It occurred to me while showering this morning (yes, I know, this happens alot) that no movie based on a novel is the same as the novel. In fact, the best of them only wave a hand in the general direction of the novel and instead do things their own way.
For example, Blade Runner, based on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick. While the two make basically the same point, the only things thatthe movie has taken from the book are the names of the characters and about half of the basic plot. This doesn't change the fact that they both deserve the following that they have; the movie is one of the best science fiction movies I've ever seen and the novel is unique, fascinating, extremely well-written and thought-provoking (especially the stuff about Mercerism which doesn't show up in the movie at all.)
The Hayao Miyazaki film of Diana Wynne Jones' novel Howl's Moving Castle is another example. Jones' novel uses the tropes of folklore and faery tale to create an involved, intelligent and entertaining text, with characters of great depth and personality. It's a very very shiny book. The movie, once again, takes very little from the novel. It uses the same names for the characters but abandons most of the folkloric elements and completely changes the personalities of both the major characters. Elements of the plot remains but, for the most part, the story goes ina completely different direction. The movie is, however, an accomplished film, just very different to the novel. (And, hey, Christian Bale does the voice of Howl in the english language version.)
There are other examples: The Lord of the Rings trilogy and I, Robot or (okay, it was a dreadful translation of the book, especially in the way the fucked up the character of Dr Susan Calvin, but it was a decent movie for what it was). Nearly every film or mini series of Alice in Wonderland or The Hunchback of Notre Dame ever made. Most movies of Hamlet. (Okay, not a novel. But it's Hamlet!)
On the other hand, those that try to keep as closely to the book as possible, tend to fail as movies. Or, at least, be nowhere near as good as the book. The obvious example is the film of Ondaatje's The English Patient, which is a fantastic novel and an appalling film. But also any movie based on a Stephen King horror novel, especially It. The first two Harry Potter films, which seemed to feel they had to be the novels. *shudder*Tim Robbins' Even Cowgirls get the Blues (okay, so the novel was nothing to write home about. So imagine how bad the film must be.) And the movie of Virginia Woolf's Orlando which should have been so good since it was directed by Sally Potter and starred Tilda Swanson as Orlando.
There are exceptions, of course. The new movie of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. What's Eating Gilbert Grape, which was very like the book (which would be explained by the fact that the same guy wrote both the novel and the screenplay) and starred Johnny Depp. (Also the movie that, more or less, made Leonardo di Caprio, as a result of his role as Arnie. He was fantastic! And won four awards, including an Oscar, for either best supporting actor or most promising actor.) Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe as well, and The Outsiders.
I suppose this could be expanded to include graphic novels but that is really a distinctly different medium, one that is already more visual than a novel and one which has it's own set of issues when translated into film.
In the end, I feel a movie cannot transcribe all that a novel is onto the screen. The novel is a completely different medium which works within an entirely different framework. In short, the novel (like film) fills an important role in terms of art, one which film cannot fill. Just as film also fills an important role, one that no novel could hope to fill.
Yeah, yeah, art is important and how I do rabbit on...
Which reminds me. I have finally found a movie of Hamlet that makes exactly the cuts to the original script that I would. *sigh* I'm in heaven...
For example, Blade Runner, based on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick. While the two make basically the same point, the only things thatthe movie has taken from the book are the names of the characters and about half of the basic plot. This doesn't change the fact that they both deserve the following that they have; the movie is one of the best science fiction movies I've ever seen and the novel is unique, fascinating, extremely well-written and thought-provoking (especially the stuff about Mercerism which doesn't show up in the movie at all.)
The Hayao Miyazaki film of Diana Wynne Jones' novel Howl's Moving Castle is another example. Jones' novel uses the tropes of folklore and faery tale to create an involved, intelligent and entertaining text, with characters of great depth and personality. It's a very very shiny book. The movie, once again, takes very little from the novel. It uses the same names for the characters but abandons most of the folkloric elements and completely changes the personalities of both the major characters. Elements of the plot remains but, for the most part, the story goes ina completely different direction. The movie is, however, an accomplished film, just very different to the novel. (And, hey, Christian Bale does the voice of Howl in the english language version.)
There are other examples: The Lord of the Rings trilogy and I, Robot or (okay, it was a dreadful translation of the book, especially in the way the fucked up the character of Dr Susan Calvin, but it was a decent movie for what it was). Nearly every film or mini series of Alice in Wonderland or The Hunchback of Notre Dame ever made. Most movies of Hamlet. (Okay, not a novel. But it's Hamlet!)
On the other hand, those that try to keep as closely to the book as possible, tend to fail as movies. Or, at least, be nowhere near as good as the book. The obvious example is the film of Ondaatje's The English Patient, which is a fantastic novel and an appalling film. But also any movie based on a Stephen King horror novel, especially It. The first two Harry Potter films, which seemed to feel they had to be the novels. *shudder*Tim Robbins' Even Cowgirls get the Blues (okay, so the novel was nothing to write home about. So imagine how bad the film must be.) And the movie of Virginia Woolf's Orlando which should have been so good since it was directed by Sally Potter and starred Tilda Swanson as Orlando.
There are exceptions, of course. The new movie of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. What's Eating Gilbert Grape, which was very like the book (which would be explained by the fact that the same guy wrote both the novel and the screenplay) and starred Johnny Depp. (Also the movie that, more or less, made Leonardo di Caprio, as a result of his role as Arnie. He was fantastic! And won four awards, including an Oscar, for either best supporting actor or most promising actor.) Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe as well, and The Outsiders.
I suppose this could be expanded to include graphic novels but that is really a distinctly different medium, one that is already more visual than a novel and one which has it's own set of issues when translated into film.
In the end, I feel a movie cannot transcribe all that a novel is onto the screen. The novel is a completely different medium which works within an entirely different framework. In short, the novel (like film) fills an important role in terms of art, one which film cannot fill. Just as film also fills an important role, one that no novel could hope to fill.
Yeah, yeah, art is important and how I do rabbit on...
Which reminds me. I have finally found a movie of Hamlet that makes exactly the cuts to the original script that I would. *sigh* I'm in heaven...
2 comments:
I like that the nature of the beast changes from written word to screen. Something is lost in translation—but something else is gained too, if it's done well. Of course it's impossible to get exactly the same thing at the end of the sausage factory and why should you when the medium is partly the message?
Oh, I agree completely. I just mean that one can't expect them to be the same thing. And that film should not be considered better than literature (or vice versa). Or an acceptable alternative to it. They are different and equally valuable, saying things in a different ways because the medium is different. And, as you aptly put it, the medium is part of the message.
Post a Comment