Adapting a book to play out on the big screen can be quite a challenge, I’m sure. Imagine taking on the task of adapting a beloved book (not to mention an entire series such as “Harry Potter,” “The Lord of the Rings,” or even the “Twilight” Saga) — reading through pages and pages of text in order to translate it into a cohesive way onto the screen; all the while deciding which details, characters and key moments to keep alive and intact to please the fans. As we all know, you can’t please everyone.
Every year a slew of novels get adapted. More recently, some of the better reads — “Atonement,” “The Da Vinci Code” and even “The Notebook” — translated beautifully on screen. While others — “The Time Traveler’s Wife,” “The Cat in the Hat” and “The Lovely Bones,” for example — didn’t fare so well. All are wonderful books, so what went wrong with the latter three? Why didn’t they work on film?
It’s all in how broadly the screenwriter and the director define the word ‘adapted.’ Once the rights are snatched up, it’s no longer about the author’s vision, but how the screenwriter and director see it, which could be completely off track.
With “The Lovely Bones,” a young adult book about the rape and murder of a teenage girl in the ’70s who, in turn, tells her story from the afterlife, was a powerful read. When Peter Jackson, director of “The Lord of the Rings,” adapted the book for the screen, he brought it down to an early-teen level, dismissing the heart of the novel. Jackson took away the grit, leaving a void in the story line on screen.
I bring up the notion of adaptation in the first place because the most recent book to hit the big screen — “Something Borrowed” by Emily Giffin — debuted in theaters last weekend. And despite bringing in a modest $14 million against “Thor’s” $66 million, it still landed in fourth place for the week and most likely won’t last another two weeks in theaters. Does mega-hit “Thor” have something to do with it? Maybe, but if “Thor” and runner-up “Fast Five” are geared toward male audiences, shouldn’t “Something Borrowed” still have raked in a bit more from female movie-goers?
In addition to the poor intake of money, “Something Borrowed” also received awful reviews. Entertainment Weekly gave it a D+. On the Rotten Tomato scale, it only scored a 15 percent approval rating. And the Associated Press and Washington Post didn’t like it either. As for me, unfortunately, the Claremont Cinema decided not to release the movie in their theater, so I didn’t have the pleasure of seeing whether the critics were wrong or not.
But I have read the book. All of Giffin’s books actually. And I will campaign for those.
I suppose a brief plot synopsis should be given at this point, eh? Ok, stay with me here: “Something Borrowed” is told from the viewpoint of Rachel (Ginnifer Goodwin), a low key, down-to-earth lawyer. Rachel is best friends with Darcy (Kate Hudson), an attention-seeking, loud, pretty-perfect-on-the-outside girl. Darcy is about to marry Dex (Colin Egglesfield) who Rachel actually introduced to Darcy back when Dex and Rachel were in law school together. Ever since that day, Rachel has been pining over why she didn’t set Dex up with herself rather than Darcy. Darcy, always outshining Rachel in popularity and love, doesn’t know how good of a thing she’s got. So on Rachel’s 30th birthday, Dex and Rachel hook up and quickly start falling in love with each other, as if Darcy never existed.
And so the book follows the tales of friendship and love and the complications that ensue when one is stronger than the other. Throw in longtime childhood friend Ethan (John Krasinski), and it’s the perfect recipe for a big screen rom-com adaptation. So what went wrong?
Perhaps it was the wrong choice in actors — Hudson, who plays Darcy, is the complete opposite in looks as compared to the book version of Darcy — or simply a bad weekend to open up on. Or maybe people are just tired of the usual chick-flick, rom-com fare. Either way, what makes a book successful on the big screen is still a mystery to me.
The moral of the story is: Always read the book first. You’ll be far more pleased with it than the movie, and it will satisfy your imagination to the fullest. And when it comes time to see the movie, go with an open mind. I think the viewer must look at the film as an entirely different entity from the book. If a reader picks apart each scene in the movie and gets caught up in the nitty-gritty of things, the viewer is simply setting themselves up for disappointment.
Upcoming Books Made Into Films
Priest (out in theaters today)
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (July 15)
The Help (Aug. 12)
The Three Musketeers (Oct. 14)
Breaking Dawn: The Twilight Saga (Nov. 18)
The Invention of Hugo Cabret (Dec. 19)
The Descendants (Dec. 16)
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Dec. 21)
The Hunger Games (March 23, 2012)
No comments:
Post a Comment