As a fan of both books and movies, I am pleased when I find out that a book I like is going to be made into a movie or when a film I like was adapted from a book. It’s interesting to compare the two, particularly to see what was changed when the book was made into film. Most of the time I can understand why this or that change was made, but when I can’t, I have to tell myself that the movie and the book are different forms of media and I have to consider them as separate entities.
I’m sure each of us knows at least one person who hates films adapted from books. They consider themselves purists, that any changes made for the film defile the story. But if you pause to think about it, would it really be better to include everything in a film exactly as it is in the book? If a movie-maker were to include every little detail from the book, the film would likely be an utter disaster (an example: see “Twilight”). For one thing, books are long, and few if any people would want to watch a 10 hour production of one book. For another, how many parts of books have to do with concerns such as a lack of resources on a long journey? These fit well in a book because the pages have room for them and they are valid concerns, yet on film they would detract from the excitement of other events or would get annoying with the repetition.
I understand the purist perspective, and there are a number of books-turned-movies that I take issue with for the same reason. For example, take the film “Ella Enchanted” (spoilers if you haven’t seen it): in the book, there’s no evil uncle who usurped the throne and wants to have Ella kill the prince. I understand why they changed it, because Ella’s main struggle in the book is with how her curse might be used to force her to endanger the Prince. I also understand why at the end they have her fight the curse with a knife in her hand, actually struggling to prevent herself from killing him, rather than fighting an internal battle when the Prince asks her to marry him as in the book. These things are internal battles that are much more easily described in a book than on film. Films require visuals (obviously); therefore it makes perfect sense that they would create visuals for these internal conflicts because we cannot easily get inside a person’s head on film. Even though I understand them inventing the evil uncle, it bothers me because they had to change/create an extensive portion of the story for the film adaptation. I believe there are other ways they could have altered the story to show the threat of her curse against the Prince without inventing so many changes.
Here are some more examples of appropriate changes (as I interpret them) to books-turned-movies (again, spoilers):
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone – They took out the scene at the end with Hermione using logic in the potions room to figure out which potion they should drink. Why? It was too long (especially for a children’s movie), and Hermione had already had the chance to show off her skills with the Devil’s Snare, giving her one opportunity, Ron one opportunity, and Harry one opportunity before Harry’s final fight with Quirrel at the end.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire – Instead of having Dobby bring Harry the gillyweed as in the book, they had Neville do it. Why? It advanced the idea that Neville is good at herbology, and also gave his character a slightly more prominent role in the film. Plus, it was easier to film Matthew Lewis doing the action than do the computer graphics required to create Dobby’s image enacting the part.
The Little Mermaid – In the movie she becomes human and they live happily ever after. In the book she becomes the foam of the sea. Why the change? It’s a children’s movie, of course. I don’t think I need to explain it further.
Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring – At the end of this movie, they adapt the end of the book with the beginning of the Two Towers. They created a scene showing Boromir fighting to save Merry and Pippin, with slow motion showing one of the enemy shooting him with one arrow, then two, then three, him struggling to fight more Orcs in spite of each arrow. In the book, we see none of this battle; instead, we follow Aragorn, who finds Boromir lying on the ground after a great battle, ridden with many arrows. Why? In the book we are free to imagine the great battle that he fought alone. In a film, there is no time to stop and imagine because the visuals are right in front of you and moving super quickly. In recreating what might have happened, the film touches each viewer, showing Boromir’s tragic end, allowing the viewers to commiserate with Aragorn. Also at the end of this film and before Boromir’s fight with the Orcs, they foreshadow his attempt to take the ring from Frodo by showing several camera shots back and forth between the two. You can’t do this in a book, but in the movie it is a subtle but distinct demonstration that something is going to happen between them.
I’ve said too much, but my point is that a book can be excellent and a film can be excellent. They can even both be excellent when they are about the same story. But as different forms of media, they have to portray that story in different ways. Books can’t use music to warn the audience of potential danger like movies can. Movies have much more difficulty showing the passage of time than books do, and often movies that jump around between past, present, and future are confusing and difficult to follow. Books have the freedom of length and time for imagination that movies do not, but movies can use blocking, tracking, camera angles, and lighting to help them tell the story. Each form is good in its own right, and each ought to be considered for their individual contributions to story-telling.
