How Hollywood Ruins Novels

Some of my fellow Lit-Nutters may remember the name Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980) and his signature work Understanding Media (1964.) Considering media as “extensions of man,” the Canadian scholar examined the effects of various types of media in terms of their technological and social impact rather than the specific content, hence his most quoted line, “The medium is the message.”

In the decades since McLuhan first made a splash on the cultural scene, a small canon of mythology has evolved over his theories – that 30 years ago before its inception, McLuhan “predicted” the World Wide Web (similar to the folklore that Al Gore “invented” the Internet) and that he declared the book as obsolete. Both of those notions about McLuhan are at least partially true, but what we probably should remember is that far from being a cheerleader about the future technological advances, McLuhan sounded early alarm bells about the approaching media revolution and its possibly adverse effects upon the nervous system of the individual as well as that of the collective society, including changes within the overall culture.

I mention McLuhan because he broached the idea that a film is “the extension of the book.” He was speaking only about the evolution of one medium into another, and not about the content -- nor certainly not the quality– -of the respective book and movie. All of this is a roundabout way of introducing the premise of this thread: that no matter how good the original novel is, the movie version almost always ruins it.

Hollywood producers, leery of venturing into new territory by taking a chance on unproven original screenplays, seldom hesitate when green-lighting a “remake” of a successful movie of the past. Similarly, today’s blockbusters are likely to be one of a string of sequels in a “super-hero franchise,” the original super-successful film having first appeared as a comic book. A few hit movies have been based on original television series, (which takes McLuhan’s linear progression -- movies extending into television –- a step backwards.)

Yet the plots, settings, and characters of many movies first appeared within the pages of novels. From the very birth of American cinema, from silent movies through talkies, film-makers have tapped pre-existing novels for their content, and to a certain degree, the “novel-into-movie” format still holds true today, though the number of this type of films has decreased in recent years.

Hollywood has had few qualms about mining the great books for subject matter. It can do– and has done – whatever it wants to with the gold mine of works in the public domain, since Dickens, Austen, and the pantheon of their illustrious counterparts are no longer around to say a word about it.

Problems come with the “adaptation,” attached with wishy-washy disclaimers as “loosely adapted from the novel . . .”or “based upon characters created by. . .” Sometimes the source material is too short, as in J.D. Salinger’s short story “Uncle Wiggily in Connecticut” which added extraneous material for the movie, My Foolish Heart (1949.) Although the original work had been adapted by the accomplished Epstein brothers, Salinger detested the unrecognizable finished product so much that he vowed never again to let anyone film any of his material.

It’s a challenge to fit the format of a 700+ page novel into a shooting script for a movie with a desirable running time between the 90 minute to two- hourframe. Some books are much too long for movie adaptations. I haven’t heard anything yet about Mark Helprin’s reaction to the movie version of his glorious novel, Winter’s Tale, but I have read that the story has been condensed so much so that pivotal characters, and extremely significant plot developments are conspicuously missing. Reportedly the magic realism at the heart and soul of the book– the dream landscape of an imagined New York City-- that is the heart and soul -has been sacrificed for the commercial appeal of a romantic love story.

Additionally, movies can’t effectively elicit the collaborative experience between author and reader. The picture in the reader’s imagination may not be the same as the visual depiction on the screen. Another thing movies can’t do is capture original author’s unique voice: his style, elegant prose, and evocative imagery (despite the fact that film is a “visual” medium.)

The long list of novelists disenchanted by Hollywood --among them, Fitzgerald and Hemingway- -has a recent addition with Scott Spencer, whose work, Endless Love is a emotionally-charged and brilliantly-written novel about obsession, has been burned not once, but twice.

It’s a good bet that authors will be completely dissatisfied with – if not totally devastated by-- the film version of their original creations. That is true for novels; I’m not sure it’s true about non-fiction: film depictions of actual events. Recent acclaimed movies such as Argo, Captain Phillips, and other “docu-dramas” reportedly retain at least a nodding acquaintance with the facts. This year’s leading contender for the Best Picture Academy Award is Twelve Years a Slave, the painful saga of a victim of America’s original sin, from Solomon Northrup’s historic memoir.

Baseball-themed movies are said to be “box office poison” but two recent ones about the grand old game were for the most part critically and commercially successful. Moneyball (2011) recaps the story of Oakland general manager Billy Beane who hit upon a method of building a successful team through the cost-effective use of sabermetrics, presented in a dramatic way that intrigues even viewers who aren’t necessarily fans of the sport. And last year’s 42 told an inspiring story in a resonant way, despite several – though ultimately trivial – historical errors. A film-maker would deliberately have to go out of his way -- really have to work at it – to ruin this uplifting subject which is, after all, Jackie Robinson.

Finally, to any of the younger Lit-Nutters out there are still in school, please accept a little bit of advice: If you are assigned a book report and are considering skipping the novel and watching the movie version as a short-cut, think twice about it, okay?



Winter’s Tale:
http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/02/wha...ers-tale-movie

Endless Love:

http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2...spoiler-alert/


The movie, “42"
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/20...YeJ/story.html

If a director borrows the plot of a book or story, then the resulting film's quality will depend only on the skill of the director, and will have nothing to do with the quality of the source material.

As an example, I have a hard time believing that Tarkovsky's film Solaris is worse than Stanislaw Lem's original. The recent adaptation of The Great Gatsby, meanwhile, is an example of the kind you have already offered, in which a story is taken which was told in a beautiful way by its creator, and then the same basic elements are retold and butchered by poor directing. There are many instances, however, of great film adaptations, irrespective of the source material's worth, be it humble or great: Kurosawa's Ran, de Sica's Bicycle Thieves, Coppola's Apocalypse Now, Mizoguchi's Ugetsu, Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, Kechiche's La Vie d'Adele, and on and on.

Such films are, for me, a reason to believe that form and not content is the deciding factor in a work of art's quality. If content had equal importance as form, then simply swiping the content of an earlier, greater work and retelling it would result in a work of higher quality than if its content had simply been original. But that is not the case.

With the demise of the studio system, Hollywood in its original sense no longer exists but its replacement with independent productions has not improved things.
The problems associated with filming novels remain and the recent film of The Great Gatsby shows how razzmatazz has outstripped even Hollywood's legendary use of it. Gatsby has been filmed four times in all and the best, discounting the original 1920's attempt, was the 1974 version that was technically very close to the novel but was let down by the lead roles who were not. In fact, casting is one of the most difficult aspects of filming and nowadays producers seem to opt for the biggest name rather than obtain people closer to the author's description.
The idea of the film as an extension of the novel was brought home to me recently when the publisher of my book, A Tangled Web, e-mailed me with a proposition to take part in a forum in which writers would join with film makers who are desperately seeking new material for filming. I was highly amused by this as the book deals with the very subject of this thread and I sent off a reply in which I pointed out that no producer would be interested in a novel that has the following example of how corporate entertainment ruins novels:

Dear Mr Wakefield,

I am sorry that you are unable to attend the New York premiere of Voluntary Confessions on July 4th. Your agent informs me that you are already engaged that day at an award ceremony for aspiring writers. Talking about awards, we are expecting a bagful for the movie, which has cost us four million dollars in advance publicity to date. You probably know that Buzz Winkleman, who made such a great job of Leader of the Pack that it grossed over $1.5 billion worldwide, has directed it.
We were also lucky to get Brick Venables and Cindy Feelgud to play the leads. Naturally Buzz had to make some changes, but with a great script by Chick Wade I think you’ll agree that it does the book justice.
Relocating the story to LA avoided the necessity of filming in European locations, and updating it to the present will increase the movie’s appeal to American audiences. The shoot-out with police at the end was added to accommodate the teenage contingent that, as you know, makes up the majority of moviegoers today.
Once again, I am really sorry that you couldn’t come over for the show but it will premiere in London in August and I’m sure you will be delighted with the result.

At least, I sincerely hope so.

Yours truly,
Jake Melrose
President: Supascope Entertainments.

Haha!

If they'd've added a car-chase and a shoot-out (and maybe some robots or zombies) it'd've made three billion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sancho

Haha!

If they'd've added a car-chase and a shoot-out (and maybe some robots or zombies) it'd've made three billion.

---

The story is set in the 1970s, by now they most certainly would have done.

There is a movie glances off this subject.

Adaptation
2002, Columbia Pictures
Director: Spike Jonze
Screenplay: Charlie Kaufman, Donald Kaufman

It's a sort of metafiction. It's billed as an adaptation of Susan Orleans' book, The Orchid Thief, which was an adaptation of an article she wrote for The New Yorker. But it's really about a screen writer who is struggling to adapt Ms Orleans' book into a movie. She is a character in the movie. The actual screen writer is Charlie Kaufman, and he is also the character in the movie. According to him, he struggled mightily with writer's block when writing the script. Nick Cage plays Charlie Kauffman and he also plays Donald Kaufman, Charlie's fictitious twin brother. The film credits Charlie and Donald Kaufman as the writers.

Donald doesn't suffer Charlie's anxiety or neuroses, and generally seems to be a happy-go-lucky, somewhat shallow fellow. He is also writing a movie script, but he's writing a thriller, from a formula. He is using techniques he learned at a Robert McKee seminar for screenwriters. This annoys Charlie greatly and he frequently and condescendingly tells Donald what is wrong with his movie. And yet Donald's movie is sure to be a blockbuster.

Reluctantly Charlie attends one of McKee's screenwriting seminars to try to break through his writer's block. McKee (a real guy) comes off as pragmatic about what sells scripts, but also as a bit of a blow-hard. He represents everything Charlie hates about the movie business. Up until the seminar Charlie narrates the movie with voice-over to fill us in on the back story, but when the McKee yells something like, "and don't even THINK about using voice-over," Charlie's narration abruptly ends.

Movies do some things well and books do some things well, and they're not necessarily the same things. This movie did a lot of things well. It's an original.

As far as the recent Great Gatsby goes, I don't think that movie works as an example of Hollywoodization. Its director, Baz Luhrmann, is very much an artist with a unique vision, whose movies (Strictly Ballroom, Romeo + Juliet, Moulin Rouge) have a very distinct look and feel. My understanding of the problems with his Great Gatsby (which I haven't seen) is that in this case he wasn't able to successfully join his style to the source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

As far as the recent Great Gatsby goes, I don't think that movie works as an example of Hollywoodization. Its director, Baz Luhrmann, is very much an artist with a unique vision, whose movies (Strictly Ballroom, Romeo + Juliet, Moulin Rouge) have a very distinct look and feel. My understanding of the problems with his Great Gatsby (which I haven't seen) is that in this case he wasn't able to successfully join his style to the source.

---

I haven't seen any of Luhrmann's other films, so I can't comment on those. But I don't see how the connection between style and source has any effect on the film's quality. It seems to me that when an artist takes a radically different stylistic approach to telling an old story, the quality of the movie still depends as much as ever solely on the artist's skill.

Anyways, as another example of a movie failing to be as good as its source material, the recent Anna Karenina surely falls into that category!

I actually liked that version of Anna Karenina. There were a few drawbacks; I wasn't crazy about the casting choice for Vronsky, and of course there was too little screen time for Levin and Kitty, but other than that I liked it. I thought Keira Knightly did a respectable job. I think Kate Winslet might have been a better choice. She more the actual age of Anna, and she's kind of how I see her, even how she carries herself and her innate dignity. I thought Jude Law did a good job.

I haven't seen the latest Gatsby. I always think people make a mistake by trying to make it larger than life. Sure there were the parties, but Gatsby is a small, intimate book, if you can call a book with such unlikable characters intimate. And I always think Redford is rather underrated as Gatsby. Gatsby had wealth, surely, but there was something of a chameleon about his ability to blend in-not a nonentity, certainly, but something unknowable, maybe even unformed, claylike, mold-able. You get the idea.

Is it more recently that Hollywood can't seem to get it right with movies it bases on books? Think of [I]The Grapes of Wrath[I], How Green Was My Valley, Rebecca. I think we must always remember that books and movies have different requirements-and quite frankly, if Hollywood could bring itself to actually respect writers, they might get better scripts. But then the heads of studios have always been known to be quite fearful of taking risks, ironically in a field that absolutely requires it, if something of any value is to be made.

I didn't have a problem with the acting, but with the direction. The visual choices that were made seemed schmaltzy and saccharine; for example, when Vronsky and Anna were together in a field. The "theatre" motif also seemed elaborate and clumsy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sancho

There is a movie glances off this subject.

Adaptation
2002, Columbia Pictures
Director: Spike Jonze
Screenplay: Charlie Kaufman, Donald Kaufman

Movies do some things well and books do some things well, and they're not necessarily the same things. This movie did a lot of things well. It's an original.

---

This would seem to be a case of the cinema lapsing into self-parody, but the crassness inherent in the commercialisation of films isn't always apparent even to those who are involved in the process of filming a novel.
Here's what happens when the protagonist of A Tangled Web is obliged, through stock market losses, to sell another novel to Supascope and asks his agent to arrange the deal with Jake Melrose:

“I'm afraid that nothing will induce him to come to London Mr Melrose, he is prepared to meet you in Naples but that’s as far as he will go,” said Matthew LeGrange over the telephone line to New York, “and, furthermore, he wants a guarantee that you won’t let Buzz Winkelman or Chick Wade near the film. He was most upset with the result of Voluntary Confessions.”
“Yeah well that was years ago. And besides, Buzz Winkelman’s dead: fell off the crane while trying to get a crane shot on the remake of Vertigo. And Chick’s having a lot of trouble scripting Metro’s updated version of Titus Andronicus and won't be available for some while. Even though I shall be in London next month, I really don't think I can spare the time to fly to Italy.”
“Then I'm afraid that’s where the discussion must end,” said the agent resignedly.
“Well, OK damn it! I’ll go to Naples if I have to, but we’re not going higher than our current offer,” exclaimed an agitated Mr Melrose.

I share your enthusiasm about Adaptation, Sancho. You might also enjoy a similar foray into
"metaliterature"-- Stranger than Fiction starring Emma Thompson and Will Ferrell.

Maybe you ought to "greenlight" a filmed version of your novel, Emil, along with insisting on creative control in your contract. Or you could direct it yourself. You never know--the finished product could be another Day for Night.


And finally:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qimissung

. . .quite frankly, if Hollywood could bring itself to actually respect writers, they might get better scripts.

---

I'm sure all of my fellow LitNutters have heard the story about the really dumb starlet who wanted to break into the movies, so she slept with the screenwriter.

If they made Emil's book into a movie, I'd pay money to go see it.

- especially if they filmed it in 3-D
- oh yes, and if it had a scene where a low-life miscreant gets beat up in front of his girl friend

That would be perfect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sancho

If they made Emil's book into a movie, I'd pay money to go see it.

---

I would, too, but alas, I have to wait until it appears on HBO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuntShecky

I would, too, but alas, I have to wait until it appears on HBO.

---

No need to wait for the film, just Google 'A Tangled Web by Emil Miller' and, if you don't want the buy the book you can access the first couple of chapters by clicking on the 'see inside' link. It will give you a good indication of the writing style and there's also a synopsis of the story displayed. It has already been received favourably by the Litnet and non-forum members who decided to read it.

The natural breaks in the layout are a bit haphazard but not in the book itself.

I googled "A Tangled Web," Emil, and I've got to say - I can't afford NOT to own this book. (4 bucks) I'm looking forward to reading it. It seems to me like you (or the publishers) are not asking enough for it. I mean, writing it was clearly a lot of work, and yet it costs less than a decent cheeseburger. Strange business, publishing.

Ah well, I'm off to watch the Oscars, then I'll get started.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sancho

I googled "A Tangled Web," Emil, and I've got to say - I can't afford NOT to own this book. (4 bucks) I'm looking forward to reading it. It seems to me like you (or the publishers) are not asking enough for it. I mean, writing it was clearly a lot of work, and yet it costs less than a decent cheeseburger. Strange business, publishing.

Ah well, I'm off to watch the Oscars, then I'll get started.

---

Thanks for deciding to read it Sancho. Although the book's theme of plagiarism is a serious one, it does aim to be a satire on publishing and related pursuits. The reason the book is priced that low is because I was asked to quote within a given price range and I seem to remember pitching it at the lower end because I would rather people read it than shy away because of the price.
Anyhow, I look forward to your opinion of it.

Since I first posted this thing, "exceptions that prove the rule" keep popping up in my addled head. The one I thought about today was One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. I didn't really admire the book by Ken Kesey, but after finally watching the movie on TV one night, I thought it was a really fine film, well deserving of all the Oscars it won that year (I think it was 1975.)

Speaking of the Academy Awards, I saw the telecast of the ceremony the other night. I thought that the hostess, Ellen DeGeneres, presided over the activities with just the right touch. But overall, I was extremely disappointed, as I didn't win a single Oscar. In fact, I wasn't even nominated! --since, as we all know, "it's an honor just to be nominated."

I have beside me a DVD of A Streetcar Named Desire made in 1951 and the winner of 12 Academy Awards. It was loaned to me and I intend watching it tonight. The Los Angeles Times called it: 'The most thrilling display of ensemble acting in all of American film', so I'm definitely looking forward to watching it. It seems that this is one story that Hollywood didn't ruin.

Typically I hate movies based on books that I enjoy. However, there are several very good movies made from mediocre books. I won't mention anything specific. There's no example I can give that wouldn't upset someone.

I also think it's true that good adaptations can be made when they are not direct adaptations. An example is Apocalypse Now. The story resembles Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. It becomes it's own entity despite the similarities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matthew Brown

I also think it's true that good adaptations can be made when they are not direct adaptations. An example is Apocalypse Now. The story resembles Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. It becomes it's own entity despite the similarities.

---

One of my all time favorite books (Heart of Darkness), and also the movie that it inspired, Apocalypse Now. Thematically the two were similar enough, but after that not so much... but the movie just works!

I think both loose adaptions and faithful adaptions can work equally well. All depends on the director and cast of actors. One great example is the movie Stand By Me, based on Stephen King's novelette 'The Body'... the movie is actually the better of the two, which is rare.

I'd say novels ruin Hollywood myself.

I can endure film adaptations as long as I haven't read the book in a month or so and I keep the word "Adaptation" at the front of my mind. For example, I didn't mind the rushed feeling of Ender's game because I knew they had a lot to pack into a short amount of time.

Unless it's Eragon. The Eragon movie was just terrible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

I'd say novels ruin Hollywood myself.

---

How so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hwo Thumb

I can endure film adaptations as long as I haven't read the book in a month or so and I keep the word "Adaptation" at the front of my mind. For example, I didn't mind the rushed feeling of Ender's game because I knew they had a lot to pack into a short amount of time.

Unless it's Eragon. The Eragon movie was just terrible.



How so?

---

well the more badly done a novel is the more bad reputation Hollywood accumulate.

Sometimes films help novels.

I know its not the typical order of things, but sometimes I won't know about a book until I see the film, and then yes, i'll go out and read it.

I also enjoy being able to see the movie characters in my minds eye as I read the books...

I recently saw a movie (on TV, of course) which is another exception to the "Hollywood ruins books" rule. Although I admire F. Scott Fitzgerald's original short story of "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," I thought that the 2008 adaptation, which brings the title character up to the year 2005, was a fine film.

i think forest gump is a good example of a book being turned into a better movie---same with the lion, the witch and the wardrobe.

if you read forest gump and then watch the movie, you're left with a sense of that the movie wouldn't have been nearly as popular had it been truer to the book.

ive not seen the most recent hunger games movie yet but i thought the first two movies jibed really well with the books...no criticisms at all.

I understand that the next James Bond movie will have a formidable opponent for Bond. He has the cunning of Blofeld and physical strength of Oddjob. After careful consideration, the producers have decided to call him Oddfeld.

Bram Stoker's Dracula by Francis Ford Coppola is a film that, for the most part, sticks to the book. There is the invention of Mina being the reincarnation of the Counts dead wife and the person who kills the Count at the end. The only scene missing from the book is the one where Jonathan Harker and the group confront the Count at another of his London residences. It makes sense to omit this scene as it shows Johnathans resolve to kill the Count, which is important in the book as it is Johnathan who kills the Count.

An example of a film being superior to the book is Razor's Edge starring Bill Murray. Unlike the book, by W. Somerset Maugham, it focus on the character of Larry. I was disappointed when I read the book, I'd seen the film first, to find Larry relegated to just one of many characters. I actually skimmed through the book until I saw Larry mentioned and would then read that bit properly.

okay---yes im not a teenaged girl but I just this morning finished the last book in the twilight series, breaking dawn. over the past 6ish months or so ive watched all the movies and read all the books. I mentioned above here that I really enjoy watching the movies and then reading the books. i find, among other things, i don't get upset with the book when its different from the movie, whereas the reverse isn't always true.

anyway---the author of the series was also one of the producers of the movies and so there seemed to be really good fidelity. however, i thought in a few cases, the movies did things better than the books did. the biggest example of that---spoiler alert---was the prophetic battle at the end of breaking dawn. it was marvelously done and extremely compelling, but was not in the book at all.