Recently I heard someone mention a quote from the film theorist Bela Balazs, saying that "one may perhaps make a good film out of a bad novel, but never out of a good one." The idea that really good books have some sort of hard-to-catch something that makes them a little extra stubborn when it comes time to move into another form appealed to me, even though it is far too absolute of a statement to really feel true. I was thinking about it, though, and I wondered how much truth there is in that line of thinking. I can't count the number of times I have heard someone say that "the book is better than the movie". After all, there really are very few movie or stage adaptations that I prefer to the original work, when I have been exposed to both (although Wicked is now on that list).
So, what do you think? Do good books make the transition into a different medium with more difficulty? What are some instances where you have preferred an adaptation to the original and vice versa? Is that preference based on how “good” the source material was to begin with, or does it have more to do with how much you personally care for the source work?
14 comments:
Good books leaving an impression on the reader, the audience connects and becomes emotionally attached to the plot. I can't tell you how many times I've read an amazing book and built up such amazing imagery in my head only to be completely let down by the transition of the book into a movie. Great books have a lasting impression and they raise people's expectations of the movie. When you take a bad book and make a film I'm simply happy that some life and hollywood had been added to the plot to make it bearable. Yet, with great books people aren't just satisfied with the well-known actors and frills... we want to grasp the deeper message whatever it is that we connected to in the plot, the overall message the author is trying to make.
I read the Notebook my senior year of high school and then shortly after that I watched the movie... and it is by far my favorite movie of all time putting the book in my opinion to shame. The movie had all the elements that I needed.... amazing actors, a lively plot, and the emotions and heartache that I felt while reading the book. The scenes were beautiful and the overall message was a classic. I felt the film was put together carefully and with much thought. It's this care and precision that turns a great book into a classic film.
There have been several instances when I have not been happy with movies that are based on books. Really good authors have this amazing way of making the reader escape into this fantasy world with the characters from the story. Usually these really good novels explain everything in extreme detail consuming the reader for days, depending on how fast of a reader you are, because (somebody already mentioned this) books are limitless. A movie, on the other hand, can only last up to a couple of hours. When the film of a good novel is viewed by someone who has already read the book, it gets critiqued. The reader is expecting things to occur just like they did in the novel, but sometimes they don't and it's disappointing for them. Then the movie just goes downhill from there. I, honestly, didn't think wicked was a great novel and preferred the musical, but whenever I read a novel and believe it is just magnificently wonderful, it's hard for me to enjoy the film once it has been modified.
In response to the last question, I think it's a combination of both, how good the source material is and how much you personally appreciate it. People appreciate great works a lot more than terrible ones, which makes it easy for directors to make bad novels into good films.
I think part of the issue in translating a book into a different medium, such as a movie, is that books are more flexible in the information they can reveal. Meaning... In a book, the author can put the reader inside a characters head with things like "he/she thinks" so the reader gets a more intimate point of view and relation to the characters. I feel like it's more difficult to create this relation between an on-screen character and the audience. The option of putting in "thought lines" that reveal internal thinking for movie characters is either cheesy, or a negative/cumbersome element. In order to create the same rounded, relatable characters on screen, screenwriters and directors seem to usually choose to reveal character traits through other characters or in changing the plot lines to include scenes that will demonstrate particular qualities.
I do think preference is based on how "good" someone thinks the source material is, and I think that ties in with how much someone personally cares for the work. My example is Eragon; the characters, politics, social interactions/structures among other things are carefully written in the book. Eragon's personal conflicts aren't always revealed through actions; he does a lot of internal revelation. The movie however seems to dismiss all of the complexities of the book in favor of a more stale, strictly good versus evil plot. In my opinion, there is simply too much going on in the book to capture it decently in a movie.
A good book is something that you can't always necessarily turn into a good movie. Some books just have so many aspects that it would be very difficult to capture the various aspects on film. I think how good book from a movie turns out, has a lot to do with who makes the movie and how well they capture the essence of the book. Once you read a great book and then find out that it is going to become a movie your expectations are very high, because the book was so good. but in many cases that doesn't always turn out to be true. It is hard to capture words on film so I think that it can be difficult to capture a good book into a movie.
In most cases I usually prefer the original, but in the case of wicked I really did not like the book at all and I adore the musical. Another case where I preferred the adaption over the original comes from my childhood. When I was younger I used to watch a lot of disney movies, my cousins favorite movie was cinderella and we would always watch it. I hated the story of cinderella and had no appreciation for it until I saw a different version that was not a cartoon and had one of my favorite singers in it.
Its hard to get everything from a book on film but when you get close or make something that is just as good it can be a very amazing piece of work.
I honestly cannot think of a single movie that I prefer to it's written-word counterpart. More often than not one of two things will happen for me: I'll enjoy the movie then refuse to read the book so that my view of the movie doesn't become tainted, or read the book, fall in love with it then either refuse to watch the movie or hate the movie for the qualities that are missing. Some books however, like Memoirs of a Geisha, I couldn't get through, so when the movie came out I preferred the movie adaption to the book, because it was easier to understand what was really going on.
Regardless, I think making movies out of books is a risky business because, as others have said, books can take you places that movies just can't. For instance, my favorite book, Winter of Fire by Sheryl Jordan, is not the best book in the world. It's not the most beautifully written, and doesn't have the most exciting plot line, but my attachment to it has nothing to do with the book itself, but rather the main character Elsha of the Quelled. I came upon this book in 7th grade, and although the reading comprehension level is far below my abilities, I still read it at least once a year. I have developed a kind of bond with this fictional character because I Identify with her on a basic and personal level. I would be appalled if I heard they were to make a film of it. Even if the film ended up being wonderful, nothing could replace that emotional attachment I have with the book. There is just something different about reading and imagining things from a book than being shown someone else's ideas up on the big screen. I think it has everything to do with how much we love or hate the original work.
I think that this is largely a question of personal preference. Some people, like Lyndsey said, are usually more attached to the book experience, but I have many friends who don't enjoy reading and much prefer movies. Some of us just bond with the material more if it is presented in a visual medium like a movie.
Some of my best friends in high school were severely dyslexic and really struggled with reading. Now I have many Deaf friends who told me that they have a hard time creating imagery in their heads when they read. Interestingly, one of my friends told me that he would always watch the movie first so that he could use the pictures while he tried to decipher the words on the page.
I agree with what Ife said, that good books don't always translate into good movies, particularly books with a lot of internal character monologue (Dune comes to mind.)I also think that people sometimes have an emotional attachment to their original experience of the work, whatever form it was in. I think many people have a nostalgic connection to the Disney movies, and don't always like the real versions of the stories, because people remember loving the movies as children. Some of those experiences are really hard to shake when we get older.
OK, I may offend somebody, but here goes: I think "Twilight" is an example of making a good movie out of a not-so-good book. I read part of the first "Twilight" book, but I didn't finish it because I got bored. When I watched the first movie, though, I was reasonably entertained; they took all of the main plot points and condensed it into a well-made film.
But I don't want to just leave it at "I didn't like Twilight, so there's an example of a bad-book-to-good-movie." I think the reason I didn't like "Twilight" was because I didn't feel like the text engaged me; it wasn't imaginative, it didn't create vivid, interesting, images in my mind; the language itself felt a little flat and cliche, which made me not want to read it.
A really good book, in my opinion, accomplishes the opposite: innovative, interesting language and imagery, depth of character and plot, and verisimilitude that makes me actually relate to and care about the story and characters. I agree with Rachelle in that a book allows more room for development and imagination that a film/play/musical/etc. We had seven books to get to know Harry Potter, to become endeared to Ron and Hermione, and to struggle with whether we loved or hated Snape. Now, the fact that they're making an entire series of films to match the HP books helps, but they still can't cover everything. Books are perhaps one of the least-limited mediums.
I am interested in exploring the medium of the play, however; that is, a work like "The Crucible", which is a written work intended to be transformed into a different medium (the stage). Are films more versatile than stage plays? Maybe. But the book (written text of a play) is not really complete until it has been performed, and that performance is therefore a collaboration of playwright, performers, director, scenographer, etc. I guess my point is, the play seems to be the exception to this rule - that stories can only be so-so when translated from text to another medium - because the play's entire purpose lies in live performance.
I think that good books allow the reader to delve into the minds and motivations of characters in a way that no play or movie ever could. The great thing about good writing is that you get to make the story your own in a way; you get to read what is happening from within someone else's mind, and perhaps even imagine it to be your own. You get to escape into a world where your problems have disapeared and you perhaps are even able to find solutions to your own issues using the strengths of those characters that you have come to love as much as you love yourself. And you can even hate characters as much as you hate a shitty ex-boyfriend! (excuse my language). My point is that within books, you can create your own world, and that is something that musicals, movies, and plays don't allow. In those mediums, these characters have faces, and the lines have specific intonations, and the set has vivid 2 dementional characterisctics. There is no room for imagination within those mediums, and those pictures don't allow for the characterisations that authors can provide.
Books are good for different reasons. Some books have engaging characters. Others have great intriguing plots(with the appropriate twists). Other books are made great purely by the quality of the words and just the way it is written. Since a book can be good for so many different reasons, it's hard to make a rule about whether or not a good book will make a good or bad movie. If the plot is the driving force behind a particular book, that book may make a better play or movie because the basic structure, which was what appealed to you in the first place, can remain intact.
Determining whether something is "good" or "bad" is all a matter of personal opinion. It is also a personal choice as to whether you will read a book, see a play, or watch a movie.
I think with things that you enjoy (be it whichever medium), you now have very high expectations for it. It is on a pedestal in your mind and you don't want anything to taint it. I have found this true for the Nicholas Sparks books that have been adapted into movies, specifically The Notebook and A Walk to Remember. I enjoyed these movies SO much that I can't bring myself to read the books . I'm afraid that the books, that I've heard only good things about. I don't want the books to put the movies to shame because I already love the movies so much.
An example (besides Wicked) of which I liked the adaptation better than the novel was The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Specifically the battle scene. I felt like C.S. Lewis allowed TOO much room to imagine what the battle was like. Whereas with the movie, it was very drawn out and elaborate. C.S. Lewis definitely was able to create a beautiful world with his words, making his story "good" in my mind, but I thought that the movie was "good" as well. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
I think that it depends on the person viewing and reading. For instance, a lot of people read the Twilight series and thought it was a "good book." However, I read them and thought that it is the worst book I have ever read...so it depends on the person.
BUT I believe that good books for certain people are ruined by movies because they have had such high expectations for the film. Once they see the film and a minor part is left out or skewed, they will be disappointed because they have been so immersed into the original book. So yes, I do think that the better the book, the harder it is to make a good adaptation only because of the preferences of the reader. The film maker must be very careful not to "ruin" the experience that the reader has had with such a good book. I think that it has to do with how much the person actually cares for the source work. It doesn't really matter how good the source was to begin with, it matters how good the adapter can make it in the new version.
You all have such great comments! I can totally agree with many of your points. I agree with Aubrey that sometimes the imagery you create in your head for a book causes you to be disappointed with the imagery that is created in another version. There is no limit to the scope of a castle that you create in your mind, but any visual representation is limited.
Like Perla, I agree that it the difference between a "good" and "bad" translation is both in the actual quality of the original and the interpretation and in the opinion of the viewer. For instance, I have a sister that could never get through the Lord of the Rings series, but she loved the movies. It was not that either material was better than the other, just that she was able to appreciate one more easily than the other. On the other hand, one of my favorite movies of all time, is The Inheritance which is loosely based off of Louisa May Alcott's first novel. The quality of the book and the quality of the movie are both excellent, so I can easily appreciate both, despite their significant differences.
In regard to a book "spoiling" a movie for me, I attempt to watch the movie version first as I am then able to enjoy the characters and imagery of the movie; then I read the book which most times gives me a depth of understanding that I didn't gain from merely watching the movie. This process allows me to enjoy both mediums and it also gives me a much better perspective on the overall quality of the individual works. If the movie doesn't make sense or I don't enjoy it then it wasn't a "good" movie, if the book doesn't add to my enjoyment of the characters or is overly tedious then I probably wouldn't have enjoyed it much if I had read it first. It has worked with many adaptions, most notibly the Lord of the Rings series, Harry Potter series, the Inheritance, Pride and Prejudice, Little Women, and Emma. So far so good. :)
Whether you're able to enjoy the movie adaptation of a book you really enjoyed or vise versa, is all about your state of mind. It's true, sometimes movies or books are just bad, no matter how open to the interpretation you are, but what Priscilla was saying about the two possibly complementing each other is an interesting idea. That is exactly what Wicked attempted to do. It built on already established, well known characters. Maguire didn't change the final character of the wicked witch, as she was almost as mean and wicked in the end of the book as we had all witnessed her being in the wizard of oz. He just gave her a name and showed us the path which lead to that particularly wicked personality. In this way, I think a lot of these different adaptations having to do with Oz complement and build on each other.
I think that any translation has the potential to be good. It’s not that just because the original was phenomenal that the translation is destined to fail. With that said, I believe that it’s more of an expectation to be better than the original that sometimes gets people. Adaptations have more pressure to be better in that they are recreating someone else’s idea. If the adaptation is exactly the same as the original in quality, sometimes one must ask, “Was it worth it?” The only instance that I can think of that I’ve liked the adaptation more than the original would be Wicked. The novel was completely not what I expected, and I will admit, there was huge bias and expectations for the original to be better. In saying that the adaptation was terrific, there is a counteracting expectation that the original should be too. I believe that an adaptation can make a not-so-good original fantastic as well. I agree with Lyndsey in that our relationship or lack there of with the original shapes our experience with the original.
Post a Comment