"...refused to even read the novel."!!! No wonder the film adaptation was so different! I loved the book, but the adaptation missed the central thread of redepmtion and stripped much of its Christian message. Michael O'Brien has been approached numerous times about film rights to his novel Father Elijah, but he has never agreed to any proposal, because all of the adaptations would have shaved off or altered central themes. Sometimes it's better to just let a book remain a book.
I can respect an author who says so. I also don’t mind it when the director goes off a different direction with a story. If it works, it works; I’ll enjoy it as that. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t; I’ll pass.
In Children of Men, you’re right that the Christian element is gone—or at least secularized. There’s still a “salvation” story there, but it’s primarily about Theo’s transformation.
I've read Children of Men, never seen the film. I generally find the more I admire a literary work, the less I like its film adaptation, and vice versa. To me, what makes a great book is fundamentally different than what makes a great film; they are two different artforms, requiring totally different approaches. A TV miniseries can sometimes do justice to a great classic novel - I have never seen a film do the same thing.
All the recent controversy over Nolan's Odyssey reminded me of the 2018 Hindi language adaptation of the classic epic poem 'Padmaavat'. The centuries-old poem, about a beautiful queen who finally commits ritual suicide rather than fall into the hands of the conqueror who kills her husband and captures her kingdom, has inspired religious devotion amongst certain sects in India. As exaggerated rumours about the film adaptation swirled before its release, riots erupted, a movie theater was burned down, and the lives of both the director and starring actress were threatened. The reaction to the rumours about Nolan's Odyssey adaptation were less violent but tinged with a similar fanatical devotion to the purity of the epic poem. I note with considerable amusement that after all that fuss, moviegoers are now pleasantly surprised at Nolan's adaptation, discovering that some of the rumours about the production were untrue. I've watched the 2018 Padmaavat, and the rumours, about a non-existent scene, that provoked religious devotees to burn down a film theatre, were also not true.
Ideally, you want to have the film made by a director who cares about the subject matter and will make time and effort to make it work. Hollywood in the Studio System era had no time for that- directors, producers and screenwriters were treated as employees like anyone else who could be hired and fired on a whim, so often it was in their best interests to reflect the flawed judgement of their bosses instead of questioning it. Which is why I feel the worst book and theatre adaptations made for film primarily date from this period. You had white actors like Spencer Tracy (as Manuel in "Captains Courageous") and Marlon Brando (in "Viva Zapata" and "The Teahouse Of The August Moon") doing blackface, brownface and yellowface repeatedly because "stars" were needed to attract audiences, and even actors of those races offended needed to conform to the stereotypes if they wanted work. There were certain exceptions to that, of course (John Ford's version of "The Grapes of Wrath", for example), but those could only be made possible without the makers being willing to accept changes that would conform to the rigid Catholicism-defined censorship of that era.
The best literary adaptations on film and TV, while not being a direct shot-for-shot transition of a book, are the ones that preserve the essence of the author's true story and intent. Canada's Norman Jewison did this in 1966 when he made the satirical comedy "The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming!" (based on Nathaniel Benchley's novel "The Off Islanders"). He gave a much needed outsider's perspective to the political and cultural devisions between the Russian and American nations at that time, showing how both countries were absurdly loyal to political ideals they did not entirely believe in. The following year, in 1967, he did the same thing more dramatically with the culture of Black-white relations in the southern U.S. with "In The Heat of the Night" (from the same named novel by John Ball). In both cases, he had screenwriters who improved the material significantly and producers (the Mirisch organization) that were willing to help him achieve that aim. You see that less often now.
As an author, I would hope that anyone interested in making a film out of my books would even remotely consider my intentions for them. Though, as can be the case sometimes, the real author's vision would only be obtained in writing the script myself...
Loved Children of Men. Never watched the movie. One review was enough to convince me to take a pass. I’ve never regretted it.
I read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings three times in quick succession when I first encountered them. I watched Jackson’s LOTR movies and liked them, though he clearly didn’t understand Tolkien.
The Hobbit trilogy was an insult to Tolkien, cartoonish in places and clearly a cash cow more than anything else. J R R would have been either horrified or disgusted or both.
Tolkien was famously prickly and picky; he definitely would have hated it. I happen to love both versions of the Children of Men. The movie’s probably in my top 10.
I loved the book 'Children of Men' and recall enjoying the movie- but the book has definitely held a tighter hold on my memory. The adaptation and saga that has produced the most angst for me has been the Game of Thrones series by George R.R. Martin. I LOVED the books- so much fun and political intrigue, and dragons! I remember getting in an argument with someone seated on a plane next to me about the genre of the book. He insisted that it was a political treatise and NOT fantasy and I asked him to tell me where I could find my own dragons.
Martin then started focusing on the television series for HBO which had some key differences that made me decide to stop watching them as my beloved characters who I could still see in my mind were warped and puppeted (I know that is not a real word) into different actions. And then Martin did the most horrifying thing of all to me- he ENDED the story in the TV series but did not finish the series in the books. Supposedly he is writing the sixth and final book but evidently has no plans for someone else to finish it if he does not get it done.
I also will bring up the Matrix series and the connection to graphic novels and manga. The Wachowski siblings would draw out scenes as "sequential art" to show exactly how they wanted scenes and the story to progress. The amazing Geof Darrow drew art to further "show" the world of the Matrix the Wachowski's were creating. Graphic novels create an even more interesting way to transition into a movie or series- I think of one of my favorite graphic novel series "Locke and Key". I see the Netflix series as a different creation from the graphic novel and enjoyed it- but in my mind nothing can compare to the intense emotional experience I felt while reading and seeing Gabriel Rodriguez's art with Joe Hill's words. There is something very different which happens as my brain fills in the spaces between the blocks of art than what occurs when reading or watching a movie or televised series. My brain begins to manipulate these visually formed characters which have been drawn out by the artists who collaborated directly with the writers of these graphic novels. This is why I love graphic novels so much as a medium- it is an amalgam of both the written and visual experience.
Adapting a novel or fantasy to film is one thing. Adapting reality or history or nonfiction books to film is another -- and the transition can be a dangerous to the public brain. Hollywood has proven for more than a century that it can't be trusted with reality. Producers and studios that buy the movie rights to a book for big or little bucks are given the right to do anything they want to twist and distort or 'improve' the story or the characters -- and they do it, usually to satisfy what they believe makes good drama and more money. Good for them, if it works; bad for the rest of us if their adaptation results in misleading viewers about important actual events or real people. Long ago, in the late 1970s, I worked in the Docudrama division of CBS-TV in LA. Our job was to make sure the highly profitable TV movies CBS was cranking out about real people and real events were, as advertised, 'true stories.' If we six so-called editors did our homework and decided that the docudrama script was true enough to be promoted by CBS as the true story of X or Y, then CBS' marketing department flogged it as such to the max ('true' meant about 5 more ratings points on average, which meant more ad money; CBS and the other two networks had people like us because their lawyers were, unnecessarily, afraid of running afoul of the FCC (which broadcasters had fully captured). Anyway, among the various articles and columns that I wrote during my subsequent career in journalism about the clash between 'truth' and drama in TV and movies is this handy and, unfortunately, timeless, guide to watching a movie or TV series that purports to be a true story: https://clips.substack.com/p/what-tv-and-movies-do-to-reality?r=5mhtq&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
That’s a fair point. But even then, if it’s on a screen—whatever it is—it’s been shaped to fit into the medium. Some portrayals of true events may be more or less faithful to the events than others, but all of them have to be told in a way that works for the screen. A documentary is probably the best way to pull that off, but until quite recently there was almost no market for documentaries, excluding Ken Burns and some PBS features. (Interestingly, thankfully, that’s changed in the last decade or so.) The minute you’re into docudrama or biopic land, the best you can hope for is “directionally accurate.”
Great post Joel! I have a list of movie adaptations I find better than the book:
1. Layer Cake by JJ Connolly absolutely love this book and its sequel but the movie is so much better, very well cast
2. 25th Hour, novel is actually awful and Spike Lee spun shit into gold with the film, just a powerhouse of a film all the way through
3. American Psycho, the novel is truly depraved and whoever wrote the screenplay took the best parts, along with the underlying theme of horror hiding in plain sight, and turned it into a masterpiece of cinema.
4. Mosquito Coast, I did like the novel but the film is so much better, easily one of Harrison Ford’s best roles as Allie Fox, inventor, philosopher, who rages against the modern world.
Here are a couple of films so much worse than the novel:
1. The Talented Mister Ripley, god what a horror show that completely misinterpreted the character, and motivations, of Patricia Highsmith’s murderous conman Tom Ripley, avoid this movie at all costs if you’re interested in reading one of the best series of novels out there(she wrote 5 over the course of 40 years).
2. Lord of the Rings trilogy, I may be in the minority but these movies are godawful the whole way through and Jackson changes character arcs and storylines for zero reason,
Frodo is one of the most annoying characters ever filmed, only saving graces are Ian McKellan as Gandalf, Sean Astin as Sam, and Andy Serkis as Gollum, rest of the actors are completely miscast for their roles(The Hobbit trilogy is even worse).
3. Atlas Shrugged, turning a 1000 page novel into a trilogy seems like a good idea until each movie is 90 minutes long, sheer amount cut from the novel leads to a mess on the screen, plus having different actors for each film throws off the tone.
Few things stink up a room like the Hobbit movies. I will argue that Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy was better than the LeCarre novel by far. But then, we are comparing pies to burritos in a sense, aren't we? I don't expect a film to duplicate the book, but I do expect the author's intent and themes to be upfront. Hard to do in two hours.
The Hobbit trilogy is such a horror show all the way through, truly awful. I don’t expect movies to mimic the novel but, like you say, they have to at least stick to the intentions of the author.
I thought Peter Jackson’s Lord of The Rings trilogy was pitch perfect - everything that he either left out or changed struck me as very reasonable and are now how I prefer to remember the story. I never really liked Tolkien’s inclusion of elements that fit the world but didn’t fit the story (like Tom Bombadil, it was interesting but had no bearing on the plot and felt completely superfluous).
Also, and I know this might get me branded a Feminist (gasp!), but I love how Arwen’s character was developed for the films. Liv Tyler nailed it. It also gave Aragorn even more depth and dimension to be so fully in love with her on screen, not just off screen as it was usually depicted in the books. (Granted, it was a while ago since I last read the books so forgive me if I’m forgetting something there).
The Hobbit movies were bad, no getting around that 🤷🏻♀️
I thought The Hunger Games movies were far superior to the books, especially the first one.
Even coming to accept that adaptations are separate works of art and not necessarily bound to all of the contours of the original book, the adaptation of station 11 by Emily St. John Mandel bothered me immensely. and yet, the author herself supposedly liked what was done, including some rather significant changes to characters. alternately, I have to laugh at your recounting of Christopher tolkien's dismay with the Peter Jackson adaptations. for example, did he really think that the movie was going to include Tom bobadill's songs?
An example of a an adaptation that is faithful to the spirit of the book is Mira Nair's version (for the BBC) of Vikram Seth's "A Suitable Boy". Also Merchant Ivory's adaptations of E.M. Forster's novels.
Am reminded of the anecdote about Ken Kesey who refused to watch the film adaptation of his book One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Apparently he happened to catch a moment of it on TV, and quickly got up and changed the channel.
I liked the book Children of Men but absolutely loved the film. I think of it so often in the context of current geopolitical shifts. Disturbingly prophetic. A masterpiece.
I'm not an adaptation purist; I maintain that the movie version of Ann Patchett's Bel Canto fixed the epilogue. And I've never read Children of Men, or seen the movie. But I find it a very strange choice to adapt a book one has never read. If you change so many things that the story is no longer recognizable from the book, or if you don't even know what you are changing, then why even call it an adaptation at all? By that point, it is more something that's "inspired by" the original, or a completely independent story with the same theme or some similar plot points.
I haven't seen the recent adaptation of Wuthering Heights either, but I appreciated that they put the title in quotation marks, to signal that it wasn't a literal adaptation.
"...refused to even read the novel."!!! No wonder the film adaptation was so different! I loved the book, but the adaptation missed the central thread of redepmtion and stripped much of its Christian message. Michael O'Brien has been approached numerous times about film rights to his novel Father Elijah, but he has never agreed to any proposal, because all of the adaptations would have shaved off or altered central themes. Sometimes it's better to just let a book remain a book.
I can respect an author who says so. I also don’t mind it when the director goes off a different direction with a story. If it works, it works; I’ll enjoy it as that. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t; I’ll pass.
In Children of Men, you’re right that the Christian element is gone—or at least secularized. There’s still a “salvation” story there, but it’s primarily about Theo’s transformation.
I've read Children of Men, never seen the film. I generally find the more I admire a literary work, the less I like its film adaptation, and vice versa. To me, what makes a great book is fundamentally different than what makes a great film; they are two different artforms, requiring totally different approaches. A TV miniseries can sometimes do justice to a great classic novel - I have never seen a film do the same thing.
All the recent controversy over Nolan's Odyssey reminded me of the 2018 Hindi language adaptation of the classic epic poem 'Padmaavat'. The centuries-old poem, about a beautiful queen who finally commits ritual suicide rather than fall into the hands of the conqueror who kills her husband and captures her kingdom, has inspired religious devotion amongst certain sects in India. As exaggerated rumours about the film adaptation swirled before its release, riots erupted, a movie theater was burned down, and the lives of both the director and starring actress were threatened. The reaction to the rumours about Nolan's Odyssey adaptation were less violent but tinged with a similar fanatical devotion to the purity of the epic poem. I note with considerable amusement that after all that fuss, moviegoers are now pleasantly surprised at Nolan's adaptation, discovering that some of the rumours about the production were untrue. I've watched the 2018 Padmaavat, and the rumours, about a non-existent scene, that provoked religious devotees to burn down a film theatre, were also not true.
Ideally, you want to have the film made by a director who cares about the subject matter and will make time and effort to make it work. Hollywood in the Studio System era had no time for that- directors, producers and screenwriters were treated as employees like anyone else who could be hired and fired on a whim, so often it was in their best interests to reflect the flawed judgement of their bosses instead of questioning it. Which is why I feel the worst book and theatre adaptations made for film primarily date from this period. You had white actors like Spencer Tracy (as Manuel in "Captains Courageous") and Marlon Brando (in "Viva Zapata" and "The Teahouse Of The August Moon") doing blackface, brownface and yellowface repeatedly because "stars" were needed to attract audiences, and even actors of those races offended needed to conform to the stereotypes if they wanted work. There were certain exceptions to that, of course (John Ford's version of "The Grapes of Wrath", for example), but those could only be made possible without the makers being willing to accept changes that would conform to the rigid Catholicism-defined censorship of that era.
The best literary adaptations on film and TV, while not being a direct shot-for-shot transition of a book, are the ones that preserve the essence of the author's true story and intent. Canada's Norman Jewison did this in 1966 when he made the satirical comedy "The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming!" (based on Nathaniel Benchley's novel "The Off Islanders"). He gave a much needed outsider's perspective to the political and cultural devisions between the Russian and American nations at that time, showing how both countries were absurdly loyal to political ideals they did not entirely believe in. The following year, in 1967, he did the same thing more dramatically with the culture of Black-white relations in the southern U.S. with "In The Heat of the Night" (from the same named novel by John Ball). In both cases, he had screenwriters who improved the material significantly and producers (the Mirisch organization) that were willing to help him achieve that aim. You see that less often now.
As an author, I would hope that anyone interested in making a film out of my books would even remotely consider my intentions for them. Though, as can be the case sometimes, the real author's vision would only be obtained in writing the script myself...
Cúaron's film is a masterpiece in and of itself. I watched it again recently last year and it was weirdly prescient for its time.
Loved Children of Men. Never watched the movie. One review was enough to convince me to take a pass. I’ve never regretted it.
I read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings three times in quick succession when I first encountered them. I watched Jackson’s LOTR movies and liked them, though he clearly didn’t understand Tolkien.
The Hobbit trilogy was an insult to Tolkien, cartoonish in places and clearly a cash cow more than anything else. J R R would have been either horrified or disgusted or both.
Tolkien was famously prickly and picky; he definitely would have hated it. I happen to love both versions of the Children of Men. The movie’s probably in my top 10.
I love both, but I especially love the Pink Floyd moment in the film.
I loved the book 'Children of Men' and recall enjoying the movie- but the book has definitely held a tighter hold on my memory. The adaptation and saga that has produced the most angst for me has been the Game of Thrones series by George R.R. Martin. I LOVED the books- so much fun and political intrigue, and dragons! I remember getting in an argument with someone seated on a plane next to me about the genre of the book. He insisted that it was a political treatise and NOT fantasy and I asked him to tell me where I could find my own dragons.
Martin then started focusing on the television series for HBO which had some key differences that made me decide to stop watching them as my beloved characters who I could still see in my mind were warped and puppeted (I know that is not a real word) into different actions. And then Martin did the most horrifying thing of all to me- he ENDED the story in the TV series but did not finish the series in the books. Supposedly he is writing the sixth and final book but evidently has no plans for someone else to finish it if he does not get it done.
I also will bring up the Matrix series and the connection to graphic novels and manga. The Wachowski siblings would draw out scenes as "sequential art" to show exactly how they wanted scenes and the story to progress. The amazing Geof Darrow drew art to further "show" the world of the Matrix the Wachowski's were creating. Graphic novels create an even more interesting way to transition into a movie or series- I think of one of my favorite graphic novel series "Locke and Key". I see the Netflix series as a different creation from the graphic novel and enjoyed it- but in my mind nothing can compare to the intense emotional experience I felt while reading and seeing Gabriel Rodriguez's art with Joe Hill's words. There is something very different which happens as my brain fills in the spaces between the blocks of art than what occurs when reading or watching a movie or televised series. My brain begins to manipulate these visually formed characters which have been drawn out by the artists who collaborated directly with the writers of these graphic novels. This is why I love graphic novels so much as a medium- it is an amalgam of both the written and visual experience.
Adapting a novel or fantasy to film is one thing. Adapting reality or history or nonfiction books to film is another -- and the transition can be a dangerous to the public brain. Hollywood has proven for more than a century that it can't be trusted with reality. Producers and studios that buy the movie rights to a book for big or little bucks are given the right to do anything they want to twist and distort or 'improve' the story or the characters -- and they do it, usually to satisfy what they believe makes good drama and more money. Good for them, if it works; bad for the rest of us if their adaptation results in misleading viewers about important actual events or real people. Long ago, in the late 1970s, I worked in the Docudrama division of CBS-TV in LA. Our job was to make sure the highly profitable TV movies CBS was cranking out about real people and real events were, as advertised, 'true stories.' If we six so-called editors did our homework and decided that the docudrama script was true enough to be promoted by CBS as the true story of X or Y, then CBS' marketing department flogged it as such to the max ('true' meant about 5 more ratings points on average, which meant more ad money; CBS and the other two networks had people like us because their lawyers were, unnecessarily, afraid of running afoul of the FCC (which broadcasters had fully captured). Anyway, among the various articles and columns that I wrote during my subsequent career in journalism about the clash between 'truth' and drama in TV and movies is this handy and, unfortunately, timeless, guide to watching a movie or TV series that purports to be a true story: https://clips.substack.com/p/what-tv-and-movies-do-to-reality?r=5mhtq&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
That’s a fair point. But even then, if it’s on a screen—whatever it is—it’s been shaped to fit into the medium. Some portrayals of true events may be more or less faithful to the events than others, but all of them have to be told in a way that works for the screen. A documentary is probably the best way to pull that off, but until quite recently there was almost no market for documentaries, excluding Ken Burns and some PBS features. (Interestingly, thankfully, that’s changed in the last decade or so.) The minute you’re into docudrama or biopic land, the best you can hope for is “directionally accurate.”
Also: Thanks for sharing the piece!
‘Directionally Accurate’ — excellent. We should have used that instead of ‘the true story of ….’ or ‘inspired by’ or ‘based on.’
Sort of like saying, “It’s kinda true” :)
Great post Joel! I have a list of movie adaptations I find better than the book:
1. Layer Cake by JJ Connolly absolutely love this book and its sequel but the movie is so much better, very well cast
2. 25th Hour, novel is actually awful and Spike Lee spun shit into gold with the film, just a powerhouse of a film all the way through
3. American Psycho, the novel is truly depraved and whoever wrote the screenplay took the best parts, along with the underlying theme of horror hiding in plain sight, and turned it into a masterpiece of cinema.
4. Mosquito Coast, I did like the novel but the film is so much better, easily one of Harrison Ford’s best roles as Allie Fox, inventor, philosopher, who rages against the modern world.
Here are a couple of films so much worse than the novel:
1. The Talented Mister Ripley, god what a horror show that completely misinterpreted the character, and motivations, of Patricia Highsmith’s murderous conman Tom Ripley, avoid this movie at all costs if you’re interested in reading one of the best series of novels out there(she wrote 5 over the course of 40 years).
2. Lord of the Rings trilogy, I may be in the minority but these movies are godawful the whole way through and Jackson changes character arcs and storylines for zero reason,
Frodo is one of the most annoying characters ever filmed, only saving graces are Ian McKellan as Gandalf, Sean Astin as Sam, and Andy Serkis as Gollum, rest of the actors are completely miscast for their roles(The Hobbit trilogy is even worse).
3. Atlas Shrugged, turning a 1000 page novel into a trilogy seems like a good idea until each movie is 90 minutes long, sheer amount cut from the novel leads to a mess on the screen, plus having different actors for each film throws off the tone.
Few things stink up a room like the Hobbit movies. I will argue that Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy was better than the LeCarre novel by far. But then, we are comparing pies to burritos in a sense, aren't we? I don't expect a film to duplicate the book, but I do expect the author's intent and themes to be upfront. Hard to do in two hours.
The Hobbit trilogy is such a horror show all the way through, truly awful. I don’t expect movies to mimic the novel but, like you say, they have to at least stick to the intentions of the author.
I thought Peter Jackson’s Lord of The Rings trilogy was pitch perfect - everything that he either left out or changed struck me as very reasonable and are now how I prefer to remember the story. I never really liked Tolkien’s inclusion of elements that fit the world but didn’t fit the story (like Tom Bombadil, it was interesting but had no bearing on the plot and felt completely superfluous).
Also, and I know this might get me branded a Feminist (gasp!), but I love how Arwen’s character was developed for the films. Liv Tyler nailed it. It also gave Aragorn even more depth and dimension to be so fully in love with her on screen, not just off screen as it was usually depicted in the books. (Granted, it was a while ago since I last read the books so forgive me if I’m forgetting something there).
The Hobbit movies were bad, no getting around that 🤷🏻♀️
I thought The Hunger Games movies were far superior to the books, especially the first one.
Even coming to accept that adaptations are separate works of art and not necessarily bound to all of the contours of the original book, the adaptation of station 11 by Emily St. John Mandel bothered me immensely. and yet, the author herself supposedly liked what was done, including some rather significant changes to characters. alternately, I have to laugh at your recounting of Christopher tolkien's dismay with the Peter Jackson adaptations. for example, did he really think that the movie was going to include Tom bobadill's songs?
I also loved the book, but I never saw the movie. Your review has convinced me not to bother.
I think the all-time best adaptation of a book to a movie is the Robert Redford/Mia Farrow version of The Great Gatsby.
It’s not for everyone.
I loved the movie and from what I hear of the novel will love that even more. This has inspired me to put it back to the top of my TBR!
An example of a an adaptation that is faithful to the spirit of the book is Mira Nair's version (for the BBC) of Vikram Seth's "A Suitable Boy". Also Merchant Ivory's adaptations of E.M. Forster's novels.
Am reminded of the anecdote about Ken Kesey who refused to watch the film adaptation of his book One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Apparently he happened to catch a moment of it on TV, and quickly got up and changed the channel.
I liked the book Children of Men but absolutely loved the film. I think of it so often in the context of current geopolitical shifts. Disturbingly prophetic. A masterpiece.
I'm not an adaptation purist; I maintain that the movie version of Ann Patchett's Bel Canto fixed the epilogue. And I've never read Children of Men, or seen the movie. But I find it a very strange choice to adapt a book one has never read. If you change so many things that the story is no longer recognizable from the book, or if you don't even know what you are changing, then why even call it an adaptation at all? By that point, it is more something that's "inspired by" the original, or a completely independent story with the same theme or some similar plot points.
I haven't seen the recent adaptation of Wuthering Heights either, but I appreciated that they put the title in quotation marks, to signal that it wasn't a literal adaptation.