The Unfilmables: The Hardest Novels to Film: Now Disc. "Dr. Bloodmoney" (Philip K. Dick)

Next: "Metamorphosis"

"Strangely enough, Kafka can be done, as seen in Orson Welles excellent The Trial. But Metamorphosis is even more difficult for its protagonist, Gregor Samsa, awakens to find himself a giant insect. The story concerns the reaction of his family, as they move from horror to endurance, to an unjust disgust that permeates all thoughts. There?s been plenty of attempts to adapt this symbolic tale, the best being animations. However, this highly insular tale has yet to have a definitive celluloid version.

If anyone can do it: For a while David Lynch had threatened to make it. Considering the unforgettable effects seen in his first feature, Eraserhead, plus its highly symbolic story, he is without doubt the man for the job."


Animation would be the only way, I think.

 

Next: "The Confederacy of Dunces"

"This one has a rich history of failed attempts to adapt to screen. For decades producers have bidded for rights for this book (which its author sadly never saw published, committing suicide due to publishers? lack of interest. His mother persisted until it became the classic it is today). Actors have been lined up to play grossly overweight pretentious protagonist Ignatious Reilly, including John Belushi, John Candy, and Chris Farley, all of which failed. Steven Soderbergh came close to filming a version, with Will Ferrell as Iggy, but it ultimately fell through due to production problems. Personally, I feel Soderbergh lacks humour in most of his films, and would fail to do the story justice.

If anyone could do it: A few years ago, I would have deemed the Coen Brothers fit for any filmic task. Lately, I?ve started to hate them for their dull, off-the-mark, comedies. Still, if they can do The Big Lebowski, they could easily represent the brilliance and delusion of Ignatious, as well as the madcap characters that surround him."

 

Any Thomas Pynchon Novel

"Camera-shy Thomas Pynchon is known for writing novels that are partly brilliant, partly baffling. Usually incorporating seemingly unconnected story strands that only link in the most cosmic of ways, Pynchon?s complex way of writing often makes his novels impenetrable. His most accessible is ?The Crying of Lot 49?, a sort of conspiracy novel that never gets solved, with a 3-act play thrown in the middle for fun.

If anyone can do it: I?m not sure how anyone could even try to extract a story out of epic tomes like ?Gravity?s Rainbow?. Nicholas Roeg springs to mind, with films like Performance and The Man Who Felt to Earth, being both confusing, visually verbose, and at times quite lofty."

 

Gravity's Rainbow is difficult to read - filming it would be near impossible.

I enjoyed the Crying of Lot 49. Something about an underground Post Office standing up to the mail delivery monopoly the government owns strikes me as very interesting and somewhat believable. The idea never gets as fully explored in the novel as it could and a movie might deliver where the book falls short.

Those are the only two Pynchon novels I've read. I hear 'V' is pretty good. I can't comment on its filmability.

 

"Don Quixote"

"The original ?modern novel? has had many TV and film adaptations, with versions reaching back to the early 1900?s. But once again there is no definitive version. The 1947 Spanish Don Quixote is considered to be the best, although I would love to see the 2000 TV adaptation where Jonathan Lithgow played the deluded knight of La Mancha. Orson Welles spent most of his life trying to make a version, but failed to complete it. The problem with adapting this novel lies in the fact that its best moments are often the extensive sub-plots, most of which are ripe for films in themselves.

If anyone can do it: My heart still hopes that Terry Gilliam will make the version that looked so enjoyable in Lost in La Mancha, the documentary about the movie never made, and the greatest tragedy in modern times."

 

Next: "The Atrocity Exhibition" by J. G. Ballard

"It?s only a matter of time before JG Ballard becomes the new PK Dick, with his socially aware sci-fi novels being snapped up for development, such as ?High Rise?. However, ?The Atrocity Exhibition? remains his most experimental. Essentially plotless, it endeavours to portray the impression modern society and mass media has in our private lives, our psyche, and our sexuality, and acted as a precursor to his popular and depraved ?Crash?. Ballard even suggests that readers should not start at the beginning and finish at the end, rather select random passages. Yet, an attempt has been made to film it. In 2001 Jonathan Weiss completed a version of the book, which was apparently approved by the writer himself, but unsurprisingly failed to make a name for itself. Click here to see a less than impressed review, and here for a wonderfully tense interview with the director about his film, the relevance of Ballard, and the role of the critic in independent cinema.

If anyone can do it: Darren Aronofsky has proven his ability to create ponderous cinema, and his intense vision would work with the power of Ballard?s writing. UK music-video director Chris Cunningham would also be appropriately passionate. Those not familiar with his work should check this out."

Ballard *has* been adapted, just not this book.

 

"Catcher in the Rye"

"This is partly here because while reclusive author JD Salinger lives and breathes, this seminal novel will never go near the silver screen. In fact, each new print of Catcher in the Rye contains a hidden device that causes TVs and DVD players to explode when placed too close. But even when Salinger?s reign over his work fades, I still deem this book very difficult to adapt. Its charm is in the adolescent thoughts of main character Holden Caufield, who acts with delightful bitterness, while secretly spotting the ?phonies? all around him. It?s an incredibly difficult task to capture this in cinema without resorting to the laziness of including a voice-over.

If anyone can do this: At first I thought of Ang Lee and his adaptation of ?The Ice Storm?. But I would love to see Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach highlight the humour of the novel. Both have proven their ability to combine hilarity with the literary, especially the latter?s touching The Squid and the Whale."



It would be very, very difficult, and add to that, it is now a book set in the 50's. Not easy, and who in the world could play Holden? Best leave it alone.

 

Joseph Gordon-Levitt could play Holden

 

I disagree that V-O narration is "lazy". When it works -- in such films as The Shawshank Redemption and Fight Club, just to name two -- it works extremely well. There would be no reason V-O couldn't work in a Catcher film; it may be the only way to approach the material, since the main body of the book consists of Holden's thoughts and perceptions.

 

It is really hard to replace the narrator's 'voice'. You see it in the 159,000 adaptations of Jane Austen; without the narrator making cynical amd acerbic comments on the action, the movies seem like ordinary romance movies, and are frequently off the mark.

 

Except the Keira Knightly Pride & Prejudice, which is as brilliant a piece of pure cinema as it a successful adaptation of a literary work.

 

I've seen it, and it is low-key, and rather good. The leads are also the right age, a rarity.

 

With regard to Catcher in the Rye, I've always felt that a big part the problem for any adaptation is that it would need to star many younger performers both as Holden and those of his generation. With so many younger-generation roles, Hollywood would no doubt end up marketing it to the teenage movie-going crowd.

But the problem with that is the fact that if the book were made reasonably faithful to Salinger's vision, it would involve foul language and sex scenes--the very kinds of things that would cause the film to be rated R in America, and thus cutting off, or at least drastically reducing, the younger demographic. It's funny that the book is often a featured item for school libraries during "banned books" week from time to time, but the very themes put directly on film would automatically become verboten to the same readers by the MPAA.

 

I would counter that some films, such as Rushmore and Superbad (I can't believe I mentioned those two in the same breath), are R-rated and appeal to the teenage demographic. Rushmore was even distributed by Disney!

 

True, but the difference is that those two films (including even American Pie) were comedies. Catcher in the Rye easily has more "drama" than comedy in it. The closest thing I can think of are those John Hughes teen flicks in the `80s, like The Breakfast Club. Those had plenty of drama & comedy, bordering on the "dramedy" classification. Catcher seems to be cynical & snarky without much comedic redemption, so I still say it's gotta be a tough one to adapt, even if Salinger himself wasn't an issue.

 

Oh, I agree it would be tough to adapt... but not impossible. It would be a very unique film, obviously, heavy on the V-O narration -- which must be done in an engaging, individualistic way so as not to bore the audience. The V-O work at the beginning of Fear and Loathing comes to mimd, sort of a fertile cross-pollenation between on-screen reality and in-head character thoughts and perceptions....

And BTW, I think Catcher is hilariously funny in places!

 

You would have to have casting serendipity...

 

Its probably very difficult to film American Psycho. I liked the film, but it was so watered down compared to the original text, and the feminist subtext in it had nothing to do with the novel at all. It was a cold,bloody,merciless satire that never hinted it was a satire. it is very literary, and I can't think of any director who could pull off a worthy adaptation

 

Next: Molloy, Malone Dies, The Unnameable

"Irish playwright Samuel Beckett?s trilogy of novels rival Ulysses in their difficulty to film. Yet while there?s ways of representing Joyce?s rich text on screen, achieving the same for these novels is next to impossible. Even Beckett on Film, a series of adaptation of his plays, turned out to be a failure of sorts. Molloy does contain characters, Moran and Molloy, but soon it seems their identities and stories merge into one. Narrative begins to crumble away in Malone Dies, in which a man?s attempts to retain identity through telling stories constantly crack open, until we?re left with The Unnameable, a long monologue that only hints at the concept of character, until it eventually ?can?t go on?. How on earth could anyone adapt a novel that fails to have a character?

If anyone can do it: While I honestly believe this is impossible to adapt to screen, if a gun was put to my hypothetical head I?d consider either Woody Allen or Ingmar Bergman. Bergman has spent decades making musings on concepts like transient identity. Yet Woody Allen has often done similar, but injected a vast amount of humour, both physical at philosophical, into them. And that?s exactly how Beckett makes his novels so enjoyable, there?s always something to laugh at while staring into the abyss of nothing, of nowhere."


Bergman's dead, and Allen would turn anything he touches into an ego-salve, so choose again or leave alone. The modern Irish novelist nearly all operate by ear, which makes adaptation to a pictorial venue dicey.

 

Nominations from the bloggers:

"Ethan Allen Smith Says:

January 12th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
I would add George R.R. Martin?s classic series ?A Song of Ice and Fire,? particularly the first book ?A Game of Thrones.? The series is intensely realistic, which means there are tons of sub-plots (and sub-sub-plots), inter-related characters, deep history, and intricately detailed character development. Every chapter is written in the first-person, but from a different person?s point of view which means the great bulk of the novels are the thoughs and emotions rather than action and dialog. Pile on top of that that it?s a fantasy series, which brings into play a mythology on par with Tolkein?s world."


Haven't read this book...ze list.

 

I started reading the first book of Martin's series and abandoned it after 111 pages. Judging from what I read any movie would be boring as hades.

 

The series is very good, but the first book does take a bit of getting used to. The first person narrative is a bit jarring at times, especially when the characters are told of something that happened "off-screen," but did not witness it personally.

I don't think it can be compared to LOTR, because ASOIAF really tones down the magic and sorcery aspects and instead focuses on the struggles of the primary charactewrs. And although there is one dwarf in the series, there are no Elves. How can you have a fantasy movie without Elves?

 

HBO is adapting ASoIaF as a series, with a season dedicated to each book. Dont know when production is set to begin, though.

 

Haven't read it... has Paradise Lost been discussed yet?

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

No, but just about every movie from "Constantine" to "The Prophecy" seems to reference it.

As for ASOIAF: HBO's got the right idea, although it'll be interesting to see how faithfully they do it -- I've a feeling not very faithful at all mostly because of the commercial imperative to film as cheap as you can to pull as much dough as you can. Having said that the book's ideal for a continuing series. Not that miserable abortion they call the "mini-series", I might add. "A Song of Ice and Fire" has a much larger significant cast than you can fit into a 2-3 hour movie -- five Starks and four Lannisters for a start, and that's even before you get to the Baratheons and the minor cast. That's what makes it unfilmable -- when you read the series you're actually reading about three or four books at once, not one story where every character has an important part of each other's stories. It is, however, more realistic on TV, where you've got a good 12-14 hours in a season to try and get the plot points in.

However, I've grave doubts over the series' filmability on TV. At least HBO's got it, so there'd presumably be less censoring of some of the more brutal (but necessary) aspects of the story. But at the same time I can't imagine how a TV producer is going to honour Martin's novels. The medium itself dictates creation by cost-cutting committee, not the singular vision one encounters in film (and PJ's work in particular).