Books into film
(Cross-posted from Poe's Deadly Daughters)
“It’s being made into a movie.”
Words to strike terror into the heart of a devoted reader. Even worse: “It’s being filmed for television.”
Sometimes it’s done right. The movie of Mystic River is almost as good as Dennis Lehane’s novel. The first Godfather film is better than the book. Showtime did a credible job of bringing Darkly Dreaming Dexter to television, and I liked it despite some changes.
More often, films and TV shows based on novels disappoint me. I watch out of morbid curiosity, to see what has been done to a favorite book, and when I discover that a ravening pack of filmmakers has torn the story apart, chucked indispensable scenes out the window, added new stuff that doesn’t fit, and slapped it together in a barely recognizable form, I am not happy. Few films or TV shows adapted from books are that bad, though. Most lie inert on the screen not because of major changes but because the books’ essential energy and passion failed to make the trip from page to screen. Snow Falling on Cedars is a good example. The French version of Ruth Rendell’s The Bridesmaid is another. The movie Children of Men has plenty of energy – it’s a big, noisy science fiction action film. But it’s not the heartbreaking, thought-provoking story P.D. James wrote.
A travesty of casting can blight my image of a character. I no longer see Tommy Lynley as Elizabeth George writes him – blond, with aristocratic features. Instead, I see the dark-haired, ordinary-looking actor who plays him on TV. (My enjoyment of the novels isn’t helped, either, by the decision to take the TV series in a different direction, eliminating some major characters and allowing one who has died in the series to continue living onscreen.) I once pictured P.D. James’s Dalgliesh as brooding and darkly handsome – a Timothy Dalton type. Now that I’ve seen him played on TV by two different actors, I no longer have a firm image of Dalgliesh.
At the moment, I’m apprehensive about the upcoming film of Lehane’s Gone, Baby, Gone, starring (gulp) Casey Affleck as Patrick. Let us pray.
Despite the pitfalls, many writers yearn to see their books become movies or TV shows. Why? The sale means more money, of course, and perhaps the sheer glamour of it is seductive. A writer’s work is lonely and decidedly lacking in razzle-dazzle. The very word “movie” conjures images of hanging out with stars, maybe copping a cameo for yourself. Beyond that, the prospect of seeing your characters and stories come to life onscreen is undeniably enticing. How will you feel, though, if you hate the result?
Sara Paretsky says she went through “all the stages of grief” after seeing the film V.I. Warshawski, starring Kathleen Turner. The movie is a mess and was universally panned. But what, exactly, is Ms. Paretsky mourning? What does a novelist lose when her work is mangled in translation to the screen? Nothing, at least not directly. Her work remains where it belongs, between covers, and a third-rate film will not alter a single word she wrote. Some readers, however, could lose a mental image of the characters and a degree of pleasure in the book. When that happens, the writer has indeed lost something valuable.
Okay, your turn. Which movies or TV shows based on books have you loved or hated? Did they change your perceptions of the characters? If you’re a writer, do you want to see your work filmed?
“It’s being made into a movie.”
Words to strike terror into the heart of a devoted reader. Even worse: “It’s being filmed for television.”
Sometimes it’s done right. The movie of Mystic River is almost as good as Dennis Lehane’s novel. The first Godfather film is better than the book. Showtime did a credible job of bringing Darkly Dreaming Dexter to television, and I liked it despite some changes.
More often, films and TV shows based on novels disappoint me. I watch out of morbid curiosity, to see what has been done to a favorite book, and when I discover that a ravening pack of filmmakers has torn the story apart, chucked indispensable scenes out the window, added new stuff that doesn’t fit, and slapped it together in a barely recognizable form, I am not happy. Few films or TV shows adapted from books are that bad, though. Most lie inert on the screen not because of major changes but because the books’ essential energy and passion failed to make the trip from page to screen. Snow Falling on Cedars is a good example. The French version of Ruth Rendell’s The Bridesmaid is another. The movie Children of Men has plenty of energy – it’s a big, noisy science fiction action film. But it’s not the heartbreaking, thought-provoking story P.D. James wrote.
A travesty of casting can blight my image of a character. I no longer see Tommy Lynley as Elizabeth George writes him – blond, with aristocratic features. Instead, I see the dark-haired, ordinary-looking actor who plays him on TV. (My enjoyment of the novels isn’t helped, either, by the decision to take the TV series in a different direction, eliminating some major characters and allowing one who has died in the series to continue living onscreen.) I once pictured P.D. James’s Dalgliesh as brooding and darkly handsome – a Timothy Dalton type. Now that I’ve seen him played on TV by two different actors, I no longer have a firm image of Dalgliesh.
At the moment, I’m apprehensive about the upcoming film of Lehane’s Gone, Baby, Gone, starring (gulp) Casey Affleck as Patrick. Let us pray.
Despite the pitfalls, many writers yearn to see their books become movies or TV shows. Why? The sale means more money, of course, and perhaps the sheer glamour of it is seductive. A writer’s work is lonely and decidedly lacking in razzle-dazzle. The very word “movie” conjures images of hanging out with stars, maybe copping a cameo for yourself. Beyond that, the prospect of seeing your characters and stories come to life onscreen is undeniably enticing. How will you feel, though, if you hate the result?
Sara Paretsky says she went through “all the stages of grief” after seeing the film V.I. Warshawski, starring Kathleen Turner. The movie is a mess and was universally panned. But what, exactly, is Ms. Paretsky mourning? What does a novelist lose when her work is mangled in translation to the screen? Nothing, at least not directly. Her work remains where it belongs, between covers, and a third-rate film will not alter a single word she wrote. Some readers, however, could lose a mental image of the characters and a degree of pleasure in the book. When that happens, the writer has indeed lost something valuable.
Okay, your turn. Which movies or TV shows based on books have you loved or hated? Did they change your perceptions of the characters? If you’re a writer, do you want to see your work filmed?
Views: 9
Comment
-
Comment by Sandra Parshall on April 20, 2007 at 2:50pm
-
Greene's attitude is the best way for any writer to stay sane if Hollywood "ruins" his or her story. I doubt that I will ever have this problem, but if someone did want to make a film of something I'd written, I would take the money and try to forget about it. A book is a book and a movie is a movie, and movie based on a book will often have little in common with the source material. I think I could detach myself if it were my own book. But I really am annoyed when a great book is turned into a mediocre movie, because it seems such a waste of wonderful material.
-
Comment by Paul Guyot on April 20, 2007 at 10:52am
-
I don't see how or why an actor from a filmed book would ever, or could ever change my personal image of the character I read. Media doesn't have that type of stranglehold on me. If you truly love those books and characters, why let some second rate actor in a second rate production mess with it?
Or even a good production. When I think of Jimmy Markum or Dave Boyle, I don't see Penn and Robbins. Because I loved the book long before the movie came along, and had my own image of the characters. I still do.
I hope GBG is a great film. I'm hearing really good things. But whether it's good or horrible, my Kenzie and Gennaro are safe - locked away in my reader's mind.
And to ask "why" writers yearn to see their books made into film... uh, yeah, it's money. Huge money. Not just movie money, but the sales after, and if the movie is even the tiniest success, the deals that follow are well beyond what the writer would have had without said movie. To not want your work made by Hollywood is pretty silly - doesn't everyone want to make as good a living as possible from writing?
This is where everyone brings up Crais... well, if a writer has Crais type of money in the bank, which very few do, then it's much easier to say no, isn't it? And any writer who whines about their stories or characters being destroyed by Hollywood should check the bank accounts - I'm pretty sure the checks weren't returned. I know Crais and Paretsky cashed their checks.
My favortie quote of all-time about this books-being-ruined-by-Hollywood bunk is Graham Greene's. When asked how he felt about what Hollywood had done to his novels, he turned to his bookshelf and said, "They haven't do anything to my novels. See? They're all right there."
-
Comment by LaTanya Pattillo on April 19, 2007 at 11:48am
-
Sandra-This is a very timely article for me. I am working on my debut novel and it was originally intended to be a screenplay. The story has evolved so I know that this one wouldn't translate well into a movie, and I wouldn't want it to be a movie at this point. I think that if I want to write something that will translate well in film or television, I'll just go ahead write the screenplay or script. Just my 2cents.
Welcome to
CrimeSpace
© 2024 Created by Daniel Hatadi.
Powered by
You need to be a member of CrimeSpace to add comments!