Unfilmable: Why Some Books Defy Adaptation
Cloud Atlas finally came out this week and, honestly, it looks like a bit of a hot mess. As fellow Gosu contributor Rob said on twitter: “We didn’t know what kind of movie you’d like, so we made all of them.” That plus some racist undertones make it seem like the book is just one of those things that can’t be adapted. Not that that’s ever stopped a director from trying, successfully or not, to film the unfilmable.
Of course, what makes something unfilmable (or just damn hard)? Some criteria:
- Too Big – It’s not just the wide vistas and huge crowds, Hollywood’s been able to pull that off since the epics of its infancy. But a serious, non-silly live-action adaptation of Lord of the Rings seemed to be impossible to shoot. The story is too complex, the world is too huge, there are too many different cultures and too many weird side trips. LotR wound up being a giant success, but it took three movies and even with major cuts. Plus it was helmed by the richest man in New Zealand who already had a strong infrastructure behind him to create a multitude of armor and sets. The likelihood of someone being able to pull off a rival adaptation any time soon? Slim to none.
- Unwieldy – The cousin to “Too Big”, Unwieldy is when the subject material, not the setting, is too complex. Alexander the Great lead a compelling life for sure, but Oliver Stone’s Alexander tried to fit all of it in one movie and wound up being a confusing jumble. You could separate out his Persian campaign, or of the mutiny and wounding in India; his relationship with his mother, his father, or both; his relationship with Roxane or with Hephaestion or with the Persian eunuch Bagoas (ALLEGEDLY). But it’s the life of one man and all these exploits influenced each other; the omission of one story line makes the others confusing. Not to mention there is little surviving historical record of a man who lived thousands of years ago in a starkly different culture from our own. Too many mysteries and loose ends, coupled with the falling popularity of sword and sandal flicks. New adaptation? Unlikely.
- Too Bookish – Some works are just married to the form. Sure, there could be camera shots to portray the disorientation in House of Leaves or voice over to cover the footnotes in everything Terry Pratchett has ever written but it’s just not the same, is it?
- Too Silly– A picture may be worth a thousand words but words are powerful too. The words and style used can be more evocative than simply seeing the thing. Lovecraft writes about spaces that do not follow the bounds of human comprehension and creatures that to look upon them is to know madness. How do you portray that? A puppet? Technology is effin’ amazing these days but mo-cap is to puppets as an mp3 is to an 8-track: More advanced, but the content is the same.Stephen King, no stranger to adaptations with goofy puppets, says in his book On Writing:
“Look — here’s a table covered with a red cloth. On it is a cage the size of a small fish aquarium. In the cage is a white rabbit with a pink nose and pink-rimmed eyes. In its front paws is a carrot-stub upon which it is contentedly munching. On its back, clearly marked in blue ink, is the numeral 8.
Do we see the same thing? We’d have to get together and compare notes to make absolutely sure, but I think we do. There will be necessary variations, of course: some receivers will see a cloth which is turkey red, some will see one that’s scarlet, while others may see still other shades.”
The variations are key. If something is horrifying… how? It’s different for anybody. Lovecraftian horrors are Hogwarts Boggarts in a closet, they’re Schrodinger’s monster. The second you draw back the curtain and oh, it’s just a giant spider (that’s obviously made out of clay)? The effect is lost.
- Too Boring – Handily subverted by Adaptation. The Orchid Thief is a book about flowers. How the hell are you supposed to adapt that? They’re flowers. Unless they want Seymour to feed them, it’s nothing doing.
Clearly, since I used examples, these types of books aren’t UNfilmable, it’s just advised against unless you’re mega-rich and ambitious or you’re a mad genius like Charlie Kauffman. Usually the trick is to find the story (who thought the story of Facebook could be so compelling?) or find what people love about the source. If what people love about a book is its bookishness (Terry Pratchet’s footnotes), it’s best just to let that lie. A built-in audience can be a tempting cash-grab but nothing is worse than a horde of nerds scorned.
The Wachowskis certainly have the clout and ambition to handle the tough subject material, but do they have the restraint to find the core of Cloud Atlas instead of using every effect they have up their sleeves? What they don’t appear to have is the trust in their audience, that they will get a story about recurring lives without using the same actors over and over, even when the character’s race is different each time.
There’s a reason there’s a new Austen or Bronte adaptation every ten weeks: simple, timeless stories with a built-in act structure, minimal casts and the same five locations on a moor. Cut, print, that’s a wrap.
What else should be deemed unfilmable? What gets adapted too much? What was just a lousy adaptation? Vent in the comments, it’s a safe place.
Impressive review!