CCBC-Net Archives
Books into Films: What They Were Thinking
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Ginny Moore Kruse <gmkruse>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:35:48 -0500
A regular feature in the weekly "New York Times Magazine" contains a photograph of someone caught in time by the camera. The feature is called "What They Were Thinking." The text below the photograph quotes what the subject has to say about that particular instant of his or her life, not what was happening, but what he/she was thinking about what was happening. Regardless of whether or not one considers this particular feature to be successful, it suggests what some of us have been thinking about this month as we consider books being made into films.
On July 15 Sue Sherif discussed the complexity of capturing a book's imaginative impact when it's later adapted for a screenplay and subsequent movie, saying, in part, "I am sure that film-makers feel they are honoring that book, or at least their imagination of it. But they do have to contend with the audiences' various imaginations of the book as well..." Maybe Sue's preference for "inspired by" is a good way to think about films adapted from favorite books.
Cassie Wilson wrote on July 18, ".... All of the details, motivations, and reflections that can be packed into a book simply cannot be loaded into a two or three hour movie..." I remember thinking about that while I watched the BBC or Masterpiece Theater adaptation of K.M. Peyton's "Flambards" trilogy years ago. I felt so strongly that I knew exactly what the main character Christina was thinking, but that so little of this internal action had become part of what I was seeing. The TV adaptation seemed - well - so flat, and yet the books had been emotionally dramatic to read.
It's good to pay tribute to the film makers successful in using that medium to adapt books so memorable to their readers. I agree with Katy Horning who wrote on July 15 that two of S.E. Hinton's books were exceptionally well adapted for the screen under the direction of Francis Ford Coppola. There's more than plot to these two films, and he, along with the screen writers, made more than plot evident in each. "Rumble Fish" actually shows up occasionally on "the best of..." movie lists as a superior film from an artistic standpoint.
Perhaps "Holes" will remain memorable artistically after this summer, too. At the time when young movie-goers saw "Holes," most were probably already devoted to Louis Sachar's book for more than its convoluted plot and off?at humor. They could probably remember what some of the characters were thinking. It seems that the book's internal action combined with its over-the-top premise and double mystery have been captured in a satisfying film experience for its many readers.
Best, Ginny
Ginny Moore Kruse gmkruse at education.wisc.edu
Received on Fri 25 Jul 2003 09:35:48 AM CDT
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:35:48 -0500
A regular feature in the weekly "New York Times Magazine" contains a photograph of someone caught in time by the camera. The feature is called "What They Were Thinking." The text below the photograph quotes what the subject has to say about that particular instant of his or her life, not what was happening, but what he/she was thinking about what was happening. Regardless of whether or not one considers this particular feature to be successful, it suggests what some of us have been thinking about this month as we consider books being made into films.
On July 15 Sue Sherif discussed the complexity of capturing a book's imaginative impact when it's later adapted for a screenplay and subsequent movie, saying, in part, "I am sure that film-makers feel they are honoring that book, or at least their imagination of it. But they do have to contend with the audiences' various imaginations of the book as well..." Maybe Sue's preference for "inspired by" is a good way to think about films adapted from favorite books.
Cassie Wilson wrote on July 18, ".... All of the details, motivations, and reflections that can be packed into a book simply cannot be loaded into a two or three hour movie..." I remember thinking about that while I watched the BBC or Masterpiece Theater adaptation of K.M. Peyton's "Flambards" trilogy years ago. I felt so strongly that I knew exactly what the main character Christina was thinking, but that so little of this internal action had become part of what I was seeing. The TV adaptation seemed - well - so flat, and yet the books had been emotionally dramatic to read.
It's good to pay tribute to the film makers successful in using that medium to adapt books so memorable to their readers. I agree with Katy Horning who wrote on July 15 that two of S.E. Hinton's books were exceptionally well adapted for the screen under the direction of Francis Ford Coppola. There's more than plot to these two films, and he, along with the screen writers, made more than plot evident in each. "Rumble Fish" actually shows up occasionally on "the best of..." movie lists as a superior film from an artistic standpoint.
Perhaps "Holes" will remain memorable artistically after this summer, too. At the time when young movie-goers saw "Holes," most were probably already devoted to Louis Sachar's book for more than its convoluted plot and off?at humor. They could probably remember what some of the characters were thinking. It seems that the book's internal action combined with its over-the-top premise and double mystery have been captured in a satisfying film experience for its many readers.
Best, Ginny
Ginny Moore Kruse gmkruse at education.wisc.edu
Received on Fri 25 Jul 2003 09:35:48 AM CDT
