Adapted Screenplays?

[DBillyP]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 11:45pm

I just returned from seeing CAPOTE. As you can tell from the subject line, this post is not about how good or bad the film or Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance is. It is actually questioning what makes an adapted screenplay the "best." (Please forgive me if this rambles.)

Two of the best films I have seen recently, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and CAPOTE (there, I said it. CAPOTE was great.), were from adapted screenplays. Both scripts are excellent, but which one is better? How does one judge an adapted screenplay? In order to judge them does one need to have read the source material?

I thought Brokeback's screenplay quite nearly captured in perfect detail the exquisite prose of Annie Proulx's short story. I have not read the book on which CAPOTE the film is based.

Interestingly, after we got home, we were doing a little research about Truman Capote, Harper Lee and Jack Dunphy. We found the following quote from Harper Lee about TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, "If the integrity of a film adaptation can be measured by the degree to which the novelist's intent is preserved, Mr. Foote's screenplay should be studied as a classic."

Conversely, what if a screenplay based on really crappy source material makes the ideas or story so much better that it is now excellent? Why can't it be judged the best?

As you can imagine, I don't have any answers to what is plaguing me this evening. Any thoughts? Anyone?

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 11:52pm

I judge adapted screenplays the same way I judge original screenplays - but credit must be given to the originators of the material.

I don't judge adapted screenplays based on how much of a service or disservice they've done to the original material - hell, some adapted screenplays are so loosely based on the original that it can hardly be called adapted.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that a good screenplay is a good screenplay, adapted or not - and I don't necessarily agree with you when you say that a screenplay that is an improvement on less than worthy material cannot be recognized as being great. So you say "Why can't it be judged the best?" It can. If it couldn't, the award would be for "best original material," not "best adapted screenplay."

[Plum]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 12:01am

Hmm...I guess I do judge by the adaptation quality to a certain extent, munk, because I get pissy when the spirit of an original is violated. For example, Catch-22? Really different from the book, but it had the right spirit. It was a brilliant movie, and a brilliant adaptation.

I haven't seen Capote, but Brokeback, while imperfect in other aspects, was about as good an adaptation as I've ever seen.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 12:14am

somebody get satan blankie, munk and i agree.

it's the screenplay that should be judged not it's faithfulness or lack thereof to its source.

i'd never really considered a screenplay suffering for improving its source material. did you have something in mind when you said that munk?*

*i mean billy

Updated On: 1/24/06 at 12:14 AM

[DBillyP]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 12:15am

Munk, I didn't mean to imply that I think that an improvement can't be considered great. That question really flowed from Harper Lee's assertion.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 12:22am

I have read the source material for Capote and what the film captures is the one period of the life of Capote that is but one portion of the book. The screenplay to me is brilliant. It captures the conflict of Capote...his desire to be taken seriously as both an Author and a Socialite. At what cost do you sell your friends for your art and where does the line blur between writing a story based on a true story (the Clutter murders) and manipulating the players to give the story the Artistic outcome you need to finish your work of Art (keeping Perry alive long enough to get the inside story but making sure he hangs in the end).

The contrast between Capote and Lee is essential to the film's core. Their relationship is so rich in it's intimacy that I think a huge part is ignored by the detractors of the film.

I saw Capote back in early December and think about it often.

Just a note on Hoffman's performance: It is a sign to me that this actor gave one of the most brilliant performances ever when I think of the film I do not think of Hoffman (an actor who's career I have been following since Boogie Nights, so he is not unknown to me)as even being IN the film. That is an actor who disappeared into a role, literally.

[Plum]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 2:51am

I have read the source material for Capote and what the film captures is the one period of the life of Capote that is but one portion of the book.

That's A-okay, too, IMO. The screenplay of The Cider House Rules did the same thing and it was fine. Like I said, I just want an adaptation to be spiritually true to the material, because otherwise you're just taking an artist's names and places and doing whatever you want with them. *cough*Earthsea*cough*

[DBillyP]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 10:27am

Like Plum, I think BROKEBACK is as fine an adaptation as any. SILENCE OF THE LAMBS is equally as successful in its adaptation, in my opinion.

So, can Academy voters make an honest assessment without having read the source material for all of the films with adapted screenplays?

[broadway86]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 11:10am

it's the screenplay that should be judged not it's faithfulness or lack thereof to its source.

Agreed.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 11:11am

I didn't mean to imply that taking ONE part of a book and adapting it was a bad thing. In fact I wish more adaptations were NOT so concerned with getting every little detail, character and scene shoved into the film.
And Billy, to answer your question, I think the films should be judged on their own merit not on how well they adapted the source work. So I think the answer is yes, voters can judge an adapted screenplay without having read the original material. Not that they shouldn't, but I think it is possible.

[DBillyP]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 1:28pm

So, my next question is if the screenplay is not being judged with its source material in mind, why have separate categories?

[Plum]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 1:32pm

I didn't mean to imply that taking ONE part of a book and adapting it was a bad thing. In fact I wish more adaptations were NOT so concerned with getting every little detail, character and scene shoved into the film.

Woops, didn't mean to imply that, Sueleen. I hate Christopher Columbus/Harry Potter syndrome, too. I was just using a quote from you to clarify my own position. Sorry.

And I second DBillyP's question.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 1:51pm

to me, one category is acknowledging completely original works by a writer and one is acknowledging work based on the work of others. seems perfectly logical to me.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 2:06pm

I agree that it is two very different methods of writing. In an original you have the liberty to do whatever your imagination will allow. When adapting there are some guidelines you have and it take a special talent to connect to the original material and make it a whole new work of art yet remain true to the original artists vision.

[Plum]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 2:13pm

Wait, Sueleen- I thought you said adapted screenplays shouldn't be judged on the basis of adaptation quality. Unless you mean they shouldn't be judged by adhering to every single detail, but instead by adhering to the spirit of the work.

[DBillyP]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 2:18pm

(Please keep in mind I am only playing devil's advocate and that I have no real answers to any of my questions. I am simply stimualting a conversation about an issue that I have been pondering lately.)

Sueleen, your contention that it takes "a special talent to connect to the original material and make it a whole new work of art yet remain true to the original artists vision" would seem to support knowing the source material as a criterion for judging the screenplay's worth.

As I typed the question from my last post, the answer that was in my head was basically the same as papa's.

There is an interesting interview with Annie Proulx in the NY Times that has thoughts on the page to screen process.
Annie Proulx Interview

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 2:21pm

I disagree strongly about CAPOTE's screenplay...the scenes had no momentum or shape and the supporting characters were barely sketched in.
Have yet to see BROKEBACK, so I dunno what's up there.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 2:21pm

I meant that in judging the quality of the finished FILM the source material should not be a factor, but in the process of adapting, of course you have to consider the original. Sorry if that was unclear.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 2:25pm

s'okay, sueleen. have another bloody mary.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 2:26pm

I think sometimes in knowing the original material a viewer is more likely to overlook (perhaps not intentionally) flaws in a film because he already knows more than the "novice" viewer. The opposite is true, as well. How many people who loved RENT or THE PRODUCERS on stage, for instance, found the films inferior while others who were not familiar with them in any form seemed to enjoy it more?

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 2:29pm

Borstal, see my post above. I may very well be giving CAPOTE more credit than it deserves (I don't think I am, but perhaps when I see it again I will see flaws others have pointed out) precisely because I filled in the blanks. But some of the short hand that was used to convey character and relationships was amazing.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 2:31pm

OMG 'Leen....I just noticed your avatar. OH NO YOU DIDN'T!!!!!!!

[Plum]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 2:32pm

That's why I thought Brokeback was so brilliant as an adaptation- I didn't feel like the story was filling blanks in the movie; I felt the movie was opening up new wrinkles and angles in the story. Seeing it rather than just reading it enhanced the core tale to me.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 2:36pm

That is yet another angle. Is the original material so slim that one has to "pad" (not really the right word as it sounds like a bad thing) with new characters or is the original so full that it must be pared down (characters eliminated or events condensed?) Two very different challenges.


Oh, and yes, Borstal, I did.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 2:37pm

From the voters I know they say they usually just consider the strength of the adapted script.

Whether or not the writer(s) turned one back-flip or seven to get there doesn't really play into it as much. It's the strength of the final outcome they (mostly) look at. How successful is the script (no, not financially) in "doing it's job."

Personally, I would also consider "degree of difficulty" as a big factor for the adapted category. But ultimately how good the final scripts are, is what they seem to vote on.