Bastardization of Novels: the Crossbred Offspring of Film and
Novels
The
novelizations of Hollywood blockbusters often
enter and leave the shelves of stores unnoticed. Indeed, the general response
received when explaining this project to people was “Which films have been
novelized?” The answer is just about any film ever made that wasn't already a
book: Indiana Jones, Alien, Rocky, Star Wars: Episodes I-VI, Ghostbusters,
Batman Begins, Terminator, E.T., Saturday Night Fever, Poltergeist,
Transformers, The Mummy, Gladiator, Jaws 2, Pacific Rim, the list goes on (and
on). In his article for Slate.com, a current affairs and culture magazine, Jim
Pagels points out that “since 2000, the top twenty grossing American films that
were not directly based on a book already were all made into mass market
paperbacks.” For novel theorists and critics, it can be puzzling to know what
to do with this relatively unknown set of literature. However, the discussion
is inevitable. As critic Morris Dickstein affirms, “movies and novels are more
closely allied than any other cultural forms” (12). For this project, I will
argue that the film novelization is not a novel at all but rather a Hollywood product designed only to generate interest and
money for the film it novelizes. I will explore pertinent questions about
writing novelizations, present problems of authorship, and demonstrate how the
visual format of the film fails to successfully transition to the verbal format
of a book. Critic Thomas Van Paryn sums up the two arguments nicely: “The repression of the visual in their [films] adapted counterparts
[novelizations] supports the notion that the novelization is merely intended as
a reading companion to the film, a promotional product rather than a novel in
its own right” (289). To demonstrate this lack of intermediality between
films and novelizations, I will make comparisons between the text and film
versions of The Dark Knight Rises, one of Hollywood’s commercial successes that was
novelized by Greg Cox in 2012.
Novelizations are anomalies for a variety of reasons. A review of the
difference between novels-to-films and films-to-novels is in order. When a film
is spawned from a book (an adaptation), there is of course no guarantee that
readers will see the same story that they have read. The
screenwriters have the ability to change things as they see fit, hence the term
“adaptation.” Sometimes the films hardly resemble the novels, for example
Alfred Hitchcock’s adaptation of John Buchan’s The 39 Steps (1935), or
the more recent attempt at filming Max Brook’s novel World War Z (2013).
Other times, it captures the essence and spirit of the novel extremely well and
includes much of the original dialogue from the text as seen in Baz Luhrmann’s
version of The Great Gatsby (2013) or the adaptation of Louis Sachar’s
young adult novel Holes (2003). In addition, the film adaptations
can be separated from the books in a critical sense and viewed as a separate
artistic project through the possibilities of musical score, tonal lighting,
and plot adjustments that may make a story more relevant for a particular
audience or period. In the case of The 39 Steps, Hitchcock adds a blonde
who acts as a romantic interest for the protagonist. In The Great Gatsby,
Luhrmann adds contemporary hip-hop music to emphasize the shocking and jarring
lifestyle Americans were living during the Jazz Age. While undeniably tied to
the source text, films adapted from books do not require the average filmgoer
to have read the novel to appreciate the film-viewing experience.
On
the other hand, Johannes Mahlknecht indicates in his informative essay on the
creation and marketing of novelizations that one of the goals of film
novelization is “a repetition of the pleasure experienced while watching the
film” (143). In other words, readers will read exactly what they saw in the
theater with no change or variation. Jan Baetens, one of the leading
contemporary critics in this field of literature, states the following in his
work on the subject: “In the case of a cinematic adaptation, once the
adaptation rights are bought, the director can freely transform the source
text. In the case of a novelization, the situation is very different, since
the genre is characterized by a larger number of constraints on the transformer”
(Baetens, 65, Example, my italics). Few, if any, liberties are allowed
the novelizer by the screenwriters. The final product is an exact reproduction
of the dialogue or action contained in the screenplay, which makes for a rather
boring book. While I do not claim that novels cannot be dialogue-driven or
action-filled, the exact repetition of novelizations furthers the notion
that the novels are pure advertising devices for their films. The very
definition of the word “novel” is inapplicable to film novelizations: new and
not resembling something formerly known or used (Merriam-Webster). If novels
are stories and material previously unseen, novelizations hardly fit the bill;
they are merely duplications.
Baetens
quotes Christopher Priest, a successful novelist who novelizes on the side
(under a pseudonym, which is telling): “At the time the novel is being written,
the author only has a screenplay to work with. It’s probably not even a final
version, a shooting script. You have no real idea which actors will be in it,
or where the film will be shot. You have no knowledge of the music, the pace,
what the special effects will look like, the way the lighting will be used, the
overall style” (Baetens, Example, 67). The novelization is paradoxical
in that the author is expected to accurately portray the feel or tone of the
film—theoretically using all of the elements described by Priest—while not
having seen the final cut. Jim Pagels offers his findings: “Some studios tell
authors that they must describe a scene in print exactly as it appears on
screen—but don’t allow them to see any of the filmed scenes.” Ironically, the
goal of a novelization is to help the reader see and hear exactly those things
that the novelizer is unable to see while creating the novelization of the
film.
Priest also adds, “They [the
screenwriters and producers] want the book to be ready so that it can be on
sale at the same time as the film is released” (Baetens, Example, 67).
The publication date is based solely around the date that the film will appear
in theaters; no matter that the book may contain any number of grammatical and
spelling errors. The speedy, almost to the point of careless, publication
process indicates that if the novelization appears on shelves after the film
has come out, the value is heavily decreased. Again, the novelization is not a
separate artistic project with its own contribution to the literary canon but
is rather connected solely (and financially) with the film it copies. Baetens notes that “the
target readership of novelizations . . . is seen as unsophisticated” (Example,
73). Indeed, novelizations are rarely reviewed by professionals at all (Cox).
Moreover, the screenwriters are
willing to sacrifice continuity between the book and the film in order to get
their film poster pasted on the cover of about 200 pages of novelization for
additional commercial promotion. If the stories in the novelization and the
film differ, it is not because the book presents a different message but
because the screenwriters simply changed the story after the book was sent off
to publication. These changes do not refer to minute dialogue differences or the
location of a certain event but larger incidents in the story that can have an
impact on the end result. Mahlknecht recounts the story of how the ending of Terminator
Salvation came about in both the film and the novelization:
In the case of Terminator
Salvation, the screenplay underwent
substantial alterations before the film went into production. Foster [the
novelizer] accordingly rewrote large parts of the novelization after finding
out that the shooting script differed greatly from the screenplay that the
studio had originally given him. And yet, despite these changes, the
novelization’s final version still has a radically different ending from the
finished film, because the studio was so secretive about the ending it was
going to use that it did not inform even the novelizer about it (157).
In the novel, all the characters survive. However, in
the final film version, one main character sacrifices his own life to save that
of another character. The lack of artistic integrity and accuracy demonstrated
by Hollywood producers, especially in the case
of Terminator Salvation, decreases whatever value the novelization had
to begin with.
The
commercialization continues. On the cover of many novelizations, the
screenwriter’s or the director’s name is more prominent than that of the
novelist himself. For example, on the cover of The Sixth Sense
novelization, the title is M. Night Shyamalan’s The Sixth Sense. The
credit goes all to the director and writer of the film rather than the actual
author of the pages readers are holding in their hands. On the title page, M.
Night Shyamalan is again given credit for The Sixth Sense. This leads to
confusion on the reader’s part, or at least misinterpretation. Did M. Night
Shyamalan write the novelization? It is not until after readers finish the
novel that they turn the page and see the “About the Author” paragraph and
realize that the credit for the story they just read goes to Peter Lerangis.
However, even that statement isn't accurate.
A
film novelization is a bastard in the true sense of the word: the lack of true
parentage of these works creates an identity crisis for this form of
literature. Baetens points out that “novelization does not so much aspire to become the movie’s other as it wants to be its double” (Baetens, Genre,
50). It isn’t trying to be a novel; it’s trying to be the film in book form.
The novelization is a replication; there are no additions or variations,
despite one writer handing off the baton to another.
The author who creates the novelization can’t claim credit for the story and
characters, yet the screenwriters can’t declare the 60,000-plus word version of
their screenplay as purely their own work either, so to whom does the
novelization belong? Mahlknecht makes the point that even lowbrow writers like
Dan Brown and John Grisham can at least claim all of their characters and plots
as their own (150). However unsophisticated their novels may be, they are able
to take pride in an idea of their own that comes to fruition on the page.
This sort of
pride is something that neither the screenwriters of the film nor the author of
the text can have when discussing their novelization. Ironically, each might
give credit to the other for the book itself: the author would thank the
screenwriter for giving him such good material; the screenwriter would credit
the novelizer for such a nice execution of his material. There is something
lost when a piece of work is a shared product on such a broad level. The
collaboration of novelizers and screenwriters can hardly be called a team
effort when it is possible that they will never meet in person.
Financially
speaking, novelizing is not a fulfilling occupation. Screenwriters make much
more than the novelizer (Mahlknecht 148), which reinforces the idea that the
novel version of the film is lower in value. The fact that film novelizations
rarely get a second printing (Baetens, Genre, 46) makes the lover of
literature question again if the project of a film novelization is more than an
advertising ploy similar to action figures or coloring books. (The Omen, which
was written by the screenwriter, Gladiator, and E.T. are among
the few that made the reprinted list.) Once the hype over the film is done, the
novelization becomes the stuff of online auction websites and charity shops and
is forgotten.
All
these facts support the idea that film novelizations are not meant to create
another piece to add to the modern-day literary canon, but are rather a
corporate maneuver to rake in even more money for the film the novelization has
wordified. Peter Kobel agrees. In an article written for The New York Times, he
criticizes novelizations in the following way: “Novelizations can make a John
Grisham book seem like high art. More than even the movie industry itself,
novelizations are about commerce, not art.” In short, novelizations serve the
same purpose as action figures. Action figures draw children to the films they
represent; novels draw readers to the films they represent. The action figures
are a money-making device, and they are not viewed as sculptures. In the same
way, novelizations should not be regarded as novels but one more way the film
poster can be on display. As Malknecht declares, “Irrespective of the quality
of the writing, it is the corresponding film that will (almost) always be
considered the novelization’s main selling point” (142).
Having
established the blatant commercial nature of novelizations, I will now take a
theoretical turn and discuss the inability of films to transmedialize, or
change from one format to another, into novels, the second key factor in the
bastardization of novels. While comparing novel-to-film adaptations and
film-to-book novelizations is similar to comparing apples and oranges in many
respects, there is nevertheless a process of transmedialization that occurs in
both instances. In Jan Baetens’s essay “Novelization: A Contaminated Genre?,”
he acknowledges the existence of the transmedial factor but underplays the
importance of it: “Most
of the novelizations are in fact based on one form or another of screenplay,
that is, on a verbal
pretext, which
entails, among other things, that the problem of the ‘translation’ from one
semiotic system to another is systematically eluded” (Genre, 46).
I contend that the problem of “translation from one semiotic system to another”
is not “systematically eluded” when a film is turned into words.
Baetens
argues that novelizations are not attempting to cross semiotic systems (that
is, from visual to verbal) because the novelizations are based on a screenplay,
making it a transition from verbal to verbal. But the screenplay is written for
a visual audience. It is not meant to be read, but viewed; this is the
screenplay’s objective. Therefore, when the dialogue and directions from the
screenplay are changed to a full-fledged descriptive narrative, the entire work
undergoes transmedialization. The story is now meant to be read.
Novelizations attempt to convey the visual aspect of film (being based on the
visually-oriented screenplay) in book form, which is something that is
difficult to accomplish when the novelizer is allowed so little freedom with
his characters, dialogue, and setting.
Further, the direct transfer of screenplay to book takes
away from the subtlety of the visual format that makes films special in the
first place. In a discussion of how to teach film and literature in the
classroom, John Golden makes a distinction between scenes that are “directly
filmable, which are words and phrases that can be readily translated into film
with little interference” (Golden 26), and “indirectly filmable . . . where a
director needs to rely on a variety of cinematic and theatrical elements to
translate the print to screen” (26). In a similar vein, I propose that there
are scenes from films that are “writeable” and “non-writeable,” meaning that
the translation from screen to book may be effective in cases, but not in
others. The way characters’ facial expressions work together to convey an
unspoken message, edits that are only seconds long to show one event in
different locations, and instant visual registration of scenery, physical
appearance, and tone of voice all are visual elements of films that can become
clunky and drawn out when a novelization attempts to capture them in word form.
Further, the novelizer must add explanations and background
to give credence to the character’s actions and thoughts because the
novelization must be more than a simple presentation of the screenplay.
However, since the book is verbatim screenplay material (and therefore a visual
medium at its base), that means that anything essential to the plot and
characterization will be properly communicated through the characters, either
with their words or their physical expression. Therefore, any additional “help”
from the novelizer, while perhaps interesting, is unnecessary to understand the
story. This “padding,” as it is referred to by Grady Hendrix, creates clunky
passages and unnecessary explanations. Padding adds to the flatness of
novelizations and makes readers wonder why they should waste time reading the
novelization when they can see the film. What takes thirty minutes to read may
take ten to watch. The visual ten minutes will inevitably also be more
exciting.
To further illustrate the
visual-to-verbal challenges that face the novelization, I will examine the film
The Dark Knight Rises and its novelization.