Why are there no "Gone With the Wind" remakes?

Good evening!

Well, fellow US authors, it's getting to be that time of year again.  It's almost October and when the rest of the world is gearing up for the insanity that is the Holiday Season, we writers sit down to our computers and begin the 50,000 word journey that is NANOWRIMO!  (National Novel Writing Month.)  If you haven't gotten yourself signed up yet, or if you'd like to try your hand at writing very nearly a whole novel in 30 days, click here!

I was thumbing through my Netflix account the other night and a friend and I were talking about good movies to check out.  I suggested the BBC remake of Charles Dickens' "Bleak House."  I had to caution her because, on Netflix, there are at least two versions of Bleak House, probably more, and I wanted to be sure she found the one I really liked.

That got me to thinking:  Many books are turned into movies over and over, either in true to novel form or in some sort of "inspired by the novel" form.  (Shakespeare inspires way more movies than you might think he does.  My personal favorite is a little thing known as "Scotland, PA."

Then I started thinking about just how many versions of "Pride and Prejudice" or "Wuthering Heights" there are out there, which brought me to my other favorite novel of all time, "Gone with the Wind."

While there might be countless versions of Jane Austen's, Charles Dickens', or the Bronte Sisters' classics, there is only one "Gone With the Wind."

Why?

I'm sure "GWTW" isn't the only classic novel that's only been movied (it's a word...I just made it up) once, but other than recent blockbusters like Harry Potter or Twilight, I can't think of any. Meanwhile, as we approach Christmas, how many movie versions of "A  Christmas Carol" will YOU be watching?

Sometimes it's a matter of getting it wright.  I realize I'm in the minority here, but I think Laurence Olivier is grossly overrated, ESPECIALLY when he plays Heathcliff.  Tom Hardy or Ralph Fiennes do a far better job, but that might just be because of the times.  Olivier worked when actors were just supposed to spew out lines and look good.  The raw, debauched emotions of Heathcliff were hardly appropriate for movie goers back in the day, whereas now I think the movie versions are getting closer to the twisted character Emily Bronte imagined.  (For the record, I think the Tom Hardy "Masterpiece Theater" version is slightly better than the Ralph Fiennes version.)

So why haven't we remade "GWTW?"

It can't just be because those are American novel.  And it can't just be that it's so iconic we don't touch them...it or is?

I know we're still making Civil War movies but I know that much of the reality of the Civil War is softened or touched up or whatever in today's era of "we can't hurt anyone's feelings...ever." 

I might be on to something here.  See, I watched "Roots" recently, and that was made for TV when I was a kid.  MADE FOR TV.  My daughter, aged 16, walked into the room and was horrified that I was watching something using the "N" word.

I'm not defending that word, don't get me wrong.  I don't use it, I think it's horrible.  But it's a word people used in our history and I just don't think we can ever remake those cornerstone Civil War Era movies because today's sensibilities simply will not let us. 

Maybe that's not a bad thing.  Maybe it's okay to leave masterpieces like "GWTW" or "Roots" alone. 

I mean, will there ever be anyone who can be a more perfect Rhett Butler than Clark Gable?

Let's ask Timothy Dalton.

If a picture is worth 1000 words are we writing with an eye toward the big screen?

Good day all!

Like most Americans, my children went back to school this week.  I'm especially envious of my son, who is a senior in high school.  He is taking a class called "Music in Film."  Where were those classes when I was a senior?  (Oh yeah, we were taking "Intro to word processing" on these things called computers that were one day going to replace the typewriter.)

I'm envious because I love all things movie.  There aren't many movies I hate enough to never watch again.  (Although "Lost in Translation" would be at the top of the list.)  I am especially fond, as you readers know, of movies based on books.  It's a long debate, the book to movie adaptation quality, and not the point of my blog today.

Today, as I was thinking about movies and books and books and movies, I realized that with both Dream in Color and with Lies in Chance, I wrote with the thought of how the story would look on screen.  In fact, with Lies in Chance, I really wrote it more like a made for TV movie  (Hello?  Lifetime Movie Network?)  than anything else. 

It's certainly not a new concept, this writing with a thought for movie rights.  I know many of my writer friends joke about retaining movie rights and not letting Hollywood WRECK their work.  (John Grisham's "The Firm" stands as one of the all time worst movie adaptations.  People actually booed the film in theaters...and no, I wasn't the only one booing!)  Authors, I think, especially authors of this generation, look at people like Stephanie Meyer and JK Rowlings and think, "That's where I want to be.  Book signings AND movie premiers."

But the question is...should we?  Should we as writers actually plan out plot lines and scenes with the idea that this book may one day be a movie?  Has writing changed so much that instead of winning the National Book Award, we dream of winning the Oscar for best screenplay based on previously published works?  Does writing with this thought in the back of our mind help or hurt the stories we tell?

I recently watched the most recent incarnation of "Jane Eyre."  I'm not saying the movie was bad because NOTHING with Dame Judi Dench is going to be bad.  But it was slow moving, tedious,and not at all the "INTENSE UPDATED VERSION" I was promised in the trailer.  Since "Jane Eyre" is one of my favorite books, I'm well versed in many of the multitude of movie versions out there.  Some are good.  Some are terrible.  Clearly, Charlotte Bronte was not writing for movies or plays or tv.  Yet her book of an orphaned governess and the handsome landowner with a dark past continues to inspire readers and movie watchers alike. 

I maintain that some books, albeit a very few,  are made better by their movie versions.  Ah, yes a mention of Moby Dick, the worst book ever published in the English language!  Yet, there are many movie versions of this dull, unwieldy book, and why?  Because at the core of the 700 pages of drech is an epic story about chasing the impossible dream and then having that dream turn into a nightmare.  So the movie, which cuts out about 650 pages of the book, brings out the heart and soul of the story and makes Moby Dick an American classic.

Some books translate to film well, regardless of whether or not the author planned it.  "Gone With the Wind" is a very visual book as well as a beautifully filmed movie.  (And, while the two have almost nothing in common other than character names, they are both near the top of my reading and movie lists.)  "Rebecca" is a great novel, and, at the hand of the master, Alfred Hitchcock, the movie is sneaky in its creepy vibe, not to mention a very striking visual, especially given that it's in black and white.

So, do you write with dreams of your story on the big screen?  (Again...Lifetime Movie Network...I'm waiting for your call!)  Writing is not, by definition, a visual art.  We are weavers of words, painters of word pictures.  We may have a good story, but if our word pictures aren't clear enough, any attempt at a movie is going to fall flat. 

The business of writing is far different than those of years gone by.  Authors are encouraged to bring out big actions on page one.  Long passages of description are discouraged.  Everything is compressed.  We do not have Melville's luxury of writing every thought we might have on the subject of whaling, whaling in art, whaling in sermons.  We live and write in a "get to the point" world.  I think by simply working under the rules of publication, anything we write now feels more and more like a movie or tv show than a book from a century ago.  Maybe it's part of the natural evolution of things as we progress through a new millennium. 

As for me, I'll just keep dreaming of accepting my Oscar, thanks!  That, or an Emmy for my Lifetime Movie!

Are there some books that should not be made into movies?

Good morning all!

I don't know about you, but I am eagerly awaiting the new movie based on the magical book, "The Help."  I was so completely drawn in last fall when I read this book, I can only hope the movie matches my mental images.

It probably won't.

The idea of whether the book or the movie is better is not a new one.  The book is almost always better.  Maybe that's because we all can envision things better than a Hollywood writer.  That's sort of sad, considering how much talent there is in Hollywood...ummmmm...yeah. 

There are some books that are clearly meant to be made into movies.  The visual images are simply too rich to get wrong.  Sometimes these are books that make better movies than they do books.  (Moby Dick, anyone?)

My mother always used to say that in books you can go only as far as your imagination takes you, but in movies you see everything.  It was her argument for letting me read well above my age group.  (Which is why I was reading "Jane Eyre" at 11 and really not getting why no one wanted to hang out with the lady on the third floor.)  I maintain that the opposite is true in many cases.  Your imagination can create a whole world based on the written word.  If the author is very good, he/she will convey the pictures he/she intends with words, and you will wind up "seeing" what the author had in mind.  I think movies might limit that because movies present one vision of a story.

That being the case, I ask, are there books that should never be made into movies?

I've got one, Laura Ingalls Wilder's writings about her childhood.

Wait a minute, I can hear you yelling, those books were made into a beloved TV show that ran for YEARS!

Yes, yes they were.  But, if you watch, except for most of the characters names, that TV show had very little to do with what Laura Ingalls Wilder wrote and more to do with 70's sensibilities poured into a TV show set in the late 1800's.  Don't get me wrong...I LOVED both the books and the show.  But the two had very little to do with each other.  (For example, the books are really clear that Ma and Pa had plenty to do to keep body and soul together with the four girls they had.  The TV show gives us a Ma and Pa Ingalls who pretty much adopt half the orphans in Minnesota.  While the added characters may have been needed to keep the writing fresh, they had nothing to do with books.)

I think Ms. Wilder's writing is such that a child can read and enjoy it and get a very clear picture of the life of a pioneer family.  I also think that since there aren't any major explosions, political upheaval, or espionage, the books would not translate well into movie form.  And that's not a bad thing.  That just means that her writing created such a wonderful world for readers, that no movie is ever going to do it justice.

On the flip side of the coin: You all know that I believe "Moby Dick" should never have been a book.  A good movie, yes.  A book...not in it's present form.  Had Moby Dick been published today, it would be about 150 pages long, and would probably involve robots.

So now I'm waiting to see what Hollywood does to "The Help."    I'm not sure how ready I am to be disappointed.

A review you can use: Harry Potter

Hello all!

So over the weekend I viewed the final chapter in the Harry Potter movie series.  No, I didn't go to the midnight show Thursday night, and no I didn't dress up.  At my age, the only appropriate costume would have been Professor Mcgonagall, and as much as I love the great actress Maggie Smith, it's too blame hot outside for long black robes and a witch's hat.  However, I did see the movie yesterday, and, now that the series is done, I should give my readers a full on review of the series, both in book form and in movie form.  So, if you are a Harry Potter fan, or if you are coming late to the party, have no fear.  I'm not going to insult anyone, and I'm not giving anything away.

Book one:  Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

Harry is an orphan boy of 11, and is pulled from his miserable life at his aunt's home to the world to which he was born:  Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.  We learn along with Harry, about the legend that surrounds him, and we, like Harry, are wide eyed and innocent and we are grateful for his friends, Ron and Hermione.  While the structure of the book is somewhat weak  (lots of passive voice...) the story is most definitely there, and we leave wondering if Harry can possibly survive the confusing world of wizards.

Movie One: 
Director Cris Columbus does a very credible job of showing us Hogwart's through the eyes of a child.  It's brilliant, it's somewhat scary, but it's ultimately a magical place and it's where we wished we belong.

Book Two:  Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Harry is twelve, and eager to return to Hogwart's after another brutal summer at his awful aunt's home.   This time around we see cracks in the happy face of Hogwarts as students are turned to stone by some unseen enemy.  Harry actively takes the role of hero for the first time.

Movie Two:

Daniel Radcliffe grew up a lot between the first two movies, reminding us just how short childhood is, even for young wizards.  This time around we get an image of the young man who became The Dark Lord.  The casting is spot on and hilarious with Kenneth Branagh guesting as Gilderoy Lockhart, the narcissistic professor of Defense against the Dark Arts.  (They really do have trouble filling that position.  Wonder if I have the right qualifications?)

Book Three:  The Prisoner of Azkaban

I don't know why, but this is the book and the movie I most over look.  It's year three, Harry's miserable at home, so he runs away, hopping the Night Bus  (Hilarious...) to meet up with his school mates.  But there's a murderer on the loose, the evil...evil Sirius Black and he's out to kill Harry...or is he?

Movie three:  New movie, new director, this is the oddest paced movie of all of them.  Alfonso Cuaron takes a stab at the franchise and gives the hereto for fun and adventure movies and very dark and almost classic horror film feel.  Maybe it's distracting, I'm not sure, but still, this movie is loaded to the teeth with action, new characters, and a very funny bit involving an old rat. 

Book four:  The Goblet of Fire

J K Rowlings must've started getting paid by the word because this is the book that exploded...in size anyway.  But every word is worth it.  If you must skip the first three books, go ahead, but your Harry Potter reading MUST start with this fourth book....mostly because much of the book didn't make the movie.  The first book in which a main character dies, this is also the book that teachers hesitate to hand their children.  While the kiddies ages 8 and under can devour the first three books, this one is a step up.  There's far more evil and darkness in this one...and an outright murder.  While my son read it immediately  (I believe he was 9 or 10)  I did make my daughter wait a bit to read this one.

Movie Four:  This movie brings us yet another director, Mike Newell, which is good because if the dark shroud was cast over movie three, this one would be a full on horror film.  By far and away the most violent movie of the series thus far, there is much that is not for the wee ones.  Harry is 15...with all that that delightful age brings.  There's an awerness of girls...and a friction between him and his closest friends.  It's very dark movie and we haven't even gotten to the point where Edward Cullen dies, becomes a vampire, and moves to Forks.  (For those of you into the Twilight movies as well as the Harry Potter movies, you are laughing your faces off right now, aren't you?)  This movie is a real edge of your seat, not kidding around thriller, and if you're a grown up, this is one you won't have to be ashamed of liking. 

Book five:  The Order of the Phoenix

This is the book for those really deep into Harry and his world.  There's so much in there about prophesies and whatnot, it almost feels like a thesis on wizardry. However, much is revealed, now that Harry is 16, about his parents' deaths, and about just how evil the Dark Lord really is.  Set aside some time, and keep a notebook close...you're going to need both.  That said, it is the first book where Harry accepts the mantel of hero and really runs with it. He might be a snotty know it all teen, but darn it all, he's the Chosen One! The otherwise very hopeless mood of this book is eased a little by Rowling's most hilarious villain to date:  pink clothes, kittens and all.

Movie Five:  Like watching some very bad cliff notes of your favorite book.  New Director David Yates guts the lengthy tome, dumbs down the lore, and basically gives us a lot of explosions without a lot of purpose.  By this time in the series, we're feeling a little insulted at the attempt.  Go ahead and watch, but if you're pressed for time in your life, you could just read the book and skip this one.

Book six:  The Half Blood Prince

Rowlings brings back some whimsy, be it fairly dark whimsy, and gives us a bigger glimpse into Harry's parents' lives.  All seems a bit better at Hogwarts, now that those in power believe Harry's claims about the Dark Lord, but we readers realize that we are now on a story spiral that is gaining in momentum as it rolls to the inevitable...we think...end in book seven.  Personally, I read book six in one sitting...finished it at 2 in the morning, and screamed "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" for about ten minutes.  Rowlings is, frankly brilliant, and this book opens that obvious fact wide to those few unbelievers left.  I've never been surprised by an ending in a book...not like this.

Movie six: 
Someone gave director David Yates a second chance, and he did much better this time.  Guess he reads his Facebook posts.  movie six captures the angst of a boy becoming a man who is supposed to be a hero...but who really just wants to make out with a girl.  Harry now is battling forces far darker than he ever imagined...forces no one can predict.  The end of the movie is as startling and as heart wrenching as the end of the book.

Book seven:  The Deathly Hallows

Harry and his two besties leave Hogwarts as the Dark Lord takes control of everything.  They are now on a great quest.  They don't know what they're looking for, or where they will find it, but all the friends Harry's made along the way in the past years turn up to help him. 

The ending of this book is so surprising...so shattering...that I couldn't put it down, but I had to...to catch my breath.  From a writer's perspective, this might possibly be the most perfectly written book ever.  As a person who's been a casual follower of Harry Potter, I was ready to read the next chapter to find a Harry triumphant...the Chosen One.  What I got was so much more than that.  Romance writers take note:  This book makes us realize that it's all about love in the end.

Movies 7/8

Director David Yates brings us home with this two part conclusion.  I'm so happy they did two movies...there's simply too much ground to cover.  So gold star to the powers that be for giving the fans what we want:  A real send off.  Very little is spared and even less is strayed from in these two films.  There's a lot of death...so bring the hankies because by this time you've fallen in love with even the homeliest creatures.  Yates and screenwriter Steve Kloves do an excellent job of bringing the spirit, not just the words, of the book to life.  Even those who have read "The Deathly Hallows" multiple times are going to be on the edge of their seats...to the very last moment, and sweet, winsome moment that brings us all full circle, lets us sit back in our seats, and heave a sigh of relief. 

Darn it all...now I want to read the book again!

As an author, I wish I could have come up with these seven books.  As a reader, I'm so glad J K Rowlings did.

Will there be anything as big as Harry Potter again?  I don't know.  I doubt it.  Many book series have been attempted on film, and have, one way or another, flopped.  There aren't many book series that can sustain three films, much less seven.  Even Star Wars stopped at six, and frankly, that middle one in the new movies is just horrible and pointless. 

So kudos to J K Rowlings for her persistence in getting her story published.  Kudos to the hundreds of cast and crew members  (No British actors were spared in the filming of these movies!  LOL!)  who worked for endless hours on these movies.  And Kudos to Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, and most of all Daniel Radcliffe, who grew up in front of millions, took on all the evil in the world, and made us believe in heroes (and magic) again.

As writers...do we really WANT our books made into movies?

Good afternoon!

Ahhhh, what is it about vacations?  No matter how long or short they are, we always come back exhausted?

I just finished reading It's King of a Funny Story.  This is one of my son's favorite books, and was recently made into a movie.  I made the mistake of watching the movie before I read the book.  Always, always read the book first!

The movie was fine, but, as always, the book was better.  Ned Vizzini's heartrending, yet funny tale of a 15 year boy who checks himself into a mental hospital is a story that should be taught in colleges as an example of excellent modern day literature.  The movie...well, the movie cut out a good bit of the heart and a whole lot of the intent of the book. 

Now, according to my son, the film adaptation of this book is not nearly as awful as the one for his other favorite book, Youth in Revolt.  I read that book, the journals of one Nick Twisp, and believe that, too, should be taught in colleges.  And perhaps touched upon in parenting classes.  But the movie, which I have not seen, but the Boy child has, apparently is terrible.

Which brings up the age old question:  Do writers really want their books made into movies? 

Hey, if someone wanted to make Dream in Color into a movie, I would do a gigantic dance of joy.  And then I would probably be one of those writers who does something stupid, like sign away my control of the story.  Which would then mean that Ramona will become some sort of streetwalker with a heart of gold, Neil is some business mogul out to blow up the universe, and Jesse is a reformed CIA agent...or something like that. 

I've seen so many versions of my favorite book, Wuthering Heights, made and remade, it makes my head spin.  How could someone get that story wrong?  And yet, with all due respect to Lawrence Olivier, his version of that book is particularly stupid and unwatchable.  I don't care if it won an Oscar.  It's fairly terrible and I have to believe that if Emily Bronte were alive to see it, she would have pitched a fairly sturdy fit.

How about just about every single Harry Potter movie EVER?

I think we all agree...the book is ALWAYS better.  Well, except for Moby Dick.  In that case, the movies, no matter how bad, are WAY BETTER.

So, as writers, should we even think about the possibility of our books on the screen?  TV or Movies, it doesn't seem to matter...the end result is generally not great.  But movies reach more people, I believe, than books.  (Sorry...but I've seen infinitely more movies than I've read books, and I've read hundreds of books in my life.)  Movies might generate interest in a book that's been forgotten, or missed. 

Besides, I get the feeling some days, as I watch movies like "The Hangover II" come out, that screen writers really do need our help.  This is not a slander on screen writers.  But seriously...do we really need "The Hangover II"?  What ground can a second movie possibly cover that wasn't done in the first movie?

Yeah, I'll be skipping that one.  Instead, I'll be hitting the newest incarnation of Jane Eyre and see how it measures up to one of the best books ever written.