From Book to Film: Scrutinizing Adaptations

by Aliya Karim


I'm planning on having a boring yet relaxing winter break at home consisting of reading several books on my to-read list (A Game of Thrones, Les Miserables, and several others), as well as seeing the latest films to hit theaters.

Being the book nerd that I am, I noticed that there are a number of films coming out this winter that are adaptations of novels. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo are the two I'm looking forward to the most.

Whenever I see a book-to-film adaptation, I tend to hear so many more negative reviews than positive ones. It always seems like fans of the book are nitpicky about every single last detail included (or left out) in the film.

I've met numerous fans of The Lord of the Rings series by J.R.R. Tolkien, for instance, who despise the films, saying they leave out certain segments of the books. Many fans of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series say that only the first two films remained true to the book and that the directors for the remaining films took too much into their own hands.

I understand where these fans may be coming from. I despised the film, "Ella Enchanted," an adaptation of the children's book by Gail Carson Levine. Why? Because the film's plotline was completely different from the book's plotline. The only similarity between the two was the fact that the main character, Ella, was cursed with the gift of obedience. Other than that, the film ruined everything for me.

But I think this was only one of the few exceptions among book-to-film adaptations. You see, most directors and producers are aware that the books they are recreating on screen have fans and that they will be held accountable for how these books are adapted. These directors usually try to stick to the actual book plotlines, not veer away from them.

I find it silly that fans scrutinize such small details in these films - in the "Potter" series, for instance, the fact that Hermione Granger wears a pink dress instead of a blue one in "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," the fact that the Marauders are never explained in detail in "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban," and the fact that Peeves the Poltergeist is never included in the films.

But really, what do these measly details add to the main plotlines of each book? Not much. While they are very interesting details in the books themselves, they're not that important, and some of them would unnecessarily prolong the films.

Why shouldn't directors and producers be able to leave small things out and make their adaptations a bit more theatrically exciting? So long as they stick to the plotline, I don't see a problem with this at all.

What I'm trying to say is: Give the directors, producers, actors, etc. some credit. They're trying their best to create films that remain true to the books they are based on and create theatrically successful films that bring in more viewers - except "Ella Enchanted." That one will never count.

Trailer for "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" film:


Trailer for "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" film: