The 13 Most Unfilmable Novels
Filed under: Classics, Drama, Scripts, Newsstand
Even if you're a huge fan of the movies as I am, occasionally you might also want to take a little time and read a good book now and then. Like movies, books are a great way to escape the mundane of "normal" life and explore other worlds, cultures and have a little adventure. Of course, books are often the inspiration or basis from which movies are made. Some of the most notable of these being adaptations such as Gone with the Wind, The Silence of the Lambs and the recent Children of Men -- Alfonso Curon's fantastic adaptation of the novel by P.D. James.Even though books are used frequently as the basis for films, there are also several books thought to be ones which, for whatever reason, can not or should not, be made into films. And, as is often the case, someone on the internet has enthusiastically compiled a list of these books and posted it over at Screenhead. Some of the books the author of the article thinks are unfilmable include James Joyce's Ulysses, Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle, John Kennedy Toole's A Confederacy of Dunces and one of my personal favorites, J.D. Salinger's Catcher in the Rye. Looking over the list and reading the author's commentary I admit that I agree with almost all of his comments.
These books represent classics of literature and because of their complex nature, subject matter or massiveness of scope, would probably not make very good candidates for adaptation. Still, in the back of my mind I've always wondered what I would do if given the chance to make Catcher in the Rye into a movie. Who would I get to write, direct and most importantly, star in the film as Holden Caulfield? In the article, the author offers up Wes Anderson or Noah Baumbauch as potential directors. However, for my money I would hire Charlie Kaufman to write the script, Michel Gondry to direct, and for Holden I would cast either Jason Schwartzman or Jake Gyllenhaal. I think these guys could make the film work. Thoughts?
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
Tim Robbins Joins 'The Green Lantern'
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-12-2007 @ 6:58PM
Christopher Campbell said...
I think Catcher would make a pretty boring movie. But, yeah Anderson would make sense since Bottle Rocket was a lot like a sequel to the book.
Another very difficult author to adapt would be Robert Anton Wilson, who sadly just died this week.
Reply
1-12-2007 @ 7:51PM
Kevin said...
Schwartzman and Gyllenhaal are both way too hold to play Holden Caufield. I think you'd definitely have to cast an unknown with this, because you don't want them bringing any baggage to the movie. Be sure to check out Chapter 27, with Jared Leto and Lindsay Lohan. The Catcher in the Rye features heavily in it.
Reply
1-13-2007 @ 1:10AM
Beeslo said...
Shit,...Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein...no matter who did it (Spielberg, Curon), this movie would never work. Like Catcher in the Rye, much of this novel's impact is in the ideas it expresses.....well maybe Curon...Children of Men was masterful script writing.
Reply
1-13-2007 @ 10:09AM
GhaleonQ said...
*would love to see anyone try Joyce*
Reply
1-13-2007 @ 12:35AM
Finchmeister said...
Where is Faulkner's The Sound And The Fury? The story is communicated through four different narrators, the first of which is retarded and has no concept of time, so the story shifts hundreds of times to different events in the man's life.
Impossible.
Reply
1-13-2007 @ 10:32AM
Gio said...
Catcher in the Rye is very good but too slow book (almost unfilmable). Truth is the book gained popularity cause John Lennon's killer was reading it when he comitted the crime.
About Stranger in Strage Land, it's just another fish-out-of-water story, but it's a bit outdated. I keep thinking Star Man with Jeff Bridges.
One book I'd love to be filmed is Ender's Game by Scott Card. I kept hoping for The Six Sense kid (Olsment) who's now too old for the part.
Bottom line is: any book of fiction can be filmed, it has a build in audience- I mean, any book of fiction- look at the Bible.
Reply
1-13-2007 @ 3:57PM
Beeslo said...
Well duh, any work of fiction is filmable is like saying anything tangible is edible....but most times its not a good idea. The main problem with many of these books is not the story or the characters but the ideas that they delve into. I mean storywise, Catcher in the Rye is just about a boy who skips school, drinks alcohol in jazz clubs and buys his sister a record. But its his commentary on life and those around him that make it an interesting read. Also, it was popular before Lennon's killer was found with it...but thats not important. The fact remains that while these movies could be made, they would be lacking the reason they were amazing to read in the first place. So like Stranger in a Strange Land, yes the story is a "fish out of water" plot, but that is not what makes it unique. The book is 1/4 sci-fi and 3/4 philisophical interpretations on how we live as human beings and why we do the things we do. Because of this, the true heart of the book would be lost in transition to the big screen.
Reply
1-13-2007 @ 8:30PM
arggg said...
Jason Schwartzman or Jake Gyllenhaal?
OMG you could not be more wrong....Jason had one great movie and Jake had 1.5 great movies....it takes someone unknown and finding that person would be impossible
Reply
1-14-2007 @ 5:36AM
gooldenwending said...
Joyce's Ulysses has been done. Twice I think. His Finnegans Wake, now that would be a challenge!
Reply
1-14-2007 @ 3:15PM
Heather said...
You forgot "The Old Man And The Sea". While this Hemmingway classic is an excellent read it would be an extremely boring film.
Reply
1-15-2007 @ 11:39AM
Karyn said...
Finnegan's Wake and Old Man and the Sea have been done. I beleive Old Man and the Sea has been done several times. The films are older but they have been done.
Reply
1-15-2007 @ 2:05PM
Jim Kosmicki said...
film is intrisically visual, and what these books have in common is that they are primarily about ideas. This is also why most good, literate SF doesn't get put on screen, while the space opera stuff does -- the space opera is more plot/visual focused and translates better.
and I am NOT saying that film can't be about ideas -- to pick up on the SF angle I brought up before -- GATTACA is a good film and idea-focused SF, but it is limited in how much depth it can give to those ideas (there are any number of SF novels and stories that have dealt with its themes in much, much more depth). Not only is film focused on the visual world (ideas have to be communicated in dialogue or action), but it's also limited by TIME -- film happens in real-time, so you only have a couple hours at most to really get into the ideas.
Film and the written word are related, but separate, media. it's important to remember that distinction.
Reply