The Art of Adaptation
Posted: 10 Apr 2019, 12:07
A controversial element of the recently released Pet Sematary remake (NO SPOILERS!) got me thinking: at what point is a film adaptation crossing a forbidden line?
I have always argued that because film is an entirely different storytelling medium than books, we can't expect every film adaptation to adhere slavishly to every beat, character, event, and twist employed by the book. The term "the book was better" always got to me, because so many people say it simply because the two pieces of media weren't identical to one another.
But where do you draw that line? Surely, at some point the liberties taken by an adaptation go too far, alter the story too fundamentally, or violate the meaning of the work(s) from which they derived. I used to balk at Stephen King's distaste for the Kubrick film because of the thematic deviations, but now I'm wondering if there is merit in that complaint.
I have always argued that because film is an entirely different storytelling medium than books, we can't expect every film adaptation to adhere slavishly to every beat, character, event, and twist employed by the book. The term "the book was better" always got to me, because so many people say it simply because the two pieces of media weren't identical to one another.
But where do you draw that line? Surely, at some point the liberties taken by an adaptation go too far, alter the story too fundamentally, or violate the meaning of the work(s) from which they derived. I used to balk at Stephen King's distaste for the Kubrick film because of the thematic deviations, but now I'm wondering if there is merit in that complaint.