Adaptation

126/206

Say it with me now:  "Eight-ty pa-ges." *clap clap, clapclapclap* "Eight-ty pa-ges." *clap clap, clapclapclap*

Anyways, on to today's topic..........

Today I read a blog from fellow twitter person Elaine Allen (@mousicorn) about books being adapted to film.  The concept of film adaptation has been a fascinating one to me for awhile.  It's not just our favorite reads that are getting the Hollywood treatment.  Comic book characters and video games are also undergoing the transformation.  I feel I may have a unique perspective to add to the conversation.  I've been writing prose stories for years, but I also went to film school, where I learned screenwriting. 

The biggest issue, perhaps, surrounding a film adaptation is how well it keeps to the original.  It's a fair concept, to be sure.  If a movie is going to bear the title, display the characters, and ideally draw the fans of the original work, shouldn't it bear a striking resemblance to what we already like?  I would agree with that, but as someone who has studied film structure, I understand that there are some changes that are almost necessities.  Literally putting the book/comic/game events up on the screen may sound like a good idea, but I would caution someone in that mindset to be careful what they wish for.

Keep in mind, film communicates in much different ways that the written word.  In a novel, the author can take us directly into the mind of the characters.  As readers, we can process information about exactly what a character is thinking along with the physical realities (action, dialogue) around the characters.  Maybe this is one reason why the film version of our favorite characters can so easily dissapoint - by virtue of the medium we are cut off from their inner monologue of thoughts, which we perhaps relied on more heavily than we realized when we first read their stories.  Add in each reader/viewer's take on what a character should look/sound/behave like, and no wonder it's so hard to find an adaptation satisfying.

But some can be.  I would refer you to The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian.  I'm a fan of the book, and really, the whole series.  It was a set of books I first read as a child, and the series remains dear to me to this day.  Now let me say this:  the film is very different from the book.  It's as though the filmmakers cut the story up, shifted it around, and added some things of their own.  But the cool thing is, IT WORKED.  In the book, the four Pevensie siblings from the first installment return to the magical land of Narnia, only to discover it has been hundreds of years since they ruled it as kings and queens.  Not only that, but the land has been overtaken by a neighboring race of humanity that has all but exterminated the original talking animals that were the indigenous population.  They meet up with a dwarf, who fills them in on the fact that the human prince has defected to the side of the Narnians and is mounting a (now failing) attempt at a revolution.  The siblings join up with the prince and help work toward the liberation of Narnia. 

Sounds good enough, right? But think about it - how cinematic is it to meet a character (the dwarf) partway into the movie, and have him sit and tell you this whole long story about Caspian, and that his uncle tried to have Caspian killed after his own son was born?  And don't forget we need to know how Caspian met up with the Narnians and about the revolution.  Kind of boring, as a film.  As a book, it works just fine.  The medium of words on page serves that very well.  The slower opening of the children making it to Narnia and discovering things works.  The telling of Caspian's tale comes off fine.

But what did I see when I went to see the movie?  First up, Caspian's aunt giving birth.  The uncle learning he has a son.  A cloaked figure moving through the castle at night - it's the beloved professor, coming to wake Caspian, and get him out of the castle before his uncle can have him killed.  Caspian narrowly escaping the castle on horseback.  Caspian galloping on a horse away from the castle, the guards in hot pursuit.  The music swells, the title rolls up.  Tears prick my eyes.

They nailed it.  They totally did.  That was what we needed to see to make the opening dynamic enough to fit the needs of the film.  I don't hold it against them that they changed the opening.  In fact, I'm glad they did it.

There are other changes too, and to go into them would make this post way longer than it already is.  They added a sequence about a castle raid that wasn't in the book at all.  But to my surprise, it actually reinforced a key theme in the book for me.  The original villian from the first novel returns briefly, when she never appeared in the book.  Some may dismiss it as a marketing ploy - a way to get the actress's name and image involved with the second film.  But I don't mind it.  The actress they chose to play this villian was so good in the role, it was great to see her for the limited time we did.  And the scene provided a great moment for one of the sibling characters who had a lot to do with her in the first film.

So, I guess changes to beloved source material does not always spell doom.  I hope to delve into this subject more in future posts.  What about you?  What do you think about adapted works?  Are there any that have surprised you in a good way?  Please post on this blog to let me know.

Here is the link to Elaine's blog, which includes the post on adaption:
http://www.itsallwritehere.wordpress.com/