Now, don't go berserk on me straightaway and hear me out. Of course, a lot of films and tv series are based on novels, especially when it comes to period drama. However, when it comes to historical drama, the viewers, who are more often than not very knowledgeable, well-read people who have actually read the originals, can't help but judge the on-screen adaptations through their novel experience - and apply the same judgement to other people's reviews.
This is what happened to me with the last couple of TV shows that I binged watched - one of them specifically so that I am up to date with the trends and so I can form an opinion on something popular among period lovers. And both times among the first comments I received regarding what I thought of the characters or the plot in general was people saying things like 'you won't get the character until you read the book' and 'why would you form an opinion without having read the book' (not literally).
Just to point out, it's great when you know the novel the show is based on. Even better for understanding, if you know the actual historical background - such as the country's economical state, the particular area/city's history and cultural differences, political movements and social problems at the time. Never mind things like historical events, natural disasters taking place around that time, fashion - and so on, and so on.
However, films and tv series still belong to entertainment industry - and their primary goal is to entertain as many viewers as possible. And apart from satisfying hard-core fans, any respectable filmmaker, scriptwriter and producer aims to attract as many members of new audiences as possible - this is what media industry is all about, after all. Trying to appeal to less niche audiences, become famous and raise money from their creation.
And the only way things like that can fulfil this goal is through making their film/tv show as accessible for newcomers as possible. That may include even those who have no clue about things like Cornwall accent, why 19th century British aristocrats went to Bath for weekends and social gatherings, or what the character thinks, unless he or she speaks their mind out loud. Especially it is relevant to younger generations who might be introduced to period drama through the latest adaptations of the classics - 2005 Pride & Prejudice instead of Colin Firth version, the latest Vanity Fair series rather than Reese Witherspoon film, the Hollywood version of The Other Boleyn Girl over the BBC one and so on. And for that generation it is essential that they understand the importance of the historical events and characters without having to turn to the book.
If a newcoming viewer doesn't have the same impression of a character as someone who's read the book and seen all two or three adaptations, it means several things. Firstly, it may be a deliberate change - whether to make that character more appealing to the new audiences, or maybe to introduce a modern twist in the classic story to keep up with the latest social trends, or maybe to just have a fresh remake and surprise everyone, including the hardcore fans, with a perspective that wasn't explored before.
Or maybe the showmakers simply fail to deliver, as bad as it sounds. Maybe they've become so familiar with their source material that they assume that everyone knows certain things - so they sacrifice important scenes and details about the character's life, assuming that it is common knowledge. In this case, unfortunately, the story starts lacking some dimension - but the new viewer won't even know it was there in the first place. They will leave the cinema or switch off the TV with the nagging feeling of disappointment.
And these 'newbies' might not be interested in reading the books and looking up online how true the characters are to the real story, written by someone else, as is often the case with tv series. The person walks away, indifferent to the original and more often than not disinterested in digging into it.
On the other hand, some shows are great in their own right - and yet the newbie might not want to read the book or watch the earlier adaptations still, because they might have found their favourite version in what they'd just seen. And that's great - it means that the show has done a great job.
That's why I believe that it's important to try and separate the story in the show and the story in the book - and the same goes for characters. The two belong to two different genres and exist almost independently due to the nature of on-screen pieces. I believe that quite often they can't be compared fairly because of that - it's impossible to make a character's thoughts known in film the same way it is in novels, for example. Unless you decide to go for narration - which is often considered a very lazy filmmaking technique and most filmmakers avoid it as much as possible. Both genres have their limitations, pros and cons when it comes to storytelling. That's why in almost all cases adaptations are very different from the source - from changed appearances to missed out or added scenes, to misplaced characters and twisted timelines.
Of course, it is important to remember and refer to source material on many occasions. It helps you realise and notice the things you might miss otherwise, and gives you a broader, a fuller understanding of the world you've dived into. It can also be great and useful to know how exactly the author imagined your favourite actor - and it's fun to see the transformation and wonder why the filmmakers made certain decisions. It's fascinating, as adaptations give a chance for other people to also improve the source material - the actors add their mannerisms, therefore enriching their characters, the costume designers and make up artists also share their understanding of what's going on, and the music composers can give a familiar scene a completely different twist.
That's why I love on-screen pieces. There are so many things that come into play, apart from the author's intent and words, and all of them need to be counted in when passing a judgement on anything.
Please feel free to let me know if you disagree in the comment section here or on Facebook.
I realise that sometimes it's almost impossible to pass a judgement on an adaptation if you're a passionate fan of the book. I'm guilty of it myself - when I was younger, I was so angry with so many films for taking out my favourite scenes from the book. I couldn't understand why anyone would rip apart the original that didn't need changing - I could imagine all of them on-screen in my head, and thought I knew exactly how they should be filmed.
However, I try to recognise now that the two are separate pieces of work, even of art. It's a tough job to adapt one's favourite book to screen - and out of respect for people who pour everything into their new creation and try to do justice to the books, we should judge their work fairly as well. Of course, the novel will be more nuanced and give better insight into our favourite characters' thoughts. Accept it as a given, sit back and try to enjoy the visual story unfolding before your eyes.
The 40 best book-to-film adaptations ever, ShortList
コメント