As with most avid readers, I’m not generally a fan of the
book turned to movie or TV show. As any reader knows, it’s hard to convert the
depth of a book into a screen presentation that works quite as well as the
original format (print). The reason is obvious. We are not going to get inside
the head of a screen character, or at least not to the extent that of
author-provided access. So – for someone who has “read the book” a movie often
is a disappointment.
Lately, though, I’ve seen several book adaptations that were
well done. I felt that the screen writers had somehow taken a different tack
and found ways to give the audience the feel of the book by playing the strengths
inherent in film making, rather than trying to force a round peg into a square
hole. So – instead of skipping over important points for the sake of brevity,
or relying on huge action scenes to hide plot problems, I think some screenwriters
are finding clever ways to keep book and film in synch.
Examples: The “Game of Thrones” series in book form is
awesome, and expansive, and very, very complex. When I heard that it would be
made into a TV series, I cringed. How would the screenwriters EVER manage to
make me feel the complexities, unless they intended the series to run for about
twenty years? The answer is, they cut some minor plot lines, judiciously, which
every screenwriter does, but then they used an effective technique to fill in
gaps. At times in the film, two characters will simply have a discussion in
which they give the audience the needed background concerning plot or character.
The Hunger Games movie used some tricks of consolidating book
scenes so that not much was lost in the ultimate dramatization.
I’m pleased that screenwriters are attempting to make the
movie experience a favorable extension of the book. It’s a tricky business to
make this conversion and it’s good see that in some cases, the results can
satisfy both the moviegoer who has not read the book and the book reader, who
cannot help but see the differences.
Laurie
