Frank T. Wydra
Papa is on his second daiquiri when Al sidles up and says to the table at large, “Hey, I see where yer pal, Skipp, is fornicating with the movie business. You think he’s serious?” John Skipp, a story teller of the unplugged variety, had recently written an essay, actually more of a dump, on his newfound romance with the movie-making craft, and this, I suppose, is what Al is talking about.
The Table is a little skimpy this afternoon with only the regulars crowding its apron. Bram, eyes bloodshot from his late night writing, says, “Smart move. Back in my time the pen was mighty, but now if it’s not on the screen, it’s not happening. Still, the man’s craft is writing. In movie-making he’s no more than a novice.”
Papa says, “We are all apprentices in this craft. No one ever becomes a master. But,” Papa looks to the ceiling and his eyes dew, as if he is remembering a better time, “but, my friend, you are right; things are different now. Back when we were scribbling, it was possible to change the world with a book. No more.”
“Rubbish” Edgar says. “A well written book with a significant message will always turn heads. And a mind flipped on its side is the only fulcrum needed to move the world.”
“That’s true,” Mary says. “Books have always been a catalyst for change. Just remember, Harriet Stowe’s little book. Why, Lincoln even said to her, ‘So you’re the little woman who wrote the book that started this Great War!’”
“Yes, yes, Bram says, “but that was before the movies.”
Edgar says, “What about Orwell’s Animal Farm? It started the tide turning on communism. Or Sinclair’s, The Jungle? That book rewrote the rules on packing pork. And, clearly, both of them were in print during the golden age of the silver screen. No, no, Bram, you and Papa are wrong on this.”
Al, sensing a good fight, is enjoying this. And, knowing how libation loosens the tongue, he signals a waiter to bring a round on the house.
Papa, hands clenched in front of him, elbows on the table, seems about to cleave the point with his co-joined fist. His voice is stern, as if he is lecturing to miscreants. “That was then. Now is now, and you are out of touch. Stories on paper are no longer sufficient to move the mass of minds necessary to effect meaningful change. You can talk, if you will, about writing with passion, but passion alone is not sufficient when people do not read. Nor can it compensate for diminished attention spans or the lack of critical thinking. Name me, if you can, one fiction in the last quarter century that has so captured the imagination of the American people that it became the yeast of change.” He scans the table holding, in turn, the eyes of us seated here with his, waiting for a response. It is a fierce, challenging look, one worthy of a hunter who has stalked lion in the bush.
Uncowed Mary says, “The Silent Spring.”
Bram snorts and says, “Though many think Carson’s book ought to have been labeled a work of fiction, it was not.”
Papa, smiling, says, I too will concede that that book and a handful of others—Friedan’s, Feminine Mystique; Haley’s Roots; Nader’s, Unsafe at Any Speed—changed life as we know it. But, as Bram so aptly notes, they are not works of fiction. They are not stories. They are at worst philosophies and at best, science. What we around this table are about is fiction, made-up tales designed to showcase an elemental truth.
“Well, then,” Edgar says, If it’s fiction you want, there is no end to stories that have changed the way we view the world. Try Burgess’s Clockwork Orange, it turned public opinion against behavioral conditioning or Crichton’s Jurassic Park which showed the dangers of cloning or–.”
Mary uncharacteristically interrupts, “Or Irving’s Cider House Rules where he made a strong case for abortion.
Edgar, eyebrows raised at the interruption, finishes his sentence, “Or LeCarre’s Constant Gardener where he takes the pharmaceutical industry to task. For my money that book was a kissing cousin of The Jungle.”
Al who has not ventured from the table says, “You know, of course, that John LeCarre is David Cornwall’s pseudonym.”
Papa gives him a condescending glance, then says to those of us at the table, “These books you name make my point for not one of them stood alone. What gave them their persuasive power, their ability to imprint their message on the consciousness of a people, was their transformation from print to celluloid. Each of them was turned into a film, and it was the movie—rather than the book–that turned heads. I would argue that without that transformation the messages–the essential truth written by the author–would have lain fallow, as have the thousands of other messages penned in the last quarter century.
Bram says, “Which takes us back to Skipp and his new found love. It is my opinion that that young man, whatever his other flaws, has touched the Rosetta. Whatever our motivation, we, as writers, seek to share our truths with the world. Mary, Edgar, in our time the only medium we had to convey our message was the written word printed on paper. But, as the quirky McLuhan said, ‘The Medium is the Massage.’”
Again Al adds an un-asked-for footnote, “McLuhan originally intended the word to be message, but the typesetter erred.”
Bram, ignoring the comment, continues, “Now, the medium has changed. Books are convenient receptacles for a story, but so is a script. One of the most compelling messages ever filmed was The China Syndrome, which, of course, was never published in book form. Yet the film alone, so closely was it linked to the disaster at Three Mile Island, prejudiced the nation against nuclear power. So, what I’m saying is, that, today, if you wish to impress an idea upon a populace, you must somehow capture it visually. You must make a movie.”
Mary, brow furrowed, says, “Are you saying that books are passé? That novelists will become scriptwriters?”
Papa shakes his platinum-furred head, “No, no, I don’t think he’s saying that at all. There are many nuances and subtleties, interior dialogs and atmospherics, that the writer playing with language can weave into a novel. Often these can not be transmitted to the screen, thus they provide a special enjoyment for those who take the time to read. The novel, however, is no longer the end. It is now the starting point. The reading population is dwindling, just as the audience for stage plays has shriveled. The book market remains, but it is shrinking. On the other hand, those who watch movies, whether the screen be large or small, is exploding. So, as Bram says, if your wish is to have your idea penetrate the consciousness of the masses, you must see that your work moves from book to screen.
Edgar in a rare concession says, “Well, this Skipp may be right. Though it is old, most of my work has been converted to film.” He smiles, “I confess that from time to time I enjoy watching this piece or that.”
“So, too, have mine,” says Mary.
“As all of ours have,” says Bram. “I suspect that without that transfer they would be forgotten, as many of my works have been.”
Edgar, now frowning, says, “Film is a cozy abstraction, yet I can not but feel as though something valuable, some artistic core, will be lost.”
Papa nods. “And, perhaps, something gained.”
frank.writestuff@gmail.com
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
30 Comments, Comment or Ping
David Niall Wilson
Interesting…but here’s a question, Frank.
Is it necessarily true that none of the mentioned works made a difference as a novel, or is one of the differences they made that they were powerful enough the film industry couldn’t deny them?
And in reality, even as far back as the other novels mentioned by our esteemed crew at the table, the most recent memories of all the stories are the film versions. How many kids these days remember the family, or the preacher, from “The Grapes of Wrath,” except as the part so-and-so played?
My own world was changed by “The Fountainhead,” I’d say, which I consider brilliant, but I’ve never seen the film…and I’m not that old.
I guess it depends on what sort of change we’re after. It’s certainly questionable in my own mind whether any novels by any of the folks around our table ever maded the kind of impact you speak of…because they are storytellers…and if we are talking for the most part about storytelling, I’d say we have authors today whose books rival the readership even of those classiscs that have been around for so long…
Stephen King comes immediately to mind, and Dan Brown who, while not changing the world, or even offering anything particularly originial, has caused millions of folks to actually pick up and own a book, even if they didn’t read it.
I guess I don’t see film as a successor to novels, or even as a necessary part, just the two as good allies when they mesh well…
David
PS - it’s also true that many a fine novel is now remembered poorly because the movie that was made “from” it did no justice to the original tale.
Dec 13th, 2006
Frank Wydra
Hey Dave, Good point after good point. I guess the kind of book I dream of is one that by its own power can make a significant difference in the world around us. That means distribution, and whatever the distribution of books, it pales compared to movies.
A book with a message is amplified by the movie. And yes, sometimes they botch it. Two that come to mind are McMurtry’s Terms of Endearment and Kings Dreamcatcher. Even though Endearment earned Acaemy Awards it was a shadow of the book. And Dreamcatcher was a dud while the book was a blockbuster.
Yet, in my mind, the grail is a riveting novel with a strong social message, amplified sufficiently by the filmsters to make a notable difference in the life of everyman. Once that might have been the purview of a stand alone book, but methinks that time has passed by.
Frank
Dec 13th, 2006
David Niall Wilson
I wonder if it isn’t significant that we are still (Present President exlcuded, of course) run by relatively well-read, intelligent men and women…the most powerful people that I’ve encountered in my life would be as likely to read a novel as to watch a popular film…
This one made me think - a LOT - and that, of course, is the purpose of the Storyteller’s table…
Dave
Dec 13th, 2006
jso
Dave,
If “The Grapes of Wrath” is remembered more as a film than as a novel, there’s only one person to thank/blame, and that’s John Ford. So many topical films from that pre-war period are barely remembered or remembered as novelties (I Was a Fugitive from a Chain Gang, The Black Legion…). “The Grapes of Wrath” was directed by one of the greatest honest-to-God artists Hollywood ever produced and stands on its own as a film — and would even if it were an original screenplay. If it had been directed by just any ol’ contract director and starred Zachary Scott as Tom Joad, you might not even know it WAS made into a film.
When I think of novelists who were both brilliant entertainers and effective crusaders for social justice, I think of Dickens. He was incredibly popular and he is as responsible as anyone of the era for waking people up to the horrific injustices of the emerging industrial society. If Dickens were alive today, my guess is that he’d be writing serious book-length nonfiction and writing and producing topical and highly entertaining original series for HBO or Showtime. Those two avenues, combined or separate, seem more effective tools than the novel to make that kind of impact.
—jso
PS: though I still prefer novels myself….
Dec 13th, 2006
Janet Berliner
Good topic. Would someone please comment
on “To Kill a Mockingbird.” –Janet
Dec 13th, 2006
David Niall Wilson
Certainly, To Kill A Mockingbird owns a place of honor in this discussion. Like “The Grapes…” it has the privilege of being a wonderfully wrought, heart-wrenching novel, and an equally well-presented film. Not many works (if any others?) have won the Pulitzer Prize AND an Academy Award.
While it is a very honest portrayal of racial tension, and a marvelous glimpse into the south of the 1930s, I think it’s the idealistic characters, Atticus in particular, who emphasize all that we claim to be good in Americans, but so rarely find exemplified in a single person, that draws the imagination.
This is a grand discussion.
We seem to have arrived at an entirely new level of teamwork that can be pointed out…great novels that also had the benefit of becoming great movies. Jeff, I don’t know that Ford was the only one who could have made a memorable film of this, but I certainly agree that the adapatation of the novel is so brilliant that it doesn’t come across as an adapatation of a novel, but of a “story” and that is the crux, I believe.
A wonderful story will be able to reach out through a variety of media and stand on its own merit.
It’s also possible to have movies that transscend the novel — look at Jaws…
D
Dec 13th, 2006
Joseph
I agree with Dave’s comments on Mockingbird. And I think his remarks about Jaws are dead on as well - the movie certainly did transcend the novel - though I think part of that was the fact that the film was different from a lot of what had come before, that it was one of the first to put that primal fear we all carry around smack dab in front of our eyes and made us feel it…
-Joe
Dec 13th, 2006
David Niall Wilson
I think Jaws had more to say than that, as well, because it certainly exemplified the us vs them mentality our government and big business promote - the fact that they weren’t going to close the beach, and tried to keep it all quiet - the hero coming through with courage to save the day — even the misled idiot (who will always be Dr. Giggles to me) who sailed out like the FOOL card in the Tarot, not seeing the Great White Dog about to bite his ass…
It was simply a wonderfully entertaining film.
D
Dec 13th, 2006
Frank Wydra
Dave’s comment about adaptation of a story resonates. But it is not only adaptations.
Paddy Chayefsky’s Network moved the mentality of the nation “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this any more”–and let us see that the News was becoming entertainment. Then is was fiction, now it is reality.
But to the point, Network was never a novel; it was written directly for the screen, and it was a great story.
What is interesting to me is this dialogue has shifted to the movies rather than retaining its focus on novels. Which reinforces what Bram was saying at the Gonquin.
Frank
Dec 13th, 2006
John Skipp
Dear Frank –
I just can’t believe those guys were TALKING ABOUT ME!
And am proud that my meanderings led to a valid, intriguing conversation, even beyond the bounds of your wonderful piece.
It is an honor and a privelege to serve. Thank you so much!
Yer pal,
Skipp
Dec 13th, 2006
John Skipp
P.S. — Know what’s also nice?
Spelling “privilege” correctly!
(I’m not really subliterate. I JUST PLAY IT ON TV!)
Dec 13th, 2006
David Niall Wilson
But Frank,
The film veering was more an investigation into whether or not novels need Film to make a social impact, or whether film needs a novel with impact to give IT impact, or whether enough people read books to have the impact show if such a novel is written..
It’s impossible to veer one way or the other exclusively and still talk about both.
I think Jeff veered it toward the very valid point that film can be great in and of itself, and that a great novel won’t make a great film unless the people making the film are as talented as the author of the novel…
And I wondered (and still wonder) if the two don’t work powerfully together, but without the necessity of doing so to make their impact…
It’s certain that the audiences of the two media are different in many respects…but I’m not sure I think the people more likely to see the film than read the book are the people likely to get worked up and create the sort of paradigm shift you are talking about in some of these works. I think, possibly naively, that educated people still read, and though they watch the films, they are still as apt to be moved by a wonderful book.
Dave
PS - Skipp…we’re ALWAYS talking about you …
Dec 13th, 2006
Janet Berliner
Another question: Does it make a difference when
the author (I’m assuming a great author) is involved with the script? John Fowles’ “French Lieutenant’s Woman” comes to mind in that he was involved and was willing to make it “The same but different” in order that it would work in film. Janet
Dec 13th, 2006
John B. Rosenman
Dave, I have THE FOUNTAINHEAD and take my word, you don’t really want to see it. Gary Cooper plays Howard Roark. Actually, it could be worse, and the novel itself, like all of the author’s works, is extremely preachy and at times, a morality play.
I think that in general, it’s the tail of the movies that wags the dog these days. How’s that for a metaphor? But the operative words here are “in general.” We do have a diminishing reading public these days, and I suspect that those who read nonfiction have climbed above 85% of the reading public. Anybody have accurate figures?
I think the Harry Potter novels and even more, The DaVinci Code, were independently successful in their own right. However, the Potter novels and all the spinoffs have turned them into an industry.
As for debating which side is more accurate, isn’t it true that the dream of many (most?) authors has been to write a book that is turned into a blockbluster flick? Isn’t that often the ultimate aim, even though we realize how small the chances of achieving it are?
Dec 13th, 2006
Frank Wydra
Cool John, but neither the DaVinci Code nor Harry Potter have essential truths at their core. They are entertainment, and whether or not they are turned into film does not alter that immutable fact. That is not to say they are not good entertainment, they are–though I would argue that Davinci is poorly plotted.
While I agree that most writers salivate over a screen option, the test here is whether an author’s elemental truth, the message buried in the soul of his/her scribbles can make an impact without gracing the screen. I have not seen this phenomenon in the last quarter century. If others have, then name the book.
Frank
Dec 13th, 2006
Janet Berliner
“…the test here is whether an author’s elemental truth, the message buried in the soul of his/her scribbles can make an impact without gracing the screen. I have not seen this phenomenon in the last quarter century. If others have, then name the book.”
That an all-encompassing statement. Let’s start with
“Midnight’s Children” by Salman Rushdie.
Janet
Dec 13th, 2006
David Niall Wilson
I still think the entire equation is skewed. In America, I don’t know that ANY book had the kind of impact you are talking about until film had its debut and a large number of folks saw said film. It could be argued that works like “The Pilgrim’s Progress” helped to shape generations of young men and women, and it could be equally argued that it was so godawful boring it turned those same kids away from reading.
I don’t think there’s a book in past quarter centuries that does what you are hoping to find…
On the Road - Jack Kerouac.
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - Trinity - these books had a huge impact on my own life, and they influenced large numbers of people, but did they shift social paradigms? Zen and the Art is considered to be the most widely read book of philosophy ever written…does that qualify? It IS fiction…
David
Dec 13th, 2006
John B. Rosenman
I’m not sure I agree with you, Frank. I don’t agree with the basic premise of The DaVinci Code, but to the writer, it probably was his “essential truth.” And to a lot of readers, it is as well.
The Communist Manifesto had a profound impact in contributing to communistic thought. Are we going to say it doesn’t count because it does not embody what we accept as “essential truth”? I think that the real criterion here should be what the writer perceives as truth, rather than one that passes our own personal, ideological litmus test.
Dec 13th, 2006
John B. Rosenman
Hmm, The Communist Manifesto is not fiction of course. But I think the principle I present still applies.
BTW, where does the Bible (either OT or NT) fit into all this? To some people it’s fiction, yet it embodies “essential truth.” Love thy neighbor. Do unto others. As you sow you reap, etc. There’s no doubt it had a profound effect on society long before the movies came along.
Dec 13th, 2006
Frank Wydra
Janet, David, John, You are all, of course, right. Janet, I have not read Midnight’s Children, but I suspect is as powerful as Rushdie’s other works. And I am sure it has moved people. I am sure it has moved you, else you would not have offered it up. For me, that counts for a lot.
And David, you, too are right. There are many who have been moved by Zen and Trinity. I know I have. And you are also right, I believe in saying that it may no longer be possible for a book, standing alone, to shift social paradigms. Which, of course, is my point.
And John, I agree that to Brown the DaVinci code probably embodied some essential truths. Still, though it was an entertaining book–and movie–I do not believe it changed anything. Certainly the Communist Manifesto, though not generally considered fiction, moved nations. Although I think it predates the last quarter century.
Yet, I can not help but believe that in today’s world, books of fiction, by themselves are no longer sufficient to cause the kind of seismic shifts that followed publication of tomes like “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” and “The Jungle.” That is why I believe we as storytellers who have a pervasive message at the core of our work need also to consider how it will play on the silver screen.
David, as you said early on in this dialogue, “This one made me think - a LOT - and that, of course, is the purpose of the Storyteller’s table…” Man, that’s what essential truths and messages are all about.
Peace on earth, goodwill to books.
Frank
Dec 13th, 2006
Sully
Just coming down from my little road trip and glad I didn’t miss this discussion entirely. Blockbuster flicks notwithstanding, essential truths intact, the shaping of generations through media probably has more to do with the establishment of themes, caricatures, spins, biases, archetypes, stereotypes, premises, and formulas. Establishment. Because it’s the repetition thereafter of those elements through other films (and let’s not forget TV)that really reaches a universal audience. Once Tinseltown starts to imitate its blockbusters, you get underlying dogma to every character, situation, and institution. It’s subtle and pervasive. Millions take it home, take it to bed, just take it, day in and day out over the tube and in theaters and on video. I don’t care how independent you are as a thinker, you find the media POV bone-deep sooner than later. It’s implicit in being a social animal. Call it a trend, call it thought-control, call it propaganda…it’s none of those things necessarily by design, but it has the same effect. Culturally, politically, we are very much what our media dictates or, less conspiratorially, passes along. And if it doesn’t come so much from single blockbusters, it still filters out the same way it always has through the trendy films between transitional ones. Ultimately it may simply be a matter of numbers. There are more books today, more films — indeys are proliferating out of home studios. How different from the days when Richard Henry Dana wrote “Two Years Before the Mast” and changed the laws for seaman and maritime life. Focus was easier to achieve, and individual works had more impact, because the stage was smaller. Not surprising if fewer novels achieve iconic status in social issues these days, but the water is still carried by the afterbirth: those pale imitators that infiltrate air time and leisure pursuits en masse.
Thanks, Frank. As good as the other stuff was, you’ve really hit your stride with this one.
– Sully (Thomas Sullivan)
Dec 13th, 2006
Frank Wydra
Hey Sully, glad the wrists are working again.
You bring up an interesting point. Maybe it isn’t a single book or movie that moves the masses, but instead the body of work of a set of writers or filmakers. Maybe it is the synergy of the group that sets the agenda. I need to chew on that.
And, just so you know, I’m going to steal the line, “the water is still carried by the afterbirth.”
Frank
Dec 13th, 2006
Frank Wydra
Whoops. Make that film-makers.
Frank
Dec 14th, 2006
Anonymous
Several points
1)It’s easier to sell a script (I’m told) if it’s an adaptation of a book - why? - because it’s already proven it has a market..
2)Every, and I mean EVERY, scriptguru/workshop tutor/teacher I know says the same thing:
To write a good script that will sell, you need high concept. What is high concept? A UNIVERSAL TRUTH - or what I believe you mean by essential truth.
Yes, to reach the masses these days, you need to get it on a screen. Big or small, it makes no never mind, but far too few people read these days - IMO. However, because so many films do start as books, it means that somebody out there is still reading.
And that is the most important point.
Thank you - that’s a brilliant article.
Shell
Dec 14th, 2006
David Niall Wilson
I wonder what universal truth was behind “Nacho Libre” when it recently sold…
Frank, you missed my main point. My main point was I don’t believe ther ever WAS a shift. I don’t believe books EVER did what you are looking for until they combined with other forms of media and reached out to a larger audience. None of the examples given, on its own, as just a book, has done what you are looking for. Not one book in history that I can think of with the possible exception of The Bible, which John correctly mentions as possibly fiction…
D
Dec 14th, 2006
jso
Dave,
Not one book in history? You really mean fiction that reaches a wide audience, right? Not just books in general? Because I can name three authors off the top of my head who changed the world with their writings, and did it without the benefit of modern mass media:
Newton
Darwin
Einstein
If changing the world is your criteria, novels and movies both have an extremely uphill battle against a pardigm-shattering work of nonfiction. If the Communist Manifesto had been a novel, it might have been read by many more people, but would it have had the historical significance it has? I really doubt it.
jso
Dec 14th, 2006
Frank Wydra
Dave, books standing alone once did, in fact, change social norms. To name a few that have already been mentioned: Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the Jungle, Two Years Before The Mast, and Animal Farm. though animal Farm was eventually made into a movie, it was not until after its impact on the psyche of Americans. With research I could probably find another dozen or so fictions that had similar impact. I would therefore argue that your point–”I don’t believe books EVER did what you are looking for “– does not fit the facts.
Shell, I think your point about books being a pre-sold market is very insightful. Thanks
And, JSO, you are correct. My point dealt exclusively with fiction since we, here, are fiction writers.
Frank
Dec 14th, 2006
jso
“Nicholas Nickelby” was in part an expose of the notorious Yorkshire boarding schools. It was a horrific system, and many of the parents or guardians who sent children to these schools had no idea how their money was being spent (definitely not the well-being of the children).
According to what I’ve read, that novel effectively destroyed the entire racket. It didn’t change the world, but if you were a British child in the late 1830s and early ’40s, it may have saved your life. I would say that qualifies it as a novel that changed social norms.
– the lonely Dickens fan
Dec 14th, 2006
David Niall Wilson
I have to disagree, Frank. While these books certainly made an impact on academic thought, I don’t think a one of them shifted society. They followed shifts in society, or outlined / highlighted problems in society - they may have HERALDED such change, but there has never been a time in US History (that I’ve found, anyway) where what was written in a book changed society. (Yes, JSO, fiction only - that was Frank’s criteria).
I just don’t buy it. Yes, Uncle Tom’s Cabin was a very widely read book - yes it had a powerful message - no, I don’t think people changed their outlook on the world because of reading it. Prejudiced people read it and sneered, sensitive people who would eventually move beyond their prejudice (albeit slowly) would have done so without the book. The book is a part of a larger movement, and can’t be credited with the change. 1984 even more so - Most folks had to be forced to read it in school, and it wasn’t wildly popular with the masses when written…it had a philosophical message, and that message did not bring about social change because of the words in a book.
I stand by what I said, I think…and we (of course) can agree to disagree, but I don’t think books have ever had the power you are after…some non-fiction works have certainly shaken the rafters…Darwin comes to mind, of course - Einstein (as mentioned) and many other such works that caused paradigm shifts in science — because technology (and thus the society using that technology) shift with these paradigms…
But not, I fear, with fiction. Fiction is more a chronicle and a mirror of society than a leading, changing force.
Consider that even in The Bible, confronted with miracles and a gift beyond price, the apostles showed momentary awe, and then fell right back to the same bickering they had been at prior to the miracles. It is a rare argument or experience that can truly shift a man’s thoughts…and I don’t know a book that’s done it for society, though as stated, I could name dozens that have done it for me.
David
Dec 14th, 2006
Anonymous
Movies and books: Simply put, they’re two totally different mediums (media?) that have to be judged on their own merits. I’m always interested to read the book afterwards or see the film afterwards. I usually find that I get the strongest impression with which one I view first, though not always. As I’ve long been a John Le Carre fan, in his case I automatically vote for the book because he’s truly one of the great writers of our time. ( Yes, Frank. We know his real name is David Cornwall. It’s been well-known for years.) But I often learn something from seeing the films made from his books that I might have missed otherwise. It’s a different perspective.
In my view, sometimes a great director just knows how to tell the story better. It’s not that the other fellow was necessarily a bad writer, just that a director may see possibilities the writer may not have considered. The best example I can think of is The English Patient. The movie just blew me away. I thought the book was so-so. And there’s not a shred of doubt in my mind that that fellow can really write. In fact, it aspires to be literature. Anthony Minghella saw the potential and made a great movie out of a good book.
Most writers, though, can hardly be faulted for writing with the movies in mind, these days. The payoff is just too much to resist. Who can blame them? Caleb Carr got $400000 fifteen years ago for the option on his novel The Alienist, and it’s still never been filmed. And why should he care? If someone does make it and it’s a hit, he won’t get a dime more, anyway.
Mingler
Dec 14th, 2006
Reply to “The Gonquin Table: The Medium Is The Massage”