Books and Movies

Standard

We all love stories, to sit back and enjoy a good yarn.

But, where do we get those stories? More and more, those stories are coming from all sorts of different places. It could be plays, musicals, books, blogs, TV, movies, radio, podcasts, YouTube videos, and I could keep this list going forever and ever and ever…

But, what I want to address is books and movies. I gotta say – I love me a good book, but also love me a good movie. I’ll never be a filmmaker, but I can write a book, so I do have a somewhat vested interest in how books are re-translated to the big screen.

The issue came up for me today as I started showing a film in one of my classes after we read the novel together. The book is the 1964 Civil War novel, Across Five Aprils, that tells the story of one family’s experiences as they see sons leave for the war in rural Illinois. It received a Newbery Honor when it was first released, and has some great historical lessons. I wouldn’t say it’s a great book, but it isn’t bad.

But, then I found out there is a movie. “Great!” I thought. I can do the book and show the movie to cap the unit. One problem – the movie is terrible. I hate to criticize movies that are derived from books, but this is as much “based” on Across Five Aprils as Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is based on Ol’ Abe’s life story.

There’s a point when you are no longer telling the story the author set out in the first place or when you are telling a whole new story. That latter camp is where Across Five Aprils finds itself. The characters are weak at best, the acting reminds me of a class project I might have shot on a weekend when I was in 8th grade and the plot is convoluted. The book, while is simple at times, at least has a clear and concise plot that is easy to follow.

In other words – it is terrible.

There are always going to be differences between the source material and the movie, but finding that balance is the trick. All of the Harry Potter films toe that fine line and, I think, come away for the better. Are they the same as the books? No. But, do they work as a movie and tell much of the same story? Oh yeah. As a companion to the books, they work amazingly. They get the key plot points dead-on and don’t mess with those who have longed to see their beloved characters on screen.

Not every book can be made into an effective movie. Well, at least that’s what I thought when I read World War Z. As a direct adaptation, it would have been unmakable as a film, but tweaking the plot and giving the story a main protagonist made for a very effective movie.

I get a kick out of watching movies with my daughter after she’s read the book first. This summer we watched the two Percy Jackson movies. She polished off the PJ books back at the end of last school year and was eagerly anticipating the new movie all summer. We watched it and the entire time I got, “Well, he wasn’t supposed to look like that!” or “They didn’t do that in the book,” or “Wait…that’s not what they did in the book.”

At a certain point we all need to step back and separate books from their movie adaptations, but filmmakers also need to sometimes do a better job of recognizing if the source material is better than the stuff they are filming.

 

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Books and Movies

  1. Yea, as viewers we need to separate the books and their films, that way we can enjoy both. Filmmakers should also have a chat with the authors and the fans to understand the story better.

  2. My beef is when they take something–event or characterization–either highly significant or specifically mentioned for a reason, then change it to something different and make that a major deal or pivotal plot point. At that point, you’ve got shaky grounds for even saying it was “inspired” by the book!

  3. Matt Swardstrom

    I have been chafed by this in the past. I read a book and then eagerly anticipate a movie only to be let down because big events from the book never made it into the movie or were completely changed. Goblet of Fire for example could’ve easily been two movies since the quidditch world cup took up at least 100 pages of the book yet in the movie it was a fairly short scene comparitively. I too also wish that directors would spend more time delving into the subject: confering with the source material, the author if they are still alive, and to a certain extent the fanbase as well. In some cases this does seem to be getting better as “the age of the geek” has caused some to be more wary and respectful of their audience however. Amazing Spider-Man in my opinion was better representation of the essence of the character then the old Toby Macquire movies ever felt. But I digress. All this to say yes I agree as well.

  4. I don’t think movies should be a mirror of the book. Sometimes there are parts that are simply not filmable. Quiddich could have been in the movie, but did it advance the plot of Harry winning the Goblet of Fire? Not really and in order to avoid a 5-hour movie, I understand them taking that out. Same thing with Tom Bombadil in Lord of the Rings. As it is, the Director’s Cut is over 12 hours. Add in the extra scenes with Tom and it bogs down the movie and diverts the plot away from the true focus — Frodo and the Ring.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s