Film Adaptation Praise: Water for Elephants

I’m one of those annoying people who has to read the book before I see the movie (in most cases). People tell me that I’m just setting myself up for disappointment, but the thing is, I’d rather be disappointed in the movie than in the book. I’d rather read the original story, as the original author intended it, before seeing a film adaptation. I’d rather go see the film and say, “Wow, that wasn’t anything like the book,” than to read a book of a film I’d already seen and say, “Wow, that wasn’t anything like the movie.”

In an ideal world, any films based on novels would be good adaptations. So what makes a good adaptation? It’s NOT a film that follows the book exactly. Most novels would not translate well into a movie without some changes. Some books are weak on action scenes, or the dialogue doesn’t sound as good as it reads. Some books translate better to film if their story sequence is slightly altered, or if characters or situations are combined. I don’t believe that every film adaptation has to be exactly like the book on which it is based, but I do have some high expectations. A good film adaptation is a film that captures the main themes of the book and adequately tells the original story the author intended.

I’ve seen some really bad film adaptations, but I’ve also seen some remarkably good ones. For the most part, the Harry Potter movie series were great adaptations. They had their problems (especially “HP and the Prisoner of Azkaban,” which was impossible to understand if you hadn’t already read the book—fail!), but for the most part, they were excellent. I’m looking forward to the Hunger Games movie coming out in March. The previews look good!

Anyway, there are a few movies that I actually like better than the books. In almost every case, it was a movie that I saw before I read the book (which is a shame, because who knows what might have happened if I had read the book first?).

I can name these books on one hand:

-The Three Musketeers. Sorry Dumas, but “All for Love” was my favorite song for like a year, and Chris O’Donnell was hot—plus what was that deal about drowning Rebecca DeMornay’s a creepy lady’s head in a swamp. I am still having nightmares….

-The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I love you, Victor. May I call you Victor? Vic? Vicky? Okay, then. Mr. Hugo, I love you. I love Les Miserables. I even loved your version of Hunchback. I really do like tragic stories. Okay, so I don’t. But I like them when the French write them. Anyway, your story was all right, but I kinda sorta liked Disney’s happy ending version a LOT better than the “everyone dies but the jerky guy” version. Also, the music in the Disney version is simply amazing. It’s nothing personal. I hope you understand, Vicky. Dude. That’s totally my mom’s name. I can’t take you seriously at all if I call you Vicky. How about just plain Hugo? Hugh?

-The Wizard of Oz. Okay, I get that Frank Baum was trying to write a political commentary and that MGM screwed up his story. I just really couldn’t get into the written version. And I really just wanted to see midgets dancing around with giant plastic lollipops.

-The Phantom of the Opera.  The book was good, but Andrew Lloyd Weber makes everything more awesome.  Sorry French type author dude.  I can't remember your last name, but I remember your first name was Gaston.  I can only imagine you were quite the guy, using antlers in all of your decorating, having biceps to spare, eating five dozen eggs every day, being especially good at expectorating, and so on and so forth....

Up until recently, those were pretty much the only films I liked better than the books, but I just added another one to the list.

Water for Elephants by Sara Gruen was well-written. I liked the characterization. There wasn’t anything really wrong with the story—except for the fact that I just could not get over the sexually graphic scenes. I’m a very visual person; when I read something, it sticks with me forever. And though I liked the story itself, if I could find some mindbleach and rid my brain of the book, I would in a heart beat. I wish I had never read the book, because I’ll never forget the scenes that I don’t want to remember. Someone gave me that book as a present. I’m not ashamed to say that after one reading, I gave that sucker to a used book store.

Some people aren’t affected by books like I am, and many people wouldn’t have a problem with graphic imagery, anyway. I do have a problem with it, and that’s why I’ve never read The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, although I’ve heard it’s excellent. I just don’t want to open my mind to images that will never go away. Incidentally, The Kite Runner is another book I wish I hadn’t read. The story itself was excellent, but I’m stuck with mental images I don’t want. And they will never go away.

Water for Elephants was made into a film a while ago, but I was hesitant to watch it. First, I wasn’t sure that Robert Pattinson would be a very convincing lead. After watching the first three "Twilight" films (I won’t see the last until both parts are out and I can rent them for cheap), I kind of figured he was a bad actor, despite his charming portrayal of Cedric Diggory in "HP and the Goblet of Fire". The second reason I didn’t want to see Water for Elephants was because I was afraid it was going to be too graphic. I read some reviews, which calmed my fears, but I still was hesitant.

The main reason I finally rented and watched Water for Elephants was because I know a guy who played one of the circus side show performers (he’s over seven feet tall in real life, and at least twice as awesome as he is tall). I’m glad I finally did, because I really enjoyed the film. Turns out, Rob Pat does a pretty good job when he’s not playing an emo vampire in a poorly directed fangirl flick Edward Cullen. I was able to connect with his character and watch the story unfold without being forced to watch a ton of inappropriate sexual images.

Don’t get me wrong. I get it that this story took place in a circus in the early 1930s, and there probably was a lot of inappropriate sexual stuff going on behind the scenes. My issue was the way the author penned it out, making us witness everything the main character was witnessing (and I have a feeling that both the main character and the author have a dirty mind). it is possible to tell a story, and be true to that story, without being disgusting.  The film proves that.  The film was great in that it told the story, keeping in a lot of the truth about sexual issues and such, but not in a way that completely grossed me out.  In my opinion, if there’s so much graphic, shocking imagery in a book that it actually overwhelms the story the author is trying to tell, then that’s not good story telling.  I’d rather have a writer tell me a good story instead of trying to shock me.

But maybe that’s just me.

Again, I don't think Gruen is a bad writer.  I don't think Water for Elephants is a bad book.  I just can't handle grotesque imagery, and I think the book would have been better without those scenes (or if the scenes had been toned down dramatically).

Anyway, I highly recommend the movie Water for Elephants. It’s PG13 and contains a lot of violence and some sexual issues, but nothing that I would consider overwhelming for older teenagers and adults.

Film Adapations of Books

I saw The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader for the second time today.  I hadn't seen it since the day it came out in theaters.  I only saw it today because they were showing it for free at the local theater as part of their free "Summer Kid's Movie Series" program, which is an ingenious way the local movie theater can make a lot of money by selling overpriced popcorn and soda.  I felt silly coming to a "kids' movie" without any kids, and since kidnapping is still illegal, I tagged along with the family I nanny for...on my day off.

Now, I've already written a blog about my thoughts on the third Narnia movie, and I really don't want to go into it again.  But the movie made me think about how some film adaptations of books are really well done, and how some of them really stink. 

Some people confuse me for one of those people who expect film adaptations to be almost identical to the book.  This just isn't the case.  I took a class called Lit and Film in college, which was one of the most interesting classes I've ever had.  And I agree with what the professor said--that a good film adaptation is one that properly captures the essence of a book.  That doesn't mean a good film adaptation has to cover every intricate detail of a book in exactly the same way the book handled it.  Sometimes things have to be changed for time (a 500 page book doesn't always fit well into a 90 minute movie) or because what works in print might not work well on screen.  I know some people who like to nitpick over minor details that don't change the basic themes of the story.  I'm not one of those people.

I am, however, one of those people who will get upset if I think a film did a bad job of translating a book on screen--particularly if I LOVED the book.  The Voyage of the Dawn Treader wasn't horrible, but I do have some major problems with it because I think the filmmakers missed the point of the book (FYI, I LOVED the book).

There are a lot of film adaptations that I really don't like because I feel that the filmmakers didn't really grasp the main themes of the books they were trying to adapt.  At the top of this list is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (the third one).  Not only did the filmmakers try to cram the theme of "time" into the movie, when the book really didn't have that overarching theme, but they left out all sorts of important themes and details that made the story understandable.  If I hadn't read the book and were just relying on the film, I'd have no idea what was going on.  And this was a common complaint I heard from people who hadn't read the book.  They didn't understand the movie.

A Wrinkle in Time is another film adaptation that leaves a lot to be desired.  It was a made for tv movie, but that doesn't give it the right to suck as much as it did.  The movie got several small details wrong--which might have been redeemable if they had been done well.  But almost nothing about this movie was done well.  The vast majority of the actors were miscast (so even the good actors like Alfre Woodard gave dreadful performances).  The writing was choppy and incoherent.  It makes me a little angry because A Wrinkle in Time is my favorite book, but the film version made it look dreadful.  So all of those people who like to see the movie first to see if they might like the book are now under the impression that it's a dreadful book.  If you're one of these people, I urge you to go read the book.  I promise it is SO much better than the movie.  I'm hoping that eventually someone picks up the whole Time Quartet series and does some major motion pictures that don't stink.  I do have to say, the music wasn't bad.  And the kid they got to play Charles Wallace was cute.  And Mrs Who was actually pretty likable.  Other than that...meh.  I've also heard that the Disney made-for-tv version of A Ring of Endless Light (another Madeleine L'Engle book) was also dreadful.  Maybe I'll see it for myself one day.

I don't want to spend much more time griping about film adaptations I don't like, but here is a list of others that really bother me (I still might watch these movies from time to time, as I often still watch A Wrinkle in Time, if only because I like to relive parts of the story when I don't have time to read the book):

Tuck Everlasting
The Black Cauldron
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the 2005 movie version--which was not redeemable even with Zooey Deschanel as Trillian AND Alan Rickman as Marvin.  The cheesy 1980 BBC version, however, is epic!)
Twilight
First Knight
The Little Mermaid (Okay, I like the songs.  And Sebastian.  But Disney turned the self-sacrificing (and unnamed) Hans Christian Anderson protagonist into a selfish spoiled brat named Ariel)
Eragon
The Flight of Dragons (based off the book The Dragon and the George)

There are a lot of film adaptations of books that I really don't like, but there are probably a lot more that I do like.  The Princess Bride is my favorite film, and it's one of my favorite books.  I think one of the reasons I'm such a big fan of both the film and the book is that William Goldman wrote both of them (the book and the screenplay).  Not every detail was the same.  There were lots of omissions and changes in the film version, but the film was a hilarious and touching story that paid true homage to the book.

Some of the film adaptations I like are very different from the books, but they're still enjoyable AND they retain the basic thematic essences of the books.  Pollyanna is one of these.  Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (in case you're confused, I mean the Gene Wilder one) is another.  I do like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (the Johnny Depp version), and it IS closer to the book than the Gene Wilder version "Willy Wonka," but I don't like it as much.  The Neverending Story is another film I love that doesn't follow the book very well, and it makes me sad that they tried to make it more like the book by making an absolutely horrendous sequel.  And another sequel--which thankfully, I have not seen.

Here's a list of film adaptations I really like:

Jurassic Park
Jurassic Park: The Lost World
October Sky (based on a memior originally published as Rocket Boys--it's an anagram)
All of the Harry Potter films except for Prisoner of Azkaban (I just can't forgive it)
Ramona and Beezus  (I would love to see more Ramona movies!)
The Hobbit (the Rankin Bass cartoon version, since the live action one hasn't come out yet)
The Return of the King (again, the Rankin Bass version)
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (the Peter Jackson ones)
The Bridge to Terebithia (both the 80s version and the more recent version of this)
Winnie the Pooh (even after Disney mutilated A. A. Milne, I still like it)
The Phantom Tollbooth
2001: A Space Odyssey (the book was written at the same time as the film, but I think it still counts)
The BBC versions of The Chronicles of Narnia (they only did up to the Silver Chair...which makes me sad)
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
A Christmas Carol (while almost any version--including Mickey's Christmas Carol and Scrooged--is likable, my favorite version is the Patrick Stewart one)
10 Things I Hate About You (based on Taming of the Shrew.  True story.)
Alice in Wonderland (again, pretty much any version of this would do--including the Johnny Depp version which was very unlike the original Lewis Caroll story.  I like what they did with it)
Anne of Green Gables/Anne of Avonlea
Hook (which was based off Peter Pan, which was a book)
Matilda
Holes
The Little Prince
The Secret of NIMH (Based on the book Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH--they changed a lot, but the movie was still amazing!)
The Face on the Milk Carton (made for tv and really cheesy, but it's not too bad)
The Jungle Book


I'm sure I could name more, but...that would take longer than I want to spend on typing a blog. 

There are rare occurrences when I actually prefer the film version of a story to the book.  The Wizard of Oz is one of these.  Perhaps if I had read the book before seeing the Judy Garland/Ray Bolger rainbow-riffic classic movie from 1939 (the same year my daddy was born--which makes me extra sentimental about it), I might feel differently.  But I tried to read the book as a grown up.  I found it dreadful and unimaginative.  I get that it was a political commentary and all that, but that didn't increase my enjoyment of it.  I much preferred the musical film version. 

Another musical movie I preferred to the book was Phantom of the Opera.  The book wasn't the worst thing I've ever read, but it couldn't compete with the haunting genius of Andrew Lloyd Weber. 

I also preferred the happy ending Disney version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame to Victor Hugo's classic where everybody dies (hopefully didn't ruin that for you).  The incredible songs, again, didn't hurt either. 

I have to admit I also liked the 90's version of The Three Musketeers way better than the book.  Rebecca De Mornay.  Keifer Sutherland.  Chris O'Donnell.  Tim Curry.  Oliver Platt.  Oh, and Charlie Sheen LONG BEFORE he went crazy.  Ah, what a great flick!  I had a cassette tape of the song "All For Love." Yep.  I was awesome.

Right now I'm anxiously awaiting a couple of film adaptations.  I've read that they're probably going to do "Magician's Nephew" (Chronicles of Narnia) before "Silver Chair" (and that "MN" isn't coming out until 2014).  So I'm not holding my breath for those.  I wouldn't be surprised if they got dumped.  Which is sad.  But after seeing what they did with "Dawn Treader," I'm not sure I want them messing with Puddleglum.

But I'm getting a little excited (along with a lot of people) about The Hunger Games, which is set to come out in March of next year.  I'm thinking that The Hunger Games is the new Harry Potter, at least in terms of waiting for the next movie to come out.  Oh...and I'm waiting for the final HP movie, too...but it will be here VERY soon! 

Other books I'd love to see made into good major motion pictures are:

A Wrinkle in Time and the other books in the Time Quartet (as I said before)
A Ring of Endless Light and the other Austin Family books by Madeleine L'Engle (actually starting with Meet the Austins)
The Chronicles of Prydain (The Black Cauldron was based on the first two books, but it fell sadly, sadly short.  I would love to see the whole series done in epic live action LOTR style.)
The Bunnicula Series
The Space Trilogy by C. S. Lewis

Again, there are probably others, but this blog is long enough. 

How about you?  Are there film adaptations you LOVE?  Are there film adaptations you HATE?  Are there movies you like better than the books?  Are there any books/series you would LOVE to see made into movies?