What makes a good book-to-film adaptation?
From ancient myths to Shakespeare, stories are among humanity’s oldest art forms. Archetypal characters and motifs and audience’s desire for entertainment, escape and meaning remain the same while styles change. Today, the most popular storytelling forms are arguably movies and TV series. It is only logical to find many take inspiration from the very art form they dethroned: books.
The world’s most famous literature has been converted to numerous films over the years, though they don’t always transfer as well as readers may hope. For every beautiful adaptation, there’s at least one horrendous one, if not more. The question then arises what makes a good adaptation and whether there are some stories better expressed in writing than on screen.
The 2005 Joe Wright directed film starring Keira Knightly is typically what non-English majors envision when Jane Austen’s most popular novel, “Pride and Prejudice” is brought up at family parties. Oscar, Golden Globe and BAFTA-nominated, the film is revered by not only avid fans but critics and literature strangers alike. Staying almost religiously true to the novel with much of the dialogue directly if not loosely quoted, Austen’s iconic scenes cordially burst to life. There’s genuinely nothing to be cynical over. New York Times film critic Stephen Holden complained Knightly was too beautiful to play young heroine Elizabeth Bennet, who’s written to be only tolerable and not nearly handsome enough to initially tempt the leading man. But even this complaint can be overlooked by Knightly’s spot-on portrayal of the character whose outspoken wit is well ahead of her time.
This organic accuracy can be attributed to the fact that “Pride and Prejudice” is a simple book. Characters do not face any overarching philosophical questions or moral dilemmas beyond overcoming personal pride and cheeky prejudice. There is not much for the film to unravel, giving it a smooth transition to the screen.
More complex novels are more complex to bring justice to, as seen by another Joe Wright directed, Keira Knightly led film. The fan and critical reception for their 2012 “Anna Karenina” was contrary to the praise “Pride and Prejudice” received.
A timeless cautionary tale exploring life, love and happiness, Leo Tolstoy’s acclaimed novel has everything modern audiences are looking for: scandalous sex, shocking betrayal, lavish lifestyles and mental unhingement.
Leading as Anna, Keira Knightly refused to shy away from the character’s graceful, if not erratic, behavior to present a dynamic performance any actress would be proud of. What should have been a career highlight is left in the dust, however, because neither Knightly, her A-list co-stars, the uniquely beautiful cinematography, vibrant score or award-winning costuming are enough to save this period drama. It concludes leaving the audience as dissatisfied as its protagonist.
The downfall of “Anna Karenina” is failing to capture the novel’s core brilliance. The dense book follows a range of characters beyond the titular leading lady. Only through these foils can the severity of Anna’s rash actions be understood.
It’s no surprise when films cut plot pieces to better adjust a story to screen, but by attempting to oversimplify Tolstoy’s work, the story comes across as half told. The film is the equivalent of examining the individual dots of color in George Seurat’s “A Sunday on La Grande Jatte” without once stepping back to admire the style’s revolutionary blending technique.
“Anna Karenina” showcases the downside of time constraint in film. The novel teeters on 800 pages in most translations, giving readers plenty of time to live alongside characters and understand intricate details of their lives. The film is just over two hours — not nearly enough time to accomplish the attention the story requires.
Luckily, there is an antidote to time constraints: television series and miniseries.
Thanks to the award-winning Broadway musical, “Les Miserables” is a family name with a familiar plot, even if not many people are brave enough to conquer Victor Hugo’s over 1,000-page novel.
In 2019, BBC and PBS Masterpiece aired a six-episode miniseries of “Les Miserables.” Staying true to the text, the series’ top-notch cast, provocative directing and engaging script make it — by far — the superior adaptation. It allows audiences to personally experience characters’ highs and lows to understand why the title translates to “the miserable people.” This over six-hour portrayal reaches depths previous two-and-half-hour portrayals could not.
Perhaps if “Anna Karenina” was given a longer runtime, it could have likewise been as superior as “Les Miserables.”
Though split between three films, the theatrical versions of Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” film trilogy equals nearly nine hours. These are far from the first adaptations of Tolkien’s work but have reigned as the most popular, accurate and beloved adaptations by fans and critics alike. “The Hobbit” film trilogy, on the other hand, did not receive as warm of a reception. “The Lord of the Rings” books equal just over 1,000 pages all together while the “The Hobbit” is a short solo novel — not nearly enough material for three, two-and-a-half-hour films. The story was weak by the time the second film opened. Lack of adequate plot caused the film to derail from the book, enraging fans.
Adaptations’ runtime should justifiably fit not only the source material’s length but plot density.
The 21st century has seen a rise in young adult novels, and with them comes major motion pictures.
“The Hunger Games” books gained a loyal following after their release, and the films were not far behind. With numerous Golden Globe and BAFTA nominations and wins, critics and fans agree the cinematic series is among the most celebrated film franchises based on books. The movies were able to stay true to the books while bringing the world of Panem and its various characters to life. The acting, directing and scripts enhanced the story in ways fans could have only dreamed.
On the contrary, the “Percy Jackson” films were unable to capture the fire of the “The Hunger Games” and were simply inaccurate. Characterization and plot were far from the original source material, not to mention its pathetic CGI and the lack of chemistry among actors. It’s hard to find any “Percy Jackson” fans who tolerate the films.
Many adults lose interest in or time for reading after high school. Books read as young adults are among their last and are often the most impactful. People want films to help relive books’ magic, while plot inaccuracies and incorrect characterizations accomplish the opposite. Perhaps this is why fairy tale reimaginings such as “Snow White and the Huntsman” and “Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters” have been unsuccessful.
Books allow audiences to immerse themselves in art in ways no other form can. Though the same can be said for films, books bring a different level of intimacy between writer and reader that allows both to learn about themselves and the world around them.
It is difficult to say what makes a good book to film adaptation when each book is as different as its reader and there are numerous moving pieces that go into creating a movie. But, it can be said a film’s key focus should be on finding the individuality of the original source material in terms of characterization, depth, plot and tone to enhance them in ways only achieved on screen.
*Graphic by Rosie Davis.
Dara Lusk was born and raised in northern Virginia outside of Washington, DC. She is majoring in English with an emphasis in Technical/Professional Writing and a minor in Anthropology. When not writing she loves reading and annotating classic literature.
@dara_marie_