I should be more prepared before posting, but I wanted to ask a question anyway while I was thinking it over.  I subscribe to Mars Hill Audio and on one of the last two CDs I heard a guest say something to the effect of “a novel finds its ultimate fulfillment in a movie,” while discussing books that are made into movies.  I found that idea fascinating; the guest also likened this idea to the Incarnation, I believe.  Give me a day or two and I will figure out which CD this guest was on and if I even have the quote correct, but what do y’all think about this idea?

Here is a little more information:

The quote was from Mars Hill Audio #76 with guest Barrett Fisher, on the relative artistic assets of film and literature.  While discussing C.S. Lewis readers wanting the Narnia film to be faithful to the book as well as tell the “Story behind the story,” Fisher shared a quote by Anthony Burgess, author of A Clockwork Orange which was made into a movie by Stanley Kubrick.  Burgess said, “Every bestselling novel desires its true fulfillment as a film.” Burgess also made an analogy to the doctrine of the Incarnation - a book turned into a film is like the Word made Flesh.  He also said a book is imperfect or at a greater distance from reality than a film.

I love movies but I’m a book lover first, so I’m not quite sure where I stand on this idea.  However, I’m very intrigued by this idea.  I suppose if a movie is exceptionally well-done this could be true but I’m usually disappointed by books turned into movies.  What do y’all think?

I suppose it depends on the novel, yes? Imagine Peace Like A River in film, and if done exquisitely well it could work; we could see the world through the eyes of the boy who is the teller of the story, and see the frailty and nobility and sin and redemption he sees, feel the love for his brother and sister and father, watch his brother change from beginning to end. But A Death in the Family, which was made into a film, simply isn’t the same work when transformed. Its prose is like an unbearably sweet and mournful song that we can only take into our hearts for moments at a time. At best the actors could read for us the words, but they cannot improve on them with their acting, because it is the prose that makes this novel such a lovely creation.

If we believe beautiful art has beauty because it seeks truth, and that man can only, in his imperfection, express truth in rare and God-filled moments, then it’s probably the case that the truth a novel seeks to illuminate can have light shed on it from different angles when it is transformed into a film. But I think Burgess suggests that the end is the story, and this is where he is wrong. The end is the truth, or perhaps I should say Truth, and the only question when we compare its rendering in novel, film, poem, song, or softly whispered story, is whether the imperfect telling—for the telling will always be imperfect—brings us closer to Truth.

I disagree with the notion that a good novel finds its “ultimate fulfillment” as a film.  Almost by definition, a good novel finds its ultimate fulfillment in the form it was created: a novel.  I think it’s very rare for a good novel to be turned into a good film.  The qualities that make a good novel good - such as bringing to life the interior lives of characters - resist translation into cinematic form, which lends itself primarily to external imagery and drama.

Usually, the best films are made from mediocre novels.  “The Last Detail” comes to mind—an okay book with a weak ending that was transformed into an excellent film with a perfect ending.  The novel and subsequent film “High Sierra” also come to mind.

Offhand, “The African Queen” comes to mind as a good book that was turned into an equally good film—indeed, the film may have been better than the book.  I would also put “Clockwork Orange” into this category.  And “The Maltese Falcon”.

But I can’t think of an example of a great novel being turned into a great film.