Debate: We need more movies — just not book-accurate adaptations

A rare filmmaker wins viewers’ sympathy for a film adaptation of a literary classic. These same viewers storm theatres at the premiere, purely out of deep affection for the original.

Sometimes, a faithful representation of a book’s characters, plot twists, and legendary scenes not only manage to match readers’ expectations, but also spark the interest of newcomers to the original source.

However, what is more difficult, but just as necessary to accomplish in a film adaptation, is to create a separate, standalone masterpiece — taking nothing from the initial source except inspiration.

Movies like The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile, both directed by Frank Darabont, are famously hailed as the best examples of proper adaptations that strictly follow original plotlines.

The two films are often regarded as some of the best movies in cinema history, yet rarely claim a spot on critics’ top-10 lists.

Film adaptations, when directed with the sole purpose of catering to the fanbase of the original novel, cease to be actual cinema. Copy-and-paste adaptations are products — devoid of any creative, individual touch.

But that doesn’t concern audiences. If the original source is appealing to most people, it’s highly likely that its film adaptation — produced without an independent approach — will receive the same appreciation and even greater recognition among fans.

Despite diverging from the original narrative, loose adaptations like Paul Thomas Anderson’s great American epic, There Will be Blood, win fans’ hearts.

While toiling over the script for his future magnum opus, Anderson removed significant sections from Upton Sinclair’s 1926 novel, Oil! The original source was the foundation, rather than the story itself.

The film was one of the best of its year and has since been regarded as one of the greatest movies of this century.

Film adaptations that differentiate themselves from the original book are the true must-see cinema.

The differences between Anderson’s and Darabont’s adaptations is that the former didn’t follow the novel but carved his own — which made it better than the original source.

Anderson took the themes of generational conflict, capitalism, and religion, which were only slightly brought up in the novel, and ran with them. Darabont took an already tested route without attempting to reinterpret differently or leave any marks of his own vision.

This is even more resonant today, as viewers express their collective dissatisfaction with the growing number of Hollywood remakes. Studios and film crews take the blame for lacking originality.

To yank the industry out of this stagnation, both audiences and filmmakers should treat cinema as its own art. Inspired book adaptations create art that sets itself apart.

It’s not the genius of the original, rather what a filmmaker can do with it. Either share their own interpretations of the story through their cinematic style or rely on commonly accepted perspectives with dull clichés.

There is no criteria for a good or bad adaptation — only good or bad movies.