With the release and critical success of Perfume: The Story of a Murderer, an adaptation of a novel once considered impossible to film, what better time to look into the process of adaptation. Most movies these days are based on literary sources. Which is ironic, considering the increasing lack of interest in books these days as opposed to the spoon-fed thoughts offered by Hollywood.
While many novels can be almost directly translated to screen, especially pre-20th century novels such as Jane Austen’s gossip columns, more recent novels can prove difficult. There have been bad novels turned into good films (pretty much everything Hitchcock Made, The Godfather), and plenty of dull adaptations of good books (Dune, The Unbearable Bore of Being in a Cinema to Watch This). There’s also a few oddities, such as Adaptation, Charlie Kaufman’s bizarre self-referential adaptation of ‘The Orchid Thief’. But despite the film industry’s frenzy in snapping up adaptation rights, there remains a few novels many fear.
Below are what I consider to be the most difficult novels to adapt, and who, if any, is fit to do that job.
Ulysses
Considered to be the greatest novel ever written, Ulysses is ripe with obscure references, wit, and a style of lyrical writing that makes the book better said than read. There have been two Irish films, one in 1967 and other recent version in 2003, called Bloom. Both are utter failures, and the best they can do is have passages read over the basic action in a desperate attempt to maintain James Joyce’s stream-of-consciousness style of writing. It’s the cardinal sin of adaptation. A true adaptation of this novel would have to substitute the written associations and wordplay with a solely visual language, allowing the power of the image and editing to represent the novel’s essence. I should also give Joyce’s last novel ‘Finnegans Wake’ a nod for being the most unfilmable novel of all time, despite this.
If anyone can do it: Quentin Tarantino has displayed a habit of… just kidding. If the novel does truly require a focus on imagery as opposed to the word, then Wong Kar Wai has proven his ability for doing just so. In The Mood for Love was a simple story about forbidden love, explored in the most luscious of ways. It’s sort-of sequel 2046 was even more abstract, a rough circle around the idea of first love unregained filmed in the most mesmeric and sensual of ways. Unconvinced? Then check this out.
Cat’s Cradle
Although most of Kurt Vonnegut’s novels are unfilmable (That didn’t stop Alan Rudolph from making the horrendously bad Breakfast of Champions), Cat’s Cradle is one of his best, and most manic. The book’s narrator is researching the man who helped invent the atom bomb, and ends up discovering a substance that could spell the end of humanity. Richard Kelly, writer and director of Donnie Darko, adapted the book for Leonardo Di Caprio’s company Appian Way, but the project seems to have been dropped. Probably because it’s bloody UNFILMABLE.
If anyone can do it: Go on, give it to Kelly. Despite early reviews condemning Kelly’s new film Southland Tales, Donnie Darko was quite entertaining, and in some ways embodied the Vonnegut spirit.
The Wind Up Bird Chronicle
Hugely popular Japanese writer Haruki Murakami has penned nothing but odd novels, but his best is his most peculiar. It follows Toru Okadu in his attempt to find his missing cat, and then missing wife. Instead he finds psychics, oddballs, a well that transports him to a hotel room, shared dreams, and a damn spot he just can’t get rid of. Every time the novel appears to be gaining narrative momentum, it turns and twists surreal corners. I’ve only read the English translation, but this unsolvable mystery is utterly engaging, and possibly the best book of the last 50 years.
If anyone can do it: Initially I thought of David Lynch, but homeboy Beat Takeshi has proven his desire to take on all types of film, from comedy, violent cop drama, a mix of both, tap-dancing Samurai flick, and powerful parables. So why not have the country’s best film-maker make its best novel?
The Third Policeman
Another Irish novel (what do you expect, when Freud said the Irish couldn’t be analysed?), this one was recently name checked by hit TV series Lost. It was a clever attempt to get people to furiously read it, for it has little to do with the confounding show. Although more conventionally written than Ulysses, it’s far more insane. Its narrator commences a journey to find a black box, supposedly containing money of the man he, and friend Divney, killed. The narrator (and his soul Joe, whom he often converses with) wanders into a police station, and thus enters a world of wordplay, bicycles becoming people (and vice-versa), a stick so pointy you only have to think of it to be hurt, and other bizarre trinkets and characters, leading to a damning twist. While hilarious, Flann O’Brien’s book contains little of the three-act structure, instead revelling in the asides, footnotes, and distractions, making it unappealing for Hollywood.
If anyone can do it: Spike Jonze is a man willing to film anything, plus the oddball humour of Being John Malkovich may suit the novel’s wit. When Tim Burton was good (well over a decade ago), I would have loved to have seen his grotesque sets. But please, please, do not let M Night Shyamalan anywhere near it, lest he make another 90 minute preamble to a twist.
100 Years of Solitude
This astounding piece of fiction resists the camera because it lacks any central character. Rather, it charts a century of a fictional South American town and its several generations of families. Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s novel is passionate, amusing, slightly satirical, and often surreal. Characters will fly past windows waving hello, and no one bats an eyelid. One character disappears from the novel by suddenly floating up into the air. It’s no wonder that this is one of the few books in this article that no one has even attempted to film.
If anyone can do it: It’s a toss between fellow Spaniards Pedro Almodovar and Julio Medem. Almodovar is more touching and his early films were fun, but I feel Medem is the better film-maker. The latter’s films are often literary in story, but manage to combine that with a sensual style of visualisation that makes films such as Sex and Lucia and Lovers of the Arctic Circle so wonderful.
Remembrance of Things Past
Also known as ‘In Search of Lost Time’ (which makes it sound like a Jules Verne yarn), Marcel Proust’s contribution to the world of literature is so difficult to film as it’s so damn long. The novel is divided into seven books, each one long enough alone! Although I’ve only managed to read the first two books, the entire volume seems to be autobiographical, about a sickly young man who aspires to be a writer, despite the distraction of 19th Century society. Proust’s novels incorporate the idea of scents, sounds, and certain objects pushing associated memories to the fore. Probably more suited as a TV serial, there have been a few films, mostly adapting one of the books. The best is Time Regained, starring Catherine Deneuve and John Malkovich
If anyone can do it: The closing moments of Terence Malick’s New World displayed the kind of editing that can summarise years in seconds with aesthetic brilliance. He’s the man for such a mammoth, ethereal task, though half of it would probably be shots of trees.
Metamorphosis
Strangely enough, Kafka can be done, as seen in Orson Welles excellent The Trial. But Metamorphosis is even more difficult for its protagonist, Gregor Samsa, awakens to find himself a giant insect. The story concerns the reaction of his family, as they move from horror to endurance, to an unjust disgust that permeates all thoughts. There’s been plenty of attempts to adapt this symbolic tale, the best being animations. However, this highly insular tale has yet to have a definitive celluloid version.
If anyone can do it: For a while David Lynch had threatened to make it. Considering the unforgettable effects seen in his first feature, Eraserhead, plus its highly symbolic story, he is without doubt the man for the job.
The Confederacy of Dunces
This one has a rich history of failed attempts to adapt to screen. For decades producers have bidded for rights for this book (which its author sadly never saw published, committing suicide due to publishers’ lack of interest. His mother persisted until it became the classic it is today). Actors have been lined up to play grossly overweight pretentious protagonist Ignatious Reilly, including John Belushi, John Candy, and Chris Farley, all of which failed. Steven Soderbergh came close to filming a version, with Will Ferrell as Iggy, but it ultimately fell through due to production problems. Personally, I feel Soderbergh lacks humour in most of his films, and would fail to do the story justice.
If anyone could do it: A few years ago, I would have deemed the Coen Brothers fit for any filmic task. Lately, I’ve started to hate them for their dull, off-the-mark, comedies. Still, if they can do The Big Lebowski, they could easily represent the brilliance and delusion of Ignatious, as well as the madcap characters that surround him.
Any Thomas Pynchon Novel
Camera-shy Thomas Pynchon (seen here in his cartoon form in The Simpsons) is known for writing novels that are partly brilliant, partly baffling. Usually incorporating seemingly unconnected story strands that only link in the most cosmic of ways, Pynchon’s complex way of writing often makes his novels impenetrable. His most accessible is ‘The Crying of Lot 49′, a sort of conspiracy novel that never gets solved, with a 3-act play thrown in the middle for fun.
If anyone can do it: I’m not sure how anyone could even try to extract a story out of epic tomes like ‘Gravity’s Rainbow’. Nicholas Roeg springs to mind, with films like Performance and The Man Who Felt to Earth, being both confusing, visually verbose, and at times quite lofty.
Don Quixote
The original ‘modern novel’ has had many TV and film adaptations, with versions reaching back to the early 1900’s. But once again there is no definitive version. The 1947 Spanish Don Quixote is considered to be the best, although I would love to see the 2000 TV adaptation where Jonathan Lithgow played the deluded knight of La Mancha. Orson Welles spent most of his life trying to make a version, but failed to complete it. The problem with adapting this novel lies in the fact that its best moments are often the extensive sub-plots, most of which are ripe for films in themselves.
If anyone can do it: My heart still hopes that Terry Gilliam will make the version that looked so enjoyable in Lost in La Mancha, the documentary about the movie never made, and the greatest tragedy in modern times.
The Atrocity Exhibition
It’s only a matter of time before JG Ballard becomes the new PK Dick, with his socially aware sci-fi novels being snapped up for development, such as ‘High Rise’. However, ‘The Atrocity Exhibition’ remains his most experimental. Essentially plotless, it endeavours to portray the impression modern society and mass media has in our private lives, our psyche, and our sexuality, and acted as a precursor to his popular and depraved ‘Crash’. Ballard even suggests that readers should not start at the beginning and finish at the end, rather select random passages. Yet, an attempt has been made to film it. In 2001 Jonathan Weiss completed a version of the book, which was apparently approved by the writer himself, but unsurprisingly failed to make a name for itself. Click here to see a less than impressed review, and here for a wonderfully tense interview with the director about his film, the relevance of Ballard, and the role of the critic in independent cinema.
If anyone can do it: Darren Aronofsky has proven his ability to create ponderous cinema, and his intense vision would work with the power of Ballard’s writing. UK music-video director Chris Cunningham would also be appropriately passionate. Those not familiar with his work should check this out.
Catcher in the Rye
This is partly here because while reclusive author JD Salinger (pictured top) lives and breathes, this seminal novel will never go near the silver screen. In fact, each new print of Catcher in the Rye contains a hidden device that causes TVs and DVD players to explode when placed too close. But even when Salinger’s reign over his work fades, I still deem this book very difficult to adapt. It’s charm is in the adolescent thoughts of main character Holden Caufield, who acts with delightful bitterness, while secretly spotting the ‘phonies’ all around him. It’s an incredibly difficult task to capture this in cinema without resorting to the laziness of including a voice-over.
If anyone can do this: At first I thought of Ang Lee and his adaptation of ‘The Ice Storm’. But I would love to see Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach highlight the humour of the novel. Both have proven their ability to combine hilarity with the literary, especially the latter’s touching The Squid and the Whale.
Molloy, Malone Dies, The Unnameable
Irish playwright Samuel Beckett’s trilogy of novels rival Ulysses in their difficulty to film. Yet while there’s ways of representing Joyce’s rich text on screen, achieving the same for these novels is next to impossible. Even Beckett on Film, a series of adaptation of his plays, turned out to be a failure of sorts. Molloy does contain characters, Moran and Molloy, but soon it seems their identities and stories merge into one. Narrative begins to crumble away in Malone Dies, in which a man’s attempts to retain identity through telling stories constantly crack open, until we’re left with The Unnameable, a long monologue that only hints at the concept of character, until it eventually “can’t go on”. How on earth could anyone adapt a novel that fails to have a character?
If anyone can do it: While I honestly believe this is impossible to adapt to screen, if a gun was put to my hypothetical head I’d consider either Woody Allen or Ingmar Bergman. Bergman has spent decades making musings on concepts like transient identity. Yet Woody Allen has often done similar, but injected a vast amount of humour, both physical at philosophical, into them. And that’s exactly how Beckett makes his novels so enjoyable, there’s always something to laugh at while staring into the abyss of nothing, of nowhere.
By Eoin O’Faolain
Popularity: 3% [?]
daryl said
January 11 2007 @ 8:21 pm
That’s a great point about Donnie Darko being Vonnegutesque. Also think maybe Terry Gilliam could take a decent stab at 100 Years of Solitude.
eoin said
January 11 2007 @ 8:28 pm
Not sure if Gilliam could get the irreverence of 100 Years right, but I wouldn’t mind seeing him try.
Kris Spencer said
January 12 2007 @ 2:10 am
William S. Burroughs’ Naked Lunch was considered unfilmable. David Cronenberg wisely decided to make a film about the writing of the novel mixing in imagery and “characters” from the book. I think it’s brilliantly done. Because I knew a lot about the book and its author before seeing the film I was able to identify and appreciate the biographical details that Cronenberg carefully incorporated into the story. It’s a masterpiece of book-to-film adaptation.
Kris Spencer said
January 12 2007 @ 2:19 am
Like 100 Years of Solitude, another classic of Latin American lit is Hopscotch by Julio Cortazar. Better known for his “magic realism” short stories like “The Night Face Up” and “Blow Up,” the latter of which Antonini loosely adapted in the ’60s for an eponymous film, Cortazar’s Hopscotch is a complex novel containing a myriad of obscure references not to mention “extra” chapters and an alternate reading scheme. Where does a filmmaker start to adapt a novel in which the author encourages “skipping” around?
Eoin said
January 12 2007 @ 11:12 am
There are some books that just shouldn’t be filmed. Like anything by Henry Miller. And Naked Lunch. After reading it I hoped it would never be set on screen. And then I found out Cronenberg did it. I didn’t hate the film, I just didn’t want to see any imagery out of the book. Nauseating stuff.
Billy said
January 12 2007 @ 4:09 pm
What about House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski. Anyone?
Ben Sussman said
January 12 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Confederacy of Dunces – I don’t see why this should be so unfilmable. What a shame that this book could not be filmed prior to Katrina. The images of New Orleans street life in the book were portrayed so vividly.
Daniel said
January 12 2007 @ 4:23 pm
I think Whit Stillman who did Metropolitan might be able to do a good job of Catcher in the Rye.
Matt said
January 12 2007 @ 4:35 pm
I would suggest Alfonso Cuaron for 100 Years of Solitude rather than Almodovar. His movies often already have the same sort of magical realism & imaginative character as novels like 100 Years of Solitude.
Eric said
January 12 2007 @ 4:38 pm
Another hard one and one which I would love to see is “House of Leaves”, but I can only imagine how difficult that one would be.
Ian said
January 12 2007 @ 4:42 pm
If Confederacy of Dunces were filmed by Wes Anderson it would be the greatest movie ever made.
Cosmo said
January 12 2007 @ 4:42 pm
Caleb Carr’s The Alientst, apparently … maybe it should just NOT be filmed, let me remember it as it is.
sssss said
January 12 2007 @ 4:46 pm
You can also add AMERICAN PSYCHO to the list. The version that *was* made was so bad and far from the book, it should be destroyed as if it never happened.
Jeff said
January 12 2007 @ 4:47 pm
I read an interview with David Cronenberg when “Naked Lunch” came out. He said he couldn’t do a literal adaptation of the book, as it would cost $100 million dollars to make and be banned in virtually every country. I think it functions its most effectively when viewed as a tribute to the novel rather than an adaptation.
Somewhere in heaven Fellini is adapting One Hundred Years of Solitude as only he could.
Ethan Allen Smith said
January 12 2007 @ 4:48 pm
I would add George R.R. Martin’s classic series “A Song of Ice and Fire,” particularly the first book “A Game of Thrones.” The series is intensely realistic, which means there are tons of sub-plots (and sub-sub-plots), inter-related characters, deep history, and intricately detailed character development. Every chapter is written in the first-person, but from a different person’s point of view which means the great bulk of the novels are the thoughs and emotions rather than action and dialog. Pile on top of that that it’s a fantasy series, which brings into play a mythology on par with Tolkein’s world.
Kent said
January 12 2007 @ 4:50 pm
The last two books of CS Lewis’ The Space Trilogy contain climaxes where “planetary angels” appear – in the first they have to constantly adjust their appearance so that they can be seen in visible spectra. In the second the angels are sensed more than seen, but the “sensing” is so intensely described that it’s one of the most amazing scenes I’ve ever seen in print.
A definition of “unfilmable” should probably include novels written about things that go beyond sight and sound but hit much harder than either.
Blake said
January 12 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Murakami is a great addition here, although his “Hard Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World” is even more bizzare. One book that is definately missing is House of Leaves by Mark Danielewski. If any of you haven’t read it, do so immediately. Think Pynchon and Stephen King love child…or something like that…
C.B.Leslie said
January 12 2007 @ 4:59 pm
I actually plan on eventually doing an animated film adaptation of Gravity’s Rainbow. It’s no where near as impossible as you would think. The key to reading GR is to break it down and format it like a movie script. There is more than enough visual imagery to adapt to frames.
Blaze said
January 12 2007 @ 5:04 pm
An adaptation of a book series that would be incredibly difficult to conjure. Would be the Apprentice Adept series by Piers Anothony. Though it may not be a “great Novel”. It was a intelligent sci-fi/fantasy book series. The planet proton where about half the book resides is filled with mostly naked people called serfs. The only clothed ones are the leaders of the planet known as citizens. Nevermind the strategic angles of the camera to shoot scenes in on the sci fi planet with naked people throughout,the fantasy realm know as phaze which is located through a special “curtain” on the planet proton in which the other half of the novel occurs would have to have a larger budget than LOTR to cover the ridiculous amount of special effects. A great series very uncompatible with film. But I would love to see it!
Iphtashu Fitz said
January 12 2007 @ 5:07 pm
I saw Metamorphosis live on Broadway back in 1989. Mikhail Baryshnikov played the lead. If they can do it on Broadway then why on earth do you think they couldn’t do it on film?
Tony Angelo said
January 12 2007 @ 5:10 pm
My vote: The Illuminatus! Trilogy by our dearly departed Robert Anton Wilson. Damn near impossible to write a screenplay for, but would be great to see on the big screen.
Ryan said
January 12 2007 @ 5:16 pm
One more to add to the list, House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski. The novel, ironicly, is about a film that never really exsisted written about by a blind man that doesn’t exsist any more as told by a young man who isn’t the most reliable source. The book itself is a journey through the maze that is the House which is the subject of the film. Since the book is the house I don’t see how it could be transformed into a film.
Thanks for the list!
Ryan
Demian said
January 12 2007 @ 5:19 pm
How about “The first Chornicles of Thomas Covenant, the unbeliever.”
It’d be better then Lord of the rings. I know that’s blasphemy but he I think it’s better then Tolkien, so sue me
Grtz
Demian
Ed said
January 12 2007 @ 5:20 pm
I reckon House of Leaves would be a pretty impossible proposition that’s worth mentioning (and only really because I’ve been wanting to see a film adaptation since I read it)
Dano said
January 12 2007 @ 5:21 pm
I agree that “A Confederacy of Dunces” is nearly unfilmable. It is my sincerest hope that nobody will ever get a film made based on this novel. They’d only ruin it!
No one said
January 12 2007 @ 5:36 pm
“…writer Haruki Murakami … …It follows Toru Okadu in his attempt to find his missing cat, and then missing wife. Instead he finds psychics, oddballs, a well that transports him to a hotel room…”
Ever heard of a detective called Dirk Gently?
“Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency”
Douglas Adams’ detective has had very similar adventures. Including searches for missing cats.
Capito said
January 12 2007 @ 5:40 pm
You should seriously consider adding “House of Leaves” to the list. (Search for it on Wikipedia.) Imagine something like “The Third Policeman,” except much more complicated, and the format of the book is important to the story.
Meneth said
January 12 2007 @ 5:45 pm
Isaac Asimov was good at writing unfilmable stuff; most of his novels are just series of conversations. Now I hear they’re going to try to film the Foundation triology. That’s just weird.
Wes said
January 12 2007 @ 5:51 pm
Pilgrims Progress should be made into a movie.
dario said
January 12 2007 @ 5:57 pm
“Les Onze Mille Verges” by Guillaume Apollinaire (great french poet). Contains each end every known sexual perversion : definitely unfilmable and unsellable.
Erin said
January 12 2007 @ 6:06 pm
I agree, House of Leaves should be on this list!
Cartoons Plugin » Blog Archive » teen titans stripping games The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels to Film said
January 12 2007 @ 6:07 pm
[...] teen titans stripping games 13 novels that are impossible to film, and which director we think should try anyway… teen titans screen capsread more | digg story [...]
sam said
January 12 2007 @ 6:08 pm
What did you think of the recent adaptation of Tristram Shandy, a novel about as unfilmable as Finnegan’s Wake?
jeremy said
January 12 2007 @ 6:12 pm
Ender’s Game would make a great movie, but oh the challenges. Many children, micro gravity, lots of internal narration.
hyper7 said
January 12 2007 @ 7:17 pm
IMHO, there is NO book that can be transferred to film media without losing a lot. Books should be read, not watched.
(Except for “The Incredibles” That was an incredible movie!
)
Meg said
January 12 2007 @ 7:26 pm
Atlas Shrugged. It would be about 50 hours long.
DC said
January 12 2007 @ 7:45 pm
House of Leaves!!!! I have to agree with everyone who’s mentioned it. I personally don’t think it is filmable, but after seeing Children of Men, Alfonso Cuarón is the man…as a matter of fact I think Cuarón can shoot anything he wants. As a matter of fact I think Cuarón is the next Fellini, the next Goddard, the next Spielberg….I think Cuarón is God.
Can we start a religion about Cuarón? Can we? Can we? Let’s call it Alfonsology and love the man together people!!!!
Sorry, I get carried away…another great unfilmable is Aura by Carlos Fuentes…but I also think Cuarón can do it…
Marcus said
January 12 2007 @ 8:00 pm
Hurricane Katrina really set back any production of A Confederacy of Dunces. The book is so good on it’s own that I don’t think it should ever be made into a movie.
Eoin said
January 12 2007 @ 8:00 pm
I thought Winterbottom’s film tried to capture the essence of Tristram, and at times was successful. I would associate Tristram Shandy more with Ulysses. Tristram is ironic, if not a satire on the process of writing and story-telling. I think Finnegan’s Wake is far more… unconscious.
Eoin said
January 12 2007 @ 8:07 pm
A Confereracy of Dunces is not in theory difficult to adapt. But to get it right is next to impossible. It’s a combination of subtle and manic humour, and very few directors have achieved this.
kimbee said
January 12 2007 @ 8:08 pm
I’m kind of scared that someone bought the rights to “The Time Travelers Wife”. How can you film this novel? It leaves alot to the imagination and I think any adaptation will be horrendous.
Yagur said
January 12 2007 @ 8:10 pm
David Foster Wallace’s INFINITE JEST.
Vladimir Nabokov’s PALE FIRE.
Lots of House Of Leaves fans here. It’s been a while since I read it, but it seems the one way to do it would be to, in essence, make the film the book describes (A man moves into an old house, and discovers, gradually and terrifyingly, that it is a doorway to an infinitely large labyrinth), and forget the elaborate framing device, as compelling as it is.
kim- said
January 12 2007 @ 8:16 pm
I tried to post this earlier but oh well.
I am scared to think that someone is trying to film “The Time Travelers Wife”. How can you film a book like that? I’m sure it will turn to utter and complete crap.
The book itself requires alot of imagination to swallow.
bugsbane said
January 12 2007 @ 8:18 pm
The Amber Series. Especially that final ride from Amber to Chaos (book 5).
Kyle Burton said
January 12 2007 @ 8:20 pm
Armor by John Steakley.
It would be impossible to film, as the moment you saw any of the characters the ending would be ruined.
Although, I must say that the butchery of Vampire$ may prove me wrong…
Ralph Marquardt said
January 12 2007 @ 8:28 pm
Two obvious candidates:
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance – Robert Pirsig
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd – Agatha Christie
– Basically, any writing that depends on a disclosure about the narrator will be impossible to do, without some kind of trade off that ruins the effect.
In addition, most 19th Century and early 20th Century novels and short stories do not adapt well because the process of digression and the actual reading is such an important part of the experience. (This covers Don Quixote, as well.) It would sort of like looking at a painting of Beethoven’s Ninth.
Ana said
January 12 2007 @ 8:31 pm
I understand why most people are not satisfied with onscreen adaptations of their favourite books, but I think that has more to do with the fact that reading a novel is a subjective experience and what one person takes from it may not be the same for another.
I believe a novel doesn’t have a single true interpretation and an adaptation is just a screenwriter’s or/and director’s interpretation of the book. This is why most movies don’t evoke the same reaction in us as the novel, leaving us disapointed and bad-mouthing adaptations forevermore.
AnaCarolina said
January 12 2007 @ 8:37 pm
I understand why most people are not satisfied with onscreen adaptations of their favourite books, but I think that has more to do with the fact that reading a novel is a subjective experience and what one person takes from it may not be the same for another.
I believe a novel doesn’t have a single true interpretation and an adaptation is just a screenwriter’s or/and director’s interpretation of the book. This is why most movies don’t evoke the same reaction in us as the novel, leaving us disapointed and bad-mouthing adaptations in sites like these.
Maldoror said
January 12 2007 @ 8:45 pm
What?! Where is the masterpiece by J.K. Huysmans … “La Bas”? There is no mention of his other great work, “A Rebours”. None of the works of Aleister Crowley, have been attempted as of yet either. And finally, I don’t suppose anyone is insane, nor brave enough to tackle my own wretched tome — “Les Chants du Maldoror”. Oh, well. Maybe another century yet.
The Fluid Imagination Blog » Blog Archive » The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels to Film said
January 12 2007 @ 8:46 pm
[...] From The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels to Film: “Below are what I consider to be the most difficult novels to adapt, and who, if any, is fit to do that job.” [...]
JPS said
January 12 2007 @ 8:47 pm
I have a book I would like to submit.
Phillip K. Dick’s Dr. Bloodmoney, just don’t let them rotoscope it and fuck it all up like they did with A Scanner Darkly.
Gaius Obvious said
January 12 2007 @ 8:51 pm
You left out “A Clockwork Orange” by Aldous Huxley. It’s a first-person narrative set in a dystopian world where the narrator uses practically incomprehensible mix of Russian and English slang. You need a glossary to read it. And it’s essential to the story. I can’t think of any director who would be able to handle it properly.
Joseph said
January 12 2007 @ 9:00 pm
It might seem like a stretch, but I always thought Mike Nichols (”Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf”) could do Beckett on film.
Malcolm Lambe said
January 12 2007 @ 9:21 pm
Great list. Thanks. But too short. What about “Under the Volcano” by Malcolm Lowry? John Huston directed the movie but I didn’t like it.
How about a follow-up list of “Lousy Movies of Great Novels”?
Gareth Wilson said
January 12 2007 @ 9:53 pm
Greg Egan’s Diaspora is conventionally written but a significant amount of the action takes place in a five-dimensional universe, including detailed descriptions of a five-dimensional planet and the five-dimensional flora and fauna that cover its four-dimensional “surface”. And all the characters are artificial intelligences who can arbitrarily alter their own minds. Some challenges for the director there.
Leaver said
January 12 2007 @ 9:59 pm
Absolutely!—must add House of Leaves to the list. Has anyone also read Danielewski’s most recent book “Only Revolutions?” I think that would also be a contender given its format (turning book every eight pages in a book exactly 360 pages long).
Harry said
January 12 2007 @ 10:02 pm
What, no Neuromancer? I’m sure Hollywood will get to it though. And it will be just as good as Johnny Mneumonic.
Waxfinger said
January 12 2007 @ 10:04 pm
Erm…
Definitive unfilmable novel:
House Of Leaves.
crazymonk.org » A list of unfilmable novels | not the great american blog said
January 12 2007 @ 10:26 pm
[...] A list of the most unfilmable novels. I’d add in Infinite Jest (despite the upcoming attempt) and Martin Amis’s Time’s Arrow. [...]
Dy said
January 12 2007 @ 10:38 pm
When I think of unfilmable films, Brave New World would rank pretty much #1 to adapt truthfully, but great list!
/\/\/\/ said
January 12 2007 @ 10:57 pm
James Joyce’s final novel is NOT titled “Finnegan’s Wake” — it is titled “Finnegans Wake” (no apostrophe) and the difference was important to Joyce. The word is not intended as a possessive, but most likely (hard to say, given the nature of the book) a plural, as in “Many Finnegans Are Waking.”
Dave said
January 12 2007 @ 11:03 pm
I vote for “Blood Meridian.” I didn’t like “All the Pretty Horses” and don’t see how Faulknarian prose can be easily transposed to the screen. All is left is violence without the biblical annotations and meaning.
If anyone could do it, Peckinpah with Orson Welles playing “the judge.”
Justin Roman said
January 12 2007 @ 11:22 pm
There’s a (really good) film adaptation of Finnegans (it’s not possessive) Wake from 1965 called “Passages from Finnegans Wake”. Of course, it’s not really like reading the book, but whatever. Anything that’s as metatextual as the books you’ve selected will be hard to film, because metatextual attributes don’t translate well between media. Even most arthouse films don’t engage with metatextuality to any significant degree. What would really be neat is to get museum-art-film directors to try and adapt these books.
Also, House of Leaves would not be all that hard to adapt, because it’s not nearly as clever as it thinks it is. I can’t wait until the Internet starts its love affair with some new flash in the pan and consigns that garbage to the dustbin of history.
Reliapundit said
January 12 2007 @ 11:31 pm
who cares?
nobody READS anymore, at least not enough to warrant making a movie out of any GREAT novel!
novels were once great for adaptation because they came along with a pre-configured audience – making it easier to market.
that’s why now movies are adapted from video/computer games: they have large markets to exploit.
also: hollywood’s chic degenerati and dumbo cognscenti wouldn’t know a good script if it bit them in the ass, let alone a good novel.
when they do adapt something they usually crank it up and change it to make it more sensational (literally and figuratively), and therefore easier to market.
that’s the marketing bottom-line.
the critical bottom-line is this: movies ARE audio-visual; novels are not. it makes more sense to adapt novels which are written in a more A/V-ish-way to the screen than to adapt novels which are more about narrative stance, language, interiority.
these are fascinating challenges to deal with as an adapter, but ultimately REQUIRE that the original work be changed A LOT in order for it to work as an AV movie. the adapted work should be looked at as an original INSPIRED from a pre-existing work in another medium. And in a sense, this describes all movies – AND ALL ART!)
the gatekeepers of the literary world like novels which are post-modern and are structurally less likely to adapt easily. but there are a lot of books – pulp especially – which are movies in B&W, and adapt easily. but not books the gatekeepers assert are “literary works of art”.
that being said. let me recommend to everyone the BRILLIANTLY adapted movie TOM JONES. Tony Richardson capture nearly every wonderful aspect of the novel – it’s story, how it was told, the periodicity, etc. He found analogues in cinema for most of the literary tropes of Fielding’s day. WONDERFUL.GREAT. A GEM.
which means… it can be done…
infobong.com » spoon-fed thoughts said
January 12 2007 @ 11:38 pm
[...] This Screenhead piece about the hardest novels to film reminds me of a game I’ve played with other Radio-TV-Film graduate students. Instead of adapting novels to film, we ask what movies would make bad Broadway musicals. While some films like The Lion King and, of course, The Producers lend themselves to the middlebrow stage, other movies probably should just stay movies. The student who introduced the game contends Agnes of God would make an awful musical. I don’t disagree, but my nominations were Nanook of the North and Derek Jarman’s Blue. One of my professors pointed out that Nanook might actually lend itself to a Disney-style musical. It would be a spectacle of otherness with Inuits and polar creatures dancing in the snow. I do think that you would have to be pretty ingenious to adapt Blue to the stage. [...]
Chris said
January 12 2007 @ 11:41 pm
100 Years of Solitude -
Talk to Robert Redford. He did a pretty good job with the Milagro Beanfield War.
Greg said
January 12 2007 @ 11:55 pm
A well-crafted list… For “The Alienist” (not on the list, but mentioned in comments), my vote would go to Christopher Nolan, who’s got a knack for visually dense and intricately written mysteries.
As for “House of Leaves,” the obvious choice is the directors of “The Blair Witch Project,” which may have influenced “House.” If not that, then Errol Morris, if you can lure him into the fictional realm.
Am I the only person on the planet who liked the film version of Breakfast of Champions? Having read the book, the film did seem to capture the tone of the book–it’s a pretty strange book.
Keith Gordon did an excellent job with the movie “Mother Night,” though that’s one of Vonnegut’s most depressing works.
Eoin D said
January 12 2007 @ 11:59 pm
mostly just posting cos it’s the first time I’ve seen another Eoin post a comment somewhere.
Great list- the bulk of the tomes I hadn’t read have been added to my “to read” list.
SearchRoads » shirtless harry potter The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels to Film said
January 13 2007 @ 12:01 am
[...] shirtless harry potter 13 novels that are impossible to film, and which director we think should try anyway… something we arent harry potter fanfictionread more | digg story [...]
Amy said
January 13 2007 @ 12:08 am
I could almost see “House of Leaves” adapted successfully by David Lynch. Much of the book centers around the strange within the familiar and a feeling of disconcertion, two things Lynch excels at.
Any thoughts on Neal Stephenson’s “The Baroque Cycle?” The story itself could be filmed, but the best parts are the hilarious juxtapositions and the historical nuggets. Might make for some interesting BBC mini-series action.
Felicia Harper said
January 13 2007 @ 12:21 am
I’m surprised Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency by the late Douglas Adams is not on the list.
I think Michel Gondry would be perfect for it…assuming he could even tackle it.
–Felicia
David said
January 13 2007 @ 1:02 am
Hmmm…
I think “Life Of Pi” should also be on this list.
zee said
January 13 2007 @ 1:09 am
I have issues with the statement “resorting to the laziness of including a voice-over”.
One of the key problems in translating any book to the filmic medium is the loss of information and nuances of the story. Not only does the story often have to be “reduced” to its key elements, often with the loss of much of the charm of the original which in part is the richness of detail and possible sub-plots and sidetracks, but there is often additional detail added to the film in order to re-introduce sense to the plot in the absence of written narrative detail, further removing the film from the book and wasting valuable film time in “visual explanations”.
Why omit spoken narrative as lazy when it’s a perfectly valid device for not only driving the plot, but also engaging with a character. It’s no lazier than using sound to cover bad editing, or a good soundtrack to help bad acting. Or good editing to… blah blah blah.
They’re all tools, for good or bad and none inherently better or worse than each other. It depends how well it is done, and as you actually seemed to be alluding to, whether it is just stuck on afterwards because the film didn’t make enough sense.
I have noticed a certain visual snobbery in the film industry – especially in directors. Perhaps the question is more to do with ego than laziness. If you can’t tell the story with visual elements (and dialogue), then you’re simply not clever enough.
Artificially restricting yourself of a whole extra degree of freedom seems a little naive and simplistic to me. I can accept that not every film needs it, of course, as it does strongly affect style, but surely in the case of book adaptations it should be embraced much more often.
echoboy said
January 13 2007 @ 1:27 am
hey, what about House of Leaves?
Jp said
January 13 2007 @ 1:48 am
I agree with the House of Leaves suggestion. The thing is Danielewski has said he writes books in such a way that turning them into a movie is purposely impossible. He wants reading to be it’s own medium to be enjoyed.
Akkam’s Razor said
January 13 2007 @ 2:23 am
[...] The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels to Film (tags: film literature movies culture books) [...]
Al said
January 13 2007 @ 2:27 am
Faulkner’s “The Sound and the Fury” — different aspects of a nonchronological story told from four perspectives, including that of a retarded person.
Bob said
January 13 2007 @ 2:54 am
Any “Choose Your Own Adventure” book.
Sure, abstract intellectual novels with obscure literary references and key nonvisual components are hard, but a non-linear story? Now, that’s a challenge!
Cartoons Fans Lounge said
January 13 2007 @ 3:00 am
[...] story No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTMLallowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> [...]
Rodney Welch said
January 13 2007 @ 3:02 am
Why do people yearn for great novels to be made into films, and not great films to be made into novels?
No one ever says “Hmm, I wonder if A.S. Byatt could really capture the spirit of Stephen Frears’ `The Queen,’” do they?
Hitchcock had the right idea when he said literary masterpiece shouldn’t be made into a film, since a masterpiece by definition has found its final form.
Such as the books you list here, or most of them. They were meant to be novels, nothing else, and that is more than enough.
I tell you, the idea of a gasbag like Terence Malick filming Proust just makes me want to vomit.
FSogol said
January 13 2007 @ 3:13 am
Add “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” to your list. This best selling novel has been optioned a dozen times since its publication and has never progressed past story boards. I believe Robert Redford owned the rights at one point.
Orlandoinsane said
January 13 2007 @ 3:15 am
Philip Jose Farmer’s Riverworld series.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverworld
steve said
January 13 2007 @ 3:17 am
I’ve spent most of my life, or so it seems, waiting for Gravity’s Rainbow to appear on the silver screen -it’ll never happen of course. But, Tarantino directing Uma Thurman as Oedipa Maas in Crying of Lot 49 – absolutely.
Metamorphosis was made into a film with Tim Roth playing Gregor – I forget who directed it.
Belushi would have made a fantastic Ignatius Reilly – what a missed opportunity, noone else could do it.
Bilbo Baggins said
January 13 2007 @ 3:23 am
see above
Also: the Lord of the Rings is very unfilmable. It would be strange for someone to even consider making them into a movie.
Cyberphin said
January 13 2007 @ 3:34 am
First, Why do we want adaptations at all? I personally hated Catcher in the Rye. Holden to me was a brat and there was nothing endearing about the character. I should have read it as a teen rather than as an adult. But the point is that adaptations we want are of novels we love. Yet I don’t know why that should be. Yes I love to see a basic story like Harry Potter brought to life, or have a movie like Fight Club turn me on to an author like Chuck P. But I don’t need to have every book become a film.
Second is that I think you are thinking of too much of main stream storytelling. Some of the great movies mentioned like Donnie Darko or Fight Club(i mentioned it) use Voice Overs(an unfaily miligned tool of film because it’s over used or unartfully used) I can’t imagine Goodfellas without Ray Liota’s voiceover. I prefer Blade Runner with the voiceover because it does help it make sense as well as giving it a hard boiled detective feel. Funny thing is about blade runner is I couldn’t stand the book or story “do androids dream of electric sheep” due to an element that was probably unfilmable, the whole religion element where you plug into some Virtual reality thing.
Some of these books would be good to adapt because you would have to really break from normal film techniques. Hollywood just can’t get away from it’s mainstream formulas to take the risk. Independents can’t afford the book rights.
Paul said
January 13 2007 @ 3:39 am
Insatiability by Wirkiewicz.
Unreadable too.
rushmc said
January 13 2007 @ 4:20 am
I saw a musical play version of A Confederacy of Dunces (one of my favorite books) at LSU about 20 years ago. It was superb. Just film that.
Rob said
January 13 2007 @ 4:29 am
Calling Austen’s novels gossip columns is like calling Beethoven’s symphonies ad jingles.
FK said
January 13 2007 @ 4:56 am
So glad “Cat’s Cradle” was mentioned. What makes it such a great book is exactly why it’d be very hard to film. I’d like to see that book, or Vonnegut, ever narrowed down to a film.
Michael Newton said
January 13 2007 @ 5:37 am
Infinite Jest is definitely a notable absence. Just about anything by Flann O’Brien could be on this list.
And House of Leaves, we get it already! Doesn’t anyone read comments before posting?
Anton said
January 13 2007 @ 5:45 am
Posted by Billy
“What about House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski. Anyone?”
–
Nah, i think that one is only sister-quotable-and-singable
Paul said
January 13 2007 @ 5:53 am
I think A Confederacy of Dunces could make a great project, but it would have to be spot on. I would hate to see this one done poorly. I could imagine it as an HBO series. Think David Milch/Deadwood…
austin said
January 13 2007 @ 5:58 am
For Gaius Obvious, above: “A Clockwork Orange” is by Anthony Burgess, not Aldous Huxley (who did “Brave New World”)
I would suggest “The Sound and the Fury” by William Faulkner (anyone who’s seen the film adaptation and read the book knows my pain) as well as “The Stranger” by Albert Camus (and potentially his “The Plague” as well)
Ramblings of a 21st Century Digital Boy Google is Omniscient « said
January 13 2007 @ 7:23 am
[...] Google is Omniscient January 13th, 2007 — Digital Boy Yesterday, I read this article, and thought that this book – which is mentioned in said article – might be interesting. Later that night, I found myself at a bookstore, and I realized it was a good opportunity for me to skim through the book and decide if it is worth reading. Unfortunately, I could remember neither the name nor the author of the book. I took what I thought was a long shot and asked the person working behind the register. This is what I told him (more or less): I am looking for this book. I don’t know the title or the author, except that he is Japanese. The book was translated to English and released around 1999 or 2000 [it was published in the U.S. in 1998]. The book is about a guy looking for his cat and wife [pause]. He’s not really looking for his wife and cat. It’s a metaphorical journey [I have no idea if it is a “metaphorical journey”, but saying that the book is about a guy looking for his wife and cat made it sound like I was looking for a children’s book]. I think it has “wind” in the title. [...]
Brian said
January 13 2007 @ 7:30 am
Nearly all of Nicholson Baker’s books are unfilmable because they are mainly about the narrator’s thought process. Perhaps the most unfilmable of the bunch is his first book, The Mezzanine, which is the story of a man’s thoughts as he rides the escalator back up to his office after lunch one day. Try filming that!
Another thing that comes to mind is that some (good) movies actually seem unfilmable! If you wrote out the script to Wings of Desire (which was largely improvised, I believe) I think any sane person would agree that it could (or should) never be filmed. And yet it was, and it’s a great movie. How did they do that? Perhaps it’s a testament to the director’s skill, or maybe it’s just incredible good fortune.
Vare2 said
January 13 2007 @ 7:47 am
Metamorphosis has been done before. I saw a recording of it in school.
Robot said
January 13 2007 @ 7:57 am
The Watchmen, by Alan Moore and David Gibbons–I don’t know how many have actually read this thing all the way through, but this is a comic book that would seriously have trouble being brought to a movie screen. Also, I don’t think anything Vonnegut has ever written made its way successfully onto the screen–they need to just leave the man alone.
links for 2007-01-13 at antifaust said
January 13 2007 @ 8:23 am
[...] The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels to Film Naked Lunch should be in this list, but I think someone already did it. (tags: books lists movies) [...]
Fat Mobil Content » storm x men naked The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels to Film said
January 13 2007 @ 8:56 am
[...] storm x men naked 13 novels that are impossible to film, and which director we think should try anyway… next x men movieread more | digg story [...]
Steve said
January 13 2007 @ 10:20 am
# Gaius Obvious Says:
January 12th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
“You left out “A Clockwork Orange†by Aldous Huxley… I can’t think of any director who would be able to handle it properly.”
Didn’t Burgess write A Clockwork Orange? And as far as I’m concerned, Kubrick did a fantastic job directing his adaptation.
krylon said
January 13 2007 @ 11:57 am
@52:
A clockwork orange was filmed by Stanley Kubrick in 1971 and was written by Anthony Burgess. A Brave New World was by Aldous Huxley! A lil confused?=))
eoin said
January 13 2007 @ 12:51 pm
Thank you, you Joycians, I have now amended Finnegans Wake. My crusade for correct grammer and apostrophe placement has got the better of me.
eoin said
January 13 2007 @ 1:01 pm
Ana (comment 47), you seem to think I and all the people commenting here are denouncing adaptations. Not at all, it seems Hollywood is so dry that books are the only option. But the question ia about getting it right, about the film embodying the spirit of the book. There’s plenty of good adaptations of good books (’1984′, ‘Animal Farm’, ‘A Clockwork Orange’… even Catch 22 was full of problems yet made a decent effort to be as nuts as the book). My concern is that writers and directors just aren’t thinking outside the box enough when adapting.
kevin said
January 13 2007 @ 1:29 pm
cool list
enders game
lots of problems
neuromancer
done right it would be great. but very hard to do right
stranger in a strange land
in the wrong hands it could be starship troopers
maybe as a miniseries with the cast of carnivale
k
Prime News Blog » Blog Archive » storm xmen xtreme The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels to Film said
January 13 2007 @ 2:53 pm
[...] storm xmen xtreme 13 novels that are impossible to film, and which director we think should try anyway… xmen evolution hentairead more | digg story [...]
Cy Guy said
January 13 2007 @ 3:50 pm
Most of the works of Christopher Moore. You could probably do a decent job with say Island of the Sequined Love Nun, but many of them, like Fluke, Lamb, or A Dirty Job just would involve too much special effects to make them “believable”.
With his new release of You Suck (a sequel to Bloodsucking Fiends) perhaps there will be motivation to make a film of Bloodsucking Fiends which I could see as possible, because there is the chance they could leverage some of the production costs over a second film – or maybe they could merge the two books into a single movie?
Swifty said
January 13 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Beat Takeshi… Japan’s best filmmaker? Shunji Iwai, Takeshi Miike, anybody? I personally think that the latter two (especially Iwai) would have a better chance adapting Wind-up Bird Chronicles.
Kishor Krishnamoorthi’s Website » Blog Archive » My PC is Vista Capable! said
January 13 2007 @ 5:10 pm
[...] And news, 5 Uses for old CDs How Wireless power works Optical Illusion of wooden structure Extremely Unusual guitar designs Changing the lights on the Wiimote Joshua Roll – The oldest mysterious document Google Earth pictures of Russian Military Locations Room painted to look like Mario Spectacular Chinese Hotel The hardest novels to film MiG 21 for sale on Ebay The tunnel behind the Niagara [...]
Lenox said
January 13 2007 @ 5:37 pm
Two: John Wyndham’s The Day of the Triffids (once made in the early sixties – truly bad.)Three-legged cactuses with a nasty sting roam the country as the world goes blind. Catchy.
Bulgakov’s The Master and Margherita. The Devil and a six foot tall cat with a Mauser automatic startle and torment Moscow as the Master struggles to write his book about Pontius Pilate.
Well… one more: Peake’s Gormenghast. A Trilogy in two books about a very large castle and a chap who wants to murder the cook.
Unfilmable Novels at JONTILLMAN.COM said
January 13 2007 @ 6:05 pm
[...] If you’re new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting! Unfilmable Novels [...]
Matt said
January 13 2007 @ 7:09 pm
I’m sure David Cronenberg did Metamorphosis…not sure if that was the working title of his film, but he did do a version.
myriam said
January 13 2007 @ 8:21 pm
I honestly think Michel Gondry would be best for 100 Years of Solitude.
And I too am sad to hear that the rights to “the Time-Traveler’s Wife” were bought. I really don’t think that would be worth bringing to screen–it could be DONE, but you’d miss all the best parts of the book–it would end up being reduced to a one-liner gimmick. The time-traveling is really incidental to the book, and it would take a very deft touch indeed to bring that story to screen without ending up show-casing the time-traveling.
David Rouse said
January 13 2007 @ 10:30 pm
Dhalgren by Delany, do I win?
Ringworld by Niven, yes we’ve got all this CGI now — but making a puppeteer and a Kzin look like real characters and not fantasy creatures, and then the puppeteer homeworld and then Ringworld itself … yikes. Plus you have a large backstory that would either be handwaved or explained to death. It would be very easy to do a horrible job.
As far as Steakley’s Armor goes, I’d like to see it as a movie, but you’d almost have to scrap the Jack Crow storyline — but turning the thing into “Catch 22 in Space” could go very badly.
TFS said
January 13 2007 @ 11:09 pm
any ayn rand book
stopping the italics said
January 13 2007 @ 11:23 pm
that is all
(hint – a preview function might be handy)
Gaius Obvious said
January 13 2007 @ 11:28 pm
Sorry, I did mix up Huxley and Burgess. But my point was that given a genius director like Kubrick, even an unfilmable novel like “A Clockwork Orange” (which would be near the top of this list were it not for our knowledge of Kubrick’s adaptation) can be filmed successfully.
Eoin said
January 13 2007 @ 11:51 pm
Swifty, Takashi Miike is very hit and miss. For every Audition or Izo he has made an Agitator or a Visitor Q
I’ve only seen Lily Chou chou and found it overlong.
Beat remains the best one, in my humble books.
Eoin said
January 13 2007 @ 11:59 pm
To those who criticised me (well, sort of) for raving on about how awful voice-over is…. I’m not criticising the use of VO entirely. Many films use it appropriatly… Taxi Driver being one of the best. Fight Club would have been pointless without it. And so on.
But the problem I do have is the tendency of some novel adaptations to throw in unnecessary voice-over. Like the film Perfume, where we’re forced what to think, when a tad more creativity would have suggested it, making it a much more satisfying experience. And that’s what I have a huge problem with… the showing of something visually, and being forced into a single interpretation.
stufbufs said
January 14 2007 @ 12:46 am
In my opinion, the most unfilmable novel ever written-and one of the greatest, by the way-is “The Recognitions” by William Gaddis. The only director who might, I repeat, MIGHT have been able to pull it off was Orson Welles.
One thing all the books mentioned here have in common is that all of them mess with your mind. Each reader will have his own interpretation as to what the book is about, so the film will be nothing more than the diretor showing what HE believes the book is about. Also, the books mentioned involve a lot of internalization, and movies by their nature can’t do that well.
Tom B. said
January 14 2007 @ 5:12 am
Pynchon’s MASON & DIXON has a strong, linear (heh) plot, and could be filmed, though it would take a screenwriter and director who can successfully handle both comedy and historical material. Most historical films aren’t known for their humor. Perhaps Tony Richardson (”Tom Jones”) could have made it work, but he’s no longer with us. Alfonso Cuaron, perhaps?
Addicted to Films said
January 14 2007 @ 7:00 am
I would want to see Catcher in the Rye because it is such a classic.
It would be hard to capture everything though.
Books, Words, and Writing » Blog Archive » Novels That Are Impossible To Film said
January 14 2007 @ 12:49 pm
[...] Now there’s an animated discussion going on about The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels To Film. [...]
links for 2007-01-14 at Webmercial.dk said
January 14 2007 @ 8:10 pm
[...] The Unfilmables A List of the Hardest Novels to Film (tags: film list lists) [...]
squiggle said
January 14 2007 @ 10:38 pm
Rabelais’ Gargantua and Pantagruel. But I’d like someone to try.
p.s. To say Ulysses is ‘considered to be the greatest novel ever written’ is a bit extreme. One of the best. Les Misérables, War and Peace… there’ll never be a consensus.
Eoin said
January 14 2007 @ 10:56 pm
Well, there have been many surveys and Ulysses has topped many. And I did say considered, therefore it is not definitive. OF course there’ll never be a consensus, that goes without saying.
Andrew said
January 15 2007 @ 12:44 am
Guy Maddin could do a superb job of “Metamorphosis”; he would capture the gothic imagery and the sly humour – as long as you don’t mind a man in a cockroach outfit made of styrofoam and construction paper…
NZ Protagonist » Blog Archive » Catcher in the Rye - is it an unfilmable book? said
January 15 2007 @ 3:46 am
[...] Screenhead has a list of the hardest novels to film. It’s really worth taking a look as the list is well thought out. [...]
Jonadab said
January 15 2007 @ 8:27 am
Lois McMaster Bujold novels would be difficult to film, because significant amounts of plot are revealed in the characters’ thoughts, between their spoken lines. The worst ones are those featuring Miles Vorkosigan, because an important feature of this character is that he does *lots* of thinking between the lines in this manner. Not only is it integral to his character, but also to the plot.
There is also an entire category of sci-fi novels featuring major characters who possess no physical body (typically existing in an electronic network, although occasionally an author goes another direction), e.g., Children of the Mind (Orson Scott Card), Annals of the Heechee (Frederick Pohl). None of these would be particularly easy to adapt to film, but the Otherland series (Tad Williams) would, I think, be particularly hard to make work. When the characters do have a visual representation it’s often surreal and differs from scene to scene in a way that would make character identification would be difficult for the viewer. Also the four volumes are really one single book (or, at any rate, one single story), which is lengthy in the extreme and could probably not be significantly shortened without becomming incoherent, since the story it tells is just that long and detailed.
Praney Deb said
January 15 2007 @ 9:43 am
First article i ever read on cracked.com
loved it and love you guys for being irreverant, comic, shocking and enlightening all at the same time
she-ra said
January 15 2007 @ 9:59 am
“on the road”, by jack kerouac. it’s just too impossible to cast, nevermind illustrate. the america of the book just doesnt exist anymore. and the poetic writing is too rich for any young actors today.
“filth” by irvine welsh, or another of his books “maribou stork nightmares”. the books themselves are 3-D enough. it’s writing that leaps off the page and slaps you across the face. much too intense for the screen.
“the god of small things” by arhandati roy. so much of this book is internal and lyrical. it would never make sense on the screen. the scenes are too sophisticated for young actors. a film would ruin this delicate novel.
“naked” or “me talk pretty one day” by david sedaris. no film could capture the hilarity of his writing style. you’d be better off just filming the author telling the stories. in fact, someone should get on it quick…
Steve said
January 15 2007 @ 11:45 am
Stephen King’s Dark Tower series… should be enough said. Although some aspects of it would translate very easily, other bits would lose a lot in the metamorphosis to film. Not really sure film studios would go for such an anti-hero either
Aran said
January 15 2007 @ 4:32 pm
Nabokov’s “Ada or Ardour” — 1) teenage siblings having sex 2)the “climax” of the story is a man driving a car through Switzerland reminiscing about a lecture he gave about the philosophy of time.
KR Blog » Blog Archive » Short takes said
January 15 2007 @ 5:23 pm
[...] Zadie Smith instructs us all to “Fail Better.” [...]
OgMog: beta » “If There’s One Thing I Hate, It’s The Movies.” said
January 15 2007 @ 5:58 pm
[...] Last week, Screenhead released its list of the hardest novels to film, which included Ulysses, Cat’s Cradle, Hundred Years of Solitude, and J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye. This got me thinking: If in some alternate universe I had the chance, could I direct Catcher in the Rye? I could, and here’s what I would do. [...]
Kurt Godwin said
January 15 2007 @ 7:11 pm
Add Ken Kesey’s Sometime a Great Notion that includes the inner thought trains of the characters. A weak, simple film verzion was released in the 1970’s with Henry Fonda and an “all star cast” that came no where near capturing this beautiful, complex novel.
Orbis Quintus » Blog Archive » the unfilmable novel game said
January 15 2007 @ 8:16 pm
[...] In reading this list of supposedly unfilmable books, i feel like shrugging. Maybe i’m pessimistic, but i feel that there is an awful of of books that can never be adapted to film. I’m eager for Bill to report back on that adaptation of the Saragossa Manuscript, as he got that DVD for Christmas. [...]
kenspeckle » links for 2007-01-15 said
January 15 2007 @ 11:46 pm
[...] hardest novels to film I wonder what makes them think Thomas Pynchon’s novels would be difficult to film? (tags: books culture list lists literature movie movies reading) [...]
pappa steves said
January 16 2007 @ 2:31 am
Someone above mentioned Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian. I don’t think that’s unfilmable, but it would take a certain gift to pull off without sucking. Terrence Malick would be my first choice to direct. Tommy Lee Jones of all people owns the rights to the book, according to wikipedia.
Ivan said
January 16 2007 @ 4:44 am
I love your list and all the comments, and am with the gist of it, but I don’t believe there is any story that cannot be made into a film.
As a filmmaker, if you can’t see how to do it you’re just not the person for the job, but that doesn’t mean that someone like Cronenberg won’t come along tomorrow with a good idea about how to do it.
It may have to become somewhat different, an homage like Naked Lunch perhaps, but Cronenberg got the feeling about as right as anyone could hope for, so it is silly to say UNfilmable. And if you do the novel exactly as written it’s not ‘novel’ anymore now is it? Getting it right in filming novels is mostly getting the FEELING right, especially with the more abstract novels.
2001, the novel, was improved by Kubrick and he filmed it in a way that made it seem MORE unfilmable, if you get what I mean, and it worked! Thank god for acid, for getting it made, but it still holds up better than any other Sci-Fi movie ever, even after everyone came down, because Kubrick was a serious artist who had command of the ‘art’ part of the “art”, unlike the vast majority of current retail hacks whose most developed literary skills are the cliche and the cheap shot.
No, there is nothing unfilmable, but due to the glamour and money involved in the Hollywood system, Hollywood attracts much less courageous and imaginative creatives than it did, say, back when Hitler was rounding up all the great writers’ friends and families and murdering them.
American filmmaking has become standard retailing at the service of Moloch…Bwa ha ha! It’s like any other retail situation; maybe you can get backing to make freaky fuschia paisley shoes , but you won’t necessarily sell huge volumes at the mall, and that makes Moloch angry! People with sufficient imagination and competence to do these abstract stories can’t get backing because the market research says ‘no’, and in America market research is gathered from a challenged sample base which results in a creative bias in favor of go-along hacks. But we must leave open the possibility that the stories could be filmed by an inspired artist who sees the uncommon way.
Welles, Fellini, Kubrick and the other abstract greats were sooooo lucky to be in the right place at the right time with the right credentials.
Jim said
January 16 2007 @ 6:16 pm
Film in itself is it’s own medium. The only true way to adapt any of these materials you list, is to reinvent them, and that can only be done by a single individual. Which leaves the Hollywood machine in the dust. The Independents are gaining confidence to translate these materials, just give them time and freedom of expression. Look for the soul of these books to be found in their work, not the ascthetic, or even structure. Expect nothing and you’ll get it all.
john said
January 16 2007 @ 8:00 pm
tristram shandy.
Steph Mineart said
January 16 2007 @ 8:17 pm
For Ethan Allen Smith’s suggestion about George R.R. Martin’s “A Song of Ice and Fire†– quite right that it would never work as a movie, but it would be an extraordinary television series, or lengthy mini-series.
anazgnos said
January 16 2007 @ 8:47 pm
Very glad to see props for Welles’ “The Trial”…a very underrated picture.
Jaylord said
January 16 2007 @ 8:49 pm
Two of Robert Heinlein’s novels, one which has aged well, “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”, and one that hasn’t, “Stranger in a Strange Land.” Although SIASL would still make an interesting film if you could pull it off. Of course a real adaptation of “Starship Troopers” would be a major accomplishment too.
Bugsbane mentioned the Amber series, but another Zelazny work “Lord of Light” would be even more difficult to film but also wonderful if it could be done.
James Finn Garner » Blog Archive » Welcome to Award Season said
January 16 2007 @ 9:24 pm
[...] Speaking of movies, here’s an interesting list that caught my eye today: The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels to Film. This doesn’t even include novels that people tried to film and failed (like Bonfire of the Vanities). The comments of the film fans are also worth reading. My favorite was: You left out “A Clockwork Orange†by Aldous Huxley. It’s a first-person narrative set in a dystopian world where the narrator uses practically incomprehensible mix of Russian and English slang. You need a glossary to read it. And it’s essential to the story. I can’t think of any director who would be able to handle it properly. [...]
matt said
January 16 2007 @ 9:36 pm
“High Rise” is not J.G.Ballards latest. its from 1975.
omar said
January 16 2007 @ 10:09 pm
what about Julio Cortazar? Try to make a film of Rayuela or, much better, of 62.
Bjartur said
January 16 2007 @ 10:16 pm
Independent People by Haldor Laxness. Amazing novel that couldn’t possibly be put to the screen in a satisfying fashion.
Alex said
January 16 2007 @ 10:48 pm
Italo Calvino’s “If on a winter’s night a traveler” seems like an obvious inclusion. A second-person perspective self-referential novel about you, the reader, is pretty much the definition of unfilmable.
eoin said
January 16 2007 @ 11:20 pm
Matt, well spotted. I was thinking of Super Cannes, which isn’t even his latest! The article has been amended
Band Of Outsiders » Blog Archive » The Unfilmables said
January 17 2007 @ 2:52 am
[...] Screenhead has a list of what they think are unfilmable novels.  Not exactly a novel (a novella actually), but Story of the Eye might be a bit hard to adapt to film. [...]
the boxman said
January 17 2007 @ 6:38 am
I would love to see Confederacy of Dunces made into a movie and I think it could be done.
I would also like to see more movies about homeless people cause we got lots of free time and the movie theatre is a great place to go to stay warm
http://www.street-people.com
Edward Champion’s Return of the Reluctant » But No Calvino? said
January 17 2007 @ 12:13 pm
[...] A list of unfilmable novels. (via Romancing the Tome) [...]
Bookninja » Blog Archive » The Unfilmables said
January 17 2007 @ 2:49 pm
[...] Backwards City points to a list of the most unfilmable novels. Appropriately enough, Ulysses heads the list. Considered to be the greatest novel ever written, Ulysses is ripe with obscure references, wit, and a style of lyrical writing that makes the book better said than read. There have been two Irish films, one in 1967 and other recent version in 2003, called Bloom. Both are utter failures, and the best they can do is have passages read over the basic action in a desperate attempt to maintain James Joyce’s stream-of-consciousness style of writing. It’s the cardinal sin of adaptation. A true adaptation of this novel would have to substitute the written associations and wordplay with a solely visual language, allowing the power of the image and editing to represent the novel’s essence. I should also give Joyce’s last novel ‘Finnegans Wake’ a nod for being the most unfilmable novel of all time, despite this. If anyone can do it: Quentin Tarantino has displayed a habit of… just kidding. Posted by George [link] [...]
Leon Schiff said
January 17 2007 @ 3:50 pm
Good list, though I disagree that Soderbergh is humorless. Schizopolis is one of the funniest movies I’ve ever seen, and his dark-comedy style would fit perfectly with Confederacy of Dunces. Jim Jarmusch would be another good director for Confederacy, or maybe even Ulysses.
The Unemployed Writer » Blog Archive » Most Impossible Books to Film said
January 17 2007 @ 5:14 pm
[...] It seems like every other book on the market these days has a license already snapped up by a major studio. Of course, the truth is that there are some books deemed impossible film. Over at Screenhead, they look into some of the most unfilmable novels and subsequently which directors could pull it off. I would pay hand over fist to see any of these turned into film, especially Murakami and Vonnegut, two of my favorite writers by far. I don’t know about Richard Kelly with his rather short resume, but Beat Takeshi despite his pop cult status is one of the great modern directors of Japan. [...]
Quick Links at juniorbonner.net said
January 17 2007 @ 7:26 pm
[...] The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels to Film Annotated(1) With the release and critical success of Perfume: The Story of a Murderer, an adaptation of a novel once considered impossible to film, what better time to look into the process of adaptation. Most movies these days are based on literary sources. Which is ironic, considering the increasing lack of interest in books these days as opposed to the spoon-fed thoughts offered by Hollywood. [...]
Eoin said
January 17 2007 @ 11:35 pm
Leon, Schizopolis is a one-trick pony so to speak, and it fails to carry the entirety of the film. I stand by my comment. I’ve yet to see a truly funny Soderbergh film.
-- archives of morbid713 -- said
January 18 2007 @ 12:06 am
[...] The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels to Film With the release and critical success of Perfume: The Story of a Murderer, an adaptation of a novel once considered impossible to film, what better time to look into the process of adaptation. Most movies these days are based on literary sources. Which is ironic, considering the increasing lack of interest in books these days as opposed to the spoon-fed thoughts offered by Hollywood. While many novels can be almost directly translated to screen, especially pre-20th century novels such as Jane Austen’s gossip columns, more recent novels can prove difficult. There have been bad novels turned into good films (pretty much everything Hitchcock Made, The Godfather), and plenty of dull adaptations of good books (Dune, The Unbearable Bore of Being in a Cinema to Watch This). There’s also a few oddities, such as Adaptation, Charlie Kaufman’s bizarre self-referential adaptation of ‘The Orchid Thief’. But despite the film industry’s frenzy in snapping up adaptation rights, there remains a few novels many fear. {more} [...]
Big Bad Book Blog » Blog Archive » Big Bad Book Blog Links 1-18-07 said
January 18 2007 @ 2:52 pm
[...] Screenhead: The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels to Film With the release and critical success of Perfume: The Story of a Murderer, an adaptation of a novel once considered impossible to film, what better time to look into the process of adaptation. Most movies these days are based on literary sources. Which is ironic, considering the increasing lack of interest in books these days as opposed to the spoon-fed thoughts offered by Hollywood. [...]
Just another English major said
January 18 2007 @ 4:08 pm
Great discussion! I’d like to nominate Jitterbug Perfume as an extremely difficult novel to translate to film. For that matter, Tom Robbins books in general would be very tough (anyone who saw _Even Cowgirls Get the Blues_ understands). As for directors, I’d love to see Baz Luhrmann give Ulysses (and a lot of the other films on the list)a shot. He has a great sense of the surreal. And amen to Terry Gilliam tackling some of this stuff. I think Gilliam and Vonnegut would be a great combo.
Thanks for this great topic!
JKH said
January 19 2007 @ 4:53 pm
Don’t know if anyone has mentioned this already but Garcia Marquez is Colombian, not Spainish…
Pete Bogs said
January 19 2007 @ 6:48 pm
most movies these days are based on literature? try 70s TV shows and horror films! that was true at one time, but not now…
Clarkus said
January 19 2007 @ 9:15 pm
There will always be a few books left out. It’s all a matter of how famous they are.
“The Stone Door” by Leonara Carrington is virtually unfilmable…
Ulysses is incredibly filmable… but the resulting film would be utterly awful. It’s all about how he uses the English language, not what the story is.
If anyone’s ever read Robert Anton Wilson’s SCREENPLAY “Reality is What You Can Get Away With” you’d agree that it would be completely unfilmable, despite it being a screenplay. Sure, you COULD do it with computers, I guess, but not well.
Oh, and Scott Rudin has the rights to “A Confederacy of Dunces” and is producing it this year with Will F. Sorry, but it’s happening, and it’s going to be awful.
I think Murakami would be quite filmable, personally. With surreal cinema making a slight comeback in the past decade, it’s definitely possible.
ron said
January 19 2007 @ 10:27 pm
First one I thought of was Dhalgren… already mentioned above but I’ll add a 2nd vote.
Blood Meridian is allegedly on Ridley Scott’s plate.
Someone mentioned 2001 – it actually wasn’t an adaption of the novel, the two sort of came about concurrently.
jared said
January 20 2007 @ 1:39 am
Based on the author’s comment about soderbergh and the ensuing responses, i have to say that schizopolis is one of the most humorously intelligent films ever made. although, it takes a certain degree of class and patience to appreciate it.
Books by Milan Kundera, Milorad Pavic, Nabokov, Mark Danielewski would all be very difficult to film.
muggezifter said
January 21 2007 @ 9:48 pm
I bet that if ‘The Singing Detective’ had been an ovel, it would have been on the list…
Pause It Media - Exploring the culture of media and technology » Pause This: Film (01-21-07) said
January 22 2007 @ 12:52 am
[...] A hypothetical list of 13 novels that are impossible to film, with suggestions on which directors should ever handle them. [...]
AustenBlog . . . she’s everywhere » It really isn’t that easy, actually said
January 22 2007 @ 6:51 am
[...] Alert Janeite Zoe sent us a link to an article listing the hardest novels to film. No, Jane Austen’s novels are NOT included on the list. While many novels can be almost directly translated to screen, especially pre-20th century novels such as Jane Austen’s gossip columns, more recent novels can prove difficult. [...]
fade theory » the unfilmables said
January 22 2007 @ 12:24 pm
[...] Unfilmable novels. (via Ed) [...]
Ruffian said
January 22 2007 @ 9:21 pm
Tristram Shandy should be on the list. Winterbottom’s try was pretty good
Matt said
January 22 2007 @ 9:43 pm
Until this list includes Faulkner, it will never be credible.
The first quarter of The Sound and the Fury is narrated by a severely autistic man who makes no distinction between past and present events. And after that, it starts to get confusing
Mario said
January 22 2007 @ 10:08 pm
Almodovar making 100 years of solitude????
Are you crazy????
Eoin said
January 22 2007 @ 11:45 pm
MAtt, the Sound and the Fury is one of my favourite novels, and was a contender for the list. However, I actually think a right approach could make an adaptation filmable.
Mario, I actually side more with Medem as the better director. But I still contend Almodovar does have the with and sense of domestic myth (I know, I’m bordering on an oxymoron there) to pull off a decent version. Do you have any better suggestions?
Jessica said
January 23 2007 @ 2:00 am
Eoin, first, I am not alone in admiring Jane Austen, do not find her gossipy or trite but compassionate and rational, and am not alone in comparing her to great composers:
“It is possible to say of Jane Austen, as perhaps we can say of no other writer, that the opinions which are held of her work are almost as interesting, and almost as important to think about, as the work itself,†-Lionel Trilling
“She is perfect in literature as Mozart is in music, and she gives me the same sort of feeling. But apart from that, she is the first of the great novelists.†-Frank O’Connor
“A little aloof, a little inscrutable and mysterious she will always remain, but serene and beautiful because of her greatness as an artist.†-Virginia Woolf
Second, I happen to like popular music, and find much of it memorable. But Jane goes deeper than that, and you’d have to like her enough to read more and see that for yourself. As for being an enemy (on austenblog.com), there is nothing more than a true Janeite perfers than lively debate on a relevant subject! Jane was known to make fun of many a writer in her time. Try her again!
Founder said
January 23 2007 @ 2:21 am
The Silmarillian by JRR Tolkian.
Not only does it cover about 10,000 years of history, and starts before the world was created. It wasn’t finished in the authors lifetime, and he was re-writing it for 50 years.
Las novelas más difÃciles de rodar said
January 23 2007 @ 2:03 pm
[...] En Screenhead han elaborado un listado con las novelas más difÃciles de volcar en imágenes. Dos obras cumbre de las letras hispanas se sitúan entre ellas. [...]
Una temporada en el infierno » Blog Archive » Libros imposibles de llevar al cine said
January 23 2007 @ 9:53 pm
[...] El Bibliómano me conduce a una relación de libros imposible de filmar, imposibles de llevar al cine, entre los que Screenhead cita a Don Quijote, Cien años de soledad, los libros de Proust y Joyce, las Metamorfosis kafkianas, entre otros. [...]
Michael said
January 24 2007 @ 12:10 pm
agreed on house of leaves
Billy Pilgrim said
January 24 2007 @ 7:07 pm
“The Silmarillian by JRR Tolkian.
Not only does it cover about 10,000 years of history, and starts before the world was created. It wasn’t finished in the authors lifetime, and he was re-writing it for 50 years.”
I bet Will Wright could make a video game out of it.
ArtLung Blog » Daily Links said
January 25 2007 @ 7:19 am
[...] The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels to Film » Screenhead (tags: culture movies writing books) [...]
Editado » Blog Archive » Y hablando de… said
January 25 2007 @ 3:10 pm
[...] Y hablando de… novelas llevadas al cine (ver los posts sobre Niños del hombre y El perfume), via El Bibliómano llego a una lista de libros difÃciles de llevar al cine: The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels to Film. [...]
Alan K. said
January 26 2007 @ 6:54 am
-Any novel by Michael Kun. The formats of the books are often just as important as the narrative. Who would be able to adapt You Poor Monster, for example, when it relies so heavily on its use of footnotes? I certainly don’t know.
-It’s not exactly a novel, but Dante’s Divine Comedy seems like it would be tough to adapt intact. It’s of a similar length to Lord of the Rings, but it has so many specific people for every circle/level/sphere that casting alone would be a nightmare. How would such a movie be paced, when characters are introduced and never revisited? The Inferno might be doable (by cutting out a bulk of its musings and substance), but the Purgatorio would be nothing but mind-sapping tedium. This is to say nothing for the religious anger it would inevitably cause. An assignment like this would require another dedicated visionary like Peter Jackson to have a chance. I would like to see this done, by the way.
Las novelas más difÃciles de rodar said
February 1 2007 @ 3:12 am
[...] Screenhead han elaborado un listado con las novelas más difÃciles de volcar en imágenes. Dos obras cumbre [...]
Las novelas más difÃciles de rodar (II) said
February 1 2007 @ 3:27 am
[...] en Blog de cine, se trata de una estupenda adaptación. Sigamos con otras novelas destacadas por Screenhead como [...]
Ballardian: the World of J.G. Ballard » Unfilmable Novels said
February 1 2007 @ 4:51 pm
[...] over at the prolific group film blog Screenhead ruminates on the process of adaptation at length after reviewing Perfume: The Story of a Murderer. After stating that there are [...]
Lantheaume.com :: Unfilmable novels said
February 1 2007 @ 9:20 pm
[...] A list of the hardest novels to make into movies from SCREENHEAD [...]
Ashutosh Nilkanth’s Blog » Hardest Novels to Film said
February 3 2007 @ 2:39 am
[...] The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels to Film Entry Filed under: Entertainment, Movies, Linklog [...]
Rulemanes para Telémaco :: Imposibles de novelar :: February :: 2007 said
February 9 2007 @ 10:06 pm
[...] The Art of Fiction llegué a una lista de novelas infilmables. Como lo interesante de comentar este tipo de listas es poder manifestar nuestro desacuerdo con su [...]
Las novelas más difÃciles de rodar (III) said
February 15 2007 @ 2:01 pm
[...] | Últimas de babel Más información | Screenhead (inglés) En Papel en blanco | Las novelas más difÃciles de rodar En Papel en blanco | Las [...]
Homo Sum » Blog Archive » Three bookish links for a Sunday night said
February 19 2007 @ 12:39 am
[...] is part of a post where he points us to the Unflimable Novels list over at [...]
Big Bad Book Blog » Blog Archive » The Unfilmables said
February 21 2007 @ 9:28 am
[...] American Psycho), or because the literary voice can’t be translated to a visual medium (as with Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle). But some filmmakers see these difficult cases as a challenge to put paper to [...]
J’s blog » Blog Archive » Lists of movies can be fun… said
February 24 2007 @ 11:01 am
[...] The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels to Film [...]
eNotes Book Blog » Blog Archive » Don’t Even Bother said
March 6 2007 @ 6:42 pm
[...] blog comes up with a detailed list of the hardest novels to film. It’s a nice list of difficult classics that just wouldn’t be helped by a transition to [...]
Harry Mezeros said
April 1 2007 @ 9:43 am
I just hope someone makes a movie of the book SWAP by Sam Moffie.
Upper Fort Stewart » Novel Impossibilities said
April 4 2007 @ 10:38 pm
[...] those impossible novels are here. This entry was written by Ian and posted on January 12, 2007 at 1:15 pm and filed under Fiction, [...]
Fabio Escobar said
April 9 2007 @ 7:25 pm
Nietzsche’s Zarathustra would present considerable challenges. There are a thousand hidden references, each character is rife with symbolism, and the prose is poetic to the hilt.
Question the Buzz » R.I.P. Kurt said
April 12 2007 @ 2:22 pm
[...] A great place to start with Vonnegut is his off the wall Cat’s Cradle, which coincidentally is listed as one of the 10 unfilmables. [...]
links for 2007-04-13 « phoenix rising said
April 13 2007 @ 5:18 am
[...] The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels to Film » ScreenHead (tags: film literature lists) [...]
Movies » The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels to Film said
April 13 2007 @ 6:20 am
[...] novels that are impossible to film, and which director we think should try anyway…read more | digg [...]
A Rave for Chuck Palahniuk’s Rant » ScreenHead said
April 18 2007 @ 11:22 am
[...] charm and ferocity in often the same sentence. Rant stands in the latest in the line of great unfilmable fiction, but that shouldn’t stop anyone from trying – and [...]
eNotes Book to Film Blog » Blog Archive » Hardest Novels to Film said
May 14 2007 @ 1:56 pm
[...] this one from the eNotes Book Blog, which reports on Screenhead’s list of “The Unfilmables: The Hardest Novels to Film”. Top of the list? You guessed it, [...]
lil said
June 13 2007 @ 2:03 pm
i just did a search on this page for danielewski’s “house of leaves”, and i’m pleased but not surprised to see the number of posts in which it’s mentioned. i’m both anticipating, and terrified of, the day someone makes this novel into a film.
i kind of hope it’s animated… possibly by richard williams? i’d love to see someone draw the footage of the super 8 tapes.
eoin said
June 13 2007 @ 2:28 pm
Considering the level of abstraction you see in anime movies like Paprika, perhaps they would best suit House of Leaves?
videomood said
July 26 2007 @ 8:47 am
Another hard one and one which I would love to see is “House of Leavesâ€, but I can only imagine how difficult that one would be.
bookslut @ vitrolenta.net » Blog Archive » The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels to Film said
August 19 2007 @ 1:38 am
[...] {more} [...]
TestName said
September 22 2007 @ 7:32 am
Test myfunction comment
Bedava Mp3 indir said
September 29 2007 @ 12:39 pm
videomood thans ı think
Film indir said
September 29 2007 @ 12:41 pm
ooo ::) thanks super post most beatifuly
Tomis said
September 30 2007 @ 2:04 pm
Add Ken Kesey’s Sometime a Great Notion that includes the inner thought trains of the characters. A weak, simple film verzion was released in the 1970’s with Henry Fonda and an “all star cast†that came no where near capturing this beautiful, complex novel.
kezman said
September 30 2007 @ 2:04 pm
i just did a search on this page for danielewski’s “house of leavesâ€, and i’m pleased but not surprised to see the number of posts in which it’s mentioned. i’m both anticipating, and terrified of, the day someone makes this novel into a film.
i kind of hope it’s animated… possibly by richard williams? i’d love to see someone draw the footage of the super 8 tapes.
jaime said
October 1 2007 @ 11:57 pm
I heard that Gabo has already signed a movie deal for 100 years. I don´t think any of those forementioned directors should do it, at least not with the help of GGM himself who is known to be a cinema buff, he even has books on how to write screenplays…. also, his son is a director so maybe he could be considered to do it.
The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels to Film « Movies said
October 19 2007 @ 9:26 am
[...] read more | digg story [...]
Nthrwrld said
December 14 2007 @ 7:12 pm
Nonsense. Anything that’s been written can be filmed. The book is not the movie, and the movie is not the book. They are two different creations. The practical questions are 1) Who will pay to make the movie? and 2) How many people will pay to see it?
Michael Llaneza said
December 19 2007 @ 3:51 pm
Well, you’d better put the Coen Brothers back on the list for Confederacy of Dunces – No Country was brilliant.
Let’s see, I believe it’s been proved to everyone’s satisfaction that Dune is unfilmable. SCiFi’s miniseries tried to dodge the issue by doing it as a stage production and filming that (yes, look at the blocking).
Starship Troopers also falls into the unfilmable category, since it relies on not being able to see the characters for a lot of the plot.
Bone People by Keri Hulme would be difficult-to-impossible to film, like an awful lot of novels it’s all internal and a bit too complicated to be readily translatable into visual imagery. Maybe Kurosawa…
eoin o'faolain said
December 19 2007 @ 4:35 pm
Michael, I believe Kurosawa is unavailable these days
. I haven’t seen No Country, but I read the book, and it’s easy to adapt as it’s very simple and very visual. But I suspect the film could be Joel and Ethan’s best yet!
Nthrwrld, I never said that something written can’t be filmed. My point is that there are somebooks that cinema may not be able to do justice in any way. I’d like to see YOU try to make a film of Finnegans Wake. But if you read my article, I do make attemtps at identifying who could potential make a worth adaptation.
Jay said
January 3 2008 @ 5:56 pm
did anyone say BLOOD MERIDIAN by cormac mcarthy yet?
and
House of Leaves
and
A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius
The Dialectic » Blog Archive » The Function of Literature said
March 19 2008 @ 10:35 am
[...] was reading this article about the most “unfilmable books“, and includes some of my all time favorites, such as Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle, [...]
Fine and Full » Flim the Unfilmable said
April 7 2008 @ 2:11 am
[...] came across The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels to Film, and thought some of y’all might enjoy it. Lots of interesting comments after the main list [...]
Serendipity Wednesday « That, Which said
May 28 2008 @ 2:06 pm
[...] tv Today we have failed our saving throw versus dumb blogospheric luck. How about a list of unfilmable books cross-pollenating with a series of pontifications on whether books or film are driving contemporary [...]
Jami JoAnne Russell said
May 29 2008 @ 12:33 am
I beg to differ on why Catcher In The Rye is unfilmable. It’s unfilmable because it’s one of the worse books ever written. Holden is just a whiney little brat who needs to be smacked upside the head. The plot is non-existant. The writing itself is hackneyed. Granted, there’s an even worse book that they did manage to turn into a film – Forrest Gump. One of the rare examples where the movie is better then the book. (Honestly, I wonder who Groom slept with to get it published because that man cannot write.) But CITR is just an awful, awful book. It’s too pretentious to ever make a good movie.
joe wright said
May 29 2008 @ 4:09 pm
Anything about Rushdie on here? I feel that filming any of his novels would be very difficult, in particular Midnight’s Children. I think that any of his work would be even harder than books like Catcher and Confederacy.
Books that are unfilmable « The Rabbit I Pulled Out Of My Hat said
May 30 2008 @ 1:06 pm
[...] Paul Crittenden @ 5:06 pm Jeff VanderMeer’s Ecstatic Days blog has a post here about this list of unfilmable books. The list is pretty good except I think Catcher In the Rye is very filmable. Which is not to say I [...]
Homo Sum » Blog Archive » Sunday night quick book links said
June 9 2008 @ 12:33 am
[...] problems with adapting good novels to film before, but I haven’t actually played the “what would be unfilmable” game much. That Murakami novel discussed above leaps to mind, so it’s nice to see him [...]
Paul C said
July 20 2008 @ 11:17 pm
Confederacy, Cradle, Jest…they’re very, very filmable. Especially Confederacy and Cradle, they’re practically prose screenplays. Jest would require a breed of genius director that doesn’t even exist yet, but it’s doable. The problem right now is how stagnant the MEDIUM is, the medium is going to have to be de- and re-constructed by uber-auteurs before these movies get done right. Whatever the upcoming Jest movie ends up being, there’s no way it will be better than a mediocre movie, and a disgrace to the book’s memory. But no worry, Jest movies (and other adaptations in other formats) will get attempted many times, and a few times are bound to be good.
T. S. Hall said
November 14 2008 @ 9:52 pm
No book is unfilmable, it only takes passion from a creative person. Any decent writer can write an unfilmable scene. The same as a decent director can create a scene that defies words(I’ve read whole books written about 1933 KING KONG). The only thing books and film have in common are that they are entertainment, some educate, some don’t. When viewing film I don’t need to know ten pages of information to explain why a protagonist likes a song on the radio. A writer can just say a character is a cool guy and the reader takes his word for it. In a movie the actor has to actually be cool. I guess a writer could just say the character is like Rick in Casablanca. It seems to me we should be discussing how Citizen Kane would make a terrible book.
?????? ?????? ??????? ?? » The Unbookables said
December 30 2008 @ 2:32 am
[...] ?????? ????? ?? "The Unfilmables", ??????? ???? ??? ????? ????. ???? ?????? ?????? [...]
justjoeindenver said
January 15 2009 @ 4:06 pm
Just re-reading Murakami’s “The Wind Up Bird Chronicle” when I stumbled onto your site. One of my favorites of all time. I’d also like to see an attempt at “Kafka On The Shore” for what it’s worth. As far as Chronicle – I don’t know how even Lynch could pull off some of those scenes in the well. Not to mention the iconic Johnny Walker Red popping the cat heads into his mouth…… Isn’t Colonel Sanders in there, too? Great stuff…. Personally I’m waiting on the hybrid of Brazil and Catch-22….
Another idiot said
March 16 2009 @ 8:06 am
I’d just like to suggest ‘House of Leaves’, but in a way that I think makes me sound really cool for having come up with what I think is a brilliantly offbeat suggestion, but which in fact reveals that I read the same post-modern crap as any other pseudo-intellectual and have the originality and imagination of a bowl of cereal, and that, furthermore, I clearly can’t even be bothered to listen to the opinions of others because I haven’t noticed that a dozen people have already suggsted it.
Aaron Dumont said
March 23 2009 @ 2:17 am
I suggest The Devil to Pay in the Backlands to be unfilmable–the book has its own form of grammar, for god’s sake. Any book that can do that defies filmability (but deserves lots of respect, nonetheless).
Also, Pale Fire is definitely unfilmable. Same for any Gertrude Stein novel, or perhaps any Henry Green novel.
However, the most unfilmable of them all would have to be a tie between The Waste Land and The Cantos.
Just my two cents.
Ranxerox said
April 19 2009 @ 5:27 pm
I’ve always thought that Dahlgren by Samuel R. Delany would be pretty difficult. Granted there would be some scenes that would be tempting, but the depth and texture of the book would be hard to get down on film.
Nikki Z said
August 6 2009 @ 10:18 pm
Fantastic List!!! I can’t believe High Rise is coming to theatres. Awesome
The Unfilmable Novels | Welcome To Wallyworld said
August 12 2009 @ 5:08 pm
[...] story here from Screenhead The Unfilmables – a list of the hardest novels to film. “With the release and critical [...]
Bon Dobbs said
September 24 2009 @ 2:12 pm
Infinite Jest.
chris said
November 4 2009 @ 8:10 pm
I believe that cather in the rye could be filmable but it would be hard because the narration show us holdens personality , why he act like jerk and not being happy with the world he lives. If they made movie of the book could miss some things that that i just mention and could end up being movie about weird angry kid traveling around new york. It would take a really good director make a good film adaptation of this book.
ujka bosko said
November 25 2009 @ 7:35 pm
I like your forum, so I thought of asking you one question.
I remember seeing, years ago (in the late 80’s) at Berlin Film Festival an asian (japanese or korean) movie losely based on “one hundred years of solitude”. It was a visually stunning film, but I don’t recall the name.
I tried to google “movie based on one hundred years of solitude” but no luck (but then, that’s how I found this page…:-)
Maybe somebody can help me re-discover that movie?
Thanks in advance,
U.
Ben said
December 22 2009 @ 1:17 am
so i skipped through a lot of the comments but i’m not sure if anyone mentioned jack kerouac, the best writer EVER, who writes plotless novels with really long sentences and hardly any dialogue. i’m sure they’re trying to film “on the road” and i wish them luck, but who knows.
Hunter said
January 12 2010 @ 12:08 am
You guys had saved me a lot of effort to criticize this phenomenon by myself?I am working on my thesis?so THX again. By the way?if any of you plan to go to China?it would be my treat. Love you all!!
JD Salinger Documentary in the Pipeline - Movies, Reviews and More. said
February 1 2010 @ 11:36 am
[...] Yet, there has never been a film adaptation of any of his novels. It’s not so much that they’re unfilmable, rather Salinger possessed a hatred for cinema and refused to allow even greats like Spielberg and [...]