Hollywood loves to adapt, for better or for worse. Today I decided to talk about the worst: when Jules Verne is adapted. There has been not only bad things, the 1954 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is very nice, and the Journey to the Center of the Earth with Brendan Fraiser largely hold water. But sadly, these two films are exceptions ...
And Hollywood did it again, with a new film project: 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: Captain Nemo (provisionally?). James Mangold, to whom we owe the excellent Walk The Line, Johnny Cash biopic, is in control for now, but that's about the only thing that is known, in addition to the pitch: the origins of captain Nemo. No real surprise, since the American studios like to tell the whole life of the characters, and I do not doubt that we will soon have the story of the breeding of the greatest heroes, and their birth, before the lives of their cousins. If only it was for good stories ... Because it may, mean everything is not a bad thing, only it does not bring anything more. And if Mangold made some good films, I remain worried and asked myself some questions. Why are Verne’s books so adapted, and especially, why it is also wrong?
An author both known and unknown
Verne is the best known French autho, the most translated and most widely read in the world. All Countrie considered, he is the second most translated (and read) author behind Agatha Christie. Not surprisingly, the big screen offers more of his novels than Proust’s. Everyone knows his greatest heroes: Captain Nemo, Michael Strogoff, Phileas Fogg ... And everyone knows the titles of his novels: 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, The Mysterious Island, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Around the world in 80 days, ... Verne is the father of a large part of French culture and his universe is engraved in the global collective imagination. His heroes come from all corners of the globe, which helped their popularization.
No wonder Hollywood loves him: stories full of action, twists and suspense, with heroes from around the world, known by the whole world: in short, enough to make a film that can be sale everywhere!
But then, maybe we know more and more badly his work and his characters become mythical heroes, and Nemo Strogoff replacing Odysseus and Aeneas ... Cocorico! We can be proud of our national Verne. But the poor guy is actually between two stools: internationally recognized author, but author rejected by French academia. In France, Verne is regarded as a children's author, and for me it is a shame to be so close to the plate. The proof is that the vast majority of youth editions are fragments, a 800 pages novel being reduced to 200 ...
Verne's work is rich, and not so simple. The world knows 5 or 6 stories, on 64. And it misses jewelry Hector Servadac, whimsical journey on an asteroid; The Secret of Wilhelm Storitz, better invisible man than will ever be the novel of Wells; The 500 million Begum, cruel anticipation of the events of the early 20th century, and so on. Verne has things to say about our world, but we never wanted to listen, because what he said 150 years is that men are crazy, dangerous, monstrous, and will self-destruct. For Verne, science is double-edged, and the accumulation of knowledge plunge the world into a self-destructive madness, destruction of the planet, depletion of natural resources, ever more dangerous weapons elaborations, arms races, erasing arts for the benefit of « useful » things ... Verne was fascinated by industrialization, but feared the consequences in the long term. Today more than ever, he is right and his work is sorely accurate for today. His most intelligent heroes flee society, as does Nemo, claiming himself of not any nation, creating his own language.
Except that if Hollywood loves a good story, they do not care much of the intentions of adapted authors ...
A work massacred
Verne's novel which has suffered the most, it's probably Mysterious Island. It was a masterpiece of literary adventure, suspense, with a reflection on the mechanics of society and the usefulness of knowledge, reduced to large animals on an island. Why ? Because a 1929 movie directed by someone called Lucien Hubbard. Why persist? Because in the novel, 800 pages long, it goes almost nothing. Everything is based on the suspense and the desire to leave an island where there are things that the characters do not understand. The novel has no fantasy creatures nor fanciful plants. The novel has a strong fantastic atmosphere, but never go beyond the limits of reality. Lately, it's a 1h30 movie with The Rock that serves as adaptation following a pretty goog Journey to the Center of the Earth, respectful of the original material. I pass on Around the World in 80 Days with Jackie Chan which adds unnecessary intrigue to an already dense narrative and burlesque story.
But don’t get me wrong, the French are very good to massacre their own cultural legacy, and Mysterious Island experienced a TV show specially made for french screens, with Omar Sharif, great actor (Lawrence of Arabia!), who plays one of the main characters. But the poor fellow could not save a show that opened on one of the latest revelations of the novel: the explanation of the almost divine help that accompanied the survivors ...
I also cried blodd watching League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and its Captain Nemo. It's not as if the novel clearly said that no clothing, physical appearance, or any habit, betrayed the origin of the captain. Yes, Nemo is of Indian origins, is a Prince who lost everything during a painful episode of his life. But he shows none of this, and certainly bears no Indian traditional suit!
A movie is not a book, liberties can and must be taken. The end of 1954 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is radically different from the one in the novel, but is justified, consistent and respectful of the base material. Adapting a writer, it’s understand his work, not just transpose a story. And for that, there is a work of adaptation to do, and adaptation is an important issue.
Verne: a symptom of a larger problem
The question to ask is not "what is a good adaptation? "But" what is not a good adaptation? "And a good adapttaion is not a simple transposition. What do we adapt? A support (book to film), an audience (reader to viewer), language (text to image), context, grammar, and many other things. Example: what to do with a novel description? The cinema does not need description. Howde we transcribe the effect of a figure of speech? What section do? Literature can embed intrigue into each other and a novel extend in length, it is easy and customary to close a book and resume later. But a film, we prefer to watch it in one time. So what elements of the story do we cut? And which highlight? Adapting a work makes the task of making a good movie highly difficult, mor than with an original screenplay. Being close to the novel does not guarantee good adaptation. And sometimes gives away incredible things. Who realized that O'Brother, the Cohen brothers movie, was an adaptation of The Odyssey? True, the hero of the film is called Ulysses, but at first glance, it's not obvious. Yet this is the case, and it was a mythological narrative treated better than Troye, by Wolfgang Petersen, that only changed a few things, but precisely modified only the wrong things. The character of Achilles is so badly treated that we lose the essence of the original work, which is his anger, and his relationship with Patroclus. Another example: Harry Potter. The first two are flat, and suffer of a boring staging and direction. However, the fifth film, which got much larger cuts, is way more interesting to watch because he chose a precise approach, poses an atmosphere that gives personality and impress with dynamic staging, aesthetics and fresh.
A good adaptation is an adaptation that manages to be a good and independent work which, instead of being faithful to the story will be true to the essence of the original text. I think the story is important in the way that it is an engine for a vision and an idea. The important thing in Madame Bovary, that's not what live Madame Bovary, but what Flaubert means, wants to say and how he told us. Thus, Chabrol film that merely sticking to the novel with a horrifying voice off is torture to watch, while Ryan's Daughter (David Lean), set in Ireland in the early 20th century, is exciting . But the essence of the work is here: a woman who is bored and wants to give flavor to his life, the models of her imagination: poor quality readings. So when Mysterious Island is adapted to a movie in a fantasy world with giant insects and whimsical plants, it betrays the original work, precisely because these are strange details in a common reality that come disturbing, such as a box with clothing, weapons and food that arrive on the shore and seems to come from nowhere ...
An adaptation can also correct a work if it contains inconsistencies. There I think about The Lord of the Rings and the characters in the novels wo are not sensitive to the ring of power (Faramir and a hobbit I forget the name but who does not appear in the film). Jackson chose to delete the hobbit and showed a Faramir fascinated by the ring. An adaptation can also choose to betray a work: Total Recall by K. Dick staged an accountant who ultimately never set foot on Mars while the Verhoeven film is a fierce critic of the society through a hero who works on site (imagnine Schwarzenegger accounting ...) before going to blow everything on Mars.
In short, set a good adaptation, it's a mess, that's why I reduce the list of criteria to one: Is it a good movie? In sum, we should judge a film adapted regardless of the original work, simply because the goal is not to remake the original work. It adapts a point of view, stand, public, too much to expect the same of the two works. Things depend on the talent and the will of the director. Verhoeven never read Total Recall, yet his movie is considered one of the best SF adaptations of all time, simply because it is above all a good movie! And even if he betrays the basic text.
What about what I said earlier about Verne then? The adaptations that I quoted remain poor because inconsistent in themselves. Mysterious Island, the version with The Rock, is bad because the film directly quotes the Verne novel as a true representation of the island, and does not respect this representation, nor the fact that at the end of the novel, volcanic eruption devastated the island and sank it in the Pacific.
So ...?
It must be a purist effort to blame the narrative gaps of adaptation, and for my part I do not like the purists. I was disappointed by adaptations as I was satisfied by others, and I realize that what I want above all, it simply is a good movie that will make me feel things regardless of effect that made the book to me. I hate some adaptation very similar from the book but who miss an important element: the Lolita of Kubrick is a shame to me, making a seductive 16 years old Lolita, whereas in the novel she is a por child victim (12 years old) ; aging the character through the choice of the actress removed the essence of the work and defuse one of the most horrific crimes even. Can’t juste the raper juste be an asshole and the girl a victim? Stop machism. I love Asterix and Obelix meet Cleopatra, but this is not a good fit, humor is not this of the comic book, it's just a good movie. It all depends on everyone expectations and it is not in these few lines I'll solve the problem. I hope only ask good questions and give a clear perspective.
NB: To be honest, I think the film Mysterious Island is bad, partly because I'm a little d** purist when it comes to Verne, but he made me laugh and I enjoyed watching because ... The Rock (yes, I like The Rock):
