Can't Touch This! ... Hollywood and Catcher In The Rye

We've all read it, but no one has ever seen it! Which has sparked quite a bit of curiosity among Catcher In the Rye fans concerning the famous coming of age novel by J.D. Salinger. The all too frequently asked question is, what if?!

So, what if the famous novel was adapted into a film?

THE HISTORY

Prior to penning his novel Catcher In The Rye, J.D. Salinger gave several film producers permission to adapt some of his stories for the big screen. Once Salinger saw what the adaptation process had done to his prescious stories he vowed never to let his work fall in the all too molding hands of Hollywood, ever again. And he meant it. After Catcher In The Rye blew up, he was approached several times throughout the course of his life. Producers wanted the rights to his 200 some odd page, paperback goldmine.

They offered millions on numerous ocassions but Salinger would not budge. Long story short, Salinger took the wishes of Hollywood producers across the country to the grave with him. Well, he actually left the rights to his novel with his family. But, long story short, following in the footsteps of all his all too self reflecting protagonist Holden, J.D. Salinger didn't want his treasured coming of age story morphed and misinterpeted by the movies. The business of phonies and fakes.



A young J.D. Salinger

Now that we got past all the boring backstory stuff, we want to hear from you - with such strong resistance from the J.D. Salinger and with such a reputation, following and controversial resistance/push from followers, do you believe this novel should be adapted in to a film?

Before you comment, remember, it's not a matter of will it. It's a matter of when. Salinger is deceased,  which means after 70 some odd years, his work, Catcher In The Rye falls into the public domain. Yup, that means anyone can get their hands on it. Is it better that way? Should it be adapted now or should this tale be perserved for as long as possible?

Stay tuned for next week's post when I come back with the three major reasons why I believe Catcher In The Rye SHOULD NOT be adapted in to a film. But first tell me what you think, and I'll be sure to include your thoughts and comments in next week's post!

Water For Elephants: An Adaptation of Visuals

I've heard a lot of complaints concerning film adaptations of my friend's favorite novels. People have told me they didn't like what was placed in the film, what was left out of it, how the characters changed, blah, blah. However, one of the biggest complaints I often hear, is that the film wasn't how that person had imagined it in "their head." This is the one that interests me the most. 

Now when I hear that, I tend to believe this: writers convey specific images to their readers via their style. Now, I'm not saying that everyone's thoughts are controlled by a specific writing style. Of course everyone imagines their favorite novels differently, but I'm a firm believer that if a writer's ability to paint an vivid picture for the reader is truly strong, the images imagined by readers are probably somewhat similar. 

That's exactly what Sara Gruen does in her novel Water For Elephants. Without giving too much away, WFE follows the colorful circus life of veterinarian Jacob Jankowski as retold by his ninety three year old self. The tale is an in depth romantic look at Jacob's experience working in the glory days of the 1930's circus era in America. Gruen does a masterful job of painting a vivid and colorful image of 1930's circus life. So much so, that I shared the smell of animal dung, the sights of the glorious tent being pitched by hundreds of circus hands and just became fully engulfed in a magical world. Gruen does an incredible job of mastering the imagery of circus lifestyle and fully immersing her readers in Jacob's eyesight as a hopeful and enthralled young man. 

With Gruen's imagery acting as such a predominant aspect of this novel, I was skeptical of the film adaptation when I first heard news of it. How could any director truly take Gruen's vivid depiction of circus life via her masterful imagery and really translate that beauty seamlessly to an actual image on screen, without disappointing readers? The same readers who were so captivated by such specific and detailed visuals. 

Well, director Francis Lawrence did just that, and as a reader I truly appreciate that he took the time and consideration to pay attention to such a dominant theme in Gruen's writing style when adapting her film to screen. The cinematography in Water For Elephants is beautiful (as you can see samples of in the trailer posted above). The cinematographer, Rodrigo Pietro (the guy who's responsible for the look and feel of the film, acting as the director's partner in this task) does a masterful job painting a canvas that depicts Gruen's writing style. 

She paints the circus as a magical world filled with mystery and fun (an obvious metaphor for Jacob's view of the circus as a savior in his dreary life), allowing it to come to life for the readers via written word. Francis Lawrence (a perfect fit for this specific directing job) and his cinematographer Rodrigo Pietro, lay out a canvas of beautiful color, shots, angles and composition that, in my opinion perfectly capture the magical and fairytale essence of Gruen's circus world, created with just words. 

One would think that if a director adapts a novel with strong imagery he or she would have an easier time bringing that specific image to life on screen. But in my opinion that's not the case at all. With more to grasp, include and accurately capture, the director truly needs to match that style to the point where it really matches and possibly even adds to the theme of the imagery presented in the novel. 

And by that, what I mean is, if you were asked to draw a straight line you'd be able to. Everyone would look at your straight line and have no problem with it, because there's not much a you'd be able to do that would stray from the general description of a straight line. But if someone asked you to draw something a lot more specific, to match a certain style or a mold, well you'd have to really focus on how to accurately bring that image to life. That's exactly what went on here. I have other strong opinions concerning the overall adaptation but when it came to this specific aspect, I was thrilled with how masterfully Lawrence and Pietro handled it. Lawrence has a specific visual niche that he's stamped on other films, that has to do with fairytale, magical images so I'm not at all surpised he was able to pull off  and bring to life, the magical world Gruen painted for her readers. 

Thanks Hollywood. There certainly is hope for a decent adaptation. At least when it comes to the visuals ...

Introduction: Ink to Images ... and Everything In Between

Love movies? Love novels? Love novels that eventually become movies?! We do too! Well sometimes, but what we do love is everything in between. That's right, we're talking about all the juicy stuff that goes on when Hollywood rips up you're favorite books and churns out an on screen adaptation. And that's what we're going to be doing here on Ink to Images; tearing apart, critiquing, analyzing and saying all the things you wanted to shout at the movie screen (good and bad of course!) when you experienced your favorite novels in cinematic form!

We're here to provide both a strong voice on the transition from novel to film. We want to speak not for Hollywood and not for the publishers or the writers of your favorite novels. We're here to speak for you, and voice an opinion on changes that should have been made to the film versions of your favorite novels as well as what could have been handled differently, left out, or placed back in the films.

So we only thought it would be fitting to start the first post of a new blog with a little feature on the first artistic print of you're favorite book-turned movie. Yup, we're talking about movie posters/book covers!

Let's see how one cover from a popular book-turned movie stacked up against it's movie poster counterpart!

1. The Secret Life of Bees 
Novel by Sue Monk Kidd 
Film written and directed by Gina Prince-Bythewood 
______________________________________________________________
Book Cover                                                               Movie Poster 

           
The Cover vs. The Poster
Don't judge a movie by it's poster? Nope. That's exactly what Gina Prince-Bythewood wanted to do with this poster. She tells us exactly what we need to know about the movie. Which is that she essentially turned the novel into a generic romance film catered specifically to women.

The novel's cover contains so many key themes and motifs within the novel. Of course we wouldn't know that going into it, but that's not the point. After reading it, we understand the book cover's significance to the story; the bee jar, the Black Madonna and the bee are all key themes. In the poster, all we see is an an all star cast of women all starring back at us in generic poses that tell us nothing about the novel. Which is fitting because the movie really doesn't care to focus on any of them. Instead it masks them behind generic themes of romance and the bond's between woman. Which is exactly what the poster shows us,  nothing deep or meaningful about the film, because, well there's nothing really deep or meaningful about the film when compared to the novel. In this case, even though we may not know it from start, the poster for the film and the cover of the book tell us all we need to know about the key difference between the novel and the book!

It's one thing to abandon key elements of a novel for the sake of an adaptation but to completely ignore deep and meaningful elements of a novel to market a movie, isn't the way to go in my opinion. Comment below, and tell us here at Ink to Images if you agree! Was The Secret Life of Bees cinematic adaptation bottomless and shallow when compared to it's deep and meaningful novel counterpart?

By Alex Lamburini