Should Critics of 'Time Traveler's Wife' Ignore the Book?
Filed under: Fandom
There's an interesting piece over at the Guardian's film blog on how critics should tackle their reviews of film adaptations. It's one of those topics of conversation that I've seen turn perfectly reasonable cinephiles into frothing-at-the-mouth adversaries -- do you critique a film based entirely on its own stand-alone merit, or do you discuss how well the director brought the original material to the screen, as well?Both sides of the argument have validity. Here at Cinematical, Jeffrey M. Anderson's review of The Time Traveler's Wife didn't compare it to the source novel at all, and he still managed to illuminate the movie's many flaws. Me, I wrote a review of the same film for another venue, and I came at it from the perspective of someone who had read, and loved, the book. I considered omitting that information from my review entirely, and just focusing on the specifics of the film, but conversations I had with colleagues after the screening kept bumping around in my head.
A couple of the folks with whom I saw the movie were confused by some elements of the plot -- elements that I, as a reader of the novel, could fill in while I was watching. Once I explained to them what they were missing, they nodded and said that, oh yeah, now they got it. But shouldn't the movie have been able to stand on its own without a crib sheet? And shouldn't my being able to compare the book with the movie inform my review?
I say yes to both. But people that I admire and respect have told me in past, very heated discussions that with an adaptation, the book and the movie are entirely separate beasts, and should be considered independently of each other. I can almost -- almost -- see their point. But how do you do that? If a film is promoted as a specific story by a certain author, now presented on film, isn't the critic who's read the source material obligated as part of the critique to note, where possible, how successfully it was adapted?
In the case of The Time Traveler's Wife, it's odd that it was adapted at all. The book is a love story about a man who involuntarily time-travels, and his relationship with a woman who does not. The tale jumps back in forth through time, with the characters' ages different from chapter to chapter -- in one, she's 10 and he's 43, in the next, she's 22 and he's 35, and so on. Sometimes he travels back and visits himself at a younger age! The simple mechanics of making two actors believable from teens to mid-40s would be a challenge, much less crafting a screenplay that managed all the back-and-forth without becoming confusing. The solution that the filmmakers hit on was to simplify the story so much that, while the barest skeleton of the original story is there, most of what made the book so rich, so enthralling and special, was drained away.
In the Guardian piece, director Maggie Greenwald is quoted regarding her frustration with a review of her film The Kill Off, which she felt focused too much on the source book: "It's been several hundred years since an art critic has determined the merits of a painting of a horse by comparing it to a live horse ... Are we reading film reviews to help decide whether we will see a film or read a book?" But anyone who's been frustrated by seeing a beloved novel turned into a movie that changes the ending, or cuts important storylines, or has a jarringly different tone than the book, knows that it can be almost impossible to separate the two.
What do you think? Should reviews of film adaptations ignore the source material? Or is it only appropriate to compare a movie to the book on which it's based? What are some adaptations that you think got it right -- or really, really wrong?
Jeremy Renner Wants To Be An Avenger
Directors We Love: Jim Jarmusch
Indie Roundup: 'Sweetgrass,' 'Clarkworld,' 'Broken Embraces'
Shelf Life: Fight Club_thumbnail.jpg)
Watch: Famous 'Matrix' Scene Re-Created with LEGOs
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-17-2009 @ 5:42PM
ML said...
Yes, a movie should be able to stand on its own because it will be seen on its own ... there's just no getting away from that. That said, it is an adaptation, so it's reasonable that it stand up and weather comparisons. That might be seen as a little harsh, both expecting it to stand on its own, yet bear all the slings and arrows thrown its way, but who says life is fair? Hollywood wants proven properties, adaptations and sequels, let them take the downs with the ups.
Reply
8-17-2009 @ 6:11PM
totoro said...
Yes, a film should stand on its own merits.
Yes, knowledge of the source material and how the film interprets/diverges/succeeds/fails from the source material makes for a richer film review.
Reply
8-17-2009 @ 6:55PM
Ben said...
The amount of stuff that they cut and or changed in the Harry Potter universe is sometimes startling.
1. Do the movies stand alone?:
Yes, they do. I watched the movies before I read any of the books. I believe I watched all the way through to book 5 before I read any. I enjoyed the ability to picture the characters from the movies and I believed I enjoyed the whole experience better up to that point.
2. How do I feel about it?:
It actually ticked me off quite a bit once I read the books and then saw the 6th movie (HBP). They cut out so much and changed several things that I wonder how they'll get the same ending. So much of the underlying stories and motivations are gone.
For example: where did the twins get the money for the magic novelty shop? How did Dumbledor's hand get mangled and why? They didn't even set the ground work for the "Deathly Hollows".
I've come to the conclusion that the best way to watch a movie adapted from a book is to avoid the book until the movie is over. Then, you can be filled in on all the other great things that got cut or changed. Also, you get to replay the movie in your mind as you are reading the book... but correctly this time.
Movie studios need to remember the reason why they made the movie - because of the books popularity. If they change those things, all they are going to do is piss people off.
Worse yet, "Legend of the Seeker". That show is just a train wreck compared to the books by Terry Goodkind. It's not even similar to the books. What were they thinking?
Reply
8-17-2009 @ 7:03PM
Jeena said...
I think both points have validity. My own opinion is that movie adaptations of beloved books --if they are to be enjoyed at all-- must be distanced from the source material. I make sure not to re-read the book, I try to accept the movie as 'based on the novel' versus 'a visual re-telling of the novel' and I try to enjoy the story on the screen for what it is. But I will say that I think it is wrong to make the movie incomprehensible to someone who hasn't read the book. Having a richer appreciation of a story, okay sure--but to plain not be able to understand the sequence of events or motivations is a massive flaw of the film itself and a critic who has read the book has good reason to call that out (or, I suppose, a critic who hasn't read it has every right to call that out).
I agree with you that it's utterly bewildering that they wanted to make a movie out of this particular story, something I imagine is nearly impossible to do well. That said, I'm not proud to admit that I might still see it --if only for a few glimpses of scenes that I loved so much. (Which is ultimately why they made the movie. For fans who can't resist and people who don't care much for reading, but want to see what all the fuss is about.)
Reply
8-17-2009 @ 8:32PM
Wexler said...
I agree with the previous posts. A movie should be able to stand alone, but one cannot expect avoiding a comparison to the source material. I would take it one step further though and say that the comparison is directly related to how faithful the adaptation is. If they have a lot in common, like Watchmen, then you have a lot to compare and ought to do so. If there is almost nothing in common, like the Bourne Supremacy, there is really no point in trying to make a comparison and the audience would gain no benefit from a forcing it. Although even in that case I think it is worth it to briefly mention the source material and whether one is better than the other for those of us who like to both watch and read. (Bourne Supremacy is a far superior book by the way.)
Reply
9-14-2009 @ 12:19PM
Katie said...
Funnily enough I've just written a similar post myself and it linked me here.
(http://storiesthatreallymattered.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/book-to-screen/)
I think you should compare adaptations to the novel, in the same way that historical movies should stand up to what really happened. Obviously everyone is expecting a bit of artistic liscence and certain things which work on paper don't work on screen, but its important that if a movie version is made, the end message of both is the same.
If you had to reduce an entire novel to 3 key points, the ones you come up with should be roughly the same as you would get from the same treatment of its big screen counterpart, even if significant plot changes have taken place. I am one of those people who does get angry when they completely change a book for the screen version, because it seems more like a studio is stealing an author's idea and doing their own thing with it than adapting an already written storyline.
I'm all for adaptations, because to many (like me) it makes some great stories more accessible, but its important to keep the same heart.
I've been aiming to read Time Traveller's Wife for a long time. Now that there is a movie, I'm determined to get through the novel before I see the film, particualry if there have been some big changes as you suggest. After the recent adaptation of My Sister's Keeper left me horrified and disappointed that so many people had been given a bad impression of what is in fact a brilliant book, I was concerned the same might happen in this case, and wanted to be able to make a judgemnet based on the orginal material. Otherwise I was likely to dismiss the film in the same way that many friends who haven't read My Sister's Keeper have written it off as a self indulgent weepie.
Yes, movies should stand alone, and you shouldn't need to have read the book to understand the film, but in the same way, those who have read the book should feel that they ave gained something and should be able to see aresemblance between the film and the novel.
Reply