Skip to content
Topics
Stories

What makes a good book-​​to-​​movie adaptation?

The film adap­ta­tion of Suzanne Collins’ “The Hunger Games” dom­i­nated the box office this weekend, net­ting more than $155 mil­lion in its first three days in the­aters. We asked Eng­lish pro­fessor Kath­leen Kelly, who teaches classes that cover book-​​to-​​film adap­ta­tions and plans to see “The Hunger Games” this week, about what makes a suc­cessful movie ver­sion of a work of pop­ular literature.

What makes for a successful book to film adaptation?

It’s a com­bi­na­tion of genius, inspi­ra­tion and the nature of the nar­ra­tive itself, but then these ele­ments also have to be com­bined with reader — and now viewer — expec­ta­tions. I don’t think there are gen­eral prin­ci­ples to follow except for aiming for the highest pro­duc­tion values and the lushest kind of visuals.

A reader’s encounter with a written nar­ra­tive is com­pletely depen­dent on the visuals cre­ated by the text and his or her imag­i­na­tion. So when descrip­tions of land­scapes, dwellings and people are trans­ferred from that medium — from the written word to the screen — the resulting visuals have the biggest impact. It’s not nec­es­sarily the plot or the stars; it’s more that the viewer thinks, “That’s exactly how I pic­tured it!” Often, the more a reader’s expec­ta­tions line up with the film, the more suc­cessful the film is thought to be.

What film adaptations stand out as especially good or bad interpretations of the written word?

Right away, I have to say that Peter Jackson’s adap­ta­tion of “The Lord of the Rings” is one of the best I’ve ever seen. It’s a trilogy I grew up with and loved, as did so many other readers. But Ralph Bakshi’s 1978 adap­ta­tion of Tolkien’s trilogy was one of the worst I’ve ever seen. I think so much of its failure had to do with the choice of ani­ma­tion: It made Tolkien’s vivid, deep char­ac­ters car­toony. Jackson’s char­ac­ters, on the other hand, pro­jected grav­itas and depth that matched the book.

Beyond cap­turing the land­scape of Middle Earth, Jackson lifted dia­logue right from the books. There’s a plea­sure that comes from knowing the nar­ra­tive before­hand — there’s no sus­pense, you know how it’s going to turn out. You’re going for the sheer plea­sure of the visual, so then to hear the dia­logue that you already know well enhances the pleasure.

Do fans of books set unrealistic goals for movie adaptations?

I think when people start out with a fidelity model — when they want the film to imi­tate the book — they’re always going to be dis­ap­pointed. They expect the expe­ri­ence they had reading will be the same they’ll have in the the­ater. But it’s two dif­ferent mediums. If you go into the film expecting that every­thing in the book will be rep­re­sented on the screen, you’re going to be disappointed.

But some­times a film can move too far from a book, focusing more on visuals than story. Take the Harry Potter films, espe­cially the later ones: The visuals are so lush and dom­i­nating, but all the com­plexity of the nar­ra­tive is gone. I think the last two films were extremely dis­ap­pointing, though they fol­lowed the arc of J.K. Rowling’s writing. The story got darker and darker, with a good vs. evil story that became increas­ingly com­plex, but that just didn’t transfer to the screen.

– by Matt Collette

More Stories

Photo of the Capitol Building at night

High stakes for politics, SCOTUS in 2018

01.04.2018
Photo of the crashed truck that was used in the October 31st attack in Manhattan.

Weaponizing Language: How the meaning of “allahu akbar” has been distorted

11.08.2017
Northeastern logo

Why I love studying Spanish

05.29.20
Uncategorized