Adaptations and our Expectations

We’ve all said or heard someone say it as we walk out of the theater after watching an adaptation of our favorite novel.  “It just wasn’t as good as the book.”  While that is almost always the truth, is that really the standard we should set for film adaptations of any other kind of media?  With novels and even TV shows there is more room to explore in more depth characters and story ideas.  In film, there’s a certain narrative structure that is required in order to keep the audience from losing interest.

People pick up novels to be taken to extraordinary worlds through the words on the page and want to swept away by characters.  Authors can get away with side stories loosely related to the main plot as a way of developing their characters, however in film more focus is needed in the storytelling.  And the characters can be developed visually and through tone rather just in word.

No film can possibly contain every single piece of a novel, it’s how the film portrays the overall themes and story on the screen that makes for a great adaptation.  It also doesn’t hurt to look at the subject matter from a new perspective and try to bring something new to the table, or emphasize a different aspect of the story.

Nothing shows the difficulties involved in adapting a book into a film better than the film Adaptation, written by the great screenwriter Charlie Kaufman.  He was approached to adapt the non-fiction book the Orchid thief into a feature film.  The book was about a plant dealer who was determined to poach rare orchids from a state preserve for profit.  Kaufman took the job and somehow turned the book into a film about the adaptation process by injecting himself and his fictional twin brother into it as the main characters.

The film became about Kaufman’s own struggle to adapt the book into a film.  He becomes obsessed with getting the story right and actually turning the rather dull topic into a serviceable film.  His obsessions leads him to follow the author of the book and the main subject and try to get to the root of what he believes to be an incomplete story.  The reality is that the film ends up having very little to do with the subject Kaufman was commissioned to write.

Sometimes that’s the problem with adaptations, they stray too far from the source material.  That’s hardly a problem with the film Adaptation as what Kaufman brings to the screen manages to stick pretty closely to the themes of the book he was adapting while bringing a whole lot of new to it.  Other adaptations end up being unrecognizable.  A good example of this might be World War Z.  The novel is written as a series of interviews with people who survived the zombie apocalypse.  The film is an action film about a team going around and trying to find patient zero to see if that will offer a solution to the zombie plague.

This is one of those strange cases where the book would be incredibly difficult to turn into an interesting film.  A novel made up of a series of interviews is likely going to turn into a very difficult film to watch.  It would be very reliant on narration to connect the different stories and any film so reliant on narration tends to be a bit dull.

The film ended up being the man conducting the interviews in the book actually going to each location described in the book and seeing the aftermath of what was described in the interviews in the book.  It makes for a film that shouldn’t be call World War Z, but I get what they were trying to do with the adaptation.  It was ultimately a failure, but it was an admirable attempt to adapt a very difficult book to film.

Sometimes adaptations can suffer from being too true to the source material.  They got bogged down in hitting every plot point instead of developing characters and creating a cohesive flow to the story.  The example that immediately came to mind was actually an adaptation of a television show and not a book.  However like books, tv shows have the freedom to explore smaller storylines as part of the greater storyline.

The film I’m thinking of is The Last Airbender, based on the anime series, Avatar: The Last Airbender.  This film was written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan, and the script is downright terrible.  Shyamalan seemed so focused on including so many of the plot points from the original series, that he forgot to actually develop the characters.  When you focus so much attention on explaining the story, you tend to bog down the dialogue with extensive exposition.  

The Last Airbender ends up being a movie with a bunch of characters doing martial arts and then explaining what their actions mean to the overall story.  We get no glimpse at who they actually are and the dialogue is just horribly boring.  It’s no coincidence that in the final half hour when the story slows down enough for characters to have real bonding moments and emotions, that the film gets better.  The first hour of the film attempts to cover nearly seven hours of show time and it attempts to cram all of those plot points into that hour.  The final half hour covers one hour of show time is much better because of it.  It’s a real shame the script was so poor, as Shyamalan really brought a beautiful looking film to the screen, it was just a horrible script.  It takes over an hour to get a single line of dialogue that isn’t just pure exposition.  It might be one of the worst screenplays ever written.

Now that’s enough of the negativity, let’s talk about an adaptation that was handled well.  Watchmen is probably the most acclaimed graphic novel ever.  Time magazine called it one the 100 best novels of the 20th century and was widely considered to be unfilmable.  Not only did it have a rather unconventional ending that would not play well on screen, it also has a series of publications within the novel as a whole.  There is a comic within the comic that is scattered throughout the rest of the novel and between chapters there are chapters of a book or news articles painting a more complete picture of the universe it is set in.

While it’s not perfect, the Ultimate cut of Watchmen is about as good of an adaptation as could possible be done.  The film opens with a beautiful montage with opening credits laid over it.  This montage shows most of what the in between chapter items told us in great detail.  We then jump right into and get an introduction to the character through what is essentially a frame for frame remake of the first few chapters of the graphic novel.  The script focuses on showing us the world the characters live in and developing them within it before it starts pushing the story forward at a quicker pace.

The theatrical cut of the film didn’t include some very important aspects of the story, but this was largely resolved by the Ultimate cut which not only includes added scenes to the main story, it even includes the comic within the comic in the form of an animated film cut into pieces and shown throughout the film.  As a huge fan of the graphic novel I can’t imagine a better presentation of the it on screen than what was done.  There are plenty of people that disagree with me, but I’ll still hold this film up as the ultimate adaptation from another medium.

What I hope comes out of this post, is that adapting books or even tv shows into a coherent film is not easy, and can never completely capture the details and eccentricities of the book.  What you have to hope for is that it can accurately portray the overall themes and general feeling of the source material.  Expecting too much more than that is just unreasonable, because can a 2 hour movie really capture every detail of a book that took you days to read?

The Childhood of a Leader

This is almost definitely a film that has completely missed your radar, it’s a small indie film that I probably never would have found myself, had it not been nominated for a couple Independent Spirit Awards.  The film essentially tells the story of the childhood of a post-World War I leader.  The character is a fictional one, but is clearly inspired by the many ruthless leaders of the 20th century.  Now reading the brief summary I knew that this would be right up my alley.  I love coming of age films, I love historical and political settings, and I love character studies, especially those dealing with incredibly flawed characters.

The film is set in France during the peace talks of Versailles.  Our main character’s father is an Undersecretary of State and was sent to live in France during the peace talks.  The boy’s mother, played by the ever charming Berenice Bejo, was born to German parents but grew up travelling the world and eventually fell in love with an American.  As they were settling into their new life in France, the boy was given a French tutor in order for him to more quickly pick up the language.

The film is told in three main parts and then a brief epilogue and in each one we get a glimpse of this young boy’s behavior in very subtle ways.  The script is never heavy-handed with it’s portrayal of the child’s mental state.  It simply shows us a glimpse of the boy’s world and his response to it and allows us to draw conclusions about how this would affect his future state of mind.

The parents are rarely cruel, but certainly stern.  You can certainly see why a boy with a troubled mental state could be affected negatively by their parenting style.  When we think of dictators or just all around terrible people, we often wonder what their parents did wrong to make them that way.  However this film does a nice job of not necessarily placing the blame on any one person or thing.  As in reality it’s never just one thing that causes someone to turn out the way they do, but a number of different things.

This was the directorial debut of a former child actor, Brady Corbet, and I’m excited to see what else he can bring to the table.  Simply due to the film’s subject matter I knew I was going to enjoy it, but I didn’t expect the film to be so professionally put together.  The cinematography is excellent, and the overall style really elevated the film.  Rarely does a film manage to keep a constant state of dread and anticipation up throughout the length of the film, but Corbet succeeded in doing so.  The eerie score helped drive that sense of dread as well.

The performances were excellent, and the standouts were clearly Berenice Bejo and in a much smaller role, Robert Pattinson.  He plays a family friend that really doesn’t have much screen time, but his performance is so good it leaves you wanting so much more and creates a sense of mystery about his character, which I believe was the intention.  This is one of those films that just sticks with you long after it ends and I’m still digesting everything that I watched.  Simply an excellent film, one of the best of the year.

Rating 9/10

Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Midnight Special

I chose these two movies because they both share the same idea of a group of people being drawn to a specific location by an unusual force.  One is a classic and the other is a little known film released just this year, but both excellently represent the scifi genre.  

Close Encounters is one of a number of excellent sci-fi films to come out in 1977, and represents along with Star Wars an evolution in special effects.  It also presents an interesting take on the genre.  It is clearly a drama and not action heavy like its contemporary Star Wars.  However, the feeling it gives goes beyond drama, it’s not quite a mystery and not quite a thriller, but it has elements of both.

Richard Dreyfuss plays a blue color electrician who has an encounter with what he believes is an Alien craft.  His obsession over the craft and what it could possibly mean for him takes over and eventually drives his family away.  He meets a young mother whose son was abducted by the Aliens and they end up travelling together to Devil’s tower in Wyoming.  They just feel drawn there as if it is where they are meant to be.

A secondary story follows a French professor who has been tasked with understanding the strange encounters and trying to find a way to communicate with the Aliens.  Combined the two stories tell us very little about the aliens or what their purpose might be.  The whole films seems to be an exploration of our place and the universe and a search for our identity and purpose.  

It’s a beautiful film and most definitely a classic.  I’d get into more detail, but it’s a such a well known film that if you haven’t seen it yet you should just go watch as soon as you can.  

Midnight Special is a modern film with a modern take on a similar idea.  Whereas Close Encounters is an optimistic view about humanity’s place in the universe, which is kind of a reflection of the time in which it was made.  The same can be said about Midnight Special in that our current time has a much more pessimistic idea of where humanity is and where it’s going.

While I believe that’s true, it doesn’t actually feel like a pessimistic film.  It starts with a news report about a kidnapping only to see that the people watching it are the kidnapped child and the two men who kidnapped him in a hotel room.  We quickly learn that one of the men is the boy’s birth father (Michael Shannon) and the other is his childhood friend (Joel Edgerton) and that they were taking him away from the cult.  

It becomes clear that there is something very unique about the boy who is constantly wearing goggles.  We also see that they block out all sunlight in their hotel rooms with cardboard.  We learn bit by bit that the boy has some kind of unique ability, the nature of which is unclear, however he was prone to delivering strange messages that the cult he was stolen away from saw as gospel.  This is why the cult leader had adopted him in order to keep him safe.

The Government was also after the boy as it seemed many of his revelations was actually just top secret military chatter.  As the movie goes along we learn more and more about the extent of the boy’s powers.  We meet his mother (Kirsten Dunst) and they are all headed to a set of coordinates that they were able to decipher from the strange messages that the young boy had given out.  

It all culminates in members of the cult, the government and the outlaw family all converging on this one location.  The cult members expecting some kind of religious experience, the government unsure of whether the boy’s powers were a danger to them or a weapon they could use.  The mother and father just wonder if maybe the special boy they love belongs to something beyond them and their understanding.

A big criticism I’ve heard for this film is that the ending isn’t satisfying.  That the payoff doesn’t live up to the rest of the film, but I think that’s the whole point of the film.  That maybe there isn’t always a satisfying payoff.  That there is something beyond our understanding.  Where Close Encounters puts humanity at the center of a universal community, Midnight Special paints humanity as just a tiny piece of a much broader universe that we can’t come close to comprehending.  Midnight Special remains one of my favorite films of the year.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind 8/10

Midnight Special 9/10

Hell or High Water

Hell or High Water is a film that has mostly flown under the radar.  However it’s a western set in modern day west Texas center on two brothers committing a series of bank robberies and the Texas Rangers sent to track them down.  This is one of those films that sadly gets lost in the sea of blockbusters and awards bait films.  It doesn’t really fall under either category, however it’s a film that most would enjoy if they gave it a chance.

The two brothers are played by Chris Pine, of Star Trek fame, and Ben Foster.  Chris Pine plays the mastermind and is also the upstanding citizen.  There is clearly something driving him to commit these robberies as it is obvious he would never do so if he didn’t have a good reason.  His brother, on the other hand, is a loose cannon who has been in and out of prison for most of his life.  

They are being tracked throughout the film by a Texas Ranger on his final case before retirement, who is played by Jeff Bridges.  He channels his inner Rooster Cogburn from True Grit and delivers an excellent performance as the aging but talented investigator, who is clearly not ready for retirement.

The two stories that unfold do an excellent job of showing rather than telling us how the master plan of the two brothers.  It also reveals the motivations of the two brothers and that they might not be the same.  Chris Pine’s character is trying to create a better life for his kids, whereas Ben Foster just seems to enjoy robbing banks.

This film is carried by a great script and excellent performances from the three men mentioned above.  Were it a more high profile film I’d say Bridges and Foster would have a good chance at Oscar nominations, but it seems their film just isn’t getting enough attention.  There is some language and a brief sex scene, but if that doesn’t bother you, I’d highly recommend giving this movie a watch.  It’s one of those gems that will probably become more popular as people catch it on BluRay or Netflix, and now you know to keep your eye out for it.

Rating 8/10

Loving

Loving is a film from a promising Independent film director, Jeff Nichols.  He has seen success with such films as Take Shelter, Mud, and Midnight Special.  His latest film is getting some serious Oscar buzz and could get Nichols his first nomination.  The films stars Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga, who are both getting Oscar buzz of their own.  The film centers on the true story of the interracial couple whose legal fight to have their marriage recognized in their home state led to the pivotal supreme court decision of Loving V. Virginia.

Richard Loving was a young white man who grew up in a largely black community in Virginia in the 50s.  He fell in love with Mildred and refused to let the world tell him who he could love.  He proposed on the land he just purchased to build their home on and they drove up to DC to get married there.  Mildred was pregnant, but that didn’t stop the police from pulling them out of bed a few weeks later and putting them both in jail.

That crime carried a one year prison sentence, but in lieu of that the judge gave them the very generous choice to either dissolve their marriage or leave the state and all their family and friends for twenty-five years.  They chose to leave and went to DC to live with some friends.  Mildred hated the city and didn’t want to have the baby away from her family, so they returned home, only to be arrested again shortly after the birth of their son.

Their lawyer got them off on a technicality and warned them not to return as that wouldn’t work a second time.  They moved to DC and had 2 more children and spent a number of years there.  Mildred was never happy in DC as she hated that her children had no grass to run around on.  She was inspired by the civil rights movement to right a letter to Bobby Kennedy explaining her situation.  That led to a call from an ACLU lawyer offering to take on their case.

He told them he would investigate all options and get back to them.  In the meantime, Mildred had enough of the city and worked with a friend of there’s a rent a home in a remote part of Virginia where they would be left alone.  The ACLU lawyers encouraged them to accept interviews and requests for photographs as a way to put the case in the public eye.  Richard hated the attention, but Mildred just wanted to be free to live with her husband, so they both agreed to the publicity.  The case was won by unanimous decision and allowed for interracial marriage not only in Virginia, but in the seventeen other states that still had it outlawed.

The actors in this film play their roles very well.  The characters are just simple country people that wanted to live their lives without trouble.  They were forced into becoming activists and seemed to do so reluctantly, at least on Richard’s part.  The performances while subtle seem to capture the personalities of the real life people they are representing.  

It’s a fascinating story and it kept me engaged, but it did feel like it lacked a sense of urgency.  There were moments where the films tried to show just how much was on the line for them, but those moments fell a little flat.  It felt like we were simply watching them live their life instead of following their struggles to fight for equality.  It was a more passive film than I would have expected for the subject that it covers.  I still think it is a fine film, but it lacks the purpose to make me ever want to revisit it.  All in all I’d recommend this film if civil rights is a passion of yours or if you’re a cinephile that wants to watch as many of the oscar films as you can.  This seems like a likely nominee at this point, but it’s still early so that can certainly change.

Rating 7/10

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

The Harry Potter series was one that I was slow to become a fan of, in fact, they were 4 films in by the time I started watching the movies.  I learned to love them though and the wonderful characters of the wizarding world.  So when I heard they were making more films in that universe I was really excited.  When I heard the first one would be set in 1920s New York I was even more excited.  Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, doesn’t fully live up to my high expectations.

Newt Scamander, played by Eddie Redmayne, shows up in New York with his case full of magical creatures.  We are introduced to a protest group trying to root out and destroy and witches, though they are largely seen as crazy since the magical world was still hidden away.  We also come to learn that there is some strange magical force roaming the city destroying buildings and causing mayhem.  One of Newt’s creature’s gets out in a bank and causes all sorts of mayhem for him and a no-mag (American term for muggle), Kowalski, who is just at the bank to get a loan and open a bakery.

The two men get their bags mixed up and a number of creatures get loose that they have to track down.  They are joined by a former magical law enforcement officer and her flirtatious sister.  This cast of characters, while not quite as lovable as the the Hogwarts kids, is still an endearing bunch that you can’t help but root for.  The plot is messy, but the conclusion is very satisfying and I think future films will be much better.

My biggest disappointment with this film is that it had a distinct lack of magical creatures.  The missing creatures plot line felt like a throw in compared to all of the broader storylines that were introduced.  Its a very different world than the one we know of from the Harry Potter films and that becomes very clear.  For as silly as some of the moments are the film takes itself incredibly seriously. 

There was one action sequence that was present in slow motion with very intense music, that I couldn’t help but laugh at because of how ridiculous it was.  It just seems so odd to try to add so much weight and sense of urgency to such a far-fetched and laughable situation.  The film was a good time, but little else.  Its certainly no Harry Potter, but I do think there is hope for the sequels to be better.  

Rating 7/10

Arrival (2016)

High concept science fiction has found it’s way back to movies in the last few years with films like Interstellar, The Martian, and now Arrival.  What I’ve always loved about the sci-fi genre is it’s ability to tell very normal human stories in different ways, by using situations and technologies that are otherworldly.  Arrival tells a very intimate story about what would happen if an alien race just showed  up and invited us into their ships for a good conversation.

That’s what this film is.  It tells the story of a brilliant linguist who is brought in to try and communicate with this strange alien race.  She along with a scientist, who wants to discover how they got here and what we could learn from their technologies.  He quickly comes to understand how important understanding their language is and commits fully to helping decipher the strange symbols the aliens use to communicate.  

The scenes of them trying to figure out a way to understand what brought the aliens to earth are intercut with scenes of a the linguist, Dr. Banks, and her daughter.  These flashes of her life with her daughter clearly affect her emotionally and you begin to wonder whether she’s up to the job with which she’s been tasked.

The film moves a bit slowly, but you’re given just enough information to keep you wanting more.  It keeps you on the edge of impatience throughout it without ever pushing it too far.  Which exactly what a good suspense film should do.  It’s that fine line between keeping you on the edge of your seat, and dragging it out so long that you relax again resign to the fact that you might never get your questions answered.  Arrival skirts it perfectly and trust me the payoff is completely worth it.

I try to avoid spoilers with my reviews but this film neither caused me to break that rule, about putting in a little disclaimer when the spoilers would start, but it just didn't feel right, the simple fact that someone could ignore the warning and spoil the movie saddened me.  The real meat of this film and what it means lies in the spoilers, but I went into it knowing very little about what I was getting into and was blown away the incredible payoff that the director, Denis Villeneuve presented to us.  So this is one of my shortest reviews because there's just so little I can say about it without spoiling the ending.

This is easily my favorite film of the year and I will happily discuss it in more detail with anyone else who has seen it.  So for this film I will simply encourage anyone who’s seen it to comment on this article and we’ll get all the spoilers out there.  Or if you happen to see me in real life we can talk about it there too.  This is a film that just cries out for further discussion and it carries as strong of a recommendation as I can give.  It’s what science fiction should be all about.

Arrival 10/10