The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels to FilmJanuary 11th, 2007 by admin in Directors, Movies |
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.
Popularity: 3% [?]
Stumble it! / Bookmark:
January 11th, 2007 at 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.
January 11th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Not sure if Gilliam could get the irreverence of 100 Years right, but I wouldn’t mind seeing him try.
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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?
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
What about House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski. Anyone?
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I think Whit Stillman who did Metropolitan might be able to do a good job of Catcher in the Rye.
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
If Confederacy of Dunces were filmed by Wes Anderson it would be the greatest movie ever made.
January 12th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Caleb Carr’s The Alientst, apparently … maybe it should just NOT be filmed, let me remember it as it is.
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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…
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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!
January 12th, 2007 at 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?
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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
January 12th, 2007 at 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
January 12th, 2007 at 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)
January 12th, 2007 at 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!
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Pilgrims Progress should be made into a movie.
January 12th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
“Les Onze Mille Verges” by Guillaume Apollinaire (great french poet). Contains each end every known sexual perversion : definitely unfilmable and unsellable.
January 12th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
I agree, House of Leaves should be on this list!
January 12th, 2007 at 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 […]
January 12th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
What did you think of the recent adaptation of Tristram Shandy, a novel about as unfilmable as Finnegan’s Wake?
January 12th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Ender’s Game would make a great movie, but oh the challenges. Many children, micro gravity, lots of internal narration.
January 12th, 2007 at 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!
)
January 12th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Atlas Shrugged. It would be about 50 hours long.
January 12th, 2007 at 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…
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
The Amber Series. Especially that final ride from Amber to Chaos (book 5).
January 12th, 2007 at 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…
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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.” […]
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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”?
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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).
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Erm…
Definitive unfilmable novel:
House Of Leaves.
January 12th, 2007 at 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. […]
January 12th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
When I think of unfilmable films, Brave New World would rank pretty much #1 to adapt truthfully, but great list!
January 12th, 2007 at 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.”
January 12th, 2007 at 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.”
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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…
January 12th, 2007 at 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. […]
January 12th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
100 Years of Solitude -
Talk to Robert Redford. He did a pretty good job with the Milagro Beanfield War.
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 12th, 2007 at 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.
January 13th, 2007 at 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 […]
January 13th, 2007 at 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.
January 13th, 2007 at 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
January 13th, 2007 at 1:02 am
Hmmm…
I think “Life Of Pi” should also be on this list.
January 13th, 2007 at 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.
January 13th, 2007 at 1:27 am
hey, what about House of Leaves?
January 13th, 2007 at 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.
January 13th, 2007 at 2:23 am
[…] The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels to Film (tags: film literature movies culture books) […]
January 13th, 2007 at 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.
January 13th, 2007 at 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!
January 13th, 2007 at 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> […]
January 13th, 2007 at 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.
January 13th, 2007 at 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.
January 13th, 2007 at 3:15 am
Philip Jose Farmer’s Riverworld series.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverworld
January 13th, 2007 at 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.
January 13th, 2007 at 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.
January 13th, 2007 at 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.
January 13th, 2007 at 3:39 am
Insatiability by Wirkiewicz.
Unreadable too.
January 13th, 2007 at 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.
January 13th, 2007 at 4:29 am
Calling Austen’s novels gossip columns is like calling Beethoven’s symphonies ad jingles.
January 13th, 2007 at 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.
January 13th, 2007 at 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?
January 13th, 2007 at 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
January 13th, 2007 at 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…
January 13th, 2007 at 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)
January 13th, 2007 at 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. […]
January 13th, 2007 at 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.
January 13th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Metamorphosis has been done before. I saw a recording of it in school.
January 13th, 2007 at 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.
January 13th, 2007 at 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) […]
January 13th, 2007 at 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 […]
January 13th, 2007 at 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.
January 13th, 2007 at 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?=))
January 13th, 2007 at 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.
January 13th, 2007 at 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.
January 13th, 2007 at 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
January 13th, 2007 at 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 […]
January 13th, 2007 at 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?
January 13th, 2007 at 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.
January 13th, 2007 at 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 […]
January 13th, 2007 at 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.
January 13th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
[…] If you’re new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting! Unfilmable Novels […]
January 13th, 2007 at 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.
January 13th, 2007 at 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.
January 13th, 2007 at 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.
January 13th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
any ayn rand book
January 13th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
that is all
(hint - a preview function might be handy)
January 13th, 2007 at 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.
January 13th, 2007 at 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.
January 13th, 2007 at 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.
January 14th, 2007 at 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.
January 14th, 2007 at 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?
January 14th, 2007 at 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.
January 14th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
[…] Now there’s an animated discussion going on about The Unfilmables: A List of the Hardest Novels To Film. […]
January 14th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
[…] The Unfilmables A List of the Hardest Novels to Film (tags: film list lists) […]
January 14th, 2007 at 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.
January 14th, 2007 at 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.
January 15th, 2007 at 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…
January 15th, 2007 at 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. […]
January 15th, 2007 at 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.
January 15th, 2007 at 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
January 15th, 2007 at 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…
January 15th, 2007 at 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
January 15th, 2007 at 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.
January 15th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
[…] Zadie Smith instructs us all to “Fail Better.” […]
January 15th, 2007 at 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. […]
January 15th, 2007 at 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.
January 15th, 2007 at 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. […]
January 15th, 2007 at 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) […]
January 16th, 2007 at 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.
January 16th, 2007 at 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.
January 16th, 2007 at 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.
January 16th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
tristram shandy.
January 16th, 2007 at 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.
January 16th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Very glad to see props for Welles’ “The Trial”…a very underrated picture.
January 16th, 2007 at 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.
January 16th, 2007 at 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. […]
January 16th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
“High Rise” is not J.G.Ballards latest. its from 1975.
January 16th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
what about Julio Cortazar? Try to make a film of Rayuela or, much better, of 62.
January 16th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Independent People by Haldor Laxness. Amazing novel that couldn’t possibly be put to the screen in a satisfying fashion.
January 16th, 2007 at 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.
January 16th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Matt, well spotted. I was thinking of Super Cannes, which isn’t even his latest! The article has been amended
January 17th, 2007 at 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. […]
January 17th, 2007 at 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
January 17th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
[…] A list of unfilmable novels. (via Romancing the Tome) […]
January 17th, 2007 at 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] […]
January 17th, 2007 at 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.
January 17th, 2007 at 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. […]
January 17th, 2007 at 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. […]
January 17th, 2007 at 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.
January 18th, 2007 at 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} […]
January 18th, 2007 at 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. […]
January 18th, 2007 at 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!
January 19th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Don’t know if anyone has mentioned this already but Garcia Marquez is Colombian, not Spainish…
January 19th, 2007 at 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…
January 19th, 2007 at 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.
January 19th, 2007 at 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.
January 20th, 2007 at 1:39 am
Ba