Top 5 Book-to-filmโฃ

by Not Friends Cinema Club

Dear Mum,โฃ
โฃ
My understanding and interpretation of the idea of โ€˜adaptationโ€™ has changed drastically in the last few years. Originally I was under the impression that a film adaptation should directly imitate the subject matter of the original content, and what resulted was years of frustration toward film variations and an embarrassingly long-term relationship with the pretentious phrase โ€œthe book is better.โ€ Not only is this phrase irrelevant (the two mediums do co-mingle but are still respected separately), but it disregards the liberties of creativity. Hitchcock once said โ€œWhen you finish the script, the film is perfect. But in shooting it, you lose perhaps 40 percent of your original conception,โ€ meaning that ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ ๐˜ฎ๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ ๐˜ธ๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ต, the page will always be denser than the screen. But by reinventing words to images we are completely altering their means of interpretation, meaning that expecting a replica is truly bizarre seeing as the imagination from reading is subjective, and whatโ€™s on screen is somewhat more distinctive. So, to be able to discuss the subjectivity of literature, the uniqueness of their dramatizations, and how they complement each other, I have only listed books that I have read. Grow up, Will. โฃ

My current understanding is that the only responsibility from a director when reinventing written work for the screen is to recreate the tone. An example of this is Cormac McCarthyโ€™s bleak novel ๐˜•๐˜ฐ ๐˜Š๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ณ๐˜บ ๐˜๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ ๐˜–๐˜ญ๐˜ฅ ๐˜”๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ reimagined by Joel and Ethan Coen. McCarthyโ€™s style of writing is extraordinarily individual, and itโ€™s through this style that we grasp his bitter reluctance to share the story but acquiesce due to necessity. The Coenโ€™s style is ironically similar by its idiosyncrasy, and whilst the adaptation differs from its source, the feeling of being trapped in a fatal moment in time is not just an auteur trope, but a bow to the sense of torment McCarthy invigorates.โฃ

Similar to this is F.F. Coppolaโ€™s interpretation of Mario Puzoโ€™s novel ๐˜›๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜Ž๐˜ฐ๐˜ฅ๐˜ง๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ. Although missing some vital information from within the book (and rightfully so, the film is already 3-hours long), Coppolaโ€™s adaptation imitates the novels tone of paranoia, and how fearful we should be of ignorance. Hailed as one of the greatest creations to grace the silver screen, ๐˜›๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜Ž๐˜ฐ๐˜ฅ๐˜ง๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ is loyal to the book in its dismissal of valuable content, deciding to tighten its lips in fear of saying too much.โฃ

Where my definition of โ€˜adaptationโ€™ becomes a little ambiguous is when talking about Paul Schraderโ€™s ๐˜”๐˜ช๐˜ด๐˜ฉ๐˜ช๐˜ฎ๐˜ข: ๐˜ˆ ๐˜“๐˜ช๐˜ง๐˜ฆ ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ ๐˜๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ณ ๐˜Š๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ฑ๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ด, in which three of Yukio Mishimaโ€™s novels were dramatized for the screen amongst the backdrop of a biopic. Whilst not a direct adaptation of one specific piece, ๐˜๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ณ ๐˜Š๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ฑ๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ด captures various published subconscious abstractions which the poet conjured, in contrast to his regimented tendencies. Itโ€™s through Schraderโ€™s interpretations we almost understand and sympathise with the traditionalistic and suicidal artist, emotions most would hesitate to bare without seeing the beauty of his work reinvented on screen.โฃ

The fourth entry on this list does not need an explanation, nor did the visual medium need to adhere exactly to the source material (and couldnโ€™t due to being based on the U.S. omitted version). Chaos was created and presented regardless, and controversy ensued due to the heavy and violent rendition of counterculture (whether satirical or not). Kubrickโ€™s ๐˜ˆ ๐˜Š๐˜ญ๐˜ฐ๐˜ค๐˜ฌ๐˜ธ๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ฌ ๐˜–๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜จ๐˜ฆ is as critical of society as Burgessโ€™ 1962 novel, and regardless of the โ€˜final chapterโ€™ dismissal, the film epitomises all that is horrendous in humans and questions the censorship of art.โฃ

To finish off, Iโ€™ll take us all back to Year 12 English class. Thatโ€™s right you lot. You heard me. The dramatic, ridiculous, and necrophiliac Tom Hardy in the 2-part T.V. film adaptation of Emily Brontรซโ€™s 1847 novel, ๐˜ž๐˜ถ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜จ ๐˜๐˜ฆ๐˜ช๐˜จ๐˜ฉ๐˜ต๐˜ด, finishes with a place. It has more of a cult presence than any legitimate cinematic prowess, so with that Iโ€™ll leave you with a one-word review:โฃ
โฃ
Catheh.โฃ
โฃ
Warm regards,โฃ
โฃ
M.โฃ

 

 

 

RESULTS:โฃ
โฃ
1. ๐˜•๐˜ฐ ๐˜Š๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ณ๐˜บ ๐˜๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ ๐˜–๐˜ญ๐˜ฅ ๐˜”๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ (๐Ÿธ๐Ÿถ๐Ÿถ๐Ÿฝ)โฃ
Dir. Coen Brothersโฃ
Author: Cormac McCarthyโฃ
โฃ
2. ๐˜›๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜Ž๐˜ฐ๐˜ฅ๐˜ง๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ (๐Ÿท๐Ÿฟ๐Ÿฝ๐Ÿธ)โฃ
Dir. Francis Ford Coppolaโฃ
Author: Mario Puzoโฃ
โฃ
3. ๐˜”๐˜ช๐˜ด๐˜ฉ๐˜ช๐˜ฎ๐˜ข: ๐˜ˆ ๐˜“๐˜ช๐˜ง๐˜ฆ ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ ๐˜๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ณ ๐˜Š๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ฑ๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ด (๐Ÿท๐Ÿฟ๐Ÿพ๐Ÿป)โฃ
Dir. Paul Schraderโฃ
Author: Yukio Mishimaโฃ
โฃ
4. ๐˜ˆ ๐˜Š๐˜ญ๐˜ฐ๐˜ค๐˜ฌ๐˜ธ๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ฌ ๐˜–๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜จ๐˜ฆ (๐Ÿท๐Ÿฟ๐Ÿฝ๐Ÿท)โฃ
Dir. Stanley Kubrickโฃ
Author: Anthony Burgessโฃ
โฃ
5. ๐˜ž๐˜ถ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜จ ๐˜๐˜ฆ๐˜ช๐˜จ๐˜ฉ๐˜ต๐˜ด (๐Ÿธ๐Ÿถ๐Ÿถ๐Ÿฟ)โฃ
Dir. Coky Giedroycโฃ
Author: Emily Brontรซโฃ
โฃ
โฃ