Books, that ancient pleasure. Movies, that modern miracle

by Mamta Bhatt 27 May 2010 03:39 Filmink Discusses

The book to film adaptation: we love them and we dread them

I love reading books. Always have, always - when I find the time again these days - will. There's something cathartic about spending the day with a good book. For twelve hours, I can lie in bed, curl up on the couch, sit cross-legged under the shade of a tree, or have a British voice booming through my earphones, mapping out the story, scenarios, settings, and conjuring images of the characters in my mind. That's why it's a perfect medium to me. Everyone has their own opinion on what a character should look like. Everyone pictures the place with slight variations. Despite what the written word says, readers have the ability to engage with the text to create their own version of the story. It's an immensely personal experience.

I love films as much as I love books. But I love it for the exact opposite reason. The visual medium spares me the trouble of having to create the scene. Everything is already mapped out for me, and I enjoy watching it unfold. Unlike books though, the film provides you with little chances to create your own vision. Not to call it a passive act, but there's less room in a film for individuals to enter and stamp their own reading. Particularly when the world and characters are so thoroughly realised. And that's where the problem lies when filmmakers try to make a book into a film.

How can you create a world in a book on the big screen for everyone when the experience of the world in a book is so subjective?

Short answer: you can't. A little longer answer: you can't very successfully.

I'm not saying every single book adaptation is a major fail. Indeed, I can name countless films I thought were faithful to the book - Lord of the Rings, The Secret Garden, Pride and Prejudice, The Notebook, Slumdog Millionaire, Fight Club, The Bourne Identity, The Chronicles of Narnia, Up In The Air, even Twilight (which has inherent problems in the plot that make it tricky to adapt to the big screen, but is a faithful adaptation nonetheless). Some films are even better than the book (namely Coppola's adaptation of The Godfather from Mario Puzo's original novel). But the failure to live up to a reader's expectations plagues almost every other book to film adaptation.

I turn to The Harry Potter series as my case in point. It's my favourite film franchise to bash because it's my favourite book franchise ever. I can't deny how exciting it is to see the world come to life and feel like I can almost touch it on the screen. It's a whole new sensation. But Alan Rickman is way too old to be the Snape of the books. Emma Watson is too beautiful, too un-buck toothed, and too un-bushy haired, to be Hermione. Rupert Grint is not the tall, lanky, long-nosed, faithful best friend. Mr Weasley doesn't even have the glasses his character is prescribed in the books, for heaven's sake! Not to even go into the entire plot and dialogue alterations that occurs. No matter how good the films stand alone, they come from the book and the fan will forever pick at every deviation from the original.

 It goes for casting Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon in The Da Vinci Code, the whole lesbian overtones taken out of The Golden Compass, the formulaic rom-com makeover of the simple story in The Devil Wears Prada (a fate that I'm sure awaits Eat, Pray, Love), and a whole host of other deviations readers can probably note in their experiences.

Maybe book fans are too fussy. I can appreciate a film before I know it has a book equivalent. I can even appreciate the film if I try to separate the book and film version, and see each as separate entities. There's even an initial joy in having the book adapted into a movie, and the ability to realise the world visually, is the highest pleasure.

It's when they do a terrible job that it sucks. And what constitutes a terrible job? Well that's really up to the reader, isn't it?