Why do book to movie adaptions often fall flat?
It's an honest question that puzzles me. This question rings in my head after I woke this morning to the news that Stephen King's "It" would be getting adapted for the big screen as two seperate films and honestly, the news excited me. "It" is a monsterous tome, clocking in at over 1,000 pages and is very dense but fast-paced, so of course two films would be perfect. The mini-series is the golden standard for children having nightmares, it's given kids post-traumatic stress disorder everytime they see Barnum and Bailey roll into town. So, why remake it? I mean, given Hollywood's crazed fervor to reboot, remake and pretty much squander every single property they can get their grubby, grobby hands on. But, in the case of King's work, most of the filmic adaptions if not all of them, beg to be remade.
It's simple, really. Reading a Stephen King is like opening a door in your mind. It's like drawing a chalk door on the wall and voila, doorway. Opening up a King book is like revving up a lawnmower on rabies and trying to hold on tight. King's prose is often long-winded but he's got a reason for it. He's layering, he's painting a story and your brain is his canvas. The words that he uses to get inside your head will twist and turn. You breathlessly trip over each word desperate to get to the end. Take, "The Shining," for example. You believe in this place. You feel trapped in the Overlook Hotel. It's claustrophobic. Is the hotel haunted? Maybe. But, that ain't the story, kiddies. It's Jack Torrance's story. You feel his struggle with drinking, his guilt over hitting his child. He becomes a faceless void over which you can project your own fears. Even myself with an evil father figure who I saw as the flesh and blood of scary Jack Torrance. It all culminates with him going lunatic and bashing the former caretaker and his wife with a handy-dandy croquet mallet. He finds the strength within himself and control the supernatural forces long enough to let the old man and his family escape before he blows himself and the hotel up, ensuring that the madness will never continue. That's a ride, am I right? But the movie ... oh, boy.
Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining," is a master class in how to make an epic horror film. It's long and slick, and the pacing really does allow you to sink into the neuroses of the Torrance family over their long winter stay in the Overlook. Except, their are a few problems with the film. I know, sacrilege, right? The opening credits with that great Wendy/Walter Carlos score tell you the exact feeling you should have. The biggest problem however lies with the casting. Sacrilege part two! When you see Jack Nicholson appear on screen, you don't buy him as a easy-going guy who could be driven mad. He straight up looks mad, like a stiff wind could drive his bats out of the belfry. Shelley Duvall is equally mis-cast. Wendy was written as a strong type who's driven to crack. Instead, she looks fragile as a mouse. Now, Scatman Crothers was perfect as Hallorann, can you dig it? It becomes a bloodless horror film, almost as if Kubrick knows he's performing a joke but forgets the punchline. All of the above being said, it's a great film. It's beautiful and stunning. The Steadicam shot prowl through the corridors and sooner or later fear grips you that something may pop out. And sometimes, it certainly does. And on Blu-Ray. the film looks even better. Still gorgeous like a tasty wine.
A funny thing happened though in the 90's. King's properties became hot, hot, hot commodities and soon enough "The Shining" was remade on ABC by Mick Garris and King himself. The casting was more appropriate and the book was true to life. It wasn't as harsh as King's book, simply because of the television disconnect. Almost all of his books have been adapted with little or no success. "The Dark Half," "Firestarter," and many, many of his short stories got the short shrift. Usually, the big successes were the was that had 'Darabont' or 'Reiner' in the credits. Even King couldn't be trusted with his own work. While "The Shining" and "The Stand" were adapted successfully, he fumbled the ball and tripped over it as well on "Desperation." That one was a big disappointment. Now, with Ben Affleck adapting "The Stand" as a potential trilogy and the notice of "It" being adapted in a similar manner, it appears that people are beginning to understand the scope, yes, there's the key word, scope of King's work.
But, sadly, he's not the only writer to fall victim to misadapted prose. Clive Barker has written some of the single best gothic literature in the past and present. My God, Books of Blood is the greatest collection of short stories since "Different Seasons," "Night Shift," or even "Four Past Midnight." I love 'Rawhead Rex' especially. God, what a great horror story. It's puritanical and diabolical. But, when it was adapted for the big screen, Barker vehemently opposed it. Yes, it is a paint by numbers version of a monster movie and is so clearly aping on "Alien." I'll admit that I'm a not-so secret fan of the film, I even possess a Fangoria with Rawhead on the front cover. But, Barker's frustration with the mangling of his work caused him to seek out and adapt his own works. He even stated that he doesn't want to end up like Stephen King. True story. Barker has made films but even his cinematic thumbprint has been smudged by Hollywood tampering ... but not for long. His "Cabal" cut of my personal favorite film of his, "Nightbreed," will hopefully be released soon.
Some films do get the correct treatment, a by-the-books treatment (ho-ho) if you will. Chuck Palanhuik had a great adaptation in "Fight Club," but most of his work is unfilmable. There's no way ever, you can adapt "Haunted." Period. His frantic, frenetic pacing and stream-of conciousness dialogue wraps it's way into your head. I loved the book, "Choke," but there was so much wrong with it from the top all the way to the bottom. Casting, important plot points being hacked out with a machete, etc. Except for Cherry Daquiri. But, that's it. As for Bret Easton Ellis, I've only seen two films that capture his true authorial essence. "American Psycho," and "The Rules of Attraction." "Psycho" is the more classically structured film but man, if you adapted it word for word, it would be X-rated and over four hours long. "Rules" on the other hand follow the skippy, unsure narrative that makes reading Ellis a treat. It's probably the pinnacle of a film's elements coming together and being true to the book.
My point, in all of this is, imagination is the strongest weapon we have. We dream up landscapes and we can make our own movies. When we read books, we've opened our eyes. This is a journey you take with the author of the piece. When you adapt a book to film, you're funneling the vision down. It's taking an interpretation and telling you how to interpret it. This is the horror of adaptation. Even if there are good adaptations, they'll never be better than the book.
But, you just know they're gonna try, right?
No comments:
Post a Comment