Book-to-film not always a cash grab

Like most fans of the series, I was absolutely ecstatic when I heard “The Hunger Games” was going to be made into a movie trilogy.

Now that the first film is actually here and considering the relative critical acclaim it’s been getting, I couldn’t be more excited to see it.

Here’s to hoping the series helps clear away the stank from young-adult fiction that Stephenie Meyer’s “Twilight” series left behind. Seriously, I hate you so much that it hurts sometimes, Meyer.

But with the film’s release last weekend, I’ve been thinking about film adaptations of novels.

Film adaptations have been given a pretty bad rap recently. The main complaint is that they serve as money-generating machines for movie studios that need only market the product to an already existing, ready-and-eager audience.

Now, this has some truth to it (surprise, surprise, the movie-industry is filled with greedy ass-hats).

But the important thing to remember is that these films are made by directors who are usually devoted fans themselves.

They want to bring the characters to life in a respectable way just as much as the fans do.

“Hunger Games” Director Gary Ross has often expressed not only his love for the series but also a concern that the main character Katniss Everdeen be played by the right actress.

In fact, he so badly wanted the character to be played correctly that he took advice from the author herself, Suzanne Collins, in casting Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss. That doesn’t sound like something a money-focused director would do.

Fine, you might say, film adaptations making money for movie studios has about as much to do with the films as publishers making money from the books themselves. But films aren’t works of art like novels are. Isn’t distilling a book into a two-hour movie just dumbing down the message?

No. And shame on you for being condescending to cinema.

Film is a legitimate art form with the ability to spread important ideas and opinions, bring to light tragic flaws within society and make people truly care for characters that technically do not exist.

This is exactly what novels do for us, and simply sweeping films that attempt the same under the rug is like throwing away a valuable form of expression. Sure, liberties must be taken in making sure length-requirements are met. But when done right, this doesn’t mean the film is worth any less than the book.

With all of this, I think we might need to reconsider our collective opinion about film adaptations of novels.

Of course, Hollywood is always looking for its next big money-maker.  But directors who truly care about the novels they’re adapting do exist, and they do their best to present the story in a respectful, dutiful manner.

We should at least give them the chance of an open mind.

­— kevsjack@indiana.edu