Change is a good thing...maybe?

Greetings, all.

Lately I've been feeling the great conviction as both a book and movie lover, to shed some light on film adaptations, which I think we can all agree are tricky. This is probably due to the fact that I keep running into more and more buzz, news, and speculation on upcoming movies (i.e.- The Great Gatsby), and have also been reading up on some articles on that infamous discussion which will undoubtedly never be resolved--BBC Pride & Prejudice vs Joe Wright's Pride & Prejudice (Matthew Macfadyen is my leading man, in case you were wondering).

When discussing something like this which tends to be so controversial and which holds the great potential of the looming threat of people breaking out in passionate argument, there is something you should know about me and my personal opinions: I love books, I love movies, and I don't usually get too ruffled about details that have been skewed, providing that they don't change the entire outcome of the story. I'm the person you were sitting next to in the theater at the midnight premier of the Harry Potter movies who just shrugged and said, "That's not so bad," much to the chagrin of people around me. Although even I, like everyone in this world, have my limits.

Now, that also leads me to point out one of the number one things which I encourage people to keep in mind when it comes to film adaptations of books:

It is never going to be perfect.

Never. There is always going to be something that isn't quite the same, and to that same effect--you can't make everybody happy. Even if a film adaptation is outstanding and nearly perfectly done, there is always going to be somebody who is bent out of shape because that one line wasn't said right, or that one scene was cut off, or because what's-his-name doesn't look the way they imagined. 

Having said all that, in my personal opinion, I feel that good and sometimes even excellent film adaptations are entirely achievable on a general level if these most basic of guidelines are adhered to:

1) Do your best to cast actors and actresses who actually look like the characters they are expected to portray.

    I made this #1 because it generally seems like it doesn't matter what else happens in the rest of the movie--if the leading man or lady makes their grand entrance and they don't look the part, then people are automatically going to be moaning their distress. I stick by what I said earlier when I mentioned that you cannot make everyone happy when you bring a character to life on the big screen. Minor changes are acceptable. However, that doesn't give you license to get "creative" and pick someone who looks nothing like the person they are expected to portray. Daniel Radcliffe has dark brown hair and blue eyes, but he still made a great Harry Potter. On the other hand, I can't even begin to list the cringe-worthy differences between the novel version of Little Women's Professor Bhaer and Gabriel Byrne, no matter how good of an actor he is. And, for the love of all that is holy, please choose someone who is at least somewhere within a 5-yr range of their character (cough*Greer Garson*Pride & Prejudice*cough). On the totally opposite side of the coin, I'd have to say the best on-screen character representation I've seen would have to be Gemma Arterton in Tess of the D'Urbervilles, hands-down.

Such a basic thing to make your target audience happy. So just remember:

TRAVESTY:

BAD:

BETTER:

BEST:

2) Do not change the story.
    You can be forgiven for the occasional line fub, and we won't entirely hold it against you if you mesh some scenes together for times sake. We will probably even overlook a small number of location details, but if these things or anything else are part of an overall equation that leads to a totally and completely different story, then you're condemned.

3) Don't make a character into a person that they are not.
    So, the movie has started and most of the theater is grumbling about the imperfect presence that is the main character but that's all they're doing for now--grumbling, huffing, sighing, etc. I guarantee that will instantly become much more vocal and violent if this impostor opens their mouth and says things in a manner, tone of voice, or with such facial expressions that it gives them a different personality than what was originally insinuated or intended in the book. I just hate to add fuel to the fire here, but my case in point would be Colin Firth's Darcy vs Matthew Macfadyen's Darcy. Entirely setting aside the fact that I think MM is McDreamy, the main reason I approve of him over CF is because he actually portrays some emotion towards the end of the movie, which is what happens in the book the last time I checked. Honestly, CF is too stiff and you can never discern any of the discomfort or emotion or love for Elizabeth that should be there--not even by the final scene.

FITZWILLIAM DARCY:

FAKEWILLIAM FARCEY:

4) Don't eliminate the entire ending of the story.
    I'm not talking about changing the outcome, as mentioned above. I'm talking about completely and totally cutting it out, like it never happened. When the 2011 version of Jane Eyre came out, I was excited to see it because I really enjoy the book. I went to see it, and the imagery was beautiful! The characters were okay. Overall, I was thinking, "You know, this is a pretty okay film adaptation. I might even watch it again." And then what happens?Nothing. It just ends....and not where it is supposed to. It doesn't show the proper ending of the story which is the whole point of the story. Never watching that one again.

Cute but not good enough. Shame on you, Cary Joji Fukunaga.

Those are the main and most basic rules I have on the list, however even I must admit there are some adaptations that will probably fail even if they do follow the rules (which are not more like guidelines). Unfortunately my main example of this would be the 2013 adaptation of The Great Gatsby. Naturally, as I'm sure you would probably guess, I love the book. I think it is an interesting and sad story that is told through amazing verbal images of life as the elite in the 1920s. Unfortunately, most people don't realize that film adaptations of that story have already been done and they were not at all successful. Every once in a while you just run across a story that is wonderful in book form, but it just does not translate on the big screen. Besides The Great Gatsby, another example would be The Portrait of a Lady.

So, to be honest, I guess the main point of this was just a rant that led up to the fact that I will probably just watch The Great Gatsby from Redbox in the comfort of my home if I choose to invest in viewing it at all. And to say that Matthew Macfadyen wins.Always.