Book adaptations: Will the curse end with Carrie?
Try to think about your favourite film. Without even noticing you will end up choosing films based on books: Jaws, Forrest Gump, Blade Runner, Die Hard to name a few. Nicholas Sparks, Dan Brown, J.K. Rowling; where would they be today without their adaptations? Would their work be as recognised? Truth be told, I didn’t know about The Hunger Games trilogy before hearing news of a possible adaptation for the big screen; similarly for I, Robot and the upcoming Ender’s Game.
As successful as adaptions seem to be, there are plenty of noticeable problems with them. The main issue has never faded: finding the right balance between making it look faithful to the original, and leaving the freedom to the director to change its meaning and give it a new interpretation. Even if it is hard to admit, change is essential and unavoidable; we should start to see films and novels as completely separate entities. In wake of this, for instance, I would have to reconsider the potential of the film adaptation of The Hunger Games, which I considered disappointing when compared to the book.
Are you still convinced that most films live up to the books? Did you know that when Eric Von Stroheim tried to adapt Frank Norris’ novel McTeagle in 1924 he ended up having a film of 8 hours? These days, omission seems mandatory and it does not matter how much we loved the books, we have to accept that the director has chosen those particular scenes to deliver his own unique message.
When it comes to adaptations the first person I think about is Stephen King. This incredible master of imagination has created thousands of terrifying and cult characters. Up to 39 of his novellas have been adapted on screen. Whilst it is true that only a few were considered as pieces of art or even better than the books, it is interesting to see how the popularity of an author has had an impact on the industry of cinema. It is odd how much confidence I have in this author that, when I see a DVD that says ‘based on a book by Stephen King’, I am ensured it is going to be a decent film. That is how I was introduced to many of his adaptations including: The Shining (1980), the incredibly well shot and infamously creepy horror, and It (1986), which went on a while but made my blood run cold. King is also responsible for the source material behind the award-winning The Green Mile (1999), the crude but moving story about a death row inmate in early 20th century USA. Here, King’s breathtaking narrative is complimented by the incredible performance by the late Michael Clarke Duncan. To contrast to another King adaptions; Dreamcatcher (2003) saw implausible turns of events in the plot, The Mist (2007) interestingly portrayed human behaviour while boasting an outstanding ending and then, there is the remake of Carrie (2013).
Since reading the book, I had been eagerly waiting for the newly released adaptation. What I loved about the novel was not Carrie’s superpowers but the way the narrator seemed to distance himself not only from the titular character but from the action itself, leaving it to the reader’s imagination. Unfortunately, this is something that doesn’t appear in the film, since it appears a difficult task to shoot such a powerful film without the feeling of ‘being Carrie’. What the film does though, in contrast with the 1976 original, is deliver a decent portrayal of a horrible tragedy through a series of aesthetic and expressionistic murders.
The main issue remains unsolved, is it possible to deliver a good adaptation that will please everyone? The answer is simply no, it’s damn near impossible. Will this curse end with Carrie? If this never-ending fashion has taught me anything, it’s that films and books are not to be considered equals; it’s clear the mind of the director does not usually reflect the views of an author.
Comments