[Previous entry: "What It Takes..."] [Next entry: "Hardbacks on Sale!"]

01/26/2005: "Books Vs. Movies"

My motto has always been, "Read the book first, then see the movie and see how they screwed it up!" Movies are never like the books, and even when they try to remain faithful to the original story, it never translates to the big screen very well.

Take Count of Monte Cristo, for example. This book has been filmed several times, but they've never really captured it properly. The last version, with Jame Caviezel in the title role, changed two characters entirely, and eliminated one altogether. the character of Mercedes was changed from a vibrant Frenchwoman to a role just one step removed from a fairy tale princess.

Granted the entire plot of a book usually won't fit into a 2-hour slot, which necessitates screenplays, but there must be some way to make a fair attempt of it. Peter Jackson's work on Lord of the Rings proved it could be done within reason.

The forthcoming Sahara with Matthew McConaughey looks to be more faithful to Clive Cussler's book, but I'm not going to hold my breath--especially when you consider that Cussler is suing them for making the movie without his permission.

On extremely rare occasions, the movie is actually better than the book, but not very often. I can really only think of two examples: 1) Princess Bride. A much better film than the book, primarily because director Rob Reiner didn't make an issue with William Goldman's tiresome reminders that the story was taken from an unsuccessful book by “S. Morgenstern”; it’s mentioned in passing, and that’s it. And, 2) The Crow. I have read the original comic by J(ames) O'Barr, and it's a much grittier, urban story. Screenwriter David Schow and Director Alex Proyas changed the context of the story without losing the emotional impact or the core message--that vengeance at its deepest level is about justice and love, which was something that O'Barr intended, but didn't really convey very well. Furthermore, the cinematic sweeps and shots of David and Shelly frolicking in the afterlife were stunning. Add to that, the tragedy of Brandon Lee’s death on the set, and what had been a dark tale of revenge becomes an All-American Tragedy.

What’s really sad is that the bottom line in Hollywood is about making money: when film ideas are pitched (proposed for production), the story has to be compressed into what is known as “the one-line rule”; the entire scope of the project has to be compressed into a single sentence! Considering the overall impact and multiple meanings and parallels that a good novel comprises, I think that’s just tragic! How was War & Peace pitched? “Boom boom, bang-bang?”

It’s not as if good pictures can’t be made!

Roman Polanski, for example, is a great filmmaker, and when I heard he was making a film of Arturo Perez-Reverte's The Club Dumas I was very excited. The finished product, The Ninth Gate, is quite good: cinemtically pretty, well-acted, beautiful locations, but has absolutely nothing to do with Dumas! Polanski took one of the sub-plots in the story, and made it the actual one--a common technique in filmmaking. Many of the same characters were there, and the thrust of the film (about old books) was intact, but one of the chief stories from the novel was lost. It made a good movie, but I can't help but notice that this is in fact a European film. Hollywood...that's another story, and they don’t restrict their destruction of books to just films. Television is a great destroyer of literature?

Did you ever hear the tale of the ill-fated show, The Starlost? The book was by veteran writer and fantasist Harlan Ellison, and the idea of the story was quite original. Take 100-odd different cultures from Earth, put them in 100-mile domes that are self-supporting, and stick them on a spaceship bound for another planet. The ship goes off-course, and the people (over many generations) forget they're on a ship. Then, 200 years later, one of them (from an Amish community) accidentally triggers a doorway, and discovers the truth.

That was a story that provided everything for good drama: Culture shock, madness, and even science fiction. A very good book, too. A TV network (I think it was ABC) bought the rights, brought Ellison in, and then started changing things left and right: the domes were reduced to five miles in diameter (not self-supporting, but we'll worry about that later). They find the computer on the first episode (taking out the reason for the first few chapters); ABC decides to bring in hostile aliens to add spice to the story (their idea of an alien being Walter Koenig in Go-Go boots!). The author abandoned the project, and the ABC people ran it into the ground. To my knowledge, only a few episodes were ever made, none of them watchable!

In closing, I think it's important to remember that a novelist is really an artist, just like a filmmaker should be, but usually isn't. Movies put out by Hollywood are gauged by how much money they can make, which is why a lot of films made today start to look alike. Added to which, there is a great deal of politics in movie-making, i.e., if the producer (or her husband) doesn’t like one part of the film, it will be dropped; screenplays end up being written by committee, or worse, the conclusion is selective! True art should be about sending a message and conveying a feeling. But until the Angels (Hollywood slang for 'money men') learn to weep, then I think we're in for more reruns. Which is one reason why I go to amateur film festivals!