Film vs. Book Debates: Formulaic stories - Idiotic or Reliable?

This week, I've found myself justifying why I enjoy Nicholas Sparks's books, after my interview with the man himself went live. I understand why people may not have heard of him. After all, he writes romance novels, so if you don't enjoy reading a good romance, why would you know him? And if that isn't what you enjoy then I can totally see why you wouldn't be a fan. His books appeal to a specific target audience and I understand why anyone outside of that audience would not necessarily see his appeal.

Sparks's books are not particularly literary and are short and simplistic enough to lend themselves to being made into films. Does this make them bad? Well no. I often stress that books and films are - in their simplest form - escapism. Sometimes people want to be intellectually challenged and read something complex and wordy like Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy or The Cloud Atlas. Other times, they want an easy-to-read romance and will turn to Sophie Kinsella or Nicholas Sparks to satisfy that need. They want a story that will take you along for a ride and leave you content at the end without the need to have a lie-down or take a paracetamol because your head hurts.

It isn't just romances that do this. Formulas have been used in both books and films for years and will continue to for many more, of that I have no doubt. There is a sense of security in using a formula. Just think about how many films you've watched or books you've read about the young protégé who is forced to take over the mentor's role - Harry Potter, Star Wars, The Matrix, The Godfather. When it comes to romance, how many truly original romantic stories can you name? Guy and girl meet. Something gets in their way. They find a way to stay together anyway. If there was no conflict, where would the drama be? If they just met, fell in love and lived 'happily ever after', how very dull the story would be.

Blockbuster romance Titanic was the largest grossing film of all time before Director James Cameron's next film Avatar knocked it off the top spot. Millions of people across the world went to see the film. So did the IQ of the planet suddenly plummet? No. People were as intelligent when they came out as they were when they went in. The difference was simply that they had spent a couple of hours (well in the case of Titanic - more than 3!) living somebody else's life. They were - for the time they passed in the cinema - living the lives of Jack and Rose. They wondered if they would be able to stay together, if they would make it off the boat, if anyone would turn round and punch Rose's god-awful mother (just me?!).

In that premise lies the appeal of many of the formulaic stories. With Nicholas Sparks, you know what you're letting yourself in for. There will be romance - uninhibited, passionate romance. There will be drama, probably a tragedy. There will be a happy tied-up ending, but not before - in most cases - a few tears have been shed. In the predictability of a Sparks novel or film lies reassurance and stability. If you've seen his other films or read his other books, then you will know if they are your cup of tea or not. Simple.

People, I imagine, feel the same way about Michael Bay. I was a teenager when I first saw Pearl Harbor and was mortified when I read a critic say that no intelligent person could possibly enjoy that film. Was I an idiot for having 'enjoyed' it so much I bawled for the last half an hour of the film? No. I was a teenage girl madly in love with both Josh Hartnett and Ben Affleck, just as Kate Beckinsale's character was at the time. Watching it back now, I actually find it quite amusing. The drama, the action, the you'd-have-lost-the-war-if-it-wasn't-for-us American ethos of it all is laughable. But entertaining it still is. People say similar things about Transformers - but who that knows Michael Bay's work would go to see a Transformers sequel expecting plot? Stuff gets blown up, there's a hot girl screaming SAAAAAM! on repeat and cars turn into alien robots. That's what you expect, and that's what you get. Bay delivers.

Why then does enjoying these formulaic stories make you an idiot? If reading a book or watching a film is simply a way for a person to escape, why does wanting to escape into the security of a well-known formula make you an imbecile?

One Day: Book vs. Film

One Day is the story of Emma and Dexter (Em and Dex), who meet on their final night at university. The book spans their interwoven lives for the next twenty years showing the highs and lows, loves and heartbreaks. The basic concept is that we see a day every year over twenty years to see how their lives develop.

I have made no secret of how underwhelmed I was by the book version of One Day. The characters are not very likeable and I found the plot overly depressing. But there is no question that it was written by a highly skilled author and I can see why so many people loved it. For the full review see Novelicious.

Directed by An Education Director Lone Scherfig, the film version of One Day has received lots of criticism, largely for two reasons. Firstly, the book has a massive legion of devoted fans who dubbed the book life-changing and were never going to be happy with it because it could never do it justice. Secondly, Anne Hathaway.

I must say, normally I am a massive fan of Anne Hathaway. She does silly and cute very well (Princess Diaries), she can sing (check her out with Hugh Jackman on the Oscars!), and is actually very funny and seems nice when interviewed. The funny thing is, her accent is actually quite good. The weirdness of it seems to be why she only has a Yorkshire accent every one in five sentences. She switches between London and Yorkshire like Ross switches between American and British in THAT episode of Friends. She's insisted that the accent was meant to soften when she lived in London but it doesn't. It jumps between the two regardless of what year we're in. She also is just too damn hot to play Emma. Emma is not meant to be ugly - she is meant to be plain. For the love of all that is filmic - please realise film-makers that putting frizzy hair and glasses on a lady does not a minger make! (I take this quite personally as a glasses wearer myself!) There are many many female leads that could have done Emma with more subtlety and in casting her, they have made their biggest error. Though perhaps they will still make so much money from it, the film-makers won't really mind.

Jim Sturgess, on the other hand, was INCREDIBLE! His portrayal of Dexter as he goes through fame, popularity, lots and lots of women and the almost inevitable descent into darkness is gripping. Unlike the book version of Dexter, I actually felt invested in him as a character. When he was sad, I wanted to hug him and when he was being a tool, I wanted to smack him. When I read the book I just wanted Emma to wise up and leave him be.

There was also some great casting in the form of Patricia Clarkson as Dexter's mother Alison, who pulls off all the elements to the character beautifully, Rafe Spall as the horrifically adorable Ian and a great team of supporting cast in the form or Jodie Whittaker, Romola Garai and Georgia King.

David Nicholls, the author of the book, also wrote the screenplay and it’s a true testament to him that he has managed to do a pretty good job. Book to film conversions are always going to be difficult but he has managed to keep the really important parts as they should be and just crop and tighten the rest. Little bits are changed but largely it is the setting that is altered. They are on a roof when they should be in a maze or in France when it should be Italy. But the conversations remain the same, the important facts are not altered. There are also little hints of a book storyline for book fans like when Dex walks out for his live show with a bottle of water. Quite a few story lines are dropped entirely so hardcore book fans will, no doubt, be upset by this. You will be relieved to hear, though, that they do not do a My Sister's Keeper and DESTROY the ending. *Phew!*

http://jimsturgessonline.com/?p=4693

All in all, I really enjoyed it! In trimming the fat - so to speak - of the plot, the characters become much more likeable. I found myself actually caring what happened to them both. You can't get too bogged down in the more depressing times because it jumps to the next year so soon that you aren't given the opportunity to really wallow.
If you loved the book, I’d wait a while and watch it on DVD. Nothing major has been altered but there are little things that will bug you. I think the dates have been messed about with a little, one year is completely ignored and the accent – oh that accent – will drive you mad.

If though, like me, you don’t really think the book was all that impressive then check out the film. It's a suitably dark look at the realities of romance and might just be the perfect date film. It's got the grittiness and honesty of a Mike Leigh film but with a hint of Hollywood glamour.

3/5 FOBLES