Debate – Did it live up to the book?

Its a debate! Iona Bepey and Ifeoluwatolani Omotola conclude our look at the success of film adaptations as they outline their opposing views…

Iona Bepey sympathises with filmmakers who have to deal with crazy fan reactions.

With film adaptations, the phrase ‘didn’t live up to the book’ has become fairly commonplace. We’re lucky enough to live in an era where barely a piece of print meets publication without talks of a movie being spawned from the pages, but can a ‘Page-to-Screener’ really ever do the original work justice? Is it pure sloppiness on the part of cast and crew that sees so many filmgoers leaving the cinema feeling let down? Or are we of a generation who simply underestimates the gravity of responsibility and pressure when it comes to the difficult task of producing not only a film in and of itself, but of material with a pre-existing, fiercely-loyal fanbase..?

I’m of the opinion we ought to pity filmmakers; that is, any filmmaker charged with adapting a popular novel into an international Hollywood blockbuster. Try to imagine the expanse of the task: 391 pages in Catching Fire, and two, maybe two-and-a-half hours to shoehorn them all into a format satisfying enough to appease the legions of The Hunger Games fans the globe-over, simultaneous to scoring the Big Time with critics, and even selling the story to those who haven’t encountered the original media before. As Suzanne Collins herself might say, the odds are most decidedly not in your favour.

A point of reckoning most of the novel-to-film genre’s harshest critics tend to forget is that if what you’re after is a page-by-page reading of the original book, these are not the droids you’re looking for. Lionsgate Films, I imagine, would have had a hard time meeting their $700 million box office landslide with Jennifer Lawrence reading an audiobook of the original The Hunger Games novel. The solution: learning to take what’s given to us at face value.

As a big fan of visual as well as purely transcribed storytelling, I’ve never balked at the idea of a favourite novel setting course for the silver screen, aware though I am that the book is usually better. However, I’ve made my peace with the fact that not every detail of the novel will make it into the script; annoying, certainly, but it shouldn’t detract from your enjoyment of the film for what it is – an adaptation.

Perhaps it’s as simple as changing the order you approach material; if we saw the film before experiencing the book, would we be as disappointed post-cinema?

My advice is see the film first; join the thrumming crowds of moviegoers and reviewers, ranting about ‘Terrific, sophisticated comedy’, ‘Film of the year’ and ‘Rated ‘Thor’ out of Five’ (with thanks to Empire Online) before you attempt to read the original. When you inevitably discover the book was better… well. At least you can walk away with the knowledge that at one point at least, you enjoyed the film too.

So let’s try for some sympathy, in particular for the poor sod charged with turning Fifty Shades into something almost watchable. Perhaps we’ll hit a benchmark wherein the film adaptation is actually the better of the two… Forgive me, though, for not holding out too much hope!

Iona Bepey

Whereas Ifeoluwatolani Omotola argues that films and books just shouldn’t be compared.

When a studio or author announces that a beloved novel is being translated for screen there is a rush of criticism, some good, some bad and some hysterical. Often readers don’t want their beloved characters altered in the page to screen translation. Alterations to a character or plot often occur as a result of cost or time, helping to cater to a wider audience since not everything in a book can work in film. The best part of a book is the imagination factor since, barring extremely vivid descriptions, with a book the world is your oyster and each person has their own subjective imagination. How I might imagine the hunky hero is very different from the physical characteristics my best friend may picture. In my opinion this is one of the key reasons for negative fan reactions. Most recently there was a small wave of controversy following the casting of the leads in the upcoming Fifty Shades of Grey film. When we attempt to solidify the vague literary imaginings that occur of the page (by defining what characters, places or even accents actually are like with films) it’s bound to contradict with someone’s own subjective idea. After all, one can’t please everyone.

Some films adaptations even have no similarity whatsoever to the books they claim to emulate. For me this was especially obvious with World War Z. Beyond the name and the concept of zombies the film was completely different from the book – although I did enjoy it. But once in a while I come across a film adaptation I find so terrible I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at what has been done to what might have been a great book. This was the case with my favourite book, The Host by Stephenie Meyer. I have read and reread that book dozens of times and, although it’s not by any means perfect, I love it. So when I found out it was going to be made into a movie I was initially sceptical. Anyone who has read the book before will know that there is a lot of internal thought and character reflections, so I couldn’t help but worry how this would work on the big screen. I was thrilled with the trailer, which was amazing. But I can honestly say that The Host was one of the worst films I have ever seen; the plot and concept just did not fit the medium of film.

So as The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is released to the general viewing public, I will be there front and centre, fingers crossed (much like I was with the first one). I sometimes feel that the books vs film argument is an unfair comparison. Books can be hundreds or thousands of pages long. With films something is usually lost in translation and that is why when someone asks me which I prefer I will always stick to the original.

Ifeoluwatolani Omotola

Leave a comment below or write to Books at the Facebook Group or on Twitter.

Adaptation Film vs. Books – Atonement

Esther Docherty takes a controversial stance on the ongoing debate between books and film…

When I first read Ian McEwan’s 2001 novel Atonement, it was a strange experience. In contrast to what I was used to, I was reading the book of one of my favourite films, not the other way around. I have always preferred books to films, so despite falling in love with Joe Wright’s 2007 film adaptation, I was fully expectant to once again witness the triumph of literature over film.

However, I was surprised to find that in comparison, I found the book dull and unengaging; I found myself admitting for the first time that I preferred a film adaptation to the original novel.

This is not to say the novel was awful, but it was missing what novels usually have over films. The first section of the four part novel was particularly wordy and dense, whereas in the film it was brought to life fantastically by the three main characters- Briony Tallis, Cecilia Tallis and Robbie Turner, played by Saoirse Ronan, Kiera Knightley and James McAvoy respectively. Wright follows McEwan’s narrative style by filming certain scenes, such as the sexually tense moment between Cecilia and Robbie by the fountain, from more than one perspective. It differs in that whilst McEwan writes the scene from the perspectives of all three characters, making all of their feelings clear, Wright shows it from Briony’s distant perspective as she watches through a window, and then from the fountain itself, where the conversation can be heard. This enables the audience to know Briony’s feelings- confusion and jealousy- but those of Cecilia and Robbie are left ambiguous as they are not dealt with separately. This highlights one difference in the emphasis of the film; more is given to the story of lovers. Perhaps this is one reason why many viewers are less sympathetic to Briony than readers, as in the book her thought processes and motives are given more explanation.

I don’t like admitting victory for the film, but every time I watch the film I am gripped by the tension, the sadness and the foreboding sense of what is to come. On the other hand, I haven’t picked up the book again since. Perhaps I should read it again.

Esther Docherty

 

"Electric and powerful": high praise for A Clockwork Orange

A Clockwork Orange

Thursday 14^th March

M and D Rooms

“Is a man who chooses the bad perhaps in some ways better than a man who has the good imposed upon him? Deep and hard questions…”

A Clockwork Orange, directed by Harry Kingscott and Dan McNeill, was a performance that brought to light many sinister questions about the nature of violence, good and evil, choice and humanity itself.

Photo by designwallah on flickr

This gripping production was a darkly ironic, near-future satire, adapted from Anthony Burgess’s novel, which lingered in my mind well after the show had finished. The walk home in the dark certainly kept me on my toes a little more than usual.

This production is definitely not for the faint hearted, with murder and rape depicted. The play follows Alex, a teenage criminal who seems to thrive off of violence. When he is caught and incarcerated he agrees to undergo a new experiment that makes the subjects ill at the thought of violence. Even when ‘cured’ there is still an element of unease watching Ieaun Coomb’s performance.

This performance lost some of its intensity however in its staging. For me the M and D rooms seemed to be a hindrance instead of adding to the production. The narrow performance space and with the stage taken out, the actors were at an immediate disadvantage being several feet lower.

I can see what Kingscott and McNeill were trying to do and it did give the space a different feel, but a lot of audience members I spoke to after the show agreed that much of the fighting and action was lost due to sight-lines and this was a real shame. (And I thought I had a good seat, central in the fourth row!)

Coomb’s electric and powerful performance as Alex carried the show from his first line to his closing monologue. It was refreshing to see most of the cast playing their own ages, which is somewhat uncommon with student productions. This made their performances believable and more importantly relatable to us, as a student audience.

Its contemporary relevance was very clear to see, with reference to riots in London and the youth’s unease at its government. It was somewhat difficult to watch because although set in the future, it seemed that it could be depicting somewhere unsettlingly close to nowadays.

This new future was excellently crafted out of classical music by Beethoven, and the modern looking gadgets and experiments. The clash of new and current excellently formed a future.

One of the strongest elements to the production was the costume, it wasn’t too farfetched but designer Jenny Hall brilliantly captured the directors’ futuristic vision, the hard lines and bold colours really adding to the characters personas and the world they were in.

With such an iconic novel it is important to get away from the ‘expected’ and the obvious; Kingscott and McNeill could have easily re-staged the Stanley Kubrick film. However, it was refreshing to see two directors put their own stamp on such a well-known text: they made it relevant to us as an audience and provoked interesting questions.

Harry and Dan can be very proud of themselves, their strong ensemble cast and production team who have together made their vision a reality and a success.

Rating: 4/5

Alexander Palmer also writes at http://www.enterstagewrite.tumblr.com.

Curious about "The Old Curiosity Shop"?

Tackling the famed thirty-seven chapters of Charles Dickens’s ‘The Old Curiosity Shop’ was never going to be an easy feat but Theatre Alibi certainly provide an impressive interpretation. With regards to modern adaptations, I confess I usually adopt an ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it attitude’ and as the play began I could hear the numerous voices of devout Dickens diehards crying ‘Why change it?’

Theatre Alibi Promotional Image

However, I was soon served one whopping slice of humble pie as Theatre Alibi proved me wrong. The writer, Daniel Jamieson, really plays with the theme of curiosity. His aim to ‘look at contemporary Britain with something of a Dickens’ eye’ is realised in his witty translation of Nineteenth Century London into the current economic climate. Jamieson succeeds in opening the audience’s ‘eyes afresh’ to the ‘curious country’ we still live in. The correlations between a novel written a hundred and seventy years ago and the world we live in today appear to be many.

Don’t be fooled into thinking this dark tale could only leave you reaching out for the tissues, Theatre Alibi weaves this tale of woe with ‘laugh out loud’ comedy.  The play captures the perfect balance of laughter and despair, revealing Dickens’s dark humour. Dick.E. Swiveller played by Malcolm Hamilton provides the perfect comic interlude for any unwanted tension. Hamilton’s characterisation is uncontrollably funny and well worth a trip to see!

For all you arty students, interested in music, setting, film and photography, Theatre Alibi certainly has something to offer. Their famed reputation as contemporary storytellers combined with a keen eye for a range of visual and technical theatrical techniques bring the vivid, colourful and diverse Dickensian world smack-bang into the twenty-first century.

I particularly enjoyed the on-stage, beat-box sound effects, mimicking the noises made by a character, for example the shutting of doors, the chewing of gum or the shutting of a drawer. This worked to expose a Dickensian fascination with the quirky idiosyncrasies of character, emphasising curious, yet often unobserved characteristics.

The carefully selected music plays a significant role in the play, effectively echoing the characters’ emotions and journeys through the narrative. Also be ready for one big musical surprise in the second half…Curious?

‘Curiosity Shop’ is set in an outdated record shop owned by the endearing, gentle ‘grandpa’, an old man desperate and struggling to provide for his orphaned granddaughter Nell. Resorting to gambling as a means to gain money, Grandpa crosses wires with the evil antagonist, Quilp and sinks deeper and deeper in debt.

Quilp becomes the ultimate expression of a Dickensian fascination with character. Derek Frood’s performance as Quilp leaves the audience squirming with disgust at his blatant evil, although, at times they are forced into an uncomfortable laughter. I particularly enjoyed how one member of the audience hissed at Quilp’s appearance on stage. I couldn’t help but laugh at this pantomime expression of anger and thought to myself ‘how wonderfully Dickensian’ and ‘how wonderfully human’?  The audience’s involvement not only within the play but in their relationships to the characters proves its success.

Don’t be put off if you are a novice to Dickens. Theatre Alibi opens an engaging pathway into the themes explored by Dickens and no previous understanding of ‘The Old Curiosity Shop’ is needed to enjoy the play.

If this review has left you curious, I highly recommend a trip to Northcott theatre. Or even if it’s just to impress your mates with a few chat up lines from the play’s very own love master, Swiveller, a ticket to see ‘Curiosity Shop’ should definitely be at the top of your shopping list.

Francesca De-Rosa

Quotes taken from the “Curiosity Shop” programme.

Uncle Fred in the Springtime – P G Wodehouse

Now that his work has been made into a primetime BBC television series “Blandings”, we asked reviewer Francesca Platt to take a look at Wodehouse’s 20th Century novel “Uncle Fred in the Springtime” which inspired the series. Platt tells us why this eccentric British comedy is the perfect book to curl up with this month…

If the cold weather (and lack of snow) in Exeter is bringing you down, this is the perfect book to curl up with and temporarily escape the chilliness of your student house. Expect to become immersed in the utterly ridiculous world of Blandings Castle, the setting for a number of Wodehouse’s novels. Uncle Fred in the Springtime is the fifth in the ‘Blandings’ series of novels, which has recently been adapted into a BBC television series. However, there is no need to read Wodehouse novels in order, as the characters from all different series wander in and out of novels as they please; Uncle Fred, the main character, is also featured in many of Wodehouse’s short stories.

Uncle Fred in the Springtime follows a confusing and entertaining comedy plot of love, mistaken identities and the uncertain fate Lord Emsworth’s pig, the Empress of Blandings.

In London, Pongo Twistleton is having money troubles, and his friend Horace has upset his lover, Pongo’s sister Valerie, for hiring Claude “Mustard” Pott to follow her. Horace accidentally creates a tense situation between Mustard’s daughter Polly and her fiancée, and Pongo calls on Uncle Fred to help the situation and reunite the estranged couple.

The Duke of Dunstable, Horace’s uncle, has decided whilst staying at Blandings that the Empress needs some fitness training. Meanwhile, Lord Emsworth has decided that the Duke is going insane, and calls in a doctor. This proves the perfect excuse for Uncle Fred to enter the Castle, assuming the identity of the doctor, Sir Glossop. He brings Polly with him, hoping that she will win over her fiancee’s uncle, the Duke.

Uncle Fred embarks upon a scheme to reunite the lovers, and scupper the Duke of his plans to steal Emsworth’s adored pig. Full of springtime energy, as he himself comments, ‘there are no limits, literally none, to what I can accomplish in the springtime’.

As with all Wodehouse stories, the various ridiculous side-plots and rising conflicts between characters are all comically resolved at the end. Although the plot could be a confusing one to dip in and out of, the mounting problems in Fred’s plan creates a light-hearted, quintessentially British comedy. So if you’re feeling particularly British in this January weather, take some time this week to sink into the crazy springtime world of one of our very best comedy writers.

By Francesca Platt
Ed. by Georgina Holland – Exeposé Online Books Editor

To see what the Exeposé Online Screen Team made of “Blandings” visit: http://xmedia.ex.ac.uk/wp/wordpress/?p=5000

Awards Season: Life of Pi – Yann Martel

Its on-screen adaptation has taken the world of cinema by stormy, with 11 award nominations under its belt already, reviewer Freya Godfrey takes a look at the book behind the film: Martel’s Booker Prize winning “Life of Pi”. This is a tale of cinematic beauty, magical surrealism, and a questioning of faith and belief by a young boy, and a tiger.

Life of Pi was originally recommended to me by my maths teacher. Due to this, the mathematical symbol  in the title and the fact that it has exactly 100 chapters, I anticipated an intellectually stimulating but ultimately boring read. Stimulating it may be, but it could never be called dull. Yann Martel fills his unique novel with spectacular imagery and extraordinary events to create his captivating depiction of a boy’s struggle for survival.

The novel follows the story of Piscine Patel, nicknamed Pi; a sixteen year old Indian boy brought up on his parents’ zoo in India. Deciding to sell their zoo and emigrate to Canada, Pi’s family and a selection of their animals board a cargo ship. When their freighter gets stuck in a storm and capsizes, the animals escape from their enclosures, leading to a wonderfully chaotic scene in which the beasts slip and stumble around the ship. Amazingly, Pi is able to escape in a small lifeboat, but it is not the refuge he hopes for: also finding shelter is a spotted hyena, a zebra, an orang-utan and, most worryingly, a Bengal tiger. Pi must provide for the tiger, named Richard Parker, whilst protecting his own life. Stranded in the Pacific ocean for 227 days, Pi has to rely on his raw survival instincts to stay alive.

The storyline may seem utterly unbelievable, but it is this magical realism that makes the novel so exciting. Yann Martel weaves surreal elements with a realistic, matter-of-fact style of narrative that enables him to give the events that he describes a plausible life. I even found myself accepting the descriptions of a carnivorous algae-covered island, which is inhabited by meerkats. The sense of survival, the human capacity to adapt and persevere, and Pi’s strong sense of spirituality, is what drives this novel. In the early chapters, we find out that Pi does not conform, traditionally, to one religion. The region in which he lives is a hybrid of Christian, Hindu and Muslim faiths: Pi finds himself identifying with all three. Through Pi’s journey, Martel questions the nature of religion and spirituality and blurs the line between reality, belief and fantasy in his truly inventive story.

Although for some Life of Pi could be a little too surreal, the beautiful images it conjures and the author’s focus on faith in humanity’s capacity to endure make it one of the most imaginative and inspiring novels I have ever read

Click here to read Exeposé Screen’s review of the Life of Pi film.

Review by Freya Godfrey
Ed. by Georgina Holland – Exeposé Online Books Editor

Review: Life of Pi

Yann Martel’s Life of Pi, which won the Booker Prize in 2001, has an eye catching and appealingly unique premise. My copy of the book has a short, simple blurb that begins with the tagline, “One boy, One boat, One tiger”. This is the story in a nutshell; what happens when a teenage boy and a tiger are forced to share a lifeboat after a devastating shipwreck, and how on earth does the boy survive? When plans were set in motion to adapt Martel’s novel for the big screen many questioned whether this strikingly strange scenario was filmable.

Photo credits to 20th Century Fox

How many times have we been told that a book cannot survive the transformation into a movie? Yet sometimes the best adaptations are those that seem impossible, because the filmmakers are forced to be as creative as the original author to make the essence of the source material work on screen. Ang Lee’s interpretation of Life of Pi marries the best of the visual and the written word, and in my view can truly be counted as a great adaptation.

Most critics have praised the stunning aesthetics of the film. Lee and his team succeed in bringing to life Indian streets, a zoo, the vast Pacific Ocean and modern day Canada in an at once vivid, realistic and evocative style. Life of Pi is also that rare thing, a 3D film that actually makes effective use of the technology. Sprawling storms, which seem like works of art in themselves, throw froth and rain in your face. The underwater world bubbles and brims with colourful life. Waves lap and crash in lifelike ways, horizons shift and glow in the setting sun. Most importantly of all, animals look, sound and feel alive. When they move they seem like wild, unpredictable creatures rather than computer generated pixels. Some of the footage from the trailers made the animals look like artificial, CGI creations and it is a tremendous relief that in the film itself they are believable. If they were not, Life of Pi’s narrative centre would lose all of its force.

But before the meat of Life of Pi’s key premise, we are introduced to our protagonist, Piscine, or Pi, as he makes himself known. The details of his early life are quirky and interesting, even without his extraordinary adventure at sea. Lee takes a bit of time setting things up, just as Martel does in the book. Rafe Spall plays an unnamed writer, listening to an adult Pi as he tells his story. Irrfan Khan plays the grown up Pi and the first chunk of the film consists of nostalgic flashbacks, with Khan’s voiceover draped over the top. Many films that indulge in voiceover are lazy, awful affairs that can be painful to watch. However, Life of Pi mostly maintains the balance perfectly. The conversation between Spall and Khan simply stirs our curiosity, and rarely outstays its welcome. The narration is also a nice nod to the novel and makes sense given the nostalgia of the piece.  Khan’s voiceover also disappears once Pi is stranded alone at sea.

As everyone knows by now, Pi is not left entirely alone with his self pity. He makes it across the Pacific in the company of Richard Parker, the tiger from his father’s zoo. This section of the film, with Pi isolated and no other human characters to interact with, could have dragged, especially without the existential introspection of the novel. However, my interest rarely waned. Lee conjures a powerfully primal confrontation between Pi and Richard Parker, a confrontation that morphs into an odd form of companionship. He sets it all against a backdrop that is beautiful, bleak and overwhelming. You feel Pi’s fear initially (I physically recoiled when the tiger first leapt out of the screen in all its 3D glory) and admire his compassion and reason, as he realises Richard Parker might just save his life. Pi questions his spirituality and everything about his life; he hallucinates and dreams. Of course the novel had the time to go into more detail, but nothing here feels significantly incomplete.

The ending has proved divisive, as endings often are. Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian is needlessly harsh with his two-star rating of the film because he found the ending “exasperating”. I may be a mere apprentice compared to Bradshaw but he has undoubtedly missed the point. I do not wish to spoil the ending so I will simply say that it is intentionally frustrating and is clearly designed to provoke questions and debate. It highlights the power of storytelling and examines the nature and value of truth. Indeed, Life of Pi is a film with many intelligent themes, from spirituality to inter-species relations. It is also laced with fun, nostalgia and warmth. In fact, name an emotion you can experience at the cinema and Life of Pi probably covers it at some point.

For these reasons, Life of Pi is a film that you can mull over quietly by yourself or debate passionately with friends. It is a varied and unique cinematic experience, expertly told, that I would highly recommend seeing before the hustle and bustle of campus takes hold again in 2013.

My Rating: 4/5 stars

Rotten Tomatoes Critics’ Average: 4/5 stars

Liam Trim, Screen Editor

You can read a review of the original novel, courtesy of Exeposé Books, here.