From the page to the screen
February 12th 2010 12:05
I know I'm not the only one who's noticed that every other movie being made in Hollywood these days seems to be based upon a book. The Lovely Bones, Mao's Last Dancer, Angels and Demons, Disgrace and of course, the Twilight and Harry Potter films are just a few that spring to my mind. Some believe that Hollywood is simply running out of ideas - and this may or may not be true - but often, it's because the best stories are the ones that have already been captured in print. So what's involved in turning a book into a screenplay? Two of Australia's most distinguished screenwriters tell us how it's done.
As the screenwriter of the award-winning 2006 film Shine and last year's hugely popular Mao's Last Dancer, Jan Sardi knows a thing or two about making the leap from the page to the screen. While he doesn't underestimate the importance of staying true to the novel, he maintains that "the first responsibility you have is to the audience in the cinema."
"You mustn't assume that people have to read the book in order to see the film," he says. "The film has to be a unique experience of its own. And then, if people are interested, they can read the book."
However, if people have already read the book, there will naturally be comparisons drawn between the two. It is rare to hear of a film being more highly regarded than the book it was based upon, but to me, such a comparison is an unfair one. Not only are they two entirely different experiences, but to cram every tiny element of a book into a less-than-three-hour film is a task that borders on the impossible. Anyone who has both seen and read J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings knows how true this is!
While there's no hard and fast rule that says the film must follow the book exactly, Sardi agrees that it becomes a lot more important to maintain fidelity when the book is based on true events - such as the unusual life of pianist David Helfgott, which was captured in 2006’s Shine.
"It places a greater burden on you when you're dealing with a real-life story," said Sardi. But, as he points out, this can create an advantage: "One of the great plusses of having the subject of a real-life story that's still alive is you can use them for your research." Indeed, Sardi spent many hours with Helfgott prior to writing the screenplay – one of the many factors that would have led to his subsequent Oscar nomination for Shine.
While many screenwriters will emphasise the importance of having a great story to begin with, others - like Sydney-based screenwriter James Bogle - say that this isn't the case. "I don't think it's important at all," he says. He points to Stanley Kubrick's final film, Eyes Wide Shut, which was an adaptation of a little-known novella by Arthur Schnitzler named Traumnovelle. "He just had an idea that it could be very cinematic." And as it turns out, he was right.
Bogle, who is also a talented director, prefers to work with stories that have already been published in book form. Although he concedes that the book's author can sometimes create difficulties in the page-to-screen process, he finds it greatly preferable to writing a screenplay from scratch.
"Writing a screenplay, full stop, can be so hard. I think people who can actually start from a blank page are pretty amazing. I definitely couldn't - I've tried it. It's a very difficult thing to do."
As for the people who complain that the film doesn't live up to their expectations? Bogle doesn't mince words. "You have to be brutal in order to make a book fit 100 minutes of film," he says. "When people read a book and then say, 'The film is not like how I imagined it to be' - that's because they didn't fucking direct it!"
Creating a movie masterpiece without alienating the fans of the book is no easy feat.
As the screenwriter of the award-winning 2006 film Shine and last year's hugely popular Mao's Last Dancer, Jan Sardi knows a thing or two about making the leap from the page to the screen. While he doesn't underestimate the importance of staying true to the novel, he maintains that "the first responsibility you have is to the audience in the cinema."
"You mustn't assume that people have to read the book in order to see the film," he says. "The film has to be a unique experience of its own. And then, if people are interested, they can read the book."
Jan Sardi was also the screenwriter of 2004's The Notebook, which was adapted from Nicholas Sparks' novel of the same name.
However, if people have already read the book, there will naturally be comparisons drawn between the two. It is rare to hear of a film being more highly regarded than the book it was based upon, but to me, such a comparison is an unfair one. Not only are they two entirely different experiences, but to cram every tiny element of a book into a less-than-three-hour film is a task that borders on the impossible. Anyone who has both seen and read J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings knows how true this is!
The story of David Helfgott was brought to life in the unforgettable movie Shine, with a little help from the screenwriter.
While there's no hard and fast rule that says the film must follow the book exactly, Sardi agrees that it becomes a lot more important to maintain fidelity when the book is based on true events - such as the unusual life of pianist David Helfgott, which was captured in 2006’s Shine.
"It places a greater burden on you when you're dealing with a real-life story," said Sardi. But, as he points out, this can create an advantage: "One of the great plusses of having the subject of a real-life story that's still alive is you can use them for your research." Indeed, Sardi spent many hours with Helfgott prior to writing the screenplay – one of the many factors that would have led to his subsequent Oscar nomination for Shine.
Screenwriter James Bogle, who recently adapted Georgia Blaine's Closed for Winter for the big screen
While many screenwriters will emphasise the importance of having a great story to begin with, others - like Sydney-based screenwriter James Bogle - say that this isn't the case. "I don't think it's important at all," he says. He points to Stanley Kubrick's final film, Eyes Wide Shut, which was an adaptation of a little-known novella by Arthur Schnitzler named Traumnovelle. "He just had an idea that it could be very cinematic." And as it turns out, he was right.
A scene from Kubrick's 1999 sexual thriller Eyes Wide Shut, starring Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman
Bogle, who is also a talented director, prefers to work with stories that have already been published in book form. Although he concedes that the book's author can sometimes create difficulties in the page-to-screen process, he finds it greatly preferable to writing a screenplay from scratch.
"Writing a screenplay, full stop, can be so hard. I think people who can actually start from a blank page are pretty amazing. I definitely couldn't - I've tried it. It's a very difficult thing to do."
As for the people who complain that the film doesn't live up to their expectations? Bogle doesn't mince words. "You have to be brutal in order to make a book fit 100 minutes of film," he says. "When people read a book and then say, 'The film is not like how I imagined it to be' - that's because they didn't fucking direct it!"
| 30 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Janet Collins
Acceptable Etiquette
The Social Critic
Janet Collins Blog
Some movies I have seen kept the whole essence of the story in tact but others have been a clear disappointment. I thought Bonfire of the Vanities, a book that I really loved, was a total disappointment as a movie.
Most of the time nowadays I read some stories and watch other ones because, as these writers say, they are two very different mediums. However, I recently saw Up in the Air and I now really want to read the book.
PS It was strange for the director to use the example of Eyes Wide Shut. I thought this was an awful movie.
Comment by Journeywoman
Great Hair Style Tips
The Mama Sutra
I Dream of Hollywood
Fashion Peach
Yeah Eyes Wide Shut is one of those movies where either you love it, or you hate it. I think a lot of people feel compelled to love it because Kubrick was a cinematic genius and said himself that this was his best work. It's not my fave Kubrick film either but each to their own.
I haven't seen Up in the Air yet - might have to put that one on the list.