This week's topic: What makes some books seem ideal for a film translation?
I think a book with a very vivid sense of time and place makes for a great story. If a book is entirely character-driven, that can be harder to translate because the actor/actress chosen might not fully encompass the character like the book. These days, casting choices for films are posted practically the second they happen, and everyone has an opinion. No one liked Robert Pattinson as Edward in Twilight when he was first cast. Online chatter was negative on most of the Hunger Games main cast--especially the guys, I think this often shifts when the movies come out, although sometimes poor casting really tanks a movie.
Here are a few I think did well with book-to-film translations:
This might be the best ever, honestly. Bringing Hogwarts and quidditch to the big screen worked so well, along with an unforgettable cast that made Harry, Hermoine and Ron cultural legend. The books had all the elements to make for a great film series. Plus, the films matured from kid to teen/adult in the same way the books did.
Pride & Prejudice: the 1995 miniseries
When you have longer than 90 minutes to work with, a movie version of a book can really shine. Barely anything is left out in this miniseries. Besides Jane, the movie is wonderfully cast (sorry but Jane never fit right for me). I will say, the 2005 Keira Knightly version is not so bad considering the time-crunch. It's gorgeous and definitely captures the era and the relationships among the sisters, the family and the societal pressures they faced. Even Mr. Collins is still annoying and creepy.
Not so much...
One for the Money
Sorry Katherine Heigl; you and the rest of the cast just seemed off. Except maybe Sherri Shepherd. This zany series felt stifled by some of the more serious crime and Steph felt more like a victim here. Since she's so much of the allure of the series, an odd casting choice really makes it a tough sell.
Lord of the Rings, Jurassic Park, and Gone With the Wind are a few more examples that really brought the book's setting to life on film.
Other misses: The Other Boleyn Girl--it's fine to make the movie you want about Henry VIII, but from the start this film didn't follow the book. The only resemblance to Phillipa Gregory's work is it featured Anne Boleyn's sister.
Posts
Love HP and A&E's P&P.
ReplyDeleteI did end up enjoying One For The Money, but only because I let go of my expectations beforehand...I figured it would be hard to capture the tone of those books on film.
But isn't it sad when you have to lower expecations for a books series you like? I feel the same way--I already knew not to expect much.
DeleteOh, BBC Pride and Prejudice, how I heart thee! I wish every book I love could have upwards of six hours on screen.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC Pride and Prejudice is the only Pride and Prejudice that should be watched! I didn't watch One For The Money.... I just ... couldn't! But I agree, Harry Potter (for the most part) and Lord of the Rings were really well done.
ReplyDeleteYou're so right about wrong casing choices tanking a movie. I'm trying to think of an example of that off the top of my head, but I'm coming up blank. I'm still not crazy about Kristen Stewart in the role of Bella (not a major fan of the books, but still). She's not at all like I pictured her. And even Jennifer Lawrence still doesn't feel like the Katniss I envisioned.
ReplyDeleteUsually when books are made into film, any time I read the book again after seeing the film, I picture the characters as the actors. After seeing the first HARRY POTTER film the way I pictured the characters was forever altered. In the case of Katniss, this didn't happen.
I agree on Katniss; I read Catching Fire and Mockingjay after seeing the movie, and I still had my own ideas of her and Gale, but Peeta was more memorable as the actor.
DeleteBella didn't quite fit either, but Bella's description in Twilight is so vague it could honestly be anyone. I don't mind this--I don't need every facet of a characters face and body explained, but since every facet of Edward's face and body IS explained, it seems weird that Bella does not receive the same treatment. I guess because the focus is HOT IMMORTAL GUY rather than clumsy regular non-special girl. But I digress...
One of my complaints about the Potter series, and the way the directors conceptualized them, was the change that came over Hermione as the series progressed. In the book she is frizzy haired and has large teeth, and for good reason. She wasn't supposed to be a glamor queen. Not a striking beauty. Her father's a dentist, hence the teeth. For the first couple of movies, they came fairly close to that image. But from 3 onwards, Hermione seemed to glam up a bit. Frizzy hair gone, fashionable clothes, etc. I think the movies missed an opportunity to reinforce JKR's message: looks aren't everything, and in fact intelligence and loyalty can be far more attractive than beauty.
ReplyDeleteBut aside from that, and a couple of other small points, I think the movies did a good job of taking JKR's story and putting on the big screen. :)
Casting can make a HUGE difference. I thought Rosamund Pike from the Keira Knightley P&P was a much better casting choice for Jane. And Michael Fassbender's portrayal of Mr. Rochester has made it so I can't picture anyone else playing that character - I watched another adaptation like two weeks after that one, and it felt wrong to me to see someone else playing Mr. Rochester. On the other hand, I really didn't like Logan Lerhman as Percy Jackson - he was too old, and didn't have nearly enough attitude, and I still can't believe they're making the sequel.
ReplyDeleteThe most recent Jane Eyre was so good! Michael Fassbender is good in everything. I'd forgotten he was in it by the time I got around to watching it on DVD; I really liked him in X Men as young Magneto.
DeleteInteresting post. I've found that the more I love a book, the more I generally dislike the movie adaption. When I love a book, I have a very defined idea of what it was. Often, it's not what the film portrays. But when I'm so-so about a book, I often will enjoy the movie.
ReplyDeleteYou definitely hit the nail on the head about casting and setting. The reason the Lord of the Rings works is finally visualizing the amazing world Tolkein created.
Thanks for sharing this today.
The BBC Pride and Prejudice had the most perfect cast, I just loved it! A perfect adaptation :)
ReplyDeleteThe Dark is Rising was a huge miss for me!
well, i noticed when i read the harry potter books, you could just visualize the movie. i read the books before the movie. Maybe all that is what they consider. is it marketable? great blog! new follower...hi!!
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by NaNoWriMo post! Ahhh, books into movies - I'm a huge fan of fantasy and always long to see more fantasies made into movies, like Shadow and Bone or Sabriel. The Harry Potter movies are staples at our house!
ReplyDelete