by Lily
Just like any other act of translation, the act of adapting a book for the screen is almost always an act of betrayal that may stray significantly from the source material. No matter how well-done book-to-movie adaptations are, very few have found the middle ground between carrying over the exact plot and keeping the overall message of the story. When either aspect is lost readers walk away feeling disappointed while first-time watchers feel unfulfilled without being able to place why.
What leads up to the creation of a book-to-movie adaptation, and what can authors or producers do to ensure success?
The first step in taking a book to the big screen is to find a producer to help you get there. Many authors have a minuscule hand in who this will be and sometimes don’t even know that their book has been handed over to a film agent until word of an offer gets back to their literary agent. If a studio does end up picking up your book you will then go through many rounds of negotiations to decide rights and royalties. These negotiations can include anything from the amount of tickets you get to your book’s movie premiere, to whether you will even be allowed any creative input in the writing process.
Once writing begins the script can pass back and forth between many different screenwriters as the studio decides what approach to take. Unless you’re a bestselling author who had clout to throw around during the negotiation process, it is extremely unlikely you’ll get any involvement in this stage. Something that is often for the best, since when authors don’t have experience with film or screenwriting it can lead to frustration and failings on both sides.
Authors are often also exceedingly committed to preserving the integrity of their story, an example that comes to mind for me is the recent Percy Jackson and the Olympians show on Disney Plus. In the case of Percy Jackson, it felt like every single plot point from the book was crammed into a few hour-long episodes. All the fight scenes were there, but the stakes always felt low, making what was comic relief in the book feel flat and forced in the show. On the flip side, the 2010 Percy Jackson movies where author Rick Riordan was not involved in whatsoever felt like a completely different story - ultimately, neither of these very differently produced adaptations were able to properly portray the book.
Once casting and filming begin, creating a good book-to-movie adaptation gets harder at every stage since even the smallest decisions from directors and producers can send the production in a different direction, for better or worse. Having a good director in this stage is crucial to preserving the essence of the book, the artistic and thematic vision of the film, and creating something that will resonate with all audiences (From Page to Screen: The Process of Adapting Novels into Films).
Now that we’ve covered a few of the major places where authors, producers, and screenwriters can go wrong, I want to look at a show I've enjoyed to see what can make or break a page-to-screen adaptation. This past summer I binge-watched both seasons of Interview with the Vampire shortly after finishing the first book in Anne Rice’s The Vampire Chronicles. The book follows 200-year-old vampire Louis de Pointe du Lac as he recounts his life story to a reporter; After the death of his brother Louis is approached by the much older vampire Lestat de Lioncourt who turns Louis into a vampire and becomes his companion. When conflict between the two increases, Lestat turns a young girl —Claudia— to be their "daughter”, as Claudia grows older she comes to resent Lestat for turning her. The first major change I noticed was that Louis’ character (originally a white plantation owner) was now a black man in a racially divided country. This change added relevance for a modern audience while opening up the opportunity for racial commentary and a deeper analysis of society at the time of the book. Since vampires have historically represented sexual, religious, societal deviance, and the ‘invasion’ of unfamiliar and foreign values I found this an extremely welcome change. It might have originally simply been a producer's decision to make the show more palatable, however, it successfully added depth and meaning to the original themes of the book.
Of course, there was another big change that I can't help but have mixed feelings about, Claudia’s age being changed from five to around 14; In the original text, there is an element of gothic horror to Claudia being a grown woman stuck in the body of a doll-like child, a major theme lost with this age change. Nevertheless watching the show I fell in love with the character of teenager Claudia, who is certainly a much more likable character. As the story progressed I saw how, with more agency, Claudia was able to lead Louis without turning into the terrifying manipulative woman (trapped in a 5-year-old’s body) we see in the book, a decision likely made to her more likable. While It certainly would have been possible to show how Claudia manipulated him so heavily and violently on screen—and if done properly could have been extremely powerful— instead the writers took the easy way out and decided to do a complete 180 degrees on Lestat’s character, making him appear as a physically abusive irredeemable monster. The show also failed to represent the tremendous guilt Louis feels for allowing Claudia to be turned at such a young age. The absence of this guilt—which is heavily manipulated by both Lestat and Claudia in the book—again takes away from Claudia’s character.
Looking at Interview with the Vampire can give us a broad perspective of how a story can bend and change as a show is made. Some of these changes make the story even more powerful and some of them lessen elements book readers may have been looking forward to. A duality that exists in every book-to-screen adaptation and the screenwriters must lean into it to create something truly loyal to the original media.
Comments