In 1957 Cameron Crowe, American Filmmaker, received a letter from J.D.
Sallinger, The author of The Catcher In The Rye and other famous works. In this letter addressed to Mr.Crowe, J.D. explains why Catcher In The Rye would never work as a film adaption. “It's a "novelistic" novel...gasoline rainbows in street puddles, his (Holden Caulfield) philosophy or way of looking at cowhide suitcases and empty toothpaste cartons—in a way, his thoughts." He worried that a movie wouldn’t be able to capture all of Holden Caufield’s inner thoughts. Even with narration it’d be an annoying film to adapt. He never gave over his rights to any director, too worried a bad movie would ruin the name of Holden Caulfield forever, a character in a world that only works on a written page.
What does this mean for other authors though? Have other books been ruined by their movie counterparts? Are other authors who did want their book on the big screen just sellouts? Unloyal to their work? Well, not necessarily. One author that I think about when it comes to these questions is Stephen King. An author who has written countless amazing novels that have had their movie counterparts ( IT, The Shining, Carrie etc.) In an interview with the Rolling Stone Magazine Stephen told them that he loved the adaption of Stand by Me and that he considered the film to be “true to the book”. His other favorites also include The Shawshank Redemption and The Shining. However, with every favorite, there is always a least favorite. In a 1986 interview with American Film magazine Stephen talked about his dislike of Firestarter, “Firestarter is one of the worst of the bunch...it's flavorless; it's like cafeteria mashed potatoes.” King explains that the special effects seemed unnecessary at times and that the lead wasn’t very good. However, I don’t think that means he regrets giving them permission to make a Firestarter movie. Stephen King was probably as excited about this film adaptation as
he was about the others. Even though they let him down doesn’t mean they ruined the novel or that he wouldn’t go on to have more successful adaptations, even a reboot of Firestarter.
Screenwriters are authors too, even when it comes to adaptations, screenwriters usually get the author’s ‘okay’ to shorten or throw out scenes completely. IT was 1,138 pages even with the miniseries and two films we had back in 2017 and 2019 it still hasn’t captured every single word and if it did it’d be a long movie that no one would bring themselves to sit down and watch. However, that doesn’t mean Stephen King wrote more than he had to ( well maybe..) it just means you keep what's important and do what you can with the rest. Important details always make the cut, without them it wouldn’t be the same film and those that try to be too different will have the ratings speak for themselves. You can always count on the fans of the original to separate the book from the film.
In conclusion, I think whatever an author wants to do with their work is up to them and shouldn’t be swayed in either way by other opinions. Film is just a different form of art and if a writer wants to indulge in it, who are we to stop them?
Comments