Tuesday, June 25, 2024

Book to movie script? Andrea Clark smooths a bumpy path...

 HALLIE EPHRON: One of the best things about being a writer  is all the talented and delightful people I get to meet. High up on my list is Andrea Clark. She's had a career writing fiction and screenplays, and now she helps people who have a story idea but need a smart editor's help adapting it for the screen.

It's not a walk in the park.  

Andrea is here today to share to reflect on why.

ANDREA CLARK: When I was five-years old, I thought I could be a figure skater because I’d watched the Winter Olympics.

When I was in grammar school, I thought I could write a novel because I knew the alphabet.

When I eventually did write a novel, I decided to adapt it into a screenplay. Why not? Novels and movies both tell stories, right? Big mistake. Huge.

Writing a novel has as much in common with screenwriting as being an Olympic skater has to do with watching one on TV.

Here’s why.


Kids begin hearing stories shortly after they’re born. They have three acts: put a guy up a tree; throw rocks at him; get him down. (Dead or alive—your choice.)

No one grows up hearing bedtime stories in screenplay format. Screenwriting is as much of a foreign language to a novelist as Dolfin speak.

I should know. I worked for a film and television producer in New York in my twenties and read hundreds of scripts, but when I tried adapting my novel—epic fail. Turning a novel into a screenplay was like forcing my size-enormous thighs into a pair of Spanx.

Emma Thompson, winner of the Academy Award for adapting Sense and Sensibility—she wrote seventeen drafts—says her writing process involves a lot of weeping. People say words like “combine” and “shorten” and pretend it’s advice. Instead, let’s consider why and how Ms. Thompson adapted some scenes in Jane Austen’s novel the way she did.

First, the why. It’s up to the screenwriter to figure out how to efficiently mine the drama of a story, i.e., which scenes and characters can do that best.

In the screenplay, Ms. Thompon wrote a knock-your-socks-off, revelatory scene about how isolating it was to live in the English countryside in the late 1700s.

She chose Elinor to communicate this for several reasons. Elinor is a strict observer of social norms and doesn’t say much. She is also strong; not even the engagement of the man she loves to another woman can break her.

For the how to communicate such isolation, Ms. Thompson chose the scene where Marianne falls ill while at the Palmer’s estate at Cleveland.

The quickest way to reveal the soul of a character is to put her in crisis. So, the writer (a) made Marianne’s fever life-threatening, and (b) left Elinor completely alone with her.

Once the writer separated Eleanor and the dying Marianne in a strange house, away from the others, the script was ready for a new, heartfelt scene that dramatized one of the most difficult challenges of Austen’s world.

The scene takes place at night. As Elinor watches over Marianne, she realizes that if her younger sister dies, she will lose her only confidante and close friend; her life will be one of crushing loneliness.

Kneeling, Elinor lays her head next to her sister’s body. Eyes wide, she stares at a vision of a life she knows she could not survive.

“Beloved Marianne,” she whispers, “do not leave me alone.


Now that’s writing worth weeping over.

HALLIE EPHRON: Which is exactly what we all aspire to write. Hard enough in a novel or short story. But how to do it in a screenplay, harder still.

The good news is that Andrea is offering a developmental editing service to writers like me who are new to screenwriting. So we won't have to match Emma Thompson's 17 versions to get to "good enough," never mind weep-worthy.

 Andrea Clark can be reached at: StoryChefnyc@gmail.com

TODAY'S QUESTION:

Thinking about your favorite novels that have been turned into movies, which have been the most (or least) successful, in your opinion, and if you can please share why. Andrea will be checking in today and adding her insights.




Andrea Clark is a writer and developmental editor with over fifteen years’ experience. She’s the author of a retranslation of E.T.A. Hoffmann’s Nutcracker published by Alfred A. Knopf, short stories (New Bedford magazine), and contributions to several humor collections, among them: Book: The Sequel (The Perseus Book Group), and I Remember When Mom: (Andrews McMeel). After graduating from Smith College, she worked briefly at The New Yorker as a typist, one of several over-qualified young women who struggled with Pauline Kael’s handwriting. She left that job to evaluate screenplays and manuscripts for producer David Susskind at MGM in New York. Andrea got her M.F.A. from the Graduate Film and Television program at NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts. Her thesis film, a comedy entitled “My Divorce,” won an Academy Award in the Student Film Category. Andrea is an alumna of the Breadloaf Writers’ Conference and the Yale Writers’ Workshop in both Screenwriting and Mystery Writing. She greatly enjoys working with screenwriters and novelists whose goal for their projects is professional consideration. Contact: storychefnyc@gmail.com

82 comments:

  1. This is so interesting, Andrea . . . . I'd assumed screenwriting would be somewhat different from novel writing, but I really had no idea . . . .

    Favorite novel turned into a movie? TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. Definitely successful; I'd assume because the screen version stayed true to the novel's essential elements . . . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great pick, Joan! I totally agree. The script never fails to keep the focus on what is essential to the novel. Executives at Universal Pictures asked the film's producer, Alan J. Pakula, what story he planned to tell in the film. Pakula said, "Have you read the book?" They said, "Yes." he said, "That's the story.'"

      Delete
    2. That's so interesting... and I agree, great novel, great movie. So satisfying when that happens. For me, the Harry Potter movies were all channeling the FEEL of the novels even though they had so much stuff cut out. The CASTING was perfect. Which is another part of the alchemy of film.

      Delete
    3. From Diana: Agree with you about the FEEL of the Harry Potter movies, Hallie.

      Delete
  2. I think the three Lord of the Ring movies did a very good job by cutting out all the verbiage that made the books too long and boring (I really did read all three!). I also liked the way there movies, more than the books, made Sam a hero. I thought the filming of The Hobbit was poor for expanding a great story that should have focused on Bilbo into an epic that became boring.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kim, my choice also.

      Delete
    2. Yes! Ninety-nine per cent of the time, I appreciate it when a screenwriter allows me to enter and move around the story through one of the characters.

      Delete
    3. Such a good comparison. (And the Hobbit book is SO focused on Bilbo...)

      Delete
  3. Not a movie, per se, but Ann Cleeves' Shetland series is amazing both on screen and on the page, as are the Vera books and shows. I haven't seen the Matthew Venn shows yet, but Ann has said she's happy with them and used the same company for all three series.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ann Cleeves is a joy. (Of course, Hallie is number one in that category!) I spoke with Ann at Crime Bake in 2019, and I remember her saying she tries to let go of any attachment or expectation she has about what the screen adaptations of her novels ought to be. I think you're right, Edith. She has indeed been lucky in that regard. Still, it's a wise attitude to have when selling the film/tv rights to your novel.

      Delete
    2. I was there when she said that! I was co-chair that year and got to drive her to the airport after the conf.

      Delete
    3. How lovely to get to have extra time with her on the drive to the airport!

      Delete
    4. Ann Cleeves is so smart and also NICE. (like Andrea!) I wonder if she got to be involved in the shaping of the scripts. I've heard Diana Gabaldon talk about how pleased she is with the series based on her OUTLANDER books, but I think she's a producer. Plus they have a gazillion rabid fans ready to pickk apart any missteps in a truly vast series.

      Delete
  4. I found Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy in 1976 and devoured it. I read it again. I watched every adaptation I could find from cartoon to whatever was available. In 1987, I read the entire trilogy to my 5 year old. (Best audience ever. )
    Then we heard that there was someone finally making the trilogy into three movies. By that time, the kid had read the books himself and 100 other fantasy novels. We went to see THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING just before Christmas with our closest cousins, then out for dinner. Everyone was exhilarated from the experience, even those who hadn't read the books.

    The casting was genius! Other than missing Tom Bombadil, and a battle that was not in the book (because the trees moved...read it if you haven't) the films were mostly faithful to the story. Not so with his Hobbit adaptation, more's the pity.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a terrific experience! Reading about it, Judy, gave me my first big smile of the day. Thank you!

      Delete
    2. JUDY: I read the Lord of the Rings trilogy as a teen. But I have never watched any TV or movie adaptation.

      Delete
    3. Putting the Rings/Hobbit books on my list to reread... Judy your description of sharing them is great. I wonder if the audio books are good.

      Delete
    4. Judy: Huge LOTR fan here--have you watched the extended version? Fabulous! That said, not a fan of The Hobbit trilogy--but I've read that Peter Jackson was not originally involved and was brought in late to salvage it.

      Delete
    5. I was sure that the Lord of the Rings movies got it right, as my son didn't complain about them even once. He had read and re-read the books.

      Delete
  5. Lord of the Flies. I liked the black and white 1963 movie better, but the 1990 remake was good, too. Nothing will equal the howl of anguish when Piggy dies. The 1963 movie was very true to the book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's been ages since I read it, and I don't think I ever saw the movie. The story is so brutal, as I recall, not sure I can watch it now. Getting more sensitive as I age.

      Delete
  6. Worst – any rendition (so far) of Louise Penny’s books. First off, in my opinion the actors chosen to play the characters were all wrong. Case 1 – Myrna - an oversized black woman was very, very svelte – huh? How can this body form be expected to have the wisdom she has. Don’t even think of any of the Ruth portrayals, and, to my mind, they did not capture Gamache. As for the 2nd series, rewriting her book entirely and making it politically correct and Isabelle being Indigenous instead of very Quebecois – as Harrumper said – it was just a story, get over it – to me it was a ‘not nice word’ adjective reflecting someone born out of wedlock of someone else’s work.
    Love Ann Cleve’s work in book and tv form, and also felt that the Elizabeth George tv renditions of Inspector Lynley were excellent.
    As for movies – I really have no expectations as they are usually disappointed. I will not watch “All the Light We Can Not See’ for that reason. I did enjoy Guernsey Potato Society. I think the need for movie people to end things with a very nice romantic bow, which may not happen so much in tv or books, tends to override their common sense sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought of another one - I thought the Number One Ladies Detective Agency series was well done on screen, although my mom, a big fan of the books, didn't like it.

      Delete
    2. I have read many of the #1 Ladies Detective Agency and in comparing the book and tv show, I'd say the tv series was good. But it was quite different than the books in that it was a little bit more mood-ie and dark. The books were positive and upbeat.

      Delete
    3. I liked the books and the series, though they wouldn't "fly" today I don't think. I was sorry when there wasn't a new season... but the best books were the early ones imhop.

      Delete
    4. From Diana: I remember seeing the adaptation of Louise Penny’s mystery for a movie on Acorn TV. As I recall, we got to see Myrna for maybe two minutes and she never spoke. The actress I saw was a big person and also very gorgeous like a fashion model.

      And I had the DVD of the Ladies No. 1 Detective Agency. I was surprised by the casting for Grace. The actress was brilliant though,

      Delete
    5. Margo, I agree with you about the Guernsey Potato Society. I felt it captured the spirit of the book and made the most of the location. -- Victoria

      Delete
    6. Margo, my husband wanted to watch Three Pines and after seeing a trailer I declined. For the same reason I stopped listening to the audiobooks when Ralph Cosham died and was replaced by Robert Bathurst. Bathurst is surely a good actor and a fine person but his readings destroyed the stories for me. Gamache is not an Englishman!

      Delete
  7. I don't have any plans to write a screenplay, but I wrote "The quickest way to reveal the soul of a character is to put her in a crisis" on a notecard just now and will add it to my bulletin board of things to remember. Thanks for that.

    I think the film version of Mystic River was exceptional. So was the book, of course.

    I've given a lot of thought to the TV show Longmire, based on Craig Johnson's Walt Longmire series. I love the books. I loved the TV show. But the television show, in my mind, was a totally different animal than the books. I feel like there are two Walts and two Henrys in the world. The ones in the books have a lot more humor. But I still enjoyed the TV series. I just can't "compare" it to the books.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ANNETTE: I agree with you about Mystic River, and the Longmire TV series.

      Delete
    2. I think Dennis Lehane wrote both the books and the movie scripts. He's so talented and able to slip between genrres.

      Delete
    3. I thought the TV Longmire and Henry were much more enjoyable.

      Delete
  8. I may have told this story before, but I took our 7-year-old to see the first Harry Potter movie (this time without sheep). He could not read at the time, and so only heard the book from either the Dad or a cd in the car. On the way home, (you could have a kid in the front seat of the vehicle at that time, so it was a lovely intimate conversation), he explained to me all the differences between what was in the book, and what was in the movie. This included everything from plot, what was important in each presentation, to how it was portrayed. Other than stunning me about how much he understood from both formats, I was amazed at how much “he saw” and didn’t just sit through.
    We later went to see How to Train Your Dragon, where he jabbered on about how the mechanics of the art work was done – with appropriate kudos or criticism. He has gone on to be a 3-d animator for movies and other things. He tells me of things that he has done – and I don’t mean the projects. In “Midway”, there is a flash scene of lots of people running on the deck as the bombs are falling – he says they all have strange looks on their faces! No one can see it but they had fun doing it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's so amazing to me Margo that children from such an early age find their calling by exposure to something. Your son must have had the talent from the start and was channeled to become a 3-d animator for movies, etc.

      Delete
    2. This reminds me of when I saw The Wizard of Oz the first time - i must have been 6. And it was SO DIFFERENT from the book. In retrospect I think it's a nearly perfect movie, and if they'd tried to use the book story as plotted it would have been a snooze.

      Delete
    3. From Diana: This reminds me of high school English. Some of my classmates would watch the movie version instead of reading the assigned book for class, then answer questions on Exams. Our English teacher would have to watch the movie to see how it was different from the book. Then she would ask questions about scenes from the BOOK that was Not in the movie on the midterm test and the final test for the quarter.

      Delete
  9. This doesn't really have to do with screenwriting, so please forgive me! There's something about good movies in black and white that reaches a different part of my soul than those filmed in color. Maybe it's because I grew up watching them as a means of escape. I have to confess, though I read the novel later in school, I could not watch the whole 1963 version of "Lord of the Flies." I stopped when Jack hits Piggy and breaks his glasses. I have always had really terrible vision. So when I saw the movie at age ten, the thought of Piggy being virtually blind among the other boys was more than I could handle. I understand the theatrical legend Peter Brook worked on the 1963 screenplay. Though Jay Presson Allen ("Marnie," "Cabaret") who wrote the 1990 version was certainly no slouch!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lord of the Flies is *so dark and disturbing.* Stays with me and not in a good way.

      Delete
    2. Same here, Hallie. I would not reread, especially in today's climate.

      Delete
  10. I can't think of a good movie adaptation but the TV adaptation that I keep raving about is SLOW HORSES on Apple+TV. I have read the 8 Slough House books by Mick Herron and have been impressed how they have been faithful to the first 3 books: Slow Horses, Dead Lions and Real Tigers. Each season is an adaptation of 1 book. Of course, it doesn't hurt to have Gary Oldman in the starring role of Jackson Lamb, as well as other stellar actors such as Kristin Scott Thomas, Jonathan Pryce and Jack Lowden.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I love them! Both the books and the Apple TV+ series! All the actors you name are terrific. I would add Saskia Reeves as Catherine Standish. Have loved watching her over the years. Will Smith (the one brought up in the Channel Islands) writes for that show. No doubt he supplies the touch of humor in "Slow Horses," as he's also written for "Veep," "The Thick of It," and "Avenue 5."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Saskia is also good as Standish. Unlike you, this was the first time I have seen her in a TV show. But I do wonder how much Standish will be in Season 4 since she "quit" at the end of the last season?

      Delete
  12. I've always thought that the best film ever made of an unfilmable book was 84 Charing Cross Road. Letters. Letters back and forth across the Atlantic for 20 years. Letters about books. And buying books. And just chatting.
    I must have another watch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That would be hard to dramatize. Goodness.

      Delete
    2. In her later books, Helene Hanff mentions some of the plays and TV adaptations, but I never came across any comments from her about the movie with Anne Bancroft and Anthony Hopkins. It's a book and movie I enjoy. --M

      Delete
  13. What a fabulous conversation!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm with Annette on the Longmire series and books. Very different animals and character development.

    It's an oldie, but the PBS adaptation of Brideshead Revisited sent me to the book and introduced me to Waugh. I found the book expounded on the mini-series because the mini-series stayed true to the book.

    ReplyDelete
  15. My favorite movies adapted from favorite books are: Rebecca (du Maurier), Harry Potter, Gone with the Wind, Vera (Ann Cleeves).
    Black & White movies were mentioned above and that brings back memories of the movie Casablanca (imho the best movie). The way they used light and dark creating shadows was brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wondering: was Casablanca based on a novel... going to check.

      Delete
  16. From Diana: IMHO, Emma Thompson was brilliant at adapting the novel SENSE AND SENSIBILITY into a movie in her screenplay, Joan.

    I noticed that BBC adapted screenplays from books brilliantly. Perhaps that is why they became 5 week series on PBS.

    I had an interesting conversation with author friends who write mysteries abroad. A film producer wanted to change the main character from a Scotland Yard detective to an American Sheriff and I asked why?

    Question: WHY on earth would a film producer want to change the character and location for a film when the character and location are the core of the story?

    Though I do understand why certain scenes would be different or cut out from a book for a film, it is a struggle for me to understand WHY they would change the essential elements of the character and move that character 3,000 miles away!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Turn a Scotland Yard Detective into an American Sheriff? It sounds like someone wanted a free trip across the pond.

      Delete
    2. I'm pretty sure the reasoning was purely financial.

      Delete
    3. From Diana: Methinks it was an American producer who wanted to change the character and the location. Luckily, this author totally refused! I hope that this author will find a British film or television producer who will follow the books better. I remember that another author, Colin Dexter, insisted that John Thaw is the only actor he wanted to play Inspector Morse. I wonder if British television and film companies are different from American film/tv companies?

      Delete
  17. I didn't like the Harry Bosch TV series. It seemed awfully darker than Michael Connelly's books.
    I watched only a couple, I couldn't stand the atmosphere .
    When reading I can skip a little or refuse to make an image in my head.
    Danielle

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So true about reading... sometimes I confess that I "skip" to the end. Epic fail.

      Delete
  18. From Diana: Apologies, Andrea. Why did I think your name was Joan?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a friend of mine used to say, "You may call me anything as long as it’s friendly."

      Delete
    2. From Diana: Thank you, Andrea.

      Delete
  19. Hank Phillippi RyanJune 25, 2024 at 9:58 AM

    This is so wonderful and fascinating… What a different way to use your brain. I’ve been watching the new series made from Presumed Innocent, and it’s intriguing to see the differences between the TV series and the movie from years ago. Harrison Ford inhabited the movie role of Rusty Sabich, and the story was clear and straightforward, if lacking in… women’s roles. Now, in the new version, there are so many women in places that were men before, which is incredibly instructive, and Jake Gyllenhaal as Rusty is completely different. It’s illustrative of how much an actor matters, in all the rules. Also, they have completely changed the plot! Which I am baffled about. Unless they make a huge pivot in the last episodes, the fabulous key thing that made this such a terrific novel is gone. Have you watched either or both? Welcome, welcome welcome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I saw the movie with Harrison Ford... several times. I'm baffled, too, at the changes it sounds as if they've made to the pot. And I gotta say the male/female dynamic was true to the period in which the novel was written... I wonder why they couldn't have stayed true to that and made it clear "historical" even if recent history. And the ending! Oh gosh I hope they didn't change that amazing twist which I did not see coming.

      Delete
    2. I read that the media did not get the last episode of Presumed Innocent with their review copies...makes on think the ending is going to be different. --M

      Delete
    3. Yes, they are making a big deal out of not having seen the ending. I can think of ONE WAY it could circle back to the original way, but....it'd be a big twist. SO...why do the remake if they are ignoring the whole cool twist of the story? I mean...now it seems to have tgaken a few of the puzzle pieces, and then added a whle bunch of new ones, changing the story completely. I also think the dark moody production values make it look exactly the same as Defending Jacob, and for moments that's what I think I'm watching. (Another movie-into-series. I think the book is incredible, and the series fine.)

      Delete
    4. I've noticed that AppleTV+ is actually pushing Defending Jacob each time I open their app, so they too have noticed the similarity. ;-) --M

      Delete
    5. Oh, you know--you are SO right! (or maybe it's our algorithm...)

      Delete
  20. No one understands the nuts and bolts of telling a story like Andrea! Thank you for the brilliant breakdown of that Sense and Sensibility scene. Now I have to go rewatch it and have a good cry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Coming from an award-winning writer like yourself, Kate Hohl, that is high, incredibly appreciated praise! [Heart emoji]

      Delete
    2. Andrea really is attuned to the nuance of screenwriting. And HUMOR. She's brilliant at that.

      Delete
  21. Great advice, Andrea. I have no desire to write a screenplay - at least not now. I still feel I have a lot to learn about writing an novel.

    I will also cast my vote for the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The casting was perfect and Peter Jackson knew what to cut because it simply wasn't "right" for a movie, but still kept the spirit of the books.

    While lush and epic, "The Hobbit" movies failed for me because Jackson did the exact opposite: he crammed too much in, instead of focusing on Bilbo's journey. It's not so much he made it up (I think the material did come from things Tolkien wrote), but it has nothing to do with the core story idea of the book.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'm going to go with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, although the movie is frequently criticized for not being told from the Chief's point of view. I think that would've been difficult to do.

    In my undergraduate years I took a wonderful Lit & Film class--read the short story/book, watch the movie. It gave me a great perspective on how to successfully adapt literature to film. Our final assignment was to pick a short story and write the screenplay. One of my favorites was Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness (novella length or a long short story!). I couldn't see how to capture the mood of the piece, so I ended up selecting Hemingway's short story A Clean Well-Lighted Place. The screenplay practically wrote itself. One of my favorite assignments ever.

    Years later, I wrote a screenplay, had it edited and critiqued by someone who was in the business, submitted it to a contest. Didn't win, but it came back with an interesting letter. The judge(s) thought it had potential, if rewritten to focus on a minor character. I could see their point of view, but it would have meant basically writing an entirely new screenplay. And that wasn't the story I wanted to tell.

    ReplyDelete
  23. As a reader and movie viewer (but not a writer for either form), it's something I've come to realize. There are times when you have to find a way to show character growth that was all internal in a book. A good example is the Disney version of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. It added some scenes for Edmund when he was with the Witch that aren't in the book, but they showed his realization that he was on the wrong side.

    I've become more lenient with movie adaptations when they make chances like that. It might not be exactly like the book, but it still captures the story well. After all the two are different media. But there are times that I feel like the screenwriter really didn't care about capturing the heart of the novel at all.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I think Alfred Hitchcock and David O. Selznick are an interesting comparison for adapting books for films. Hitchcock focused on the theme of the book/source material, the characters, and maybe a few scenes. Selznick wanted to be as true to the source material as possible. They were famously at odds over Rebecca, which Hitchcock directed, but Selznick produced. It's definitely more a Selznick-styled film than a Hitchcock, but Hitchcock got his elements into it. --M

    ReplyDelete
  25. Novels are written art. Films are visual art. And for me never the twain shall meet. I read novels and watch films. No expectation that the two forms will match or complement. I may read and watch the “same story”, but they are too different to compare. Elisabeth

    ReplyDelete
  26. I read The Godfather and saw the movie. The movie won. The novel included a lot of superfluous filler, women discussing Sonny's man-bits as an example, that the movie ignored. I think everything central to the core story made it to the movie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pat, never saw The Godfather film, but in reading the novel there were several spots that I felt an editor stepped in and with a big read pencil wrote “Insert SEX HERE.” and “OK. That does it.” after a few paragraphs or pages. Fits your superfluous filler! Elisabeth

      Delete
    2. I was also going to mention The Godfather as an instance of the movie(s) surpassing the book.

      And the classic line, “Leave the gun. Take the cannoli” wasn’t in the book. (I just spent 10 minutes with Google to learn this.)

      Delete
  27. I love the idea of writing a screenplay but am completely intimidated. This post backs up my fear as quite real, so I appreciate that! That being said, I always try to view a book and a movie it's based upon as two different entities and try not to compare or risk deep disappointment.

    ReplyDelete
  28. To this day, one of my all-time favorite book to screen movies was The Green Mile. I thought that the casting of Tom Hanks as a prison guard and Michael Clark Duncan as John Coffey, the prisoner was exceptional. Duncan provided a pureness to the character that was so important. I also was glad to see how they portrayed visually the working of his gift. The end of the movie was not like the book, but it is exactly what helped tie everything together. -- Victoria

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I cried for a YEAR at the books. I could not bear to watch the movie!
      The ending was different? whoa.

      Delete
    2. Hank, instead of just leaving you hanging after Coffey died, Hanks's character was writing in a notebook, and I just felt those words pulled everything together. I think that's what happened, it's been a couple of decades since I saw the movie. For me, that makes it a pretty powerful movie. I'm an empath and I strongly identified with Coffey's gift. To see how they chose to visualize it with butterflies still moves me.

      Delete
  29. Andrea, this was fascinating--and so much fun! I've never tried to write a screenplay and would be totally intimidated.

    My best adaption pick would be the limited series made of David Nicholl's One Day. Although I do like the ending of the book better, I can see why they changed it up a little. Otherwise, just brilliant, and the casting was superb.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Andrea knows movies and screenwriting in depth, but she has helped me with every one of my novels. She instantly recognizes the plot weaknesses, kindly passes on her insights.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hi, Edith! Love all your books! My community is mostly my family, with friends and some local, hometown, friendlies added to the bunch!

    ReplyDelete