I love to read. I don't
think that's a big secret. I will read anything and everything, I own
(conservatively) thousands of books, and the books that I love I am willing to
read over and over again. With that being said, it might take some of you by
surprise to learn that I love movie adaptations of books, even when they
diverge from the source material. I know many of you would assume I'm a
stickler for faithful adaptations, but I really don't mind when filmmakers take
some artistic liberties. The reason I bring all this up is that last week I
went to a Thursday night showing of Avengers: Age of Ultron with two friends.
I've always enjoyed the Marvel movies, finding them harmless and entertaining
fun. And I'm a big fan of Joss Whedon (if you haven't seen the glory that is
Firefly, then you are seriously missing out), so I was excited going into the
film. The three of us laughed at the quips, gasped when shocked and ooohed at
some of the amazing spectacle (mainly James Spader's parts 'cause that man's
voice is amazing, even if he just read the phone book it would sound
impressive). When we exited the theater I immediately turned to my pals and
said "that was awesome, I really liked it." I was met with two blank
looks and "I didn't like it at all, they totally screwed up the
story!" Wait. What? We just watched a two and a half hour movie and
throughout the entire thing the two of them were reacting exactly as they
should (with seeming enjoyment and captivation) and now they come out and say
they don't like it?? I was completely flummoxed. And then I made a huge mistake
(insert picture of Gob Bluth here). I asked them why. The next 20 or so minutes
of my life (wasted and never to be returned) was spent listening to them talk
about the myriad ways the film differed from the comic books. I don't want to
include any spoilers here, so I won't go into them in detail. Suffice it to
say, the list was long and tediously specific.
Now, my real problem
with this entire event wasn't so much our disagreement about liking or not
liking the movie because I fully appreciate that people can have different
tastes in films (although, let's be serious here, I will judge you if you don't
like what I like and it will most likely impact our friendship in profound
ways), but rather that they had clearly enjoyed the film while watching it and
their belief that it was "bad" stemmed entirely from the fact that it
wasn't a live action carbon copy depiction of the source material. But really,
how can it and why should it be? The simple truth of the matter is that no
matter what the filmmakers do, a film adaptation of a book will never be 100%
what you pictured when you read it. And there are a couple of big reasons: 1)
unless you want to read a book that describes everything in excruciatingly
precise detail (I'm looking at you George R.R. Martin, Robert Jordan, James
Joyce, J R.R. Tolkein in Return of the King, etc.) a lot of what you visualize
when you read is actually detail your brain fills in for you, not something you
explicitly read and, therefore, unless you're making the film yourself, it's
not going to come out a 100% match to what you imagined; 2) a truly faithful
adaptation of even a 100 page novella (assuming it's not entirely cerebrally
set) would probably translate to multiple hours of film, so a full length novel
would be waaaaaaay too long a movie; 3) no matter what you do, the way an actor
says or emphasizes certain words, the way he/she moves, the setting, the
clothes, everything that makes a movie a movie is an interpretation of the book
and it's probably not going to be what you pictured in your head while reading.
And that's the entire point of both books and film! They are never going to
mean the same thing to different people. That's why you have English literature
majors in college (and I can say this with authority as I majored in English
lit). English majors spend their entire academic career arguing over the
meaning of a book - basically arguing over different interpretations of the
same material. And guess what...they are all correct (some - me - more than
others, of course).
But what does this all
have to do with my original point, you ask? Well, when you watch a film
adaption of a book it is ridiculous to say that you don't like it simply based
on the fact that it diverges from the source material or what you imagined.
That is a ridiculous argument and I won't respond to it (insert picture of
Lucille Bluth here). The point that I've been trying to drive home (hopefully
successfully) is that a film adaption by necessity must diverge from the
source material. It's not possible to do anything else. Every visual adaptation
is an interpretation and it's highly unlikely that it will ever be 100% on
point with what you expected/visualized. And really, why should you limit
yourself? Why should you be so closed off from other ideas about the material?
Why is your vision of the material more valid than any other? One of my
favorite books of all time is Pride and Prejudice (original, I know) and I have
loved many adaptations of the film. I love the BBC version with Colin Firth and
Jennifer Ehle and I love the version with Keira Knightley. These are two wildly
divergent interpretations and I love them both equally because they draw out
and emphasize different messages within the book. They make me think about a
book that I've read dozens of times in new and intriguing ways, making the
material fresh and exciting. I think that in order to appreciate film
adaptations of books you need to be open
to varying interpretations. This is a good life skill for both watching movies
and reading books and to help you achieve this skill here's a helpful way to do
so: divorce the source material from the film adaptation in your mind. Don't
think of the film as the book in live action, that way lies madness. Rather,
think of the film as a completely different entity that has nothing whatsoever
to your beloved book. If they have nothing to do with each other, then it's
a-okay if they are very different.
And now let's bring
this whole thing home - my movie night with my (lame?) friends. Their arguments
particularly irked me due to the nature of comic books. To be fair, I'm not a
devoted reader of comics, but I've certainly read my share. And I've read
enough to know that they are constantly changing the storyline - alternate
universes, reboots, new timelines, characters suddenly switching genders, etc.
All of these appear regularly in comic books to the extent that it's nearly
impossible to point to a single cohesive storyline for any one character. So
really, when you're complaining about a film not following the source material,
how on earth can you complain about a comic book movie? There are so many
storylines to choose from! And yes, maybe the film diverges from all the
written storylines, but how is that any different than a new writer taking over
a beloved character and telling a new story from the beginning as a reboot? Or
are you telling me that you will only ever be satisfied with the very first
story that was ever written and all others are cheap bastardizations that shall
not be borne? Aaaaargh. It drives me insane. Clearly.
What I'm really trying to say is that I enjoyed the movie and it
doesn't matter that it diverged from the source material because, no matter
what, it was bound to do so. And I want to encourage you all to try a little
harder to be open to the varying interpretations of some of your favorite books
being made into film (I'm thinking ahead to "The Martian" by Andy Weir and "Ready Player One" by Ernest Cline,
coming soon). And if you can't do that and you still hate a movie simply
because it's a little different than you expected, then keep it to yourself.
'Cause I just don't want to hear it.
