Turning Novels Into Films

[Munshie]

It's almost cliche to say books don't translate well into films.

I have several questions related to this that I would like other peoples' perspectives on.


Which novels in your your view were translated most faithfully into a movie? You might need to specify which movie version since some novels/stories have been made into movies many times e.g. The Three Musketeers.

Which movie adaptations of novels disappointed you the most (and why)?

Do believe people viewing a movie adapted from a novel, encourages people to read the original novel? e.g. After seeing a Hatter Potter film, are people more inclined to read the novel? (I know I wasn't inclined to read any of the novels despite enjoying some of the Potter films.)



So, peeps, what are your views on the issue?

[mortalterror]

Novel
The Lord of the Rings
Master and Commander
Battle Royale
L.A. Confidential
Schindler's List
The Silence of the Lambs
Full Metal Jacket
Apocalypse Now
The Deer Hunter
Jaws
The Godfather
A Clockwork Orange
2001 A Space Odyssey
Dr. Strangelove
Anatomy of a Murder
The Searchers
All the King's Men
The Bicycle Thief
The Big Sleep
Gone With the Wind
Mutiny on the Bounty
All Quiet on the Western Front
Requiem for a Dream
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
Bladerunner
The Princess Bride
The Maltese Falcon
Paths of Glory
The Graduate
American Psycho
One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest
The Wizard of Oz
Barry Lyndon
The Shining
The Bridge on the River Kwai
Forest Gump
The Big Sleep
No Country For Old Men
The English Patient
Ordinary People
Dr. Zhivago
From Here to Eternity
How Green Was My Valley

play
Casablanca
Julius Caesar
Hamlet
Amadeus
The Lion in Winter
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Long Day's Journey Into Night
A Streetcar Named Desire
Henry V
Richard III
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
Driving Miss Daisy
The Miracle Worker
Inherit The Wind
Glengary Glen Ross
The Elephant Man
Harvey
A Few Good Men
12 Angry Men
A Man For All Seasons
Equus
Dinner With Friends
The Piano Lesson
All My Sons
Titus
Much Ado About Nothing
A Chorus Line
Chicago
The Philadelphia Story
Pygmalion
As Good As It Gets

short story
Rashomon
The Thing
High Noon
Double Indemnity
Shawshank Redemption
Closely Watched Trains

memoire
Patton
Lawrence of Arabia
Taxi Driver
A Beautiful Mind
Ghandi
Goodfellas
Raging Bull

[Munshie]

mortalterror

Wow! What a lengthy list.

As a matter of clarification: was the list of movies that presented the novels well, or badly?

[Emil Miller]

The question of novels v film adaptations is pretty much a perennial one on this forum but I believe that a judgement will depend on a person's experience with cinema. For example, I was thrilled as boy when I saw the Gene Kelly version of The Three Musketeers but although I haven't seen it since, I very much doubt that I would accord it the same acclaim as I did then.
Basically there are two kinds of filmgoer: those who go simply for pleasure and those who are interested in the cinema per se.
Cinema enthusiasts, as opposed to the general filmgoer, will judge a film on its artistic merits as well as its entertainment value, which explains why some people get upset when an experienced critic gives an adverse criticism of a film that they think is the cat's whiskers.
As for 'most faithfully' translated adaptations, three that come immediately to mind are the 1947 Brighton Rock, even though the ending was changed to underline the story's humanistic message, and the 1961 version of The Spy Who Came in from the Cold which, in both cases, not only looked right but also felt right. Another would be the 1962 French version of François Mauriac's novel Thérèse Desqueyroux in which Mauriac acted as advisor to the director; it is the most accurate rendition of a novel that I've seen.

Having seen many films over a long period, I am seldom disappointed by poor adaptations as they are pretty much par for the course.

I don't recall seeing a film before reading the book from which is was adapted but I have no doubt that there are people who do.

[mortalterror]

mortalterror

Wow! What a lengthy list.

As a matter of clarification: was the list of movies that presented the novels well, or badly?

It's an example of good adaptations. I think books adapt to film well all the time. A lot of the best films are adaptations of novels.

[Eupalinos]

The best cases of book adaptations that I know are those by Straub-Huillet (Danièle Huillet and Jean-Marie Straub). They have done Kafka's novel Amerika (as Class Relations), two of the three fragmentary versions of Holderlin Der Tod des Empedokles, Pavese's Dialogues with Leuco (as From the Clouds to the Resistance, as well as some shorts), Corneille's play Othon, and a great deal else. These films preserve the integrity of the texts and the spoken word. They're characterized by an austere dignity that is completely alien to most of cinema.

Another great adaptation of a novel, and among the most infamous, is Stroheim's Greed, based on Frank Norris' McTeague.

Bresson usually does loose adaptations, or transmutations, of novels/novellas. His L'Argent actually improves on Tolstoi's dramaturgy of The Forged Coupon.

There are so many, but just recently Hou Hsiao-hsien, my favorite working director, adapted a wuxia novel titled Nie Ying Niang for his first martial arts film, The Assassin.

In none of these cases is the adaptation a ploy to get anyone to read the book; it's simply where the director found inspiration (looong after the book was published). But in the great majority of contemporaneous adaptions it is a tie-in with a best-selling book that's supposed to work both ways: people who read the book see the movie and vice versa.

[Emil Miller]

Another great adaptation of a novel, and among the most infamous, is Stroheim's Greed, based on Frank Norris' McTeague.

But in the great majority of contemporaneous adaptions it is a tie-in with a best-selling book that's supposed to work both ways: people who read the book see the movie and vice versa.

I totally agree with Erich von Stroheim's adaptation of McTeague, which to my mind is a disgracefully neglected great American novel and, as you imply, notorious for the extravagance and determination with which the director sought to capture the story on film.
The problem with many novels however is that they are often not suited to the medium of film unless they have been written with an eye to the screen rights or taken up by producers and directors capable of turning the predictable into something worth watching.

[AuntShecky]

Welcome to the NitLet, incidentally.

Good question, but I've already weighed in on the topic:
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?78353-How-Hollywood-Ruins-Novels

The only thing I'd add is that sometimes (not very often) a TV mini series can try to cover the complete scope of an original novel. Multiple sequels, from just one work or a number of volumes (Harry Potter, "The Hunger Games," etc.) are similar attempts.

But even then, so much is lost, including the author's style, even when he or she adapts his own screenplay.

If I made a list of the greatest movies, most of them would be films written directly for the screen. I wish Hollywood would take a risk and try that, rather than feeding like a parasite off market-tested pre-existing works.

And don't get me started on "franchise" films!

[Munshie]

AuntShecky

Talking about mini-series, the adaptation of the 'Shogun' novel was dreadful. The version of Noble House was almost as bad.

I hear people from the Indian subcontinent often complain that Bollywood produces too many 'mirch masala' movies i.e formulaic movies but imo Hollywood films are in most cases predictable. So I agree with you that Hollywood needs to take more risk. I expect the huge budgets involved make that unlikely.

[Calidore]

Movies and books are different artforms, and I think to be successful, that's one thing the adapter(s) must keep in mind. Peter Jackson said it well when he was talking about his Lord of the Rings movies: He said that he wasn't thinking of it as an adaptation of the novels, but rather as a film version of the story.

[Gutted]

I tend to enjoy film versions of my favorite books, even if they're done poorly. It's less about accuracy, but more about seeing how the work is adapted to a different medium.

[Margerma]

"Life of Pi". I still would recommend the book for the sake of first 100 pages. Those pages can turn your mind upside down, it it impossible to put them into film ( for example, why zoos are good for animals or how one person can follow 3 religions). Once Indian part with those 100 pages passed, the movie becomes a "must see".