Adapting to Adaptations

Something that’s been on my mind recently is the particular ways in which a lot of people complain about cinematic adaptations of novels and comic books. Two recent examples that really struck me were Wuthering Heights (2026) and Project Hail Mary (2026), as they represent two entirely different approaches in terms of translating the concepts of their source material onto the silver screen.

Much has been said about Emerald Fennell and how her version of Wuthering Heights arguably demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the classic novel by Emily Brontë. It is admittedly understandable that fans of the novel would object to the film’s lack of gothic overtones, its fetishizing of a toxic relationship, its questionable casting choices in relation to the original characters, its irreverent immaturity, and its flat-out refusal to depict the latter half of the novel, which is when the story becomes particularly somber and mournful. All that being said, Fennell has gone on to explain her motivations and her specific vision for the film in various interviews, to the point where it has become clear that what she really wanted to make is a visually sumptuous, darkly comedic, unabashedly erotic, and ultimately tragic romance that a 14-year-old girl would have pictured upon reading Wuthering Heights.

Sure, one could argue that simply titling the film something other than Wuthering Heights and acknowledging the influence of Brontë’s book would’ve been the preferable route. But I do think that in this case, Fennell is purposely delighting in taking the characters and scenarios of a classic gothic romance in order to tell a distinct story that showcases her obsessions and visual motifs. In other words, she just wanted to make an Emerald Fennell film, which is the kind of movie that has proven to be increasingly divisive amongst audiences. I myself feel that her filmography is a bit of a mixed bag, but I did think that Wuthering Heights was her most impressive film yet. And although I am well aware of all that transpires in the novel, I must admit that I have not read it yet (though I certainly intend to do so in the near future), so when I watched the movie, I simply got to enjoy it for its individual merits (namely that it looks stunning, it’s got some sharp dialogue, and the performances are great), and I personally had a pretty good time at the movies, though obviously your mileage may vary.

Now, when it comes to Project Hail Mary, we’re talking about a blockbuster sensation that’s rightfully gotten a lot of love, and it is based on an equally beloved science fiction novel by Andy Weir. However, one of the few criticisms that’s been lobbed against the film is that the well-researched science that is thoroughly explained in the book has now been dumbed down and overtly simplified in the movie. In this case, I actually did read the book a few days before seeing the movie (as I was already a fan of Andy Weir’s work), and I greatly enjoyed its imaginative approach to telling a first contact story between a man and an alien. And upon seeing the film (going into it knowing that a lot of people had this particular criticism), I must say that I feel quite confused about what exactly fans felt was left out, as I thought that Phil Lord & Chris Miller made a very faithful and straightforward adaptation of the novel. Of course, a few changes have been made (mostly for the sake of more efficient pacing), and yes, the science portrayed in the film is not as detailed or as clear as it is in the book, but all the major plot beats have been retained, and the relationship between Grace and Rocky, the beating heart of the story, has been beautifully brought to life by artists who quite clearly show a lot of reverence for the source material.It seems to me that many fans of these books are confusing the word adaptation with the word replication. They want the exact same story to be told, with all the same characters and the same set of themes, so essentially they want a film adaptation to feel like a transcript of the novel they read. But the whole point of an adaptation, the literal definition of the word itself, is that it signifies change. And I’m not talking about pointless changes either, the kinds brought upon by ignorance and lack of familiarity with the source material. I’m talking about the kinds of changes that are brought upon by a singular vision. Cause guess what? If you put two different people in a room, and you ask them to read the same book, their general recollections of the novel will certainly be quite similar. But what each of them envisioned, the way they interpreted certain passages, their particular opinions about certain characters, and whether or not the story resonated with them on a personal level, all of that stuff is highly individualized and subjective. That is what's so important to keep in mind about any piece of art, regardless of where it comes from or how you may feel about the final result. Any given story is being filtered through the voice, the mind, the soul of the person who tells it, and that should not be dismissed just because of what the source material was intended to be.

So I guess it comes down to whether you prefer to see an adaptation like Zack Snyder’s Watchmen (2009), which is mostly such a faithful adaptation that it goes out of its way to visually replicate the panels of Alan Moore’s graphic novel, down to a tee. Or perhaps you want to see an adaptation like Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining (1980), which famously takes the basic setup of Stephen King’s highly personal, emotionally redemptive novel and turns it into a surrealistic nightmare devoid of easy answers or definitive interpretations.

Personally, I really like watching all kinds of approaches to adaptations, and as much as I may enjoy comparing a film to a novel (if I indeed have read it), I always try to remind myself that what really matters most to me is if the film in question works on its own terms, if it engaged me, if it moved me, if it made me forget about my own life and surroundings for a few hours. Cause if it managed to do any of those things, that’s an effective film in my book.