Don’t forget about my super awesome giveaway, guys. The one
where you can win any book you want? Remember that one? Head on over there and
throw your name in the mix. Don’t forget to thank the good people of Amazon for
making it happen.
So I’ve been seeing commercials lately for Cloud Atlas, an immense and magnificent
book that I’ve always thought was completely un-filmable. It’s episodic. Each
chapter takes place not just in a different place, but in a completely
different time period. They’re thematically linked, but it’s definitely not the
kind of book you read and think, “Yup! Perfect for a movie.”
This IS a really cool cover though. |
Obviously they’ve
filmed it, but since I haven’t seen the movie, I can’t attest as to whether or
not it works. In a couple months, adaptations of major classics like Anna Karenina and The Great Gatsby will be released. In YA news, they’re days away
from officially choosing Shailene Woodley as Tris in the movie version of Divergent, the last Twilight is coming out soon, and next year we get a brand new Hunger Games (squee!).
Book-to-movie adaptations are tricky things. It’s hard to
say what makes the good ones really work. Is it because they were loyal to the
words? Did they transcribe the dialogue perfectly? Did they replicate each and
every scene exactly as they were described? Or did they make big changes,
streamlining and enhancing the plot? Sometimes details fall by the wayside in
order to capture the mood and message of the book. Other times they don’t
capture the moo d at all, and it’s still a good movie. Sometimes the book is
perfectly duplicated and it still completely stinks.
KEEP READING. There is naked Colin Firth awaiting you beyond. (Dead serious.)
See? Complicated. I think the only real answer is the movie
has to be good. Take Pride and Prejudice
as an example. It’s one of the most beloved novels of all time and has been
adapted many, many times. I’ve seen practically all of them, including the
complete reinterpretations like Lost in
Austen (SEE IT IT’S WONDERFUL), Bride
and Prejudice, and the current web-series The Lizzie Bennet Diaries.
But we’re sticking to more traditional adaptations. Laurence
Olivier made a version in 1940, the BBC made a miniseries in 1995, and Keira
Knightley starred in the 2005 version. For me the least successful is the 1940.
It bears nothing in common with the book other than the names of the characters
and the basic setup. Even the time period is changed. Seriously, it’s weird.
They’re all dressed like they’re in Gone
with the Wind.
I love both the 1995 version and the 2005. The former is
more loyal the novel and perfectly captures Austen’s humor and wit. Plus it has
this moment in it:
Even better than Colin in the lake if you ask me. |
The 2005 version takes some liberties with the plot. It
takes place about ten or fifteen years prior to P&P’s actual publication date, it cuts some characters out, and
the romantic, atmospheric mood it creates is somewhat anathema to Jane Austen.
But I think it’s a gorgeous movie in its own right.
In the end, sometimes quality books don’t make for quality
movies. Sometimes quality movies come from craptastic books, like The Godfather. Sometimes the movies are
magic. The formula’s elusive.
Sometimes it’s really hard to see books you adore turned in
to horrible movies (Ella Enchanted.
Shudder). But ultimately this trend of book-to-movie adaptations is a great
think for the world of books. It puts more focus on the land of print, making
more kids and adult rush into bookstores, desperate to read Catching Fire before it hits theaters. I gobbled up Atonement the week before the movie came out because I hate
watching movies before reading the books.
And more reading is always good.
Shut up, I'm reading. |
You know I ONLY read the rest of the article because naked Colin Firth would be there, right? Right.
ReplyDeleteOkay, no, but that did improve my day. I too saw the 1940 version of P and P and found it severely lacking. It was barely Jane Austen at all.
I find most book to movie adaptations disappoint me.