The Most Unfaithful Film Adaptations

[kelby_lake]

My vote would have to go to The Sound and The Fury. Not only is the casting bizarre, three-quarters of the book are tossed out of the window. We get some incest but it's not quite incest.

[Desolation]

Less Than Zero.

The movie is basically a completely different story (both in terms of tone and plot) with the same title and character names as the book.

[wordeater]

Muppet Treasure Island
Strangers on a Train

[Declan]

I don't mind at all if a film doesn't obey the book; the son doesn't have to obey the father.

I think it's down to the director. If he or she is a talented filmmaker and gets inspired by a book such that they can spin their own story out of it through a film, then they should follow their own instincts. That's what makes a good film, not obedience. Like an artist taking a story from the bible. He's not going to have the Pope tell him how to paint.

Sometimes, the talented director will see that the story, as written, can be point-for-point, faithfully, made into a film. If that's what appeals to the filmmaker, then that's what he'll do and I'm sure you'll have a fine film that way, too. But it must be both a talented filmmaker and then the filmmaker following their own inspiration: then there's a chance of a good film.

If the book and filmmaker's vision coincide, that is happy for the writer and the book's fans: book and film will be identical twins. But if a film is different to a book, but still a good film, they'll both be held in affection and exist side by side; non-identical twins. I think that's often preferable; two views for the price of one. The book gave life to something; and the book again, via the director, gave further life.

Wings of the Dove is one of my favourite films; I've yet to read the book. I'll get around to it. I'm on a Henry James siege at the minute.

[kelby_lake]

I don't mind at all if a film doesn't obey the book; the son doesn't have to obey the father.

I'm not talking about if they take a few points of departure or omit some scenes we might regard as key. I'm talking about films that bear no resemblance to the novel they purport to be an adaptation of, The Sound and The Fury being a perfect example. Not that these films are inherently bad- I'm just looking for examples of very loose adaptations.

[stlukesguild]

Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow is sure miles away from Washington Irving's original story.

[stlukesguild]

Like an artist taking a story from the bible. He's not going to have the Pope tell him how to paint.

The Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, etc... actually did just that in a good many instances. Artists often worked with theologians who directed them as to iconography and the appropriate or accepted means of portraying a given narrative. Of course the artists of the past often made attempts at pushing the limitations, but it has really only been over the last century or so that most artists have been free to interpret an existing narrative as they wish... or invent their own narratives. This has had both positive and negative impact upon art. It has allowed artists the greatest freedom. On the other hand, artists cannot count upon the audience recognizing the the common narratives.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow is sure miles away from Washington Irving's original story.

:lol: So true. I like both, though.:nod:

This isn't the most unfaithful, but since I find it to be one of the most overrated films in existence, I'll mention it - The Shining.

[Declan]

I stand by my point about Popes not telling painters what to paint. I think there've been controversial paintings through the centuries, with religious characters very humanly, as opposed to divinely, pictured. How else could they still be resonant? Artists have their own individual views. They wouldn't be worth their salt if they paid lip-service to traditional notions. I think creative people are naturally heterodox with a healthy measure of distrust for the orthodox. I think these things were as true back in de Medici days as they are today.

[stlukesguild]

I stand by my point about Popes not telling painters what to paint.

You can stand by your point all you wish. I'll stand by the facts gleaned from more than a little experience with art history.

I think there've been controversial paintings through the centuries...

Certainly. The frescoes in the Sistine Chapel painted by Michelangelo are perhaps the most famous example. Michelangelo was a rare example, at the time, of an artist who was well-read and could have devised his own iconography and his own interpretations of the Biblical narratives. Even so, it is generally acknowledged that he consulted the theologian, Egidio da Viterbo, during the process of designing and painting the Sistine.

Michelangelo was afforded a great deal of leeway with regard to the imagery of the Sistine... but one must recognize that he was the rare beneficiary of an especially intimate relationship with the Pope which allowed him to argue in favor of certain "irregularities". In most instances, the Patron/Artist relationship was in no way so "equal": the Patron dictated and the Artist complied... or was replaced by another who could give the customer what he wanted.

Even so, Michelangelo faced repeated challenges from various critics. The most virulent criticism came from various high-ranking clergy who were outraged at the nudity of the paintings. Following the death of Michelangelo's great Patron, Julius II, draperies were painted over various sections of the Sistine:

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/michelangelos-last-judgment-3.jpg

St. Bartholomew, portrayed here, was initially nude. The loincloth was added during Michelangelo's lifetime by his follower, Daniela da Volterra, who became known as "Il Braghettone" or the Breeches Maker.

Heironymus Bosch was another rare example of the artist able to design his own iconography. Bosch' paintings are laden with imagery that might quite well have outraged the common clerical Patron:

http://khorshid311.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/delightd.jpg?w=584&h=776

Bosch, however, had the advantage of never needing to sell his art... having married one of the most wealthy women in his home county.

The majority of artists followed very specific guidelines... often spelled out in guide books... with regard to how a given subject or personage should be portrayed. The Virgin Mary was to be portrayed arrayed in a cloak of blue (blue being the most expensive color, was seen as the color of royalty). This blue cloak might cover a red under cloak, representing the manner in which the Virgin's purity covered all sin. She was never to be portrayed in a red outer-cloak (red representing passion, sex, and sin) or worse yet, green (representing fertility... fecundity... and again, sexuality). Mary Magdalene, on the other hand, was frequently cloaked in red or green... often had red hair... and commonly wore the latest fashions and expensive jewelry... conveying her having fallen for the glitter and glitz of the world.

Artists were able to design paintings within the established guideline. The creativity involved in coming up with something new or original or unique... while following such guidelines is astounding... and in many ways similar to the creativity of modern artists working within the commercial market. Artists who strayed too far... however... could face interrogation by the Inquisition.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6095/6367013205_af3c03c808_b.jpg

Veronese was forced to change to subject of the above painting from "The Last Supper" to "Wedding at Cana" as a result of the inclusion of numerous questionable images: German soldiers, drunks, dwarfs, etc...

...with religious characters very humanly, as opposed to divinely, pictured. How else could they still be resonant?

This has little to do with the desires or wants of the Patron, and more to do with the artist's view of humanity. Michelangelo's people are never fully human:

http://cfile228.uf.daum.net/image/160451114B485AFEACE596

Rather, his human beings are super-human... god-like... and grandiose... whereas Rembrandt's figures are always fully individual...

http://www.pauline.or.kr/images/special/ritual/sasoon_gallery/res23.jpg

... human... intimate. Neither one nor the other approach is more resonant than the other.

Artists have their own individual views.

Of course... and regardless of how closely an artist followed a given guideline, his or her individuality would be something that remained apparent. This individuality or personal originality has little of nothing to do with how far an artist strayed from the "expected"... any more than mere "shock art" is a measure of true "originality" or individuality" in the artist today.

They wouldn't be worth their salt if they paid lip-service to traditional notions. I think creative people are naturally heterodox with a healthy measure of distrust for the orthodox. I think these things were as true back in de Medici days as they are today.

This is a lovely sentiment worthy of the Post-Romantic era... but the reality is that an artist who refused to "pay lip-service" ... or refused to satisfy the patron... would have been rapidly eliminated... often in more than one way.

[Declan]

.....

.....

[Calidore]

On the other hand, sometimes an artist needs a bit of reining in, as shown in Monty Python's "Last Supper" sketch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1IJiAXjj7k

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Naw, that sketch is flawless.

". . . and one Christ!"

"One!?!?!?!?"

:lol:

[Calidore]

I actually meant the Michelangelo character in the sketch, not the Pythons.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, I think they're all great. I love such an informal accent for Michelangelo. But I digress . . . I don't want this to turn into a Monty Python debate, though I wouldn't be adverse to it. :D

[stlukesguild]

I think one thing that is often forgotten is that until the Renaissance, "artists"... painters, sculptors, architects... were all thought of largely as skilled craftsmen. The "visual arts" were not even acknowledged as being among the "liberal arts". A great majority of artists were illiterate or limited with regard to their abilities with regard to reading and as such almost wholly dependent upon the theologians and other educated advisers or consultants with regard to iconography. Artists were also largely limited with regard to an exposure to art beyond the confines of their immediate surroundings. We are speaking of an era before photographic reproductions... or even printed reproductions of art. We are also speaking of an era when travel was difficult, dangerous, and rare.

A number of major artists of the Renaissance including Brunelleschi, DaVinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, Durer, etc... were responsible for beginning the shift from the notion of artist/craftsman to artist as an educated, creative individual (The Renaissance Man). This transition, however, was rather slow. Well into the Baroque era few artists in the north of Europe enjoyed recognition beyond that of master craftsmen.

The real shift takes place with the Dutch Baroque and the shift away from the patronage system toward a capitalist market system. Rather than making art in response to the demands of the wealthy patron, artists created what they wished and attempted to find an audience. Ultimately, this offered no more freedom than the old system. The artist who wished to sell was forced to gear his or her art toward the demands of the buying public. In some ways, the system of patronage offered a greater degree of freedom for the artist who was able to develop a strong relationship with a wealthy patron.

Of course artists have always been free to create whatever they wish... within the limitations of their own financial ability. My studio mate continues to churn out bleak, 14-foot canvases that address the Holocaust by the hundreds... but the audience/buyers are equally free to choose that which they wish to support... and they choose not to buy his paintings. It has probably only been within the last century or so that individuals have had the freedom, the free-time, and the ability to fund their own art as a personal passion (not to say hobby) without the need to make money.

[Calidore]

Well, I think they're all great. I love such an informal accent for Michelangelo. But I digress . . . I don't want this to turn into a Monty Python debate, though I wouldn't be adverse to it. :D

Well, talking of unfaithful film adaptations, Monty Python and the Holy Grail is a pretty unfaithful version of every Arthurian legend I've read.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, talking of unfaithful film adaptations, Monty Python and the Holy Grail is a pretty unfaithful version of every Arthurian legend I've read.

Yeah, but it's sooooooooo much better. :nod:

[stlukesguild]

:iagree:

[JuniperWoolf]

Clash of the Titans = not a whole lot like Euripides' version.

[Pierre Menard]

This isn't the most unfaithful, but since I find it to be one of the most overrated films in existence, I'll mention it - The Shining.


That's like saying Moby Dick is one of the most overrated books in existence. ;)

Nah, but seriously, on a film making level, The Shining is impeccable, and innovative too.

And also an example (imo) of a good choice not to be faithful to the book. But most Kubrick adaptations aren't particularly faithful.

[PoeticPassions]

That's like saying Moby Dick is one of the most overrated books in existence. ;)

Nah, but seriously, on a film making level, The Shining is impeccable, and innovative too.

And also an example (imo) of a good choice not to be faithful to the book. But most Kubrick adaptations aren't particularly faithful.


I agree about The Shining, but Kubrick was always one of my favorite directors.

However, I'm not sure you could say that about his adaptations... They're not completely faithful (as he takes a lot of creative license), but I generally have found they follow the plot and delve into the characters pretty faithfully... A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Eyes Wide Shut...

I do think it is interesting that almost every single movie Kubrick made was an adaptation (aside from one or two, or the short documentaries he made in his early career)...

[Pierre Menard]

I agree about The Shining, but Kubrick was always one of my favorite directors.

However, I'm not sure you could say that about his adaptations... They're not completely faithful (as he takes a lot of creative license), but I generally have found they follow the plot and delve into the characters pretty faithfully... A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Eyes Wide Shut...

I do think it is interesting that almost every single movie Kubrick made was an adaptation (aside from one or two, or the short documentaries he made in his early career)...


Yes, true enough about the plot and characters, but always with that great Kubrickian touch.

Yeah, it is interesting, a lot like Shakespeare in that regard. Re-working other stories in new and innovative ways, etc.

[kiki1982]

Well, talking of unfaithful film adaptations, Monty Python and the Holy Grail is a pretty unfaithful version of every Arthurian legend I've read.

And all of those were even unfaithful 'faithful' accounts of what reeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaallllllllyyyyyyyy happened. :lol: They really believed it too. Unbelievable...

So faithful in fact that Merlin was a grand invention of a Flemish medieval historian.


Yeah, but it's sooooooooo much better. :nod:

Exactly what they thought.

But indeed, it is soooooo much better. :D

[dark desire]

There is this Hindi film "Saawariya" (meaning sweetheart) that is a horrible adaptation of Dostoyevsky's short story "White Nights" which I truly loved. And then I saw only the trailer of the Picture of Dorian Gray and I was annoyed at the injustice done to the masterpiece.

[ClaesGefvenberg]

I Robot tops my list. Basically, the name and the robots is all that remains from Asimov's great novel.

/Claes

[kelby_lake]

There is this Hindi film "Saawariya" (meaning sweetheart) that is a horrible adaptation of Dostoyevsky's short story "White Nights" which I truly loved. And then I saw only the trailer of the Picture of Dorian Gray and I was annoyed at the injustice done to the masterpiece.

Yep, Dorian Gray was a bit mad. But then, I couldn't finish the novel. Oscar wilde's smug wit was starting to grate on me.

[Emil Miller]

My vote would have to go to The Sound and The Fury. Not only is the casting bizarre, three-quarters of the book are tossed out of the window. We get some incest but it's not quite incest.

I'm not surprised that 75% of the book was left out, from what I have read on this forum, Faulkner was mind-numbingly prolix and that's why I haven't read him. During the 1960s, Hollywood went big on Southern Gothic and a spate of films followed one another until the genre became a caricature of itself. For my sins I saw a number of them but when I read that one critic described S&F as a fourth carbon copy of Chekhov in Dixie, I decided to give it a miss.
You're right about bizarre miscasting: what on earth are Margaret Leighton and Françoise Rosay doing in such a film?

[dfloyd]

Hoagy Carmichael and Walter Brennan plus Humphrey Bogart couldn't save this fiasco of Hemingway's novel.

But Hollywood finally made a Hemingway novel into a decent adaptation with The Sun Also Rises.

[Summer M]

Every adaptation of Poe I've ever watched.

{EDIT} Also the up-on-its-head adaptation of Stephen King's The Apt Pupil

[kelby_lake]

I'm not surprised that 75% of the book was left out, from what I have read on this forum, Faulkner was mind-numbingly prolix and that's why I haven't read him. During the 1960s, Hollywood went big on Southern Gothic and a spate of films followed one another until the genre became a caricature of itself. For my sins I saw a number of them but when I read that one critic described S&F as a fourth carbon copy of Chekhov in Dixie, I decided to give it a miss.
You're right about bizarre miscasting: what on earth are Margaret Leighton and Françoise Rosay doing in such a film?

And we've got Yul Brynner as the man of the house!

[Emil Miller]

And we've got Yul Brynner as the man of the house!

Yes and wearing hair, according to my reference.

[kelby_lake]

Yes and wearing hair, according to my reference.

He gives his adopted niece quite a kissing :O

[Motherof8]

The movie "Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm" starring Shirley Temple wasn't anything like the book.

[JBI]

Like an artist taking a story from the bible. He's not going to have the Pope tell him how to paint.

The Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, etc... actually did just that in a good many instances. Artists often worked with theologians who directed them as to iconography and the appropriate or accepted means of portraying a given narrative. Of course the artists of the past often made attempts at pushing the limitations, but it has really only been over the last century or so that most artists have been free to interpret an existing narrative as they wish... or invent their own narratives. This has had both positive and negative impact upon art. It has allowed artists the greatest freedom. On the other hand, artists cannot count upon the audience recognizing the the common narratives.

What do you mAke then of Caravaggio's religious works. That is probably in line with setting Heart of Darkness in Vietnam/Cambodia.

Are we going to call that faithless or adaptive. The same could be said for the Samurai Shakespeare adaptations by Kurosawa or the cowboy samurai adaptations going the other way.

[Kyriakos]

Not an adaptation, but the movie "Kafka" starring Jeremy Irons (who i like otherwise) simply had nothing to do with Franz Kafka. It was a very big let-down.

[tonywalt]

Brighton Rock (2010 film) - I suppose they had to modernise it a bit-I think Graham Greene would approve.

[Emil Miller]

Brighton Rock (2010 film) - I suppose they had to modernise it a bit-I think Graham Greene would approve.

I agree that this is a most unfaithful adaptation. Compared to the original film this version is an insult to the intelligence and nothing to do with Greene's story. I have seen excepts of it on YouTube and wasn't surprised to find it just another rip off for those who haven't read the book. Knowing something about Greene, I would say that he would have been upset although not surprised at the practice of usurping a brilliant film to make a fast buck out of the cinematically ignorant.

[ennison]

Blow-up. In many ways the film is much better than the text on which it is based.