I believe film can tell any story - there's no idea or emotion it can't convey. However, I don't believe it is always the best way to convey that idea or emotion. I hope no one ever makes a film adaptation of Catcher in the Rye,"" David Sedaris' ""Me Talk Pretty One Day"" or Michael Chabon's ""The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay."" I believe in the power of film, but I have the greatest respect for the power of the written word.
The power of writing is strange. In a book, an object can be described for pages and pages, yet, in one shot, the same object can be shown on film. Despite the fact it may take hundreds of times longer to read about that object than simply see it, I wouldn't give up the chance to read a detailed author's description for anything. As many films as I watch and great performances I witness, reading a great story by a talented writer is still an unmatched pleasure.
You don't have to look far to see that some of the worst films come from the best source material, especially in the last 30 years or so. In the past decade alone, three of Dr. Seuss' best books, ""The Cat in the Hat,"" ""How the Grinch Stole Christmas"" and ""Horton Hears a Who!"" have opened to decidedly indifferent reactions from critics and audiences (Horton heard a 'meh'). Adaptations like ""Bonfire of the Vanities"" and ""The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"" have also crashed as films despite being fantastic books. Maybe some books are just too dense to make great movies.
The strangest thing about this trend is some of the best adaptations in film history were taken from mediocre sources. Mario Puzo once said that had he known his book ""The Godfather"" would be so popular, he would've written it better. ""Silence of the Lambs"" is a decent thriller, but translating it to the big screen made the story iconic. No one remembers Nicholas Pileggi's book ""Wiseguy,"" but try finding someone who hasn't heard of its adaptation, ""Goodfellas.""
Alan Moore has had three own his novels translated into films has disowned each adaptation, though Hollywood is currently preparing itself for a fourth. Moore's name may not mean much to you if you don't read graphic novels (read: comic books), but amongst those in the know, Moore's name is held in high regard. If you don't know Moore, however, maybe you recognize some of his work: ""V for Vendetta,"" ""From Hell"" and ""The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen."" ""Watchmen,"" arguably his best work, is currently being adapted by ""300"" director Zack Snyder. ""Watchmen"" is possibly the best single graphic novel ever written, and whether it can be adapted both faithfully and well remains to be seen. Even Snyder's well-done adaptation of Frank Miller's ""300"" took liberties with the story in ways Moore probably would've disagreed with were it his book.
The problem, I think, is that when someone adapts a book, it's usually a double-edged sword. There are those who love the book so much that any changes or liberties taken by the filmmakers are ""destroying a work of art."" At the same time, there are those who want great movies rather than great adaptations of books and don't mind if those stories are unique rather than faithful.
This isn't meant to discourage filmmakers; maybe it's more of a warning. Adaptations shouldn't be stopped, but they need to be selective about which material would be the best movies and throw away the stories they can't do justice to. After all, shouldn't it be the goal of any filmmaker to make only the best movies possible?
Think you can turn your stack of childhood comics into feature length screenplays? Send them to Brad for approval at boron@wisc.edu.
