of the book.
Ordinary People is an awesome example. It's a good book, it's okay, nothing spectacular. But the MOVIE. It added things never written of in the book - it invented scenes - (like the painful scene where they try to take a family photograph - one of the best scenes in the film - it wasn't in the book AT ALL). Robert Redford took an okay book and made it into a powerhouse film.
Any thoughts about all of this?
Posted by sheilaI think the principle factor in successfully translating a book to film is that the producers and directors have to really *care* about the book and the story being told, and not just be in it to capitalize on the "name brand", so to speak. I think a lot of people get up in arms unnecessarily protesting a book being turned into a film. The worst that can happen is the movie sucks. That doesn't in any way diminish the book as a separate entity.
A lot of the Douglas Adams geeks were making a broo-ha-ha a while back when there was a buzz about making Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy into a movie. Again, if you get a team on board that loves the book and wants to remain true to the spirit of Adams' wonderful story, I think it could be great. There are also people that are positively militant about the idea of turning The Catcher in the Rye into a film (I can vaguely remember Winona Ryder making a comment about bombing the studio where it was being filmed if anyone tried). I don't think they're right to take it that far, but I just can't imagine how you would bring that story to the screen. So much of what makes it such a stunning book goes on in Holden Caufield's head, and you can't catch that on tape.
Posted by: Emily at December 19, 2003 02:34 PMSo true, Sheila, on the Anne of Green Gables books into movies. The first series was terrific, precisely because they spent HOURS covering so much from really just the first book (I think). But then they started creating amalgam characters in the second series, and that ruined it for me. I also thought Matthew was brilliant in the series.
And now it's driving me crazy. What is the name of the character whose dog is named Carlo? Is he ever named, or is he just called Little Fellow or something? Arrrggh. :-)
Posted by: Ann Marie at December 19, 2003 02:50 PMall right, ann, your insanity lives on.
Anne referred to him as "Little Fellow". But I think his name was actually Teddy. He lived with his pissed-off old dad in the middle of the woods, as I recall.
And he had a dog named Carlo.
But Teddy's journey can't hold a candle to Sophy Sinclair's.
Posted by: red at December 19, 2003 02:59 PMI would not fire-bomb a studio who dared to touch Catcher in the Rye. I just - at least with that book - I'm too attached to it and how it lives in my imagination - I prefer how I imagine it to any filmmakers' vision.
Possession surprised me. I loved the book - and they made some changes for the film - which they had to. The whole book is basically a detective story, 2 literary scholars uncovering a treasure-trove of letters between 2 Victorian poets ... hardly cinematic. but they did a very good job, i thought.
even though I would NEVER have cast Gwyneth (or, as you call her, Emily, Gwynnie) in the lead role. she did a good job, though, i have to admit, albeit grudgingly.
Posted by: red at December 19, 2003 03:04 PMI didn't read Possession, but I thought the film was positively horrid. I found it boring. I can see how a story like that might make for a good read, though. Your recommendation is enough for me to take the time to check it out.
Posted by: Emily at December 19, 2003 03:07 PMyeah, the book is made up almost entirely of letters. i loved it. very romantic and intellectual.
read a very funny review of the book - the reviewer said, "AS Byatt writes as though James Joyce never existed."
Very true. the structures of her novel are very 19th century.
Posted by: red at December 19, 2003 03:09 PMI honestly think you've touched on it. If the film makers really love the book, really care about trying to capture what makes the book special, the odds are much, much higher of it being good, even if they have to make changes.
Because changes will be inevitable.
Posted by: Dean Esmay at December 21, 2003 08:24 AM