Discuss: Is Anything Unfilmable?

“If it can be written, or thought, it can be filmed.” – Stanley Kubrick

‘Tristram Shandy.’  ‘The Lord of the Rings.’  ‘Watchmen.’  ‘The Stand.’  These films are just a few, a modicum, of a larger whole of films that all have something in common. They are all based on previous works of literature that were believed, at one point or another before the film’s release, to be entirely unfilmable.  For various reasons, there were those in the world who believed that the novels, plays, series, and graphic novels that make up the “unfilmable” whole either could not or, in more cases than not, should not be put to film.At least, they believed these could not be put to film in the traditional sense.  One thing that you will almost always hear from someone who has just seen a movie based on a book they have previously read is that the movie is not as good as the book.  Very few films ever reach that height where they surpass the critical success of their source material.  It’s just natural to appreciate something that is entirely an original idea rather than the work that is based on something else.  If a filmmaker is lucky (and an enormous level of talent comes in handy, too) the film that is based on the book or even short story will be just as good as the book itself.  In the modern landscape of the filmmaking world, Frank Darabont is the only one who comes to mind that hits it out of the park 100% of the time (We’re talking adaptations here, so we won’t hold ‘The Majestic’ against his batting average.).  So far, he is 3 for 3 in his adaptations of Stephen King novels.

But the idea that a film cannot make the same connection with its audience as a book or even a series of stories in comic book form is not a new idea.  Neither is it one that has much evidence to the contrary.  However, this idea of movies being made from books, comic books, etc. raises another, interesting question altogether.

Is anything unfilmable?

In terms of sheer scope, fans of Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” and King’s “The Stand” didn’t believe those books could be put to film.  The same was said for Michael Crichton’s “Jurassic Park,” though not to the same level.  To these doubts in cinema, Hollywood had but one answer.  CGI.  Creating entire worlds via computer graphics has definitely put a damper on this belief that anything is unfilmable.  The success of entire trilogies of films like ‘Star Wars’ has also helped make adaptations of sources like “The Lord of the Rings” come to reality.  A lot of people who said Tolkien’s books were unfilmable said that, because they were under the assumption that all three books would have to be told in one film.  That would probably have been impossible to pull off.  However, in recent years, Hollywood has had such success in film franchises and trilogies that it isn’t a surprise when more than one film is made telling one, definitive story.

Many people also said ‘Watchmen’ couldn’t be filmed.  Twelve issues of comics that feature dozens of characters and, even, entire pages of supplemental pieces of literature, were, eventually, wrapped up into a 150-minute long film.  Granted, there is much that was cut out of the original source material to make the film possible, but Zack Snyder’s film is quite possibly the best motion picture adaptation of the “Watchmen” comic series that could have been made.

And, really, that is all most filmmakers can hope for.  To go back to the one question that drives this entire article, the answer to “Is anything unfilmable” is both yes and no.  No, in terms of story and grandeur.  Modern technology has proven that there is nothing anyone can dream up that cannot be physically created for film.  Modern filmmakers can create battle scenes featuring millions of warriors, entire planets being destroyed from the inside out, and giant tidal waves sweeping over the cities of the Earth.  To that end, nothing is unfilmable, but that only covers the physical aspect, what we see, in our films.

If you can name any novel, there is sure to be a filmmaker out there who has a way of capturing it on film.  That doesn’t mean the resulting piece of cinema will have the same effect as the novel.  Nor does it mean the resulting piece of cinema will even be worth the celluloid it’s printed on.  Much of the novel’s subtext or little intricacies can only be captured by the written word, and any attempt to capture them via a visual medium would cause them to slip away like sand through your fingers.  In this, case, yes, there are some things that just cannot be filmed.

When director Michael Winterbottom and screenwriter Frank Cottrell Boyce set out to make a film based on the “unfilmable” “The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy,” they decided to take a different approach.  Rather than make a verbatum film about the events in the novel, something that would be near impossible but definitely ill-advised, they decided to make a film surrounding the novel.  They made a mockumentary about film crew adapting the novel.  In doing this, they also captured the essence of Laurence Sterne’s original novel, and ‘A Cock and Bull Story’ ends up coming off as a love letter to the original source rather than an actual adaptation of it.  Of course, scenes of the film-within-a-film are included in finalized movie, so certain scenes from the original novel were, in fact, filmed.

To go back to Kubrick’s quote that began this article, anything, whether written or thought, can be filmed.  There is no such thing as unfilmable.  There is only unfilmed.  To that end, there are several novels that have been raised to the status of unfilmable that have yet been put to the art of motion cinema.  They have not been filmed yet, but that does not mean they cannot be.

Many people have made the claim over the years that “Atlas Shrugged,” Ayn Rand’s 1300+-page magnum opus about a dystopian United States, is unfilmable.  That hasn’t stopped Hollywood from trying.  For 35 years, different parties have attempted to capture the story on film, though these films have never come to fruition.  At present, Brad Pitt’s Plan B is attempting to get the film adaptation, to be written by Randall Wallace, off the ground.

Stephen King’s “The Dark Tower” series has also achieved unfilmable status.  Like “The Lord of the Rings,” it is classified as unfilmable due to its grand nature and adult themes.  If a studio were to back a film franchise based on “The Dark Tower,” they would have to backing a seven-part, hard R-rated series based on a series of novels that are not quite as beloved as Tolkien’s novels. The rights were sold to J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof in 2008 for $19, but no word has come out about a definite plan of action on the series.

But this does not mean these films, ‘Atlas Shrugged’ and ‘The Dark Tower,’ will never be made.  Again, there is no unfilmable.  There is only unfilmed.  Certain elements cannot be captured within a motion picture, but any story, big or small, can definitely be made into a movie.  Hollywood is proving this day in and day out.  And, for every lover of the written word out there who makes the claim that something is unfilmable, there are a dozen filmmakers who are more than happy to prove them wrong.