It's World Book Day today! *Hurrah* Where the world comes together to celebrate and revel in the joy of literature. I've discovered today 2 articles I wrote last year for a publication that was printed, but not uploaded to the magazine's website. I'VE DECIDED TO TAKE IT UPON MYSELF TO AMMEND THIS.
(I apologise profusely for the lack of creativeness and attractive flair of this blog. It's basic. I know.)
The article details 2 of my favourite books and the reasons that have lead to them being unfilmed. In a world full of cinematic adaptations - I discuss the hows and the whys of erm, why this is. I hope you enjoy. They're incredible works of fiction. I encourage you to check them out.
Adaptations: Are Certain Books Really ‘Unfilmable’?
When I read a book nowadays, I ask myself 2 questions: Firstly: Has this book been made into a film? If the answer is ‘no’, then why? How long will it be before it is?
Since the birth of cinema itself, the silver screen has long been fuelled by adapting literary pieces. In 1899, pioneer of cinema, Georges Méliès created the first cinematic adaptation of the Brothers Grimm’s ‘Cinderella’ which was then followed by ‘A Trip To The Moon’ in 1902 – based on classic science-fiction novels of the time; ‘From The Earth to the Moon’ by Jules Verne and ‘The First Men in the Moon’ by H.G. Wells.
It seems that literature often serves as a director’s main source of inspiration. And always has done. Surely, if a book is hugely popular, then a film version of the same title will have similar success? You have a guaranteed audience and a guaranteed interest from the masses. Is this their thought process? Granted, this is often true: the majority of today’s most successful and most beloved films are literary adaptations. What makes some adaptation pieces particularly interesting, in my opinion, is the creative influence of the author in the production of their work being recreated for cinema. William Blatty served as producer for ‘The Exorcist’ (1973) as well as writing the screenplay which required him having to reconsider certain aspects of his novel. The tremendous success of ‘The Exorcist’ both literary and cinematically served (and continues to serve) Blatty extremely well. I cannot help but feel that his continuous presence in the production of the feature adds an extra level of worthiness and also, perhaps, honesty in the book-to-film transfer. All of the changes were at his discretion and so for fans of the novel to find fault with the film would find themselves answerable to Blatty himself. The film, in a sense, can be seen as a fault-less adaptation as it has been created by the author.
The idea of the author of a piece of literature fronting the production of a film version of their work lead me to think about some of my favourite books – some of which have yet to be given the cinematic treatment. Specifically, J.D. Salinger’s ‘The Catcher in the Rye’ (1951) and Stephen King’s ‘The Gunslinger’ (1982) This lead me to think of the two questions I continually ask myself when reading a book that I stated earlier (predominantly the latter of the two); 1. WHY have these works never been adapted? 2. Can they be viewed as ‘unfilmable’?
In the case of Salinger’s ‘The Catcher in the Rye’, one of the key reasons as to why his work has never adapted is simply down to his disdain of other people potentially misconstruing and misinterpreting his work. When discussing the idea of a film adaptation of ‘Catcher’, he is quoted saying that the very notion is “odious enough to keep me from selling the rights”. A private man by nature, right up until his death, it can be interpreted that his fiction effectively served as a biography of sorts in detailing traits and emotions that he, himself possessed – channelling them through his characters. Holden Caulfield, the protagonist of ‘Catcher’ is a cult figure in the literary world. He symbolises teenage angst and what it means to feel isolated and awkward. Naturally, he has paved the way to serve as inspiration in many works of literature (‘The Perks of Being a Wallfower’ by Stephen Chbosky offers a few similarities) and other fields of popular culture.
The beauty (and also potential difficulty should it be adapted) of ‘Catcher’ is the style in which it is written. The entire novel is first-person narration in which Holden looks back over his life, detailing and discussing certain moments with the reader. In doing this, it is an opportunity for the reader to empathize with Holden whilst exemplifying the power of the written word. In his ‘conversation’ with the reader, Holden is able to ‘talk’ about his thoughts and feelings with an audience that were not there at the original time of the events he is discussing; he has found a listener. The beauty and depth of Holden’s accounts are conveyed through the medium of written text. It is also something which can be interpreted differently by each and every reader. I guess this is true of a lot of characters within film and other mediums; we all sympathise/empathise/like/dislike different characters in different things – variety is, after all, the spice of life. But the trouble with ‘Catcher’ is the very fact that Holden is spending the entirety of the novel reflecting on his former self. A version of himself he no longer is. In many ways, the book is possibly too immersive. A wonderful quote from author Joyce Maynard tells that “the only person who might ever have played Holden Caulfield would have been J.D. Salinger.” - upon his death in 2010, it seems almost that when Salinger died, the possible potential of any chance of a ‘Catcher’ adaptation died with him. His blatant disregard of any adaptation of any of his work should be respected by his readership, his fans and those in the film business. It seems some characters work at their best simply in our imaginations.
This is also true of Stephen King’s ‘The Gunslinger’ – the first in his ‘The Dark Tower’ series – a story that plays out over 8 novels. Given that King is predominantly noted in both the film and literary mediums for producing material that often is adapted for either TV or film, it is interesting to note that his ‘The Dark Tower’ series has yet to come to fruition in regards to being adapted. King’s first novel ‘Carrie’ (1974) garnered much attention and a feature film was released in 1976. This became a notable trait (and continues to be in some respect) of King; his fiction is easily adaptable for cinema audiences. Unlike his horror novels (‘The Shining’, ‘Misery’, ‘Salem’s Lot’ to name but a few), ‘The Dark Tower’ series centres around fantasy and classic western genres through lead protagonist Roland Deschain; the last of his people, collectively known as the ‘gunslingers’. What makes the ‘Dark Tower’ series stand out from the majority of King’s work, is the fact that although possessing dark undertones in regard to story (in ‘The Gunslinger’, Roland regularly finds himself evaluating the concept of life and death through the imagery of metaphor from differing characters), the stories themselves are not horrific, and are potentially aimed at a young audience. As adult as the nature of metaphor and symbolism may be, the characters and depictions of the adventures and quests of Roland are reminiscent of classics such as ‘The Lord of the Rings’ and the ‘Harry Potter’ series. Yet, this remains a franchise that King himself finds troublesome. In 2003, he rewrote the majority of the original story of ‘The Gunslinger’ – alternating its ending and most of the story’s key plot points. Does this suggest that King, a-like Salinger, holds his work too close to his heart to let it go? It is likely.
There has been, alike ‘Catcher’, interest in adapting both ‘The Gunslinger’ and there has been previous talk of a ‘The Dark Tower’ series – interest ranging from Ron Howard to J.J. Abrams. Yet it appears it is a project that is too complex, or indeed, too suited to being a work of literature for it to be adapted. King himself was quoted in 2011 saying “I’ve been waiting for the right team to bring the characters and stories in these books to film…that will translate into an intriguing series of films that respect the origins and the characters in ‘The Dark Tower’ that fans have come to love.” – it is evident that his priority is giving an adaptation of his work that will be respectful and loyal both to himself and the fans. The very fact that some thirty years following on from the release of ‘The Gunslinger’ and, indeed, a re-release of it twenty years later suggests that often, what stops a book from becoming an adaptation is the author’s love of their written word.
Perhaps, in order to experience these characters, these stories, these adventures we have to neglect the silver screen from time to time and respect the fact that sometimes, some characters are created purely for own imagination; a gift from the author to us. It is at our discretion as readers to view these stories in our own, unique way. Something no director could ever perfect.
Lauren Harrison.
