This week's YA Highway Road Trip topic: It isn't surprising
that this month's
Bookmobile selection, Leigh Bardugo's
Shadow and
Bone,
has sold film rights; the darkly magical world of the Shadow
Fold begs for an on-screen translation! But that got us wondering. We'd like to
know, in your opinion, what is it that makes some books seem ideal for a film
translation?
I'm definitely a
the book is better kind of girl...but I appreciate this week's Road Trip because it has made me think about why I feel this way.
Both movies and books have different kinds of restraints in telling a story. They also have different kinds of magic...often, I believe, the way these things mesh and don't mesh in the different medias will determine the quality of the translation.
Time Constraints:
Most film adaptations suffer, not from what's there but from what's left out. Visually, the Kira Knightly version of Pride and Prejudice is amazing. The acting, equally so. But there are so many glossed over details (ones many Austen virgins would miss) that I still lean toward the six hour A & E version as my favorite.
Some left out elements are sad but understandable, like leaving out Hermione's fight for house slave rights in Goblet...it was one of the longer books in the series.
But I'm still bothered that Katniss didn't get the bread from District Eleven after giving Ru her respectful final send off. That is my favorite moment in the whole book, maybe even in the whole series.
Inner Thoughts:
Which brings us to the next issue. The significance of some moments are in the character's inner thoughts. Katniss considering how much that bread would have cost the people of District Eleven is what makes that moment so significant, but who would have conveyed that info on film? Katniss couldn't mutter it to herself without sounding awkward and/or putting her safety at risk. Maybe they could have flashed to Haymitch finding out about the gift, but even then, who would he share his observations with? Either way, the moment loses its umph without that inner thought (so easily utilized in a novel) to convey the info.
Comedies, I've noticed, get around this inner thought issue by creating characters who tend to say their inner thoughts out loud.
Bridget Jones's Diary is such a wonderful film adaptation because it has the outspoken main character plus her diary entries to convey her inner thoughts.
I don't remember the film version of Princess Diaries using the diary entries as much, and (I think) you lose some of the quirky/outrageous tone of those books because of it.
Scene setting:
I remember vividly my first glimpse of the inside of Hogwarts on film(the moving staircases and the portraits). I felt as if the world Rowling had so brilliantly painted in my head had come to life before me.
Given that example, it would be easy to say that the better the world building, the better the movie result can be. But this theory doesn't work entirely.
The Twilight movies suffer, not from author world building so much as the special effects translation of that world building...sparkling vampires may look good on paper, but on film? It sort of loses its luster (for me, anyway).
Then (also related to inner thoughts), an author's world building is sometimes dependent on character narration.
Rick Riordan's engaging world of demi-gods, monsters and gods turns into a plain old action film (one with major time constraint issues too) without the main character's witty descriptions of his encounters.
What about you? What do you think makes film adaptations work/not work?
Don't get me wrong, the first Alien movie was amazing. And soooo scary. But the second one, with the child involved, scared me even more.
I've listened to a lot of Stephen King (they were some of the first books done unabridged in audio). I like his group-of-friends ones the most: The Body, IT and Dreamcatcher. Of those, Dreamcatcher scared me the most. The movie didn't do it justice.
