When I read fiction, I make a mental image of the character, setting, and action. The author may only provide the bare bone descriptions, but I, as a reader, fill in the rest. This may explain why readers are disappointed with a film adaptation. Of course, the other criticism is over what was left out of the film. That’s why readers love limited series, for example The Institute or two part films, Dune and It.
The film adaptations I’ve loved the most were the ones that meshed with my perspective of the story. While John Carter was panned, I loved the film adaptation of Edgar Rice Burrough’s The Princess of Mars. I read this book and several others in the series as a kid. I loved the stories. To me, the film was amazing; Mars, its denizens, and technology were as I had imagined. Then there’s Denis Villeneuve’s vision of Frank Herbert’s Dune. The ornithopters alone were amazing. It’s just how I imagined it. The desert sets, costumes, special effects, AMAZING.
So, what brought me to this topic today? I just finished watching The Terror: The Devil in Silver, which is, by the way, excellent. The finale transitioned to a sneak peak of a new AMC series, The Vampire Lestat. I watched episode one and I was blown away. First, Sam Reid’s portrayal of Lestat de Lioncourt is amazing. He looks and behaves as I had imagined the character when I read Interview with the Vampire and its sequel, The Vampire Lestat. The whole Lestat, as a rock star was incredible. The music. The crowds. His after concert behavior, the Diva holding court. Brilliant. The scene where Lestat is playing his violin with the rock band works. It’s the one thing in the book that I had a hard time imagining in my head. Here the director brought to life something I could not imagine.
Compare Mr. Reid’s performance to Tom Cruise’s, night, and day. While I enjoyed the film adaptation of Neil Jordan’s Interview with the Vampire and Mr. Cruise’s interpretation of Lestat, I couldn’t see Lestat. All I saw was Tom Cruise. Unfortunately for Mr. Cruise, a phenomenal actor, I saw the same thing with the Reacher films. I see Mr. Cruise, not Jack Reacher. I guess it’s the curse of mega stars, you see the actor and not the character.
Of course, there are many film adaptations that are worlds apart from its source material. It’s not simply time constraints in some decisions made by the director. Stanley Kubrick had a different vision for his adaptation of Stephen King’s The Shining. I remember the purists hated it. There were articles regarding King’s dissatisfaction with Kubrick’s vision of his novel. I liked Kubrick’s film adaptation. A later, two part television adaptation was made of The Shining. While faithful to the novel, I preferred the Kubrick version.
Then there is Blade Runner, a film adaptation of Philip K. Dick’s novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. I had never read PKD’s book until this past year. I had seen Blade Runner when it premiered in 1982. Book and movie are worlds apart. I love both. Like Kubrick, Ridley Scott had a vision that contrasts with the PKD Nebula award winning novel. To be honest, the film did shape how I imagined the characters, setting and scenes in the novel.
Now, if there is a film adaptation that I’m looking forward to see, I try to read the novel before the movie. As I read any story, it rolls out in my head like a movie. I enjoy using my imagination to translate the words on the page into a scene on celluloid. It’s always a pleasant surprise when a scene is just how I imagined it from the novel. Denis Villeneuve’s Dune, Part Three, will premiere December of this year. I believe it’s based on Herbert’s Dune Messiah, which I’ve read. I’m looking forward to seeing it and how it compares with my vision of the novel.