Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Hollywood Calling...

It seems lately that the only true measure of literary success is getting your book adapted to the big screen. It also seems that the only good movies are the ones based on books. And we've all heard the whining complaints about how the movie ruined this or that from the book. The issue is that basically we've already directed, acted, and edited the movie version of the book in our minds as we read it, and obviously our movie version is better than theirs.

I do this assignment after reading The Crucible with my high school juniors. They cast the movie, pick some songs for the soundtrack, come up with a tag line, and then make a movie poster to advertise for their movie. This leads to some strange results. Think Bill Clinton as John Proctor with Hillary as Elizabeth and Monica Lewinsky as Abigail Williams. You have to admire the extent of their historical knowledge. But no matter how terrible their versions of the movie are, once I show them the film version, other than their relief that they're watching a movie in school that's in color, they all think their versions were better. Of course Will Smith makes a better John Proctor than that goofy old what's-his-name.

So, when YA Highway's Road Trip Wednesday asks our favorite movie that was better than the book, they're asking a nearly impossible question to answer. But alas, I can think of two. And I might get blasted for both.

The first is kind of obvious--The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Those who watch the movies and complain about them being too long and drawn out have obviously never read the books. Sure, they're classics and must reads, and I don't think I'd want to change a word, but...let's just say Tolkien is a bit long-winded. Was he being paid by the word? And that whole thing with the weird guy that lived in a tree that just slows down the whole exciting journey? I'm glad Peter Jackson cut him out.

I have a strong imagination, but somehow while reading the books I found myself picturing a childish cartoon of a war in comic book color with the hobbits played by Jim Henson puppets. I think The Dark Crystal overly influenced my reading.  Creepy. Seeing the epic battles and scenery in live action with great acting, amazing effects, and unbelievably dramatic timing brought the world of Middle Earth alive much more than my imagination could. Fo sho!

The second is The Shining. Sure Kubrick's film was far different than King's novel (in fact, I've heard some say they really aren't much of the same thing at all.), but I kind of liked that. Kubrick was creepier. He realized that with a movie you have the advantage of visuals, of imagery through the eyes, not the mind. You watch that movie, and there are so many images that are left frozen in your mind forever: the blood river in the elevator, the creepy twin girls, "Redrum" in the mirror, the corpse-like woman in the bath tub, the little boy peddling down the hall. It's amazing how well Kubrick used the medium of film to take what King did so well in print and reinvent it. Both are terrifying. Both are memorable. But they both were able to do what they did in the perfect way for the medium both were using. Quite remarkable. I know I've been scarred for life.

As a writer, though, I've heard authors talking about being sellouts for letting Hollywood corrupt their masterpieces. Not I. Sure I've yet to have a novel even published, but I can't think of a better tribute to me, my story, and my characters than to see them on the big screen. I'll be at the opening, tears in my eyes...

Criticizing every single change, of course.

Sweet, innocent...nightmares

11 comments:

  1. I've not seen the movie version of THE SHINING, but, as I said in my review of the book on my blog (shameless plug), from what I've read of the movie, I'm a little hesitant to see it. Again, from what I've read, Kubrick made Jack's character a lot more psychotic, and not as conflicted. One of the things I liked about the book was that it was clear that underneath the struggles and horrors, the family really loved each other. And the way the book ends I think reinforced that. There was a redemptive note to the ending of the book that, frankly, surprised me in a good way.

    As for LotR--I'm totally with you on that one. Tolkien was a great writer, and the books should be read (I read them to my kids before they saw the movies), but the movies certainly help move the story along.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Jack, from the start, by today's standards, even in the book, started off a bit douchy. I think you use the conflicted feel during his transformation because you lose the inner dialogue. But I truly believe that if you were to only see the actions of the book version of Jack, you'd probably think he was loony toons. Also, there is a mini-series version that was endorsed by King that I recommend fans of the book see. Not as scary and creepy, but a nice visual representation of the book.

      Delete
  2. I'm so torn with The Shining. The opening of the film is so haunting and the hotel itself is visually menacing, and yet I felt a greater sense of Jack's decline in the book. I really like both!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can see that. The book it's more of a process of being possessed by the hotel. In the movie it's kind of one day dad next day demon.

      Delete
  3. I can not watch the Shinning. It'd freak me out to the point of not sleeping I think. :) But I agree with you on the movie thing. If my novel ended up on the big screen, it'd bring happy tears to my eyes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's all cross our fingers--to selling out to Hollywood! Holden Caulfield would be so depressed reading this.

      Delete
  4. Ha, you say LOTR was an obvious choice and I completely forgot about it! But I agree about Tolkien being long winded and think the movies condense the story really well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also had an all-three-in-one copy of LOTR, so I'm sure psychologically it felt longer than it actually was.

      Delete
  5. Ooh, the Shining is a great choice. I loved both the movie and book when i was younger, but the film's held up better in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I can see that. I almost want to watch it again now to refresh why I loved and hated it so much.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I wrestled with this topic a few months back in the MFA program. In the multigenre workshop we did a whole compare and contrast thing with King's Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption, the screenplay based on it, and the film version. I found myself loving the novella more, while most of the group preferred the movie.

    As you mentioned about The Shining, details like inner-dialogue are lost in the film version, which tends to flatten characters in movies if not handled well. Shawshank was well done on all levels, but it didn't have a certain depth of realism I respected in the book, even if fictitious, which made me an instant skeptic during the viewing.

    Tim Weed wrote a good blog on the LOTR book versus film topic a few months ago. Worth checking out.

    ReplyDelete