The other day, I read this article on LitHub about books that would make terrible films. It’s an interesting concept, especially when you think about how many books are made into movies and how many stories seem perfect for this kind of adaptation.
I’ve only read one book on the author’s list, One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. I agree that the film has a mystical, lyrical quality that would be quite difficult to capture, but I’m not sure that the resulting film would be horrible.
In my opinion there are several things that make a book difficult to film:
- When the book rests on the interior head space of the main character (there’s not that much happening except thinking). Some films are good at capturing inner struggles, but there has to be something visual to hang the film on.
- A book that relies too much on its own intelligence. When the allusions, references, and larger literary conversation define the writing, it’s not easy or maybe even desirable to adapt the work.
- When the book’s time has passed. There are some books we read because they define a time, but I think that most films (even when they show a different time) help reflect our own. If there’s nothing timely, it probably won’t interest people or the filmmaker enough for it to get produced.
But now I’ll turn the question over to you–what book(s) do you think would make a terrible film?
One thought on “Books that Would Make Awful Films”
Interesting idea! I was going to say that books that jump around a lot or use stream of consciousness (like The Sound and the Fury) might make a bad movie, but then again they might be better as movies because they might be easier to understand. (If it’s not clear, I hate those types of books!)