Film Adaptations

I'm not gonna lie: I usually hate book to film adaptations. It's not merely the obvious I-can-imagine-it-so-much-better problem, but the omission and reshuffling of plot points. The amalgams of characters. The simplification of driving questions. *sigh Really, people?


Perhaps the films I've been the most disappointed with claim to be Wuthering Heights. I don't know what book they opened, but the book I read had passion and an undying love, albeit crazy and vengeful. Cathy, though careless, was graceful. Heathcliff, though crazy, loved Cathy so much that it controlled the rest of his life (and his children's lives). This is classic Romantic Era drama: the heroes make really stupid mistakes but still manage to be noble. Nobility, however, has evaded cinema; The 1939 Laurence Olivier version ended with Cathy dying, cutting out half of the plot. The 1970 Timothy Dalton version made my fall asleep, and the 1992 Ralph Fiennes version seemed to cut only my favorite lines from the book but portrayed Heathcliff as certifiably crazy and Cathy as a manipulative wench. Come on, people.

To be fair, I haven't seen the 2011 version or the 2009 Tom Hardy version, though admittedly I'm dragging my feet on seeing them because as long as I haven't seen them, they might actually be good. (I'm secretly hoping they are.)

But I have been surprised recently.My first surprise was Life of Pi.  At first I had zero intention on

seeing it, especially when I found out it was going to be in 3D -typically a craze reserved for capes, flying webs, explosions, and robots supposed to be intelligent but reassure us that they're not via juvenile humor. Since the book didn't contain any of these, why should I see it in 
3D and thus encourage studio makers to participate in stories with no plot? Beyond that, I loved the book so much that I didn't want my memory to be replaced by a bad adaptation. 
But when someone whose opinion I respect said not only that it was good but that it was loyal to the book, Okay, I'm in. I just watched it again the day before yesterday and I was reminded with its loyalty. While Ang Lee reshuffled a few minor details, the main points are there, and he actually (dare I say) enhanced the plot by making the Author's

Note into it's own storyline. Brilliant. And through that Author's Note, the powerful and story-changing end really sings. Reluctantly I went to see it in 3D and was reminded that this is why we see movies in this novelty: it's not enough to carry the film (as superhero, action, and children's movies often depend on), but it is enough to enhance the plot and to make the images breathtaking. It was worth it. And with Ang Lee's gorgeous design style, is it possible that I like the movie even more than the book? Nah. Because even the beautiful movie omitted graceful lines such as: "That's what fiction is about, isn't it, the selective transforming of reality? The twisting of it to bring out its essence?"Another: "If you stumble about believability, what are you living for? Love is hard to believe, ask any lover. Life is hard to believe, ask any scientist. God is hard to believe, ask any believer. What is your problem with hard to believe?" Yet another and possibly my favorite: "If Christ spent an anguished night in prayer, if He burst out from the Cross, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' then surely we are also permitted doubt. But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation."


But one movie was able to capture the narration that I felt was omitted in the previous likable 

adaptation: The Great Gatsby was a very pleasant surprise. Baz Luhrmann has given us movies like Romeo + Juliet, Moulin Rouge, and Australia, movies that -though I love them- start with fast-paced high adrenaline and then chill out, movies with loud, pumping music, and climaxes that surprise me in spiteful contrast to their beginnings. I've also noticed that Luhrmann loves characters who run and characters who shout. I know that we as writers need the main character to want something desperately for the tension to be interesting, but there's only so much running and shouting you can observe before it's a clear pattern. That was what the trailer portrayed: running and shouting. Great. Then it came out and I brought to the theater a class of excited, fidgety high schoolers after a half

day. They dressed up in 20's dresses and feathers, I nerded out about wanting to marry the handsome Mr. DiCaprio (if you're one of my readers, sir, send me an email *wink), and though I swore I would reserve my expectations, I had high ones. The movie met them, pleasantly, and (again, dare I say) exceeded them. I think this could be the most loyal book to film adaptation that I've ever seen. (Gasp.) It was well-paced and genuine, the narration was graceful without being stilted, and while the music involves hip-hop, it's roots are Gershwin. I loved it. Does that come through? I'm being sarcastic, because I realize my review is a stellar one, but it was so much more involved than the 1974 Robert Redford version omitted almost all of Gatsby's backstory. Not only did Luhrmann include, well, everything except for a few infinitesimally minor scenes and one minor character, but he also did so much research that it couldn't help but to be inspired. In fact, Luhrmann and his wife said in the New York Times the week before the movie premiered that the research was almost more fun than shooting the movie. I think I would agree with that. One more thing: I was likewise reserved when I heard that Gatsby was going to be in 3D, and, well, again there are no tights or capes or idiotic robots in the book so I was reluctant to indulge. However, I was pleasantly surprised. While I forgot about halfway through that I was watching a 3D film, there were certain green light scenes that were awe-inspiring.

So go see these fabulous films. I've seen Gatsby in the theater thrice, now. These films are why they adapt books into film. Movies like Wuthering Heights, on the other hand...