FILM THEORY: The Ups and Downs of Adaptation

 

    We've all been there. Seeing a trailer for a movie or television adaptation from a favorite book. Getting so excited and counting down the months until it's premiere. Then finally, you get a chance to get to the theater or buy your movie on Apple, and then it's fallen short. It's horrible. A favorite story ruined by a careless creative team and horrific acting. You then go to Twitter to boycott. I understand, we've all been at the very specific moment in time; the anger is real.

    So what about those movies were so horrific? Well, if it's an adaptation of a popular work, they usually botched either a few accuracies of the plot by changing or cutting scenes AND/OR they went against the unspoken rules of the fandom and highly insulted a tradition or sacred moment/ character of the series. Notice how I said and/or, because these two can definitely overlap.

    Okay, so now we know what makes an adaptation bad. Yes, don't botch the story. Don't make Mr. Darcy ugly. Don't fully discredit a homosexual relationship between Gatsby and Nick. Okay, but then how do we make adaptations that don't upset these two categories, but still bring something new and fresh in the way that you present it to a new audience? It's a very good answer, and it rides on a fine line of so much.

    First off, when you're dealing with a highly popular and beloved piece of source material, know there are always going to be people who hate a new interpretation or approach of it. The more people that love a piece of work, the more opinions you have, the more internet boycotting that I previously talked about happens, the more people mindlessly agree. So I say, if you feel passionate about a story, make an adaptation. Don't let the fear of someone not liking it stop your work.

    However, there is a difference between someone not liking your interpretation and presentation of a work and one who is adapting completely dismissing the source material and everything that made said material "good". For example, I LOVED the Percy Jackson books when I was little (that series was my jam). I remember being so so excited when the movies came out. And what did they do? They changed full plot lines. They took signature characters and moments out. The actors who played these characters did NOT look like they were young teens (like why did Annabeth have fully grown breasts like they were suppose to be fourteen??) and frankly, all of the "movie" aspects were mediocre at best. Don't be like the people who made the Percy Jackson movies. 

    I think a good place to start when approaching your adaptation is knowing the source material like the back of your hand. Ms. Greta Gerwig (heart eyes forever I'm obsessed with her) did an interview and said her adaptation of Little Women was in the works for a few years before pre-production for the movie even started; she was researching other sources and crafting the bones of her movie. Not only is that dedication to the project, but it also gives specificity and importance to the words those in authority will eventually say to the designers, the actors, etc. It keeps every aspect of the adaptation under one umbrella, on one set of train tracks; this still allows for creative freedom, but we aren't letting those doing the work to get too carried away with their own interpretations. That can lead to a lot of disjointedness and lack of unity. And that's never good. So knowledge of your material and specificity are your first two important needs.

    The next, and probably the most tricky, part of your adaptation is answering this question: What about this material is so important that I feel the need to retell it in the way I'm leading others right here right now? I know, it's a loaded question; but it's suppose to be to keep you focused on the mission of the question. 

    Because here's the thing: people can retell stories and stories over and over again however they'd like. But who's going to listen? Who's going to actually learn from your stories? What are they going to be able to remember so that they can take away exactly what you want them to? 

    Being able to find a modern purpose and message to a usually older piece of work is key to keep its adaptive relevance. Whether that requires more interpretation or not is up to the creative team. For example, I again will reference Greta Gerwig on her work in Little Women. The center of power for women to define their own lives and decisions, no matter how different they may be, is a hugely important message for our community and industry to hear right now. Women's voices (especially the voices of POC women) are in the very vital stages of switching the power dynamic and holding others accountable for inappropriate behavior and biases (especially in the work place). This was an adaptation that rung true to the times while also paying a great homage to its source material. It also was not an adaptation that stuck completely to it's source material; however, the openness of interpretation near the end allowed audiences to think of the subtle hints and themes used throughout the movie, accomplish the job of the question I stated earlier. I don't want to get too carried away; I could write a whole blog on the beauty of Little Women... ANYWAY... 

    I will remind everyone that usually the deeper into interpretation land you go, the farther away you drive from the facts of the source material, the more criticism you are likely to receive. For example, one of my favorite all time movies is The Silence of the Lambs. Not only was it a widely successful book, but the adaptation was stellar. It is known for being an adaptation that stays very true and loyal to its source material. And although movies like Forest Gump and The Shining and even Breakfast at Tiffany's were widely successful, the author and dedicated fans were upset with how the movie had twisted its original story.

    Now I don't want to discredit the movie makers. I think a lot of time those in the movie industry know their craft so well that they can make educated and helpful decisions with adaptations in order to make it easier to comprehend and more efficient to make for the screen. Crafting a movie is very different than crafting a book. But, that is a big risk with the creative and the potential audience that a movie maker has to be willing to make. 

    Adaptations are tricky, and frankly, I think there should be an adaptation supervisor (almost like a position branched of of the historian or someone acting as a dramaturg, in theatrical language) for movies being created/ inspired by a source material. Why not have one person with all the answers that works with logistical historians and the author and the film creative team to keep everything at bay and help guide the movie into the best new retelling of a story? It would be a position of being a mediator between two sides of the creative process. It seems like it could help move the process along a lot more efficiently.

    So the main lesson from all of this? Always be critical. I have learned, especially over the past few months, that everything in certain art mediums has a a purpose. Nothing is on accident. Or an aspect of a movie has been altered for logistical purposes... but even then there is a sense of "how does this fit into the main motive of our movie?". Being able to come towards any movie with a detail oriented eye and helpful background knowledge can enhance not only how you watch movies, but what you get out of them.