Calum
Crabbit Minger
It’s safe to say that most of us want to see the works we love faithfully translated to the screen. Yet it’s a surprisingly fickle process. Some films follow the source material to the letter yet turn out less than successful, while others cut the works they’re based on to pieces yet still manage to produce fine films.
Of course, many adaptations end up deeply compromised when they deviate from the books they were based on. The theatrical cut of I Am Legend was eviscerated by a studio mandated ending after the original version didn’t go down well with test audiences. Will Smith blows up the nasty vampires in a big fiery explosion while his sidekicks spirit his cure to a top secret military compound in Vermont which despite the scarce resources of a post-apocalyptic world still manages a reassuring sprinkle of Americana (Complete with church bells, white picket fences and the Stars and Stripes flapping in the morning breeze. I wish I was making this up). The original, bleaker conclusion stuck much closer to the spirit of the novel, where it’s revealed that the creatures hunting down Dr Neville are not mindless beasts but sapient beings trying to put a stop to his slaughter of their kind. I’ll leave you to decide which was the superior conclusion.
On the other hand my two favourite Shakespeare films, Akira Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood and Orson Wells’s The Chimes at Midnight take great liberties with the Bard’s stories, dialogue and even their themes. The former places Macbeth in feudal Japan and uses none of Shakespeare’s original dialogue, while the latter shifts the focus of the narrative from Prince Hal to Falstaff, changing the tone from an optimistic coming of age story to a man’s tragic fall and betrayal. Throne of Blood also has deeply different themes to Macbeth.
In the play Macbeth’s actions stem purely from selfish ambition, driving him to murder a just king and throwing the natural order of the universe into disarray. His counterpart in Throne, Washizu on the other hand kills his version of Duncan largely out of fear that he will be eliminated as a potential rival, for rather than the benevolent monarch of Shakespeare the Duncan figure of Throne of Blood slew his former master and usurped his place. Rather than his ambition disrupting the natural order of things Washizu is something of a puppet trapped in a cycle beyond his control. This is further emphasised when he’s shot down by his own soldiers, another departure from Shakespeare’s play and one that fulfils the subtext of the cycle of betrayal. Yet despite these deviations both these films work.
For one thing they mark themselves out as enough of their own animal that it makes it easier to accept them on their own terms rather than compare them to the orignals. This is something reflected in the changed titles, with Wells placing Falstaff’s name front and centre, making it clear even before you enter the cinema that he will the centre of the story, and clueing the viewer in that this won’t be a straight adaptation of Henry IV. Indeed, one of the failings of I am Legend is that the film is very blatantly structured to support the original ending. The Darkseeker’s intelligence is foreshadowed frequently, with hints that they can set up snare traps and domesticate dogs. The tone of the film also fits better with the more thought provoking mood of the original ending.
I am Legend takes a lot of time to delve into Neville’s disturbed mental state and explore the psychological ramifications of his loneliness and isolation. Consequently it feels jarring when the movie resorts to a typical triumphant Hollywood ending, as it doesn’t suit the feel that the film had established up until that point. For contrast an earlier adaptation of the book, Charlton Heston’s Omega Man takes a similar degree of liberties but presents itself as a light, pulpy thriller from the start, making it clear that it’s mostly using the book as a spring board to tell a story focused more on action and humour than heavy ideas and concepts. This makes the changes easier to accept as you know going in that it’s mostly trying to do its own thing.
On the whole, I can accept a lot of changes from page to screen, though more drastic revisions work best when an adaptation clearly sign posts that it intends to diverge from the source material early on. Deviations are most frustrating when the film makers resort to half measures, creating something that fails both at being its own entity or a faithful translation. Though we can all be thankful that that sweet angel of mercy Peter Jackson chose not to blight cinema with the dirges of Tom Bombadil’s caterwauling. But how close do you guys like an adaptation to stick to the source?
Of course, many adaptations end up deeply compromised when they deviate from the books they were based on. The theatrical cut of I Am Legend was eviscerated by a studio mandated ending after the original version didn’t go down well with test audiences. Will Smith blows up the nasty vampires in a big fiery explosion while his sidekicks spirit his cure to a top secret military compound in Vermont which despite the scarce resources of a post-apocalyptic world still manages a reassuring sprinkle of Americana (Complete with church bells, white picket fences and the Stars and Stripes flapping in the morning breeze. I wish I was making this up). The original, bleaker conclusion stuck much closer to the spirit of the novel, where it’s revealed that the creatures hunting down Dr Neville are not mindless beasts but sapient beings trying to put a stop to his slaughter of their kind. I’ll leave you to decide which was the superior conclusion.
On the other hand my two favourite Shakespeare films, Akira Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood and Orson Wells’s The Chimes at Midnight take great liberties with the Bard’s stories, dialogue and even their themes. The former places Macbeth in feudal Japan and uses none of Shakespeare’s original dialogue, while the latter shifts the focus of the narrative from Prince Hal to Falstaff, changing the tone from an optimistic coming of age story to a man’s tragic fall and betrayal. Throne of Blood also has deeply different themes to Macbeth.
In the play Macbeth’s actions stem purely from selfish ambition, driving him to murder a just king and throwing the natural order of the universe into disarray. His counterpart in Throne, Washizu on the other hand kills his version of Duncan largely out of fear that he will be eliminated as a potential rival, for rather than the benevolent monarch of Shakespeare the Duncan figure of Throne of Blood slew his former master and usurped his place. Rather than his ambition disrupting the natural order of things Washizu is something of a puppet trapped in a cycle beyond his control. This is further emphasised when he’s shot down by his own soldiers, another departure from Shakespeare’s play and one that fulfils the subtext of the cycle of betrayal. Yet despite these deviations both these films work.
For one thing they mark themselves out as enough of their own animal that it makes it easier to accept them on their own terms rather than compare them to the orignals. This is something reflected in the changed titles, with Wells placing Falstaff’s name front and centre, making it clear even before you enter the cinema that he will the centre of the story, and clueing the viewer in that this won’t be a straight adaptation of Henry IV. Indeed, one of the failings of I am Legend is that the film is very blatantly structured to support the original ending. The Darkseeker’s intelligence is foreshadowed frequently, with hints that they can set up snare traps and domesticate dogs. The tone of the film also fits better with the more thought provoking mood of the original ending.
I am Legend takes a lot of time to delve into Neville’s disturbed mental state and explore the psychological ramifications of his loneliness and isolation. Consequently it feels jarring when the movie resorts to a typical triumphant Hollywood ending, as it doesn’t suit the feel that the film had established up until that point. For contrast an earlier adaptation of the book, Charlton Heston’s Omega Man takes a similar degree of liberties but presents itself as a light, pulpy thriller from the start, making it clear that it’s mostly using the book as a spring board to tell a story focused more on action and humour than heavy ideas and concepts. This makes the changes easier to accept as you know going in that it’s mostly trying to do its own thing.
On the whole, I can accept a lot of changes from page to screen, though more drastic revisions work best when an adaptation clearly sign posts that it intends to diverge from the source material early on. Deviations are most frustrating when the film makers resort to half measures, creating something that fails both at being its own entity or a faithful translation. Though we can all be thankful that that sweet angel of mercy Peter Jackson chose not to blight cinema with the dirges of Tom Bombadil’s caterwauling. But how close do you guys like an adaptation to stick to the source?
Last edited:
