Five Literary Greats and Five Great Adaptations

Guest Post by Lynn Shepherd

Lynn Shepherd is the author of Murder at Mansfield Park and Tom-All-Alone's. A massive fan of classic literature, here she talks about her favourite adaptations of some literary greats.
_______________________________________________

When the nominations were announced for this year’s Oscars, one of the first things the media noticed was the number of nominees that were based on books. Eleven films shortlisted in the major award categories, and two-thirds of the Best Picture candidates were literary adaptations, including War Horse, The Descendants, and The Help.

So with that in mind I’ve compiled my own shortlist of screen dramatisations, and since my favourite reading is classic novels I’m going to concentrate on film and TV versions of some of the masterpieces of English literature. So, here we go, counting down from number 5…

5:         Henry Fielding – Tom Jones

The version I’m nominating here isn’t the famous ‘60s film with Albert Finney (and that eating scene), but the 1997 BBC adaptation starring Max Beesley. Having such a famous predecessor could easily have overshadowed the TV series, but Simon Burke’s script translates Fielding’s busy boisterous book into a light-hearted, exuberant, sexy series. The thing I particularly love is the way they freeze the action every now and again, and let Henry Fielding wander on-screen and talk to us about what’s going on – it exactly captures the novelist’s intelligent, intrusive style of narration (and John Sessions is perfectly cast to do it).

Special acting honours: Brian Blessed is a hilariously rumbustious Squire Weston, complete with pack of scruffy smelly hounds - he clearly had a ball making it.

4:         Thomas Hardy – Jude

Jude the Obscure is Hardy’s darkest novel, and this film certainly doesn’t flinch from the book’s desolate subject-matter. To quote one of Hardy’s most famous poems, the whole film is shot in ‘neutral tones’, as the tragedy of Jude Fawley’s thwarted ambitions and his doomed love for his cousin Sue plays out against an Oxford greyer and grimmer than Morse ever made it. But if you prefer your Hardy a little less heart-rending, then the 2003 ITV Mayor of Casterbridge is also excellent.

Special acting honours: Kate Winslet, for her portrayal of Sue Bridehead. Every bit as magnetic and mercurial as Hardy’s original.  

3:         Jane Austen – Persuasion

When Murder at Mansfield Park came out and I was doing the rounds of festivals and book clubs, there was one question I knew I’d be asked every time: ‘Which is your favourite Austen adaptation?’ And the answer – then and now – is the 1995 BBC Persuasion with Ciarán Hinds and Amanda Root. This version is just perfectly pitched – the production values are as high as you would expect from the BBC, but they also get some of the trickier period details absolutely right. The most obvious is the use of candlelight for evening scenes – far too many Austen balls are lit impossibly brightly (literally, given the lamps available at the time). The adaptation is also very skilful – I particularly love the (very funny) sequence in which each of Anne’s relations corner her one after the other to complain about each other. It’s a perfect example of how you can make witty prose into clever drama.

Special acting honours: There are almost too many to list here, since part of the strength of the production is the ensemble acting. Fiona Shaw and John Woodvine make a particularly touching Admiral and Mrs Croft – all the more so since these two characters are (dare I say it) rather lifeless on the page. And Corin Redgrave is a deliciously self-centred Sir Walter.

2:         Charles Dickens - Bleak House

I think Bleak House is without question Dickens’ finest work, and it’s the inspiration for my own Victorian murder mystery, Tom-All-Alone’s. So as you can imagine, I’m particularly demanding when it comes to adapting this one for the screen. But this BBC version scarcely puts a foot wrong. And let’s not underestimate the scale of the task – Bleak House is a huge book, with a huge cast of characters, and innumerable sub-plots, so turning that into coherent and compelling TV was a real challenge. One way they achieved this was by adopting the ‘soap opera’ structure of half-hourly slots, which worked well for a modern TV-watching audience, but also – and delightfully – echoed Dickens’ own serial publication method, complete with episode-ending cliff-hangers. My only reservation – and it’s a relatively minor one – is that Charles Dance is hopelessly miscast as the lawyer Tulkinghorn: he’s too attractive, too young, and far too damn tall.

Special acting honours: Phil Davis is (as ever) excellent as the wicked wizened old Smallweed, but the ultimate accolade has to go to Gillian Anderson. Like many other people, I was surprised and a bit sceptical when her casting was initially announced, since it looked too much like a blatant attempt to woo the US audience, but she proved me triumphantly wrong. She was perfectly aloof and glacial as Lady Dedlock, just as she was eerily beautiful as Miss Havisham in the recent Great Expectations.

And the winner is….

1:         Samuel Richardson – Clarissa

Richardson is a great literary hero of mine, and I think it’s a huge shame so few people now read him or (let’s be honest) have even heard of him. But that, dear reader, is exactly what a good screen adaptation can do. Clarissa was first published in 1748, and tells the story of Clarissa Harlowe, tricked away from her oppressive parents and eventually raped by the libertine Robert Lovelace, who is in my opinion one of the great creations of European literature. The book is told entirely through letters, and if that weren’t challenging enough for a modern adapter, it’s over a million words long. This BBC version compresses the action into three brilliant hour-long episodes that portray the stifling oppressiveness of the Harlowe family house, the increasingly unsettling atmosphere in the London house Lovelace takes Clarissa to, and the full horror of the final rape scene, which in the novel takes place ‘off stage’. A truly marvellous book, turned into equally marvellous TV, and I can’t recommend either highly enough.

Special acting honours: Sean Bean is utterly mesmerising as Robert Lovelace, capturing his dangerous charisma with amazing skill. As his feelings for Clarissa contend with his baser impulses, you can actually see that conflict written across his face in tiny but terrifying changes of expression. And, needless to say, he looks absolutely magnificent in a pair of breeches….

Lynn Shepherd’s new book Tom-All-Alone’s is out now from Corsair and will be published in the USA by Random House under the title The Solitary House in May. Her website is www.lynn-shepherd.com

The Hunger Games vs Twilight vs Battle Royale

It is so often the case that when a new book or film comes out, it is compared to a similar predecessor. More often than not, it's essential to give people a clue as to what they are letting themselves in for. The Hunger Games has striking similarities with both Twilight and Battle Royale, but is it the new version of either of them? Well, no.

Firstly, the plot of Twilight is completely different to The Hunger Games. Apart from the obvious lack of werewolves and vampires (you can see there whose team I'm on!), the focus is entirely different. Granted, they are both young adult fiction and they both have a pretty complex love triangle. But the similarities end there. While the love triangle in Twilight is the central focus of the plot and other stuff happens around it, The Hunger Games is a dark look at a dystopian future with an incredibly strong female lead in Katniss Everdeen - it just happens to have a love triangle going on at the same time.

The main comparison though is with Battle Royale - a story which brilliantly looked at a Japan that forced a class of students each year to kill each other until only one survived. In this, The Hunger Games is the same - simply put, it is children forced to kill each other or die.

The most notable difference though is the style of each. Battle Royale is a horror film, plain and simple - it is a blood bath of epic proportions that examines the different reactions people would have if put in that scenario. Would you kill yourself, kill everyone else, form alliances or just sit and hide? In The Hunger Games, there is a whole horrific level of reality TV added. The 24 chosen participants are not only forced to kill each other, but many are trained for the eventuality and all of them are forced to put on a show. There are days between the reaping (when the 24 are chosen) and the actual start of the games and in this time, they learn new skills, perfect those they already have and are interviewed on live TV for all of Panem to see. The children in Battle Royale are drugged and wake up with a bomb round their necks.

So if you want a clever horror film with a blood-bath and fantastic lost-in-translation subtitles, check out the film of Battle Royale. If you want the back-story and a more graphic look at each of the class members, then read the book. If, on the other hand, you want an easy to read piece of fantastic young adult literature which is dark and gripping with a phenomenonally strong and brilliantly flawed heroine, check out The Hunger Games.

Roll on March 23rd for the film...

Book Review: Mockingjay by Suzanne Collins

*WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS FROM BOOK ONE - THE HUNGER GAMES AND TWO - CATCHING FIRE*

When we left Katniss Everdeen at the end of Catching Fire, she had just made it out of her second Hunger Games in two years only to learn that Peeta had been captured and a rebellion had begun against the Capitol. 

Mockingjay picks up with Katniss in a state of mental confusion. She has been so heavily sedated to deal with her breakdown that she struggles to tell the difference between nightmare and reality. The leaders in District 13 are struggling to get her on board as the symbolic image of the rebels' fight and she can barely construct a coherent thought in her head. As she starts to get a grip on reality, the gravity of her absence finally seems to dawn on her and she realises the power she could have in helping the rebels with their cause. But she has her focus on more specific things - finding Peeta and killing President Snow.

Reluctant to be yet another pawn in somebody else's game, Katniss struggles to take orders as her efforts to help those fighting in other districts are recorded and beamed out to the citizens of Panem, showing them and President Snow that she and the rebels are all still fighting. But are the rebels being totally honest with her or just using her for their own gain? Has too much damage been done already for Katniss to ever come back from it? And what are the peacekeepers in the Capitol doing to Peeta?

Where many authors would have picked up this third installment in the trilogy with action and fighting, Suzanne Collins bravely acknowledges the person behind all the action - Katniss Everdeen - and allows her time out of battle to try and deal with what has happened to her. She is filled in on all that she missed while in the arena the second time round and often has relapses into a state of severe agitation and confusion. She is a fighter - there is no question - but in allowing this vulnerability and weakness to shine through, Collins allows the reader time to really embrace Katniss and will her onwards. Then of course, there is the ever confusing love triangle between her and her best friend Gale and fellow victor Peeta. Her worry for Peeta while he is being tortured by the Capitol starts to seem more than just friendly concern and Gale doesn't know how to take it.

Collins kills indiscriminately, much more like Harry Potter author JK Rowling than Twilight author Stephenie Meyer. But she does not kill off her characters lightly. By revealing early on that she is not afraid to kill people off, she keeps the reader guessing. There is no comfort in knowing it will all be alright in the end. You know no such thing. Emotions run high in this final book in the saga and Collins keeps you guessing till the very end as to whether or not it will all have been worth it. Have tissues at the ready for an emotional rollercoaster of a read.

Mockingjay is a gripping and action-packed end to the Hunger Games trilogy fraught with emotion at every stage.

4/5 FOBLES 

For your chance to win the entire trilogy you have until Wednesday 29th February to enter the competition over at Novelicious.

Are the Oscars® Over Before They've Even Started?

Speculation has begun over which film will take Best Picture at this Sunday's Oscar® ceremony. Here are the nominees:

The Artist
War Horse
Tree of Life
Moneyball
Midnight in Paris
Hugo
The Help
Extremely Loud
The Descendants

Many people believe that The Artist is the clear frontrunner to win and while it may not be everyone's film of 2011, it's certainly the best film out of that list. What other film has managed to charm both critics and audiences alike? None. All of the films on this year's Best Picture list are adequate - apart from War Horse and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close - both of which I have heard are horrendous and have no desire to see. They're all perfectly good, watcheable films - if you like that sort of thing. But not one of them blew my socks off. The Artist did.

Yet, having won so many awards already, it seems too easy to give The Artist Best Picture. Because let's face it - people love an underdog. And for a while, The Artist was. It was a little known film with a cast people hadn't seen before, a director whose name people couldn't pronounce and it was all in black and white! In an era of spectacle at the cinema, few would have thought it would do well. Then Harvey Weinstein got his hands on it and BOOM! The Artist became a global sensation.

But if it is time for The Artist to step down as king, who could take its place and grab the gong? Drive? We Need to Talk About Kevin? No - they didn't even make the shortlist. Arguably because of their controversial subject matter but maybe the powers that be just didn't like them.

At the 2011 Academy Awards, the list was a great one. It had a mix of genres, of styles and tastes. And each one offered something great.The films from last year were: Black Swan, The Fighter, Inception, The Kids Are All Right, The King's Speech, 127 Hours, The Social Network, Toy Story 3, True Grit and Winter's Bone. There's something for everyone in that list! There were front runners of course but any one of those films could have taken the crown. This year, it feels more like choosing the best of a bad bunch.

Will the American's love of baseball mean Moneyball takes it? Or perhaps their adoration for Martin Scorsese will persuade them to award Hugo with Best Picture. The cast did a brilliant job in The Help but will it win Best Picture? Unlikely.

Most of the major awards seem to be so unbearably predictable it almost seems unnecessary to have a ceremony at all. It might just be easier to give The Artist and Meryl Streep their awards by post and throw everyone a big party where they can speak for longer than 40 seconds and sob into a glass of wine, not a mini statue. It will most probably offer up something a little more controversial...

Will I still be checking out the highlights when I wake up on Monday morning? Of course I will. I can't wait to see what Billy Crystal has in store and what the ladies behind Bridesmaids make of their chance to present. I just wish the awards themselves got me as excited.

So who do you want to win Best Picture at the 2012 Academy Award Ceremony? Let me know in the comments below.

Woman in Black: Book vs Film vs Play

In 1983, The Woman in Black by Susan Hill was first published. The horror fiction novel saw Solicitor Arthur Kipps sent to the northern village of Crythin Gifford to settle the estate of the recently deceased Alice Drablow. The book is Kipps's retelling of this particular story after his step-children ask him to tell them a ghost story. He is overcome with an unbearable feeling of fear and realises that he has surpressed an event in the deep recesses of his mind and never properly dealt with it. He decides to write down his story in order to finally deal with his demons and in doing so, shares his tale with the reader of that trip to Crythin Gifford, the deserted funeral for Mrs Drablow and the creepy goings-on at her estate Eel Marsh House. 

An eerie ghost story with a suitably creepy setting, the book managed to scare readers so much that within six years of its publication it had been adapted into a stage play and a TV movie. The narrative style is incredibly evocative and has very little dialogue, so lending itself to interpretation.

Best of Theatre

The stage play of The Woman in Black moved to London in 1989 and still runs today. It is spectacular in its simplicity, acted entirely by two men. One, Kipps, hires an actor to reenact the account he has written, feeling that if he can get it all spoken out loud, he can finally lay the ghost to rest. There are a few terrifying glimpses of the woman herself but the actress is not even mentioned in the production's programme. 

It also does what only the greatest adaptations do - it makes changes that not only stay faithful to the original story but somehow manage to really hone in what works in the new medium that wouldn't have worked in the original. The brilliant twist in the play only works in the theatre setting and enhances the true horror of the story.

This month saw the release of the new film adaptation starring Daniel Radcliffe as Kipps. It really makes the most of what the cinematic medium has that stage and literature doesn't - special effects. There is so much silent tension in the film that when she does appear it is horrifying to the point of screaming out in fright. If you like watching horror films that have you cowering in your seat, jumping and screaming in shock and hiding your face behind your hands because you can just sense that something is coming, then this delivers. Radcliffe handles the role brilliantly, looking suitably distraught and sympathetic to the woman's plight. Sadly though, all the elements that made the film brilliant were let down slightly because the filmmakers decided it needed a touch of Hollywood and changed the ending to one that was annoyingly neat and tidy. 

There are a fair few changes made in each adaptation, largely the point at which Kipps starts his story. In the book, he is a widow recently remarried. In the play he has a wife and son at home and in the film his wife died in childbirth so it's just him and his son. The woman in black herself also differs in each. Often she just stands in the distance immobile. But for the rare occasions when she moves, the film and play use it to their full advantage. She also appears much more in the book and is reserved in the film and play for moments of sheer terror. But these are all trivial points and the fundamentals of the story remain intact. 

I saw the play, then the film, then read the book. Whether or not this order affects the way I viewed each version I cannot say. But overall, the play - the first thing I saw - is easily my favourite because the effects of it are still with me today years after seeing it in action. The film turned me into a nervous wreck but lost me with the ending and the book was brilliantly written but over-described everything thanks to its narrative style - to the point of not just calming down its subject, but its reader too. In the book, the fear subsides quickly because Kipps seems to have the ability to talk himself out of being scared. In the film, every time he walked back into Eel Marsh House, I shrunk into my chair a little more. But the play. The play had me screaming in fright in a packed auditorium, paralysed with fear as often as I leapt a clear foot off my seat in shock and shaking with a mixture of awe, terror and excitement when it had finished.

So really, the adaptations are all very well done and suited to their respective mediums. It's just a question of what you like. If you want to read a great ghost story - go for the book. If you want to be scared at the cinema but relaxed by the time you leave - check out the film. But if you enjoy being scared to your very core and frightened to the point of an irrational fear of rocking chairs - then you simply must see the stage production. Just don't say I didn't warn you...

Book - 3.5/5 FOBLES

Film - 3.5/5 FOBLES

Play - 5/5 FOBLES

JK Rowling Makes Her Move Into Adult Fiction

Daily Mail

Being the creator of Harry Potter, arguably the most famous boy in the world, has its ups and downs it seems. Author J K Rowling wanted a change after all her time spent with Christopher Little as her agent and Bloomsbury Books as her publishers.

The Bookseller has today announced that Rowling has now found a new home for her first works post-Potter in Little, Brown. The people who publish Nicholas Sparks, Dorothy Koomson, Alexander McCall Smith and Rosamund Lupton will now be bringing us J K Rowling's first novel for adults.

Bookseller said:

"David Shelley, publisher, Little, Brown, will be Rowling’s editor and will be responsible for publication in the UK with Michael Pietsch, executive vice-president of Little, Brown and Company, responsible for publication in the US. The book will be published by Hachette in Australia and in New Zealand and by Hachette’s companies and normal appointed agents for the English language in other markets."

More information on the novel will be revealed later this year but according to the Bookseller, Rowling has said that it will be "very different" to the Harry Potter series. Rowling also said:

"The freedom to explore new territory is a gift that Harry's success has brought me, and with that new territory it seemed a logical progression to have a new publisher."

Rumour has it that the book will be a crime novel set in Edinburgh but as yet this is unconfirmed.

So what would you love to see Rowling do for her first adult fiction book? Or should she have stuck to writing for children - something which she clearly has a great talent for? Let me know in the comments below.

Source: The Bookseller

Book Review: Catching Fire by Suzanne Collins

*WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS FROM BOOK ONE - THE HUNGER GAMES*

In The Hunger Games, Suzanne Collins created an incredibly strong female lead in Katniss Everdeen. She was a survivor, pushed to the brink and forced to kill in order to survive in a world where the inhabitants live in constant fear of their oppresive and harsh government.

In The Hunger Games, Katniss managed to win the Hunger Games along with fellow District 12 contender Peeta Mellark. When we left them, they had just returned to their district to reap the benefits of their new-found status, wealth and security.

In Catching Fire, the second book in the Hunger Games trilogy, Katniss is still fighting for survival - but in a very different way. Having managed to get out of the games alive - and not alone - Katniss has attracted a lot of unwanted attention. Though hers and Peeta's final act of defiance was played by the Capitol as an act of love, the devilishly sinister President Snow and his fellow officials are unconvinced that the people haven't seen through it. In his attempt to squash any rising rebellion, Snow pays a personal visit to Katniss threatening her with the assassination of everybody she holds dear - her mother, sister and best friend Gale. She soon realises that if she is to protect the people she loves, she must keep up the pretence of her love with Peeta and convince the people of Panem that she is head over heels for him. If she doesn't manage it, it's all over.

It is also the 75th year of the games, meaning that the government are about to pull something spectacular to prove their all-seeing power to the masses and take Katniss down a peg or two. It isn't long before Katniss must decide if she is to fight the system or run from it.

In this sequel, Collins has taken a much deeper look at the world of Panem. The opening celebratory tour takes Katniss and Peeta through each of the districts where they soon realise things are a lot stricter than what they are used to in District 12. The unwanted attention their win has brought on Katniss does not stop with her. More and more peacekeepers are brought into District 12 and public whippings and punishments are reinstated in a district that had, until now, been left largely to its own devices. While The Hunger Games merely hinted at the true horror of Panem, Catching Fire reveals it in all its terrifying glory.

The love triangle between Katniss, Peeta and Gale is also looked at much more closely as she starts to realise her true feelings for Gale but is forced to accept a love with Peeta. After spending so much time with him and going through the games together, she begins to realise how good he really is and allows herself to have feelings for him - though Gale is never far from her thoughts.

The action takes a while to get going in Catching Fire but the sinister arrival of President Snow and the forced pretence of the tour more than makes up for its absence. When the action does get going again, just as in The Hunger Games, the book becomes impossible to put down. I devoured it in two days and couldn't rest till I knew how it all ended. And of course all the ending did was make me desperate to read the third and final book in the saga.

The impending release of the first film next month has many people excited but I, for one, am looking ahead to when this book will be made into a film. The incredible Donald Sutherland is cast as President Snow and seeing more of him can only be a good thing along with a whole host of new characters.

5/5 FOBLES - Gripping, fascinating, clever, emotional, action-packed and utterly impossible to put down.

Read my review of the last book in the Hunger Games series - Mockingjay.