Acting, directing and synthesis necessary to convert book to film

Editor’s note: Peter Lewis, who since November 2008 has written about the culinary and cultural aspects of the Fort Smith/Van Buren region, continues to write for The City Wire from his new address in Austin, Texas. As he did with his previous delicious essays, Peter humbly attempts to move beyond the conventional and expose, entertain and enthuse. If anything Peter proffers in this space results in the expansion of cultural awareness of the world around us, we apologize in advance.

Recently, I was spurred into a contemplation of turning books into film. While some of you may have read my recent review of the second installment of the Twilight Saga, “New Moon” here on The City Wire, it was but one portion of the contemplative catalyst.

The other was the sublime work of Ian McEwan’s novel, “Atonement.” The combination of these two events, reading “Atonement” and watching “New Moon,” sent me down the path of curiosity. What is it, I wondered, that allowed for an accurate recasting of a book into celluloid?

Though these two particular books sent me down this path, perhaps they aren’t the best subjects for comparison. “Atonement” is a monumental literary achievement of penetrating beauty and scope. Comparing Ian McEwan’s work to “New Moon” would be like comparing a delicious seven course meal to a hot pocket. Sure, there might be positive features in both, but they are so completely antithetical comparisons would obviously be pointless (and these pointless comparisons do hold true for the film versions as well).

Much of what is created in Hollywood had life in some previous literary form (this is especially true in the realm of international intrigue/spy movies, i.e. Bond, Bourne, Jack Ryan). So how can one test the comparative worth of books-cum-films? Is it even possible?

Though it certainly helps if the original material is top quality to begin with, there are no hard and fast rules for making a book into a great movie. However, I think there are certain aspects found within the original subject material that make them predisposed to become at least palatable on the cinema screen.

What makes “Atonement” translatable to the big screen is it’s relative size. It is most certainly a novel, but good portions of the book are spent looking at the same events from different angles. As a result, it functions more like a short story. And these, obviously are much easier to turn into a quality film than a novel (other examples: “Brokeback Mountain,” plays like “The Importance of Being Earnest”).

Quite opposite of this, however, is something like “Lawrence of Arabia.” Though it runs past three hours, the film comes nowhere close to capturing the entirety of events that occur in T.E. Lawrence’s splendid memoir, “Seven Pillars of Wisdom.” What makes Lawrence a cinematic success can be seen in three distinct parts. First, there was splendid acting (from Omar Sherif and Anthony Quinn to the incomparable Alec Guinness and Peter O’Toole). Second, there was splendid direction from David Lean. Third, and perhaps most important to this discussion is the ability to effectively synthesize material.

This particular aspect is doubly important when the original material, that is the book, is so damned long. And Seven Pillars is a doozy, trust me. Yet, somewhat ironically, it is possible to synthesize because of its size. Long stretches of the book are spent in various camps or meetings. While key to the experience of Lawrence and definitely of note in a larger historical sense, as a moviegoer, it is wholly unimportant (Other examples: “Count of Monte Cristo,” “Last of the Mohicans”).

Somewhat related to Lawrence is the “atmosphere” of a book or film. This particular aspect can be seen in the two vastly different versions of “High Fidelity.” The book is set in London in the early to mid-90s while the film is set in Chicago in the early 2000s. On the outset this difference seems certain to upset fans of the book, but it isn’t the case because the general (and hilarious) cooler than thou atmosphere is nailed perfectly (other examples: “The Unbearable Lightness of Being,” “Angela’s Ashes,” “Trainspotting,” “Clockwork Orange”).

From atmospherics and acting, to size and synthesization, there is a myriad of factors that goes into creating a palatable film version of a book. Though I am not so vain to think that these thoughts of mine are the be all and end all when it comes to the discussion of turning books into films, the points are valid.

The transference of a property from written word to screen is (when done right) a serious and sacred process. For many who begin a project to turn word into action, it is with a hope that more will be exposed to the work of that particular author. And yes, exposure to new ideas and experiences is still the basis of culture … and the reason I’m here.

Pushback
There is no guarantee that he’ll respond or care, but feel free to send Mr. Lewis your thoughts at [email protected]

You can also track Peter at his Twitter site.