![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The most recent Michael Fassbender film The Light Between the Oceans is adapted from a book that I read last fall for a book club. I didn't love the book and have since backed away a bit from the book club. So am somewhat on the fence about whether I want to see the movie. And, then, I started thinking about novel to film adaptations, which are not quite the same as a play being adapted for film or for that matter a graphic novel/comic book (which in a way is the same thing as a play or screenplay except with pictures).
For the most part, I don't tend to like the film adaptations of books that I adored. Note, the qualifier, adored. On the other hand, I have been known to love film adaptations of books that I despised, and/or never read and have no interest in reading.
Also, I often won't read a book after I've seen the film adaptation - it throws me off. I end up spending the whole time comparing it to the film adaptation, and I keep seeing the actors playing them in my head, which I find distracting. That's what happened with "The Harry Potter" films, which I enjoyed, but was also a bit distracted by. Yet, I did not have this problem with any of the Jane Austen adaptations, possibly because there was usually quite a bit more time between the adaptation and my reading of the book. Also, Austen wrote in a letter style, quite formalized, and not necessarily digestible, often her sentences and phrasing got stuck between my mental teeth. Feel much the same way about John Le Carre's adaptations.
Then there are books that are basically just screenplays in novel format just begging for the screen adaptation - such as all of Michael Crichton and Elmore Leonard's novels. And most of Stephen Kings.
On the other side of the coin, are novels that defy adaptation and the writer deliberately wrote them in a such a way that it would be difficult it nigh impossible to adapt them to screen. Examples include most of Milan Kundera's novels, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, James Joyce, William Faulkner (not that people haven't tried), and various other literary stylists. Their beauty lies within the delicate interplay of language and word choice, which would be lost on screen.
As a result, when they adapt a book, I often think - eh, I may not bother. It depends on the book of course. If it's a comic book/graphic novel, often the movie/television series will be better or will stand on its own, particularly in this day and age when they can actually do the visuals justice. Comic books/graphic novels regardless of their content can be visual feasts for the eyes and mind. But appreciation of the art form depends greatly on how the reader thinks. If you do not think "visually", the appeal will most likely be utterly lost on you. The same principle can be applied to
an appreciation of audio books. For example? I adore graphic novels/comic books, but the appeal of audio books is lost on me. I lose half the story when it is told in audio format. I don't think that way, I'm a perceiver of patterns, I think visually and words, concepts, ideas, often will form themselves into pictures, paintings, images in my head, or feelings. Other people don't think like that, many people think in sounds, notes, numbers, or concepts. So, whether you enjoy the comic book/graphic novel medium has less to do with the medium and a lot to do with how you think. [That's why a lot of Buffy the Vampire Slayer Television serial fans could not appreciate the comics at all and never tried. When they said it wasn't their medium, they weren't kidding. It's not how they think.] Adaptations from one medium to the next, can often lose the original audience for this reason alone.
For me, I don't have that problem - at least not with a book to film adaptation. But I tend to avoid radio adaptations and audio. I don't find them entertaining. And only enjoy radio for music. I can't really listen to stories told over the radio or radio plays - because like I stated above, I lose a portion of the story. So, for example, the radio plays of Star Wars and Doctor Who, were lost on me.
I didn't bother.
What I tend to struggle more with is the quality of the adaptation, continuity issues, if the characters/dialogue/world and story fit what I saw in the book. All the while realizing it will most likely veer away from my interpretation or perception of it. Much like fanfic, a film adaptation or a novel adaptation of a film or tv show is that writer's or filmmakers interpretation of the original work. It can't be what I personally perceived. When it is, it feels magical, because it is almost as if the filmmaker/writer jumped inside my head.
I remember loving the film The World According to Garp but being unable to read the book afterwards. It just didn't live up to the movie. Meanwhile, I never want to see a film version of A Prayer for Owen Meany - which I read and adored. Because I know the film can't live up to the book in my head. Had a weird experience reading Return of the Jedi - which came out before I saw the movie. I preferred it to the movie, actually I loved the book but disliked the film.
It's weird, because it is a novel adaptation of the film. Should have been the opposite.
And like Garp, there are other film classics based on books that I have no interest in the books, and in some respects were far better received and outshown the books. Such as "The Exorcist", "The Godfather", "Jaws", and "The Shining by Stanley Kubrick" (much to Stephen King's considerable chagrin).
While other films took what was beautiful and wonderous about the books and sort of stomped on it.
Examples include: an adaptation of Philip Pullmans' His Dark Materials, The Hobbit, and The Fault in Our Stars.
And of course, with the advent of television and most importantly cable/netflix, we have serialized adaptations of books that in some respects are more engaging than the books themselves and far tighter. Examples include Daredevil, Game of Thrones, The 100 and the Vampire Diaries,
So, in sum, I remain ambivalent in regards to adaptations. It depends.
For the most part, I don't tend to like the film adaptations of books that I adored. Note, the qualifier, adored. On the other hand, I have been known to love film adaptations of books that I despised, and/or never read and have no interest in reading.
Also, I often won't read a book after I've seen the film adaptation - it throws me off. I end up spending the whole time comparing it to the film adaptation, and I keep seeing the actors playing them in my head, which I find distracting. That's what happened with "The Harry Potter" films, which I enjoyed, but was also a bit distracted by. Yet, I did not have this problem with any of the Jane Austen adaptations, possibly because there was usually quite a bit more time between the adaptation and my reading of the book. Also, Austen wrote in a letter style, quite formalized, and not necessarily digestible, often her sentences and phrasing got stuck between my mental teeth. Feel much the same way about John Le Carre's adaptations.
Then there are books that are basically just screenplays in novel format just begging for the screen adaptation - such as all of Michael Crichton and Elmore Leonard's novels. And most of Stephen Kings.
On the other side of the coin, are novels that defy adaptation and the writer deliberately wrote them in a such a way that it would be difficult it nigh impossible to adapt them to screen. Examples include most of Milan Kundera's novels, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, James Joyce, William Faulkner (not that people haven't tried), and various other literary stylists. Their beauty lies within the delicate interplay of language and word choice, which would be lost on screen.
As a result, when they adapt a book, I often think - eh, I may not bother. It depends on the book of course. If it's a comic book/graphic novel, often the movie/television series will be better or will stand on its own, particularly in this day and age when they can actually do the visuals justice. Comic books/graphic novels regardless of their content can be visual feasts for the eyes and mind. But appreciation of the art form depends greatly on how the reader thinks. If you do not think "visually", the appeal will most likely be utterly lost on you. The same principle can be applied to
an appreciation of audio books. For example? I adore graphic novels/comic books, but the appeal of audio books is lost on me. I lose half the story when it is told in audio format. I don't think that way, I'm a perceiver of patterns, I think visually and words, concepts, ideas, often will form themselves into pictures, paintings, images in my head, or feelings. Other people don't think like that, many people think in sounds, notes, numbers, or concepts. So, whether you enjoy the comic book/graphic novel medium has less to do with the medium and a lot to do with how you think. [That's why a lot of Buffy the Vampire Slayer Television serial fans could not appreciate the comics at all and never tried. When they said it wasn't their medium, they weren't kidding. It's not how they think.] Adaptations from one medium to the next, can often lose the original audience for this reason alone.
For me, I don't have that problem - at least not with a book to film adaptation. But I tend to avoid radio adaptations and audio. I don't find them entertaining. And only enjoy radio for music. I can't really listen to stories told over the radio or radio plays - because like I stated above, I lose a portion of the story. So, for example, the radio plays of Star Wars and Doctor Who, were lost on me.
I didn't bother.
What I tend to struggle more with is the quality of the adaptation, continuity issues, if the characters/dialogue/world and story fit what I saw in the book. All the while realizing it will most likely veer away from my interpretation or perception of it. Much like fanfic, a film adaptation or a novel adaptation of a film or tv show is that writer's or filmmakers interpretation of the original work. It can't be what I personally perceived. When it is, it feels magical, because it is almost as if the filmmaker/writer jumped inside my head.
I remember loving the film The World According to Garp but being unable to read the book afterwards. It just didn't live up to the movie. Meanwhile, I never want to see a film version of A Prayer for Owen Meany - which I read and adored. Because I know the film can't live up to the book in my head. Had a weird experience reading Return of the Jedi - which came out before I saw the movie. I preferred it to the movie, actually I loved the book but disliked the film.
It's weird, because it is a novel adaptation of the film. Should have been the opposite.
And like Garp, there are other film classics based on books that I have no interest in the books, and in some respects were far better received and outshown the books. Such as "The Exorcist", "The Godfather", "Jaws", and "The Shining by Stanley Kubrick" (much to Stephen King's considerable chagrin).
While other films took what was beautiful and wonderous about the books and sort of stomped on it.
Examples include: an adaptation of Philip Pullmans' His Dark Materials, The Hobbit, and The Fault in Our Stars.
And of course, with the advent of television and most importantly cable/netflix, we have serialized adaptations of books that in some respects are more engaging than the books themselves and far tighter. Examples include Daredevil, Game of Thrones, The 100 and the Vampire Diaries,
So, in sum, I remain ambivalent in regards to adaptations. It depends.