Recently my friend and general literary mensch Jason Diamond asked me a few questions about “unfilmable novels” for his excellent piece on the new White Noise adaptation at GQ. I haven’t seen White Noise yet, but his questions got me thinking about what actually makes a novel unfilmable. And that seems like a fun topic to write about as I wait for the horrors of 2022 to end and the terrors or 2023 to commence.
Thank you for writing this. Diane Williams sprung to my mind immediately and was warmed to see her mentioned. Although I think trying to adapt one of her stories could be a fruitful adventure in erotics.
I was also struck by your analysis of Calvino, because I actually made a VR project many many years ago based on one of Calvino's chapters in Invisible cities.
The first thing that popped into my head was "The English Patient". There is a book that, artistically, could not be made into a movie. And yet it was -- and an amazing one at that. (I know, there are millions of people out there who cannot stand the movie, and my wife is one of them. But it's among my favourites of all time.)
I remembered an interview with the author Michael Ondaatje and the film's director I heard years ago about the two pieces of work being completely different, even though the film was based on the book. I found a similar interview -- not sure this is the same one I heard all those years ago, but it does have the essence of the conversation I remember. At this point in the interview (https://youtu.be/ScjsILH9Ud4?t=415), Ondaatje said that he loved the fact that the director didn't feel "handcuffed" by the book. In other words -- and this is what I've believed when I first saw it -- the movie follows the artistic spirit of the book to create an equally beautiful work of art for the completely different medium.
It doesn't always work, as you point out. Sometimes, it fails miserably ("Less Than Zero" springs to mind...) But the occasional exceptions to the rule are usually something special.
First "unfilmable novel" that comes to mind for me is Ian McEwan's "Atonement," which is in the "Pale Fire" unfilmable-for-structural-reasons category. The big metafictional twist absolutely devastated me when I read the novel as a teenager, and as soon as I heard they were making it into a movie, I knew they wouldn't be able to pull off the twist with the same impact. And no one really talks much about the story or the twist of the "Atonement" movie these days, do they? If they mention it at all it's for Keira Knightley's green gown or the long tracking shot on the beach at Dunkirk--two things that film does really well.
I'm usually very disappointed when I watch a movie that's based on a book, that is if I have read the book already.
However, one of the rare occasions that I really enjoyed a movie that was based on a novel was "Ne le dis à personne". I believe, in English it was translated as "Tell No One", which was directed by Guillaume Canet.
The novel "Tell No One" came out first in 2001, it was written by Harlen Coben and I read the novel in 2002 and enjoyed it a lot. The movie came out 5 years later. When I went to see the movie, I was reluctant at first, but was impressed. The whole crew of the movie were fantastic, they honored the book; and the main protagonist, played by one of the monuments of French cinema, the actor François Cluzet, demonstrates his craft so beautifully in the movie. I recommend the movie wholeheartedly, but please read the book first.
I am not trying to make this a shameless plug for my own content, but this is something I think about a lot when I am writing, or developing ideas. I try to write ambitious, flourishing, heartfelt, funny and absurd stories that are relatable to the "everyman". Then I think, "there is no way to make this into a movie." Even if it is simple, even if it is relatable, you have to gauge how much you want to write your own story, and compare that to how much you want to follow a marketable formula. Personally, I think you should write what you want, even if you have to self-publish. My current project is a story told in the form of 366 daily horoscopes. Basically 366 micro-chapters. How can that be made into a movie? The novelty and humor is in the form of the written word itself, how it is presented, how the reader sort of fills in the gaps on their own, using the repetition and insinuation of recurring themes.
So, anyway, that's my answer on how to write an un-filmable novel: write a novel as a horoscope. On the other hand, it makes for a great incremental writing exercise and "serial" novel project for releasing on Substack.
Thank you for writing this. Diane Williams sprung to my mind immediately and was warmed to see her mentioned. Although I think trying to adapt one of her stories could be a fruitful adventure in erotics.
I was also struck by your analysis of Calvino, because I actually made a VR project many many years ago based on one of Calvino's chapters in Invisible cities.
I’m curious about what the opposite of an unfilmable novel might be, and if there are any great novels superseded by their adaptations...
Neuromancer by Gibson springs to mind.
Excellent! And Happy New Year!
The first thing that popped into my head was "The English Patient". There is a book that, artistically, could not be made into a movie. And yet it was -- and an amazing one at that. (I know, there are millions of people out there who cannot stand the movie, and my wife is one of them. But it's among my favourites of all time.)
I remembered an interview with the author Michael Ondaatje and the film's director I heard years ago about the two pieces of work being completely different, even though the film was based on the book. I found a similar interview -- not sure this is the same one I heard all those years ago, but it does have the essence of the conversation I remember. At this point in the interview (https://youtu.be/ScjsILH9Ud4?t=415), Ondaatje said that he loved the fact that the director didn't feel "handcuffed" by the book. In other words -- and this is what I've believed when I first saw it -- the movie follows the artistic spirit of the book to create an equally beautiful work of art for the completely different medium.
It doesn't always work, as you point out. Sometimes, it fails miserably ("Less Than Zero" springs to mind...) But the occasional exceptions to the rule are usually something special.
Happy 2023 to you!
~Graham
First "unfilmable novel" that comes to mind for me is Ian McEwan's "Atonement," which is in the "Pale Fire" unfilmable-for-structural-reasons category. The big metafictional twist absolutely devastated me when I read the novel as a teenager, and as soon as I heard they were making it into a movie, I knew they wouldn't be able to pull off the twist with the same impact. And no one really talks much about the story or the twist of the "Atonement" movie these days, do they? If they mention it at all it's for Keira Knightley's green gown or the long tracking shot on the beach at Dunkirk--two things that film does really well.
Fascinating topic, thank you for this piece.
I'm usually very disappointed when I watch a movie that's based on a book, that is if I have read the book already.
However, one of the rare occasions that I really enjoyed a movie that was based on a novel was "Ne le dis à personne". I believe, in English it was translated as "Tell No One", which was directed by Guillaume Canet.
The novel "Tell No One" came out first in 2001, it was written by Harlen Coben and I read the novel in 2002 and enjoyed it a lot. The movie came out 5 years later. When I went to see the movie, I was reluctant at first, but was impressed. The whole crew of the movie were fantastic, they honored the book; and the main protagonist, played by one of the monuments of French cinema, the actor François Cluzet, demonstrates his craft so beautifully in the movie. I recommend the movie wholeheartedly, but please read the book first.
I am not trying to make this a shameless plug for my own content, but this is something I think about a lot when I am writing, or developing ideas. I try to write ambitious, flourishing, heartfelt, funny and absurd stories that are relatable to the "everyman". Then I think, "there is no way to make this into a movie." Even if it is simple, even if it is relatable, you have to gauge how much you want to write your own story, and compare that to how much you want to follow a marketable formula. Personally, I think you should write what you want, even if you have to self-publish. My current project is a story told in the form of 366 daily horoscopes. Basically 366 micro-chapters. How can that be made into a movie? The novelty and humor is in the form of the written word itself, how it is presented, how the reader sort of fills in the gaps on their own, using the repetition and insinuation of recurring themes.
So, anyway, that's my answer on how to write an un-filmable novel: write a novel as a horoscope. On the other hand, it makes for a great incremental writing exercise and "serial" novel project for releasing on Substack.