Literary Adaptations: Episode 4
First, sometimes the adaptation is just too faithful to the book. I haven't got an example of that here, mostly because I discontinue watching them, because, really, I've already read the whole thing. This happened with A Gentleman in Moscow. A marvellous series I'm sure, but it seemed so long and so faithful to the book (which I loved) that I decided not to spend the time, after two episodes in. This is not something that's necessarily a criticism; rather, perhaps an overly faithful retelling doesn't always excite.
It follows, then, that an adaptation that chooses to make some cuts or reinterpretations to the source material can be a very good thing. It seems an art form to be able to rework and edit the book for the screen, to make the resulting watch something that compliments the book, or adds something new. Some teams do this so well, and The Time Traveler's Wife movie is one that worked. If the adaptation preserves the feeling tone of the book and treats the source material with respect? That's the best.
However, cut or change things to much—I'm looking at you, The Thursday Murder Club adaptation—then it all goes south. Treat a beloved character badly and the readers who all showed up to watch the screen interpretation will get a bit mad.
This is, of course, for those who've read the book first, which I usually do. If you haven't read the book, I think that all three of these adaptations will hold up pretty well.
***
The Thursday Murder Club
📘Book (2021, by Richard Osman)
I read this in 2022, and didn’t quite realise this book series would become so popular. It’s a light book that’s a good diversion from weightier reading. The mystery was fun and reasonably well-plotted, the characters acted in accordance with their inner motivations, and the motivations made sense. I liked the characters, and for a straightforward murder mystery, some of them were surprisingly well-developed. There were some baddies, for sure, but by and large, the characters had both “good” and “bad” aspects within themselves.
I loved that the sleuths are a group of seniors living in a retirement village. Osman was able to explore some relevant end of life issues, and it seemed natural, not forced. Without spoilers, there’s a lot of dying here, and not just of the murder victim. The issues around ageing are treated thoughtfully. Our main characters endure quiet grief and loss, but also experience joy and meaning. And I really liked the ending!
But…you must suspend your sense of disbelief. Lots of the things that happen between the police and the Thursday Murder Club members would never really happen. But that’s okay, as much of what happens in rural British mystery fiction is very unrealistic, but still so fun!
🎥Movie (2025, screenplay by Katy Brand and Suzanne Heathcote, directed by Chris Columbus)
Was I ever looking forward to this one! The movie started out great, and I was pleased to find that I generally liked the casting for the four main sleuths. Helen Mirren (Elizabeth), Celia Imrie (Joyce), Ben Kingsley (Ibrahim), and Pearce Brosnan (Ron) for the most part lived up to my expectations, and they all have great acting chops. My only issue is that most of them are so famous that I had that slight problem of not being able to see past their stardom. In particular, I felt like I was watching Helen Mirren and Pierce Brosnan rather than Elizabeth and Ron.
I love David Tennant, and I was almost unrecognizable as Ian Ventham, so that was great. And I also understand that plot points and even whole characters needed to be cut to make it a movie.
But then…nope. Just no way. I cannot forgive the screenwriters for what they did to Bogdan. He’s practically my favourite character and they wrote him all wrong. Like, what? Spoiler alert: He has become far less complex, far less sympathetic and got hauled off to prison. Even if in future movies, if this is to become a series on Netflix, he gets out and doesn’t serve time, I still didn’t like the way they wrote him in those final scenes.
In the end, I would have preferred a limited series or a ten-episode “Season 1” adaptation, with a closer adaptation of the book (though not a carbon copy, as I noted in my preamble). I almost feel like protesting by boycotting further episodes if they are forthcoming and stick with the books mostly because of the Bogan thing. We’ll see.
The Time Traveler’s Wife
📘Book (2003, by Audrey Niffenegger)
This is a story about two people: Claire and Henry. Henry is a time traveler, and he first meets Claire when she is 6 and he is much older. This is their story.
It was a book that started off strong, though with a plot line and tone that I had trouble grasping…what direction did the book want to go? I’d had the idea that this was some sort of love story, but at first I had a lot of fun and angst trying to figure out the time travel bits, how it worked and it kind of messed with my brain a bit. I let it go somewhat and settled into reading. Then the novel presented some fodder for discussion, like boundary issues with age differences, and the violence that comes with having to survive in difficult time-travel circumstances. Would this turn into a dark personality study?
But as I read, it evolved into a real love story, about the connection between two people, and the time travel part added that ephemeral feeling that some books do so well with: the sense of the fleeting nature of time, of how short our lives are, of how we must hold on to connections, and the importance of seeing what is in front of us in the now. About how mutual experience is what creates love and connection through the good and bad times. About the span of a life, from beginning to end, and how we are different people at different times in our lives, and how that is okay even as it evokes a certain kind of melancholy.
The whole last part of the book gave me that amazing “happy-sad” feeling that I get sometimes when I’m reading a story that deals with these themes. It’s a book that started as one thing and finished as something different, kind of like each one of us.
🎥Movie (2009, directed by Robert Schwentke)
How can a movie capture the essence of such a long, involved book? And the book, as I mentioned, had such a vibe of “happy-sad,” one that grew as the book progressed in such a beautiful way. I’m pleased to say that this adaptation hit the mark! This adaptation stands in direct contrast, in my mind, to The Thursday Murder Club. One lead actor is Rachel McAdams playing Claire, who, I was reminded by Wikipedia, is a Canadian. She was great, as was the kid who played her as a young girl. And Eric Bana played Henry…I spent half of the movie trying to figure out what his name was, finding him vaguely familiar, and he did a fantastic job, just as I imagined Henry. Afterwards I looked him up and realised he’s one of those mid aughts actors, one of those, “whatever happened to him,” types. The movie had to simplify this book, and this is a case where it was done well. The screenwriters kept the essence of its humanity and wonder, capturing the themes of the book along with that so-important vibe, and left what wasn’t necessary to that. I shed a quick tear in both the book and the movie!
The Revenant
📘Book (2002, by Michael Punke)
Seriously, how bad can things get for Hugh Glass as he doggedly pursues revenge at all costs on the American frontier in 1823? Pretty bad, it turns out. Glass and most of the characters in this novel are based on real people, and loosely on real events. Glass was with a fur-trapping expedition and he was horribly mauled by a grizzly bear, and abandoned by two men who were supposed to stay with him while he most probably would die. He didn’t die, and the two men stole all his stuff and left him alone. This is Glass’s story of recovery and revenge.
This book was great. It kept me up past my bedtime, and that’s saying a lot. Survival stories usually appeal to me, and I wonder if it’s because I’m pretty sure I’d never survive for very long in dire circumstances. By the time we meet him, Glass has already been a ship captain, been captured by pirates, and lived with the Pawnee for a year, so though it’s bad luck, I kind of think he may have taken his grizzly attack in stride. He has so many skills that allow him to overcome amazingly bad odds, and it helps that he’s driven by a cold, angry need for vengeance against the men who abandoned him to his fate.
Punke’s writing gave me enough history to be educational; I learned a lot. His characters by and large are understandable and sympathetic, though the unfailingly self-interested Fitzgerald is a scoundrel through and thorough. Though primarily told from the settler point of view, I could understand the motivations of different Indigenous nations and their behaviour on the increasingly occupied frontier.
A revenant is a spirit or corpse that is reanimated to haunt the living. Glass thinks that revenge will bring him peace. On finishing this novel, I think that there’s a complicated relationship between carrying out one’s revenge, and the satisfaction that it brings. Life is never so simple.
🎥Movie (2015, directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu)
As Hugh Glass, Leonardo DiCaprio won an Academy Award for Best Actor, and Inarrito won for Best Director for this production. I actually find it a bit difficult to compare the movie to the book, because honestly the movie is an entity that stands separate from the book, and probably it deserves to be judged on its own merits. This is because the story deviates so much from the book. It made me frustrated, because, of course, I’m looking for the adaptation to reflect my reading experience. It did get the tone of Glass’ suffering and physical determination to not die (anything but die!), and his need for revenge, but I felt that the screenplay added wholly unnecessary elements. The adaptation adds a son for Glass, who Fitzgerald kills, thus providing motivation for revenge. Completely unnecessary, in my view. The movie also added a lot of Indigenous characters and storylines, which I also felt was not necessary for the story, although in this case I can see why, as I felt a distinct lack of Indigenous content in the book, which was not really a failing, only a notable absence. So I suggest watching this on its own merits and forget that it’s an adaptation, or it’ll likely disappoint.
***
That's it for this episode. Got any takes on these? Any other adaptations to praise or pan? Leave me a comment.
Literary Adaptation Series:
Comments
Post a Comment