Having watched over 300 Agatha Christie film adaptations, including foreign ones with English subtitles (French, Swedish, Indian, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, South Korean, etc. etc.,) I feel qualified to speak about film adaptations of stories and novels.
I stopped being a purist as we got deeper and deeper into the project.
Films are NOT text. Films can do things that text doesn't do that well but they also can't do things that text does extremely well such as getting inside a character's head. Casting, to simplify what's onscreen, must be condensed. At the same time, when several people onscreen are talking, it's easy to see who says what. Changing names is always a bad idea UNLESS you're resetting Murder on the Orient Express in 1930's Japan in which case everyone is Japanese and has a Japanese name.
Films are greatly hampered by budget, especially TV films. If you've ever wondered why "Poirot" or ITV's "Marple" were set in the '30s or the '50s respectively, it's to save $$ on set design, wardrobe, cars, etc., etc., as well as to avoid the star not aging while the world changes around him. Poirot in 1920 was sixtyish. In 1972, he was still sixtyish.
Money that's wasted on a big name star completely revamps the plot. That's why casting Timothy Dalton in "The Sittaford Mystery" as Col. Trevelyan for ITV'S Marple turned that film into a train wreck. It wasn't inserting Miss Marple into a non-Marple property. That can be done surprisingly well. It was that Col. Trevelyan died in the first chapter without ever speaking a single line! Thus, the entire plot had to be savagely rewritten to accommodate the star.
Films live or die by casting as much as by scripts. Actors -- usually the flavor of the month -- who are black holes onscreen can kill the best script. Conversely, outstanding casting can save an indifferent script. So can good direction. Bad direction and pacing kills a film.
Films normally cast whoever is available in that window of time, not the best actor. "Poirot" got really lucky with David Suchet but the Christie Estate had some control. They used it, too. What often happens is you get the flavor of the month who's available OR some VIP's relative, significant other, or friend who needs a job. Thus, Max Irons, son of Jeremy Irons, in "Crooked House." Bleah and bland.
Depending on what the contract says, Author has very little to zero control on what appears onscreen. Very few authors can, like J.K. Rowling, influence casting, script, and direction. The MAJOR mistake authors make is NOT hiring their own entertainment lawyer to represent them followed by NOT getting their name in the opening credits right before the show starts. A TV show or film is free advertising to an immense audience.
Foreign adaptations introduce entire new levels of complexity, yet some, like the Russian adaptations, are as faithful as can be without being boring or stodgy.
Short stories adapt better than novels as they can be expanded instead of condensed.
I quickly learned to review two ways: fidelity to text and quality of movie on its own. They are NOT the same. Faithful to the text frequently becomes lethargic and tedious.
If you want to see my opinions, look for "Agatha Christie, She Watched: One Woman's Plot to Watch 201 Agatha Christie Movies Without Murdering the Director, Screenwriter, Cast, or Her Husband" by Teresa Peschel. Bill, my dear husband, watched along side me, edited my reviews, laid out the book in trade paperback and ebook formats, and published it.
We're nearing publication of "International Agatha Christie, She Watched". Foreign films, like I said above, are an entirely different kettle of fish. Other cultures DO NOT THINK LIKE Americans or the English and their different mindsets and cultural expectations show up onscreen, even in the faithful adaptations.
In the end, you may assume that for every reader, 100 people go to the movies, and 1,000 people watch TV. Adapting a novel introduces it to entire new audiences who never heard of Agatha Christie or whoever is being adapted. Writers, like Dorothy Sayers, who don't get TV shows, disappear under the tsunami of swill.
And finally two quotes:
James M. Cain said: "People tell me, don't you care what they've done to your book? I tell them, they haven't done anything to my book. It's right there on the shelf."
John le Carre said: "No writer wants to see his ox turned into a bouillon cube."
"Does anyone remember this turkey? It starred Sean Connery and Wesley Snipes in a murder mystery set in Japan."
It wasn't set in Japan; it was set in LA. The background was the claim that "The Japanese are going to buy us because we're lazy and stupid." The movie was a reminder that if you get sloppy because you are counting on incompetent enemies, you'll get bit hard.
Having watched over 300 Agatha Christie film adaptations, including foreign ones with English subtitles (French, Swedish, Indian, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, South Korean, etc. etc.,) I feel qualified to speak about film adaptations of stories and novels.
I stopped being a purist as we got deeper and deeper into the project.
Films are NOT text. Films can do things that text doesn't do that well but they also can't do things that text does extremely well such as getting inside a character's head. Casting, to simplify what's onscreen, must be condensed. At the same time, when several people onscreen are talking, it's easy to see who says what. Changing names is always a bad idea UNLESS you're resetting Murder on the Orient Express in 1930's Japan in which case everyone is Japanese and has a Japanese name.
Films are greatly hampered by budget, especially TV films. If you've ever wondered why "Poirot" or ITV's "Marple" were set in the '30s or the '50s respectively, it's to save $$ on set design, wardrobe, cars, etc., etc., as well as to avoid the star not aging while the world changes around him. Poirot in 1920 was sixtyish. In 1972, he was still sixtyish.
Money that's wasted on a big name star completely revamps the plot. That's why casting Timothy Dalton in "The Sittaford Mystery" as Col. Trevelyan for ITV'S Marple turned that film into a train wreck. It wasn't inserting Miss Marple into a non-Marple property. That can be done surprisingly well. It was that Col. Trevelyan died in the first chapter without ever speaking a single line! Thus, the entire plot had to be savagely rewritten to accommodate the star.
Films live or die by casting as much as by scripts. Actors -- usually the flavor of the month -- who are black holes onscreen can kill the best script. Conversely, outstanding casting can save an indifferent script. So can good direction. Bad direction and pacing kills a film.
Films normally cast whoever is available in that window of time, not the best actor. "Poirot" got really lucky with David Suchet but the Christie Estate had some control. They used it, too. What often happens is you get the flavor of the month who's available OR some VIP's relative, significant other, or friend who needs a job. Thus, Max Irons, son of Jeremy Irons, in "Crooked House." Bleah and bland.
Depending on what the contract says, Author has very little to zero control on what appears onscreen. Very few authors can, like J.K. Rowling, influence casting, script, and direction. The MAJOR mistake authors make is NOT hiring their own entertainment lawyer to represent them followed by NOT getting their name in the opening credits right before the show starts. A TV show or film is free advertising to an immense audience.
Foreign adaptations introduce entire new levels of complexity, yet some, like the Russian adaptations, are as faithful as can be without being boring or stodgy.
Short stories adapt better than novels as they can be expanded instead of condensed.
I quickly learned to review two ways: fidelity to text and quality of movie on its own. They are NOT the same. Faithful to the text frequently becomes lethargic and tedious.
If you want to see my opinions, look for "Agatha Christie, She Watched: One Woman's Plot to Watch 201 Agatha Christie Movies Without Murdering the Director, Screenwriter, Cast, or Her Husband" by Teresa Peschel. Bill, my dear husband, watched along side me, edited my reviews, laid out the book in trade paperback and ebook formats, and published it.
We're nearing publication of "International Agatha Christie, She Watched". Foreign films, like I said above, are an entirely different kettle of fish. Other cultures DO NOT THINK LIKE Americans or the English and their different mindsets and cultural expectations show up onscreen, even in the faithful adaptations.
In the end, you may assume that for every reader, 100 people go to the movies, and 1,000 people watch TV. Adapting a novel introduces it to entire new audiences who never heard of Agatha Christie or whoever is being adapted. Writers, like Dorothy Sayers, who don't get TV shows, disappear under the tsunami of swill.
And finally two quotes:
James M. Cain said: "People tell me, don't you care what they've done to your book? I tell them, they haven't done anything to my book. It's right there on the shelf."
John le Carre said: "No writer wants to see his ox turned into a bouillon cube."
"Does anyone remember this turkey? It starred Sean Connery and Wesley Snipes in a murder mystery set in Japan."
It wasn't set in Japan; it was set in LA. The background was the claim that "The Japanese are going to buy us because we're lazy and stupid." The movie was a reminder that if you get sloppy because you are counting on incompetent enemies, you'll get bit hard.
Ugh. I hate fucking up quite that badly.