2009 is the Year of the Book to Movie Adaptation.
Not only did bookish movies deliver a decisive spanking to original screenplays at the Academy Awards in January, but book to movie adaptations will rule the box office this entire year, from The Reader, Coraline, He's Just Not That Into You, and Watchmen, to the upcoming delights of New Moon, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, My Sister's Keeper, The Lovely Bones, and A Christmas Carol.
Some of these movies will be excellent; others will be only marginally more enjoyable than a water-boarding session -- which begs the question: what is it that separates a great book to movie adaptation from a torturous and embarrassingly bad one?
One thing is for certain: a good bookish movie is more than a sum of the total of the book's parts -- the Watchmen proved that beyond any doubt. Watchmen stayed true to the book's plot with slavish devotion, portrayed the characters with flawless accuracy, and even duplicated the look of the original illustrations. Yet, despite all of that, the magic Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons managed to work with pen and paper didn't translate to the big screen. It was a good movie, but it certainly wasn't great. (Take a look at the Book Examiner review of it here.)
Likewise, there are plenty of book to movie adaptations that are so unlike the original work they spring from, you'd think the book's loyal fans would be rioting in the streets. Yet somehow, these movies are good, even by book fiend standards. These movies -- Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility, Alfonso Cuaron's A Little Princess, Blake Edwards' Breakfast at Tiffany's, and Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, for example -- seem to slip into a parallel universe, as it were. Even though they feature sometimes outrageously different plots and characters from the books they are based on, because they are such damn good movies by themselves, bookish viewers seem content to let the book versions and the movie versions exist side by side, never to intersect.
Despite these anomalies, the unspoken wish of every book lover watching a bookish adaptation is to see one that simultaneously manages to be a great movie and remain true to the book.
But how is this achieved? This mystical combination is not the result of portraying the characters, plot, or setting with religious devotion. The key to a great book to movie adaptation lies in the film's success at concentrating and magnifying the feelings readers have when they read the book.
Making a bookish film is a lot like cooking a reduction sauce in the kitchen. For all of you clueless, five-thumbed cooks out there, a reduction sauce is made by cooking down a liquid, seasonings, and oil or butter (go for the butter; the taste is worth the clogged arteries) until the resulting sauce is thick and about half the quantity of what you started out with. I make one to go with steak from red wine, beef broth, rosemary, and butter, and when it has simmered down to a scant 1/2 cup, one taste and -- wow! -- the top of your head might blow off. It's thick, it's packed with flavor, and the taste of the red wine and beef is multiplied by about a thousand.
That is exactly what a good book to movie adaptation should do: boil the book down until the best parts are concentrated together in a way that muliplies what made the book great powerful and emotional enough to jump out from the screen and grab people who've never even thought of reading the book.
Here are five book to movie adaptations that fit the bill admirably....and five that failed miserably.
5 great book to movie adaptations
1. The Lord of the Rings trilogy: written by J.R.R. Tolkien, film version directed by Peter Jackson
Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy is the undisputed champion of successful book to movie adaptations. Notice what Mr. Jackson did in the film -- he didn't keep in every stray detail or chain himself to Mr. Tolkien's sometimes irritatingly disorganized writing style. He boiled the story down to its essence, put the movie's emotional impact squarely on the shoulders of the most important scenes, and made certain that any changes, additions, or alterations from the original story served only to contribute to the forward motion of the films. The result? A series of movies that -- dare I say it? -- are even better than the books.
2. Pride and Prejudice: written by Jane Austen, film version directed by Simon Langton
Speak to me not of Keira Knightly or half-budget Masterpiece Theater renditions: this 1995 serial version of Pride and Prejudice is the definitive movie adaptation, case closed. Sure, they had six hours to play with, but I can think of plenty of movies that six or twelve or twenty hours wouldn't have been sufficient enough to make them worth watching. Mr. Langton captured the true essence of Ms. Austen in this film.
3. The Milagro Beanfield War: written by John Nichols, film version directed by Robert Redford
The MIlagro Beanfield War is a very funny and complex story about the small New Mexican town of Milagro, a proposed multi-million dollar land development, and the inevitable clash between the two. Mr. Redford cut out the more serious and complicated parts of the novel and formed the main plot and the remaining humor into a movie that is an absolute joy to watch. The casting for this is probably the best I've ever seen in a bookish film. I drove people crazy the first I saw this because I kept shouting out in glee each time a new character came on screen: "That is EXACTLY how I imagined him!!!" "She looks DEAD ON like how she is described in the book!!" Most of Mr. Redford's films leave me contemplating suicide. This one is a gem.
4. Persuasion: written by Jane Austen, film version directed by Robert Michell
Persuasion is proof positive that a Jane Austen movie adaptation does not need to take six hours in order to: a) stay true to the plot and feel of the story, and b) be a high-quality film. Persuasion has a much more somber, serious feel than many of Ms. Austen's works, and this film version stays 100% true to that. It doesn't hurt that the two main actors, Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds, are experienced Royal Shakespeare Company actors and are outstandingly good.
5. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: written by J.K. Rowling, film version directed by Mike Newell
As a confirmed Potter-head, I attend Potter movies on opening night with high expectations. While The Goblet of Fire wasn't my favorite of the series (that honor goes to The Prisoner of Azkaban), I always felt it was the strongest one of the bunch, and I was seriously afraid that it would be slaughtered like The Prisoner of Azkaban version (see Five lousy book to movie adaptations, below). What a relief to see that Mr. Newell managed to capture the book's loss of innocence theme beautifully without wreaking havoc on the story.
Honorable mentions: Henry V (written by William Shakespeare, film version directed by Kenneth Branagh); Gigi (written by Colette, film version directed by Vincente Minelli); I, Claudius (written by Robert Graves, extremely long and ultimately unfinished film version directed by Herbert Wise).
.jpg)
5 lousy book to movie adaptations
1. Twilight: written by Stephenie Meyer, film version directed by Catherine Hardwicke
Let the hate mail begin -- I stand by my original opinion: while there were some occasional bright spots, the movie failed dismally to capture what everyone loved about Twilight to begin with; namely, the vicarious heart-poundingly strong re-living of a first serious crush through Bella's eyes. What seemed in the book sweet and somewhat wistful came across like a bad spoof on the screen. Twi-hards have been pretty divided over the movie: take a look at some of the arguments from Team Loved It and Team Disappointed in the Book Examiner Twilight movie debate.
2. The Joy Luck Club: written by Amy Tan, film version directed by Wayne Wang
I've never walked out of a movie in my life, but five minutes into The Joy Luck Club, I was seriously considering either leaving or swallowing my tongue. Mr. Wang took an emotional and well-written book and struck it deader than Peking duck with a lethal combination of a lousy screenplay, lousy acting, and lousy filming.
3. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: written by J.K. Rowling, film version directed by Alfonso Cuaron
I was so angry after watching this movie opening night that, if I could have doomed Mr. Cuaron to the Dementor's Kiss, I would have. If Mr. Cuaron had been content simply to slice and dice the plot, I suppose I could have dealt with that; however, his insistence on getting the feel of vital scenes completely wrong, misusing strong actors like Emma Thompson (Professor Trelawney), and leaving holes in the plot big enough for the Chudley Cannons to fly through, left me cold. If I had been confronted with a boggart at the time, I know exactly what it would have turned into: Mr. Cuaron directing The Goblet of Fire.
4. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: written by Douglas Adams, film version directed by Garth Jennings
For most Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy fans, watching this movie was not entirely unlike listening to a Vogon poetry reading. Plenty of people excuse this pathetic attempt at a film by saying that Mr. Adams' book was too complex and contained too much tongue-in-cheek humor to translate well to the screen. I say, if you leave out everything that made the story funny to begin with, introduce storylines and characters never dreamt of in the book, and only include the spoofiest, silliest bits, what the hell do you expect?
5. The Children of Men: written by P.D. James, film version directed by Alfonso Cuaron
It seems like I am deliberately thrashing on Mr. Cuaron in this "Lousy" section but I truly am not (for the record, I thought his version of A Little Princess was brilliant). However, he and I would get on a good deal better if he would only stop butchering great books with mediocre movie adaptations. In The Children of Men, Mr. Cuaron took a perfectly good, thought-provoking story and mangled it beyond recognition with the addition of snarks on the Iraq war, caged refugees, and an ending that probably made Ms. James wish for death. The combined efforts of Michael Caine and an outstanding Clive Owen weren't enough to drag it out of the mud.
(Dis)Honorable Mention: Dune (written by Frank Herbert, pathetic film version directed by David Lynch)
Did I leave your best -- or worst -- bookish film out? Let us know: leave a comment below or direct your thoughts to michellekerns@surewest.net.
Comments
The Age of Innocence is a great adaptation. I some issues with casting, but Daniel Day-Lewis (who also ranks at the top of the list of most attrative men in the history of the world)is the quintessential Newland. The flavor of each scene is perfect. Slumdog Millionaire falls into the category of great movies that were barely like the book.
Daniel Day-Lewis you say? Hmm... I'll have to cast my eye in his direction since my slots for the 7th through 10th most attractive man in the history of the world are still up for grabs.
I just finished listening to the audio book of Slumdog Millionaire -- OUTSTANDING! I haven't seen the movie yet since it is my iron-clad rule never to see a movie before reading the book. Of course that sometimes means I end up seeing the movie about two years after it is released.
You missed out Eragon. That was the most awful movie adaption I've ever seen.
I also enjoyed Andrew Adamson's take on Narnia, especially Prince Caspian: turning a skinny little book without much action into a brilliant movie deserves acknowledgement.
I would have to add to your list of best adaptations Monty Python's wonderful adaptation of The Bible, The Life of Brian.
Also, for the best adaptation list, John Grisham's A Time to Kill.
For the worst adaptation list: Bernard Malamud's The Natural, which was a great book and a great movie, but the movie was so different from the book; the movie removed/altered the biggest moments of the book.
Also, I read Q&A several years ago and was surprised how much of it was changed for Slumdog Millionaire. Both the book and movie are very good, but I think the movie is better.
Now I am intrigued...if Mr Clive Owen is 4th, then who are the top 3?
The dismal adaptation of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is even more baffling if one remembers that the book itself was an adaptation to a most wonderful BBC radio serial.
I agree 100% with both lists!!! especially with the lord of the rings trilogy, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Twilight, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and the The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
I'm a complete Potter-head and my opinion of the movies are exactly the same from the minute I left the cinema!!!
I LOVE U!!! u r the best!!! i love your articles!!! :D
I think the golden compass directed by Chris Weitz is a very good adaptation (I must say it is a bit more thrilling than the book), and the first movie of the Sisterhood of the traveling pants directed by Ken Kwapis is very good to (different from the book but it have the essence). And I agree with Eragon, that one HAVE to be in the worst list! and also Ella Enchanted directed by Tommy O'Haver!!! GOD is soooo different from the book and no feeling or essence there, the book is soooo good!!! awful...
One of the truly miserable adaptations of all time was Milos Forman's adaptation of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." I don't care what the Academy Awards had to say. It almost completely ignored the book's central theme, which was that the "one" to whom the title refers was not Randle Patrick McMurphy but Chief Bromden. The book is 'written' by Bromden and though McMurphy is an important, pivotal character, it is Bromden who escapes, Bromden who makes us see what's going on in that asylum and Bromden, ultimately, who touches us with the 'truth' of institutionalized thinking.
In line with your quiz about Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, can you guess who played McMurphy when it opened on Broadway? The actor actually bought the film rights in the 60s and willed them to his son, who produced the film and cut the novel's author, Ken Kesey, out of the financial reward equation.
A pair of absolutely stunning adaptations were the BBC productions of John LeCarre's "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" and "Smiley's People," the bookends of a trilogy which was later called The Search for Karla. Middle book was "The Honourable Schoolboy." Series starred Alec Guiness as rumpled, battle-scarred George Smiley. Brilliant.
Alfred Hitchcock's take on Leon Uris' "Topaz" was pretty good.
In many ways, I thought "All the President's Men" was a better film than its literate counterpart by Woodward and Bernstein.
The translation from book to film of "The Bourne Identity" was done well in a TV mini-series with Richard Chamberlain as Bourne, but butchered almost beyond recognition in the most recent film offering with Matt Damon.
"Deliverance" was a good take on James Dickey's novel, albeit without the joy of poetic language that Dickey was able to employ.
They did a good job with John Fowles' "The French Lieutenant's Woman" with an adapted and clever device that mimicked Fowles speaking to the reader in the book.
Am anxiously awaiting the adaptation of one of the John Rain novels by Barry Eisler, which will star Gary Oldman in the role of professional assassin, John Rain.
'Nuff said.
The Golden Compass comes to mind as just bad. Despite the fact that the director claimed to be a fan, it ended at a very poor spot, the characters did things Pullman's books expressly say they would never do, and the studio bigwigs were so freaked out by the Atheist leanings of the author, and the possibility of offending the Right Wing, that they destroyed the story. It was so bad, on first viewing, I came out of the theatre offended on Pullman's behalf, at what they'd done. I can only hope someone who really knows how to handle these books properly will do so, at some later date--because Weitz blew it, big time.
You can't blame Mr. Cuaron for failing to make Harry Potter 3 a good movie; the blame for that lies squarely at the feet of screenwriter Steve Kloves. Like many people, you blame a director for what is a writer's fault (and praise the director for things a writer should be praised for) -- that's criminal behavior from someone who loves books so much! ALL the Harry Potter movies have been ultra-weak adaptations, INCLUDING Goblet of Fire, so I have no idea why that movie is on your list in place of truly inspired films like "The Grapes of Wrath" or "Gone With the Wind" or "The Green Mile" or a dozen other flicks I could come up with that don't even begin with the letter G. Both the Narnia movies could have easily taken its place if you insist on including a kid's book.
And all of you who seriously think that "The Golden Compass" was a good adaptation are obviously on some toxic crack.
Totally agree re Children of Men - but my most hated adaptations are Captain Corelli's Mandolin and Snow Falling on Cedars. I agree with your first three best adaptations but would add Atonement (sheer brilliance - a film as good as the novel), The English Patient (ditto) and The French Lieutenant's Woman (in which the pretentious nonsense of the book became a masterpiece on film). Plus Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility, and the BBC Brideshead Revisited.
1.BLADE RUNNER is the adaption of DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP? by Philip K. Dick. Not one word of the novel is used, and it remains one of the most influential films ever made.
2. CRASH, based on the novel by JG Ballard, could have been ruined by sincerer acting. Holly Hunter's exaggerated unfocused stare steals every graphic sex scene she's in.
3. SCARFACE, if you think about it, is the best film made of THE GREAT GATSBY, so I'm counting it.
I think that Douglas McGrath's adaptation of Dicken's "Nicholas Nickleby" should definitely have been on the list of best adaptations. This little known movie is bursting with great actors and having read the book I know the trouble he must have had tightening that book up, focusing on the important characters and getting the plot to move. However the entire movie is exciting and touching and deserves much more attention than it gets. Jamie Bell's Smike in particular is inspired and gives the mo
...movie a lot of it's heart despite the fact that he is not the best known actor in the movie. I also think that Ang Lee and Emma Thompson's "Sense and Sensibility" was a great adaptation and deserves a spot on the list. It can be a bit slow, but the acting and plotting is inspired and makes it a great movie.
I totally disagree that Goblet of Fire was the best of the Potter movies. I thought the characters were mostly annoying and out of character, especially Dumbledore, the movie barely fo
...focused on the champions or tournament at all and even though the plot moved it still managed to leave me not particularly caring for the characters or give me any real insight into most of them. I think GOF was perhaps my least favorite Potter flick. I'm also not sure what you would call wreaking havoc on the story. We saw barely any of the champions and very important things like Snape talking to Dumbledore at the end was cut. That movie was full of great actors and I hate to see them waste
David Tennant was my favorite part of that movie, I only wish he wasn't gone for good. I think they should give up on GOF and insert him in the last two movies. On another Potter note Prisoner of Azkaban is also my favorite book but I liked the movie, oddly enough. Yeah, he really did wreak some havoc with the plot, but on the other hand I felt a lot of the spirit and emotions of the book remained, and it was a different kind of Potter film.I definitely agree with your top pick, Lord of the Ring
rocks! Pride and Prejudice is also very good, and sorry, I like the Kiera Knightley version too! Anyway, thanks for the great article! Sorry this was so long, I didn't realize there was a limit... :)
Pride and Prejudice: The Kiera Knightly one is the only one in ages with a proper Georgian sensibility, not this tedious Victorian inaccurate rubbish.
Children of Men: are you crazy? Have you read the book? Did you watch the ame movie as me? Yes it wedged in some rubbish politics, but it also breathed life and an new vision of the future into it's own self contained world.
That's the thing with movies, I dislike many of your 5 good translations! But I wasn't a fan of the originals much.
Honourable mentions must go to: Shawshank, The Mist, Fight Club, Fear and Loathing, Blade Runner etc.
Note: I shoudln't have to say t is but these are my own opinions, stupid as they are. They are not stated as fact. I love some really crappy movies :)
Michelle, my younger son's book group, the Underground Readers, reads books that have been turned into movies every summer, one of which this summer will be Watchmen. Can't wait to hear what they say. Last summer their favorite was No Country for Old Men. The book and movie were different, both excellent. I have cited this article in J. D. Salinger, like Holden Caulfield, deaf but not silent.
First of all I'd like to say that your opinion about Goblet of Fire being one of the best adaptations and Prisoner of Azkaban being the worst is just completely unjustified by your obvious favoritism to the cultural elements of these two films.
It is a commendable opinion to believe in Goblet being one of the best considering screenwriter Steve Kloves really did go through 13 drafts writing it and hacking it down to what it was: an exciting, fast-paced action thriller build-up to Lord Voldemort's awesome revival scene. (and thus far being the only HP movie until Deathly Hallows to allow Ray Fiennes to really flex his acting muscles as the villain). Also with Mike Newell coming in as the first British director of the series he's definitely able to adjust the cultural tone of the series to its ancestral "public boarding school" thematic style. Notice how all of the teachers in this film (particularly angry Albus...) are far more stricter than in any of the other ones...
We have the introduction of the Snape book-slapping gag (supposedly a feature of Newell's childhood), the intensely pronounced color tones of the Goblet of Fire, and the hyperactive pacing that really only allows an ensemble character development to happen in the first act - zeroing in on focusing on Harry alone in the latter two.
However, that said, Newell also made the most muscular and tightly-paced film of the series and is consequently the least sensitive to character development. Goblet of Fire is to the Potter series what Quantum of Solace is to the Bond series. A sleek and high-paced thriller.
Prisoner of Azkaban, for all its worth, boasts the most gifted and experienced director of the entire series. While Cuaron may have been a little arthouse with his creativity getting away in many areas - this has benefited the dark tone of the film - and more importantly - it was the first film to actually having a knowledge of creative mise-en-scene and relationship to set pieces
Despite the talking heads and a little bit of campiness in the beginning (unless you fail to notice that ALL the directors of the series bring their own sense of camp to each of their films) Cuaron really understood the brotherhood relationship of the Marauders even though that detail (more to the fault of writer Kloves) was left vaguely pronounced given his own brotherly bond to fellow filmmakers Guillermo Del Toro and Alejandro Gonzales. And as the only director of the Potter series experienced with directing a teenage threesome (albeit much more adult) he elevates the chemistry of the trio to a more natural feel than when they awkwardly still getting used to each other.
If Yates is the director attributed to bringing whiny angry adolescent raging hormone Harry to the big screen - it should not be forgotten that Harry hit his first official "teen" year here and already began to express these symptoms of adolescent angst - powerfully directed out of Dan by Cuaron.
Cuaron's greatest strength and weakness when he directed this film was his artsiness - he may have created some of the more pretentious transition scenes of the series - but it's certainly refreshing from the dull cut-by-cut editing of Columbus. The general lighting is also significantly darker by such a scale - the succeeding films are actually lighter - but this is to again reinforce the metaphorical relationship between Harry's inner patronus and the darkness of his past.
This film also enhances Harry and Hermione's unique friendship as well as introduces his bond with his Godfather Sirius who is played with such clever direction and malice by Gary Oldman. It also plays with time travel in a way creative and amusing enough that movies seldom achieve anymore since the days of Back to the Future.
And last thing to comment is the complete symbolic resetting of Hogwarts castle. The hill it now rests on slopes down on a dramatically deeper steepness than in the past two movies
I think the 1995 BBC miniseries owns (the one with Colin Firth). Everything that Andrew Davies adapts is amazing (he is constantly being nominated for his great adaptations) and although the most recent movie that was released is wonderful and beautiful, the BBC miniseries takes the cake as far as being accurate, enjoyable, and packed with almost every element of the book! Why skimp on time? I WANT IT ALL!! :)
As far as your 5 bad selections. I think that most of the harry potter films are great but horribly lacking when compared to the books. Azkaban was not as bad as what they did to The Order of the Phoenix. They took the longest book and made it the shortest movie of the bunch, they cut way too much.
Twilight book to movie did not lose much at all. I didn't think it was a bad adaptation, I thought it was a lot like the book and I'm certain that if it had been made by a different director it would have been way worse and less accurate to the book!
I like your art
*article. I like your article :) instant subscription!
I believe that Stardust would be considered a good adaption compared to the book. Only little details where changed and both were done very well.
I think in the least, Twilight belongs in annoying couples of your previous article and Lousy book to movie adaption. As irritating and well bad as the book was the movie didn't make it even the slightest better but was an awful exemption of a movie. Most of my objections are the same for the book except for the creepy and ..wierd look that was plastured on to edwards face. His 'resisting to tear her flesh apart' look wouldn't intigue me and make me want to ramble on inside my head about how gorgeous and mysterious he is for five pages, I'd more think of him as a hard core tweaker looking to rob me for more drugs and make me want to ask what the hell is wrong with your face? And why for some reason he can't keep his eyes at a normal width and instead stretches them as wide as they go.
I liked the 1995 version of p&p when I first saw it but these days I find it rather boring and stuffy. I love the 2005 version. Sure they cut some stuff out and it has some issues but I don consider it a good adaptation,the actors are brilliant, the music is amazing and well, it is just so very pretty. and I really liked Cuaron's potter. sure, plot-wise is a mess but I feel it did a good job in capturing the essence of the book and its characters, and if you've read the book, who cares if the plot is a mess,you know what happens anyway.
and I also loved H2G2. maybe I'm easily pleased. I felt it certainly could have been done better but I still find it entertaining. not the definitive movie by any means and I don't particularly like the Arthur/Trillian Arc but hell, the music,stephen fry's voice,zooey deschannel and martin freeman convinced me. it's cheesy and ridiculous but I find it rather works.
and where are nick hornby's? stardust?
I agree sooo much with you about the twilight film!! i HATED IT after reading the book!!! all the emotions, the feelings bella have made us feel like her, sympathize with her. in the movie it was all sooo different!! whateveeer!! i stand by you in the lousy twilight!!!
Colin Firth will always be Darcy for me. Every time I read the book now, I hear his voice in Darcy's dialogue, and see his face. (Be still my heart.)
The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy screenplay was partially written by Adams himself. That being said, I adored the movie and wish it went on a bit more. ALL of the adaptations of every form of the book have differed in varying degrees, since the plot is pretty much a garbled, yet beautiful mess.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!