Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Given the fundamental differences between the two media - print and film - I think personally that it's difficult to make direct comparisons. Film is a primarily visual medium; print is not. There are many books that just can't be meaningfully directly converted into films, because there's little or no "action".
|
I'm not sure I agree that there are successful books that cannot be translated into film, even given differences in the mediums. If there's a compelling story being told, I think a skilled filmmaker can bring it to the screen in a compelling manner while keeping the essence, even if they need to do some reworking (e.g.,
The Remains of the Day,
The English Patient and
A Beautiful Mind come to mind...the latter isn't a novel of course, but none of the books had a whole lot of "action"). I believe in the power of good screenwriters.
Then of course of you have something like Alan Hollinghurst's
The Stranger's Child...I don't think anyone could make a compelling film out of that. But it doesn't challenge the above theory, because the book completely lacked any dramatic arc (or dramatic incident) whatsoever. A movie of it would have amazing visuals of English country estates, but a screenwriter would have to do a massive amount of work to give it some forward momentum.