Up until a few years ago I was one of many book lovers who firmly believed it’s virtually impossible for a film adaptation to be better than the novel it’s based on. Obviously it’s impossible to condense several hundred pages into two or three hours and maintain the story’s integrity, especially with all of the subplots, minor characters, nuances and emotional depth that are lost in translation.
When I undertook the daunting task of adapting Jane Austen’s Sense and Sensibility into a stage play in 2002, I approached it with a dubious attitude. While I enjoyed Emma Thompson’s film version well enough, I figured a stage play would be even worse with its limited imagery and settings. What I discovered instead was that I had a knack for combining scenes and characters, eliminating less important ones, and maintaining what I thought was a fairly seamless congruence. A couple of years after that, Dramatic Play Publishing, who published my adaptation, commissioned a stage version of Persuasion. Tackling this project proved to be even easier than the first, and I discovered something else in the process. Sometimes cutting scenes, characters and even subplots can actually help a story rather than hinder it.
It’s been several years since my theater days, but because of those two adaptations, I’m extremely interested in the art of adaptation. I make a point of seeing films whose novel counterparts I’ve read, and even vice-versa. It used to be a rule of mine to read the novel first, but I’ve learned it can be fun to watch the film first and then as I read the novel, “see” the characters in my mind’s eye in the form of the actors who play them. In studying the differences between novels and films, I’ve developed an appreciation for the amount of work that goes into the screenplay.
There’s so much more involved than simply cutting scenes; one has to make sure everything still flows, makes sense, and at the same time, keeps the fans happy. While it’s impossible to say definitively that any particular film is better than the novel, as that conclusion is purely dependent on an individual’s opinion (though I believe it’s a universal truth that Eragon is a crap film), I do feel safe in saying that, at the very least, certain elements of the film can be better. And I have decided on a couple of occasions in recent years that I did actually enjoy a film overall more than the novel.
Take Game of Thrones, for example. (Go ahead: grab your torches and pitchforks. I’ll wait.) This is one of my favorite novels, so I was absolutely giddy waiting for the HBO premiere. Halfway through the season, I decided to re-read the novel since I hadn’t read it since it was first published, and I was curious to see how faithful the adaptation was to the novel. After reading it again, and watching the rest of the season, I was very surprised to find myself disappointed with the novel, but impressed with the series.
Martin’s strengths (again, this is just my opinion) lie in his dialogue and character development. The writing itself is a bit on the raw side; there isn’t a whole lot of finesse or beauty there. There’s also an overabundance of minor characters. I find it incredibly annoying when I have to constantly flip to an appendix to keep characters straight. I felt that the adaptation played to Martin’s strengths: most of the dialogue was lifted straight from the novel and was spot-on, and many minor characters were cut. And in a film, weak writing is not an issue. Do I care that Daenerys’s eyes were not violet in the series? Not especially. Also, characters that didn’t make an impression on me in the novel were made interesting by the actors. I never particularly cared for Ser Jorah Mormont one way or the other, but Iain Glen brought him to life with subtle expressions and voice inflection. To tell the truth, I didn’t even care for Eddard Stark all that much until Sean Bean stepped into the role.
Another favorite film and novel of mine is The Princess Bride. I’m still undecided as to which one is better overall, but I will say that I did appreciate the omission of the long-winded beginning of the novel that is devoted to William Goldman’s fictitious attempts to get his hands on the story from his childhood for his own son. While parts are charming, it ain’t Princess Bride. And while I was very disappointed that the courtship between Westley and Buttercup was hacked to pieces in the film, I was more relieved that the Zoo of Death – pages and pages detailing Rugen’s menagerie that Inigo and Fezzik must conquer – was cut. And of course there’s the fact that, at 14-years-old, I fell madly, madly in love with Cary Elwes playing Westley. (Let’s just not talk about his career after that.)
No discussion of fantasy-novel adaptations would be complete without mentioning Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, but the fact is, I haven’t earned the right to make a comparison as I haven’t read the novels.
Here, I’ll say it for you, “GASP!”
I know, I tried to read them, but I just wasn’t captivated and lost interest. I did, however, enjoy the films. Sometimes, after all, there is something to be said for brevity.
Is there a film adaptation you enjoyed more than the novel?
