MANAGING EDITOR – SOPHIA KUSSEL
Film—the new books— can’t get enough of literature. Movies such as: The shining, the exorcist, It, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Harry Potter, and the Princess Diaries— yes, The Princess Diaries– were all once books without pictures that desperately needed some, like an ugly girl who takes off her glasses in the movies. However, not everyone is a fan of film adaptations.
On the extreme end, some argue that diverting from the source material whatsoever is insulting. Even movies like The Shining were disdained by their authors for veering so far from the source material. An author’s plot points are rearranged, characters misrepresented, and endings changed. There you have it; Big HollywoodTM has stomped out another book’s soul again.
But movies don’t ruin the book; Film has its own identity outside the book it’s adapting, just as books have their own. Books and the reader work together. Reading and watching are two different experiences; they are tactilely different media. Books also allow readers into the character’s explicit thinking in a way that film cannot. Most importantly, the reader must use their mind’s eye to fill in the blanks left by the author, creating visuals completely the reader’s own. Consequently, books must be far more extensive in terms of details, specifically abstract and subjective details.
In contrast, Films lay out their interpretations bare, with less character introspection. Basically, the director isn’t God omniscient. Filmmakers can use visual and auditory means to create a fully realized world for the audience— ready-made. Stunning visuals, special effects, and powerful performances bring the story to life in a way that a book cannot. Furthermore, A movie can convey information more quickly and efficiently than a book, too. Comparatively, books average between 200 to 400, yet a movie averages only two hours of screen time. The downfall of film, however, is the limited time to tell a story; movies tend to sacrifice certain plot points or speed up the action to fit within the constraints of short runtimes. Come on, how can you fit all the subtlety from stories such as How Abu Hasan Brake Wind– a story where a man farts so hard he dies from the shame– into a two-hour film? You just can’t rush that kind of artistry.
All of this back and forth is essentially irrelevant. Comparing books to their film adaptations just isn’t fair when they’re altogether two different beasts that offer two different experiences.
To get a deeper insight, The Rattler reached out to Paul Tremblay for an in-depth perspective from someone with firsthand experience in the book-to-movie pipeline. Late last January, Paul Tremblay’s novel, The Cabin at the End of the World, was adapted into a movie directed by the famous– sometimes infamous– director M. Night Shyamalan. The movie Knock at the Cabin was pretty adherent to the plot of the source material, but the ladder half took a turn viewers probably won’t except. Who knew?
So, how did the author feel about the changes to his work? Did he feel disrespected? Did he sue? Did he swear off writing forever? According to Tremblay, “… Our third acts differ greatly. I think my ending is better as it speaks more to my personal beliefs and to what I believe is important to telling a horror story. Without getting too spoilery, the film jettison’s the book’s ambiguity in the third act that (along with the death of a character in the book) are fulcrums to each story and how both work toward the endings. I’m probably not the majority opinion, here, but I think Night’s ending (and its implications) is much darker and less hopeful than mine. I do, overall, like the movie.”
That’s right, authors, and fans, don’t have to hate a film adaptation simply because they are different. In fact, film adaptations and their counterpart should be different. There is no point in watching a film adaptation if it doesn’t bring something new to say. At their core, watching a movie and reading a book are two very different experiences; there is no reason that both author and filmmakers shouldn’t be capitalized upon.
As Tremblay put it, “…[Movies] don’t have a responsibility to put the book as is on screen. Books and films are different beasts I never think about what a movie might look like when writing a book or story. I think about trying to make that story the best it can be and in that novel or short story form. The only responsibility a filmmaker has is to tell their story– whether it was based on another story– the best/most honest way they can… In my case, I do think the film honors the intensity, characters, and paranoia of the first two acts. But it is a different story given the divergent ending; Ultimately that’s okay.