Ticklishchap
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,750
- Location
- London
Re. Mary Shelley: it was ironic, given that the Shelleys had views on marriage and the family that were considered radical in their day and probably would today still be seen as avant garde in large areas of Texas or Oklahoma.I don't mind adaptation where that is necessary to the form. Although we live in an era in which multi-media formatting is seen as inherently desirable, the reality is that not every book will work as a faithful screen-adaptation any more than every film could be translated into a decent book. (There's a thing we rarely see now: the "book of them film". I remember well enough in the eighties you would still see novelisations of popular films on regular sale. The concept largely died out when home video reached the point where it was affordable and accessible to own your own copy of the film instead. It does, though, live on in a limited form in that original films based on comic book properties will often see a 'graphic novel' tie-in version and/or spin offs. However, I digress....)
I don't mind some truncation of plots, or simplifications or whatever if needed for the form. Jaws radically cut down on several sub-plots when translated to screen, introduced others (the USS Indianapolis link in particular), and altered the end to the shark (in the book, the shark dies slowly from wounds already inflicted). Both work, just different animals. Trainspotting was another - the book, film, and stage show are all slightly different animals, each playing to their own formats. It is true, however, that for every plot change in a film which improves on the original (Watchmen is an excellent case in point: same basic plot point, but different, better, Maguffin), there are a few more that make a hash of it. I'll never forget a truly dreadful version of Wuthering Heights that cut out the entire second half of the book by having Hindley Earnshaw succeed in murdering Heathcliff.
In the era of cinema-level-budget TV/streaming, though, now that TV is no longer second fiddle to cinema, I think there's a lot to be said for using that format instead. Why cram it all into one or two films, when you can cover the plot in a required depth in the context of a series of a dozen parts of an hour or more each? (Budget allowing, of course.) Some things work well in a shorter piece, others better long-form.
My favourite is probably The Texas Chainsaw Massacre's claim to be based on a true story. Which it is: Ed Gein. Of course, 'based on a true story' is a very wide field, from the most accurate of biography, to 'vaguely inspired by'. I do enjoy the playfulness to be had with the elasticity of the concept, though.
Heaven help us all if the little lady was allowed to step out of the shadow of her husband. after all!